Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here and Part 3 here and Part 4 here and Part 5 here and Part 6 here and Part 7 here and Part 8 here and Part 9 here and Part 10 here. and Part 11 here and Part 12 here and Part 13 here.
Married people have more children, and we need more people. They are a resource.
The main reason married people have more children is the same reason they are married:
Either they believe they are supposed to be married and having children or they believe they have stability in their relationship.
In the Western world, there is very little, if any, stigma left in unmarried parenting.
Again, depending on your situation, there are different way to answer.
A) I don't want any/more children.
B) I can't have any/more children.
C) Water wells are a resource. How many have you personally dug? Food is a resource. Are you producing on a farm more than you're consuming? Food and water are resources yet you don't tell me I should be providing them. Other people will continue to provide children. I will continue to contribute in ways I prefer.
D) People can have as many children as they want without a terrible state contract.
E) I am not obligated to keep supplying to your government ponzi schemes.
F) Be honest and direct and try to encourage people to have more children, rather than telling them they should marry. You can appeal to the people who are already married to have (more) children, if you have a qualm with unmarried parenting.
Don't you want what is good for society?
This makes the assumption that marrying is good for society. You can try asking them to explain how exactly marrying is good for society. They will probably cite things we've already covered in this series: having (more) children, having cooperative parental involvement in raising the children, unmarried men being violent, and unmarried women being dependent on government. As we've shown, all of those things can be addressed without a terrible state contract.
A) The claims that getting a terrible state contract is good for society is based on perceived correlations or things that can be done without a terrible state contract. Signing a terrible state contract isn't good for society. What's good for society is in how people behave. It won't benefit society if I get a terrible state contract, other than to remove a woman from the teat of government. But I wouldn't take on a woman like that anyway. How about encouraging women to be independent?
B) Explain exactly how me entering into a terrible state contract would benefit society?
There is no evidence whatsoever that signing a terrible state contract is beneficial to society.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please no "cussing" or profanities or your comment won't be published. I have to approve your comment before it appears. I won't reject your comment for disagreement - I actually welcome disagreement. But I will not allow libelous comments (which is my main reason for requiring approval) and please try to avoid profanities. Thanks!