View Poll Results: Should the right to bear children be regulated?

Voters
59. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes to help keep the poulation down so hunting lands don't get overcrowded!

    4 6.78%
  • Yes for other reasons

    15 25.42%
  • No this is dumb

    31 52.54%
  • Hmmm maybe

    9 15.25%
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 94

Thread: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    The only functional form of government welfare is "none".
    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. 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.

  2. #72
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    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.
    In this country, not true. Americans, especially prosperous Americans, give more to charitable causes and organizations than any other people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    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.
    I quite agree--but that has never been my argument, and any assertion to the contrary is a straw man (or an outright lie, take your pick). The question is not whether there are people in need, or whether they are deserving of the generosity of the larger community; the question is whether government welfare is the appropriate expression of that generosity. The answer to that question is no, government welfare is not an appropriate expression of that generosity; it is not a functional expression of that generosity; it is not a moral expression of that generosity; it is not a viable expression of that generosity. Government welfare fails to alleviate the suffering it putatively claims to address; it does not work, so why insist on its continuance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    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.
    Redistribution of wealth is a good way to destabilize society, or to bankrupt society (or both, which has been the lesson of history). Coerced redistribution of wealth destroys wealth (the stellar non-success of the Soviet Union and its hegemony); a sustained effort of coerced redistribution destroys freedom (again, the Soviet Union, but also mainland China, which has evolved from a Maoist/Marxist society to essentially a fascist one); it is a lose-lose proposition.

    Additionally, progressive tax systems are neither conceptually nor intentionally redistributive in nature. Tax systems of any kind are only redistributive when income tax credits result in reverse tax payments to individuals who otherwise would not owe any tax, or result in a negation of the tax burden otherwise owed by individuals.

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    In this country, not true. Americans, especially prosperous Americans, give more to charitable causes and organizations than any other people.
    That's not what I meant. Donating money is not at all the same as volunteering your spare time and energies towards helping your community develop sustainable projects that help others. Throwing money at something does not change a damn thing.

    And the rich donate in order to get tax breaks.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    I quite agree--but that has never been my argument, and any assertion to the contrary is a straw man (or an outright lie, take your pick).
    It's neither. In your own words, you said that a functional welfare system is no welfare system.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    The question is not whether there are people in need, or whether they are deserving of the generosity of the larger community; the question is whether government welfare is the appropriate expression of that generosity. The answer to that question is no, government welfare is not an appropriate expression of that generosity; it is not a functional expression of that generosity; it is not a moral expression of that generosity; it is not a viable expression of that generosity. Government welfare fails to alleviate the suffering it putatively claims to address; it does not work, so why insist on its continuance?
    It does not work in what sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Redistribution of wealth is a good way to destabilize society, or to bankrupt society (or both, which has been the lesson of history). Coerced redistribution of wealth destroys wealth (the stellar non-success of the Soviet Union and its hegemony); a sustained effort of coerced redistribution destroys freedom (again, the Soviet Union, but also mainland China, which has evolved from a Maoist/Marxist society to essentially a fascist one); it is a lose-lose proposition.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Additionally, progressive tax systems are neither conceptually nor intentionally redistributive in nature. Tax systems of any kind are only redistributive when income tax credits result in reverse tax payments to individuals who otherwise would not owe any tax, or result in a negation of the tax burden otherwise owed by individuals.
    Actually they are. If the wealthy pay more, then government projects and social programs using public funds end up delivering that money, either directly or through capital, back to the country. If the poor pay less but receive more, then that is distribution of wealth in action.

    Countries that have flat tax (and not progressive):
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...income_tax.png

    Just look at those economic power houses.

    Countries that have no social infrastructure to help the neediest members are ones that are doomed to have spiraling social problems. If America had a moderate view of social programs, you wouldn't be suffering the polar extremes of your two party system: one party that cuts social programs left and right, and another party that causes the deficit to climb in order to infuse useless social programs with money.

    Frankly, it makes no sense to have a government so large yet not providing any benefits to the public. Where is all that tax money going, in that case?

  4. #74
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,618

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord
    This is why the answer to your question "who decides?" should be "no one."
    But that's not practically prudent. When you're part of a cooperative society, you can't simply leave the rules on things that affect the whole up to the individual. Who decides on the laws? No one? Who sets the standards? No one? That's insane and the death knell of the society as an ongoing concern. No society can survive like that.

    Remove the safety net and let people feel the full weight of their bad decisions, and let them revel in the full glory of their good decisions.
    But unfortunately, the ones suffering the full weight of bad decisions in these cases are most often not the ones who made the bad decisions in the first place. We're talking about innocent children who suffer the stupidity of their parents and you're really left with only three options that I can think of:

    1) Control the right to breed, which we've all already acknowledged is both difficult to do and would face stiff opposition.
    2) Ignore the kids entirely and let their parents do as they will. This is going to end up both with a lot of dead, damaged and psychologically harmed kids, which I think everyone can agree is a bad thing, but it's going to massively negatively impact the next generation of the society. It's commiting social suicide.
    3) Take those kids out of the situations with the worst parental offenders, put them in homes where they have a chance of growing up to be educated, intelligent, healthy and functional members of society and if you hang those bad parents out to dry, that's fine with me. They did the crime, they deserve to do the time.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! The Bitchspot Blog YouTube me! The Bitchspot Channel

  5. #75
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    Throwing money at something does not change a damn thing.
    Exactly. Hence the need to put a stop to the madness of government welfare.

    (as the joke goes, "welcome to the Republican Party")

  6. #76
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    04-04-14 @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,233

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    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 by Wessexman; 04-09-09 at 08:14 PM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  7. #77
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    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.....

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Yeah, you've got loads of credibility there.....
    You clearly don't even know the difference between Communism and Socialism.

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 05:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    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.

  10. #80
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    08-06-16 @ 04:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,668
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should child bearing be a controlled privilege?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    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 by Korimyr the Rat; 04-10-09 at 12:05 AM.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •