Replies

Ending welfare fine, but you previously advocated keeping welfare payments but making them contingent on birth control. Which is certainly using state power, and not at all ending welfare.

And the idea that one must "afford" a family to have one, a favorite notion of the modern middle class and rich, is why first world populations are in decline. Let standards of living be what it will be, subordinate to having families - not the other way around. No, there is no virtue in putting wealth ahead of family size. And societies that do it are facing demographic suicide.

As for ending the influence of liberals over social policy, that'd be great. But why does half the middle class listen to them and make use of the "outs" they peddle? Last I checked, they weren't running around holding guns to people's heads forcing them to divorce, or have abortions, or avoid marriage altogether, or prefer sex without consequences to having children.

That's the culture, it is not restricted to an underclass, and it is a serious problem. Liberals have removed guardrails, certainly. People then freely drive off the resulting exposed cliffs. And that is the real demographic story, throughout the whole first world.

It is false that waiting for financial stability is a "modern" idea far from it. Apparently you are not familiar with Malthus who discussed this at length.

Nor is that the reason that populations are in decline. They are in decline because of the emancipation of women who have choices far beyond what they ever had and this increased level of choice means a precipitous decline in population.

It is a commonly known fact that population growth is inversely related to a societies wealth noted as long as 225+ yrs ago by Adam Smith.

Nor do I see anything wrong with providers of state funds (welfare) requiring its recipients to stop having children. Unfortunately many are too stupid to use birth control properly thus an implant would be required.

No, there is no virtue in putting wealth ahead of family size. And societies that do it are facing demographic suicide.

I agree that the first world is committing demographic suicide. An older teacher friend told me once that we all (meaning white middle class) should have all the children we could, while he was only having one child. I did not take his advice and with only one child I am contributing to the decline of western civilization.

I still disagree with those on the dole seeking to increase their poverty (and their public sympathy) by having children who will be raised in poverty without a father. You cannot make people marry and work for a living, but you can make it difficult for them to exist on welfare. Our perceived differences are based on confusion over the state with welfare being provided VS. what we would like. And people will game the system whenever the system can be gamed. I believe there should be a definite benefit to being off welfare. And I would make reproductive contraceptives available (voluntarily). to those who voluntarily used them, I would be willing to improve the status of their welfare. (carrot and stick I guess). But I would just as soon see them leave the dole behind and move into a higher level of living. (I dislike the fact that welfare can for some be a higher level of living than actual work.

The correct solution is Ryandian, but like advocating the cancelation of the motorcycle helmet rule (which I do), society quickly perceives that giving free medical care to anyone injured on a motorcycle means society can also dictate terms for the rider. I would not give free medical care but society is not with me. So I'm stuck, if I can't get society to leave all welfare behind, then I sound like I advocate welfare but I really only want the welfare system to set up defined levels of benefits and let society push those on the dole in the direction of self sufficiency.