Neoliberal family duty rhetoric derives from Elizabethan poor law logic

Evidence

Epstein’s wording closely follows that of a famous family responsibility judgment made by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1896, People v. James W. Hill, 163 Ill. 186 (1896). Here it was stated that the object of both the original Elizabethan poor laws and those enacted by the state of Illinois was “to protect the public from loss occasioned by the neglect of a moral or natural duty imposed on individuals, and to do this by transforming the imperfect moral duty into a statutory and legal liability.” — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 922

Categorization

• XREF: Shows the deep historical roots of the family-responsibility idea, echoing pre-modern poor-law precedent rather than novel 20th-century thought — useful for the austerity-map building. — connects to: Clinton’s welfare reform federalized old poor law family-responsibility principles — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 211; Neoliberals opposed no-fault divorce to force families to absorb social costs — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 241; Poor laws were repeatedly strengthened to punish threats to family-based welfare — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 217 (+2 more)