Birth permit

I'd say that we just go with norplants delivered via sniper rifles, starting with the people of walmart.

Is there a compelling state interest in the governmental regulation of birthing rights?
That argument certainly could be made, on several levels.

I personally feel we are headed for a global population epidemic which will affect everyone. At some point, perhaps not in the immediate future, we are simply going to have to many people to support on our earths capabilities. Not any different then the animal kingdom where high reproduction happens during years of plentiful food which leads to starvation and a die off in a lean year.

I feel a global limit could be a good thing. If we maintain global population limits low enough to have a buffer for years of bad food yields it would help insure people across the planet are not left starving.

I would not support a US limit without a global limit however.

If the Birth Permissions will be lunched than probably only for Muslim Immigrants.

Alfons said:

If the Birth Permissions will be lunched than probably only for Muslim Immigrants.

Click to expand...

That's the other reason I'm opposed to it. If we cut the birth rate amongst the native population, business will be forced to turn to immigrants to cover the gap. We would be committing evolutionary suicide.

roguenuke said:

First of all, that would be gender discrimination, since you are only requiring mothers to attend such a class and not the fathers.

Second of all, people would never go for a pass or fail mandatory parenting class because the government should not be allowed to mandate to people how they should be raising their children. Protecting children from abuse is one thing, but requiring that people know how to raise their children "the right way" is wrong.

Click to expand...

I'm only requiring mothers to attend because only women give birth. However I have no problems with demanding that a man go through mandatory parenting classes before he can have his parental rights instated.

And there are some really basic things that all parents need to be educated on. Especially health care for their children. And there are also a lot of laws on the books that parents need to know regarding their children, which such a class can teach too. And guess what - parents don't know those things as soon as they pop a kid out.

So I think having such a class would be very good and it would ensure every parent is made aware of their rights and educates them on what to expect from their newborn children. Which is for the parents' benefit just as much as it's for the child's benefit.

So I think you really misunderstood what I meant by my position.

Free people should not be told when or how to breed

those on the public dole, however are no longer free because they are dependent on the wealth and toil of others to exist. those in such conditions have a moral duty to not impose unnecessary additional costs on those tasked with supporting them and if they do then they should face sanctions including breeding restrictions

Canell said:

Social welfare, overpopulation, resource scarcity, ethnic map, etc. Do you think they can or must result in a "birth permit", i.e. the state dictating demographics in exchange of welfare, for example? :mrgreen: Could it be direct (license) or indirect (taxation) permit?
Should criminals, drug addicts, hobos, etc be allowed to have children?

Are we headed that direction? I mean, China already implemented something like this (heavy taxation for a second child) due to huge population and scarce territory. Please, share your thoughts.

Click to expand...

Hell no this is an outrageous idea and the government must stay out of it.

The best way to prevent reckless childbearing is to stop subsidizing it.

ALL welfare programs that pay for any form of it should be REPEALED.

ronpaulvoter said:

The best way to prevent reckless childbearing is to stop subsidizing it.

ALL welfare programs that pay for any form of it should be REPEALED.

Click to expand...

Also there should be no tax breaks for having kids even if you are not on welfare; that's subsidizing. Also, can we make it so only parents pay for public schools then? Cause we subsidize the funding of those from everyone. Also being married should not get you a break on things like mortgage and such.

Ikari said:

Also there should be no tax breaks for having kids even if you are not on welfare; that's subsidizing. Also, can we make it so only parents pay for public schools then? Cause we subsidize the funding of those from everyone. Also being married should not get you a break on things like mortgage and such.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with the suggestion on education. Having educated children benefits everybody. The better educated they are, the more they will make, the more they will contribute taxes to programs that benefit the entire population. We have a vested interest in somebody else's child succeeding in school.

tessaesque said:

I don't agree with the suggestion on education. Having educated children benefits everybody. The better educated they are, the more they will make, the more they will contribute taxes to programs that benefit the entire population. We have a vested interest in somebody else's child succeeding in school.

Click to expand...

In all honesty, I do agree with you on this case. I do believe that a well educated populace is a necessity to a free state. However, on the general comment of end all subsidies, I brought forth various other subsidies which are currently used by married folk.

Ikari said:

In all honesty, I do agree with you on this case. I do believe that a well educated populace is a necessity to a free state. However, on the general comment of end all subsidies, I brought forth various other subsidies which are currently used by married folk.

Click to expand...

I'm on the anti-subsidy train, for sure. I also support a simple, across-the-board, constant tax rate percentage, regardless of income level, with no deduction.