“can you defend your accusation that I am a Stalinist?”
Don’ take it personally. I don’t think you are a Stalinist. Just misguided on this subject. You won’t find anywhere in the constitution that government should incentivize or take any ‘interest’ in procreation. In China, for example, it’s a different story and over there you’ll find that the ‘state’ takes a lot of ‘interest’ in this activity.
How about in the Declaration where Life is enumerated specifically (as the primary) as an unalienable right? That would seem to indicate that government the founders were to found is indeed interested in incentivizing procreation.
I repeat: in a communist state the state OWNS the children (and the parents.)
I’m interested in fishing. I don’t claim to own the fish.
In a republic, as we’re supposed to be (but aren’t), the government has legitimate areas of interest as spelled out by the very nature of being a government. In ours, those areas of interest are spelled out in the constitution.
The preamble clearly defines the over-arching goal of the ensuing constitutional provisions. One of those is to “promote for the general welfare.”
That would be saying that “in general, we are interested in lots of things that end with good results instead of bad results.”
Under the specific authorities granted to Congress is this: “provide for the ...general Welfare of the United States”.
The 5th amendment suggests areas in which government will be involved by limiting its involvement: No person shall ...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
The government has no legitimate interest in my emotional feelings. It does have an interest in little kids running around with or without direction and support.
While I see where you’re coming from, the state does have practical, passive interest in procreation, mainly for purposes of military and taxes. If you have way too many old people and few young people, problems can arise. For instance, if a draft were instituted, you’d need to have a certain amount of people eligible to defend the country. It is a passive interest though. They cannot do things like China has done.
“You won’t find anywhere in the constitution that government should incentivize or take any ‘interest’ in procreation”
LOL. Marriage definitions and laws have been here for millenia, and the constitutions of almost all our states explicitly mention children, family and marriage. Our Federal constitution has a 10th amendment, leaving this matter to states.
The basis of the CONCEPT of limited Government as expressed in our Constitution REQUIRES foundational institutions that support liberty. The FIRST of these is family. To support family we require Marriage in law, or children are harmed. If we raise the next generation as barbarians, our Federal constitution will be worthless.
As long as Property exists, it will accumulate in Individuals and Families. As long as Marriage exists, Knowledge, Property and Influence will accumulate in Families.
John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814
Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.
John Adams, Defense of the Constitutions, 1787