Betruger wrote:Was it Diogenes who argued something like this?
What I argued is that if you let government pay for your medical bills and the feeding and housing of your children, you should be interdicted from having more. Pay your own bills, and you can have as many as you like.
This is the way things were before the government decided to start subsidizing bastardy.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Jccarlton wrote:I will point out that this is from the Daily Currant, which is a site filled with a sort of sick desire that they try to reflect on to conservatives. I will also add that eugenics was a progressive idea, that the perpetrators of actions based on eugenics were Progreswsive idols, at least until the grim consequences came out and that the body count of Progressives is approximately 200 million or so.
Margaret Sanger was the champion of the eugenics idea. Her agency (Planned Parenthood) is still responsible for killing mostly black babies. Her primary motivating principle was to prevent the "unworthy" from reproducing.
Eugenics is a National Socialist/ Liberal Progressive idea simply carried out to it's logical conclusion. The party of blood and death simply remains true to form, though they badly wish to deflect the truth on this issue.
choff wrote:She may be insane but she's rated as the 16th most influential woman in the world. Debating left vs right on her statements is irrelevant since 99% of both sides becomes extinct under her policy.
My observation is that Wealth and Insanity are kissing cousins.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Now, encouraging certain individuals (couples rather) to have children vs others not to is another matter. I've no problem with the organizations which pay drug addicted women for long term or permanent sterilization. If an individual is in such a bad state of mind that they're willing to sell their ability to procreate, then they're in a state of mind such that they should not be responsible for other human beings.
So you are suggesting that Drug addiction renders someone incompetent in managing their daily affairs? Whatever your position, I suggest you share this observations with MSimon.
necoras wrote:
Likewise, subsidies for those who are likely to be good parents are useful. We already provide this in the form of a free universal education up through age 18. Early childhood education has its own added benefits. There are also the obvious tax benefits provided to parents. It would be possible to target these more directly, but then you really are playing very close to the eugenics game. These methods create incentives to be productive, and have generally positive effects on society as a whole.
How about the notion that the government stays out of people's business unless there is a compelling reason for them to intervene, such as people obliging others to pay for their bills?
Let the Tax system be equal for all, and let people decide for themselves whether they want the additional burden of children. Government needs to neither encourage nor discourage this aspect of people's lives.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
So you are suggesting that Drug addiction renders someone incompetent in managing their daily affairs?
Certainly it can, depending on the severity of the addiction. Isn't that part of the definition of an addiction? Dependence upon a substance or activity to the point where it interferes with daily life? I wasn't aware this was up for debate.
How about the notion that the government stays out of people's business unless there is a compelling reason for them to intervene, such as people obliging others to pay for their bills?
People are generally left alone so long as they don't interact with other people. As soon as you have multiple individuals which live, work, and trade in overlapping areas you're bound to need some governing body to set rules and deal with disputes. You can argue till the cows come home as to how far those rules should go, but some level of common code of conduct is necessary. Part of the point of that body of laws is that that those who live and work together in a community work towards what is best for everyone involved. It's game theory 101. If a substantial portion of the population is only out for themselves then it inevitably ends up worse for everyone involved. There's certainly a balancing act to be aware of, but it's not unreasonable to suggest that the community have a say in what's best for the community. If a member doesn't like the rules, they can leave the community.
I understand that there are people largely dependent on the community for their survival, but to remove their reproductive choice is a massive step. There have to be very very good reasons to do so. Personally I don't believe we're anywhere near that being reasonable.
It has been determined reasonable when circumstances warrant. I thought this was a known fact. My point is to include (extend) the concept to be pre-emptive for those seeking support. It is a problem in the current system that the support system encourages more kids and thus give more money to the parent. The best thing you can be if you don't want to work is a single mother and crank out some kids. Nobody really makes you spend the money on the kids. And some states have amazing benefits for this lifestyle.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
So you are suggesting that Drug addiction renders someone incompetent in managing their daily affairs?
Certainly it can, depending on the severity of the addiction. Isn't that part of the definition of an addiction? Dependence upon a substance or activity to the point where it interferes with daily life? I wasn't aware this was up for debate.
You haven't been around much in the last year I take it? It has been the most common topic of debate.
necoras wrote:
People are generally left alone so long as they don't interact with other people. As soon as you have multiple individuals which live, work, and trade in overlapping areas you're bound to need some governing body to set rules and deal with disputes. You can argue till the cows come home as to how far those rules should go, but some level of common code of conduct is necessary.
Absolutely agree with this. There must be a commonly understood concept of "wrong".
necoras wrote:
Part of the point of that body of laws is that that those who live and work together in a community work towards what is best for everyone involved. It's game theory 101. If a substantial portion of the population is only out for themselves then it inevitably ends up worse for everyone involved. There's certainly a balancing act to be aware of, but it's not unreasonable to suggest that the community have a say in what's best for the community. If a member doesn't like the rules, they can leave the community.
Up to a point. When it reaches the tyranny of the majority, it has gone too far.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
ladajo wrote: The best thing you can be if you don't want to work is a single mother and crank out some kids. Nobody really makes you spend the money on the kids. And some states have amazing benefits for this lifestyle.
It warps incentives and thereby produces an artificial and unnatural social outcome. Many of the people so produced are destined to die early and often unlamented.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
This Margaret Sanger is proof witchcraft survived into the modern era, but even she would be nothing more than a useful idiot in Gina Rinehart's universe.
