2 ms·

It's a hard question and we have to look at how we got here. Before 1955 or so, we weren't having this problem, for example. We had other problems, yes, but not

It's a hard question and we have to look at how we got here. Before 1955 or so, we weren't having this problem, for example. We had other problems, yes, but not this disaster. Not so many people were clients of the state. But for starters at a high level: - Dismantle any form of welfare; money, food stamps, housing, etc. for anyone of able mind and body and of working age. Children will never be an input for how much welfare you receive so there is no incentive to have kids. Possibly even penalize welfare based on number of kids. - As a consequence of this, fire most of the welfare administration nationwide - Build a new Citizen Development Force that takes on children from mothers that can't raise them without benefits. Any mother can drop their kid(s) off here but the mother then loses any rights to the child. These are large camps around the country that offer among the best salaries to qualified care takers, teachers, mentors, etc. Each function has aggressive KPIs (to go with the high salaries) and audits to ensure successful outcomes. There are checks and controls to prevent any type of abuse. - Citizen Development Force has a mission to nurture, raise, teach, and grow these kids into self sufficient, responsible adults. The top 30% are sent to universities or put into military leadership positions (officers). The rest are taught trades/technical/enlisted after 15 years of age based on their interests and aptitudes. Those with learning disabilities become clients of the state for life. Ideally, after about 20-30 years this program can begin to be shut down and the funds can be redistributed to finance new social problems. The idea is to break the cycle.

em-bee 4y ago
please tell me you are joking. you want to punish people for having kids? do you think parents are going to give up their children willingly? what you are suggesting sounds like brave new world. that's a horrible vision. children growing up without their own parents is only going to make things worse. i do not believe that any form of institution is going to be more capable to raise children than natural parents. your ideas work under the assumption that these parents are not capable of raising their kids. but that is not true, and that is not the problem. the problem is that they have to raise their kids and make a living in an environment that is not supportive. pretty much any other country in the world is more supportive than the USA. the big factor that you are missing is that we don't know if those children will be capable to have families of their own. my prediction is that they won't be because they didn't grow up in a family themselves. so this system will have to continue in perpetuity because the children of these people will also have to be raised in these institutions, and more parents are going to send kids to these institutions than parents from there who will be able to raise kids on their own. it's going to create a cycle that will end in a dystopia. i was still with you when you said to disincentivize single parenting, but i thought you wanted to support families. you said it yourself: The #1 factor in determining if a kid will have a desired outcome is if they have a mom and a dad present. what you are suggesting here is quite the opposite. children in institutions is not children with parents. it smacks of hubris and arrogance. the assumption that normal people should be able to take good care of their kids without help and anyone who isn't is simply incapable and should not have had kids in the first place. that you know better than they do, and they should just submit to your authority. brave new world indeed. (UPDATED)
- nemo44x 4y ago
  > do you think parents are going to give up their children willingly? No, they won't want to lose their kids. But if they have no means to support them then they will. So because they aren't receiving any financial assistance for shelter, food, and clothing then they will rely on having a partner. We have now incentivized that type of behavior. Failing that, if they can't provide a safe environment for their kids then we will take the kids out of the home. We do this today. We could altar the civil rights act to include children in these situations. > children growing up without their own parents is only going to make things worse. Adopted kids do great. It's about structure and predictability. > your ideas work under the assumption that these parents are not capable of raising their kids. Correct. All the evidence says they are not capable. > the problem is that they have to raise their kids and make a living in an environment that is not supportive. Correct - as stated above we incentivize them to create a supportive environment or we will create one for their kids. > the big factor that you are missing is that we don't know if those children will be capable to have families of their own. We will teach them how. They will be so removed from their environment of shattering poverty, drugs, abuse, etc. They won't even recognize that world and will be disgusted by it. They will learn how to be productive people that can not only take care of themselves but can care for others. These are learned behaviors. One of the reasons we have generational poverty is because bad habits are passed down. The cycle never gets broken. > children in institutions is not children with parents. Institutions are a surrogate. > it smacks of hubris and arrogance. the assumption that people should be able to take good care of their kids without help and anyone who isn't is simply incapable and should not have had kids in the first place. that you know better than they do, and they should just submit to your authority. Or we can continue to double down on the same bad ideas we've been trying for the last 60 or 70 years. Talk about hubris and arrogance! The main difference is I'm actually trying to help the kids. Not create government dependent parents that will vote for me because I get scraps sent their way.
  - archagon 4y ago
    This is the same kind of thinking that lead to the abduction of Native kids, forced sterilizations, etc.: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/10/14/20913408/us-stole-thousands-of-native-american-children https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/10/14/20913408/us-stol...

em-bee 4y ago

please tell me you are joking. you want to punish people for having kids? do you think parents are going to give up their children willingly? what you are suggesting sounds like brave new world. that's a horrible vision. children growing up without their own parents is only going to make things worse. i do not believe that any form of institution is going to be more capable to raise children than natural parents. your ideas work under the assumption that these parents are not capable of raising their kids. but that is not true, and that is not the problem. the problem is that they have to raise their kids and make a living in an environment that is not supportive. pretty much any other country in the world is more supportive than the USA. the big factor that you are missing is that we don't know if those children will be capable to have families of their own. my prediction is that they won't be because they didn't grow up in a family themselves. so this system will have to continue in perpetuity because the children of these people will also have to be raised in these institutions, and more parents are going to send kids to these institutions than parents from there who will be able to raise kids on their own. it's going to create a cycle that will end in a dystopia. i was still with you when you said to disincentivize single parenting, but i thought you wanted to support families. you said it yourself: The #1 factor in determining if a kid will have a desired outcome is if they have a mom and a dad present. what you are suggesting here is quite the opposite. children in institutions is not children with parents. it smacks of hubris and arrogance. the assumption that normal people should be able to take good care of their kids without help and anyone who isn't is simply incapable and should not have had kids in the first place. that you know better than they do, and they should just submit to your authority. brave new world indeed. (UPDATED)

nemo44x 4y ago
> do you think parents are going to give up their children willingly? No, they won't want to lose their kids. But if they have no means to support them then they will. So because they aren't receiving any financial assistance for shelter, food, and clothing then they will rely on having a partner. We have now incentivized that type of behavior. Failing that, if they can't provide a safe environment for their kids then we will take the kids out of the home. We do this today. We could altar the civil rights act to include children in these situations. > children growing up without their own parents is only going to make things worse. Adopted kids do great. It's about structure and predictability. > your ideas work under the assumption that these parents are not capable of raising their kids. Correct. All the evidence says they are not capable. > the problem is that they have to raise their kids and make a living in an environment that is not supportive. Correct - as stated above we incentivize them to create a supportive environment or we will create one for their kids. > the big factor that you are missing is that we don't know if those children will be capable to have families of their own. We will teach them how. They will be so removed from their environment of shattering poverty, drugs, abuse, etc. They won't even recognize that world and will be disgusted by it. They will learn how to be productive people that can not only take care of themselves but can care for others. These are learned behaviors. One of the reasons we have generational poverty is because bad habits are passed down. The cycle never gets broken. > children in institutions is not children with parents. Institutions are a surrogate. > it smacks of hubris and arrogance. the assumption that people should be able to take good care of their kids without help and anyone who isn't is simply incapable and should not have had kids in the first place. that you know better than they do, and they should just submit to your authority. Or we can continue to double down on the same bad ideas we've been trying for the last 60 or 70 years. Talk about hubris and arrogance! The main difference is I'm actually trying to help the kids. Not create government dependent parents that will vote for me because I get scraps sent their way.
- archagon 4y ago
  This is the same kind of thinking that lead to the abduction of Native kids, forced sterilizations, etc.: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/10/14/20913408/us-stole-thousands-of-native-american-children https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/10/14/20913408/us-stol...