Let me try to understand. That’s where we differ A LOT.
So, you think libertarian position is: Drum roll…
Government does have right to limit the number of child a rich father can make.
Then you said this better than my self:
Having more children than the “replacement rate” is CHILD ABUSE
Is that what you’re saying?
1. Government has no right to prevent the poor to keep breeding children. In India and Indonesia, for example, child of the poor are just starving and government should just let that happen. But it’s legal to keep breeding kids you can’t afford to educate, clothe, and feed.
2. Yet government does have a justifiable case to limit the number of child rich smart males can make.
Is that what you’re saying?
It doesn’t matter that each kids of a billionaire ended up being more successful than each kid of homeless bum in a welfare less state. It doesn’t matter that you can have it both way, quality and quantity, in businesses. It doesn’t even matter that the rich smart billionaires, maybe nobel laurates, already give better genes to those kids. It doesn’t matter that in modern state, kids learn mainly from video games rather than government infested schools or father’s “quality time” that’s made obsolete by iPad. It doesn’t matter if my kids can do programming before they age ten. It doesn’t matter that if mom doesn’t have to work kids will have access to more mom’s time. Billionaires just can’t make more than 2.1 kids.
So where can that billionaire inherit all his wealth if he only has 2 kids?
Damn and all this time I thought the mullahs are the greatest threat of freedom. At least they allow contract marriage and polygamy though I still hate them for criminalizing porn and sex outside their pimphood called marriage.
No wonder you got economy crisis. Maybe those creationists are right. We are getting dumber. No wonder we keep killing each other.
Yet it’s legal to mate with that homeless bum as long as he is single and it’s illegal for hot babes to agree to share a rich smart males. And who decide that? The woman? No. You. You believe what’s good for “teh children” and you effectively say that you and government can decide who the women should choose. Namely they much choose a man that doesn’t have 2.1 kids yet.
That’s what you think is ideal?
If that’s libertarianism, I am not a libertarian. In fact, I realized I am closer to minarchist. Hei, I may be somewhere between minarchist and social democrat actually. Even that social democrat don’t limit freedom as much. I am surprised that this is what most white people think. That somehow it’s not okay to make many kids even if you can afford it. That’s how they’re dysgenic, like chinese. Well, I guess I realized now that I have no allies.
Also who says that replacement rate is 2.1? If a man is so rich and attractive like Tiger Wood and have 10 mistresses, his replacement rate is 12.1 right?
Parenting Now and Then is a post from: Free Market Forever
Incoming search terms:
- powered by phpBB history of technology in schools (21)
- choose hottest babes (10)