You have no idea other than leftie statist hand-wringing and more programmes of mass childhood destruction.
You have not proposed any solution. Welfare or not, people make babies which they can't care for. Biology 101. You have not addressed that at all, and seem to be oblivious. Oddly enough I noted in your response that (I assume) you are dead set against the state removing a child from a bad situation. So not only do you have no solution, but you are an impediment to boot.
Unless you are proposing forced birth control unless one is a "fit" parent, why do you think the supply is going to dry up. BTW, that is the classic problem I see with Libertarians. They latch on to one aspect of a problem, and think it is 100% of the problem. True, there is a feedback loop of welfare dependency related to child payments. But it is only one aspect, and there is a flip side as well. Hence I often refer to Libertarians as the 10% crowd. They find something which might be 10% of the problem, and obsess about it like its 90% of the problem. To be taken seriously, you have to be in the ballpark at least.
The same is true of the rants about governments. Competition is one aspect of making efficient systems, but it is not 100%. It reminds me very much of natural selection in biology. For a long time after Darwin, a sizeable portion of biologist held the view that natural selection was THE mode of evolution. This was held more as a philosophy than anything else. Unfortunately, that bit of science crept out into the public psyche where it infected many other philosophies, including Libertarians. This just goes to show, that a little science is a dangerous thing. Biology, BTW is well past that stage, having come to realise that life is rather more complex than simple theories, be they every so attractive. You might try to read up on the subject.
PS: So you want to replace government monetary systems with one run by the phone company? Wow! |
