The Reason for the Decline in the Population of the West

A critical examination of the factors contributing to population
decline in the West...

The nuclear family, like the state, is simply a form of organizing
social relations. No one has proven that it is mandatory, necessary,
or inevitable. Even in the modern world, other forms of family and
social organization continue to exist. Communes, tribes, clan
communities, collectives, unions, and so on. Each of these forms
of social organization has its own views on the normality of sexual
relations and child-rearing.
Today, let’s reflect together on the issue of why the population
of developed countries is constantly declining while that of poorer
countries continues to grow, despite advancements in reproductive
technologies.
Modern family laws are an archaic phenomenon and represent
a regressive remnant of the past when Christian and orthodox
leftist ideas of Marx dominated the industrial world. Today,
the Western world has changed. Women are no longer forced
to be subservient with reproductive functions. Women drive cars,
pilot airplanes, work in mines, and many earn more than men.
Although leftist globalists attempt to turn any form of sexual
relations into a painful source of social tension, the fact remains
that the modern woman in the Western world is her own master.
Moreover, modern reproductive technologies allow for childbirth
through surrogacy at any age and within any family group. 
Upcoming scientific advancements, such as artificial wombs and
three-way-parenting through IVF—where a man or woman can
simultaneously be both a mother and a father to their child—are
on the horizon. Overall, contemporary scientific progress
in reproductive medicine has long resolved the issue of a specific
heterosexual woman having a monopoly on childbirth. In fact,
anyone can experience the joy of parenthood, and all that
is required is financial means.
However, this is precisely where we encounter the archaic system
of governmental regulations. The state has always struggled against
happiness and drive (high); this is its primary objective and
reflects its retrograde nature. Modern monopolistic hierarchical
structures known as states exist within their own insanity
bureaucratic bubble, one of the main ideas of which is equality
before the law. Yet, as is well known, laws are defined by the
values of the moral marketplace, leading to social contradictions
among groups of people who identify based on their types of sexual
relationships. Each of these groups fights for a monopoly on the
right to realize their vision of sexuality within the governmental
system. Thus, from a logical standpoint, an insurmountable barrier
arises due to antagonistic views on the nature of family. Both
leftist and rightist political groups exploit this situation, often
overlooking the main issue. The problem lies not in sexual identity
but in the monopolistic, one-dimensional nature of the state that
does not allow for a differentiated approach to this matter. The
state has laws regarding family, which regulate so-called marital
relationships. In reality, family laws exist primarily to formalize
property relations and nothing more.
According to some outdated criteria established in the Middle
Ages, marriage is considered only a union between a man and
a woman. However, in modern Western society, various forms
of family have long existed and are actively recognized, such
as polygamy, polyandry, LGBTQ+ relationships, religious
communes, nuclear families, temporary family unions, and so on.
Each of these forms of social relationships coexists alongside us.
Yet, for some psychosomatic reason, these groups are unable
to formalize inheritance and property relations with one another.
Here, I would like to clarify something. If the state cannot
be eliminated, then it should ensure the right of individuals
to voluntarily and equally organize into any social forms. This
is the main idea of anarcho-liberalism, in contrast to the leftist,
irrational concept of power held by anonymous bureaucracy.
If the state exists, it must guarantee that each group identifying
itself by gender receives the rights to formalize property family
relations according to its own vision of family and marriage.
Thus, the very understanding of marriage within the state can
be changed. If people believe that marriage is solely a union
blessed by a higher power between a man and a woman, then
they should formalize their relationships in a church. Consequently,
all property and other relations should be regulated by church rules
and canons. In this way, religious communities should be separated
from the institution of civil marriage. Civil marriage primarily
exists for those who do not adhere to the supremacy of theological
ideas over any others.
The same applies to childbirth and adoption. The rules of religious
groups and their understanding of family should only apply to their
own children to avoid conflicts with other forms of family.
Additionally, the state should cease to forcibly impose mandatory
government education on children and families.
Thus, we arrive at a rather important understanding of the
situation. While hundreds of thousands of family unions are unable
to have children, other couples demand financial payments from
the government and taxpayers for having children, or they opt for
abortions. The question arises: what is the logic behind this
absurdity? Some family groups pay hundreds of thousands of dollars
for the joy of being parents, while others turn it into a financial
issue. This is all happening because archaic laws prevent people
from having children through alternative methods, or because
the bureaucratic apparatus is stuck in the ideas of the late 19th
century. Is it not possible to regulate the issue of compensating
women for choosing not to have an abortion by funding adoption
for childless couples? In simpler terms, we need to allow families
willing to become foster parents to pay for the decision to forgo
an abortion. This way, women would receive good compensation,
and adoptive parents would gain heirs. Additionally, many lives
would be saved in the process.
The state has no right to interfere in the realm of interpersonal
sexual relationships if they are based on voluntary and equal terms.
Moreover, it is essential to finally separate religion from the state
so that everyone can live as they see fit without regard to the
bureaucratic apparatus.
Even a cursory glance at family legislation reveals how many archaic
problems are hidden in these convoluted corners of bureaucratic
absurdity. The main issue with reduction of the population in the
West lies in the existence of mandatory alimony payments, forced
deprivation of property due to having children after divorce, and
so on. In other words, children in Western society have become
a very problematic business that socialists have gotten involved in.
It is evident that Western heterosexual men are held captive by
archaic ideas from the late 19th century. Thus, by entering into
a marriage contract, no one is protected from the burdens of
a state-imposed communist debt. Moreover, no one is immune
to the possibility that their children may not be their own. The
entire family can end up being just one big financial scam, all made
possible by regressive family communist laws.
As long as state bureaucracy remains entrenched in the realm
of sexual and family relations, the population of Western countries
will continue to decline. We have long been living in a new world
with a different reproductive technological landscape than that
of the 19th century. In some countries, "abortion of law" is already
possible, but its use remains limited.
To summarize my thoughts: Childbearing should not be funded
by taxpayers. It should not depend on theological doctrines. State
bureaucracy should not impose a specific form of civil family
relations. The government should not block alternative methods
of reproduction. Systems of enforced payments after divorce, such
as alimony and forced asset deprivation, should be abolished.
Overall, children should not be the cause of property disputes. When
the state stops turning the joy of parenthood into a quasi-religious
financial problem, then population growth in Western countries will
begin. Children are a personal matter for each individual, not
a reason for bureaucratic dictatorship.