Family values

[The Lawspeaker]

Family values. We've all heard the words before and there are as many definitions for them as there are trees in Siberia. But how do you define family values ?

[The Lawspeaker]

It's quite hilarious that none of you self-proclaimed preservationists and conservatives have bothered to read this so I am going to take the lead.

First of all I believe that the family is the cornerstone of society and that the policies of said society should reflect that .. and that also believes why I am pro-welfare. There are people that complain that the white race is going extinct and what not. I don't buy that stuff but what I do find hilarious is that the very same people are against mutualist insurances, public health care, public education, welfare for parents and children etc etc. As if that is not going to break the most important reason why people create a family in the first place: because they have confidence in the future. That's why birthrates always drop substantially during economic crisis and war and that's why they always shoot up afterwards. I therefore always believe that the family should be the warm, cosy, gezellige (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gezelligheid) home of the next generation.

So.. where to go - since it is late and I can't be arsed to write a long story I will just use some (edited) wikipedia definitions before expanding on it after you people have added to the thread:

My definitions of family values:



Promotion of "traditional marriage" and opposition to any values that conflict with it including adultery, polygamy, bestiality, and incest.
Support for a roll back of aspects of feminism and support for a traditional role for women in the family (I thus support the idea of complementarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism))
Opposition to same-sex marriage
Support for traditional education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_education) and parental involvement in that education, including such things as vouchers for private, (edit: either secular or) non-secular education. (I feel that when possible a parent should home-school his or her children)
Support for policies that are said to protect children from obscenity and exploitation


I think that this should be complemented with maternal and paternal leave (even when not pregnant. I believe one of the parents should be at home), a living wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage), universal health care and well-funded social programs (even down to mandatory holidays in the form of a watered down Kraft durch Freude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraft_durch_Freude)-program for the very poor) and financial aid for families. I believe that "mother" or "father" is a title or a job description that should be put on a curriculum vitae.

I also believe in mandatory sex education not to scare the teenager but simply to make sure that he or she understands his duties as a future parent. Having your child removed from you and put in care should bear a severe social stigma as it would be the duty of your local community or family to assist in raising your child so it should be the local community and the family that should bear the brunt of the stigma involved to the point that it would have to be noted on a local village sign that the local village or neighborhood does a piss poor job in looking after it's offspring - so it should be subjected to communal disgrace.

I actually think that schools and community councils should actually to provide for single people so they meet up and mingle. The more marriages the better. Having a society with millions of singles is a bad idea.

[heathen_son]

"Family values" seems to have become quite a politicised term. Not being a political creature, I thought twice about posting on this thread as I didn't feel like I could add much, but as it has recieved no attention, I might as well go ahead.

When someone says "Family Values", I immediately think:

- Respect for parental authority
- Father being head of family
- A sense of identity as being part of a family
- Strong connection with extended family
- A sense of putting the needs of the family before the needs of the individual
- Family unit acting as the main source of socialisation
- A sense of "Blood is thicker than water"

It all comes down to seeing the family as an institution. The most natural institution.

This is all based on my upbringing in quite a traditional patriarchal family with a mother and father who were married prior to my conception, being biologically related to my sister, and living 15 minutes from both sets of grandparents, with occassional contact with cousins.

I envy friends with larger families (usually Catholics), but appreciate that my upbringing was very healthy (if I do say so myself).

Other families obviously vary, and so to do their values.

[Oreka Bailoak]

Values are what an individual finds important and puts value upon. Family values are what a family finds important and puts value upon. I'd say the core of the family is marriage (and the whole collective morality associated with it), and passing these core values to the next generation. Other than that family values can take on many different flavors. My own family stresses identity, culture, community, industriousness, health, family values, and spirituality. For us family values is the same things as traditional values.


I don't buy that stuff but what I do hilarious is that the very same people are against mutualist insurance, public health care, public education welfare for parents and children etc etc. As if that is not going to break the most important reason why people create a family in the first place: because they have confidence in the future.

It's not a coincidence that after the disadvantages of getting divorced, or never getting married were taken away, that the rate of illegitimate children skyrocketed and single mothers are at an all time high. This affects the lower working class whites more than the middle class. People are rational creatures and when given the opportunity to have children and the new option opens up of also being able to get rid of the father without much negative effects then women will take that route in larger numbers. I know we like to only focus upon the fact that social welfare is great at helping those less fortunate but it also has negative social side effects and evidence is well documented...
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010/dp/0307453421/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326589198&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Ground-American-1950-1980-Anniversary/dp/0465042333/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326589212&sr=1-4

I'm not saying social security, welfare or universal insurance should be taken away, I'm merely saying that it has harmful side effects and that those side effects are perfectly understandable, rational, and well documented. I wish we could have welfare without these harmful side effects.


That's why birthrates always drop substantially during economic crisis and war and that's why they always shoot up afterwards
Right. Economics does effect birth rates. But the single biggest determinant of birth rate in the first world is values.
http://www.amazon.com/Shall-Religious-Inherit-Earth-Twenty-First/dp/1846681448/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326589535&sr=1-1



I think that this should be complemented with maternal and paternal leave (even when not pregnant. I believe one of the parents should be at home), a living wage, universal health care and well-funded social programs (even down to mandatory holidays in the form of a watered down Kraft durch Freude-program for the very poor) and financial aid for families. I believe that "mother" or "father" is a title or a job description that should be put on a curriculum vitae.

Singapore has tried all sorts of economic/social incentives to increase its birth rate and has had little to no effect at all. They spent millions of dollars researching why this was the case. And what they found was that the values of the public is the single most important factor in the birth rate.

I think another major route to increasing the birth rate would be to reanalyze the costs and benefits for having children. families often massively overestimate the costs of having children, while at the same time massively underestimating the benefits of having children. I like this book about this topic...
http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/046501867X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326589805&sr=1-1
^I think it's decades ahead of its time.

If you want to increase the birth rate, first you must tweak the values within the society towards a stronger value upon a larger family.
Mormons, Muslims, Amish all do this. And our ancestors did this too not that long ago.

Opposition to same-sex marriage
I don't really see this as a major tenet of "family values". I see the problem as the media/society over emphasizing gays simply for political purposes. They use this as an attempt to divide society when in fact its probably not even one of the 1000 most important issues facing the west today.

[Siberyak]

Modern media helps destroy family values

[The Lawspeaker]

For the most part, Oreak. I have only seen you use economic terms. What about family life, upbringing ? There is more then the sacred cow:

http://www.pokerhuis.com/images/a-million-dollars.jpg


This is shite. Not important. This however is:


http://babygearworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Your-Role-as-a-Family-Member.jpg

[CuriousQuisling]

One of the reason I believe so strongly in the City-State concept, is because the idea of family values varies so much from one person to another. Ideally, people who agree on values should be able to live together and teach those values in the school classroom, preach them in the house of faith, market them in the market place and proscribe them in the courthouse. I am not a fundamentalist Christian, but I agree that conservative people should have the option to bring up their children in the manner that seems right to them. I might not agree with all their moral scruples, but then again, I do not have to live in their community either. Hence the concept of the city state and local control. Where I have trouble with "family values" or any values for that matter, is when they are legislated at the Federal level. Local communities should decide, not Big Brother.

Q.

[Oreka Bailoak]

For the most part, Oreak. I have only seen you use economic terms. What about family life, upbringing ?

I don't understand your comment.

After answering your questoin about what family values is, I responded to your post where you said that economic incentives are an important route to go in order to increase the birth rate. I said that the values, and not economics, are actually of more importance in the first world (as documented by the statisticians, government researchers, and professors that I've cited in those books). The book I cited "selfish reasons to have more kids" documents the family life and upbringing very well. The book I cited "Shall the Religious Inherit the World" documents why values are more important than economics on the birth rate.

To me my previous post doesn't really correspond to the comment you just made. I talked more about the importance of values (upbringing) and you talked more about the importance of economics.

[The Lawspeaker]

I don't understand your comment.

You asked what is family values so I defined it.

Then in your post you said somethings about economic incentives as the route to go in order to increase the birth rate. I said that the values, and not economics, are more important. The book I cited "selfish reasons to have more kids" documents the family life and upbringing very well. The book I cited "Shall the Religious Inherit the World" documents why values are more important than economics on the birth rate. To me my previous post doesn't really correspond to the comment you just made.

I think that covers everything.

I am sorry but the most part was definitely economic:


It's not a coincidence that after the disadvantages of getting divorced, or never getting married were taken away, that the rate of illegitimate children skyrocketed and single mothers are at an all time high. This affects the lower working class whites more than the middle class. People are rational creatures and when given the opportunity to have children and the new option opens up of also being able to get rid of the father without much negative effects then women will take that route in larger numbers. I know we like to only focus upon the fact that social welfare is great at helping those less fortunate but it also has negative social side effects and evidence is well documented...


Right. Economics does effect birth rates. But the single biggest determinant of birth rate in the first world is values.



Singapore has tried all sorts of economic/social incentives to increase its birth rate and has had little to no effect at all. They spent millions of dollars researching why this was the case. And what they found was that the values of the public is the single most important factor in the birth rate.

I think another major route to increasing the birth rate would be to reanalyze the costs and benefits for having children. families often massively overestimate the costs of having children, while at the same time massively underestimating the benefits of having children. I like this book about this topic...
http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reason...6589805&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/046501867X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326589805&sr=1-1)
^I think it's decades ahead of its time.

[Oreka Bailoak]

I am sorry but the most part was definitely economic:

I don't understand where you're going with this?

[The Lawspeaker]

I don't understand where you're going with this? What is your point?
Focus on family values as a whole instead on economics. I know libertarians are obsessed with money and economics but this is about family values. About what needs to be done to safeguard the future. To how you would raise a family, if you may.

[Oreka Bailoak]

Focus on family values as a whole instead on economics.
I was. Why did you even talk about economic methods to increase the birth rate then if you didn't want a discussion in this area? All I was saying was that economic incentives are nice but not the strongest method to increase the birth rate. I'd support both, but my point was that if the values aren't there for a large family then even with great incentives it will not work- this is a very important concept for people to understand; the reason being that in the west we often focus upon and have great incentives for having children but the values behind it simply aren't there. And this is the main reason why the birth rate is so low as I've documented with the best research available to back up what I say.


I know libertarians are obsessed with money and economics but this is about family values.

I'm not a libertarian.


About what needs to be done to safeguard the future. To how you would raise a family, if you may.

To safe guard the future- the most important thing is to stress a value of having large families. How would I raise a family- I'd do it exactly like that book "selfish reasons to have more kids" which is years ahead of its time in the level of science (behavioral genetics) that backs up his parenting method.

I think it's important to back up government policy and family values with up to date scientific studies. If not then people will not truly understand what the problem actually is nor how to fix it.

[heathen_son]

Where I have trouble with "family values" or any values for that matter, is when they are legislated at the Federal level. Local communities should decide, not Big Brother.

Ignoring the political dimension, I would say that inherently, "family values" are by their nature, seperated from legislation, as, to tie in with my Gemeinschaft/Gesellschaft intrigue:

"Gemeinschaft are regulated by common mores, or beliefs about the appropriate behavior and responsibility of members of the association, to each other and to the association at large..."

"In such societies there is seldom a need to enforce social control externally, due to a collective sense of loyalty individuals feel for society.

"The equilibrium in Gemeinschaft is achieved through morals, conformism, and exclusion - social control - while Gesellschaft keeps its equilibrium through police, laws, tribunals and prisons."

The process of creating "Family Values" via legislation is, by such a definition, an oxymoron.







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinschaft_and_Gesellschaft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_T%C3%B6nnies

[Heart of Oak]

The family is the beginning and end of all that I do in life,my grandfather is at the head,at 103years, and my granddaughter is at the bottom at 3months.

[Heart of Oak]

The family is the beginning and end of all that I do in life, my grandfather is at the head, at 103years, and my granddaughter is at the bottom at 3months.


I think I come just below my granddaughter sometimes I certainly get more sense from her than I do from my present partner!

[Phil75231]

There's family values and "Family Values (TM)".

To me, the former means showing support for children as people, teaching them right from wrong*, the importance of work, teaching them independence, that with rights comes responsibilities, freedom doesn't mean "do whatever the hell you want", that by protecting others' rights you are protecting your own rights too, the value of a person comes from how civilized and humane they are along with contributing to society to the best of their ability, and similar such tings.

"Family Vales (TM)" is a more rigid interpretation. Especially in "Middle America", it tends to mean discipline, adherence to rigid moralities, and unquestioning obedience to authority; with some adding "believing in God" to the list. This is especially true regarding sex, drugs,, substance abuse and "keeping up appearances" to the point where you get the stamp of approval from the likewise-thinking/believing "upper-middle-class pillars-of-the-communty" types.

The latter, of course, is mere counterfeit values - symbolism/style over substance.

*basically summed up in the Hippocratic Oath "do no harm".

[rhiannon]

There's family values and "Family Values (TM)".

To me, the former means showing support for children as people, teaching them right from wrong*, the importance of work, teaching them independence, that with rights comes responsibilities, freedom doesn't mean "do whatever the hell you want", that by protecting others' rights you are protecting your own rights too, the value of a person comes from how civilized and humane they are along with contributing to society to the best of their ability, and similar such tings.

"Family Vales (TM)" is a more rigid interpretation. Especially in "Middle America", it tends to mean discipline, adherence to rigid moralities, and unquestioning obedience to authority; with some adding "believing in God" to the list. This is especially true regarding sex, drugs,, substance abuse and "keeping up appearances" to the point where you get the stamp of approval from the likewise-thinking/believing "upper-middle-class pillars-of-the-communty" types.

The latter, of course, is mere counterfeit values - symbolism/style over substance.

*basically summed up in the Hippocratic Oath "do no harm".

Outstanding reply, Phil. You would have made a wonderful father:)

[Aces High]

Me against my brother...me and my brother against our cousin....me my brother and my cousin against our neighbour..........all of us against the rest of the world.

Like when England football hooligans get together....club loyalties are left behind and its England Vs The World.

[Albion]

It's quite hilarious that none of you self-proclaimed preservationists and conservatives have bothered to read this so I am going to take the lead.

I was away.


First of all I believe that the family is the cornerstone of society and that the policies of said society should reflect that .. and that also believes why I am pro-welfare.

As am I, but we need to be sensible and careful about how welfare is implemented. A post I addressed to you earlier elsewhere may highlight why.


There are people that complain that the white race is going extinct and what not. I don't buy that stuff but what I do find hilarious is that the very same people are against mutualist insurances, public health care, public education, welfare for parents and children etc etc.

A fall in numbers would be good in some areas. What Americans don't see is that the European population has been very stable for the last 60 years or so, only growing slightly.
They see the rest of the world's populations growing and worry that Europeans will become rare but the fact of the matter is that the rest of the world is breeding excessively whilst Europeans are sensible about it.

And as the world population grows we keep hearing how there'll be increased competition for resources but a malthusian event shouldn't affect Europe itself so long as we stick to sensible population levels.
The rest of the world can make its own bed, we're not to blame for them not being able to keep it in their pants. :rolleyes:
If a malthusian event occurs and our borders get attacked then we'll have to use our military capabilities to defend Europe.
What would likely happen is that Latin America would collapse into anarchy whilst advanced nations in Asia would take over the others.
Africa would likely remain in its hopeless, usual situation like normal.


As if that is not going to break the most important reason why people create a family in the first place: because they have confidence in the future.

We are told that poor people around the world breed to provide themselves with child labour. I think this is rubbish.
But whether the future is good or not it is the primary mission in life for every living organism to reproduce. Just look at plants and animals, much of their biology is to do with breeding.
In animals and humans included there is the desire to replicate one's self whether the conditions are suitable for it or not.


That's why birthrates always drop substantially during economic crisis and war and that's why they always shoot up afterwards. I therefore always believe that the family should be the warm, cosy, gezellige (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gezelligheid) home of the next generation.

Europeans are more sensible than most of the world so you can understand it.


Promotion of "traditional marriage" and opposition to any values that conflict with it including adultery, polygamy, bestiality, and incest.

Agreed. Homosexuals could be like that behind closed doors but they shouldn't go around trying to boast about it as if it were normal as they do currently. I don't know whether to see it as a perversion or some sort of confused thinking, but so long as they don't go on about it then I suppose it can be tolerated.

About divorce - it shouldn't be about trying to destroy the man as it is currently. Many divorces end with the woman taking everything, this needs to change.
Also there was going to be a change to the benefit system to make single women pay to get support in getting maintenance from fathers. It was blocked, another attack on males.
If the father has run away from his responsibilities then he needs to pay it, but single parenthood should not be encouraged or protected with lax regulations!


Support for a roll back of aspects of feminism and support for a traditional role for women in the family (I thus support the idea of complementarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism))

Well feminism is about attacking men. Many feminists, especially militant ones have often be abused by a man in the past and use that to justify hating the gender as a whole. One even wrote a book in the 60s about abolishing men. No one ever did work out if she was serious or not. :rolleyes2:

Complementarianism sounds like a good philosophy, men and women need to recognise that neither one is inferior but that both are better at different things in general.


Opposition to same-sex marriage

Agreed. They go against the rules of practically every religion as well as against the laws of nature (~two men can't produce a baby and neither can two women). I don;t care about all these silly arguments that homosexuality exists in other species, other species often practice sexual acts out of dominance.
Female rabbits for example will sometimes "hump" another rabbit to assert dominance over it in mimicking the male of the species. It confuses some people. ;)
But any way - even where it isn't related to dominance in nature it is not to say that the animals performing it aren't as confused as human practitioners.


Support for traditional education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_education) and parental involvement in that education, including such things as vouchers for private, (edit: either secular or) non-secular education. (I feel that when possible a parent should home-school his or her children)

Agreed.


Support for policies that are said to protect children from obscenity and exploitation

Children should be taught to do simple tasks to instil work ethic. It's ironic, I'am only in my early twenties but already I'm talking about the younger generation with disdain.

Well, back in my day (hahaha, the 90s) there were only 5 channels and the PS1 was crap so we went out building dens in the woods and playing around rivers whilst nicking fruit of the trees. But today I see no kids doing anything like that, today they're all playing video games whilst sitting around at home wondering how good they're doing at the latest retarded game to emerge from Japan.
They're becoming sedentary and none have got any work ethic at all, none will do even the simplest of tasks.

Kids should do chores and shouldn't be given all these silly things, they should be turfed out at weekends to go and play in the countryside or at the park and to do real things as kids instead of living in some little virtual worlds.


I think that this should be complemented with maternal and paternal leave (even when not pregnant. I believe one of the parents should be at home), a living wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage), universal health care and well-funded social programs (even down to mandatory holidays in the form of a watered down Kraft durch Freude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraft_durch_Freude)-program for the very poor) and financial aid for families. I believe that "mother" or "father" is a title or a job description that should be put on a curriculum vitae.

Nice ideas.


I also believe in mandatory sex education not to scare the teenager but simply to make sure that he or she understands his duties as a future parent. Having your child removed from you and put in care should bear a severe social stigma as it would be the duty of your local community or family to assist in raising your child so it should be the local community and the family that should bear the brunt of the stigma involved to the point that it would have to be noted on a local village sign that the local village or neighborhood does a piss poor job in looking after it's offspring - so it should be subjected to communal disgrace.

Agreed, that would make people think twice about it. When that happened in the past in Britain a relative would often adopt the kid or pretend it was theirs so as to avoid social stigma and to keep the family together. This is how it should be, and if adoption is really needed then it should be through families and they should be supported by the state.
We need strong families that watch each others back. I think my family is such a family, but I know of others that could be called a disgrace.


I actually think that schools and community councils should actually to provide for single people so they meet up and mingle. The more marriages the better. Having a society with millions of singles is a bad idea.

Again, I agree. I suppose in the past church led to the mingling of the local populations and we just don't have that any more.
Whilst I don't believe in religion I do recognise its importance for social cohesion so I think Christianity needs to be brought back in whether we believe it or not.

[Albion]

If you want to increase the birth rate, first you must tweak the values within the society towards a stronger value upon a larger family.
Mormons, Muslims, Amish all do this. And our ancestors did this too not that long ago.

Yes. It is only a few decades ago though that birthrates dropped. People in the UK had lots of children until the 1960s.
My family has always been unusually large, a few Anglicans and Catholics in there and a emphasis on solidarity. I will post a interesting theory that I saw at Europedia about Communalism and Individualism.

[dralos]

i have these to say,strong and caring parents are needed,nowadays parents allow their children everything.forexample my parents look very good after my us and would never let my sisters go out in the middle of night till they become 20(adults) bcs in that way she gets wrong friends and mayby hooks up with some inappropiate people.i know this is kinda discriminating towards women but as i belive that women are our most valueable treasure in this world,so they need to be looked very good after

[Albion]

Percentage of people that consider it to be especially important that a child learns obedience at home (http://www.atlasofeuropeanvalues.eu/new/europa.php?ids=180&year=2008)
The German speaking countries stand out for the wrong reason.

Percentage of people that consider it to be especially important that a child learns good manners at home
(http://www.atlasofeuropeanvalues.eu/new/europa.php?ids=170&year=2008)

Growing movement against decadence and consumerism - Percentage of people that think less emphasis on money and material possessions would be a good thing
(http://www.atlasofeuropeanvalues.eu/new/europa.php?ids=203&year=2008)
This needs to be discussed on a thread really, how excessive consumerist is ruining our societies.