No one should be taxed to pay for child support

Mothers should not be required to pay child support to the father if he breaks up (or divorces) with her because he is not stuck taking care of the child and can allow the mother to take care of the child or if she is a unsafe caretaker or unwilling to be a caretaker he is still not stuck taking care of the child and can put the child up for adoption.  If he refuses to put the child for adoption and also refuses to allow the mother to take care of her own child then he should be required to pay.  Mothers should not be required to pay child support for a child they are not allowed to take care of.  Mothers should not be required to pay any child support for a child they are forbidden to see part of the time in the case of split custody

Fathers should not be required to pay child support to the mother if she breaks up (or divorces) with him because she is not stuck taking care of the child and can allow the father to take care of the child or if he is a unsafe caretaker or unwilling to be a caretaker she is still not stuck taking care of the child and can put the child up for adoption.  If she refuses to put the child for adoption and also refuses to allow the father to take care of his own child then she should be required to pay.  Fathers should not be required to pay child support for a child they are not allowed to take care of.  Fathers should not be required to pay any child support for a child they are forbidden to see part of the time in the case of split custody.

The government should not tax people to pay for taking care of children they are not allowed to take care of.  Single mothers and single fathers and adoptive parents should not get paid for choosing to be a parent through the taxation of people who are not allowed to take care of that child.

The person or people who take care of a child influence the child's thinking and worldview and behavior and only people who are responsible enough to plan how to economically (providing food, housing, etc. not necessarily money) support a child without taxing other people should be granted the privelege of taking care of a child.

Even if this sometimes means both biological parents lose access to funds and neither can take care of their own child economically after a break up or divorce and a third party adopts their children instead this is still an improvement over coerced child support payments, because it means more responsible people will raise the child in most cases, resulting in a child that makes better life decisions in most cases.

People should not pay taxes to send other people's children to public schools or daycare centers.  Responsible parents would have the time to home school if they are not required to work extra hours to pay for taxes to send other people's children to public schools.  Both parents working is not a valid excuse for public schools because at least one of two parents could choose not to be employed while the other one is working and still have enough resources to support the family if the parents were not collectively coerced to work extra hours through taxation to send other people's children to public school.

Although both biological parents might plan a means to be economically sufficient to support a child as a team, unforeseen circumstances such as being fired from a job for refusal to obey unethical orders of an employer may occur.  It is better therefore not to put ones primary means of economic sufficiency on an employer so that an employer can not threaten to take away your means to support your children if you do not follow unethical orders.  It is better to grow your own food and have your own means to produce clean fresh water.  In agricultural societies having more children usually meant more people that could help grow food.  None the less sometimes unforeseen factors occur even in agricultural societies where in spite of responsible economic planning of a couple before deciding to become biological parents disasters such as bad wrather, earthquakes or fire (not caused by negligence) may occur causing local famines or local crop damage and insufficient food and or drinkable water.  In such cases people may voluntarily provide charity or donations if they believe the people were responsible parents this is completely different than forcing other people to pay for child support.  Occassionally asking for donations to take care of your family in a time of unexpected need is very different than to plan to live off coerced child support payments as a regular and ongoing thing for the entire duration of the time you take care of your biological children.  In other cases a malicious third party may deliberately do actions that cause economic harm to biological parents such as burning their crops, in such cases it maybe reasonable to require them to pay for economic damage but this is not the same as requiring to pay for child support because they are not paying for the fact that other people had children but paying for the fact that they maliciously destroyed someone else's food supply.

If an adoptive or biological family is abusive a child should have a right not to be adopted by them anymore there are other people that can adopt them.  Nobody should be coerced to adopt other people's children but plenty of people are willing to adopt other people's children.

I am not here saying people should refuse to receive government subsidies to get extra resources to take care of children.  I am saying giving people subsidies to take care of children should not be used as an excuse to validate the moral legitamacy of coerced taxation or coerced childcare payments.  In cases where refusing to receive funds given by government agencies does not return the money to the taxpayers who were taxed with the excuse of raising money to pay for those funds the act of choosing to receive such funds on a individual (not policy) basis does not coerce people to pay for child support.  However if someone directly forces a ex spouse (who they initiated divorce against) to pay child support where as they could choose not to bill the ex spouse for child support this is a completely different matter.  If the ex spouse was divorced for malicious non defensive domestic violence and the violence was real the ex spouse should be in jail not out of jail employed and paying child support.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2021

https://grammarhow.com/peoples-or-peoples/

http://web.archive.org/web/20210118194052/https://grammarhow.com/peoples-or-peoples/

The cult of college

 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=universities+are+corporations&ia=web

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=colleges+are+examples+of+total+institutions&ia=web

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=colleges+are+indoctrination+centers&ia=web

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_institution

http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_institution

https://townhall.com/columnists/justinhaskins/2019/01/28/americas-public-schools-have-become-socialist-indoctrination-factories-n2540323

http://web.archive.org/web/20190128090804/https://townhall.com/columnists/justinhaskins/2019/01/28/americas-public-schools-have-become-socialist-indoctrination-factories-n2540323

https://illinoisfamily.org/education/illinois-indoctrination-centers-government-schools/

http://web.archive.org/web/20210127223544/https://illinoisfamily.org/education/illinois-indoctrination-centers-government-schools/

https://theamericancitadel.com/2017/12/13/public-schools-communist-training-centers/

http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://theamericancitadel.com/2017/12/13/public-schools-communist-training-centers/

https://quillette.com/2017/01/02/the-university-as-a-total-institution/

http://web.archive.org/web/20170103051532/https://quillette.com/2017/01/02/the-university-as-a-total-institution/

https://findanyanswer.com/is-college-a-total-institution

http://web.archive.org/web/20211113052345/https://findanyanswer.com/is-college-a-total-institution

Turd Flinging Monkey's Political Trichotomy

 Turd Flinging Monkey's Political Trichotomy

1 Freedom

2 Equality

3 Stability

Not everyone shares the same values in life when it comes to politics and money there are three common values that are mutually exclusive.  You can not have 100% of all three at the same time or even 100% of two out of three at the same time but you can mix and match.  

Complete economic freedom can not co exist with complete equity because the freedom to make different choices will result in unequal wealth

By Economic Equality I do not mean Equality of opportunity in the context of this article.  Equality of opportunity is closer to Economic freedom than Economic Equality but not neccessarily the same as Economic freedom.  Economic freedom may not result in equality of opportunity because having more money gives people more opportunities to do business.  Equality of opportunity is not the same as economic equality because not all people choose to live up to their maximum economic potential with the opportunity they have.  If two identical twins both have the same economic opportunity and one person works "smarter" and also puts in more time and effort to making money they will not have equal amounts of money in a monetary society with equality of opportunity.

Some people make a distinction between Economic Equality and Equity.  If you gave every one the exact set of the same food items with the exact same quantities that add up to the exact same number of calories that would be economic equality in terms of giving food but would not be equity.  Equity is based on giving according to "needs" where as equality in this context is giving identical amounts irregardless of needs.  In the case of equity you might give people with a higher metabolism more food and those with a lower metabolism less food.  Perhaps you could have both equality and equity if you gave everyone an equal amount of food that is based on the caloric expenses of the individual with the highest metabolism in the group such that both everyones "needs" were met and also everyone was given an equal amount.  If you gave every individual in a group the same amount of food equal in calories to the average mean caloric expense per person in that group you would have equality but not equity because the "needs" of the individuals with above average caloric expense would not be met and they might start starving if they are not obese and not spending calories with "unnecessary" work (not needed for survival) that they could choose to reduce.  If the individuals have different metabolisms and everyone is given an equal amount of non perishable food items  that are sufficient to meet the needs of even the individual in the group with the highest metabolism and both economic equality and economic equity is achieved in terms of how much food each individual in a group is given then those with a lower metabolism would be able to save more non perishable food items than those with a higher metabolism and so even though economic equality would be achieved in how much food people are given there would still be economic inequality in the amount of extra food saved for an emergency each individual has.  If everyone was given equal income, people would still have unequal savings if they have unequal spending.  It is very much difficult then to have economic equality because equality in all things can not exist to force equality to exist in one measureable criteria might remove it in another.  To make things simpler when people say they value economic equality in many cases they may simply mean they value government "welfare" programs and very rarely means they value two measurable economic quantities being equal.

Anarcho Capitalism is economic freedom without economic equity/equality

Statist Communism is economic equity/equality without economic freedom

Negative income tax is Partial Economic Freedom plus Partial economic Equality

Negative income tax is Universal Basic Income plus Flat income tax without any other government programs to help the poor (other than Universal Basic Income) and without corporate welfare and without tax deductions

Social Security is Partial Economic Equality/Equity plus Partial Economic Stability

The elderly who have already made a fortune and do not want to lose it often prefer the economic stability of maintaining that fortune even if it means a lack of economic freedom for the youth and a lack of economic equality/equity for the youth to receive the same benefits as the elderly.  The elderly who have spent their fortune and are no longer in good mental or physical health to earn more often prefer economic equality/equity compared to the healthier youth who have more earning potential through labour (by which I mean the elderly receiving equal or equitable pay compared to the youth without the elderly doing equal or any [future] labour compared to the youth)

Since the three values are mutually exclusive in their fullest forms people who value economic freedom find those who value economic equality/equity at the expense of economic freedom to be problematic when such indivuduals support violent means to equalize wealth.

A simple solution would be for those who support economic freedom to separate from those who support economic equality/equity so they do not quarrel due to conflicting values. 

Those who support economic freedom would have no problem allowing those who support economic equality/equity to have their own commune where everything is distributed equally/equitably so long as they are not forced to join the commune.  Those who support economic freedom have no problem with those who support economic equality/equity living out their values so long as those who support economic freedom are not required to live out the values of economic equality/equity.

 But often those who support economic equality/equity do not want to permit those who support economic freedom to leave and live in a separate community from them because then they could not take their stuff.  Those who support economic equality/equity often have a problem with allowing those who support economic freedom to live out their values because then they could not take their stuff.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2021

duckduckgo.com/?q=political+trichotomy&ia=web

observablereality.com/political-trichotomy/

http://web.archive.org/web/20211112075222/https://www.observablereality.com/political-trichotomy/

Political Trichotomy: Cant We All Just Get Along?

by Turd Flinging Monkey

https://archive.org/details/BitChute-RG-bAcyWbsg

Political Trichotomy Cant We All Just Get Along

youtube.com/watch?v=vQmWfKXWhSM

http://web.archive.org/web/20211112080604/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQmWfKXWhSM

Turd Flinging Monkey Political Trichotomy All Systems Fail (mirror)

francis chow

youtube.com/watch?v=318KHpJ8bHU

http://web.archive.org/web/20211112081452/https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=318KHpJ8bHU

Turd Flinging Monkey Political Trichotomy The Moderate Right (mirror)

francis chow

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oYCgbjYqEiA

http://web.archive.org/web/20211112081708/https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=oYCgbjYqEiA

Turd Flinging Monkey Political Trichotomy The American State Religion (mirror)

francis chow

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9qPZ_cktO20

http://web.archive.org/web/20211112082134/https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=9qPZ_cktO20

Moral value not to murder may derive from the desire not to be murdered

Moral value not to murder may derive from the desire not to be murdered nor killed

Morality is both subjective and objective

Morality is both relative and absolute.  Some people say morality is either relative or absolute and can not be both but they are simply wrong

Even though morality is relative to the individual it is still very much objective and absolute.  Relativity does not contradict absoluteness or objectivety.  The elevation of the top of a building above sea level is an absolute and objectively measurable distance but it is still relative to sea level because you could also measure it's elevation relative to another location such as the height above the buildings parking lot for instance

If you do not want to be murdered you would desire to live in a society where other people have a moral value of not wanting people to be murdered to the point where they are willing to either imprison, exile/banish or execute murderers or attempted murderers.

But living in such a society would result in arrest, banishment or execution for you if you commit murder or attempt to commit murder

Even if you do not have a moral prohibition of murdering other people innately in your moral code, you would choose to have a moral prohibition against murdering other people in your moral code if you do not want to be killed, murdered or imprisoned out of a desire to be in a society where murderers are prosecuted combined with a desire not to be imprisoned, executed or banished out of such a society (as banishment would be certain death when the only remaining alternative societies to leave to have no prohibition on murder)

So even though not everyone might have the same moral code not to murder people most people will adopt such a moral code not to murder people if they do not want to be murdered or killed themselves and they think things through sufficiently

There are some people who do not care if they are murdered or killed and do not have any moral prohibition against murdering people in their mind.  Such people are rare but most certainly exist.  Such examples would certainly include mass murderers or serial murderers that requested the death penalty for themselves.

If everybody practiced the same universal moral code there would be no suicides so clearly morality is relative to the individual and not all people universally share practice of the same moral code 

Although practice of the moral code not to murder is not present in 100% of the society it can be widespread in a community as people who do not want to be murdered would choose to hang around people who morally object to  murdering other people.  Someone not sharing a personal moral code not to murder people would not get off the hook in such a society because they live by a different moral standard instead such a person would be imprisoned or executed or at least banished and exiled (with threat of death or imprisonment upon returning) upon committing or attempting to commit a murder in such a society precisely because other people in the society do not want to be murdered by them.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2021

In a society with property tax employment is slavery with extra steps

In a society with property tax employment is slavery with extra steps, in a society without property tax employment might not be slavery.  The combination of property tax, zoning laws and vagrancy laws create a situation in which one must be employed to pay property tax or rent to someone else who pays property tax or be sent to jail when they sleep.  One can not simply farm food and eat it without selling it while being unemployed because of property tax

Copyright Carl Janssen 2021 November 9