Ontario budget to focus on child poverty

[Renegade]

Budget to focus on child poverty

Over the last several years there have been several half-hearted attempts by different levels of government to reduce child poverty. Most of these have never show any tangible success. It made me wonder if there are more effective ways to eliminate child poverty. Let me start with a couple of statements and suppositions:

1. Parents have a set of obligations to their kids. That obligation includes being able to provide for them the necessary food, shelter, and healthy environment. They accept those obligations when they choose to bear or keep the kids. If they are unable to fulfill those obligations, they should not be parents.
   
2. The best predictor for the wealth of the child is the wealth of the parents.
   

Governments have for the most part tried the approach of incrementally adding to the wealth of parents. How about if they did this instead:

• Remove barriers to wealthy parents having kids, in effect encouraging wealthy parents to have more kids.
  
• Put barriers in place to prevent poorer parents from bearing or keeping kids.
  

My guess is such an approach would have a noticeable effect on child poverty within a generation.

Note that I consider myself a libertarian, and would advocate that government not intervene AT ALL in individual decisions such as child bearing, however since the government seems determined to intervene anyway, I am proposing a more effective way of achieving those aims.

[Charles Anthony]

You do not provide any suggestions of what those barriers might be in either case. I will adopt your assumptions and make the following recommendation: reduce income taxes for both the rich and the poor.

Reducing taxes on the poor will lead them to rise above poverty and approach the rich. Ergo, they have less children.

Reducing taxes on the rich will make it easier for them to give up working time and choose having children time. Ergo, they have more children.

[Renegade]

You do not provide any suggestions of what those barriers might be in either case. I will adopt your assumptions and make the following recommendation: reduce income taxes for both the rich and the poor.

I haven't thought through all the possible way to introduce or reduce barriers; however the one-child policy in China seems to show that government can be successful in influencing the number of children that a parent can bear.

Here are some ideas around barriers:

• License Parenting. Only parents who meet criteria would be issued a license. Having a child without a license, and lead to the parents being penalized or having the child taken away.
  
• Encourage the importation of nannies at low cost to the parent. Right now, the wage standards for imported nannies are higher than most parents can afford. In some countries such as Singapore, it is the norm to import nannies, and they are paid a fraction of the wage in Canada, allowing parents that can afford it to have additional kids.
  
• Forced contraception.
  
• Community stigma. There used to be a stigma around having a child "out of wedlock". That seems to be gone. Imparired driving and smoking seem to show that community stigma is effective in changing behaviour
  

I know some of these ideas sound "cruel", but we should discuss whether it is more cruel to bring up a child in poverty.

Reducing taxes on the poor will lead them to rise above poverty and approach the rich. Ergo, they have less children.

Reducing taxes on the rich will make it easier for them to give up working time and choose having children time. Ergo, they have more children.

I like it, however I'm not sure reducing taxes on the poor will actually make them richer. They pay little in taxes anyway, and they would need to increase spending on services which are government provided under higher tax rates.

[Charles Anthony]

I haven't thought through all the possible way to introduce or reduce barriers; however the one-child policy in China seems to show that government can be successful in influencing the number of children that a parent can bear.

Without addressing the barbarism of such a policy, I would question its effectiveness. China still has orphanages and foreigners buy abandoned Chinese children. The effect of this one-child policy may be a little more complicated.

I know some of these ideas sound "cruel", but we should discuss whether it is more cruel to bring up a child in poverty.

I see nothing cruel about bringing up a child in poverty.

I like it, however I'm not sure reducing taxes on the poor will actually make them richer. They pay little in taxes anyway, and they would need to increase spending on services which are government provided under higher tax rates.

How do you define poor?

[Renegade]

Without addressing the barbarism of such a policy, I would question its effectiveness. China still has orphanages and foreigners buy abandoned Chinese children. The effect of this one-child policy may be a little more complicated.

I'm certainly not suggesting a one-child policy. I just point to it as an example that it has been effective in reducing population growth, albiet with many sdeeffects.

I see nothing cruel about bringing up a child in poverty.

I don't either, but the government seems to see it as a problem which needs to be solved. My point is that there are more effective ways to do so.

IHow do you define poor?

I don't have one. I used the term in the same context you did.

[Charles Anthony]

IHow do you define poor?

I don't have one. I used the term in the same context you did.

We may be letting the nebulous concept of poverty get the best of us.

Just like it is convenient for a government to wage a war against terror, fighting poverty may be smoke-screen for bureaucratic baloney. The sky can truly be the limit for how we must reduce poverty.

[Renegade]

We may be letting the nebulous concept of poverty get the best of us.

Just like it is convenient for a government to wage a war against terror, fighting poverty may be smoke-screen for bureaucratic baloney. The sky can truly be the limit for how we must reduce poverty.

I expect you are right. Personally I wouldn't define the problem as eliminating child (or any other) poverty. I would define the problem as how to enforce parental obligations to their kids.

[Mad_Michael]

Governments have for the most part tried the approach of incrementally adding to the wealth of parents. How about if they did this instead:

• Remove barriers to wealthy parents having kids, in effect encouraging wealthy parents to have more kids.
  
• Put barriers in place to prevent poorer parents from bearing or keeping kids.
  

It is a generally accepted rule that birthrate has a negative corelation with wealth. The wealthier you are, the less likely it is that you will have children - and if you do have children, you will have very few of them. This has virtually nothing to do with government policy or tax laws and everything to do with human psychology and/or sociology and/or evolutionary instinct and/or divine principle.

As for 'putting up barriers' for the purpose of annoying/impinging upon poor people, that is absurd. They have things tough enough already, all on their own. They don't need your or our government's help to make it worse - besides which, that would have the affect of making existing child poverty worse, and that cannot be considered 'good policy'.

Note that I consider myself a libertarian, and would advocate that government not intervene AT ALL in individual decisions such as child bearing, however since the government seems determined to intervene anyway, I am proposing a more effective way of achieving those aims.

Libertarian? With all due respect, if you condone barriers/laws to prevent poor people from raising families, you can't reasonably or rationally call yourself a libertarian (I suppose you could, but no ought to believe you) - even under the guise of a suggestion to improve the 'existing' system. Your proposal is not even remotely liberal or libertarian - it is the absolute opposite.

[Mad_Michael]

Personally I wouldn't define the problem as eliminating child (or any other) poverty. I would define the problem as how to enforce parental obligations to their kids.

Just curious. How do you reconcile this statement with your earlier (opening post) statement that you consider yourself a libertarian? Where is the defense of liberty here? I see only an attempt to limit it.

[geoffrey]

Liberty can't be taken from someone else. If a parent neglects their obligations to their child, that is an infringement upon the child's liberty and is immoral.

That's how a libertarian would defend dealing with child poverty.

A child also has no choice to leave (most of the time), they are by nature prisoners of their parents.

[Peter F]

...

A child also has no choice to leave (most of the time), they are by nature prisoners of their parents.

Yes, I see the problem and, as a libertarian, I also see the solution:

The problem is that impoverished people are raising children. Solution: remove children from impoverished homes.

Ah sweet Liberty. The freedom to be wealthy.

[Renegade]

It is a generally accepted rule that birthrate has a negative corelation with wealth. The wealthier you are, the less likely it is that you will have children - and if you do have children, you will have very few of them. This has virtually nothing to do with government policy or tax laws and everything to do with human psychology and/or sociology and/or evolutionary instinct and/or divine principle.

Yes, I agree with that. If rich people have fewer kids and poorer people have more kids, the net effect is that more kids will end up poor.

As for 'putting up barriers' for the purpose of annoying/impinging upon poor people, that is absurd. They have things tough enough already, all on their own. They don't need your or our government's help to make it worse - besides which, that would have the affect of making existing child poverty worse, and that cannot be considered 'good policy'.

If as you say thigns are "tough enough already", it hasn't been tough enough to disuade the poor from having more kids. Disuading the poor from having more kids would result in less kids being poor. I'm not following why that makes child poverty worse.

? With all due respect, if you condone barriers/laws to prevent poor people from raising families, you can't reasonably or rationally call yourself a libertarian (I suppose you could, but no ought to believe you) - even under the guise of a suggestion to improve the 'existing' system. Your proposal is not even remotely liberal or libertarian - it is the absolute opposite.

Yes I realize it is contrary to my priciples. As I said, if I had my way there would be no government intervention AT ALL. However the government seems determined to intervene despite anything I can do.

In my view intervention is ineffective when done as a half-measure. That is the current state. If parents expect government to intervene to provide finanicial support for their kids, then they should also expect that government interevene in the decision of who has kids.

[Renegade]

Personally I wouldn't define the problem as eliminating child (or any other) poverty. I would define the problem as how to enforce parental obligations to their kids.

Just curious. How do you reconcile this statement with your earlier (opening post) statement that you consider yourself a libertarian? Where is the defense of liberty here? I see only an attempt to limit it.

Any libertarian woudl agree that been free doesn't mean you are free to walk away from obligations you have freely undertaken. Do you think if you have signed a mortgage, a libertartian would support that you are free to walk away from your mortgage without penalty?

[Saturn]

Governments have for the most part tried the approach of incrementally adding to the wealth of parents. How about if they did this instead:

• Remove barriers to wealthy parents having kids, in effect encouraging wealthy parents to have more kids.
  
• Put barriers in place to prevent poorer parents from bearing or keeping kids.
  

My guess is such an approach would have a noticeable effect on child poverty within a generation.

Since you forgot the working middle class and the working middle-class is the backbone of the economy in this country, I'll add one more point:

• Remove barriers to working middle-class parents having kids, in effect encouraging working middle-class parents to have more kids.
  

A fact:

• Children generally follow in their parents' footsteps.
  

The harmful long term effects of current federal policy on child care:

• Current federal policy completely disregards the shortage of good-quality daycare => better educated, working middle-class individuals will continue having 1 or no children. Hence, federal policy will have a shrinking effect on the working-middle class.
  
• Current federal policy provides cash for parents and to stay-at-home parents in particular. An additional $5-$10K for parents may encourage some non-working individuals to have more children. It is also an incentive for low-income individuals to exchange their jobs for raising more kids at home. It most certainly is not enough of an incentive for the better-educated working class to quit their $50+K jobs to stay at home and raise more kids. Hence, federal policy will have an augmenting effect on the lower-income, less-skilled class.
  
• The net effect of current federal childcare policy - smaller working middle-class, larger lower-income class => persistent low-incomes and poverty, shortage of skilled workers.
  

[Renegade]

Since you forgot the working middle class and the working middle-class is the backbone of the economy in this country,

Please define what you mean by the "backbone of the economy".

I'll add one more point:

• Remove barriers to working middle-class parents having kids, in effect encouraging working middle-class parents to have more kids.
  

I would not single out "working middle-class" parents. I think in general that barrers to parents who can live up to financial and other parental obligations shoudl be reduced.

The harmful long term effects of current federal policy on child care:

• Current federal policy completely disregards the shortage of good-quality daycare => better educated, working middle-class individuals will continue having 1 or no children. Hence, federal policy will have a shrinking effect on the working-middle class.
  
• Current federal policy provides cash for parents and to stay-at-home parents in particular. An additional $5-$10K for parents may encourage some non-working individuals to have more children. It is also an incentive for low-income individuals to exchange their jobs for raising more kids at home. It most certainly is not enough of an incentive for the better-educated working class to quit their $50+K jobs to stay at home and raise more kids. Hence, federal policy will have an augmenting effect on the lower-income, less-skilled class.
  
• The net effect of current federal childcare policy - smaller working middle-class, larger lower-income class => persistent low-incomes and poverty, shortage of skilled workers.
  

You seem to infer that I think the government should encourage MORE kids. I do not. I don't give a fit whether parents have kids or not, however the parents who have kids have taken up an obligation to provide for them. That's not the government's obligation it's theirs.

The end result of what I propose is that the kids would be brought up in a better environment even if there are fewer of them.

[Saturn]

Since you forgot the working middle class and the working middle-class is the backbone of the economy in this country,

Please define what you mean by the "backbone of the economy".

I mean that the rich have capital but don't do much work (they make up only 1-3% the population), the poor do some work but aren't very productive in general, so the capital of the rich and the labour of the middle-class is what our economy rests on.

You seem to infer that I think the government should encourage MORE kids. I do not.

Hate to break it to you but couples having 0.5 children on average is a problem unless those children become 4 times as productive as their parents just to "replace their parents". Somehow I don't see productivity going up 4 times in the next 30-40 years.

I don't give a fit whether parents have kids or not, however the parents who have kids have taken up an obligation to provide for them. That's not the government's obligation it's theirs.

Agreed, but currently governments are doing the opposite - giving people who are least able to provide for their kids more and more money to have more kids.

The end result of what I propose is that the kids would be brought up in a better environment even if there are fewer of them.

You propose to "remove barriers" for the wealthy and "create barriers" for the poor. I don't see any proposal here, I see just vague ideas. Now what kind of barriers on having children does someone with $10M/yr in income face that the government can remove? And how can the government prevent the poor from having children?

[Mad_Michael]

Yes, I agree with that. If rich people have fewer kids and poorer people have more kids, the net effect is that more kids will end up poor.

Which is why your proposed policy prescription is unlikely to have any effect at all.

If as you say thigns are "tough enough already", it hasn't been tough enough to disuade the poor from having more kids. Disuading the poor from having more kids would result in less kids being poor. I'm not following why that makes child poverty worse.

It is human nature to breed. Having a family is not necessarily a rational economic choice.

Ergo, you presume to fight human nature with rational economic tools. That is doomed to failure.

Yes I realize it is contrary to my priciples. As I said, if I had my way there would be no government intervention AT ALL. However the government seems determined to intervene despite anything I can do.

In my view intervention is ineffective when done as a half-measure. That is the current state. If parents expect government to intervene to provide finanicial support for their kids, then they should also expect that government interevene in the decision of who has kids.

Okie dokie. If you discard your libertarian principles and make authoritarian policy proposals, don't be surprise if other's laugh at your 'libertarian' pretentions. Obviously, your 'principles' aren't worth much to you.

And if half-measures are causing 'unintended' problems, then going for 'full-measures' isn't likely to reduce the problem.

As for your contention that present government policy puts 'barriers' against rich people having kids, please give us an example of this phenomena. This should be easy for you since you are so certain that 'removing' these will improve the situation.

[Renegade]

I mean that the rich have capital but don't do much work (they make up only 1-3% the population), the poor do some work but aren't very productive in general, so the capital of the rich and the labour of the middle-class is what our economy rests on.

It is generally irrelevant which segment is the "backbone", just as the backbone is irrelevant without a brain,or hands. All groups cooperatively deliver productivity.

Hate to break it to you but couples having 0.5 children on average is a problem unless those children become 4 times as productive as their parents just to "replace their parents". Somehow I don't see productivity going up 4 times in the next 30-40 years.

Who cares if the kids replace their parents? You are jumping to a number of assumptions. You are assuming that the total output needs to be the same so that kids need to be 4 times as productive. Why would we need the same total output with fewer people? Break it to me gently.

Agreed, but currently governments are doing the opposite - giving people who are least able to provide for their kids more and more money to have more kids.

Well, we agree on something.

You propose to "remove barriers" for the wealthy and "create barriers" for the poor. I don't see any proposal here, I see just vague ideas. Now what kind of barriers on having children does someone with $10M/yr in income face that the government can remove? And how can the government prevent the poor from having children?

You skipped my response to CA. I listed some specific suggestions.

You are quite correct that someone making $10M/year is not going to be induced by the government to have children they don't want. But the are only a small part of the population. Its the middle-class and upper-middle class who have capacity to have kids and may be influenced.

[Renegade]

Which is why your proposed policy prescription is unlikely to have any effect at all.

No, I meant I agree with the first part of your statement regarding the influence of wealth on the propensity to have kids. I disagree that it can't be influenced by government's actions and policy. Don't believe me? How is it that China has been able to curtail it's birthrate through a one-child policy?

It is human nature to breed. Having a family is not necessarily a rational economic choice.

Ergo, you presume to fight human nature with rational economic tools. That is doomed to failure.

Humans are given the power to control their natural impulses. Even if they are driven by impulses to breed, they are given the choice to procreate or not. The fact that the wealthy have less children is evidence that they rationalize that choice above just impulses.

There are many examples where we expect people to control their "human nature" and penalize individuals when they do not. We expect someone who has AIDS to not transmit their disease to unknowning victims, despite what their sexual impulses are. Even if you ignore precautions, as an individual you have 9 months between the impulsive act and being a parent. Individuals have ample time to make a rational decision, and we shoudl expect them to. The consequences to the child are severe if they do not.

Okie dokie. If you discard your libertarian principles and make authoritarian policy proposals, don't be surprise if other's laugh at your 'libertarian' pretentions. Obviously, your 'principles' aren't worth much to you.

I've rethought this one and I retract my previous statement. I believe what I'm proposing is inline with libertarian principles and here's why.

In making the choice to become a parent you are commiting to fulfill a set of obligations toward your child. That set of obligations, is to be a proper role model, proper parent, but also to provide appropriate food, clothing, shelter, etc. In essence the parent is entering into a contract with the future child.

Since the child is unable to ensure that the parent is capable of fulfilling the terms of that contract before agreeing to it, it is perfectly consistent with libertarian principles that the government intervene to ensure that each party entering a contract, has the capability to fulfill that contract.

In essence it is the same concept as the government issuing each qualifed individual a drivers license based upon some critieria it set.

And if half-measures are causing 'unintended' problems, then going for 'full-measures' isn't likely to reduce the problem.

It is more likely to achieve the stated goal.

As for your contention that present government policy puts 'barriers' against rich people having kids, please give us an example of this phenomena. This should be easy for you since you are so certain that 'removing' these will improve the situation.

If a couple wants to hire a nanny to look after their kids and is willing to pay $500/month, the only thing that keeps them from doing so is governmental regulation.

[Remiel]

Maybe you should link the inheritance tax to the number of children you have... The more children you have, the less the inheritance is taxed... Might even work, since rich people seem to only care about money.

I imagine though that if they were to try and keep poor people from having kids and only allowing rich people, we'd soon have a lot of dead rich people on our hands... I think they call it anarchy, rebellion, etc...

[Renegade]

Maybe you should link the inheritance tax to the number of children you have... The more children you have, the less the inheritance is taxed... Might even work, since rich people seem to only care about money.

I doubt that the rich would plan that far ahead so that the impact of inheritance tax would sway their child-bearing decision.

I imagine though that if they were to try and keep poor people from having kids and only allowing rich people, we'd soon have a lot of dead rich people on our hands... I think they call it anarchy, rebellion, etc...

Actually, it shouldn't be poor people we keep from having kids. It should be irresponsible parents we should keep from having kids regardless of if they are rich or poor. However, part of the responsibilty would be the ability to undertake the financial commitment to support the child.

If a certain segement of the population rebelled, they would in effect be rebelling for the right to be parents regardless of whether they could fulfill their obligations to their kids. I have no sympathy for their cause.

[Remiel]

If the scientific purpose of life is to create more life, and you have a right to life, how can you not have the right to the purpose of life, barring natural circumstance such as procreation likely ending in death of the child? Also, rich and poor are not genetic disorders. Dollar to a dime, if you were to switch the children of 100 rich families and 100 poor families at birth, the statistics on success would be identical to what they are now, except it would be the children of the poor parents being brought up by the rich parents who were succesful, instead of children of the rich parents being brought up by the rich parents.

As another solution to your wildly ridiculous problem, create incentives for rich people to adopt poor children while they are young. That way, the poor people get to fulfill their biological imperative, genetic diversity is preserved and more people are brought up to be succesful.

Something though, you don't account for the economic notion of necessary poor in free market systems. If only middle-class and rich people were allowed to have children, it would merely mean that future poor people would be the children of middle class and rich people instead of poor people.

[Renegade]

If the scientific purpose of life is to create more life, and you have a right to life, how can you not have the right to the purpose of life, barring natural circumstance such as procreation likely ending in death of the child?

I'm really having trouble understanding your run-on sentence, however I'll give it a shot.

First, who determined the scientific purpose of life is to create more life? You seem to state that there is a right to bear children? Is that an absolute right? Do I have the right to bear 300 children which I cannot support and then have them starve to death?

Also, rich and poor are not genetic disorders. Dollar to a dime, if you were to switch the children of 100 rich families and 100 poor families at birth, the statistics on success would be identical to what they are now, except it would be the children of the poor parents being brought up by the rich parents who were succesful, instead of children of the rich parents being brought up by the rich parents.

I agree. Nothing I've said disputes that.

As another solution to your wildly ridiculous problem, create incentives for rich people to adopt poor children while they are young. That way, the poor people get to fulfill their biological imperative, genetic diversity is preserved and more people are brought up to be succesful.

Yes and it is an option I would fully support. People who cannot fulfill their parental responsiblities should give up their responsiblities to others who are willing and able to shoulder them.

BTW, It is not my "wildly ridiculous problem". Society seems to have defined child poverty as a problem, and attempted to imposed solutions on everyone which hasn't worked.

Something though, you don't account for the economic notion of necessary poor in free market systems. If only middle-class and rich people were allowed to have children, it would merely mean that future poor people would be the children of middle class and rich people instead of poor people.

Absolutely correct, but I do account for it, and even assume it will occur! The intent is not to eliminate poor people. Poor people will happen anyway as you point out. The aim is to afford each child at least a minimium standard enviornment as such is the obligation of the parent. Whether they financially succeed or fail after having been provided that standard, is really up to them, but the obligation to them has been met.

[rover1]

The problem of child poverty fades into insignificance when compared to the problem of child affluence. These little kiddie capitalists are constantly consuming at an ever increasing rate with their $600 video games frequent Mac Donald visits and their well know disdain of those who can't keep up. The child oligarchs have indeed shown little interest in decent re-distribution of incomes or in any kind of help for the poverty stricken denizens of the ghetto or anywhere else. Until something is done to solve this problem, child poverty will be present and increasing.

[Renegade]

It is a personal invasion, in a way that vetting potential adoptees is not. Further, even as the State has the power to remove a child (a power which I agree is necessary), governments are highly conservative in their approach to it. As they should be. What we don't need is automatic government intrusion into everybody's personal life without prior cause.

I'm not seeing how it is any less of a personal invasion than vetting potential adoptive parents. There are many areas where the state intervenes without requiring prior cause. I've already given you the example of driver's licenses. The state now has imposed stricter rules on who can take a mortgage, it doesn't wait for proof that you are a bad borrowerer. The state forbids you from driving drunk, it doesn't require previous history of running someone over.

As a libertarian, I'm not very happy with state intervention, but I can see some justification when it may be necessary to intervene to prevent an even worse outcome. I can think of few more important influences on the child's development that the parents. Do you agree that parents have obligations toward their kids and should be required to live up to those obligations?

And in fact, one of the reasons the government is cautious about removing children is that it has become a psychological standard that fairly poor parents are preferable to a foster situation. Both have emotional and psychological effects on a child, sometimes affecting them in various ways for life. But it's not at all obvious--to the people who do this for a living, and who have deep understanding of child psychology--that removing a child from not-too-great parents is the healthy choice...for the child, I mean. That's why they restrict it to abusive and dangerously neglectful homes.

While it may be preferable that a child grow up in poverty rather than a foster family, it may be even more preferable that either the child be never born into the situation to begin with or alternatively that the child be placed with an adoptive family. As far as I am aware, there seems to be little trouble placing babies up for adoption. The placement of older kids is a somewhat different story.

How would the government decide exactly what makes a parent "qualified"? With a driver's license (your repeated analogy) the required skills and knowledge of the rules are nice and clear, at least mostly. Parenting, I daresay, is a profoundly different matter.

First of all, people disagree wildly on what constitutes good parenting; on what is acceptable and what is not.

How do we measure this?

What about financial security? This is a sticky situation. What if you have little, but feel you're likely to have a lot more later...and you're already pregnant. (I add this in case you deflect with a "well, don't have children yet" remark.) Or what if you're financially stable...but later fall into ruin? Should you be monitored, and so have your children blithely removed at the moment of insolvency?

What's too strict? Not strict enough?

And what about parents--the untold millions--who begin rather badly, but then "grow into" a fine parenting ability?

Now you are talking about how such a standard would be implemented, when I don't think you have agreed that there should be a standard at all.

What is included in the standard is up for debate. IMV, history of violence, or child abuse, and financial fitness to support a child should all be part of the standard. I would agree that there is probably lots of areas which are up for debate, but the point is to start with a basic standard and refine it with time. I imagine that even with the first drivers licences, the state had to guess what skills were required of a fit driver. It refined that standard with time.

As to the other situations you describe. (ie fit parents who with time become unfit, and unfit parents who later become fit), a standard doesn't guarantee outcome. A driver's licence doesn't guarantee you won't crash. Lack of a driver's licence dosen't guarantee you will. However given that parents are undertaking an obligation toward their kids, and parents seem to expect support from the state in bringing up their kids, I think it is reasonable that the state have a voice in deciding who is an adequate parent.

I know, you're a walking contradiction. But I don't mean this as an insult, because we are by nature contradictory animals.

Well, I don't really think my position is contradictory if you consider parenting a contract, but feel free to point out contradictions.