You raise some interesting questions, in amongst your misrepresentations and misunderstandings.

Mine is not an ‘every many for himself’ philosophy. Mine is a ‘social relations should be based on non-violence and consent unless it’s necessary to repel aggression’ philosophy. This means your philosophy is less caring and less social than mine. You don’t care more about people or children than I do, otherwise you’d pay for single parents yourself, wouldn’t you? Still haven't answered why you don't.

Since you oppose my philosophy, and you don’t care about people any more than I do, that means the only point of difference is this. You stand for is the idea at it’s okay to use force or threats to get what you want, it’s okay for the stronger to take from the weaker, even if you’re actively making childrens and people’s lives worse, or you can’t prove it’s making society as a whole better, so long as you get the State to do your dirty work for you. It’s a doctrine of unlimited arbitrary state power on a double standard and, when faced with a complete and total disproof, you go silent and then re-enter the debate re-running this pretence that you care more about people than I do.

Yet we’ve just seen that you are completely unable to show how you know that you’re not making children’s and people’s lives worse, once we take into account the resources used for the intervention you advocate. So it’s illogical as well as anti-social and unethical.

So spare us your circular conceited non-reasoning, and please answer my earlier questions and then I’ll answer your later questions.

When you assumed “society” means a fraction of a group, that is itself 11/3500ths of actual human society, you obviously committed a grotesque factual, moral and intellectual blunder, which underlies, and invalidates your entire ideology. What, are the other 3489/3500ths of the world's population non-humans or sub-humans, are they?

My question is, do you know why you committed this gross error, not?

If so, why?

Yet another single mother with the entitlement mentality. Why is the father having to pay all the child support and why isn't he given the opportunity to raise his child. Why is it always only the mother who has that right and indeed all the rights, while fathers largely are left with all the financial responsibilities. I was a single father some time ago. When the ex had custody she got the parents pension, family tax benefits, thousands of dollars from me in child support, subsidised housing, subsidised gas and electricity and all the free legal aid she needed. Meanwhile i had to borrow thousands of dollars to fund my own case as well as pay an existing mortgage and pay child support. The result after 3 years when i finally gained custody was that my daughter (then 8/9 yo )was half feral, in ill health and underweight unable to do even basic tasks like shower herself or wash her hair and placed in a special class for slow children. When i did gain custody i did get the pension and tax benefits, but i also had a mortgage to pay as well as the loan for all the money borrowed to fund my case and i only recieved the princely sum of $5 p/w in child support. The difference is that i got back into work as soon as i could and my daughter now has a 1st class honours degree in psychology and is now doing her PHD.

Jardine,

Good luck with your 'non-violence and consent' philosophy of 'social relations', but it strikes me that you are being very violent towards single parents and their dependent children by your approach, and you haven't given any reason for your differentiation between single supporting parents and any other unemployed or partially employed individuals. Can it be that you consider parentage outside of marriage to be an illness of one's own making, or a form of 'malingering', and therefore not worthy of any consideration under our existing social welfare provisions?

You may not like or agree with our Oz social welfare support system, which is funded from the public purse (from taxation funds - a very large portion of which comes from business organisations large and small, don't forget), but what's your objection? Do you have some deep-seated conscientious objection to 'welfare' in general, or just some particular varieties?

How do you feel about War Veteran's disability benefits? Reckon they should have been more careful, perhaps? Or what about someone injured at work or in a car accident? These latter of course would qualify for special benefits under Workcover or other insurance, but what about when that runs out? Give em a knife and ask em to go off quietly and slit their wrists?

Think I'm being stupid with these examples? Maybe, but you still haven't explained your singling-out of 'single parent welfare' for special treatment - that treatment being no treatment. Give one reason, just one. Is single parentage a 'sin' maybe? Self-inflicted injury? Should all kids only be raised by a mum and a dad - so all singles should automatically have their kids adopted out or put in foster care?

As for charity - considerable assistance is provided to single parents (mostly to mums, but also some to dads) by way of shelter and support by some church and non-government organisations. But it would seem you would place the entire burden on their shoulders. Again, why single out this one group, single parents? This is the one, the only question.

Dear Saltpetre,

I absolutely agree with Jardine that ‘social relations should be based on non-violence and consent unless it’s necessary to repel aggression’.

However, I believe that Jardine has misplaced the violence-claim: violence does not occur when one's tax-money goes to single-mothers or for any other purpose, just or wrong, wise or foolish, nor even when tax is levied. Violence occur when the state tells you: "you must not use any other currency than mine. If you do, we'll throw you in jail, then if you resist arrest for having your own currency, we will shoot you". If that were not the case and one still used the money which governments print, then they must not complain that some of it is given to single mothers: don't like it - then don't touch that money!

Yes, being part of society, or of a particular society, must be subject to consent. That has nothing to do with single mothers or even with welfare-payments in general. It is wrong and violent for society to impose itself on all the people who simply happen to live in a specific vast region (in the case of Australia, a whole continent) without them all agreeing.

If one freely chooses to be part of society, then they should accept the preferences of that society (be they democratic or otherwise), and perhaps try to make changes from within the system. If not, then so long as participation in society is not mandatory, then one should not complain about the choices of those who did want to participate.

Saltpetre
The article is about single mothers, and it's enough for me to point out that the author's views, and yours, are factually, logically, economically and morally false.

They're factually false because it's not okay to say the pension is justified by "society", and then define society to be a tiny tiny tiny fraction of actual society.

It's logically false because in doing so you contradict yourself.

It's economically false because it means children's lives are worse off as a result of the single parents' pension on a whole-of-society basis.

It's morally false because the money is raised by force and threats. There is no force or threats whatsoever in my denying the morality of raising funds in that way.

You are in favour of interventions that, even in your own terms, actively make things worse for children on a whole of society basis. Your trying to squirm out of it by evasions and repeating your presuppositions only advances my argument, not yours.

I'll happily answer your later questions after you've made an honest attempt to answer my earlier question, do you know why you made the gross error of defining society as 11/3500ths of actual human society, or not?

Obviously if you're that grossly confused, there's no point my answering questions which proceed further on the same confusion; all it means is that you're wrong.

eyeinthesky,

You did what many responsible parents do all the time: you put the interests of your child ahead of your own. You worked to support her so she could have a better life. And your efforts have been repayed - she's now getting a PhD.

Unfortunately, so many people are like the author now. Instead of saying I had the child, I am responsible for the circumstances I now find myself in, they expect society (i.e. everyone else) to pay their way.