2012 December 22 Saturday
Funding Single Moms: Cuckolding By Tax Law
Heartiste gets to the hear to the matter.
Any policy which forces men to help defray the costs of single moms, or even married moms, to have kids and a career via mandated maternity leave and daycare and the like is a doomed policy, and an immoral one. It is immoral because it is a cash grab from beta males to women to help them raise unrelated spawnage. It is doomed because it fails to take into consideration the absolute loathing men have for footing the bill for women they aren't fucking to help them raise the kids of other men. It severs the natural quid pro quo between the sexes -- namely, she gives her sex and paternity guarantee for his resources and protection. Mandated "women can have it all" feminist-inspired policies are essentially "she steals his resources and protection for no sex in return." This is what is known in industry parlance as a raw deal.
My reaction to Uncle Sam agent to serve as father provider for single moms: I'm getting cuckolded by millions of women with a gun held to my head by tax laws. I am opposed, very strongly opposed.
What's even worse than being cuckolded by tax collection is the resulting spawn: children raised by single mothers do worse in life. More criminal, less accomplished in their careers. We are funding social pathology.
By Randall Parker at 2012 December 22 08:19 PM
All religions that have survived the test of time encouraged a system of behavior that protected beta males, enforced constructive conduct between the genders, which lead to well-adjusted children who passed on their parents beliefs.
Christianity fulfilled this role for 19 centuries, but then changed radically during the 20th century.
Instead of looking towards eternal salvation, is changed its focus to creating a heaven on earth.
With that new goal, it allied itself with the atheist left in order to create the bureaucratic welfare state that enacted the cuckolding tax laws.
A man wanting a family the "right way" (not like Desmond Hatchett), has to struggle through many years of preparation to put himself in a financial situation of having children of his own.
Meanwhile, any half-attractive woman (and even many beasts) can walk in a bar on any night of the week, hook up, and the pregnancy that results is a welfare meal ticket for many years.
Reproduction is being shifted from the responsible to the irresponsible.
The Catholic Church calls that "social justice."
This is why I believe that Christianity as it is now, acts as de-civilizing force in western nations.
Its not surprising the faith is dying throughout the entire western world.
It would be much cheaper and better if the government paid women NOT to have babies. The payments could be adjusted by income so that poor, low IQ women got the most, and the amount was phased out as the women got higher incomes. Sort of like a negative income tax for not breeding, and completely voluntary, of course. Poor women, say, between the ages of 16 and 42, would be still be free to breed as much as they liked, they just wouldn't get their checks. The money would go instead to support their dysfunctional offspring. Just show up, maybe twice a year, at your local DGP (Don't Get Pregnant) center, have a negative pregnancy test, and you get a check on the spot! Even better, women accepting permanent sterilization would immediately receive their remaining payments to age 42, with a 50% bonus! I don't know what the right amount would have to be, but it could be financed from the savings of not having to support their impoverished offspring (Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, WIC, welfare, education, and, later, law enforcement and incarceration). That's a lot of dollars on the table. Affluent, high IQ women would be "punished" for being smart and rich by not getting the payments. Of course, they wouldn't really need the money anyway, and they're exactly the ones who should be breeding. Liberals love giving away government money to poor people, so they would be all for the program. And conservatives should like the savings it would generate (and even if it only broke even, society would still be the big winner with the big shift from predominantly low IQ to predominantly high IQ births). When can we start?
Both Heartiste and yourself appear to be quite blind to the reality of the situation.
First, and yet again, single motherhood does not, in and of itself, lead to poor outcomes for children. Single motherhood is correlated with poor outcomes because people likely to have poor outcomes (low-IQ, short time horizon, aka r-strategists) are likely to be or come from single mothers.
Second, as I have proposed it, the way this is implemented in the place in the world where it seems to work, maternity leave/pay benefits high-IQ, long time horizon mothers – in other words, the kind of women you want to reproduce. There is little evidence that such policies increase de facto single motherhood (cohabiting but unmarried couples who have children don't count, as this is norm is Scandinavia anyway). Family planning services coupled with limited welfare services helps to stem the "bad" kind of single-motherhood, that which occurs among the low-IQ short-time-horizon crowd.
I think once we know all the IQ-influencing genetic alleles we will have a lot more options. In the mean time we could:
- offer low IQ girls money to at least delay pregnancy.
- offer low IQ girls high IQ male donor sperm.
- Give smart people faster paths thru higher education so that they do not delay procreation so much as a consequence of getting an education.
Once we have the genetic info then add:
- subsidize embryo selection for everyone.
The reality of the situation:
- Policies aimed at reducing single motherhood will have a eugenic effect.
- Policies aimed at reducing single motherhood will reduce demands for a welfare state.
- Neighborhoods where single parenthood get above a threshold become more disordered because older males no longer control adolescent males. I haven't read Caplan's book. But I bet he's blind to this.
"Policies aimed at reducing single motherhood will have a eugenic effect."
On the whole this is true. How you get there makes a big difference, though.
"Policies aimed at reducing single motherhood will reduce demands for a welfare state"
More or less. See above.
"Neighborhoods where single parenthood get above a threshold become more disordered because older males no longer control adolescent males."
This is conventional wisdom even in the blogosphere, and it's almost certainly wrong.
"I haven't read Caplan's book. But I bet he's blind to this."
I would strongly suggest his book, Judith Rich Harris's books, or Chapter 19 of Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. The enormous weight of the evidence shows that parenting and the family environment has little to no permanent effect.
Where is the evidence that the Danish experiment is resulting in Danish women choosing quality sires? All of their indoctrination is in the opposite direction. Indeed, the state religion is that it is tantamount to Satanism (Naziism) for any policy to result in an increase in the fertility of NW European man + NW European woman offspring. The only socially acceptable route for Danish women to produce high IQ children is for them to chose non-European, or at least non-Northern European, sires of high IQ. Perhaps they are doing that. Where is your evidence?
"Where is the evidence that the Danish experiment is resulting in Danish women choosing quality sires?"
Where is your evidence that they're not?
"The only socially acceptable route for Danish women to produce high IQ children is for them to chose non-European, or at least non-Northern European, sires of high IQ."
If it is your claim that the majority of (let's say educated) Danish women are having children primarily with non Danish men, that would be a big claim, and yours to prove.
The evidence we do have shows that most people mate within group. Hence, it's up to you to prove that that doesn't hold in this case.
While its true that institutional racism still results in a lot of inbreeding*, much of the institutional bias toward such inbreeding results from the white male privilege to which poor innocent nubile white females must cowtow in exchange for some semblance of support for themselves and their offspring.
Replace the privileged white male with the State and the poor innocent nubile female is liberated to have freedom of choice!
Do I have evidence that replacement of white male support with the Alpha of State support causes women to stop inbreeding? Of course, since there is no sortocracy tolerated anywhere in the world, there is no evidence for any causal hypothesis in the social sciences as everything is mere correlation which we are admonished by our intellectual betters to ignore (at certain politically-specified times) because "correlation doesn't imply causation".
On the other hand, if we are free to apply the same statistical rigor to northern European matings that is routinely applied in the Apologies for Holocaustianity -- the current state religion dominating the West -- then we can cite a fairly robust correlation between the rising support for single motherhood and the rise of interracial offspring.
*The definition of "inbreeding" means "breeding within a racial group" when the race is "white", "caucasian" and/or "European". The definition of "inbreeding" means something else entirely for other groups.