3 ms·

Parenthood is a choice. One who chooses to have kids is also choosing the consequences and financial burdens that it may have. It is not okay to shift that burd

Parenthood is a choice. One who chooses to have kids is also choosing the consequences and financial burdens that it may have. It is not okay to shift that burden to other people, especially those who made a different choice.

OccamsMirror 5y ago
So only the rich should have children? Who is going to do all the manual labour once the lower classes go extinct?
- chii 5y ago
  > So only the rich should have children? If you have the financial means to have children, and feel like having children, then you should be free to have them. But if you want to have children but do not have the financial means, then why should anyone else in society (whom would have to give up some of their financial capacity) take on the burden for you? If i replaced "children" with "yacht", would you have a different opinion? > Who is going to do all the manual labour if there's fewer people doing manual labour, the price would grow to match demand - the statement you made is a non sequitur.
  - OccamsMirror 5y ago
    I take it you’re a libertarian?
    - moshmosh 5y ago
      There's rarely room for doubt. We may be about to step through some undergrad poli-sci and IPE coursework and (as inevitably happens) a review of book 1 of Plato's Republic up-thread, if you're interested. Or the poster may just leave it at a downvote and not respond. :-/ I tried to take Socrates' side of Book 1's exchange re: the definition of justice once already with another probably-libertarian, but we got derailed by your parent poster. (the short version for the uninitiated: if you try for a simple, inflexible, & complete definition of justice, you've almost certainly opened yourself to obvious contradictions and/or consequences that everyone hates as soon as you start gaming it out—workable definitions of justice that survive serious scrutiny are hard to come by)
  - Scarblac 5y ago
    Children aren't remotely comparable to yaughts. Being a child is the way every single citizen starts life, and how they do in that period has dramatic influence on the rest of their lives. Society can't afford to leave all that only up to parents. You made a choice to not have kids, did you also make the choice to never interact with anybody else again? Because those people are only there because their parents chose to have kids, and you have an interest in how they turned out.
    - chii 5y ago
      > did you also make the choice to never interact with anybody else again? interaction with other people are governed by law, and to some extend, cultural norms. Whether i choose to interact with people makes no difference to whether society has to bear the burden of the kids that the parents choose not to bear when they choose to have them. You're making an assumption that a poor parent will raise a bad kid, unless society will chip in. I don't believe that. A smart parent will raise a good kid, whether they are poor or not. And society _already_ bear some burden, since k-12 education is free. Childcare at an even earlier age than k-12 is expensive because it is not scalable, and i'm questioning whether it is worth the cost. If the parent doesn't make enough to cover the childcare cost in their job, they can and should perform their own childcare duty. Parents that make more than their childcare cost would make the rational choice of paying for childcare, since they will still have excess money after paying. Or they can choose to do childcare themselves - as is their freedom and right. What i don't believe in is to have tax payers pay for the childcare. The high earning parent don't need it, and the low income earner is getting a huge benefit for little to no reward for the tax payer - and childcare doesnt get cheaper the more it is collectively paid.

OccamsMirror 5y ago

So only the rich should have children? Who is going to do all the manual labour once the lower classes go extinct?

chii 5y ago
> So only the rich should have children? If you have the financial means to have children, and feel like having children, then you should be free to have them. But if you want to have children but do not have the financial means, then why should anyone else in society (whom would have to give up some of their financial capacity) take on the burden for you? If i replaced "children" with "yacht", would you have a different opinion? > Who is going to do all the manual labour if there's fewer people doing manual labour, the price would grow to match demand - the statement you made is a non sequitur.
- OccamsMirror 5y ago
  I take it you’re a libertarian?
  - moshmosh 5y ago
    There's rarely room for doubt. We may be about to step through some undergrad poli-sci and IPE coursework and (as inevitably happens) a review of book 1 of Plato's Republic up-thread, if you're interested. Or the poster may just leave it at a downvote and not respond. :-/ I tried to take Socrates' side of Book 1's exchange re: the definition of justice once already with another probably-libertarian, but we got derailed by your parent poster. (the short version for the uninitiated: if you try for a simple, inflexible, & complete definition of justice, you've almost certainly opened yourself to obvious contradictions and/or consequences that everyone hates as soon as you start gaming it out—workable definitions of justice that survive serious scrutiny are hard to come by)
- Scarblac 5y ago
  Children aren't remotely comparable to yaughts. Being a child is the way every single citizen starts life, and how they do in that period has dramatic influence on the rest of their lives. Society can't afford to leave all that only up to parents. You made a choice to not have kids, did you also make the choice to never interact with anybody else again? Because those people are only there because their parents chose to have kids, and you have an interest in how they turned out.
  - chii 5y ago
    > did you also make the choice to never interact with anybody else again? interaction with other people are governed by law, and to some extend, cultural norms. Whether i choose to interact with people makes no difference to whether society has to bear the burden of the kids that the parents choose not to bear when they choose to have them. You're making an assumption that a poor parent will raise a bad kid, unless society will chip in. I don't believe that. A smart parent will raise a good kid, whether they are poor or not. And society _already_ bear some burden, since k-12 education is free. Childcare at an even earlier age than k-12 is expensive because it is not scalable, and i'm questioning whether it is worth the cost. If the parent doesn't make enough to cover the childcare cost in their job, they can and should perform their own childcare duty. Parents that make more than their childcare cost would make the rational choice of paying for childcare, since they will still have excess money after paying. Or they can choose to do childcare themselves - as is their freedom and right. What i don't believe in is to have tax payers pay for the childcare. The high earning parent don't need it, and the low income earner is getting a huge benefit for little to no reward for the tax payer - and childcare doesnt get cheaper the more it is collectively paid.