Look, can we just accept that libertarian paternalism is just a nasty subset of social facism? Or at least, that certain of those proposing libertarian paternalism are proposing a nasty subset of social facism?
Prof Julian Le Grand, the architect of a clutch of New Labour policies such as baby bonds, is calling for marriage to be the legal "default" setting for new parents.
Without having to undergo a public ceremony or take any vows, they should simply be regarded as married in law as soon as the child\’s birth is registered, Prof Le Grand, Tony Blair\’s former Downing Street health adviser, said.
Marriage is, in English law at least, a contract that over rides all others. It puts at risk, for example, your entire worldly goods. So what the good professor is advocating is that having a knee trembler around the back of the chippy could mean that, if pregnancy results, the knee tremblee can claim half one\’s worldly goods.
Franco would have been proud of such a measure against extra marital sex.
Quite what the result would be though is a little difficult to determine. It might lead to an increase in those willing to offer a trembler dependent upon how many gold diggers there are out there.
What is absolutely certain is that it will increase the number of bigamists of both sexes.
“Libertarian paternalism” is just one of those (oxy)moronic phrases like “military intelligence” or “postal service”.
What a mess, because people are trying to fix the chaos with yet another hack job, or, shall we say, with a shotgun marriage.
Here is the (fascist) fix:
1. Mothers who cannot show that they had explicit permission to use the man’s sperm to conceive a child should not be eligible for the support of their very victim.
2. People who don’t have the love, time and resources to be parents should not be allowed to have kids — the baby should be forcible adopted, single parenthood should only be tolerated when it came about through unplanned circumstances.
Hmm, this all sounds very familiar, could it be that those were the unwritten rules of society before all this mess took off in the 1960’s?
Maybe the old proper paternalistic, fascist way is the kindest, most sensible compromise for everyone that actually protects those children and breaks the circle of depravity?
What is funny is that the professor knows this very well, and so is trying to stealthily put the genie back in the same old bottle it was once taken out of by the feminists, hoping that no-one will notice, heh.
What happens if someone fathers kids by different women? Automatic divorce or automatic bigamy?
Were I poor, and in possession of a womb, I would tart myself up, and head down to the nearest posh hotel bar, pick up some rich old man, and trick him into impregnating me (“yeah, I’m on the Pill”).
No prenup. Instant fortune, just add lust.
And if you believe the urban legends, this already happens — it’s (so I’m told) a great way to con some unsuspecting punter out of a couple of hundred in child support each month.
Oh, when the revolution comes, we must be sure to have a lamp post waiting for Le Grand. Right in the centre of town.
But anyway, what we seem to have here is shotgun marriages enforced by the state. How very progressive.
Le Grand? Hasn’t that tw@ got form?
Oh yes, he’s got a lot of form. And, he’s also best friends with David Cameron. Which reminds us yet again that a Tory government aren’t, in practical terms, going to be any different on the social engineering front.
Please Please pass this “idea” into law.
I’d run a company flying bachelors to foreign prostitutes.