[mhardcastle]

"However, if it would restrict my freedoms in any manner, state must leave it to parents. I shouldn't be punished because some people can't find the time for their kids."

This seems like drawing a very, very firm deontological line in the sand around your freedoms. Are there no conditions in which this would not be the case? You would literally never give up the tiniest amount of freedom to benefit children other than your own, no matter how dramatically?

This is truthfully a very unfamiliar concept to me. Tax-funded programs (fundamentally an elimination of freedom through controlling how one's income is spent) and/or regulations that solve genuine coordination problems - starting with national defense and criminal justice - are fundamental to any civilization run through anything other than pure anarchy.

[atahanacar]

>This seems like drawing a very, very firm deontological line in the sand around your freedoms. Are there no conditions in which this would not be the case? You would literally never give up the tiniest amount of freedom to benefit children other than your own, no matter how dramatically?

I personally don't want to, because statistically around of the people are below average and I don't want my freedoms restricted because of them.

>Tax-funded programs (fundamentally an elimination of freedom through controlling how one's income is spent)

The taxes I pay benefit me, so it is an acceptable outcome. For example, if I paid for medical care out of my own pocked, I'd have to pay a lot more than any state would, because the state can have a greater control over prices when they are the only paying customer of healthcare.

Back to topic, no way I'm leaving anonymity on the table just because some people can't parent their kids.