Social Engineering Vs. Economics 101

Robert Stacey McCain has a link and discussion of an article out of England that almost made me sick. I’m going to put off the links until I’ve had my say.


When it comes to child-rearing, quite a few liberals espouse letting the kid do what they want, just keep it supervised as best you can and hope for the best. Don’t condemn them, don’t try to control them, don’t even punish them too severely.  Instead, support them — emotionally, financially, and any other way you can.


When it comes to welfare and other government support, again the primarily liberal position is to not put too many restrictions on it, don’t put a burden of shame on it, don’t make it a stigma, and simply meet the needs of the dependent as they develop.


Conservatives, by and large, espouse a single principle that applies in both cases, as well as many more: whatever you subsidize, you get more of.


So let’s take the case of England’s Soya Keaveney. Three years ago, she wanted to be a model. Her mum (Dad doesn’t seem to be a presence in their lives, suprisingly enough) encouraged her, and Soya was soon a bikini model, posing for layouts at the age of 12. She further wanted to explore the adult world, so she asked her mum for makeup, alluring clothing, padded bras, and other trappings of adulthood (even feigned). Mum went for that, too.


Then Soya decided she didn’t want to just look older, she wanted to act older, too. She got herself a two-year-older boyfriend, and Mum thought that was just splendid. And when the two wanted to be sexually active, she realized she couldn’t stop them — but she could regulate it. The boyfriend started sleeping over at their home regularly.


Well, teenagers being teenagers, certain things happened, certain things didn’t happen, and now Soya is 15 and pregnant.


Mum’s response? She’s delighted. Because they’re already in publicly-supported housing. With the baby on the way, the government will have no choice but to move them into a larger home.


At every step here, Soya wanted to take the self-indulgent route, and at every step Mum was right there to aid and abet in her “choice.” And why shouldn’t she? Mum’s taught her what she has learned — the family is already on public assistance, and the added baby simply means more benefits for all.


McCain’s take is on the sexualizing of children in Western “culture,” and that’s a hell of an important point, too. But this whole tragic tale brings up so many troubling things. I think the most tragic, though, is that Soya has no freaking clue just how screwed up her life has been, and how little chance she has for anything resembling a decent, independent life now.


Oh, and Stacey? I haven’t had the opportunity to mention it before, but I’ve been a member of the Axis Of Fedora for at least six years.



I’ve upgraded the car, the glasses, the pants, and the shoes. I’ve moved away from the garage, and the mustache and hair is gone,  but I still have the coat, the hat, and the duck.

Obama Stops Deportations of Illegal Immigrants
Empty Threats
  • Anonymous

    This describes a classic breakdown in the moral fabric of society.  Left unchecked, it always implodes.    

    • I don’t know how we can survive the resurgence of the fedora either.

      And the whole child-model-welfare-queen-pregnancy-housing-scam thing doesn’t help at all!

  • Anonymous

    I would imagine that once the kid arrives, Mum and Soya will expect the government to take care of it.

  • Anonymous

    Can’t wait to see what happens when the Libertarians set up their man made island nation off shore somewhere in the world. No laws, no morals, no government. I admit to having some libertarian leanings but, no society can last without a moral compass. This is where I don’t go along with them. Our founding fathers knew that no matter what kind of government they gave us without a strong moral foundation it would fail like all the rest. They said “We’ve given you a republic, if you can keep it.” Just sayin’

    • PBunyan

      “No laws, no morals, no government”

      You are obviously cluess as to what Libertarians believe.  What you described is Anarchy, not Libertarianism.  You can’t have liberty without laws, morals, and government–it’s just that you only need a small fraction of what we have now here in the U.S.

      • Anonymous

        On the contrary Mr. B. I know lots of Libertarians and what they believe. This one is putting his money up for the cause. I just repeated what he is saying. You can read for yourself.

        • PBunyan

          From the article you linked to: “free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place” (emphasis mine) 

          That’s what you’re referring to?

          A.  That wasn’t a quote that was just what some very likely quite leftist reporter wrote.  And even so, while worded in a way that a libertarian probably wouldn’t put it, she still got it right because:

          B.  What part of “of any existing place” did you not understand?  That does not mean totally free of all laws, regulations, and moral codes.

        • PBunyan

          And another thing, do you seriously think that the situation Jay described in the post would happen in a libertarian society?  Or do you think the poor would be worse off in a libertarian society?  That’s crazy talk.

          A very wise man once said a timeless truth: “the poor you will have with you always”.  The worst thing you can do is make it a career option as happens in socialist societies like America and Europe. 

          • And what is the Libertarian position on age of contract and age of sexual consent? 

          • PBunyan

            I don’t know if they have an official position on those issues, but I doubt they’d be against them.  At least I’m not.

      • Yes, he should have specified that Libertarians always seek to impose their own moral codes and their own offbeat interpretations of the Constitution and Common Law, and in this respect they are rather totalitarian. 

        One need only examine actual Libertarian “principles” to see that much of what Libertarians claim as their own is nothing but old-fashioned conservatism, but the rest is quite radical.

        No controlled substances or prescription requirements for drugs, no federal laws against child pornography, no state institutions, open borders, Paulian isolationism . . . these are some of the essential areas that differentiate Libertarianism from conservatism, but many self-professed Libertarians don’t even know them.

        But these and other weird aspects of what is uniquely Libertarian are precisely why the LP candidates can’t make 0.5% in Presidential elections.  They are way out of the mainstream in those areas which identify them as unique.

        • Anonymous

          I always liked Glenn Reynolds’ repeated line: “those dangerous libertarians — they want to take over the government, and then leave you alone!”


        • PBunyan

          Well that why so many of us “self professed Libertarians” call ourselves “small-‘L'” libertarians.  Some of the offical positions of the national party are a bit radical.  

          Actually I think I’m more of a Federalist than a Libertarian, as the old time Federalists were pretty much small “l” libertarians themselves.  They weren’t anti-government or anti-law.  They just believed, as I do, that the most powerful government should be local, with the state government being less powerful and the least powerful of all the national government. 

          By the way, “no federal laws against child pornography”, doesn’t mean a child pornography free for all, it just means it should be regulated by the state and local governments, and I agree with that. 

          • Anonymous

            And, if an island state or local government decides not to regulate it they tell the federal government to butt out?

  • Anonymous

    Re: “I think the most tragic, though, is that Soya has no freaking clue just
    how screwed up her life has been, and how little chance she has for
    anything resembling a decent, independent life now.”

    Not to quibble, but her life is rather decent right now.
    It’s the independence she may never know.
    From an article by Theo Dalrymple about the rioters which delves into what the govt provides…..

    “There are people here with nothing,” this rioter continued: nothing, that is,
    except an education that has cost $80,000, a roof over their head, clothes on
    their back and shoes on their feet, food in their stomachs, a cellphone, a
    flat-screen TV, a refrigerator, an electric stove, heating and lighting, hot and
    cold running water, a guaranteed income, free medical care, and all of the same
    for any of the children that they might care to propagate.”

    The govt has removed any negative consequences for them.
    Why expect this mom to know enough to teach her daughter about them? And if mom does know, why should she care?

    Besides, if anything bad does happen, it’s not their fault.

    Now where have I heard that before?

    Side Note: Been wearing fedora’s for years. I think they’re coming back too.

  • Anonymous

    Um… not the picture I’d run while discussing the sexuallization of young children…
    It’s just some extra window tinting away from a “Stranger Danger” PSA on Nickelodeon

  • Anonymous

    Um… not the picture I’d run while discussing the sexuallization of young children…
    It’s just some extra window tinting away from a “Stranger Danger” PSA on Nickelodeon

  • Anon Y. Mous

    Blogging under a pseudonym but posting a picture of yourself? You must have decided to live the dangerous life.

  • Anonymous

    Anon, it’s six years ago. And those were not six kind years…


  • I am so disturbed by this picture, I have completely forgotten the content of your article.

    I’ll be under the sink in the fetal position if anyone needs me.


  • Anonymous

    That proves it!

  • herddog505

    RE: The fedora

    I blame JFK: he was apparently the “trendsetter” who made is cool for men not to wear decent hats.  I like a ball cap as much as the next guy, but I love my fedoras, panamas, and stingy brims.

    As for the girl and her family discussed above… do the British have the phrase “sorry white trash” or some equivalent?

    • Anonymous

      do the British have the phrase “sorry white trash” or some equivalent? 

      Yes, they’re called “chavs.”    

  • Anonymous

    Meh. I never was much for style wear, functionality works for me. I rarely wear a hat unless I’ve got a saw going and don’t want to comb out the dust and chips.

  • Patrick_A_NonnyMouse

    So essentially the liberal mindset is that people are pets. 

    Or at least, the sort of people who they’ve decided “need help” are to be treated like pets.  They shouldn’t be required to do anything useful; they should just sit there and “be needy”.  That way, our bureaucratic pet-sitters can congratulate themselves for being so moral, humane, and righteous (as they tax the productive of the nation into oblivion while those poor, deserving, helpless, needy wards-of-the-state reproduce beyond society’s capacity to take care of them).

    The infamous “Cat Lady Syndrome” writ large — very, very large.