Further to Dobers similarly named topic in which she specifically wants to avoid discussion about 'restricting rights of procreation', I want to address this head-on.
I'd like you to answer the following:
Is it acceptable to restrict procreation where it is a fact that the parents aren't able to meet their own financial needs - except through social welfare donations - let alone those of their children?
Are we to value the freedom of choice to have children OVER social wellbeing?
In a failing, morally and economically bankrupt society the first question is accutely relevant. I am a believer in libertarianism, but I also believe in social responsibility. We - as a society - have a duty to ourselves and our neighbours to preserve as best we can our wellbeing. It cannot be denied that unlimited procreation has detrimental economic and social effects. The positives, in society as it exists - if any- elude me!
Personal freedom currently takes a priority over societal wellbeing. This has got to change or we're all going to be miserable and poor and lacking in many other freedoms.
Financially speaking there might be a simple cure - make parents financially accountable, BEFORE they decide to start a family. This is to say that EVERYONE should be financially accountable in any case. There are many other benefits to this too (disabling the lazy option, engendering a more healthy social conscience) but that's another issue. Any valid contrary arguments to financial accountability will be heard with interest.
What of rights then - the right to have a family. Fair enough. But surely the rights of society, where a person is reliant upon the services that social structures provide, should be prioritised. And this is a democratic decision. You can't have your cake and eat it!
While there are people willing to be emotionally blackmailed by 'rights' we will never have social justice.
'Poo' to your rights where the whole of society is in danger.
What do you think?
Eerrrrmmm - I'm really on the fence about this one.
What do you mean by being able to meet their own financial needs?
Do they have to be able to pay for their own food and clothes, or are there other "requirements"? What if both parents are working full-time, so they're obviously not trying to abuse the system, but have a hard time making ends meet? What happens if someone gets pregnant who doesn't meet the requirements?
I agree that it's a problem, but I can't quite wrap my head around the whole proposal.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 21, 2012, 12:32:29 PM
Eerrrrmmm - I'm really on the fence about this one.
What do you mean by being able to meet their own financial needs?
Do they have to be able to pay for their own food and clothes, or are there other "requirements"? What if both parents are working full-time, so they're obviously not trying to abuse the system, but have a hard time making ends meet? What happens if someone gets pregnant who doesn't meet the requirements?
I agree that it's a problem, but I can't quite wrap my head around the whole proposal.
Meeting financial needs is simply being able to support oneself financially - pay for food, clothes and a bed as a minimum. If you can't even do that for yourself, then why is it acceptable to burden the rest of society with a child?
A persons 'right' to have children should be dependant on their ability to raise the child without being a burden on society. Otherwise society is unsustainable - et voila - we have failing healthcare, education, transport and security because we are overburdened with financially dependent families. Each of us getting a dwindling share of a depleted public purse. Who benefits here? Arguably the family who 'wants' a(nother) child. Well, woopdie-doo for them!
It is societies' DUTY to put a stop to this. This is OUR world for us to live in. Why let it strangle itself?
Food stamps and obligatory public service if that's what it takes. If you want my money, pay for it. And stop whingeing about human rights. I resent a persons right to buy luxuries of cigarettes, alcohol, TVs and chocolate while avoiding paying for the teachers, police and nurses that educate, protect and care for their children.
The situation of two working parents who cannot afford to pay for themselves is part of the problem, very much related to the welfare system. Give them tax breaks paid for out of savings from the welfare purse.
But I dont want to get into the politics of economics here, I'm debating the rights of a person to have children.
And if we're at all interested in a sustainable and stable society I don't see an alternative but to rescind those rights if a socially responsible attitude is not demonstrated.
So what happens when someone who can't support their children gets pregnant?
What are we talking about here? Forced sterilization for the poor? No thanks. >:( I do think that people should be financially sound before having kids, but I don't think that society or government has a right to enforce that. I actually find the idea of a government that can choose who is worthy of "breeding" horrific. And at least in my country, there would also be a bit of eugenics at play there, since minorities have a higher rate of poverty than caucasions in most areas. No. No no no. >:(
Mmm.. tough question. I would rather make it depend on the actions that the future parents take, to improve their situation, than on the situation itself.
I'm not in favour of lazy bastards to breed the next generation of lazy bastards ;).
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 05:01:42 PMWhat are we talking about here? Forced sterilization for the poor? No thanks. >:( I do think that people should be financially sound before having kids, but I don't think that society or government has a right to enforce that. I actually find the idea of a government that can choose who is worthy of "breeding" horrific. And at least in my country, there would also be a bit of eugenics at play there, since minorities have a higher rate of poverty than caucasions in most areas. No. No no no. >:(
I agree. The possibility for abuse and the kind of horrible things that can be carried out under it, is too great to risk it.
I think the government having a say in who can have children is a slippery slope....today based on some kind of financial line tomorrow perhaps based on intelligence...then what? If financially stable kids are good for society why not also require both parents to meet a certain IQ level too as certainly intelligence is better for society...then wait till we can test for tendencies towards violence (or whatever) and those people aren't allowed to have kids even if they've never done anything wrong...falling toward eugentics every step of the way just because that first step took away a person's right to freedom if taking away that freedom could arguably be better for society.
I'd rather live in a free world where we have to worry about how to pay for the kids of people who shouldn't have had them then live in a world where the government gets to decide who is worthy. Just think of how stigmatized a person would be if they were lumped in the reject group...it would completely change us as a society and probably not for the better and it certainly would create precedence for the end of personal freedom.
Quote from: Davin on February 21, 2012, 05:06:45 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 05:01:42 PMWhat are we talking about here? Forced sterilization for the poor? No thanks. >:( I do think that people should be financially sound before having kids, but I don't think that society or government has a right to enforce that. I actually find the idea of a government that can choose who is worthy of "breeding" horrific. And at least in my country, there would also be a bit of eugenics at play there, since minorities have a higher rate of poverty than caucasions in most areas. No. No no no. >:(
I agree. The possibility for abuse and the kind of horrible things that can be carried out under it, is too great to risk it.
Sterilisation? No. Just an incentivised encouragement to think twice about reproducing if it cannot be paid for. That's capitalism for ya! Dont forget that in democratic countries the 'government'
IS the people. Society decides what the laws are. Noone but you and your fellow countrymen are taking these decisions. If the consensus is a mitigation of rights for the greater good then that's what will happen.
And the alternative, given that people cannot be trusted to be responsible with their breeding? An ever increasing population with an ever dwindling share of limited financial resources. I'm not happy to let this continue. Drastic times call for drastic action. Shall we sit back and let it continue because the cure might infringe an individuals' rights? Boo-f**king-hoo! Bleeding heart, blah, blah... rights, blah, blah... freedom, blah, blah.
Don't know about you guys, but my mission on this planet is NOT to fill it with people to the detriment of the lives of those of us that currently live on it. That's creating misery for all... and for what purpose? Take a look around, what's really gonna change without positive action on this issue and a bullet-biting concession to rights in one form or another?
We're between a rock and a hard place for sure. You let your bleeding hearts preserve individual freedoms if you wish, I'd rather opt for a compromise that works for society as a whole. Yes, with potential to create a society with limited freedoms (if one chooses to play a part in society at all - work, pay taxes, use public services etc...), but the alternative is certainly more bleak.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 06:43:40 PM
Boo-f**king-hoo! Bleeding heart, blah, blah... rights, blah, blah... freedom, blah, blah.
If you can't express your views maturely why should any of us take your opinion seriously?
Where to even start with this one...
I totally get where you're coming from in that yes, it would obviously benefit society if people procreated more responsibly. But legislating who can have kids and when is potentially as icky as some guy who doesn't have a uterus trying to legislate access to BC and abortion for women. There is a part of me that feels we might be better off if we required people to get a license to raise kids, just like we require a license to operate a car or own a gun or fly a plane, etc.... You can inflict a lot of damage with a car, gun, or plane, and those are inanimate objects. Arguably, a bad and neglectful parent can cause even greater harm to a child. But then what's considered "bad" parenting is subjective. Maybe restricting who could have kids and when is a good idea in theory, but probably a very bad one in practice.
I forget their name, but there's a society in England that pays for drug addicts who volunteer to be sterilized. If I'm not mistaken, they give them a small stipend, too. Because it's all voluntary and it's not a government organization behind it, I'm okay with this and kind of think it's a great idea. A crackhead doesn't need to be a parent any more than a baby deserves to be born addicted to heroin, so if these people chose to voluntarily remove themselves from the gene pool, I see no problems with that. I do hate that the way public assistance is set up, in that it often encourages abuse and rewards people for having kids they can't care for. I'm absolutely glad it's there for the people who truly need it, but it sucks that some assholes have to ruin it for everyone. I wish food stamps worked more like WIC, where you could only buy certain approved things and you couldn't withdrawal money from the cards. As a cashier at a grocery store in college, I would watch people come in at the beginning of the month, use their EBT/food stamp benefits card to withdrawal money, and then turn around and buy cigarettes and scratch off lotto tickets and Red Bull. Or worse, people would sell their food stamps to other people. Why the hell do taxpayers need to fund that kind of behavior, when you know there's a very real and sad chance that at home they've got a kid who needs a new winter coat and now won't get one because their guardian is a selfish and irresponsible knob? And on top of it, in some ways it just keeps some poor people stuck in the cycle of being poor because they have money for food and instead use it for stuff they don't need. We need to revamp the system so that kind of abuse is harder to get away with. And maybe require a class on household finances and budgeting along with receiving assistance to encourage wiser spending decisions in general. Yeah, hypothetically we could always mandate that anyone who already is on assistance can't get additional assistance if they have another child, but then the kid is still the one who ends up suffering and that's not fair. I can't see a way that something like that could really work.
So that being said, we should work harder to make birth control and abortion safer, cheaper and more accessible and to educate our youth about the realities of sex. We can't and shouldn't tell people if they should have kids or not, but we could make it easier for them to not get pregnant in the first place, especially if they did want kids or shouldn't have them to begin with.
Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 07:05:01 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 06:43:40 PM
Boo-f**king-hoo! Bleeding heart, blah, blah... rights, blah, blah... freedom, blah, blah.
If you can't express your views maturely why should any of us take your opinion seriously?
Merely an expression of the blinkered observance to personal rights in the face of overwhelming need to fix a problem.
There is another simple solution to lifting a ban on your reproduction after welfare donations have been rescinded: get a job.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 07:18:37 PM
Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 07:05:01 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 06:43:40 PM
Boo-f**king-hoo! Bleeding heart, blah, blah... rights, blah, blah... freedom, blah, blah.
If you can't express your views maturely why should any of us take your opinion seriously?
Merely an expression of the blinkered observation to personal rights in the face of overwhelming need to fix a problem.
Um...no..it was you being immature and uncivil. Re-read the forum rules and follow them...since a nudge didn't work this is an official rules reminder.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 07:18:37 PM
There is another simple solution to lifting a ban on your reproduction after welfare donations have been rescinded: get a job.
You do realize that a lot of people who are on welfare already have jobs...right? Thinking that simply getting a job will take away the need for welfare indicates that you are oversimplifying the problem.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F7%2F74%2FPov_crossnatl.jpeg&hash=6c7dec83017533f53c723cb993bfb543a5241b3e)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor#Prevalence_and_trends
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 06:43:40 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 21, 2012, 05:06:45 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 05:01:42 PMWhat are we talking about here? Forced sterilization for the poor? No thanks. >:( I do think that people should be financially sound before having kids, but I don't think that society or government has a right to enforce that. I actually find the idea of a government that can choose who is worthy of "breeding" horrific. And at least in my country, there would also be a bit of eugenics at play there, since minorities have a higher rate of poverty than caucasions in most areas. No. No no no. >:(
I agree. The possibility for abuse and the kind of horrible things that can be carried out under it, is too great to risk it.
Sterilisation? No. Just an incentivised encouragement to think twice about reproducing if it cannot be paid for. That's capitalism for ya! Dont forget that in democratic countries the 'government' IS the people. Society decides what the laws are. Noone but you and your fellow countrymen are taking these decisions. If the consensus is a mitigation of rights for the greater good then that's what will happen.
And the alternative, given that people cannot be trusted to be responsible with their breeding? An ever increasing population with an ever dwindling share of limited financial resources. I'm not happy to let this continue. Drastic times call for drastic action. Shall we sit back and let it continue because the cure might infringe an individuals' rights? Boo-f**king-hoo! Bleeding heart, blah, blah... rights, blah, blah... freedom, blah, blah.
Don't know about you guys, but my mission on this planet is NOT to fill it with people to the detriment of the lives of those of us that currently live on it. That's creating misery for all... and for what purpose? Take a look around, what's really gonna change without positive action on this issue and a bullet-biting concession to rights in one form or another?
We're between a rock and a hard place for sure. You let your bleeding hearts preserve individual freedoms if you wish, I'd rather opt for a compromise that works for society as a whole. Yes, with potential to create a society with limited freedoms (if one chooses to play a part in society at all - work, pay taxes, use public services etc...), but the alternative is certainly more bleak.
Haha, if you picture me as a bleeding heart, then you really need to re-examine your assumptions. Also, my position mentioned nothing of rights, but the abuse of such a thing is not only likely, but is not very many steps away from a horrible situation.
I do think there might be a time in the future when the dangers and problems of issuing that kind of legislation is a better option, but I don't think we've hit that yet. I'm confident that we can still avoid the problem through education instead of control.
You lost me at "blah, blah, blah...freedom"
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 06:43:40 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 21, 2012, 05:06:45 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 05:01:42 PMWhat are we talking about here? Forced sterilization for the poor? No thanks. >:( I do think that people should be financially sound before having kids, but I don't think that society or government has a right to enforce that. I actually find the idea of a government that can choose who is worthy of "breeding" horrific. And at least in my country, there would also be a bit of eugenics at play there, since minorities have a higher rate of poverty than caucasions in most areas. No. No no no. >:(
I agree. The possibility for abuse and the kind of horrible things that can be carried out under it, is too great to risk it.
Sterilisation? No. Just an incentivised encouragement to think twice about reproducing if it cannot be paid for. That's capitalism for ya! Dont forget that in democratic countries the 'government' IS the people. Society decides what the laws are. Noone but you and your fellow countrymen are taking these decisions. If the consensus is a mitigation of rights for the greater good then that's what will happen.
And the alternative, given that people cannot be trusted to be responsible with their breeding? An ever increasing population with an ever dwindling share of limited financial resources. I'm not happy to let this continue. Drastic times call for drastic action. Shall we sit back and let it continue because the cure might infringe an individuals' rights? Boo-f**king-hoo! Bleeding heart, blah, blah... rights, blah, blah... freedom, blah, blah.
Don't know about you guys, but my mission on this planet is NOT to fill it with people to the detriment of the lives of those of us that currently live on it. That's creating misery for all... and for what purpose? Take a look around, what's really gonna change without positive action on this issue and a bullet-biting concession to rights in one form or another?
We're between a rock and a hard place for sure. You let your bleeding hearts preserve individual freedoms if you wish, I'd rather opt for a compromise that works for society as a whole. Yes, with potential to create a society with limited freedoms (if one chooses to play a part in society at all - work, pay taxes, use public services etc...), but the alternative is certainly more bleak.
What incentivization are we talking about here? I can't think of a practical method that doesn't ulitmately involve either forced sterilization, forced abortions, or letting people starve to death. Let's say that as a society we get together and say "The poor can't have children until they meet X standard." How do we enforce that? Either we pre-emptively sterilize people, we require abortions for people who get pregnant but don't make X amount of money, or we decide that we're going to cut off people's funding if they have children, which leads to more people starving. You can call me any name you like, but I can't agree with any of those terms. Food is not a priviledge. Children are not a priviledge. We don't have the right to vote on whois good enough to procreate, or who is good enough to eat. Before we start talking about only letting certain people procreate, let's address icome equality. When 1% of the people in this world own 40% of the world's wealth and resources, it can hardly be a surprise that many people will be impoverished. Let's fix that first, if we're resorting to desparate measures.
Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 07:32:05 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 07:18:37 PM
Quote from: Whitney on February 21, 2012, 07:05:01 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 06:43:40 PM
Boo-f**king-hoo! Bleeding heart, blah, blah... rights, blah, blah... freedom, blah, blah.
If you can't express your views maturely why should any of us take your opinion seriously?
Merely an expression of the blinkered observation to personal rights in the face of overwhelming need to fix a problem.
Um...no..it was you being immature and uncivil. Re-read the forum rules and follow them...since a nudge didn't work this is an official rules reminder.
Oooh, how exiting!
OK, OK. Noted. No offence meant.
While I am against programs such as welfare and wic, I don't think the gov should be involved in any forced abortions.
I do wish poverty couples would think before having a kid if they aren't financially prepared. Do some research or something...
Free condoms are provided by planned parenting, or even some shops (like salons and tattoo shops in my area) give out nyc condoms.
Again, I would say the solution is a cultural shift when it comes to pairing off adults to procreate. This is already sort of happening - more people are delaying marriage and concentrating on their careers before considering having children. Although I don't think there's anything wrong with the people who wanted to get their family started early on, or just had a surprise, I think the most important factor (that doesn't inhibit rights) in this is encouraging teens and young adults to spend more time becoming independent and exploring their world before settling down. Right now, especially for women, there is an emphasis placed on forming your own nuclear family. This has become the priority, and I don't think it should be. If it is for one person, that's great, but why push it as the end-all, be-all of true success? Maybe if we made it a lower priority in our social scheme, a natural decline in population growth will follow? Just my thoughts.
Government mandated birth control or sterilization is an absolute no-no. I can't think of a circumstance where I would even go, "Eh, ok, mayybe". But I think human rights are terribly important.
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 08:00:21 PM
What incentivization are we talking about here? I can't think of a practical method that doesn't ulitmately involve either forced sterilization, forced abortions, or letting people starve to death. Let's say that as a society we get together and say "The poor can't have children until they meet X standard." How do we enforce that? Either we pre-emptively sterilize people, we require abortions for people who get pregnant but don't make X amount of money, or we decide that we're going to cut off people's funding if they have children, which leads to more people starving. You can call me any name you like, but I can't agree with any of those terms. Food is not a priviledge. Children are not a priviledge. We don't have the right to vote on whois good enough to procreate, or who is good enough to eat. Before we start talking about only letting certain people procreate, let's address icome equality. When 1% of the people in this world own 40% of the world's wealth and resources, it can hardly be a surprise that many people will be impoverished. Let's fix that first, if we're resorting to desparate measures.
Let's not blame the rich for the laziness of the welfare-bolstered poor.
Children are not a privilege? Maybe this is the crux of our disagreement. That's the bottom line!
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 08:00:21 PM
What incentivization are we talking about here? I can't think of a practical method that doesn't ulitmately involve either forced sterilization, forced abortions, or letting people starve to death. Let's say that as a society we get together and say "The poor can't have children until they meet X standard." How do we enforce that? Either we pre-emptively sterilize people, we require abortions for people who get pregnant but don't make X amount of money, or we decide that we're going to cut off people's funding if they have children, which leads to more people starving. You can call me any name you like, but I can't agree with any of those terms. Food is not a priviledge. Children are not a priviledge. We don't have the right to vote on whois good enough to procreate, or who is good enough to eat. Before we start talking about only letting certain people procreate, let's address icome equality. When 1% of the people in this world own 40% of the world's wealth and resources, it can hardly be a surprise that many people will be impoverished. Let's fix that first, if we're resorting to desparate measures.
Let's not blame the rich for the laziness of the welfare-bolstered poor.
Children are not a privilege? Maybe this is the crux of our disagreement. That's the bottom line!
Children are not a privilege. What makes you think they are?
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 21, 2012, 08:39:19 PM
Again, I would say the solution is a cultural shift when it comes to pairing off adults to procreate. This is already sort of happening - more people are delaying marriage and concentrating on their careers before considering having children. Although I don't think there's anything wrong with the people who wanted to get their family started early on, or just had a surprise, I think the most important factor (that doesn't inhibit rights) in this is encouraging teens and young adults to spend more time becoming independent and exploring their world before settling down. Right now, especially for women, there is an emphasis placed on forming your own nuclear family. This has become the priority, and I don't think it should be. If it is for one person, that's great, but why push it as the end-all, be-all of true success? Maybe if we made it a lower priority in our social scheme, a natural decline in population growth will follow? Just my thoughts.
Government mandated birth control or sterilization is an absolute no-no. I can't think of a circumstance where I would even go, "Eh, ok, mayybe". But I think human rights are terribly important.
More and more people ofthis generation are waiting to their late 30's, early 40's to have a child and I seriously applaud that.
I'm 26 and I am still with a lot on my plate. College, getting an apt, getting a good bank card. I love my life.
Having a child is giving up a lot. I am not the type of person for that.
I respect people who want a child, cuz you will raise them for decades.
I just enjoy my free time, income , sanity, and freedom way too much.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 08:00:21 PM
What incentivization are we talking about here? I can't think of a practical method that doesn't ulitmately involve either forced sterilization, forced abortions, or letting people starve to death. Let's say that as a society we get together and say "The poor can't have children until they meet X standard." How do we enforce that? Either we pre-emptively sterilize people, we require abortions for people who get pregnant but don't make X amount of money, or we decide that we're going to cut off people's funding if they have children, which leads to more people starving. You can call me any name you like, but I can't agree with any of those terms. Food is not a priviledge. Children are not a priviledge. We don't have the right to vote on whois good enough to procreate, or who is good enough to eat. Before we start talking about only letting certain people procreate, let's address icome equality. When 1% of the people in this world own 40% of the world's wealth and resources, it can hardly be a surprise that many people will be impoverished. Let's fix that first, if we're resorting to desparate measures.
Let's not blame the rich for the laziness of the welfare-bolstered poor.
Children are not a privilege? Maybe this is the crux of our disagreement. That's the bottom line!
Perhaps another part of our disagreement is that I'm not convinced that being poor automatically = being lazy, or that anyone needs to be as rich as the top 1% are. I'm not a communist or anything, but the wage gap, at least in my country, is pretty inexcusable. Again, until we focus on that, I'm not prepared to call people who need help "lazy" out of hand or make laws about whether or not they can procreate. In my country you can easily work a full time job and still be well below the poverty line. Our minimum wage is not a living wage, and that's even assuming that you are lucky enough to have a job whne you want one.
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 21, 2012, 09:07:29 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 08:00:21 PM
What incentivization are we talking about here? I can't think of a practical method that doesn't ulitmately involve either forced sterilization, forced abortions, or letting people starve to death. Let's say that as a society we get together and say "The poor can't have children until they meet X standard." How do we enforce that? Either we pre-emptively sterilize people, we require abortions for people who get pregnant but don't make X amount of money, or we decide that we're going to cut off people's funding if they have children, which leads to more people starving. You can call me any name you like, but I can't agree with any of those terms. Food is not a priviledge. Children are not a priviledge. We don't have the right to vote on whois good enough to procreate, or who is good enough to eat. Before we start talking about only letting certain people procreate, let's address icome equality. When 1% of the people in this world own 40% of the world's wealth and resources, it can hardly be a surprise that many people will be impoverished. Let's fix that first, if we're resorting to desparate measures.
Let's not blame the rich for the laziness of the welfare-bolstered poor.
Children are not a privilege? Maybe this is the crux of our disagreement. That's the bottom line!
Children are not a privilege. What makes you think they are?
Is there anything else to which we have a right which it would not be acceptable to rescind if proven to be injurious in any way to other people?
I, and millions of other hardworking, tax-paying citizens are most certainly injured by irresponsible reproduction.
Where's the social justice there?
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 09:12:12 PM
Perhaps another part of our disagreement is that I'm not convinced that being poor automatically = being lazy,
On the previous page I posted a graph that proved that most of those below poverty level (same people who qualify for welfare) have jobs. They are referred to as the working poor and the US has a lot of them..I'd be interested to see what percentage of them work at walmart for 39 hours a week.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 09:37:46 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 21, 2012, 09:07:29 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 08:00:21 PM
What incentivization are we talking about here? I can't think of a practical method that doesn't ulitmately involve either forced sterilization, forced abortions, or letting people starve to death. Let's say that as a society we get together and say "The poor can't have children until they meet X standard." How do we enforce that? Either we pre-emptively sterilize people, we require abortions for people who get pregnant but don't make X amount of money, or we decide that we're going to cut off people's funding if they have children, which leads to more people starving. You can call me any name you like, but I can't agree with any of those terms. Food is not a priviledge. Children are not a priviledge. We don't have the right to vote on whois good enough to procreate, or who is good enough to eat. Before we start talking about only letting certain people procreate, let's address icome equality. When 1% of the people in this world own 40% of the world's wealth and resources, it can hardly be a surprise that many people will be impoverished. Let's fix that first, if we're resorting to desparate measures.
Let's not blame the rich for the laziness of the welfare-bolstered poor.
Children are not a privilege? Maybe this is the crux of our disagreement. That's the bottom line!
Children are not a privilege. What makes you think they are?
Is there anything else to which we have a right which it would not be acceptable to rescind if proven to be injurious in any way to other people?
I, and millions of other hardworking, tax-paying citizens are most certainly injured by irresponsible reproduction.
Where's the social justice there?
Well for that matter, why do the poor even have a right to live, when their lives are a drain on us hard working tax payers? Stupid poor. We should eat them.
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 09:12:12 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 08:00:21 PM
What incentivization are we talking about here? I can't think of a practical method that doesn't ulitmately involve either forced sterilization, forced abortions, or letting people starve to death. Let's say that as a society we get together and say "The poor can't have children until they meet X standard." How do we enforce that? Either we pre-emptively sterilize people, we require abortions for people who get pregnant but don't make X amount of money, or we decide that we're going to cut off people's funding if they have children, which leads to more people starving. You can call me any name you like, but I can't agree with any of those terms. Food is not a priviledge. Children are not a priviledge. We don't have the right to vote on whois good enough to procreate, or who is good enough to eat. Before we start talking about only letting certain people procreate, let's address icome equality. When 1% of the people in this world own 40% of the world's wealth and resources, it can hardly be a surprise that many people will be impoverished. Let's fix that first, if we're resorting to desparate measures.
Let's not blame the rich for the laziness of the welfare-bolstered poor.
Children are not a privilege? Maybe this is the crux of our disagreement. That's the bottom line!
Perhaps another part of our disagreement is that I'm not convinced that being poor automatically = being lazy, or that anyone needs to be as rich as the top 1% are. I'm not a communist or anything, but the wage gap, at least in my country, is pretty inexcusable. Again, until we focus on that, I'm not prepared to call people who need help "lazy" out of hand or make laws about whether or not they can procreate. In my country you can easily work a full time job and still be well below the poverty line. Our minimum wage is not a living wage, and that's even assuming that you are lucky enough to have a job whne you want one.
Please don't insult both of us by voicing an assumption that I mean that all poor people are lazy.
It is the laziness of a large number of people who are resultingly poor that is the cause of the poverty of others more deserving of financial help.
Government policy on welfare is mainly to blame for allowing the culture of something-for-nothing to prevail in the UK. Secondly it is parents on welfare raising children to believe that something-for-nothing is acceptable. And hence we have a generation of lazy scroungers who haven't even been shown what working means, let alone have the willingness or financial motivation to partake.
Edit: Hrm... never mind. I'll leave this alone.
Quote from: Ali
Well for that matter, why do the poor even have a right to live, when their lives are a drain on us hard working tax payers? Stupid poor. We should eat them.
...Or maybe just rescind their right to our financial resources that I'd rather see going to the working-poor (to which Whitney refers) or the otherwise genuine needy.
Facetiousness is not required.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 09:37:46 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on February 21, 2012, 09:07:29 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 08:00:21 PM
What incentivization are we talking about here? I can't think of a practical method that doesn't ulitmately involve either forced sterilization, forced abortions, or letting people starve to death. Let's say that as a society we get together and say "The poor can't have children until they meet X standard." How do we enforce that? Either we pre-emptively sterilize people, we require abortions for people who get pregnant but don't make X amount of money, or we decide that we're going to cut off people's funding if they have children, which leads to more people starving. You can call me any name you like, but I can't agree with any of those terms. Food is not a priviledge. Children are not a priviledge. We don't have the right to vote on whois good enough to procreate, or who is good enough to eat. Before we start talking about only letting certain people procreate, let's address icome equality. When 1% of the people in this world own 40% of the world's wealth and resources, it can hardly be a surprise that many people will be impoverished. Let's fix that first, if we're resorting to desparate measures.
Let's not blame the rich for the laziness of the welfare-bolstered poor.
Children are not a privilege? Maybe this is the crux of our disagreement. That's the bottom line!
Children are not a privilege. What makes you think they are?
Is there anything else to which we have a right which it would not be acceptable to rescind if proven to be injurious in any way to other people?
I, and millions of other hardworking, tax-paying citizens are most certainly injured by irresponsible reproduction.
Where's the social justice there?
Exactly. I shouldn't have to pay for someone's else's kids just because they had poor judgment.
Don't act like I'm putting words in your mouth in regards to calling poor people lazy! You said
QuoteLet's not blame the rich for the laziness of the welfare-bolstered poor.
and
Quotewe have a generation of lazy scroungers
But perhaps you're just not being very clear as you have referred to spending more money helping the working poor - so you are okay with partially funding someone (and presumably allowing them to have children) as long as they have a job? Or do you still think that even the working poor should be barred from procreation?
In the OP I asked:
Are we to value the freedom of choice to have children OVER social wellbeing?
I take it the majority verdict is "Yes". Even if it really IS ultimately an either/or decision which I believe it to be?
In that case, we must agree to disagree.
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 10:15:11 PM
Don't act like I'm putting words in your mouth in regards to calling poor people lazy! You said
QuoteLet's not blame the rich for the laziness of the welfare-bolstered poor.
and
Quotewe have a generation of lazy scroungers
But perhaps you're just not being very clear as you have referred to spending more money helping the working poor - so you are okay with partially funding someone (and presumably allowing them to have children) as long as they have a job? Or do you still think that even the working poor should be barred from procreation?
OK, perhaps I should have said "Let's not blame the rich for the faults of the welfare-bolstered lazy poor" and I've no problem helping those that help themselves.
Otherwise, you get the gist.
I'm not a fascist and I'm not poorist. I am flying the flag (seemingly single handed) for social justice. Rough justice perhaps, but the problem is only going to get worse without tough intervention. The future - on its current course - is pretty bleak.
Well would you agree that part of social justice should include paying people a living wage (even if it means that the insanely rich have to be slightly less so) in the hopes that we won't need to support them with tax payer money if they can make enough at their job to not need assistance?
I read a report one time that said that for many families, taking on a minimum wage job actually makes less economic sense because if they did, they would receive less assistance but the amount of money they earned at their jobs would not be enough to make up the difference. Basically, no job = $1000 a month in assistance (or whatever, I'm making these numbers up), whereas job = $700 a month + $200 a month in assistance, and then you also have to add in the cost of childcare for families with children. So it's not hard to understand why some people might feel that it's actually in their families' best interests for them to just not work.
I pose this seriously: would there ever come a time when we should consider euthanizing the elderly because it's better for society? Humanely, of course. In Canada we have a pension crisis pending because the baby-boomers are going to stop working and are going to start collecting pensions - by the time I retire, after working very hard for many decades, there could be nothing left simply because there are so many older people still alive. Should there come a time when we just cut them off and let the chips fall where they may?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 21, 2012, 10:46:11 PM
I pose this seriously: would there ever come a time when we should consider euthanizing the elderly because it's better for society? Humanely, of course. In Canada we have a pension crisis pending because the baby-boomers are going to stop working and are going to start collecting pensions - by the time I retire, after working very hard for many decades, there could be nothing left simply because there are so many older people still alive. Should there come a time when we just cut them off and let the chips fall where they may?
Yikes, that is a very real thing to think about.
Reminds me of a japanese series where they created a virus to kill off old people because they were useless to society.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 21, 2012, 10:46:11 PM
I pose this seriously: would there ever come a time when we should consider euthanizing the elderly because it's better for society? Humanely, of course. In Canada we have a pension crisis pending because the baby-boomers are going to stop working and are going to start collecting pensions - by the time I retire, after working very hard for many decades, there could be nothing left simply because there are so many older people still alive. Should there come a time when we just cut them off and let the chips fall where they may?
Probably only a question a young(ish) person would ask.It strikes me that killing off elderly people wouldn't be better for "society" (an elusive term,but if we take it to refer to the population as a whole, this would per your statistics presumably include a preponderance of elderly people) but it would certainly be better for you.
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 10:40:49 PM
Well would you agree that part of social justice should include paying people a living wage (even if it means that the insanely rich have to be slightly less so) in the hopes that we won't need to support them with tax payer money if they can make enough at their job to not need assistance?
Absolutely, if they are prepared to do a normal days work for it, but realistically this would be done through increased taxation of the rich, but amounts to the same thing.
Quote from: Ali
I read a report one time that said that for many families, taking on a minimum wage job actually makes less economic sense because if they did, they would receive less assistance but the amount of money they earned at their jobs would not be enough to make up the difference. Basically, no job = $1000 a month in assistance (or whatever, I'm making these numbers up), whereas job = $700 a month + $200 a month in assistance, and then you also have to add in the cost of childcare for families with children. So it's not hard to understand why some people might feel that it's actually in their families' best interests for them to just not work.
That's exactly the problem in the UK. The system is set up so that a family with several kids are financially better off on welfare than with one adult working a mediocre wage. It's disgusting and the reason for the work-shy culture it has precipitated.
But this is not the intended thrust of the thread. Overpopulation will never be solved with economic measures.
Quote from: En_Route on February 21, 2012, 11:25:53 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 21, 2012, 10:46:11 PM
I pose this seriously: would there ever come a time when we should consider euthanizing the elderly because it's better for society? Humanely, of course. In Canada we have a pension crisis pending because the baby-boomers are going to stop working and are going to start collecting pensions - by the time I retire, after working very hard for many decades, there could be nothing left simply because there are so many older people still alive. Should there come a time when we just cut them off and let the chips fall where they may?
Probably only a question a young(ish) person would ask.It strikes me that killing off elderly people wouldn't be better for "society" (an elusive term,but if we take it to refer to the population as a whole, this would per your statistics presumably include a preponderance of elderly people) but it would certainly be better for you.
I'm sure DJ was playing devils advocate with her post. Edit: weren't you?
But to answer it for myself, my answer is NO (Voluntary euthanasia accepted), because that is murder.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 11:34:02 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 10:40:49 PM
Well would you agree that part of social justice should include paying people a living wage (even if it means that the insanely rich have to be slightly less so) in the hopes that we won't need to support them with tax payer money if they can make enough at their job to not need assistance?
Absolutely, if they are prepared to do a normal days work for it, but realistically this would be done through increased taxation of the rich, but amounts to the same thing.
Quote from: Ali
I read a report one time that said that for many families, taking on a minimum wage job actually makes less economic sense because if they did, they would receive less assistance but the amount of money they earned at their jobs would not be enough to make up the difference. Basically, no job = $1000 a month in assistance (or whatever, I'm making these numbers up), whereas job = $700 a month + $200 a month in assistance, and then you also have to add in the cost of childcare for families with children. So it's not hard to understand why some people might feel that it's actually in their families' best interests for them to just not work.
That's exactly the problem in the UK. The system is set up so that a family with several kids are financially better off on welfare than with one adult working a mediocre wage. It's disgusting and the reason for the work-shy culture it has precipitated.
But this is not the intended thrust of the thread. Overpopulation will never be solved with economic measures.
That's how it is in the US. why is it harder to raise no kids than a woman getting paid to raise three? I find that repulsive.
I shouldnt have to pay for iresponsible person who wont stop popping out kids because they know the gov will give them a check for each one.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 22, 2012, 12:09:07 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 11:34:02 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 10:40:49 PM
Well would you agree that part of social justice should include paying people a living wage (even if it means that the insanely rich have to be slightly less so) in the hopes that we won't need to support them with tax payer money if they can make enough at their job to not need assistance?
Absolutely, if they are prepared to do a normal days work for it, but realistically this would be done through increased taxation of the rich, but amounts to the same thing.
Quote from: Ali
I read a report one time that said that for many families, taking on a minimum wage job actually makes less economic sense because if they did, they would receive less assistance but the amount of money they earned at their jobs would not be enough to make up the difference. Basically, no job = $1000 a month in assistance (or whatever, I'm making these numbers up), whereas job = $700 a month + $200 a month in assistance, and then you also have to add in the cost of childcare for families with children. So it's not hard to understand why some people might feel that it's actually in their families' best interests for them to just not work.
That's exactly the problem in the UK. The system is set up so that a family with several kids are financially better off on welfare than with one adult working a mediocre wage. It's disgusting and the reason for the work-shy culture it has precipitated.
But this is not the intended thrust of the thread. Overpopulation will never be solved with economic measures.
That's how it is in the US. why is it harder to raise no kids than a woman getting paid to raise three? I find that repulsive.
I shouldnt have to pay for iresponsible person who wont stop popping out kids because they know the gov will give them a check for each one.
QuoteMYTH: Most of the people on welfare are unmarried mothers who have extra children so that they can get more money.
FACT: Although one in four children under 18 receives welfare benefits, that does not mean that a few women on welfare have lots of children. From official government figures, "The average monthly number of TANF families was 3,176,000 in fiscal year (FY) 1998. The estimated total number of TANF recipients was 2,631,000 adults and 6,273,000 children. The average number of persons in TANF families was 2.8 persons. The TANF families averaged 2 recipient children, which remained unchanged. Two in five families had only one child. One in 10 families had more than three children."
http://www.anitra.net/homelessness/columns/anitra/eightmyths.html (http://www.anitra.net/homelessness/columns/anitra/eightmyths.html)
What's disgusting to me is how far below a living wage minimum wage is. For example, in my city, the living wage for one adult with one child is $16.60 per hour, and minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. If you're making less than half the living wage, even when you work full time, you are going to need assistance. That's just math. Pay people a living wage and then
maybe we can bitch about the people that still need help.
http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/places/0803120000 (http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/places/0803120000)
Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 22, 2012, 12:09:07 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 11:34:02 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 21, 2012, 10:40:49 PM
Well would you agree that part of social justice should include paying people a living wage (even if it means that the insanely rich have to be slightly less so) in the hopes that we won't need to support them with tax payer money if they can make enough at their job to not need assistance?
Absolutely, if they are prepared to do a normal days work for it, but realistically this would be done through increased taxation of the rich, but amounts to the same thing.
Quote from: Ali
I read a report one time that said that for many families, taking on a minimum wage job actually makes less economic sense because if they did, they would receive less assistance but the amount of money they earned at their jobs would not be enough to make up the difference. Basically, no job = $1000 a month in assistance (or whatever, I'm making these numbers up), whereas job = $700 a month + $200 a month in assistance, and then you also have to add in the cost of childcare for families with children. So it's not hard to understand why some people might feel that it's actually in their families' best interests for them to just not work.
That's exactly the problem in the UK. The system is set up so that a family with several kids are financially better off on welfare than with one adult working a mediocre wage. It's disgusting and the reason for the work-shy culture it has precipitated.
But this is not the intended thrust of the thread. Overpopulation will never be solved with economic measures.
That's how it is in the US. why is it harder to raise no kids than a woman getting paid to raise three? I find that repulsive.
I shouldnt have to pay for iresponsible person who wont stop popping out kids because they know the gov will give them a check for each one.
I've witnessed this kind of situation - a young woman (say 19), living with her mother, her mother's boyfriend, and her boyfriend. The young woman already has a tot, everyone is on welfare (and cheating the system by claiming to all live separately), and the woman is trying to get pregnant again for the extra cash.
So yes, these people exist. The system isn't perfect, because it can be so easily manipulated. However, not everybody on welfare is a "welfare bum". There are a lot of individuals who do genuinely need the assistance due to no fault of their own. We cannot punish all for the sins of the few (or even many). There has to be change - there must be less motivation to stay on welfare, and more to work. What kind of change that is, I'm not sure. Government subsidized daycare? I think there would be a lot more parents keen to work if they didn't have their efforts countered by $50/day daycare. For people working minimum wage (or a little above), it's just not worth it.
Quote from: Davin on February 21, 2012, 10:01:46 PM
Edit: Hrm... never mind. I'll leave this alone.
Aww, c'mon Dav. I've been looking forward to another incisive pasting...
Quote from: En_Route on February 21, 2012, 11:25:53 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 21, 2012, 10:46:11 PM
I pose this seriously: would there ever come a time when we should consider euthanizing the elderly because it's better for society? Humanely, of course. In Canada we have a pension crisis pending because the baby-boomers are going to stop working and are going to start collecting pensions - by the time I retire, after working very hard for many decades, there could be nothing left simply because there are so many older people still alive. Should there come a time when we just cut them off and let the chips fall where they may?
Probably only a question a young(ish) person would ask.It strikes me that killing off elderly people wouldn't be better for "society" (an elusive term,but if we take it to refer to the population as a whole, this would per your statistics presumably include a preponderance of elderly people) but it would certainly be better for you.
Well, I guess we'd have to draw up a list of what's "good" for society. When I say "elderly", by the way, I don't mean 60 years old, or an active 85 year old, I mean a measurable amount of the population that "takes" more than it "gives". Children take a lot from society, but you could argue that their potential and future helpfulness balances out that issue a little bit. Even the odd "welfare kid" might grow up to make a meaningful contribution. What about a 100 year old on a pension that doesn't go out and doesn't interact with society? Plenty of them exist.
I'm playing devil's advocate ( a little), but if we're going to approach the management of society from a totally pragmatic perspective, we'd better consider it for every segment of the population. Not just those in their child-bearing years.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 22, 2012, 01:18:06 AM
Quote from: En_Route on February 21, 2012, 11:25:53 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 21, 2012, 10:46:11 PM
I pose this seriously: would there ever come a time when we should consider euthanizing the elderly because it's better for society? Humanely, of course. In Canada we have a pension crisis pending because the baby-boomers are going to stop working and are going to start collecting pensions - by the time I retire, after working very hard for many decades, there could be nothing left simply because there are so many older people still alive. Should there come a time when we just cut them off and let the chips fall where they may?
Probably only a question a young(ish) person would ask.It strikes me that killing off elderly people wouldn't be better for "society" (an elusive term,but if we take it to refer to the population as a whole, this would per your statistics presumably include a preponderance of elderly people) but it would certainly be better for you.
Well, I guess we'd have to draw up a list of what's "good" for society. When I say "elderly", by the way, I don't mean 60 years old, or an active 85 year old, I mean a measurable amount of the population that "takes" more than it "gives". Children take a lot from society, but you could argue that their potential and future helpfulness balances out that issue a little bit. Even the odd "welfare kid" might grow up to make a meaningful contribution. What about a 100 year old on a pension that doesn't go out and doesn't interact with society? Plenty of them exist.
I'm playing devil's advocate ( a little), but if we're going to approach the management of society from a totally pragmatic perspective, we'd better consider it for every segment of the population. Not just those in their child-bearing years.
Arguing pragmatically, I would say that the 100 year old has fulfilled a lifetime of contribution to society, and therefore is deserving of care until the end of his natural life. Not to mention, centenarians are the fasted growing age group in western society; many are still active socially, and future ones are likely to be healthier and more active yet. I don't think a good pragmatic argument can be built on generalizing about a particular group.
From a philosophical point of view, euthanasia of the irrelevant is abhorrent in our culture. Our society values life and the care of people of who cannot care for themselves, so into that our aged population fits quite well. Once you start judging peoples' right to life based on their relevancy, you must say that the value you place on your own is forfeited to community judgement. Quite frankly, I don't trust the public's wisdom to make such a leap.
I wasn't generalizing, I was suggesting that if we are concerned about wasting money by supporting certain segments of society, there are other places to look than people having children they can't support. The suggestion wouldn't be that "all" older people would fall under this policy, just some. And it would be under a case-by-case basis just as the "fitness" of lower income people being allowed to have children would be on a case-by-case basis.
It's not something that I actually, philosophically, agree with, but I don't agree with letting people starve in the street either. If you don't care about the bleeding heart politics of supporting people who have children they can't afford, I don't see why you should be okay with supporting older people who rely on the system because they didn't save money in their youth.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 22, 2012, 01:54:01 AM
I wasn't generalizing, I was suggesting that if we are concerned about wasting money by supporting certain segments of society, there are other places to look than people having children they can't support. The suggestion wouldn't be that "all" older people would fall under this policy, just some. And it would be under a case-by-case basis just as the "fitness" of lower income people being allowed to have children would be on a case-by-case basis.
It's not something that I actually, philosophically, agree with, but I don't agree with letting people starve in the street either. If you don't care about the bleeding heart politics of supporting people who have children they can't afford, I don't see why you should be okay with supporting older people who rely on the system because they didn't save money in their youth.
I know you were just putting forward a thought experiment, not your actual opinion. ;)
I think the case-by-case argument still doesn't hold. It would, almost by definition, require the imposition of arbitrary guidelines. There is no mathematical solution to determining someone's social value, or ability to care for a child. Then there is the added human bias. It would be a messy, inaccurate, and unfair system.
The "I shouldn't have to pay for other people's mistakes" idea I've heard put forth in this thread is tremendously arrogant.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 22, 2012, 01:54:01 AM
I wasn't generalizing, I was suggesting that if we are concerned about wasting money by supporting certain segments of society, there are other places to look than people having children they can't support. The suggestion wouldn't be that "all" older people would fall under this policy, just some. And it would be under a case-by-case basis just as the "fitness" of lower income people being allowed to have children would be on a case-by-case basis.
It's not something that I actually, philosophically, agree with, but I don't agree with letting people starve in the street either. If you don't care about the bleeding heart politics of supporting people who have children they can't afford, I don't see why you should be okay with supporting older people who rely on the system because they didn't save money in their youth.
Not even I, the Great Meanie of the Thread, could support compelled euthanasia. It is a different kettle of fish taking an unwilling life to placing reasonable sanctions on ones rights, however financially beneficial they both may be.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 22, 2012, 01:11:25 AM
Quote from: Davin on February 21, 2012, 10:01:46 PM
Edit: Hrm... never mind. I'll leave this alone.
Aww, c'mon Dav. I've been looking forward to another incisive pasting...
No thanks, I've already witnessed your behavior in this thread.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 22, 2012, 06:39:17 AM
It is a different kettle of fish taking an unwilling life to placing reasonable sanctions on ones rights, however financially beneficial they both may be.
I don't see a fundamental difference...both are presumably unwilling to comply if not forced, both would be a violation on one's full use of their own body, and both strip individuals of their freedom/rights.
You just happen to find one more palatable than the other.
I'm picturing a sort of Logan's Run-ish scenario in which a red jewel enbedded in your hand will start to glow if your savings account dips below $500. Enforcers come, and depending on your age they either sterilize you or kill you outright. One day, one of the enforcers has a large medical bill and his jewel begins to glow....
Quote from: Ali on February 22, 2012, 12:32:37 AM
What's disgusting to me is how far below a living wage minimum wage is. For example, in my city, the living wage for one adult with one child is $16.60 per hour, and minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. If you're making less than half the living wage, even when you work full time, you are going to need assistance. That's just math. Pay people a living wage and then maybe we can bitch about the people that still need help.
Just jumping in on this point that caught my eye...I'm not sure I'm for a "living wage" being the minimum. Sounds a bit like socialism to me and seems to reward laziness. I suppose I may need an explanation of "living wage". Maybe those that reject the notion of earning what you deserve and instead cling to the 'its not fair'...excuse, might be the ones that deserve the minimum wage...be it what society makes it. I'm open to more input though.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 04:16:46 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 22, 2012, 12:32:37 AM
What's disgusting to me is how far below a living wage minimum wage is. For example, in my city, the living wage for one adult with one child is $16.60 per hour, and minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. If you're making less than half the living wage, even when you work full time, you are going to need assistance. That's just math. Pay people a living wage and then maybe we can bitch about the people that still need help.
Just jumping in on this point that caught my eye...I'm not sure I'm for a "living wage" being the minimum. Sounds a bit like socialism to me and seems to reward laziness. I suppose I may need an explanation of "living wage". Maybe those that reject the notion of earning what you deserve and instead cling to the 'its not fair'...excuse, might be the ones that deserve the minimum wage...be it what society makes it. I'm open to more input though.
Living wage is defined as the average minimum hourly wage that you need to be paid in your area to be able to live comfortably assuming a 40 hour work week. Note, this is just to be able to pay for basic food, housing, childcare, et cetera. Note too that I think they are looking at fairly thrifty prices for these things when they calculate it - when I looked at the monthly prices they listed for housing in my area, for example, the amount they listed was about half of what I pay, and the same for childcare. Which, I make quite a bit more than the calculated living wage, so that's probably as it should be, but I just wanted to point out that I don't think "comfortable" should be confused with "luxurious". They calculate it based off of family size, so the example that I provided is the amount that an adult would have to make if it was a single adult with one child. They calculated the amount that adult would need to pay for all of their basic neccessities for themselves and their child (working 40 hours a week) is $16.60. If that adult works at a minimum wage job, they will make $7.25 per hour instead. They could work 2 full time jobs (80 hours a week) and still come in under the living wage. You can call working 40 hours a week (or 80!) laziness if you want, but I've worked minimum wage jobs, and I can tell you that both in regards to the physical work and the "perks" and working environment involved, the minimum wage job was harder than the one I work now. I think I deserve more money now at this job because I have a lot more responsibility and have to have a lot more working knowledge, but I have a hard time buying that if an adult works a full time job in a physically demanding environment and still can't afford to pay for their family's basic needs, this is "no more than they deserve." Elitist, much?
Quote from: Ali on February 22, 2012, 04:40:10 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 04:16:46 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 22, 2012, 12:32:37 AM
What's disgusting to me is how far below a living wage minimum wage is. For example, in my city, the living wage for one adult with one child is $16.60 per hour, and minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. If you're making less than half the living wage, even when you work full time, you are going to need assistance. That's just math. Pay people a living wage and then maybe we can bitch about the people that still need help.
Just jumping in on this point that caught my eye...I'm not sure I'm for a "living wage" being the minimum. Sounds a bit like socialism to me and seems to reward laziness. I suppose I may need an explanation of "living wage". Maybe those that reject the notion of earning what you deserve and instead cling to the 'its not fair'...excuse, might be the ones that deserve the minimum wage...be it what society makes it. I'm open to more input though.
Living wage is defined as the average minimum hourly wage that you need to be paid in your area to be able to live comfortably assuming a 40 hour work week. Note, this is just to be able to pay for basic food, housing, childcare, et cetera. Note too that I think they are looking at fairly thrifty prices for these things when they calculate it - when I looked at the monthly prices they listed for housing in my area, for example, the amount they listed was about half of what I pay, and the same for childcare. Which, I make quite a bit more than the calculated living wage, so that's probably as it should be, but I just wanted to point out that I don't think "comfortable" should be confused with "luxurious". They calculate it based off of family size, so the example that I provided is the amount that an adult would have to make if it was a single adult with one child. They calculated the amount that adult would need to pay for all of their basic neccessities for themselves and their child (working 40 hours a week) is $16.60. If that adult works at a minimum wage job, they will make $7.25 per hour instead. They could work 2 full time jobs (80 hours a week) and still come in under the living wage. You can call working 40 hours a week (or 80!) laziness if you want, but I've worked minimum wage jobs, and I can tell you that both in regards to the physical work and the "perks" and working environment involved, the minimum wage job was harder than the one I work now. I think I deserve more money now at this job because I have a lot more responsibility and have to have a lot more working knowledge, but I have a hard time buying that if an adult works a full time job in a physically demanding environment and still can't afford to pay for their family's basic needs, this is "no more than they deserve." Elitist, much?
Oh...ok. I simply value the time and effort a person puts into their work or their education and career. I grew up in the time when minimum wage was $3.35/hr. It worked out great. Know why? Because I was a kid with no experience in a job that required none. I lived at home with a mother that supprted me in all other areas. Minimum wage is not meant to be a wage to support a family or even one person living on their own. This is why we parents encourage our offspring to stay in school and get their degree. I'm a firm believer that a person is paid what they are worth (with some exceptions). A minimum wage job is a job that normally has a high turnover rate or which leads to a higher paying position with more responsibilities (skilled labor such as construction). I'm not willing (if I owned a McDonald's for example) to pay the average HS school kid a "living wage"...nor am I willing to pay an adult a "living wage" working at McDonald's that is doing the same job a kid can do.
Maybe you can point to some specific jobs that are minimum wage that you think should be more of a "living wage". And the business owner perspective?
Quote from: Whitney on February 22, 2012, 02:58:06 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 22, 2012, 06:39:17 AM
It is a different kettle of fish taking an unwilling life to placing reasonable sanctions on ones rights, however financially beneficial they both may be.
I don't see a fundamental difference...both are presumably unwilling to comply if not forced, both would be a violation on one's full use of their own body, and both strip individuals of their freedom/rights.
A bit like locking a criminal up, No? Except the poor old dear on the euthanasia block didn't deliberately and with foresight injure anyone.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 05:33:55 PM
Oh...ok. I simply value the time and effort a person puts into their work or their education and career. I grew up in the time when minimum wage was $3.35/hr. It worked out great. Know why? Because I was a kid with no experience in a job that required none. I lived at home with a mother that supprted me in all other areas. Minimum wage is not meant to be a wage to support a family or even one person living on their own. This is why we parents encourage our offspring to stay in school and get their degree. I'm a firm believer that a person is paid what they are worth (with some exceptions). A minimum wage job is a job that normally has a high turnover rate or which leads to a higher paying position with more responsibilities (skilled labor such as construction). I'm not willing (if I owned a McDonald's for example) to pay the average HS school kid a "living wage"...nor am I willing to pay an adult a "living wage" working at McDonald's that is doing the same job a kid can do.
Maybe you can point to some specific jobs that are minimum wage that you think should be more of a "living wage". And the business owner perspective?
Here is the problem I see with that - whenever you hear about an adult that is unemployed and collecting assistance, the first thing that people always say is "Get a job. Get a job working at McDonalds if you have to, just get a job." You can't have it both ways. I agree that education and experience is important and is a good way to get better paying jobs (some times, not necessarily in this economy) but if you have a young adult that has no work experience (or hell, even an older adult that hasn't been able to find a better job, again, particularly in this economy) but still needs to support themselves, it's pretty disingenious to rail at them to get a job and then roll your eyes and say "it's no more than they deserve" if the job they get still doesn't enable them to get off assistance (as it won't, if they happen to get a job working at McDonald's.) It's like, something has got to give, you know? Either we have to raise the minumum wage and accept that this will likely make it harder for teens to get after school jobs, or keep it low and accept that adults that work in these positions will need assistance. Saying "Oh well, adults just shouldn't work minimum wage jobs is as unhelpful a solution as saying "Oh, people who don't want babies just shouldn't have sex." If it were really that easy, it wouldn't be an issue in our society.
I also kind of take isue with the idea of "what a job is worth." I'm excellent at my job, and I get paid quite well for it, but I still have time to mess around on HAF, work from home if I don't want to go in, leave in the middle of the day to go holiday shopping or go to a drs appt. I'm paid more for what I know and who I know (not a nepotism thing - I maintain client relationships for a living) than anything else. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love what I do, and I'm glad that it comes with so many perks and that it helps provide a cush living to my family. But I really question whether I'm actually working harder than someone who has to be on their feet all day getting burned by hot grease in front ogf a fryolater. It's hard for me to smugly sit back and say that other adults just aren't as "worthy" as I am of making a wage they can live on, when from everything I can tell, they work harder than I do on any given day. It's true that a lot more of my company's profitability relies on what I do every day, but it's really not true that I work harder. Markedly less hard, I would say.
Quote from: Ali on February 22, 2012, 06:03:40 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 05:33:55 PM
Oh...ok. I simply value the time and effort a person puts into their work or their education and career. I grew up in the time when minimum wage was $3.35/hr. It worked out great. Know why? Because I was a kid with no experience in a job that required none. I lived at home with a mother that supprted me in all other areas. Minimum wage is not meant to be a wage to support a family or even one person living on their own. This is why we parents encourage our offspring to stay in school and get their degree. I'm a firm believer that a person is paid what they are worth (with some exceptions). A minimum wage job is a job that normally has a high turnover rate or which leads to a higher paying position with more responsibilities (skilled labor such as construction). I'm not willing (if I owned a McDonald's for example) to pay the average HS school kid a "living wage"...nor am I willing to pay an adult a "living wage" working at McDonald's that is doing the same job a kid can do.
Maybe you can point to some specific jobs that are minimum wage that you think should be more of a "living wage". And the business owner perspective?
Here is the problem I see with that - whenever you hear about an adult that is unemployed and collecting assistance, the first thing that people always say is "Get a job. Get a job working at McDonalds if you have to, just get a job." You can't have it both ways. I agree that education and experience is important and is a good way to get better paying jobs (some times, not necessarily in this economy) but if you have a young adult that has no work experience (or hell, even an older adult that hasn't been able to find a better job, again, particularly in this economy) but still needs to support themselves, it's pretty disingenious to rail at them to get a job and then roll your eyes and say "it's no more than they deserve" if the job they get still doesn't enable them to get off assistance (as it won't, if they happen to get a job working at McDonald's.) It's like, something has got to give, you know? Either we have to raise the minumum wage and accept that this will likely make it harder for teens to get after school jobs, or keep it low and accept that adults that work in these positions will need assistance. Saying "Oh well, adults just shouldn't work minimum wage jobs is as unhelpful a solution as saying "Oh, people who don't want babies just shouldn't have sex." If it were really that easy, it wouldn't be an issue in our society.
I also kind of take isue with the idea of "what a job is worth." I'm excellent at my job, and I get paid quite well for it, but I still have time to mess around on HAF, work from home if I don't want to go in, leave in the middle of the day to go holiday shopping or go to a drs appt. I'm paid more for what I know and who I know (not a nepotism thing - I maintain client relationships for a living) than anything else. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love what I do, and I'm glad that it comes with so many perks and that it helps provide a cush living to my family. But I really question whether I'm actually working harder than someone who has to be on their feet all day getting burned by hot grease in front ogf a fryolater. It's hard for me to smugly sit back and say that other adults just aren't as "worthy" as I am of making a wage they can live on, when from everything I can tell, they work harder than I do on any given day. It's true that a lot more of my company's profitability relies on what I do every day, but it's really not true that I work harder. Markedly less hard, I would say.
I guess we simply disagree. I say work harder at your grades and your "work" will be easier and pay more. I won't feel guilty for getting paid what I'm apparently worth.
How would you feel if your company simply decided to give your job to someone that "needed" a living wage rather than to you that earned that "lving wage"? What if they split your job in two and gave two "living wages" to someone "deserving" and you got to start over again...? How much are you willing to give up for others that "need" a living wage? Me...I'm not too willing to give what I"ve earned for someone that skated by expecting the gov't to take care of them or that didn't care enough for their future but instead partied everyday. I pay enough taxes already. Notice I don't have a problem giving to those that NEED help. "McDonald's" is a job and a start. It's not the end or only job available to someone that has drive. It's a start.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 06:26:09 PM
I guess we simply disagree. I say work harder at your grades and your "work" will be easier and pay more. I won't feel guilty for getting paid what I'm apparently worth.
How would you feel if your company simply decided to give your job to someone that "needed" a living wage rather than to you that earned that "lving wage"? What if they split your job in two and gave two "living wages" to someone "deserving" and you got to start over again...? How much are you willing to give up for others that "need" a living wage? Me...I'm not too willing to give what I"ve earned for someone that skated by expecting the gov't to take care of them or that didn't care enough for their future but instead partied everyday. I pay enough taxes already. Notice I don't have a problem giving to those that NEED help. "McDonald's" is a job and a start. It's not the end or only job available to someone that has drive. It's a start.
I'm not being snarky here, but do most employers actually look at your grades? I have a BA, and I'm sure that is an advantage over someone who doesn't have a college degree, but I've never had anyone request my college transcripts.
I guess I don't know what you mean by "how would I feel if my company took my job and gave it to someone else who needs a living wage? If they took my job, I would be the one that needs a living wage! LOL Let me clarify, I don't think that a company is ever (or should ever) award jobs to people based on "need." What I am saying isthe income disparity in this country is crazy. I believe that the entery level people in my company make like $20-25K/yr, and the CEO prob makes about $8MM. I'm sure lots of companies are like that. And I'm not saying that everyone should be equal. Of course not. But surely the CEO would still feel like his hard work was valued if they paid the entry level people $40K/yr and they paid the CEO $2MM per year. That's still a pretty big gap, yes? I just have a hard time believing that it's impossible to pay more peope a more reasonable rate and still not completely revert to communism and lines for bread and stuff. We used to have more of a balance back in the days that many people regard as "America's Golden Years" - back in the 50's and 60's. People who romanticize that time period need to understand some of the economics behind it. There was a reason the middle class was so strong back then, and there is a reason that it is not now, and that reason isn't simply "stupid adults need to not work crappy jobs."
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 22, 2012, 05:45:43 PM
Quote from: Whitney on February 22, 2012, 02:58:06 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 22, 2012, 06:39:17 AM
It is a different kettle of fish taking an unwilling life to placing reasonable sanctions on ones rights, however financially beneficial they both may be.
I don't see a fundamental difference...both are presumably unwilling to comply if not forced, both would be a violation on one's full use of their own body, and both strip individuals of their freedom/rights.
A bit like locking a criminal up, No? Except the poor old dear on the euthanasia block didn't deliberately and with foresight injure anyone.
Um...no...there is no way to draw a connection to criminal acts. We're talking about removing rights from law abiding citizens....criminals know the consequences of getting caught. So, bringing that up is heading down a rabbit trail and is not necessary to discuss.
I'm not saying we should kill people just because they meet some arbitrary standard of being useless to society; I'm saying that once you decide that it's okay to violate the rights of a person just because they meet some random standard that it's better for society that they not reproduce then you've opened the door wide open for violating the rights of all sorts of other groups of people when their contribution to society is deemed sub-par. If a woman has no right to use her own body as she sees fit (such as for pregnancy) then you are going even further to say that the government basically owns our bodies and can do what they like with them if it is deemed best for society; slippery slope to euthanasia of the very old. It may be a slow moving slippery slope but slippery nonetheless.
Quote from: Ali on February 22, 2012, 06:44:15 PM
I'm not being snarky here, but do most employers actually look at your grades? I have a BA, and I'm sure that is an advantage over someone who doesn't have a college degree, but I've never had anyone request my college transcripts.
That's because the BA speaks for itself. It means, to an employer, that you have put forth effort and gained something for it. I'm willing to bet that if you were at the starting point of your career getting an entry level job facilitated by your specific degree, grades might very well be a point in the hiring process. Anyone hiring any position that pays more than minimum wage will see a degree as a good thing even if it has nothing to do with the job. If you, with a BA degree, go to McDonald's for a job, the BA will be of no consequence unless you're applying for a managerial job or even shift leader. But one can become a shift leader and even a manager without a degree...you just can't simply start at that position for all intents and purposes.
Quote from: AliI guess I don't know what you mean by "how would I feel if my company took my job and gave it to someone else who needs a living wage? If they took my job, I would be the one that needs a living wage! LOL Let me clarify, I don't think that a company is ever (or should ever) award jobs to people based on "need."
I'm glad to hear this. Nor do I think any company should PAY on need. Afterall, the company exists to make money, not lose it. Paying anyone above what they deserve is rediculous. Any CEO or such getting paid millions from a company that is not making money is not going to be at that job for long.
Quote from: AliWhat I am saying isthe income disparity in this country is crazy. I believe that the entery level people in my company make like $20-25K/yr, and the CEO prob makes about $8MM. I'm sure lots of companies are like that. And I'm not saying that everyone should be equal. Of course not. But surely the CEO would still feel like his hard work was valued if they paid the entry level people $40K/yr and they paid the CEO $2MM per year. That's still a pretty big gap, yes?
Maybe you should work towards being the CEO of the company you work for and then see if you're willing to give up what you earned as pay. I have no probelm being paid what I deserve according to my company. If I don't like the pay, I can move on.
Quote from: AliI just have a hard time believing that it's impossible to pay more peope a more reasonable rate and still not completely revert to communism and lines for bread and stuff. We used to have more of a balance back in the days that many people regard as "America's Golden Years" - back in the 50's and 60's. People who romanticize that time period need to understand some of the economics behind it. There was a reason the middle class was so strong back then, and there is a reason that it is not now, and that reason isn't simply "stupid adults need to not work crappy jobs."
Reasonable rate? The problem is who is going to pay for that "reasonable rate"? Put yourself in the place of the company owner. Are you willing to simply pay a person what they need vs. what they are worth to your company? Everyone gets paid what they are worth. Period. If *you should feel you're worth more, go out and prove it. If we got paid based on need, we'd all need a new Mercedes every year and a designer home overlooking the Pacific Ocean in Malibu with enough $$ to send our kids to Pepperdine University or better...
Yes, I think that's a fine idea. I'll aim to become CEO and see if I can then bear to scrape by at only a couple MM a year to afford my employees a better standard of living. Today, client relations. Tomorrow the world! *floats off on a cloud of naive ideology*
Quote from: Ali on February 22, 2012, 08:09:10 PM
Yes, I think that's a fine idea. I'll aim to become CEO and see if I can then bear to scrape by at only a couple MM a year to afford my employees a better standard of living. Today, client relations. Tomorrow the world! *floats off on a cloud of naive ideology*
You would certainly be a huge hero to your employees. I know I wouldn't give up my pay to undeserving employees just to "make things even..." I would be more inclined to set aside a small chunk to help a few here and there that showed devotion to the company and really did have a need. Everyone can use more income, but the flip side of that is that everyone that gains more income ends up using that income and is found once again in the column of needing a "living wage" as their living expenses grow with new income...to what end?
I know Ali has been doing a fine job responding so far, but I'd really enjoy reading the conversation more if those responding to her would stop putting words into her mouth and straw manning her argument.
Examples:
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 08:47:42 PMI know I wouldn't give up my pay to undeserving employees just to "make things even..."
I've found no where where Ali had said she wanted to make things even, and you put it in quotes which usually signifies that it is something she said. Let alone that she didn't say anything like that, I don't see any where where she even implied it.
Quote from: AnimatedDirtEveryone can use more income, but the flip side of that is that everyone that gains more income ends up using that income and is found once again in the column of needing a "living wage" as their living expenses grow with new income...to what end?
This is not the "living wage" that Ali brought into the conversation.
Apologies if this is what is was taken at, but for the record, I never made this quoted statement either implying stupid adults.
I'm just not sure to what end this idea of making wages balanced as in the 50's and 60's means if not for the purpose of making things more equal.
Quote from: Ali on February 22, 2012, 06:44:15 PM
We used to have more of a balance back in the days that many people regard as "America's Golden Years" - back in the 50's and 60's. People who romanticize that time period need to understand some of the economics behind it. There was a reason the middle class was so strong back then, and there is a reason that it is not now, and that reason isn't simply "stupid adults need to not work crappy jobs."
Quote from: Whitney on February 22, 2012, 06:44:23 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 22, 2012, 05:45:43 PM
Quote from: Whitney on February 22, 2012, 02:58:06 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 22, 2012, 06:39:17 AM
It is a different kettle of fish taking an unwilling life to placing reasonable sanctions on ones rights, however financially beneficial they both may be.
I don't see a fundamental difference...both are presumably unwilling to comply if not forced, both would be a violation on one's full use of their own body, and both strip individuals of their freedom/rights.
A bit like locking a criminal up, No? Except the poor old dear on the euthanasia block didn't deliberately and with foresight injure anyone.
Um...no...there is no way to draw a connection to criminal acts. We're talking about removing rights from law abiding citizens....criminals know the consequences of getting caught. So, bringing that up is heading down a rabbit trail and is not necessary to discuss.
I was illustrating the fact that we constantly rescind rights 'for the greater good' (like denying a criminal his right to physical freedom). So why is it so abhorrent for me to propose an adjustment of the line over which a person has to cross to have his rights revoked?
And can you not see that revoking rights for the greater good (like locking up a criminal) is somewhat in a different league from killing your granny?
Quote from: WhitneyI'm not saying we should kill people just because they meet some arbitrary standard of being useless to society; I'm saying that once you decide that it's okay to violate the rights of a person just because they meet some random standard that it's better for society that they not reproduce then you've opened the door wide open for violating the rights of all sorts of other groups of people when their contribution to society is deemed sub-par. If a woman has no right to use her own body as she sees fit (such as for pregnancy) then you are going even further to say that the government basically owns our bodies and can do what they like with them if it is deemed best for society; slippery slope to euthanasia of the very old. It may be a slow moving slippery slope but slippery nonetheless.
We've been on that slippery slope for hundreds of years. 300 years ago I had a right to build my house on common land. 100 years ago I had a right to take cocaine. 5 years ago I had a right to smoke a cigarette in a bar.
All of these rights were rescinded for the greater good. We accept them as reasonable now because we were born to it (except the latter). In 200 years, I expect it will be deemed reasonable - and necessary - to effect, by legislation as required, population control for social reasons. Just like they currently do in China.
Isn't it the case that educating women reduces the birth rate?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:30:43 PMApologies if this is what is was taken at, but for the record, I never made this quoted statement either implying stupid adults.
I provided a few examples, not a whole list. Though if you want, I can count the amount of times she misrepresents your position vs. the amount of times you misrepresent hers.
Quote from: Davin on February 22, 2012, 09:40:31 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:30:43 PMApologies if this is what is was taken at, but for the record, I never made this quoted statement either implying stupid adults.
I provided a few examples, not a whole list. Though if you want, I can count the amount of times she misrepresents your position vs. the amount of times you misrepresent hers.
I suppose you want another apology. Sorry for misrepresenting her position.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on February 22, 2012, 09:47:04 PMI suppose you want another apology. Sorry for misrepresenting her position.
No, I expressed what I wanted: I wanted it to stop. I have no use or want for apologies.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 22, 2012, 09:34:57 PM
Just like they currently do in China.
Do you consider China an example of a society that is functioning well?
Quote from: Whitney on February 22, 2012, 10:11:16 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 22, 2012, 09:34:57 PM
Just like they currently do in China.
Do you consider China an example of a society that is functioning well?
Nope. Mine neither. But they're addressing their population issues...
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 22, 2012, 10:33:12 PM
Quote from: Whitney on February 22, 2012, 10:11:16 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 22, 2012, 09:34:57 PM
Just like they currently do in China.
Do you consider China an example of a society that is functioning well?
Nope. Mine neither. But they're addressing their population issues...
But addressing them at what cost? No one here is disagreeing with the need for population control, we are questioning methods that rely on forced control.
Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 09:37:24 PM
Isn't it the case that educating women reduces the birth rate?
That's true! Free education for all! (paid for, of course, by the government ;D)
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 22, 2012, 11:03:14 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 09:37:24 PM
Isn't it the case that educating women reduces the birth rate?
That's true! Free education for all! (paid for, of course, by the government ;D)
If there could be ONE THING that government would pay for, I would choose education. Think, for example, of the USA. Imagine 300,000,000 people all educated to the limit of their innate potential. There would be nothing that nation couldn't accomplish. Education is the most valuable infrastructure investment that a nation can possibly make.
Among highly educated people, there is
relatively little gender, religious, ethnic, racial or any other type of discrimination. All boundaries are erased among the very educated (for the most part). I work in a hospital's legal department. The attorneys there are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, agnostic, and uncommitted. The physicians in our system are all of the above, plus Buddhist and outright atheist. At that level, nobody gives a shit. Everyone is doing OK, so who or what someone worships or doesn't worship, or whether they are male or female, black or white, etc., matters not. High levels of education engender high levels of mutual respect. So, educate everyone, and all other problems tend to disappear.
Quote from: Tank on February 22, 2012, 09:37:24 PM
Isn't it the case that educating women reduces the birth rate?
I think education is key, but what worries me are religions that tell women it's evil to use basic birth control...
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on February 23, 2012, 03:22:20 AM
If there could be ONE THING that government would pay for, I would choose education. Think, for example, of the USA. Imagine 300,000,000 people all educated to the limit of their innate potential. There would be nothing that nation couldn't accomplish. Education is the most valuable infrastructure investment that a nation can possibly make.
Among highly educated people, there is relatively little gender, religious, ethnic, racial or any other type of discrimination. All boundaries are erased among the very educated (for the most part). I work in a hospital's legal department. The attorneys there are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, agnostic, and uncommitted. The physicians in our system are all of the above, plus Buddhist and outright atheist. At that level, nobody gives a shit. Everyone is doing OK, so who or what someone worships or doesn't worship, or whether they are male or female, black or white, etc., matters not. High levels of education engender high levels of mutual respect. So, educate everyone, and all other problems tend to disappear.
I tend to find that's true of intelligent rational people be they highly educated or not. I've got friends who left school at 16, never went to Uni, but are highly intelligent and well balanced people with no antisocial or discriminatory views. I'm not sure education's necessarily all that important in producing well rounded people, those highly educated people you're talking about might naturally be that way with or without their education.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 10:35:08 AM
In a failing, morally and economically bankrupt society the first question is accutely relevant. I am a believer in libertarianism, but I also believe in social responsibility.
Gotta confess I agree with your original post 100% Siz, and I think the key is social responsibility. I don't think people have a god-given right to have as many children as they want if they can't financially support those children. It's socially irresponsible, particularly in western societies that are carrying such vast levels of debt. Everyone should try and live within their means, and I don't personally see why an exception should be made for procreation. Given the wide availability of contraception these days, I think having children is a lifestyle choice, not an automatic result of being sexually active.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 23, 2012, 11:18:41 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 10:35:08 AM
In a failing, morally and economically bankrupt society the first question is accutely relevant. I am a believer in libertarianism, but I also believe in social responsibility.
Gotta confess I agree with your original post 100% Siz, and I think the key is social responsibility. I don't think people have a god-given right to have as many children as they want if they can't financially support those children. It's socially irresponsible, particularly in western societies that are carrying such vast levels of debt. Everyone should try and live within their means, and I don't personally see why an exception should be made for procreation. Given the wide availability of contraception these days, I think having children is a lifestyle choice, not an automatic result of being sexually active.
[whispermode]
Shhh TFL, noone agrees with us...
[/Whispermode]
Sadly, according to Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights there IS that right:
Quote
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
I fear this will prove to be a '2nd Amendment' style cock-up on a global scale.
Although Article 29 does say:
Quote
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
But by the time people wise up to the necessity to invoke Article 29 it'll be waaaay too late.
So practically speaking, how would you prevent people from procreating?
Quote from: Ali on February 23, 2012, 03:41:46 PM
So practically speaking, how would you prevent people from procreating?
Sanctions.
Replace cash welfare payments with food and clothing stamps for those who, while reliant on welfare, payments proceed to have children - accidental or not. There is no excuse. Any rights violated here?
Benefits:
Welfare funded alcoholism will reduce.
Welfare funded smoking will reduce.
Possible improvement in nutrition for the children.
Increased welfare available for the genuine needy and public services.
More of the children's entitlement to aid will get to them in a beneficial form.
Disbenefits:
Enlighten me...
As long as all of the children's basic needs are cared for, I don't have a problem with it.
I have no rational argument regarding this, but something about the government having any say whatsoever regarding reproductive freedom just creeps me out.
Quote from: statichaos on February 23, 2012, 07:50:08 PM
I have no rational argument regarding this, but something about the government having any say whatsoever regarding reproductive freedom just creeps me out.
I agree.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 23, 2012, 03:55:44 PM
Quote from: Ali on February 23, 2012, 03:41:46 PM
So practically speaking, how would you prevent people from procreating?
Sanctions.
Replace cash welfare payments with food and clothing stamps for those who, while reliant on welfare, payments proceed to have children - accidental or not. There is no excuse. Any rights violated here?
Benefits:
Welfare funded alcoholism will reduce.
Welfare funded smoking will reduce.
Possible improvement in nutrition for the children.
Increased welfare available for the genuine needy and public services.
More of the children's entitlement to aid will get to them in a beneficial form.
Disbenefits:
Enlighten me...
What if we just used that system for everyone on welfare? Just give them some standard basics. It's possible to play the system even without involving kids....I knew a couple in college who had somehow both gotten themselves onto section 8, welfare and food stamps. So I remembered that later when I really could have used it and found out that college students don't qualify (but I could have dropped out and qualified which wasn't an option). I don't know how they managed to play the system but they did.
Personally I think it's socially irresponsible for people to milk the benefits system whether they have kids or not. For those who are able to work it should be a system that supports them on a basic living until they're able to find work. I've been on the dole myself in the past and scraped by on £50-60 a week. It didn't make for a luxurious lifestyle, but it was nice to have the free time for a while until I found another job.
The trouble is here in the UK it's become a way of life for many people who get more on welfare than the average person earns. I'm not talking about people who work on low wages, I'm talking about people who don't work and have no incentive to work because they'd be worse off financially. Maybe that's not such a big problem in the US, but over here the government now pay out more in benefit / welfare payments than they take in income tax every year, which doesn't seem sustainable to me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5651825/Benefit-payouts-will-exceed-income-tax-revenue.html
I do hate the Daily Mail (it's a horrible right wing rag) but this article gives some idea of the problem that exists over here, albeit in a rather extreme case
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303439/Benefits-couple-claiming-30-000-11-children-ANOTHER-way.html
here's a more detailed (and less political) article from the BBC on a couple with five kids who get £600 a week in benefits, out of which they buy 200 cigarettes and 24 cans of beer a week!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185
@OP
I notice you mention libertarian philosophy, but you aren't a libertarian if you are even considering the idea the state should control what people do with their own body.
You're problems seem to be with the welfare system, from the few posts I've read, rather than with people having children they can't afford.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 23, 2012, 11:18:41 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on February 21, 2012, 10:35:08 AM
In a failing, morally and economically bankrupt society the first question is accutely relevant. I am a believer in libertarianism, but I also believe in social responsibility.
Gotta confess I agree with your original post 100% Siz, and I think the key is social responsibility. I don't think people have a god-given right to have as many children as they want if they can't financially support those children. It's socially irresponsible, particularly in western societies that are carrying such vast levels of debt. Everyone should try and live within their means, and I don't personally see why an exception should be made for procreation. Given the wide availability of contraception these days, I think having children is a lifestyle choice, not an automatic result of being sexually active.
<3 Great post
Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 23, 2012, 11:21:31 PM
here's a more detailed (and less political) article from the BBC on a couple with five kids who get £600 a week in benefits, out of which they buy 200 cigarettes and 24 cans of beer a week!
I wonder if the people that are outraged by the cost to society of such wasteful spending factor in that much of that spending is going back to the government. Beer and smokes would be pretty cheap without taxes.