[craftyguy]

I think there are two sides to this. You paid nothing because you were subsidized by others. I can definitely see the other point of view from folks who do not have children and/or do not want children.

Here in the US, I don't particularly want to pay for the masses of folks who refuse to use contraceptives and are up to 4+ children already. There are already way too many people here (and on Earth in general). On the other hand, people should be entitled to free healthcare to a MUCH larger extend than we currently have here. There's a big difference between having a child and you catching the flu, breaking a bone, or getting cancer. The environmental and social impact of having a kid is much larger, and I can see how some folks don't want to subsidize this.

[factsaresacred]

> You paid nothing because you were subsidized by others.

This is the story of civilization. You've been around for a blip and yet the Internet, flight, mobile phones, vaccines, civil rights, central heating etc. are all available to you.

You didn't contribute to any of that and yet you're the benefactor. For society to flourish it's necessary - within reason - to think beyond your own individual interests, and consider what type of society you want to live in and leave behind.

One in which people are financially ruined if they fall or give birth is surely not the best we can do.

[point78]

Excellent post. Sums up everything why I agree with this governmental model. Will save this comment.

[jpambrun]

To add to this, I'm a selfish guy from Canada. However, I realize it's in my selfish interest to have an healthy and well educated population in order to improve my own quality of life and those of my loved ones (to which my selfish interests extend).

I mean, we are not saints here, we all make decisions that we believe are good for us. I just can't imagine how one can rationalize that private healthcare and insurance is good for them.

[henrikschroder]

"I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization."

[henrikschroder]

> I can definitely see the other point of view from folks who do not have children and/or do not want children.

The society you live in needs to replace its dying citizens with new citizens. The easiest way to do that is by existing citizens having children. If having children is too expensive such that the birth-rate shrinks below replacement levels, your society will shrink, and your economy will shrink. This is bad for you, regardless of you having children or not. Therefore, it's in your interest that society uses some of its pooled resources to ensure that the birth-rate is kept above replacement level, i.e. use your taxes to subsidize children.

[freedomben]

I agree with what you said, but I think

> the world is full of short-sighted morons who can't think long-term

is counterproductive (and probably a violation of HN guidelines (see "In comments, paragraphs 1 and 2): https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) since it seems to be calling the person you are responding to a moron.

[henrikschroder]

Fair enough.

[aianus]

> The easiest way to do that is by existing citizens having children.

Seems to me the easiest way to maintain the population in any given developed first-world country is immigration, not raising new people from birth.

[always_good]

It's easier initially. But dealing with the resulting social issues that may result certainly is not easy. Accounting for everything, I'd say immigration is the harder route.

[henrikschroder]

Of course, most first-world countries do both.

But if you accept immigrants, you also need to instill some of the ethos that makes your country first-world, and this challenge is something that many first-world countries fail miserably at. :-/

(And I'm not trying for some sort of wacky cultural superiority angle here, it's not the shape of your culture, the colour of your skin, or the language you speak that makes it first-world, it's simpler things like your society being high-trust, not tolerating corruption, and accepting and embracing diversity and individualism. These things are also culture, but pretty hard to teach others.)

[thriftwy]

And then eventually your country ceases to be first-world.

That unless you think the secret is first-world dust on the street. Hint: it's not, it's upbringing.

[simonblack]

How about all those heavy haulers who pay for your usage of the roads?

Most countries have 'socialised roads' and 'socialised healthcare, but the US sees 'socialised roads' as something good but 'socialised healthcare' as something bad. Whereas most other countries, even the so-called 'poor' countries can afford their single-payer 'socialised healhcare', the US finds that too difficult.

[fsloth]

"The environmental and social impact of having a kid is much larger, and I can see how some folks don't want to subsidize this."

Eh, what? Isn't continuation of the human species our number one priority? What's the point with all of this if there are no children to continue. We all will be dust one day, and if there are no children we totally, and completely seize to exist.

Continuation of the species is not a lifestyle choice. Children are not a lifestyle choice. They are necessary.

You can't seriously discuss children in the same context as you would describe any service, investment or consumer goods.