Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Child Support
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Family Law
Destruction of Families
Divorce Issues
Domestic Violence
Gay Issues
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Help Lines for Men
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
Men's Issues
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
Email List
References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001



More on Rights and Freedoms

The other day I commented on Rights: Social and political aspects and implications and stated that one individual's rights are someone or everyone else's obligations.

Here is a bit more background on the example I used (i.e.: social security benefits are a right).

When you read the following, keep in mind that men, as is the case with all other payroll deductions, make about 70 percent of contributions for Social Security, while women receive about 70 percent of the benefits derived therefrom. But that is not the only issue. Even more importantly, the concept of Social Security is (in the words of Milton and Rose Friedman*) "more like a chain letter".

Consider the following paragraph that appeared year after year until 1977 in millions of copies of an unsigned HEW booklet [whose title is] 'Your Social Security': "The basic idea of social security is a simple one: During working years employees, their employers and self-employed people pay social security contributions which are pooled into special trust funds. When earnings stop or are reduced because the worker retires, becomes disabled, or dies, monthly cash benefits are paid to replace part of the earnings the family has lost."

This is Orwellian doublethink.

Payroll taxes are labeled "contributions" (or as the Party might have put it in the book Nineteen Eighty-four, "Compulsory is Voluntary").

Trust funds are conjured with as if they played an important role. In fact, they have long been extremely small ($32 billion for OASI as of June 1978, or less than half a year's outlays at the current rate) and consist only of promises by one branch of government to pay another branch. The present value of the old age pensions already promised to persons covered by Social Security (both those who have retired and those who have not) is in the trillions of dollars. That is the size of the trust fund that would be required to justify the words of the booklet (in Orwellian terms, "Little is Much").

The impression is given that a worker's "benefits" are financed by his "contributions." The fact is that taxes collected from persons at work were used to pay benefits to persons who had retired or to their dependents and survivors. No trust fund in any meaningful sense was being accumulated ("I am You").

Workers paying taxes today can derive no assurance from trust funds that they will receive benefits when they retire. Any assurance derives solely from the willingness of future taxpayers to impose taxes on themselves to pay for benefits that present taxpayers are promising themselves. This one-sided "compact between the generations," is a very different thing from a "trust fund." It is more like a chain letter.

The HEW booklets, including those currently being distributed, also say, "Nine out of ten working people in the United States are earning protection for themselves and their families under the social security program."

More doublethink. What nine out of ten working people are now doing is paying taxes to finance payments to people who are not working....

—Milton & Rose Friedman
in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement
pp. 94, 95

The taxing of working people for payments to people who don't work is common in all developed nations. It is also common to all developed nations that most people who work are men and that, aside from the infirm and children, most people who don't work are women. To repeat what I said, about 70 percent of payroll taxes are paid by men, and about 70 percent of the taxes thus collected are being paid to women. Two-thirds of the elderly are women. The very oldest of the elderly are almost exclusively women.

Women live longer than men because they are being pampered. They have the options of working full-time, part-time or not at all (or any combination thereof throughout their lives).

Men's options are generally limited to working full-time. Unemployment insurance benefits are only a limited option for men, as men who wish to receive welfare or perpetual unemployment insurance benefits will soon find themselves living on skid row and handouts.

Moreover, men who are desperate for work often can find only employment in dangerous, dirty and unhealthy jobs. On the other hand, women are less likely to be desperate for work because welfare is always available to them, no matter for how long they wish to receive it. If that is unsatisfactory, women can always find themselves a man (or some organization) to look after them. That is easy. Men marry down, and women marry up. That is why only about 10 percent of people on skid row are women.

Thus did the "right" to receive social security benefits become a compulsory duty and tax that primarily affects men. Therefore, women's independence from slavery in the patriarchy requires that primarily men slave for Father State so that Father State can then pay welfare primarily to "liberated" women, welfare that was formerly provided in the form of goods and services internally within families.

It follows that on account of Father State controlling the productivity of primarily men for the benefit of primarily women, families are no longer a necessity for the security of women.

Therefore, by law, women's rights became men's duties, and women's liberation became men's enslavement.

As I said, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody must pay the bill. That always was men, and now Father State holds them to it by law, whereas formerly men did it voluntarily and received much respect and even love in return. Who in his right mind would respect or even love a slave? Most people don't, but people with common sense would respect and often love men even though men are enslaved in many ways.

There is still a considerable but gradually shrinking number of women who wish to be married and mothers. Unfortunately for them, the supply of men who are marriage material is gradually shrinking, too, perhaps even a little bit faster.

More and more men are unwilling to carry the double burden of slavery to Father State for the benefit of primarily women who give nothing in return to men, plus voluntary slavery within marriage to a woman of their own, regardless of how much love or respect that woman may be willing to give to her man. To boot, the risk posed by marriage to a given man is about equal to him playing Russian roulette with more than every second chamber loaded.

Men, far more often than women, pay the bill when a marriage breaks up. However, although that is not always the case, it would be correct to consider that women, too, play the deadly game of Russian roulette that is marriage, except that women are more likely to pull the trigger than to be at the business end of the gun.

Walter H. Schneider

Milton Friedman won the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economics

If you have concerns about these and other issues related to the condition of seniors, visit, contact and perhaps even join:

SUN — Seniors United Now

The up- and coming, rapidly-growing advocacy organization for seniors (55 years and over) in Alberta

There are in the order of about half a million or more people of age 55 and over in Alberta. If all of them were to join SUN, they would become the most powerful advocacy organization in Alberta; and seniors would no longer be robbed of their comforts and otherwise ignored.
   At the price of one package of cigarettes seniors will be able to gain a voice that will be heard by a government that otherwise can and will take from seniors what they worked for all their life to enjoy in their old age.

If you are concerned about how seniors are affected by the planned, systematic destruction of our families and society, a search at google.com (for elderly OR seniors OR grandparent OR grandfather OR grandmother site:https://fathersforlife.org) will provide you with the links to about 80 web pages at Fathers for Life that will be of interest to you.

Next: Women comprise ten percent of the population on Skid Row

Don't neglect to read also:

Men's News Daily

Whiplash vs. Trueheart: The Politics of Melodrama

October 30, 2003
by Paul C. Robbins, Ph.D.

The plot was simple: Snidely Whiplash versus Tom Trueheart for the love of Tess. Tess was young and desirable, torn between Whiplash and Trueheart....

Snidely Whiplash wanted to ravage Tess and cared not a whit about her welfare....He wanted to do her in, and then Tom Trueheart came to Tess' rescue and did Snidely Whiplash in.

As Paul Robbins explains, such a story teaches morals, and the moral is that in today's society Joe Average is Snidely, feminists are Tess, and the politicians are Tom Trueheart (or successfully pretend to be — not to gain "Tess'" love but to gain her...I better not tell all of it and let you read the rest.

An eye-opening read; give a copy to your friends.  It explains the basic and extremely successful strategy used to ram women's "liberation" down everyone's throat.  All men, their friends and our children are the losers, but women lose, too, the more they gain "victim" status.

Next: Women comprise ten percent of the people on skid row

whiterose.gif (6796 bytes)The White Rose
Thoughts are Free

Posted 2003 10 20
2003 11 04 (added reference to The Politics of Melodrama)
2004 06 24 (added entry for SUN — Seniors United Now)