Should there be a limit to the amount of kids you can have?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
In a fictional, fascist system, one could possibly imagine that these children be taken into orphanages. Well funded ones where they can get decent education. Parents should then be penalized by removal of government benefits or taxed/fined.

At a certain age, however, if these children aren't yet adopted, they will be then taken in by the military to be trained and pressed into service rather than let go and be a burden to the system. This could justify some of the cost.

Of course, the idea is cruel and harsh and not something I'd be able to get behind. Just spitballing here.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
In a fictional, fascist system, one could possibly imagine that these children be taken into orphanages. Well funded ones where they can get decent education. Parents should then be penalized by removal of government benefits or taxed/fined.

At a certain age, however, if these children aren't yet adopted, they will be then taken in by the military to be trained and pressed into service rather than let go and be a burden to the system. This could justify some of the cost.

Of course, the idea is cruel and harsh and not something I'd be able to get behind. Just spitballing here.

I understand you're saying in a fictional scenario but no one's taking into account the mental state of these children.
They will be institutionalised in the way they think & associate in society.
A lot will be emotionally imbalanced from not understanding why they were taken away at birth & will be seen as 2nd class citizens.
Will they be allowed to know their birth parents?
Will they be classified as "fodder" if war breaks out?
How are they expected to assimilate back into society once they reach legal adult age?
I think this scenario will breed more hatred against society than is warranted.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I understand you're saying in a fictional scenario but no one's taking into account the mental state of these children.
They will be institutionalised in the way they think & associate in society.
A lot will be emotionally imbalanced from not understanding why they were taken away at birth & will be seen as 2nd class citizens.
Will they be allowed to know their birth parents?
Will they be classified as "fodder" if war breaks out?
How are they expected to assimilate back into society once they reach legal adult age?
I think this scenario will breed more hatred against society than is warranted.

how about you get substantially less support for each subsequent child after three.

There should be a limit only for overpopulated places. Most countries from North America and Europe do not have this problem. In fact, it's the opposite. Most European countries have a problem where there are more older people than young people. Too many are using contraceptives and/or having buttsex.

Originally posted by Astner
What if no foster family is available?

How do you not know about this?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I understand you're saying in a fictional scenario but no one's taking into account the mental state of these children.
They will be institutionalised in the way they think & associate in society.
A lot will be emotionally imbalanced from not understanding why they were taken away at birth & will be seen as 2nd class citizens.
Will they be allowed to know their birth parents?
Will they be classified as "fodder" if war breaks out?
How are they expected to assimilate back into society once they reach legal adult age?
I think this scenario will breed more hatred against society than is warranted.

Actually, I believe the opposite might be true.

With a solid educational and (again, just spitballing here, REALLY not for this at all) indoctrination program, the government can essentially instill the proper values, understanding of both the law and the basic requirements of being a proper citizen of the state.

With a solid compulsory (strengthened by an indoctrination program) educational and fitness program (to prepare them for military life) they would be disciplined, physically fit, educated and born with basic survival and life skills.

They would essentially earn their citizenship and all the tools they need to become productive citizens at a very early age.

They would be seen as children of the state, no longer children of parents.

At a later time, once their service (and debt to the state has been paid off by said service) they could choose to incorporate into society as a whole and meet their birth parents (and rescue said parents from their current situation if they want to).

And from a purely utilitarian sense, why send the soldiers who you've trained, spent money on and molded to be the perfect soldier/citizen as fodder? These would actually most likely become elite soldiers or officers.

The parents themselves (who violated law for birthing more children than they can support) would be the second class citizens with much of their citizenry rights/benefits revoked. This is, however, far better than being poor/destitute (you'd be a 2nd class citizen anyway, plus you and your kids would be starving).

Again, spitballing here. I can already see potential for abuse for any repressive government (I hope China doesn't get this idea TBH).

Originally posted by Raisen
how about you get substantially less support for each subsequent child after three.

So all the children suffer or just the ones after three?

Unemployment & child support benefits are common in Australia.
Regardless of how many children you have & you're unemployed doesn't effect the quality of life you give your children.
Parents with special needs kids get a little more to cover health & medical issues.
If you're employed & need to send your children to daycare, there's subsidies for that too.
Even our public schools will feed & clothe the kids if for whatever reason it can't be done at home.

There used to be a Baby Bonus of about $2000 for each child born to an unemployed parent. However this was easily abused by more "undesirable" people who shouldn't have been parents in the 1st place.

Originally posted by krisblaze
Group homes.

How do you not know about this?

I'm not arguing for or against this by the way 😛

I'm just saying that this is a thing and has been in place for over 150 years.

I'm with the general notion that I can see the benefits of limiting children but I don't want the government to have that kind of power over the people.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The system we have now. Everyone can have children without government limit, and children in need are financially supported regardless of the amount of siblings they have.

And I think that system is crap, personally, and way too open to exploitation.

Originally posted by riv6672
I tell you what, i dont see -Pr-s compromise keeping people from having children who will be even less cared for.
My ideas arent meant to be pretty, just effective.
You get on public assistance and keep having children in violation of the law? Make those children Wards of the State.
The children will be supported, and the State will have a say in raising them to not perpetuate the cycle they were born into.

The state has done a pretty shitty job of raising a lot of kids, though.

I'm okay with a Militocracy like you people are describing. However, children need affection and one on one attention to develop properly. What you gents describe would create a shitload of psychopaths.

You'll need to figure out how to get a system in place where you have static parental figures in the children's lives. And these figures will need to hug the children, hold them, tuck them into bed, etc. You know, what real parents do to raise proper children.

You'd need tons and tons of people to run this school. Probably one adult per 3 children.

Also, Slay, the world is not overpopulated. We have a goods distribution problem, not an overpopulation problem. When you eat today, feel smug because the food you have access to is due to rather unfair distribution of wealth and food. 🙂

Here's an article about the overpopulation myth from PRI:

https://www.pop.org/content/debunking-myth-overpopulation

Originally posted by -Pr-
And I think that system is crap, personally, and way too open to exploitation.

The state has done a pretty shitty job of raising a lot of kids, though.

👆

Originally posted by -Pr-
And I think that system is crap, personally, and way too open to exploitation.

Yeah, maybe, I just don't know exactly how to improve it, and the ideas put forth do border on fascism really. Like severe limitations to personal freedom and punishment ideas that hits the children in question by far the hardest.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, maybe, I just don't know exactly how to improve it, and the ideas put forth do border on fascism really. Like severe limitations to personal freedom and punishment ideas that hits the children in question by far the hardest.

Outside of sex-ed, there would need to be, imo, something to discourage people from having loads of children under the assumption the state will pay for it.

There has to be a middle ground between "you can't tell me how many kids I can have" and "if I have another one I can get x assistance so let's do it".

Is this having children for welfare checks actually a problem though? I mean I hear it repeated a lot, but are there studies how prevalent it is, and what it actually costs that you know about?

Originally posted by -Pr-
Outside of sex-ed, there would need to be, imo, something to discourage people from having loads of children under the assumption the state will pay for it.

There has to be a middle ground between "you can't tell me how many kids I can have" and "if I have another one I can get x assistance so let's do it".

Teaching better sex education, teaching kids that having a family should always come after finishing school and securing your own financial needs first, and that having a family isn't mandatory.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is this having children for welfare checks actually a problem though? I mean I hear it repeated a lot, but are there studies how prevalent it is, and what it actually costs that you know about?

In actual terms though I don't there has ever been a longer term trend of abuse. over half of people that go on welfare are off of it within a year as of 2014 data and most are off of it within 5 years.

Most families with children also working while being on welfare so it's not like they are just collecting money as far as a I know.

But the ability to abuse the system does exist and I do know people that do so.

people who aren't aware of welfare recipients purposely having more children for additional benefits must be coddled and rich. if you were EVER poor then you know people do this all the time. my brother had a girlfriend who tried talking him into this. she is an ex now.
my god, these rich coddled people just don't know. and they vote democrat and keep this shit going on

Originally posted by Raisen
people who aren't aware of welfare recipients purposely having more children for additional benefits must be coddled and rich. if you were EVER poor then you know people do this all the time. my brother had a girlfriend who tried talking him into this. she is an ex now.
my god, these rich coddled people just don't know. and they vote democrat and keep this shit going on

Keep in mind this article is from 2013 and therefore some of the data has most likely changed but I doubt it would have been that drastic.

Please pay particular notice about the fact that family sizes for those on benefits vs those that aren't are the same. If they were trying to have more children to be free loaders than you would think that average would be greater.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/18/3081791/welfare-recipient-spending/

newjak. data can be skewed. i lived it. i've seen people all around me do this in several communities. i won't ignore what i've seen

Originally posted by Raisen
newjak. data can be skewed. i lived it. i've seen people all around me do this in several communities. i won't ignore what i've seen

Like I said the system allows for the abuse but at the end of the day what is more important to me is the actual number of people that are abusing the system. Which all data seems to show is very small.

So for me it almost seems like a none issue. I would rather deal with a few morons trying to abuse the system as long we are helping the people that really need it.