Bendover:
First, mothers raising children are generating revenue in a longterm perspective because they are doing the fundamentally important work of making sure the human species continues to exist.
Second, your talk about incentives can be turned around on you. For example, maybe someone feels like they are being given an incentive to have a child if they can get access to welfare and other forms of government help. Maybe they feel like they are engaging in unpaid labor if they are not compensated for doing the revenue generating, human species maintaining task of giving birth to and raising children.
Third, employed people can get welfare.
Fourth, I have read Adam Smith and Karl Marx. You should read In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell and The Abolition of Work by Bob Black.
Fifth, I understand the Bill Clinton welfare act. But my example is trying to say that there is something wrong with the act and people's general perception of welfare. If the government doesn't consider my proposal work, then i suggest we broaden our horizons instead of living in outdated partriarchal tyrannies.
As to your second point, giving an incentive to have a child to get welfare, why as a society would we want to do that? As I said before, it is understood in economics that, "there is no such thing as a free lunch." Someone has to pay for it. In our society and most of the world it is the belief that parents are responsible to care for their own children. That is why we have child support for unmarried couples. In some cases I've heard of the state going after fathers to recoup money they have spent on welfare payments to single mother. Oddly enough it happened to an uncle of mine. I have no idea if actually had to pay anything or not.
As to your fifth point, what you are proposing would either be classified as barter or contracting, depending on if money is exchanged or services, but it not employment - from a government standpoint or textbook one.
As to your third point, depending on your state, it maybe possible for people to get welfare, depending on how much they earn. If you are classifying "food stamps" and WIC as welfare, you are absolutely correct.
As to your first point, in a fiat or paper money economy, which almost the entire world lives, continuing the human species is not contributing towards generating revenue in short, near or long term unless they are selling their children.
we have an expectation that the human race will continue. That expectation is not usually an economic one, like with pigs or cattle. It is a social one, a biological one and for some a spiritual one. For those that would have children for an economic reason, for the sake of a government check or getting a check from a lover, that is morally wrong. I don't understand how you could encourage a system where the government would pay people to support them and their children, especially in a time when we are having enough problems the way it is.
How about this scenario. What if Mother 1 and mother 2 each made items for sales, or started service businesses where they cleaned peoples homes and business, maybe they watched other people's children and started a daycare service and found a way to make it cheaper for the parents than other alternatives, saving these people money, making a living for themselves and paying taxes to the government.
Which as better for them and everyone: welfare or work/business? I think the work/business adds, the welfare does not generate anything.
As to unpaid labor, we all do unpaid labor for our families, our community, to churches and even to individuals. It doesn't take away the need to be able supports oneself.
Even if we did your idea and gave larger portions of the population welfare, for much longer periods of time, how are we going to support it. There are people in Europe that are wealthy and have moved to other European countries to pay less in taxes. If you get most of your taxes from a few and they leave and take their wealth with them, or simple earn all future amounts of money in another country, you are stuck.
Welfare is a fine idea to help get people through tough times, but it can't be a long term option for sizable portions of the population. When I say sizable I'm talking about 5%, 10% or more.
You may need to educate me on patriarchal tyrannies. There is no one forcing you to do anything. Just because those in power don't give you something doesn't make it a tyranny. We have a federal government that has a division of powers, offices that are elected every two, four or six years, appoints that are temporary, except for the supreme, and anyone of them can be removed from office for misuse of their power. Bush is no longer in office, his term ended and with it his power. Actually his real power ended when the Democrats gained control of congress. I live in a state where our governor was just impeached for allegedly trying to sell President Obama's former seat in the Senate.
I don't know where you are from, but if you live in North America or Europe, you have all sorts of civil liberties. Even people with little or no wealth lead better lives and have more freedoms than kings did many years ago.
In all reality, nobody owes you or me or anyone else anything in this world, than to not be physically harmed.
It's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn't mean the government or society is entitle to feed and clothe you, but it does mean that it should not stand in your way in your pursuit of such things.
I will seek out the two texts you have mentioned. I will add that business activities, producing media and creating things may not be classified as work, but they can be revenue generating activities as well.
In your post, you never did mention your motivation for this thread.