Children, Citizenship, and the Limits of State Intervention
Don’t ask permission to have children. The state comes in after the fact. It is an organization, a political organization, that deals with citizens. How the citizen effectuates himself or herself in the manner of their private affairs and the multiplicity of themselves onward is irrelevant as far as the individual is concerned. It is either a single citizen or a multiplicity of citizens. There is never a reaching from the state into the individual. For that prerogative, we may be accustomed to this through the interference of traditional perceptions of domestic life. That is only a failure of domestic life in which we need state intervention. In fact, the entire constitution can be based on the idea that privatization is a realm that can never be entered by the state, and in whatever way it acts, its citizen multiplicity does not even get the glance of the state.
The same is true of economic responsibility, or responsibility as a whole. The individual, in their enactment of private citizenry, is doing so not because they are playing an economic role, which is pseudo-political in structure, but simply the advent of their privatization as it is strung along. The single citizen does not question economic standards before they partake in their own needs, but fulfill those needs as a private concern, without an accounting of its economic role-bearing load. In fact, one can indulge in citizenry and the private affair all through life within whatever economic constraints, without that perspective, and fortify that without need of any economic dictation. If they fail at such a level where there is no economic stipend for the survival of themselves as a species, they need not look far to indulge in whoever and wherever the offering of that stipend takes place. Still, there is no state intervention or state concern, or economic one.
If one is to question the responsibility load of being the guardian of other citizens, that is still a private affair, unless there is a domestic mishap. But yet there is never a domestic mishap with a lack of economic stipends because the guardian will go wherever and whenever to fulfill the immediate nourishment. And at most, the load of that responsibility falls upon the connections of that guardianship with other individuals, as well as the little citizens and their external connections, irrespective of that guardianship.
Of course, if there is malnourishment, that is a domestic problem, and thus is the beginning onset of state intervention. Yet until there is malnourishment, there is no state intervention. We can simply move this off the table for the fact is that bread and water are the medicine for malnourishment and are practically free in a modern society, so this discussion need not concern itself any further. If there is psychological damage to the guardianship, then that is a domestic problem which requires statehood intervention. But as long as they are psychologically adept, statehood has no right or bearing upon that privatization, and surely not market concerns or economic ideas, which are privy merely to corporations and their structure and have no access to that privatization, for if the state has no right, surely other citizens have less right of intervention.
Once there is a multiplicity of citizens, we never look at the multiplicity in its group, but rather through each citizen as itself. If there are little citizens, they are not to be referenced as little citizenship because of their lack of vote, but merely as wholeness of citizenry. So that if we are in concern of the little citizen, we are not in concern of the guardianship of those citizens, as long as there is no domestic problem at the level where it requires state intervention. Thus the preparation for economic stipend for the little citizen is equal to that of the guardianship citizen, with no difference in place, nor reference from one to the other, as long as guardianship is fulfilling bread and water, which is free in a modern society, and we have already asserted they are not psychologically inept.
If statehood seeks to intervene in the privatization in offering stipends, in offering assistance, they do so not because they have a right of interference, for at any time the private realm can dictate privatization and remove the authoritative role of that statehood. It is rather in graciousness of that private realm to allow statehood to offer presence by fact of stipends or otherwise, such as schooling. The fact of statehood intervention in that private realm in avoidance of schooling is merely for the fact of representation of the little citizen, not because of a domestic problem, but simply to present that offering as directly as possible without the cover of that guardianship. They are not interfering in privatization because they have no right as of yet.
Of course, the state can contain legislation that the lack of schooling is a certain kind of malnourishment, at which time it is a domestic problem which the state needs to intervene. But if not so, then they are intervening simply as little citizen, to be as present in their purview without the cover of that guardianship, which, in fact, the cover of that guardianship has every right of privatization.
We must not assume that because there is statehood intervention at a stipend or assistance level, they have at all entered that private sphere, but merely stand at its doorway, bearing fruits for the benefit of little and large citizens. The reason for statehood putting such an act is inconsequential to the privatization. It does not represent anything because it is not participating in anything. It is merely an external dealing that is made based on statehood legislation, legislature, for the order of statehood needs.
Usually, the case is that statehood does intervene for assistance for the fact that they want to amplify the idea of single citizens reproducing into multiple citizens, but specifically a certain type of citizen in their multiplicity of citizenship, because after all, it’s a political need, and they have certain needs in regards to certain amplification of certain citizenship. The question then becomes:
In a homogenous society, in what way can political assertion towards certain citizenry take place? And that is a private discussion based on political representatives that cannot be articulated in full form, but can be actualized in certain policy. For they would not want to amplify, or at least assist in, multiplicity of citizenry that would be detrimental to the state, but rather beneficial. As is the justification for schooling as a whole: better citizenry, and thus each individual, each citizen that is being offered schooling, it is specific for the return of that to be a better citizen.
For in fact, the private realm can provide its own schooling and its own systems of assistance, and do so without the need for the return of better citizenry for the state, but simply be as they are. But once there is state assistance, it is seeking a return on that investment. And in that way, the state has certain leverage over the private affairs if they partake in that assistance.
The idea that taxation is a direct causation of political assistance of private affairs is erroneous from the onset. Taxation is the stipend for the political organization, for the political representatives to perform their act of political duty. When they intervene with assistance to a private realm, they are not doing so to help the private sphere; they are doing so for the benefit of statehood. And never is such not the case, even as it appears to be a benefactor process. If one pays close attention, they will notice that political assistance is heavily skewed around the return upon investment, but one must analyze with depth what type of return statehood is looking for, for not only economic, but social and the betterment of its longevity, and a multiplicity of others in which one is not necessarily inclined to understanding, but for which we must agree is statehood’s motivation.
One is not providing to statehood to act according to one’s needs based on the fact that they are offering taxation. They must be taxed by fact of being under that political organization. And even if such taxation is used for the benefit of the political representations alone, without a single stipend going beyond that, it is still a necessary taxation to keep alive the political organization. If one wants to remove themselves from the political organization, they must strip themselves of citizenry, but the cost of citizenry is taxation. And it does not reflect a representation, for taxation is not representing how it is being dealt. That is, in regards to the political organization and their choices, one can separately vote for political representatives, and they will do how they see fit with taxation, but it is not a direct link in any consequence.
And one must be taxed even if that taxation is burnt the moment it leaves their confines, because that is the cost of citizenry. As well, there is no true benefit of the political organization to the private individual. For even the most clear benefits, such as emergency services or hospitals, it is only by fact of political need. And once that need moves away, it is no longer there as a true marker of participation. It might still maintain its representative theme or skeletal notion of that service, but in all intents and purposes, it is not truly being a benefactor of the individual.
When it does happen to benefit the individual, it is only doing so for the benefit of the political organization. For if it would be true that emergency service was motivated by the benefit of the citizen, then there would be avoidance to all warfare, that is the antithesis to emergency services. Yet it’s that same political echelon that needs to continuously partake in warfare for the benefit of that political organization and the benefit of its citizenship. But never is there a true benefactor taking place, and rather it is for the return upon investment for the political organization, and in that way we will notice where and when that return takes place.
In that way, one never begins the conversation, whether social, political, or economic, in regards to children, or having children, or dealing with children, for it is still at the confines of its private sphere and does not see the light of day. Just as one’s thoughts are not partaking in the political, social, or economic system because they are a private affair, so is bearing and raising children.
And the fact that there is intervention at a level of assistance is not a representation of that change, for then, if it truly was, then the private realm is not private anymore and it is really a political participant at the full level. It is now not a discussion of bearing children, but rather bearing citizens. But as long as there is a privatization, this is the organization and the logical way to view it.