Abolishing the nuclear family in the name of equity

January 17, 2022. Consistent with the insanity of Black Lives Matters' desire to eliminate the nuclear family, a recent, insane column on the subject showed the absolutely ridiculous and obscene nature of this position. The first half of the column follows here:

If California is ever going to achieve true equity, the state must require parents to give away their children.

Today’s Californians often hold up equity — the goal of a just society completely free from bias — as our greatest value. Gov. Gavin Newsom makes decisions through “an equity lens.” Institutions from dance ensembles to tech companies have publicly pledged themselves to equity.

But their promises are no match for the power of parents.

Fathers and mothers with greater wealth and education are more likely to transfer these advantages to their children, compounding privilege over generations. As a result, children of less advantaged parents face an uphill struggle, social mobility has stalled, and democracy has been corrupted. More Californians are abandoning the dream; a recent Public Policy Institute of California poll found declining belief in the notion that you can get ahead through hard work.

My solution — making raising your own children illegal — is simple, and while we wait for the legislation to pass, we can act now: the rich and poor should trade kids, and homeowners might swap children with their homeless neighbors.

Now, I recognize that some naysayers will dismiss such a policy as ghastly, even totalitarian. But my proposal is quite modest, a fusion of traditional philosophy and today’s most common political obsessions.

In his “Republic,” Plato adopted Socrates’ sage advice — that children “be possessed in common, so that no parent will know his own offspring or any child his parents” — in order to defeat nepotism, and create citizens loyal not to their sons but to society.

Today, a policy of universal orphanhood aligns with powerful social trends that point to less interest in family. Californians are slower to marry, and are having fewer children — our birth rate is at an all-time low.

Some thoughts on the bolded, italicized portions follow here:

• Californians and the idea of equity. This rhetorical claim has no evidence and, worse, his definition of equity as meaning an absence of bias is inconsistent with any equity 'advocate' who see equity as meaning the end of different outcomes, i.e., that all people, regardless of where they start, should end up with equal outcomes. And this latter, more common definition of equity is also absurd, as there is no way that this 'equal outcomes' status could ever be achieved over a significant number of people and, were it to happen, this condition would almost immediately disappear.

• Declining belief in the notion of hard work to get ahead. More rhetoric, as the declining belief is just that, a belief, not a fact, and not evidence of anything other than a pessimistic public misinformed by progressive politicians, pundits and programs.

• Fusion of philosophy and politics. Again, more rhetoric with no evidence of any fusion or, for that matter, of traditional philosophy, other than the weird claim from Plato (next).

• Plato on children and parents. Drawing upon a single thought from Plato is hardly an argument and it does not constitute a philosophy, nor does it necessarily provide good advice.Using Plato to promote an absurd idea of equity -- however it is defined -- is a misuse of critical thinking and patently foolish.

The opening words of the column -- "If California is ever going to achieve true equity" -- makes an assumption that "equity" is the primary objective of Californians.The argument is built open a false assumption. This makes the rest of the argument gibberish.