A while ago I wrote an article on suburbanism and the two-children family and pointed out how much more difficult it is to have three children as opposed to two. I wrote that having three kids int the back of your car is only suitable for short trips, and even that can be a bit of a hassle. As Steven added in the comments, in some jurisdictions this is even worse because it is not even possible to fit three kids into the back of your car, thanks to safety regulations:

With regard to fitting three children in the back of a car. Some jurisdictions, like my own, mandate that children under a certain age must be carried in an approved child-seat that takes up half the space in the back of a standard motor vehicle. Even with one young child in that approved child-seat and one older child in a seat-belt, you cannot fit a third child in the backseat. When I was young, decades ago, my parents would place three children of varying ages in the back and the baby on my mother’s lap in the front; that is completely illegal today.

I do not want to make the claim that safety regulations are bad, but with my schizo hat firmly on my head, I cannot help but wonder if there are regulations out there that exists for a different reason than the stated one. To give you a pretty well-known example: the banking industry is heavily regulated. Getting a banking license takes lot of time and costs a lot of money. The barriers to entry are high. This is not necessarily in order to regulate the industry. Instead, it is an attempt to keep competition out. Good luck starting your own investment bank! Quite obviously, banks are engaged in a lot of shady business and if they mess up, they throw their hands up in the air, point out that they are too big to fail, and take taxpayer money. Sometimes, some low-level employee gets locked up but the industry as a whole seems to be quite invincible, and genuine regulation is not intended.

Obviously, car accidents are a societal issue. I am not against airbags in cars, for instance, and putting children into special children’s seats in order to provide extra protection is not a bad idea either. However, what if the regulations were designed in such a way that children’s seats need to have a certain minimum width, ostensibly to provide extra safety but actually to take away some space in the back, making it impossible to put a third kid into the back of the car? Compared to the government mandating that you need to get vaxxed, such regulations are downright quaint. Yet, the question needs to be asked if it was not possible to specify a narrower width for those seats that has the same safety properties?

There are also social engineering campaigns that aim at limiting family sizes. Even as late as the early 20th century, it was not at all uncommon that the entire family slept in one room, and those were larger families. If families were a bit better off, they had a separate children’s room, but this was one room for all children. Fast-forward a few decades, and parents believe that every child needs to not only have its own room but a room of a certain size, and if you cannot afford that, it may be better if you did not have any children. Somehow, such messaging is reserved for the native population, for some strange reason. Related is the often-repeated claim that you need to be able to provide a certain material standard for children, leading to “studies” showing that a child will cost you a few hundred thousand dollars, without the cost of tertiary education.

I do not have proof that the fact that some jurisdictions demand that children’s seats have an excessive width is ill-intended, but I would be quite surprised if this was not the case. In a lot of Western cities with radical leftist governments, traffic flow has been modified to make the experience of driving in a car a lot less pleasant. In addition, many cities have reduced the number of available parking spots. This was not ill-intended, of course. It is for the environment, just like making it more cumbersome to have more children is good for the environment! Leftist rags like The Guardian often remind us that it is your duty as a white man or woman to not have children, which is a good expression of the sickening world view of the political class.