Bill, I think it is kind of a lost cause trying to debate with David over this issue because he simply is wrong about the meaning and role of the family in economic history. First of all, he has no definition of family but seems to waffle about (makes Kerry sound definitive ;-) .) In many early societies, in fact the primary social security institution was the tribe, clan or village which were the equivalent institution of the state in their societies. In medieval society it was the church. Anyone familiar with industrial history knows that as the urban worker became commonplace they founded collective 'fraternal societies', social institutions designed specifically to provide a measure of social security for members. Given the insecurities of the capitalist labour market, workers found it more and more difficult to provide for their families and even a modicum of social security so increasingly turned to unions and ultimately to the state to provide that level of security simply because the capitalist labour market made it impossible for them to do so. (In the earlier agricultural system, security was provided by the employer -- the rural land owner which reached its peak in the Speenhamland system in Britain.) As a last resort, when other remedies failed, charities, local communities and institutions, and the church provided the final level of social support. These institutions themselves failed in the great depression and the state was virtually forced to step in to prevent a complete breakdown of society and de-legitimization of the capitalist system. To say "I don't see how anybody can dispute that the family, in just about every culture we know of, served or serves as the primary "social security" for its members." is simply erroneous and is ignorant, as I pointed out before, of economic history and anthropology, unless he defines family in a circular fashion as the primary institution for providing social security within local societies which then equates the family with the state in modern society.
Paul P
Bill Lear wrote:
On Monday, November 8, 2004 at 18:32:48 (-0800) David B. Shemano writes:
Regarding the role of the family, for which I was criticized by various posters:
1. However you want to characterize the family (and I never mentioned the nuclear family), I don't see how anybody can dispute that the family, in just about every culture we know of, served or serves as the primary "social security" for its members. As a policy choice, I think that is preferable to placing the primay locus on the state.
[I think we should be grateful that David participates in this forum and we should carefully examine his ideas and try to respond to them respectfully. I have tried, very hard, to maintain a civil tone, thought I find it excruciatingly difficult. On to his ideas, then ...]
