Oh come on Amy! They're the ultimate lifestyle accessory. How can you get profiled on CNN if it's not "for the children!™"?

The issue is that many people no longer understand what the terms "personal responsibility" means.

I am not responsible to supervise, mentor, watch, protect, subsidize your child.

I am like the police -- I have the duty to protect the society in general but not protect you individually. I don't have the duty to support your choices.

The definition of freedom is to make choices for myself.

The definition of liberty is the freedom to support or not support your choices you have made.

When the government starting paying people to have children--through tax credits, welfare, assistance programs, child support, etc.--children became an entitlement. What used to be a responsibility one only chosen to take on if they had the money, means, desire, energy, and, yes, structure (a mom and a dad, boys and girls) has become yet another "but i want it and no one has the right to tell me I can't have it."

Or, to paraphrase my irresponsible sister who got knocked up by two different felons, "It's my life, leave me alone. Give me money, take care of my kids, and help me--but other than that's it's my business not yours so shut up and butt out."

What could possibly go wrong with such an attitude about parenting?

I can't even count how many times I have heard people say, 'But if you wait until you can afford children, then most people would never have them!'

Like that would be a bad thing.

My mom has admitted to me more than once that the reason she and Dad had us kids was because they never considered not having them. They never asked themselves that question. She said, 'That's the way people were back then.' They were smart enough to make sure they had their finances lined up first, but the 'IF' question was never asked - only the 'WHEN' question. That they made their decision in this way is even more baffling when you consider that they both came from unhappy families, and were not sources of joy for their own parents.

I could not afford any of my 4 on paper. Yet, here we are, doing just fine thanks, with no welfare. If we needed welfare, that'd be another story entirely. Of course, we'd be doing better were we not paying for so many other people's entitlements.

I'm confused. To my way of thinking, 'could not afford on paper' = 'needing welfare'. What is the difference between 'on paper' and 'off paper?'

Are you referring to those articles you read every now and then that say it costs umpteen hundred thousand dollars to raise a kid?

I completely agree that people should not have kids if they can't afford them, and by that definition I mean can't afford to do it without welfare. Every now and then some barking moonbat will complain, 'Are you saying poor people shouldn't have kids?' Well, in fact, YES. When you're 20 years old you are probably poor - I certainly was. I could barely support myself between two jobs at that age, let alone take care of a kid. I would have been on food stamps.

So if you want kids, have then when you're 30, and aren't poor anymore. It's nothing personal. I just don't accept the premise that any given poor person is going to stay that way.

But if you are having kids and getting welfare, you are creating a big drain on everyone, as momof4 points out. You're just making it that much harder for the people footing the bill for you to have the kids THEY might want. The ones popping out all the welfare kids don't feel the least bit ashamed of this. But then, these are the same people who think the government has "its own money."

I recently out of pure curiosity checked out the etymology of the word "effete". I was blown away to discover that it derives from "without fetus". And folks, that got me to thinking about demographics in a different way.

We have made crazy promises to ourselves about retirements and medical care that someone else will pay for later. Evidently as a culture we're perfectly willing to enslave our grandchildren to the task, but there's a hitch.

All the cool empowered people have discovered the free rider option implicit in social security ever since Bismarck invented it. Why devote one's precious time & resources to producing the next generations? Let someone else do that, and reap the benefits anyway. Who needs devoted productive children & grandchildren? We've got the State!

So - we need a plan B, and plan B is to import people to stand in for the Americans who for one reason and another did not get born. These people, the plan affirms, will work diligently to give us the income and medical care we crave in our dotage.

There is a maximum rate at which we can turn citizens of hellholes into Americans faster than they can turn America into a hellhole. Driven by the considerations above, we are currently importing such residents by whatever means convenient at a rate that is most likely higher than that maximum. So what do we get?

Shia, meet Sunni. Hutu, meet Tutsi. Darfuri, Janjaweed. Serb, Kosovar. I could go on, endlessly.

All that is required for such outcomes is a divergence of interests between cultures in contact. Having abandoned the melting pot, that divergence exists at the heart of Plan B.

Enjoy the effete Golden Age of WesCiv as much as you can. Quickly, too.

--
phunctor

Why devote one's precious time & resources to producing the next generations? Let someone else do that, and reap the benefits anyway.

Not exactly. If you belong to Generation X, you notice that "We have made crazy promises to ourselves about retirements and medical care that someone else will pay for later." You yourself are that "someone else." It's going to run out of money before you get there, and you have always known that.

So you have 30% of your earnings taken away before you even see it, to be immediately paid out to the previous generation, paying for their 25 years of loafing, their heart transplants, bailing out their pensions, etc. (Oh, and let's not forget, a few wars.) With what's left, you cover your immediate needs and attempt futilely to provide for your own old age, knowing it's entirely up to you. Who can afford kids of their own at that point? Many people can't cover all of these burdens and have kids of their own without being on welfare. The ones who care about not being on welfare (either now or in the future) opt not to have kids. I'm not talking about the tiny percentage of highly-paid engineers and doctors, here - I mean the majority of people, who might make $40K a year.

But it isn't the strategy of being a free rider, it's the strategy of someone desperate NOT to be one.

Phunctor, I'm finding your theory very interesting. But this has me scratching my head:

Driven by the considerations above, we are currently importing such residents by whatever means convenient at a rate that is most likely higher than that maximum. So what do we get?

Shia, meet Sunni. Hutu, meet Tutsi. Darfuri, Janjaweed. Serb, Kosovar.

These were invasions, not a domestic group of people inviting a group of outsiders to come in, labor, pay taxes, and support the local entitlement programs.

I get really angry when I see people with kids they can't afford, yet they have more and more because they want them and feel it's a right. I want kids, five of them actually. Unfortunately, my wallet can only afford one or two sufficiently for the time being, which means I shouldn't be trying for all those extra ones I want until I have more money. I don't know why other people refuse to be as responsible!

people with kids they can't afford, yet they have more and more because they want them and feel it's a right.

Further, some of these people consider them "gifts from God." As in, God has blessed us so much, we can't afford to feed you anymore.

I don't know why other people refuse to be as responsible!

It's because they don't have to be.

What would it take to make them "have to be?" If you can face the solution to that problem without flinching, you are in the minority.

But it isn't the strategy of being a free rider, it's the strategy of someone desperate NOT to be one.

We inherited a rich and dynamic culture that had replicated itself (with needed changes) generation to generation, since the Founding. It's been clear for a while that as a culture we have taken some unsustainable turns, but until recently most of us just stuck to our knitting and didn't make a fuss.

30 years ago, it was my duty to recognize Carter for what he was and to stand up in eternal enmity against everything he represented - and I didn't do it. I'm ashamed of my apathy when I look at my kids and grandkids, and consider their lives to be. You?

Or is the point that if you don't have any offspring, it's OK to let the cultural commons run to toxic weeds? What if it's not having any that does that?

--
phunctor

It's been clear for a while that as a culture we have taken some unsustainable turns, but until recently most of us just stuck to our knitting and didn't make a fuss.

So I've noticed.

Or is the point that if you don't have any offspring, it's OK to let the cultural commons run to toxic weeds?

It's never okay to let the cultural commons run to toxic weeds. Of course I'm barely restraining the urge right now to diverge into just how big the "cultural commons" is, or ought to be, and what exactly it should consist of.

But I'm going to keep it all inside! We have people who contribute to the commons and those who drain from it. The point is to not be a person who drains from it. If you can't have children without being a drain on it, then don't have children.

What if it's not having any that does that?

Oh, I see ... if you CAN afford to have children, and still contribute to the commons, or at least not be a drain on it, do you have an obligation to have children? If that is the case, then the cultural commons is not worth having.

Thanks for your interest, PirateJo. I was myself surprised by the synthesis, the themes just wove themselves together spontaneously.

As far as I know 3 of the 4 pairs of antagonistic groups were before their genocidal exercises geographically intermixed. The Janjaweed and Darfuri, not so much. If I'm mistaken in these beliefs I welcome correction.

But if I'm not we should really be a little bit afraid of identity politics. OK, a lot.

Once we had a self-confident culture. From the beginning, an American was something you could become, that you were encouraged to become, that to the extent possible you were required to become. And that becoming was the magic elixir that allowed us to absorb wave on wave of immigrants, becoming ourselves culturally richer each time.

Is there Wahhabi money behind the multi-culti deconstruction of our cultural competence? Cui bono is a very weak inference tool, but it does suggest intriguing hypotheses.

Re your challenge: Re-privatize charity. I may choose to give to Armenians or Arminians. My extended phenotype (an interesting way to look at money), my choice. My giving will be contingent. Don't like my requirements? Don't take my charity. Don't like anyone's requirements? Starve. OK, we got there, challenge accepted.

--
phunctor

You know, phunctor, when I look at "commons" programs like Social Security and Medicare, it occurs to me that these are really not "commons" programs at all, but programs which take away from one group and give to another.

In a truly "commons" program, everyone would contribute, and everyone would drain. Every member would be both a contributor and a drain, or a net zero. The program itself only exists to serve its members - ALL of them. With no members, why would we care? Let's not pretend that these entities exist for some other, noble purpose of their own.

"I'm confused. To my way of thinking, 'could not afford on paper' = 'needing welfare'. What is the difference between 'on paper' and 'off paper?'"

It means had you looked at my balance sheet, there was no extra money before any of the kids. And yet, we have a roof over our head and food in our pantry and clothes etc etc. All without any more of other people's money than all of society gets via public education and child tax breaks. It means priorities and spending change to open up money off-paper that you would not see on it.

Oh, I see ... if you CAN afford to have children, and still contribute to the commons, or at least not be a drain on it, do you have an obligation to have children? If that is the case, then the cultural commons is not worth having.

The meme pool that is a living culture exists in a physical medium, the living subscribers to that culture. No subscribers, no culture.

In principle, people could specialize in their cultural contributions, some renewing substrate and others maintaining the meme pool, and still be considered net contributors. But I don't think any culture can afford non-replacement demographics.

I know you're hearing "barefoot and pregnant". To the extent you're right, I sympathize. Better Sharia than any hint of that.

Just as a thought experiment, what if renewing the cultural substrate really was part of what is on average owed to a culture by those who enjoy its benefits? Does biological asymmetry automatically make any such proposition a tool of the patriarchy resurgent?

All rhetoric aside, a culture that doesn't replicate ceases to exist, independently of our feelings about how things ought to work.

--
phunctor

But not every single member of a culture needs to replicate in order to keep the culture going. Leave that to those who 1) can afford to, and 2) want to. Those who do not have their own offspring to mange have more time and resources to shovel the snow off their neighbor's sidewalk.

In our world, at this point in history, can you honestly say that the way to make life sustainable for humanity is by adding to its numbers, or by taking care of the ones who are already here? How many people do you think the world needs? Applying the laws of supply and demand, which apply to human beings whether you like it or not, I would say supply is far outstripping demand.

Any kind of 'cultural substrate' that requires *increasing* numbers to support itself would by definition be a pyramid scheme.

Oh, but what if we were down to the last TWELVE PEOPLE ON EARTH??? There are science fiction novels that I'm sure address this scenario.

Well of course coercion-based entities like Social Security & Medicare, structurally incapable of required bankruptcy, are rubbish.

No, the cultural commons I spoke of live more in obsolete documents, now requiring warning labels.

I have an idiosyncratic reading of the Declaration of Independence.

"2+2=4" is self-evident. "Endowed by ?WHO? with ?WHAT?" is not. The textual claim of self-evidence actually just promotes the claim to the status of an axiom, above discussion. Or equivalently, an offer to go to war over the issue.

This axiom has lead to useful and interesting politics. Let's keep it.

And thank you PirateJo, this is an interesting way to spend a Saturday afternoon when it's too muggy out.

--
phunctor

Well of course coercion-based entities like Social Security & Medicare, structurally incapable of required bankruptcy, are rubbish.

No, the cultural commons I spoke of live more in obsolete documents, now requiring warning labels.

I have an idiosyncratic reading of the Declaration of Independence.

"2+2=4" is self-evident. "Endowed by ?WHO? with ?WHAT?" is not. The textual claim of self-evidence actually just promotes the claim to the status of an axiom, above discussion. Or equivalently, an offer to go to war over the issue.

This axiom has lead to useful and interesting politics. Let's keep it.

And thank you PirateJo, this is an interesting way to spend a Saturday afternoon when it's too muggy out.

--
phunctor

Ah crap, sorry for double post. Phone.

Phunctor, where do you live? It's muggy as hell here in Iowa, too. You don't even have to work up a sweat - it simply coalesces on your skin, like capricious goo, as soon as you step outside.

Yep, a friend of mine said that "rights endowed by our creator" implied that we arrived upon birth with a list of rights stapled to our shirt sleeve. Yet this whole idea of a creator was thought up by people, and so was the idea of "rights." It's entirely man-made.

Momof4, your "on paper" analysis just means that you did not have a heap of balance sheet assets set up to take care of your kids before you had them - the means was assumed through projected earnings. There is some risk there - the earnings required to support four kids are substantial, but if you can keep the merry-go-round going, more power to you. And there is risk implicit in the accumulation of balance-sheet assets, too. Ask anyone whose 401K melted away in 2008.

You mention public education and child tax breaks, so I suppose people will want to get started arguing about that. Just not me!

"Those who do not have their own offspring to mange have more time and resources to shovel the snow off their neighbor's sidewalk."

Yep. But do you? The people most likely to give up their seats on a bus (a decent stand-in for generic helping-your-neighbor acts) are moms with young kids. I'm not saying all people should have kids-yee gods far from it-but just say you don't want them. Don't try and pass it off as a desire to help others more. No one really cares how altruistic you look.

Welfare definately needs to be made much, much less attractive. Those are the last people who need to be breeding more. Although, I'm sure I've read studies that show starvation actually ups fertility-which seems very odd from an evolutionary standpoint.

History does show over and over that the barbarian masses win out over the educated elite everytime. I tremble for what's in store for us.

just say you don't want them [children]. Don't try and pass it off as a desire to help others more. No one really cares how altruistic you look.

No, I'm not saying that at all! For that matter, point to people who *have* kids, and ask *them* whether they are doing it to help others. If we practice rational self-interest, we either have kids or not based on whether it makes us happy and satisfied with our lives. Nobody is having kids to produce future United Way volunteers, and most people who *don't* have kids aren't doing it so they can go BE volunteers. Let's just leave this nonsense along the wayside, where it belongs. Whether you have kids or not, can we please just dispense with this blather about making our choices for the good of humanity? You're not fooling anyone!

Research has shown that the happiest people are those who get what they want. Those who want kids and have them are happy; those who want kids and don't get them, have to adjust. Those who don't want kids and don't want them are happy; those who don't want them and have them by accident, have to adjust.

I am not pretending any kind of moral advantage on either side; we're all just selfish bastards, trying to enjoy the lives we want. But the question is, do you do this at the expense of someone else? If the answer is no, then you have no apologies to make to anyone, regardless of your choices.

My view of raising kids is one cuts luxury spending as needed to get by. The US culture now views luxury items as necessities and 'normal' family expenses tend to center around a lot of them.

IMO, TV will always be a luxury, but if you disagree, you can almost always find someone you know who has a small, old one to give away. You need not spend thousands on a large screen.

In today's society, it might be said a computer is needed for education of young people growing up in a computerized society. Folks spend a couple thousand dollars for something. At times, one can find give-aways for free. If all you find free is an old Win 98 system, take it, go to Wal-mart online, and order a $278 e-machine, plug in your old monitor; speakers; and keyboard, and you can do what most folks do with their two thousand dollar machine. At least I can. (I wish I had that sucker now, it is far more powerful than what I have, and I do photo-editing with these. Linux rocks.)

I knew a man back in the Midwest with a large family. He found a farmer who bought another farm,, wanted the house kept up, but didn't want to be bothered with it, so he rented it to Arnie on the condition Arnie took care of it. Rent ran a fraction of usual rents, and Arnie was handy so the repairs and maintenance were not expensive.

They drove ten year old cars which Arnie kept up.

They had a large garden and the kids helped out. Also, the kids could run on the farm after they learned not to harm the crops. For those who never lived in the country, running on the farm beats running on the street.

Obviously if you live some places, such opportunities aren't there, but one can move.

In my generations, mobile home parks were the answer. I have heard that those environments are changed by the large numbers of illegals everywhere, I don't personally know.

It also used to be in the Midwest one could rent space on farms and put up a mobile home, often on the premises of an unattended farm, to protect the machinery etc.

It is still possible to "cook from scratch" at modest cost. Things like crock-pots make cheap meat edible, and if kids aren't spoiled, they don't need expensive yummy-yummies all the time.

So, I can see how momof4 can feed and raise 4 on much less than usual figures show.

Phunctor is right of course.

Let's list what the various alternatives are,
specifically for any Western Civilization country:

1) Non-replacement fertility, and nowhere near sufficient immigration to make up for it.
Result: Declining population. But long before the decline is by itself precipitous, the forced intergenerational transfer schemes, like Social Security and its Euro equivalents, will collapse.

2) Non-replacement fertility, made up for by large immigration.
Result: Best case, the new immigrants who do NOT have parents in-country, will vote away Social Security etc. Worst case, takeover of non-Western, possibly Muslim, civilization. I hope everybody is OK with clitorectomies, forced marriages, women held as reproductive slaves to produce soldiers for Allah etc.....

3) Native fertility mostly or largely implemented by welfare cases.
Result: Non-sustainable soon enough, as the welfare mode of life becomes dominant. It is irrelevant whether the life-style is _learned_ from parents (read, mostly, the mother) or is in some part genetic. Either way, civilization collapses.

It is also grossly inequitable to the forced payors, the taxpaying schmoes.

4) Native fertility mostly produced by people who (mostly) pay their own way.
Result: Sustainable.

Now, on balance, it is clear, at least to me, that
the last alternative is vastly to be preferred.

Let's see how we would tailor public policy to make it happen (remember, on average, incentives count):

Clearly, the route should be massive tax breaks for having children (but NOT "refundable" taxes, i.e. where the government pays the taxpayer if the calculations result in a negative tax). Add in abolition of sales tax for related items, such as diapers, children's clothing etc.
But cut WAY down on the whole list of welfare, cash payments, EITC (Earned Income Tax Credits) that are "refundable" as per above, food stamps, WIC etc. ad nauseam.

Funny, this is somewhat similar to what the US looked like in the 1950s! And it worked out fairly well!

Enforcer

PIrate Jo mentioned public education - which I will support when is really about education and not the ideology of what ever burecrats in fed, state, local governments and school boards.

My high school validictorian wrote a historical paper on Pocohantas and I swear to god the only source material she used was the disney movie.

As for welfare? First off it should be illegal for gas stations to accept food stamps - why the fuck are welfare recipients paying three times as much for a bag of potato chips or gallon of milk as they would in the store?

You want welfare? The welfare aggents helps you pack, all high end re sellable items are given to a consignment store and their value is added to your account - once that runs out you'll start geting you governent check. In the mean time your new home is not a private appartment - reopen some of theose closed bases and use the barracks - if its good enough for the people risking their lives on your behalf its good enough for you

Why do you think I'm buying gold and silver in quantity.

I think we are so hosed.

Gold and silver will ony work assuming society doesnt colapse.

Or are you one of those people who acctually own gold, and not just an account number witha company that tells you you do?

If you haven't had children yet please consider planning for no more than two children. If you already have kids please consider educating yourself, your kids and the people in your life about population issues.

Current Population:
http://tinyurl.com/currentpopulation
6.9 billion people

World fertility rate for population replacement:
2.33 children per woman

According to the United Nations, the global population could be as high as 11 billion in 2050 or as low as 8 billion, if the right programs are put in place now.

heh, a nice hard question, but telling...
do we as a society need to replace ourselves? If you as an individual, answer yes, then you figure out a way to do it. Like momof4 and many others have. Naturally momof4 has had the 2 that Amy never will, so on balance it has worked out. The difficulty comes when you have an educated society where lots of individuals make individual decisions that amount to not caring if society goes on, though we never thing of it that way.

It's more like why would I have kids when they will just complicate my life? It is essentially a non answerable question. Some people simply have them because they feel they should, and hopefully that is enough to make up for those that don't.
The big however. In days past, even that decision to have your own, carried with it the responsibility to raise them. even if that extended to family, that was it. momof4 does what she has to do to make it work with 4 kids. It was tough, but also her call, because she isn't tasking anyone else. I know many people that piss and moan when they can't give every kid their own bedroom, or whatever. Yeah? When I was a kid we shared rooms. Younger kids got the hand me downs, untill they were worn out.

A lot of people now COULD afford to have kids on less if they were willing to live on less. But that demands that you look inward. If you need to have a new car every 3 years, or constant vacations, you prolly will never afford kids unless you are consistantly getting raises year on year. But you COULD economize.

The question is not can you AFFORD them, but are you willing to do what is necessary to do so. In an entitlement mindset this is a difficult thing.

*****You mention public education and child tax breaks, so I suppose people will want to get started arguing about that. Just not me!*****

Oh, I will. There should be NO TAX CREDITS FOR BREEDING. You want them, YOU pay for them. THIS member of the village is so over it right now. In addition, I'd LOVE to see the end of welfare. Let private charities take care of it.

I'm REALLY tired of the "it takes a village" mentality that really means they want the village's money, but God forbid you comment on any shitty parenting you see. You can't have it both ways, people. If I'm paying to support your kid, then I should be able to give you the stink eye and a nasty comment when said kid is running rampant all over the restaurant.

I know, it will never happen.

A lot of people now COULD afford to have kids on less if they were willing to live on less. But that demands that you look inward.

And sometimes people look inward, and then decide, 'What was I thinking? Why would I want a screaming, leaky creature living in my house instead of taking a cruise every year?' If you aren't willing to give up certain luxuries and live on less, that doesn't necessarily mean you haven't looked inward. Maybe it just means you don't really want kids that bad.

There should be NO TAX CREDITS FOR BREEDING.

Agreed. As for public education, I think schools should work the same way grocery stories do. They should be privately run, and it should be assumed that parents pay for the education of their own kids, just as parents are expected to feed their own kids. However, just as we have food stamps to keep people from starving, we could have educational vouchers to make sure the children of really poor people get a basic education.

As a non breeder I am willing to help pay for public education. Its an investment in the fture of society.
But I'd like to see it restructured.

Free education until the 8th grade.

If you have the grades to continue free education until grade 12.

If you dont either you parents cover all costs from that time forward - no exceptions what so ever / or you get a job or jon a job training program. We will always need janitors and repair people

At the end of grade 12 if you've got the grades you can get grants or scholarships for college. Otherwise pay the bills your self, get a job, join a trade pogram ect.