- Joined
- Jan 5, 2020
I'm not "defensive", I respond because it is an opportunity for good debate.
Main issue here is some of your "reframing" approach. You are attempting to take some factual details (that I receive government assistance) that are accurate and twist them into theories that are inaccurate.
Firstly, I disagree with your theory that you have to like "daddy" to eat from his table. A child, who cannot control the house they are put into, does not have to like their "daddy" in order to eat from his table. Eating from his table is a matter of survival. Would you tell a child to starve herself and not eat from their "daddy"'s table because their dad is bad?
An adult person living in the United States is much like a child at a table that they did not build. I did not build the United States. I was born into the system. I don't have to agree with, like, or support the system in order to be entitled to gather the resources I need to survive within it. IE I don't have to self annihilate just because I don't agree to the social contract of laissez-faire capitalism.
While there may have been people in the past who have been on the outskirts of society, living in meadows, the woods, etc, this is not a possibility in 2020. As I mentioned before on this thread, all of land is bought up by governments. You cannot function outside of their grids, rules, and laws. In fact, most governments have made it illegal to live without electricity and constructed houses with children.
Second inaccuracy you have is that I "can't support myself without handouts". I hold a Bachelor's degree and a not for profit small business. I can support myself and my children. However, what I can't do in a capitalistic grid is get enough paper currency ("money") while homeschooling. Once you don't use public schools, you require a government bailout to operate because having children in capitalism requires a loss of wages. I think most of the USA is learning that lesson with Corona. Ironic!
Anyhow, it is a demonic system because any system in which having children requires the parents to incur a financial loss, is corrupt.
Those who are working in public policy in the US - Congress, those with economic degrees, law makers, etc - know that parents incur a loss and those same law makers don't all agree on Capitalism. A country's leaders have a vested interest in the birth and growth of children to grow their populace. This is why they seek to help finances families. The need for the birth rate to maintain steady is what makes mothers who birth an ASSET to a country, not a "parasite". This is also why they transfer money through taxes from corporations and other citizens to families who have children. The families with children are more valuable to the government: they keep the nation growing.
This is also why they are looking the other way while 11 million illegal immigrants run the border. Because the American (USA) birth rate had fallen under 2 births per women. American women prefer how they look in a bikini over having many children. American (USA) men care more about how women look in a bikini than the women bearing children, so in order to get praise, attention, and feel valuable, American women take selfies in bikinis and this reinforces the social contract that body image is more important than birth count.
