Theme: Responsibility

  • How did Children’s Responsibility for Aging Parents End? The responsibility of c

    How did Children’s Responsibility for Aging Parents End?

    The responsibility of children to care for their aging parents in Western civilization never officially “ended,” but legal and cultural obligations significantly diminished with the rise of the welfare state and changing social norms. Below is a concise overview of when and how this responsibility faded:
    • Pre-Modern Era (Ancient to Early Modern): Children were morally and often legally obligated to support their parents. In ancient Rome, filial piety was a cultural norm, and medieval Christian teachings emphasized “honoring” parents. English Poor Laws (e.g., 1601) legally required children to provide for destitute parents, enforceable by local authorities.
    • Medieval Period (c. 800–1300): The emergence of bipartite manorialism in Western Europe reorganized rural society into smaller, nuclear-like households tied to manorial estates. Peasant families prioritized labor for lords and their own subsistence, reducing co-residence with aging parents. While Christian teachings and customary law upheld filial duties, reliance on communal support (e.g., church alms) for the elderly began to weaken direct family responsibility, particularly in northwest Europe.
    • Late Medieval to Early Modern Period (c. 1300–1600): The rise of the nuclear and absolute nuclear family, especially in England and the Low Countries, fostered household independence and neolocality, where young couples formed separate homes. Pre-industrial population mobility, spurred by the Black Death, urbanization, and early enclosure movements, distanced children from aging parents, making direct caregiving less feasible. Parish records and court rolls show increasing communal support for the elderly poor, signaling an early shift from familial to external care systems, though filial obligations remained legally enforced (e.g., English Poor Laws of 1601).
    • 19th Century: Industrialization strained traditional family structures. Poor Laws persisted, but urbanization and migration weakened extended family support. Some Western countries began early pension experiments (e.g., Germany’s 1889 Old Age Pension under Bismarck), shifting some responsibility to the state.
    • Early 20th Century: Welfare state development eroded legal mandates. The U.K.’s 1908 Old Age Pensions Act provided state-funded support for the elderly, reducing reliance on children. The U.S. followed with the 1935 Social Security Act, offering pensions and later Medicare (1965) for healthcare. These systems replaced much of the filial obligation.
    • Mid-20th Century: Legal requirements for children to support parents were largely repealed. The U.K.’s 1948 National Assistance Act abolished Poor Law provisions mandating filial support. In the U.S., most states eliminated or stopped enforcing filial responsibility laws by the 1950s, though a few (e.g., Pennsylvania’s Title 23) remain on the books but are rarely applied. Nursing homes and institutional care also became more common, further reducing direct family responsibility.
    • Today (2025): No major Western country legally requires children to care for aging parents. Voluntary caregiving persists—e.g., a 2021 National Alliance for Caregiving study found 23% of U.S. adults provide some care for parents—but this is driven by personal choice or cultural values, not law. State systems like pensions, healthcare (e.g., U.K.’s NHS, U.S. Medicaid), and eldercare facilities now bear much of the burden.
    Key Moment
    The closest marker for when this responsibility “ended” legally is the mid-20th century (1940s–1960s), when welfare state expansions (e.g., U.K.’s 1948 Act, U.S. Social Security) and the decline of enforceable filial laws shifted eldercare from children to public systems. Culturally, the shift was gradual and varies by community, with some groups still emphasizing family care.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-07 02:13:40 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1919938652299526157

  • The responsibility of children to care for their aging parents in Western civili

    The responsibility of children to care for their aging parents in Western civilization never officially “ended,” but legal and cultural obligations significantly diminished with the rise of the welfare state and changing social norms. Below is a concise overview of when and how this responsibility faded:

    Pre-Modern Era (Ancient to Early Modern): Children were morally and often legally obligated to support their parents. In ancient Rome, filial piety was a cultural norm, and medieval Christian teachings emphasized “honoring” parents. English Poor Laws (e.g., 1601) legally required children to provide for destitute parents, enforceable by local authorities.

    Medieval Period (c. 800–1300): The emergence of bipartite manorialism in Western Europe reorganized rural society into smaller, nuclear-like households tied to manorial estates. Peasant families prioritized labor for lords and their own subsistence, reducing co-residence with aging parents. While Christian teachings and customary law upheld filial duties, reliance on communal support (e.g., church alms) for the elderly began to weaken direct family responsibility, particularly in northwest Europe.

    Late Medieval to Early Modern Period (c. 1300–1600): The rise of the nuclear and absolute nuclear family, especially in England and the Low Countries, fostered household independence and neolocality, where young couples formed separate homes. Pre-industrial population mobility, spurred by the Black Death, urbanization, and early enclosure movements, distanced children from aging parents, making direct caregiving less feasible. Parish records and court rolls show increasing communal support for the elderly poor, signaling an early shift from familial to external care systems, though filial obligations remained legally enforced (e.g., English Poor Laws of 1601).

    19th Century: Industrialization strained traditional family structures. Poor Laws persisted, but urbanization and migration weakened extended family support. Some Western countries began early pension experiments (e.g., Germany’s 1889 Old Age Pension under Bismarck), shifting some responsibility to the state.

    Early 20th Century: Welfare state development eroded legal mandates. The U.K.’s 1908 Old Age Pensions Act provided state-funded support for the elderly, reducing reliance on children. The U.S. followed with the 1935 Social Security Act, offering pensions and later Medicare (1965) for healthcare. These systems replaced much of the filial obligation.

    Mid-20th Century: Legal requirements for children to support parents were largely repealed. The U.K.’s 1948 National Assistance Act abolished Poor Law provisions mandating filial support. In the U.S., most states eliminated or stopped enforcing filial responsibility laws by the 1950s, though a few (e.g., Pennsylvania’s Title 23) remain on the books but are rarely applied. Nursing homes and institutional care also became more common, further reducing direct family responsibility.

    Today (2025): No major Western country legally requires children to care for aging parents. Voluntary caregiving persists—e.g., a 2021 National Alliance for Caregiving study found 23% of U.S. adults provide some care for parents—but this is driven by personal choice or cultural values, not law. State systems like pensions, healthcare (e.g., U.K.’s NHS, U.S. Medicaid), and eldercare facilities now bear much of the burden.

    Key Moment

    The closest marker for when this responsibility “ended” legally is the mid-20th century (1940s–1960s), when welfare state expansions (e.g., U.K.’s 1948 Act, U.S. Social Security) and the decline of enforceable filial laws shifted eldercare from children to public systems. Culturally, the shift was gradual and varies by community, with some groups still emphasizing family care.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-06 14:41:19 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1919764417832747011

  • i took full time care of my mother until she died. I could afford to. Why can’t

    i took full time care of my mother until she died.
    I could afford to.
    Why can’t most people afford to?


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-06 04:20:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1919608112232771779

  • i took full time care of my mother until she died. I could afford to. Why can’t

    i took full time care of my mother until she died.
    I could afford to.
    Why can’t most people afford to?


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-06 04:20:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1919608112232771779

    Reply addressees: @adulpanget @yaycapitalism @ItIsHoeMath @memeticsisyphus @NoahRevoy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1919601440592691407

  • “Men don’t have a biological clock, they have a financial clock.”– (Simple vers

    –“Men don’t have a biological clock, they have a financial clock.”–

    (Simple version: “Can I carry that responsibility without failing?” Especially failing her.)


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-04 01:22:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918838654065136009

  • In the USA, if the people who are responsible for the property demand you leave,

    In the USA, if the people who are responsible for the property demand you leave, then you must leave, or you are illegally trespassing. Your wants and opinion have no meaning or standing. Period. End of Story. In such matters, where the police have been called in response to a trespass, there are no excuses. You do what they say or you go ‘into the process’ (jail). The french forget that americans speak english but behaviorally we’re german – we just have a sense of humor. 😉

    Reply addressees: @HongKongJacko @hartgoat


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 20:34:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918403747258220545

  • In the USA, if the people who are responsible for the property demand you leave,

    In the USA, if the people who are responsible for the property demand you leave, then you must leave, or you are illegally trespassing. Your wants and opinion have no meaning or standing. Period. End of Story. In such matters, where the police have been called in response to a trespass, there are no excuses. You do what they say or you go ‘into the process’ (jail). The french forget that americans speak english but behaviorally we’re german – we just have a sense of humor. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 20:34:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918403747350495630

  • RT @ItIsHoeMath: It’s really simple to say, but really difficult to make people

    RT @ItIsHoeMath: It’s really simple to say, but really difficult to make people understand:

    Single mothers raise bad children. Single fath…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-29 18:37:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1917287116259877250

  • RT @AutistocratMS: @DRolandAnderson @DavidAcostaJua1 @curtdoolittle @LudwigNverM

    RT @AutistocratMS: @DRolandAnderson @DavidAcostaJua1 @curtdoolittle @LudwigNverMises Responsible is used in two different senses, what outc…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-27 20:15:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1916586931527598492

  • JUDGEMENT: ANGLO VS JEWISH LIBERTARIANISM IMO Jewish Libertarianism (economic li

    JUDGEMENT: ANGLO VS JEWISH LIBERTARIANISM

    IMO

    Jewish Libertarianism (economic libertinism) > Mises-Rothbard-Hoppe reduction of all social science to statements of property (demonstrated interests) as a system of commensurability across the spectrum of human behavior. The failure is the anti-statism which effectively makes commons impossible to produce, yet the west defeated it’s competitors by its ability to produce commons especially that of high trust.

    Anglo Classical Liberalism (Hayekian Libertarianism) > In addition to a fully empirical system of government: natural law, common law, concurrent legislation, and the division of powers, hayekians produced what was missing from economic thought: full accounting of all capital upon which all people in all polities depend: formal and informal. (My contribution is informational, and genetic capital.) This allowed the formation of high trust commons where the libettinism of jewish libertarianism incentivized low trust commons – and particularly the conversion of public common capital to private capital which is the reason for the long standing prosecution of jews in every society they inhabit.

    My work unites these two thereby reforming classical liberalism (rule of law libertarianism), as a science of cooperation applied to institutional formation.

    Reply addressees: @DRolandAnderson @DavidAcostaJua1 @LudwigNverMises


    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-26 18:38:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1916200268469022720

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1916197496654860625


    IN REPLY TO:

    @DRolandAnderson

    I agree. @curtdoolittle incorporates a lot of the same thinkers as Libertarians into his approach. And what I’m coming to think of as “Zoomer Libertarianism” is why I pay attention to @LudwigNverMises.

    I also believe that Strauss-Howe Generational Theory offers some good lessons for Libertarians. I don’t think Libertarians are “wrong,” but I think the approach is counter-cyclical, in that a 4th Turning is characterized by a low supply of order and a high demand for order.

    Winter is a bad time to plant crops.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1916197496654860625