The impact of democracy on the nuclear family

[godelian]

Democracy has historically led to women's voting rights, which encouraged women to form their own political special-interest group, which in turn led to extensive government intervention in people's private lives, which led to men increasingly avoiding relationships because they do not want to invite the government into their bedrooms.

The marriage rate is collapsing. The birth rate is going down as well.

According to Morgan Stanley's 2019 report, "Rise of the SHEconomy", 45% of Women will be Single and Childless by 2030.

There are obviously more reasons for this trend than just extensive government intervention in people's private lives, but it is certainly an important factor. One thing is clear. Democracy eventually destroys the nuclear family.

One solution to avoid this problem, is to emigrate outside the West. This is the low-hanging fruit and that is also what I personally have done.

Of course, democracy will gradually result in the collapse of the demographics of the West and therefore automatically diminish the West's ability to impose this policy onto other countries. It will inevitably end up breaking the backbone of the western economies, their currencies, their military, and their geopolitical clout. Therefore, the problem has a tendency of solving itself.

However, in the meanwhile, the West is putting pressure on third-world governments to adopt democracy, including a policy of extensive intervention in people's private lives with a view on destroying the social structure. The ideology of the West is hellbent on dismantling the nuclear family and on exporting this ideology globally. The collapse of the West will be a godsend to the rest of the world, and it will certainly not come one minute too soon.

In the meanwhile, some people are angry and want to attack the West. Of course, I understand where they are coming from. But then again, the problem of these people is that they are possibly a bit impatient. My point of view is that Napoleon was right in that regard: Don't disturb your adversary while he is making a mistake. Patience is a virtue. Before the end of the century, democracy will be thing of the past.

[LuckyR]

Do you think most people are suited to traditional marriage? I don't, so the collapsing marriage rate leaves more people where they should be (not in long term, monogamous relationships). As to the dropping birth rate (a separate issue), I've seen no data where that is caused by governmental style, rather it has been shown to follow education of women. However, to my eye since there's way, way too many people on the planet, I see it as a good thing.

Are you trying to argue that, say autocrats don't intervene in citizen's private lives?

[godelian]

Do you think most people are suited to traditional marriage? I don't, so the collapsing marriage rate leaves more people where they should be (not in long term, monogamous relationships). As to the dropping birth rate (a separate issue), I've seen no data where that is caused by governmental style, rather it has been shown to follow education of women. However, to my eye since there's way, way too many people on the planet, I see it as a good thing.

If you think that you should have no children, while I still have them, then it is my children -- who will obviously have my views -- who will inherit the earth and not yours. Natalists (and their views) will always outlast and outnumber anti-natalists (and their views) in the next generations. That is inevitable.

Are you trying to argue that, say autocrats don't intervene in citizen's private lives?

For a starters, the autocrats cannot afford to. Merely staying in power and fending off contenders soaks up all their energy already.

Secondly, they do not need anybody's vote to stay in power. They just need to make sure that there are no (or not too many) popular uprisings. I personally do not know of any autocratic regime that is even remotely interested in siding with women in their conflicts with their husbands. It is rather the men who could possibly join the next violent popular uprising against the regime and not the women. The autocrats tend to avoid making more enemies than they already have.

This is, in fact, how the war in Afghanistan originally started:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

In 1978, the Taraki government initiated a series of reforms, including a radical modernization of the traditional Islamic civil law, especially marriage law, aimed at "uprooting feudalism" in Afghan society.[86][page needed] The government brooked no opposition to the reforms[71] and responded with violence to unrest. Between April 1978 and the Soviet Intervention of December 1979, thousands of prisoners, perhaps as many as 27,000, were executed at the notorious[73] Pul-e-Charkhi prison, including many village mullahs and headmen.[72] Other members of the traditional elite, the religious establishment and intelligentsia fled the country.[72] Large parts of the country went into open rebellion.

"Modernized" marriage law is all about the government intervening in private affairs in order to side with the wife against the husband. That is the number one reason why the Afghans do no want democracy. They just understood the problem earlier than everybody else.

They have solved the problem but it took them a lot of fighting. They have had to kill a lot of Soviet and American soldiers to achieve that. An alternative strategy would have been to just wait until these soldiers simply do not get born anymore. Hillary Clinton seemed to have understood that. That is why in 2011, she declared:

https://www.voanews.com/a/clinton-talib ... 67080.html

Clinton: Taliban Cannot Outlast US Military Pressure

By that time, Clinton had apparently understood that the Taliban was indeed going to "outlast us". The natalists will always "outlast" the anti-natalists.

[Impenitent]

are you saying a nuclear family has a half life?

-Imp

[godelian]

are you saying a nuclear family has a half life?

-Imp

Democracy and women's voting rights have led to a situation in which the government systematically intervenes in family life with a view of siding with the wife against the husband. As a result, the nuclear family is rapidly disappearing.

[Impenitent]

the government says kill your baby in utero in the name of choice

-Imp

[godelian]

the government says kill your baby in utero in the name of choice

-Imp

I am not a fan of abortion. In Islamic law, it can only be done for good reasons, and only during the first four months of the pregnancy. But then again, to the extent that I am not personally involved in the case, I do not particularly care what other people do with their pregnancies.

[Impenitent]

if the state has to provide for the child, the state says kill it

utopia

-Imp

[godelian]

if the state has to provide for the child, the state says kill it

utopia

-Imp

The child itself is not the problem. There is no need to abort it for economic reasons. A long waiting list of childless couples would be more than happy to adopt it and to even pay the mother for the cost of carrying it to term. A surrogate mother, for example, can typically charge $100,000+ for carrying her baby to term. In fact, there is quite a bit of demand for these seemingly "unwanted" babies. If the state did not get involved, there would be a market with demand from adoptive parents for these situations and the problem would probably solve itself.

[Impenitent]

why inconvenience a young pregnant girl with having to carry a baby to term? kill the baby and let her do more dope and screw some one else

utopia

-Imp

[godelian]

why inconvenience a young pregnant girl with having to carry a baby to term?

If she got paid handsomely for doing so, she probably would. Again, there are childless couples who would pay.

[LuckyR]

Do you think most people are suited to traditional marriage? I don't, so the collapsing marriage rate leaves more people where they should be (not in long term, monogamous relationships). As to the dropping birth rate (a separate issue), I've seen no data where that is caused by governmental style, rather it has been shown to follow education of women. However, to my eye since there's way, way too many people on the planet, I see it as a good thing.

If you think that you should have no children, while I still have them, then it is my children -- who will obviously have my views -- who will inherit the earth and not yours. Natalists (and their views) will always outlast and outnumber anti-natalists (and their views) in the next generations. That is inevitable.

Are you trying to argue that, say autocrats don't intervene in citizen's private lives?

For a starters, the autocrats cannot afford to. Merely staying in power and fending off contenders soaks up all their energy already.

Secondly, they do not need anybody's vote to stay in power. They just need to make sure that there are no (or not too many) popular uprisings. I personally do not know of any autocratic regime that is even remotely interested in siding with women in their conflicts with their husbands. It is rather the men who could possibly join the next violent popular uprising against the regime and not the women. The autocrats tend to avoid making more enemies than they already have.

This is, in fact, how the war in Afghanistan originally started:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

In 1978, the Taraki government initiated a series of reforms, including a radical modernization of the traditional Islamic civil law, especially marriage law, aimed at "uprooting feudalism" in Afghan society.[86][page needed] The government brooked no opposition to the reforms[71] and responded with violence to unrest. Between April 1978 and the Soviet Intervention of December 1979, thousands of prisoners, perhaps as many as 27,000, were executed at the notorious[73] Pul-e-Charkhi prison, including many village mullahs and headmen.[72] Other members of the traditional elite, the religious establishment and intelligentsia fled the country.[72] Large parts of the country went into open rebellion.

"Modernized" marriage law is all about the government intervening in private affairs in order to side with the wife against the husband. That is the number one reason why the Afghans do no want democracy. They just understood the problem earlier than everybody else.

They have solved the problem but it took them a lot of fighting. They have had to kill a lot of Soviet and American soldiers to achieve that. An alternative strategy would have been to just wait until these soldiers simply do not get born anymore. Hillary Clinton seemed to have understood that. That is why in 2011, she declared:

https://www.voanews.com/a/clinton-talib ... 67080.html

Clinton: Taliban Cannot Outlast US Military Pressure

By that time, Clinton had apparently understood that the Taliban was indeed going to "outlast us". The natalists will always "outlast" the anti-natalists.

Uummm... no. Everyone who has ever been alive was a child of a natalist, so according to your theory, there should be no antinatalists. Yet there are.

Nice song and dance about why autocrats should leave their citizens alone. Too bad for you that there is plenty of evidence from Real Life that contradicts your theory.

[godelian]

Uummm... no. Everyone who has ever been alive was a child of a natalist, so according to your theory, there should be no antinatalists. Yet there are.

By definition, everyone was born from natalists. However, the schools teach anti-natalist ideology. The schools are currently the most important vector for destroying generational reproduction in society. The natalists should stop trusting the education of their children to the anti-natalists.

Nice song and dance about why autocrats should leave their citizens alone. Too bad for you that there is plenty of evidence from Real Life that contradicts your theory.

Well, it is possible to achieve. The Taliban have won against the Soviets and the Americans. There is no more government any longer siding with the wife against the husband in Afghanistan. There may be other problems, but that one has been solved now.

[LuckyR]

Uummm... no. Everyone who has ever been alive was a child of a natalist, so according to your theory, there should be no antinatalists. Yet there are.

By definition, everyone was born from natalists. However, the schools teach anti-natalist ideology. The schools are currently the most important vector for destroying generational reproduction in society. The natalists should stop trusting the education of their children to the anti-natalists.

Nice song and dance about why autocrats should leave their citizens alone. Too bad for you that there is plenty of evidence from Real Life that contradicts your theory.

Well, it is possible to achieve. The Taliban have won against the Soviets and the Americans. There is no more government any longer siding with the wife against the husband in Afghanistan. There may be other problems, but that one has been solved now.

But why do antinatalists exist (to form schools)? According to you: "Natalists (and their views) will always outlast and outnumber anti-natalists (and their views) in the next generations. That is inevitable." Yet you acknowledge that the birth rate is dropping wordwide (a good thing, but I digress). Not internally logical.

[godelian]

But why do antinatalists exist (to form schools)?

Entropy. Natural corruption. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is no problem in the world that the government won't make worse.

There is also:

Theory of deception. It is the aggregate belief itself in the deceptive statement (that a=b) that fuels the growth in the total amount of deception ( (b-a)² ).

- So, why is the newsreader on CNN a liar? Exactly because a large number of viewers trust that he is telling them the truth.
- So, why are the schools so fiendishly bad for your children? Exactly because a large number of parents trust that these schools would be good for their children.
- The stronger people believe that the banks still have their money, the stronger the process keeps growing that steals their money.

The institutions are terminally corrupt, exactly because a large number of people trust them. If something is widely trusted, there is always a way to benefit from corrupting this trust.

According to you: "Natalists (and their views) will always outlast and outnumber anti-natalists (and their views) in the next generations. That is inevitable." Yet you acknowledge that the birth rate is dropping wordwide (a good thing, but I digress). Not internally logical.

Imagine that 5% of the population is natalist and 95% has been indoctrinated into adopting anti-natalism. Say that the natalists produce 5 children each. In that case, the population will go from 100% to 25% in the next generation. So, the population will shrink by 75% in the next generation. However, if these 25% are entirely natalist and do not get indoctrinated into anti-natalism, it will grow again to 125% in the next generation after that.

The natalists count on their reproductive activity to maintain and expand their numbers. The anti-natalists count on the corrupt schools to maintain and expand their numbers. This is a parasitic relationship, because without the natalists and their reproductive activity, the anti-natalists would have no children to corrupt and to increase their numbers with.

Concerning "Not internally logical", the recurrence relations that govern demographics are not simply linear. You will pretty much never end up with a linear model:



Furthermore, the equations are always about differentials, i.e. a propensity to grow or a propensity to shrink. The outcome in absolute numbers depends on the interaction between these propensities/tendencies.

In my opinion, the world population will keep shrinking as long as natalist parents allow the schools to corrupt their children. They seem to have no clue as to what the schools teach their children. If they knew, they would be up in arms.

Well, sometimes they know, and sometimes they do something about it, but in my opinion, certainly not enough:

Muslim, Christian parents protest school district requiring students to participate in LGBT lessons