Message from @Zayan Watchel
Discord ID: 493535078169968640
Maybe the thought was
They don't do it normally? If they don't, that's a social issue. The social order shouldn't be decided by the state.
"Wow, I can get paid to spend time with my family, I wish had children"
That is a perverse incentive.
People want to have children because of biology, why does the government need to help that?
I don't know what exactly the motivation was, I just know that it was a thing for the time, I think this was in the middle of the depression
People have children *right now* just fine, tax incentives or no.
Why does it need to exist? Are you supporting it? What I'm really getting at is *why* is this your view on the role of government.
Well, people have less kids now than ever before, but that's because we thought it was a good idea to let women have careers
It doesn't really *have* to exist, as for the actual implementation, to be quite honest, I don't really know. But it is something I would get behind if I was sure it would be feasible, if that answers your question, so yes.
And, as for why, because the state should foster a society that is family centered.
So if we're forcing people to pay for other people to go to the movies... no problem, none at all? If it doesn't have to exist, it shouldn't.
But *why* should the state do this.
I know all these "whys" sound redundant, but it's important, I'm trying to get right to the core here.
I wouldn't word it as "going to the movies"
Doing whatever then.
Paying people to spend time with their family is the goal anyway, the movie thing was just a generic example
I know. But why do they need additional incentive to do this? We have a biological drive to have kids. Just because we have less kids, doesn't mean it's a problem.
" If it doesn't have to exist, it shouldn't."
Monuments don't have to exist, but they do
People used to have LOTS of kids in the past, just saying we have less doesn't expose a problem.
I was speaking specifically about government incentives.
If women were not forced to be a part of the economy, then perhaps there wouldn't need to be one.
But I don't see why it's harmful to create a family driven society, to which the response would be "Well, in the past we had one without such programs," and we did, but things are different from then and now, because now you are much more independent from your family
But this surface level fascist thought is pointless to argue, *why is this your view on the role of government?*
Fascist thought is rooted in the idea that nationalism cannot exist without a strong government and a top down approach
That statement has a lot of truth to it
Get down to why.
Why do you want the world to be this way.
What you want on a society needs to be incentivised and what you don't want disincentivised. You cannot get people to do something without a top down approach. And if people make right choices themselves, then there would be no need for any debate ever.
Government's role is not to protect liberties, property and life and health. It is to issue directives and make people behave a certain way.
Lol some woke black man from Zimbabwe is trying to get me to show my face
show him your face
People should be free do to as they please and they should be protected by the state in their endeavours. Nothing top down necessary.
*alright class, pull out your copy of The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile*
*ehem*
"Whenever respect for the State declines and the disintegrating and centrifugal tendencies of individuals and groups prevail, nations are headed for decay"
So, basically, what you are arguing for Zayan is that government, which is run on tax dollars protect people's liberty. But there is no reason why a person who does not agree with a said liberty would want his tax paid dollars being used to protect that endeavor. The only way he would, then, is if he is forced. So, basically libertarianism is nothing but a government program to protect degeneracy.
left
to the right
ake me famous
yes @Draco
@everyone Daily Question 🔖
Do you prefer a more centralized government, or a more decentralized, local government?