• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

Should the right to bear children be regulated?

  • Yes to help keep the poulation down so hunting lands don't get overcrowded!

    Votes: 2 5.0%
  • Yes for other reasons

    Votes: 5 12.5%
  • No this is dumb

    Votes: 26 65.0%
  • Hmmm maybe

    Votes: 7 17.5%

  • Total voters
    40
  • This poll will close: .
I don't agree. In the modern era where so few people concern themselves with volunteer work and dedicating genuine time to their communities, there is often no fall back for people on hard times.
An interesting point made by Robert Nisbet is that this is because of increasing gov't control of functions like charity/welfare. Most associations such as those that used to provide such things require functions that the state has gradually usurped. It moves into an area, weakens those associations that used to provide for such functions and then declares its intervention necessary.

I do believe that there are those on welfare who are not in genuine need, but to say that none are deserving is an extreme. Redistribution of wealth, to some degree, is important for a stable society. This is why the rich fall into a higher tax bracket than the lower classes.
Indeed, in a economy so invested with pro-rich state intervention it is necessary. It would simply fall apart without redistribution, the demand would not be there for our massively demand-push, consumerist economy. In the end Marx, Keynes et al were right about corporate-capitalist crises, they are fundamentally caused by a structural imbalance at the core of the system itself, caused by the state maintained massive inequality. They simply erred, aside from their solutions, in believing that this was mostly a natural part of the "free market"(a rather meaningless term itself.) rather than seeing that capitalism and certainly corporate-capitalism has always been riddled with state intervention.
 
Last edited:
Your credibility quickly dwindled as soon as you mentioned Marxism. Having some socialized systems does not make a country Marxist. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. All successful economies are mixed in nature, with some command elements and some free market elements.

China is not a fascist country. Its government has thousands of members, and its economy is essentially capitalist now.
So China was not Maoist or Marxist, and therefore is now not fascist....

Yeah, you've got loads of credibility there.....:doh
 
So China was not Maoist or Marxist, and therefore is now not fascist....

China was never a fascist nation. It could be argued that Mao, in the beginning, had a lot of control over the actions of the party, but in the end it was still one party rule. That is Communism.

Secondly, Mao's original plan was to start China down the road to Communism, and then shift it over to Socialism (absence of government) later, but all of his projects, such as the Great Leap Forward, failed miserably and millions died. In the 80's, this resulted in Deng Xiaoping adopting the Special Economic Zones and the beginnings of modern capitalism in China.

China essentially went from Communism to Capitalism, and never fulfilled Marxist-style Socialism like Mao originally intended.

As for fascism... that is your erroneous assertion and not history's. A fascist state is one ruler with one agenda.

Yeah, you've got loads of credibility there.....:doh

You clearly don't even know the difference between Communism and Socialism.
 
An interesting point made by Robert Nisbet is that this is because of increasing gov't control of functions like charity/welfare. Most associations such as those that used to provide such things require functions that the state has gradually usurped. It moves into an area, weakens those associations that used to provide for such functions and then declares its intervention necessary.

I believe this is partially true, but I also believe that corporatism and consumerism are more to blame. People have become essentially dependent upon corporations to provide for their livelihoods: food, shelter, communications, entertainment, etc. Companies have removed this from the community realm and have mass produced it. It's at the point now where most people are so busy working in order to have money to buy things that there is simply no time for them to do anything else.
 
Secondly, Mao's original plan was to start China down the road to Communism, and then shift it over to Socialism (absence of government) later...

You have got these backwards. Communism is the ideal classless and stateless society; Socialism is government control of industry in preparation for a transition to Communism.

As for fascism... that is your erroneous assertion and not history's. A fascist state is one ruler with one agenda.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism[/ame]. One can argue whether or not China qualifies as Fascist, but there's certainly more to the matter than totalitarianism, as any of the failed Soviet states can warrant.
 
Last edited:
You have got these backwards. Communism is the ideal classless and stateless society; Socialism is government control of industry in preparation for a transition to Communism.

Oops! I had the concepts in my mind but mixed up the terms. Thanks for the correction. :)

Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. One can argue whether or not China qualifies as Fascist, but there's certainly more to the matter than totalitarianism, as any of the failed Soviet states can warrant.
[/quote]

You're right, it's arguable. I personally don't think China qualifies as fascist even though it definitely has some totalitarian elements.
 
The best way to control child bearing without violating personal rights is to ensure that childbearing requires the RESPONSIBILITY of the parents to care for them, NOT use the government to do it.

NOBODY should be mandated to care for other people's children.

ELIMINATE the welfare programs that encourage irresponsible childbearing.
 
The best way to control child bearing without violating personal rights is to ensure that childbearing requires the RESPONSIBILITY of the parents to care for them, NOT use the government to do it.

NOBODY should be mandated to care for other people's children.

ELIMINATE the welfare programs that encourage irresponsible childbearing.
so you have no qualms about punishing the innocents born to irresponsible people????
 
so you have no qualms about punishing the innocents born to irresponsible people????
I have greater qualms about punishing the innocent parents wrongly attacked as irresponsible.

I also have greater confidence in the average adult of the species to adequately parent a child--far greater confidence in said average adult than in the average government bureaucracy.

If I have to err, I choose to err on the side of the parent, on the side of parents rights, and on the side of individual liberty to raise children by whatever guidelines one finds appropriate. As long as a child receives an education, is fed properly, is clothed when out in public, and is not constantly bruised, battered, or otherwise explicitly abused (i.e., told he/she is worthless, et cetera), I choose to trust the parent's judgment where the child is concerned.
 
I have greater qualms about punishing the innocent parents wrongly attacked as irresponsible.

I also have greater confidence in the average adult of the species to adequately parent a child--far greater confidence in said average adult than in the average government bureaucracy.

If I have to err, I choose to err on the side of the parent, on the side of parents rights, and on the side of individual liberty to raise children by whatever guidelines one finds appropriate. As long as a child receives an education, is fed properly, is clothed when out in public, and is not constantly bruised, battered, or otherwise explicitly abused (i.e., told he/she is worthless, et cetera), I choose to trust the parent's judgment where the child is concerned.
well "world needs plenty of Bahtenduhs" :lol:
 
I believe this is partially true, but I also believe that corporatism and consumerism are more to blame. People have become essentially dependent upon corporations to provide for their livelihoods: food, shelter, communications, entertainment, etc. Companies have removed this from the community realm and have mass produced it. It's at the point now where most people are so busy working in order to have money to buy things that there is simply no time for them to do anything else.
Yes there were many influences, the industrial revolution, capitalism, corporatism, consumerism, secularism the list could go on but I agree with Robert Nisbet that while these are important it is in the end the state that has been the most important in the destruction of the traditional bases of charity and welfare as it has been in so much of the destruction of traditional, decentralised society. It is to a degree a major support of corporatism itself.
 
You have got these backwards. Communism is the ideal classless and stateless society; Socialism is government control of industry in preparation for a transition to Communism.
.
Actually, unless you are talking in pure Marxist terms(and that is never a good thing;)) , neither socialism nor communism necessitate a large role for the state. There are low and no state versions of both from anarcho-communism to guild socialism.
 
so you have no qualms about punishing the innocents born to irresponsible people????

Those parents who are grossly irresponsible, to the point of being unable to legitimately care for their children, ought to lose their children. It's that simple.
 
Those parents who are grossly irresponsible, to the point of being unable to legitimately care for their children, ought to lose their children. It's that simple.

Sounds great in principle. Application is only sound if we have a coherent definition and standard of "irresponsible", "grossly irresponsible", and "legitimate care."

Outside of the patently obvious criteria that involve physical danger, injury, and harm, I am not certain such a standard has been defined with clarity.
 
Sounds great in principle. Application is only sound if we have a coherent definition and standard of "irresponsible", "grossly irresponsible", and "legitimate care."

Outside of the patently obvious criteria that involve physical danger, injury, and harm, I am not certain such a standard has been defined with clarity.

They haven't, simply because there are so many people, both on the loony liberal side and the religious right, who think breeding up a storm is someone's right that cannot be infringed on in any way. The liberals think we ought to pay for them all, the conservatives think we can't interfere in God's will.

Screw 'em both. If the parents cannot pay for the child's well-being, the parents shouldn't have the children to begin with. That goes above and beyond any "care" issues.
 
They haven't, simply because there are so many people, both on the loony liberal side and the religious right, who think breeding up a storm is someone's right that cannot be infringed on in any way. The liberals think we ought to pay for them all, the conservatives think we can't interfere in God's will.

Screw 'em both. If the parents cannot pay for the child's well-being, the parents shouldn't have the children to begin with. That goes above and beyond any "care" issues.

If "prospective' parents had to go thru just half what prospective adopting parents had to go thru, there would be fewer children living in deplorable conditions...
 
Last edited:
If "prospective' parents had to go thru just half what prospective adopting parents had to go thru, there would be fewer children living in deplorable conditions...

Ah but once again we come back to the "making them not reproduce on their own" issue in the first place. Government mandated birth control (sub-dermal inserts) for both sexes would suck. Could already see the spike in sexually transmitted diseases waiting to happen.




Oh and I voted for the very first one because the hunting grounds part made me think it was the "comedy" option.
 
If "prospective' parents had to go thru just half what prospective adopting parents had to go thru, there would be fewer children living in deplorable conditions...

That's probably true, but you've got a lot of loud-mouths in society who demand anyone who has the ability to breed should be able to breed with no restrictions. Even ignoring the difficulties of stopping people from breeding, the social consequences of even suggesting such a thing would be enough to end any politician's career.

And so, we're stuck with a lot of really horrible parents churning out the next generation of horrible adults. Welcome to America.
 
If "prospective' parents had to go thru just half what prospective adopting parents had to go thru, there would be fewer children living in deplorable conditions...

That depends, give that much power to the state over even the most basic intermedaite association of the congenial family and I think we'd all be living in deplorable conditions rather quickly.
 
Back
Top Bottom