Posted on 02/15/2006 10:15:37 AM PST by Wombat101
Steyn is not pointing at you personally. He is pointing at the evolving systems in the Western countries that are to some extent welfarist. It applies to the US, also. We have a welfare state and our current economic difficulties with Social Security and medicare, etc, are precisely the target. It is very well argued. I don't think Mr. Steyn even knows who you are and your disapproval of the welfare state is not likely to change it a whole lot. If you work in the economy you are paying SS taxes to support an ever growing cohort of recipients and you will be/are already affected by demographic slow growth and growing longevity.
bump
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Yes. Of all the large religious groupings only Islam specifically advocates violence and compulsion against unbelievers as a religious duty. Our "leaders" apparently do not believe this or are too frightened of the backlash that openly stating this would bring about. But that's OK. Inevitably the followers of Islam make their determination known to all. The only question is when the rest of the world will decide to stand up to them. Sooner would be much, much better than later. If the non-Islamic world dithers much longer we will find that containment of this creed will be more costly than anyone now imagines. Iran with nukes and the means to deliver them (by missile or by terrorist) is a real nightmare.
It is easier to restrict/end Muslim immigration then to hope that European women will all of a sudden go from having 1-2 children to 3-4 children, which they would need to do now to even begin to compete.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Pope Paul VI was right all along.
We are well aware of the serious difficulties experienced by public authorities in this regard, especially in the developing countries. To their legitimate preoccupations we devoted our encyclical letter Populorum Progressio. But with our predecessor Pope John XXIII, we repeat: no solution to these difficulties is acceptable "which does violence to man's essential dignity" and is based only on an utterly materialistic conception of man himself and of his life. The only possible solution to this question is one which envisages the social and economic progress both of individuals and of the whole of human society, and which respects and promotes true human values.[26] Neither can one, without grave injustice, consider divine providence to be responsible for what depends, instead, on a lack of wisdom in government, on an insufficient sense of social justice, on selfish monopolization, or again on blameworthy indolence in confronting the efforts and the sacrifices necessary to ensure the raising of living standards of a people and of all its sons....Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy...
Consequently, if the mission of generating life is not to be exposed to the arbitrary will of men, one must necessarily recognize insurmountable limits to the possibility of man's domination over his own body and its functions; limits which no man, whether a private individual or one invested with authority, may licitly surpass.
On the Regulation of Birth (1968)
Won't argue with you on that point, but will European governments and their pampered citizens actually find the collective will to make it happen? Not if it means I can't retire at 55 with a government-sponsored maid service in LaHavre.
Societies must make tough choices in this regard: it is the choice between self-indulgence and self-destruction. Human nature being what it is, the need to feel special and "taken care of"(even by an impersonal State apparatus) will override common sense. The change that would have to take plac e on a societal level would change Europe (and the US) in ways that would infringe upon our personal freedoms and endanger what we consider our "rightful" benefits.
I for one, don't mind working until 70, if it means we don't have to import more software developers from Pakistan or Red China.
but more important than how long I extend my working life or how much I can depend upon my government for my welfare in my old age, is what kind of scoeity, what kind of environment, will we be creating when we import millions of people who a) can't be assimilated, b) don't want to be assimiliated and c) follow an ideology in which they are the rightful inheritors of everthing they set eyeballs on?
Even Mark Steyn is tip-toeing around the root of the issue, birth control. Abortion is simply the rotten fruit from the birth control tree.
The turning point came in 1929 when, at the Lambeth Conference, the Church of England became the first Christian denomination to approve the use of artificial means of birth control (in grave circumstances). The rest is history.
From Wikipedia:
ChristianityI italicized the phrase because it sends chills down my spine.Main article: Christian views on contraception Since the 1930 approval of contraception (in limited circumstance) by the Anglican Communion, most Protestant groups have come to approve the use of modern contraceptives when couples do not desire children.
Like pre-20th century Protestantism, the Catholic Church Church is morally opposed to contraception and orgasmic acts outside of the context of fully natural marital intercourse. In some circumstance, the Catholic Church does approve of preventing pregnancy by use of natural family planning, but all artificial forms of contraception are condemned.
I don't believe Steyn was making a dogmatic or religious case, merely pointing out the less-obvious effects on the Western Tradition. Despite what some might think, Western Civilization is mankind's greatest achievement and it must be preserved and advanced, at all costs.
Alas, you may be right. The lure of publicly financed idleness may be too much to resist.
I for one, don't mind working until 70, ....
And I for one hope to keep working long past 70, ....
Yeah, come to think of it, idleness doesn't seem all that appealing. Maybe by that age I'll have the time to write that novel or something.
bttt
steyn pinger
That is also on my list of things to do.
I'd settle for finishing my thesis, though. Other than my tombstone, it'll be the only thing with my name on it that might survive me, albeit in some dusty library and probably unread...lol
Fine post.
Not at all. Stein's arguments in this piece are purely demographic -- and from a demographic perspective, abortion has significant effects.
The moral aspects of abortion are as you say they are. And I believe Steyn is in our court on that. But again -- that's not what he's talking about here.
By pretending that the fundamental distinction between freely chosen actions and coerced actions does not exist, this document veers into la-la land incoherence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.