Whiskey said Government moving into social functions did not cause the collapse of civil institutions such as churches, neighborhoods, and families. … Rather, it was the collapse of those institutions that caused Government to move into them in the first place.

I differ. It is the process leading to the development of the State as Savior. If a benefit is offered, some will embrace it no matter the consequences. If there is no sanction on the benefit or if the sanction is minor, more will embrace it. Soon it becomes a commonplace. As these benefits come from the State, they are everyone’s birthright. The State is identified with these rights (or entitlements, if you prefer) and is assumed to be universally benign.

A benign entity cannot do something to harm you nor can it allow conditions to occur that are not beneficial. The Russian peasantry thought the Tsar was divine and beneficent, so when something ugly happened their response was “If the Tsar only knew…” Well, it never occurred to them that he could have cared less.

The reality is that States are not by any measure benign. Herb’s Law says: Governments do nothing well except kill people and break things, and then if and only if provided with unlimited resources with which to do it.

Jefferson and the rest knew this. We have forgotten it and are learning to trust the Government. Not a good idea.

I tend to disagree with Whiskey about the uniform perfidiousness of the evolving status of women. I do however think that reproduction is terribly important and the historical role of the female in the conveyance of the culture is equally important. But I know too many who have managed both roles magnificently. [I will only admit this in the security of the BC]

Best not to dump too hard on Murray and the evidence, he has earned a powerful rep on the evidence.