/lit/ - Literature

>>20028083
I guess

>One must understand that people or mankind, hereforth, is not equal in one instance, for we are many individuals with different strengths and weaknesses and fit into our own "special" sockets or holes or rooms that nature sees fit, its another thing to assume that all people should not be without basic welfare and the right to food, water, shelter and other necessities. So, going back to the "pyramid of consent" and merging it with the welfare given by the state, first to men, and then to the others as seen fit. However, due to the current conditions of society, women shall not and cannot receive welfare considering that it promotes single-motherhood, and the amount of children produced out of wedlock would increase tenfold which means more mouths to feed and a larger tax burden on working men, who by nature of their own biology, do not birth children but simply provide the seed for doing so. Considering the state has no interest in doing so with where welfare is allocated, we must try to approach all men as charity cases, considering most men do not have the ultimate say so in who decides to take care of the children, let alone who decides who is in a relationship, and I believe a reversal of these values over time would have long term benefits.

From my two part essay "On Human Welfare", btw