I don’t know how to discuss this with you if you can’t see that determining an amount of reasonable economic transfer – which is linked directly to the reality of supporting children – is a separate issue from questions regarding the use of government force.

The theory is not based on indentured servitude. I’m absolutely 100% certain of that. It is not a political theory. You may regard supporting children as indentured servitude; which would be a personal opinion quite separate from the actual logical basis of Child Support Decision Theory.

CSDT exists independently of the issue you’re focused on. It could be applied in any circumstance – including a situation in which parents agree and government is not involved – or in the traditional setting of state courts issuing an order in response to a private lawsuit for child support – or anything. The political setting has no effect at all on the theory – because the two are totally independent.

Your idea that my conclusion is based on a false premise doesn’t stand to reason, because you’re mixing ideas from two completely separate domains and incorrectly assigning the label “premise”.

“But this article is focused on Child Support Decision Theory. It doesn’t matter why anyone wants to know what a fair amount would be” – Your premise is invalid therefore any conclusion it arrives at is equally invalid. It is not a proper role of government to arbitrarily decide for a selected sub-set of parents (non-custodial parents that it has created) should pay for the care and rearing of children.

“I take it you would not object if two parents simply agree” – You would be wrong as this is the only legitimate way to arrive at a determination. I would, however, object to any gov’t involvement in the collection and/or enforcement of such an agreement.

CSDT is based on the premise of indentured servitude, no conclusion it reaches can be considered valid. Now, answer the question are you in favor of slavery or not?

OK. As far as I can tell, your entire concept of “child support” is post-federal-reform – i.e. from at least 1990 forward. I agree that the federal government should not be in the family law business. I have written endlessly on that corruption – and that’s all it is. Are you aware of that? Absolutely – 100% – this is not a new position for me – the federal government does not belong in the family law business. And that is where the corruption comes from. People weren’t seriously describing “child support” as indentured servitude before federal reforms. The federal reforms put all of family law – including child support award amounts – under arbitrary political control. The exploitation via arbitrary government intrusion started with the federal reforms. The only purposes of the reforms were and are corrupt. The stuff isn’t Constitutional at all – and the fact that they didn’t die in federal courts demonstrates clearly how corrupt the federal courts are.

I’ve even written explaining that these reforms were the key to the collapse of Constitutional rule in the US, and the pattern of corruption from the child support scam has been repeated in other areas – principally to steal more money via government corruption. (article: Are Americans Paying Taxes to Organized Crime Syndicates?) When I say they’re stealing money through the child support scheme, I don’t mean just from non-custodial parents. They’re stealing from custodial parents and children as well – and have already stolen 100s of billions of dollars from taxpayers. This is the purpose of federal involvement in family law.

But this article is focused on Child Support Decision Theory. It doesn’t matter why anyone wants to know what a fair amount would be. I take it you would not object if two parents simply agree – without any government involvement at all – to live separately and to share expenses – and would just like to find a reasonable amount to transfer, given their particular circumstances and arrangements.

Child Support Decision Theory stands on its own for determining “just and appropriate” amounts – if an amount needs to be determined; no matter what the state of government intrusion. So, whether or not you’re ever successful in achieving your particular political goals – CSDT is always valid.

Your comments suggest that you do not have a specific critisism. The article is a straight factual article; but I suppose it can be hard to wrap your mind around it if you’ve been taken in by warming propaganda. It’s nothing to be embarrassed about at this point. Many people had been. It’s particularly important for young people to get the message – as we know that many have been indoctrinated in school. We’re really sorry about that, and there are many who battled against it and will continue to work to make schools safe from this sort of thing. In any case; please note that only about one in four people now believe as you do. The number has been dropping rapidly as facts are revealed. You should not stop and accept what you think is true just now; nor worry too much that you’ve been fooled. As I mentioned – many people were. But it is important move to forward and move on. Don’t allow too much of your life to be wasted by political corruption.

We don’t need to “rethink masculinity”… we need to get the feet off our necks.

Decide to be what you want to be after you’ve got the freedom to choose.

Also, with regards to the commercial: there is nothing wrong with the man’s behaviour. There is nothing wrong with having or expressing a physical attraction to someone with whom you share a relationship. The message appears to be trying to show the man as a “dog” only interested in a meaningless sexual relationship with the woman. However, he presented her with flowers and she invited him into her abode with her child. The only “dog” thing that he did was look at her behind.

Now, the former is often a gesture that a man makes to a woman to show affection for her. The latter is almost assuredly an indication of a relationship. If there was no emotional bound between the two, it would seem unlikely that should would invite him in the house otherwise. Unless she was a terrible mother, which doesn’t seem to be the case either.

In closing, the man and woman actually seem to have a functional relationship. Even if he is interested in her sexually, enough is presented to show that he is interested in her beyond a purely sexual relationship. It seems to show that even small children know that men are “pigs” and showing any sexual interest in a female is not an welcomed advance.

Also, I am torn since I like Doritos…

Your opening in your reply to my comment immediately raises my suspicions as to your position: “It’s a strange thing for me to find myself in the position of defending “child support.” ” And, yes I’ve slept on it and yes I do remember the days before Reagan when my father raised myself and my sister through the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s without a dime of child support or any public assistance for that matter.

In answer to your question: “how would you expect the idea of abolishing the whole practice to go?” That is simple: Effective immediately the federal funding based on child support collections will cease. All government employees who are employed in positions related to the collection or enforcement of child support are furloughed immediately. From this point forward, the prohibition of indentured servitude in the form of child support will be abolished. Any government official, state or local, found to promote or enforce state mandated child support will be guilty of treason with the penalty of death by hanging.

Pretty simple – pull the plug . . .

Many slave-holders in the 18th century defended their practice by proclaiming their virtue with vacuous statements such as “our slaves are better off in servitude than they were in freedom”. So, what is your position on the practice of indentured servitude re-branded as state mandated/enforce child $upport?

There can be no middle ground! Child $upport must be ABOLISHED!

On a similar note, how about that sickening tv program “Americas Funnies Home Videos” …..they think its just hilarious that a male gets hit in the crotch on just about every episode.

O’ Reilly will criticize anything and everything. But women?? Nooooo, he wouldn’t dare.

I find it both saddening and encouraging that these valuable male-friendly books are nearly always written by women. Encouraged because there are still women out there that “get it,” even those who have chosen to label themselves feminists. Saddened because male-friendly books by male authors still are rarely published.

I appreciate the authors attempt to shed light on the state of male reproduction. But in my opinion it seems that she misses the points surrounding the topic of her book.

Thanks and ditto!

Dr T

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7530701744597358451&ei=z0UqS_3dBtqv-Ab92qDaAw&q=the+disappearing+male#

I don’t know why this isn’t more publicized. Let me correct that. I know why, and I’ll leave with a paraphrased quote by Warren Ferrall:

“We’d rather save whales than save males.”

Obviously not in Boston College women’s studies courses! What a militant whackjob.

There are some good women out there, just like there are good men. They usually turn up when you least expect them and in unlikely places. I met my boyfriend at the LAX baggage carousel.

The best advice I have is to pursue a friendship with a woman you find attractive, take it slow, watch for warning signs, and protect yourself.

Kind Regards,
Dr Tara