A policy like abortion appears to help the working class at first.
What actually happens is infa ts are slaughtered, casual sex happens a lot more frequently and the poor stay poor in a degenerate subculture.
This is not all poor. It is some subcultures of the poor.
This leads to vicious cycles whereby when a pioicy banning abortions or charging money rather then publicly finding the abortions occurs, it will at first hurt the poor.
On the flip side, a policy like flat tax and free markets at first will seem fair and as if the poor if they rise will be taxed less, to help them keep rising.
What actually happene is monpooie or oligopolies form, choke out all small business(es) in the industry/ies they compete in and nobody protects them.
I have other examples proving I see genuine deep flaws in both wings. It is not even that the pilitiicnas are corrupt alone, the wings themselves both have inherently flawed approaches. That is why mixed economies and middleway social pooicies are consistently what tends to be present in the most desirable places on Earth to live in.
However, I actually believe being too desirable to foreign migrants backfires. This is a view I gained much later into my life as I was raised to think as a leftist of sorts.
If you are too desirable, you find the dilemma of ethnic replacement and more inevitably takes place over time. Furthermore, the cuktures replacing you rarely give yours the mutual respect back.
This is NOT neonazi or white specific. I am not for total remigration. I am saying it needs to be very controlled. You want to attract law-compliant and assimilatable immigrants and repel ones that either will not likely obey the law or won't likely ever assimilate but it is not just that. You want to also have the amount of 'good immigration' low enough such that immigrants are at all times too low in population to win a civil war against the natives.
This is actually why I have deep issue with nations founded on a basis like what US was. US did not even identiy as a colonised nation, it confused itself to believe it was a white nation with several founding fathers, 0 of which were native.
This has led to MANY fubdamebtally racist and prohlematic aspects to US. In contrast their neighbour Canada had an ibtellectually honest realisation that it was British and French colonised. This led to it correctly handling the disparity and anguish its natices felt with the replacement of which culture was dominant. They showed a lot more respect to the native tribes than US did.
Australia had similar issues to US where NZ had less. NZ and Canada's relationship between the conqueror tribes and natige tribes was healthier because they realised it was the native's land first. The actual realisation of this wasnt enough. NZ did enslave the Maori at times.
However, in the US scenario they went so insane that they decided to bring over a whole new race and several of their ethnicities to enslave and abuse.
This is linked to the fact that Americans had a mental block in their minds, since they identified as natives of the land it led to them feeling it woukd be wrong to treat the actual natives that way (this was after a lot of raping, genociding and pillaging of said natives) so they instead decided to bring black people over, as in their minds that was an 'other' people while the natives were 'with' them.
Eventually you can appreciate how truly racist America is at a fundamental level only when you rewind to its origin and realise how it formed a torn identity as a white nation that it never actually was originally.
