Have the father pay the state for the cost he put on society by supporting the mother or something, don't give benefits to the mother so she and her family has to support the child

Well National Socialism is my faith and ideology so I look at things through those lenses, what is most beneficial for our race.

If they get married, have neither of those happen, perhaps give support to the new parents

Right outside of Orwells old home.

There's a case to be made that disincentivizing that would be most beneficial to our race by having healthier people growing in it

>Have the father pay the state for the cost he put on society by supporting the mother or something
Uh...I dunno how to put this...we already have it...pretty much

Really tells you something about his books, he was right.

I know. That's why I said the current child support laws aren't bad in theory

@John Mosby is war ever lawful?

@Vice Commander Hunt

Of course...

What does war have to do with it, though?

So your suggestion is incentivizing marriage by making so that you don't have to pay for child support in marriage? How's that working, right now? @Arcturus

@John Mosby It has a fresh flag anyway

@Kombat-Unit don't have to pay for child support plus the woman wouldn't have to support the child herself. If there's no welfare for the mom, she's going to try a lot harder to make it work.

Now there's not as much drive as she'll be supported either way

It's a shame Vlams Blook moderated the way they did

I'd bet the father would try harder too if his kid might literally be starving.

That's libertarian as fuck.

yeah we need to support parents above all else

Natural eugenics, suppose it's libertarian in a way

Meh

ONly good eugenics are eugenics that dont make kids suffer

That's just fucked up

I don't care for starving kids

I'm more interested in protecting the children than punishing the parents

I'd offer that you could just put the kids up for adoption too

Given the choice, there isn't much to say

Plenty of families would want them

Adoption is very detrimental to kids...kids need to be with their parents, at all costs.

@John Mosby How bout removing them from abusive parents?

You should know better than most that money doesn't equal genetics, nigga you dumb. You have poor whites suffering in South Africa and rich kikes and nogs in America, which would you target for eugenics.

Nigga you confused.

Remind me again what the second part of our Party slogan was?

Well those kikes and nogs wouldn't be here in that scenario.

@ac

Obviously if the parents are abusive, then that is a different matter.

I am just saying that kids shouldn't be given up for adoption, over financial matters, no matter what.

Oh right, Family

Also taking the gibs away from kids who have been deprived of their father and giving it to kids who already have two parents providing for them would just victimize the wrong person in this equation.

Even poor Families or ones that make mistakes

The nuclear family is the core of a society and must be protected at all costs

I'm not saying gas all poor whites dude. I'm saying that enabling thots to be thots is a bad idea. If they have no repercussions to their actions they're gonna be thots

So incentivize both parties to get married. If it really came to it, her parents would likely support the kid too.

Fathers who don't marry the women they impregnate should be treated as social pariahs. This essentially creates a societal "shotgun" wedding.