3 ms·
> That's right, pathologically selfish and dangerously anti-social "libertarians" who think that only the richest of the rich should even consider having childr
by wolfgke 13y ago
> That's right, pathologically selfish and dangerously anti-social "libertarians" who think that only the richest of the rich should even consider having children in the first place.
Libertarians would never come up with the idea that only the richest should be allowed since this would be a deprivation of freedom (which libertarians appreciate).
I didn't they that only the richest people should have children. I only claim that it is irresponsible to produce children if you don't have enough financial security: both for the expenses and for the fact that the child will suffer from the poverty.
- alexqgb 13y agoSorry dude, but you very specifically said that parents need to be "100% certain" that they can provide for their kids until their kids can provide for themselves. In America, that standard means one thing and one thing only: the richest of the rich. Also, it doesn't take much education to become aware of this country's long and unbroken history of race-based brutality (slavery, Jim Crow, and the War on Drugs to say nothing of the outright genocide inflicted on Native Americans). Nor do you have to be exceptionally thoughtful to recognize the resulting correlations between race and poverty that persist today. And given how deeply engrained these problems have become, saying "poor people simply shouldn't reproduce" is tantamount to insisting that entire races suddenly give up on themselves in a sweeping acts of self-destruction. Which, yeah, right. Maybe go fuck yourself? There's another, far more decent response to systematically denigrated people who struggle mightily to raise their kids: you help them.