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

It's harmful because it violates the liberty of employers.

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?

centralized

No gods or kings, only man.

Depends on the country.

decentralized

yeah i mean if its a federal republic decentrilized works best

no u

Decentralized