3 ms·

Two points. The first is that harm reduction is what I want, but not necessarily what the state wants or what others want. Many want the state to promote stabil

Two points. The first is that harm reduction is what I want, but not necessarily what the state wants or what others want. Many want the state to promote stability, even if the world made stable involves a lot of harm. Objectively, a primary motive of the state is to maintain itself, since if it didn’t maintain itself it wouldn’t exist. Harm reduction is something the state has to be pushed and dragged into doing and there isn’t enough will to do so imo. The second point is that what you’re asking for may cause more harm than it prevents by putting us one step away from a eugenics policy. Deliberate suppression of minority populations could (and would) be done by subtly adjusting the criteria people would need to meet to be approved for having children without the majority of the population taking notice. I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea if it had no misuse, but I’m certain it would be misused. Just give parents money.

anonym29 2y ago
I want to clarify that I'm bouncing around policy ideas here, not making impassioned calls for specific policy positions. Your concerns about state-sanctioned racialization / eugenics are certainly valid and historically supported. I'd answer your call to give parents money with a question though - what money? The US, at the federal level, already spends trillions more than it collects each year, and now over a trillion dollars a year on interest payments, too. I don't believe we can just keep borrowing to infinity, consequence-free forever. It also raises a question of needs prioritization. Do parents need that help more than homeless people do? What about bright but underserved kids from urban communities who might have the cognitive horsepower to become doctors but lack the financial means? What about foreigners living in far worse conditions than what we consider "poverty" here, like child slaves forced to mine toxic rare earth minerals in Africa?
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  I would argue that money to reduce child poverty and deprivation is one of the best, highest priority uses of money because it preempts many of the other issues that develop later as a consequence of material deprivation, lack of opportunity etc. In terms of affordability, I believe the covid child tax credit cost about 100 billion and achieved marked results. 100 billion isn’t a small deal, but if we raised taxes by 1-2% on households making around 200k+ it would cover it, which seems entirely worth it.

anonym29 2y ago

I want to clarify that I'm bouncing around policy ideas here, not making impassioned calls for specific policy positions. Your concerns about state-sanctioned racialization / eugenics are certainly valid and historically supported. I'd answer your call to give parents money with a question though - what money? The US, at the federal level, already spends trillions more than it collects each year, and now over a trillion dollars a year on interest payments, too. I don't believe we can just keep borrowing to infinity, consequence-free forever. It also raises a question of needs prioritization. Do parents need that help more than homeless people do? What about bright but underserved kids from urban communities who might have the cognitive horsepower to become doctors but lack the financial means? What about foreigners living in far worse conditions than what we consider "poverty" here, like child slaves forced to mine toxic rare earth minerals in Africa?

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
I would argue that money to reduce child poverty and deprivation is one of the best, highest priority uses of money because it preempts many of the other issues that develop later as a consequence of material deprivation, lack of opportunity etc. In terms of affordability, I believe the covid child tax credit cost about 100 billion and achieved marked results. 100 billion isn’t a small deal, but if we raised taxes by 1-2% on households making around 200k+ it would cover it, which seems entirely worth it.