Regulated human reproduction

[lehighguy]

24 Yes and Counting

The idea that people like you vote has become to frightning to comprehend. Who knows what the government might do to me in your name. I've entirely given up on the system, the only possible solution is to take it down.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
It was a badly chosen example. However, I don't see why you call it oppression. There is no right to have a bunch of children and then letting them starve, thus the government wouldn't be violating any right if they stopped people who did this from reproducing further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government has no right to tell me what to do, thus any time the government forces me to do (or to abstain from doing) something, I am oppressed.

Basically you think everything should be prohibited except what the government allows?

[Olof]

[ QUOTE ]

Government has no right to tell me what to do, thus any time the government forces me to do (or to abstain from doing) something, I am oppressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a policeman stops someone from committing a rape, the government is oppressing the rapist?

[ QUOTE ]
Basically you think everything should be prohibited except what the government allows?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't phrase it like that. But as long as the government allows pretty everything except causing direct harm to others, sure.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Government has no right to tell me what to do, thus any time the government forces me to do (or to abstain from doing) something, I am oppressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a policeman stops someone from committing a rape, the government is oppressing the rapist?

[ QUOTE ]
Basically you think everything should be prohibited except what the government allows?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't phrase it like that. But as long as the government allows pretty everything except causing direct harm to others, sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

So one should be free to do whatever one likes as long as they do not cause direct harm to others? I can agree with that. Your decision to start with a "disalow everything" stance and then list permitted exceptions is troubling, but not fatal. It's orders of magnitude easier to simply say everything is allowed except these things (and then limit that list to, as you said, things that directly harm others).

Now, how does my having a baby cause direct harm to others?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who the hell has the right to tell me I can't have kids?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are an irresponsible deadbeat, I think that innocent responsible people should, as long as they are forced at gunpoint to support your children through tax-funded welfare, definitely be allowed to have a say regarding your future reproduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the answer to government oppression is more government oppression? If people are being forced at gunpoint to support someone else, wouldn't it be better to stop forcing people to support others rather than to place restrictions on the supported people?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a badly chosen example. However, I don't see why you call it oppression. There is no right to have a bunch of children and then letting them starve, thus the government wouldn't be violating any right if they stopped people who did this from reproducing further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good lord you Europeans are scary.

natedogg

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, how does my having a baby cause direct harm to others?

[/ QUOTE ]
This depends on what "rights" the child has, and what responsibility the "society" (that ugly word again) adopts.

If my teenage daughter had a child that she could not support, I would -- but I would definitely want to also monitor her mating habits.

If a child has an equal right to protection from harm brought on by others -- should the childs voice be limited to the parents concerns, even if it's obvious to outsiders that the parent is the one causing harm?

I don't believe a community should ever take a position anonymously (the current "child protective services" scam), but if the community has an interest in justice there will be times they should listen to interested parties who speak for those who can't defend or speak for themselves.

Let's assume a person had a child they could not support -- would temporary sterilization be much different than the free market destroying the credit report of a deadbeat? You can always earn it back ...

There is no excuse for that level of tyranny. Even if there was a gross problem with overpopulation and limited resources, there would be more tolerable ways of reducing the birth rate. For example, you could distribute free birth control. Or, you could offer money to anyone who voluntarily accepts sterilization. You could offer free education to anyone who chooses to wait to reproduce. You could offer free health care to families who have no more than one child. You could take away welfare/unemployment benefits from anyone who conceives while receiving help.

[The Don]

It is mind blowing to me that 'yes' actually has 35% here. Is this a joke or are that many people really opposed to liberty? Especially in such a ridiculously extreme scenario such as the one described in the OP.

[Olof]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who the hell has the right to tell me I can't have kids?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are an irresponsible deadbeat, I think that innocent responsible people should, as long as they are forced at gunpoint to support your children through tax-funded welfare, definitely be allowed to have a say regarding your future reproduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the answer to government oppression is more government oppression? If people are being forced at gunpoint to support someone else, wouldn't it be better to stop forcing people to support others rather than to place restrictions on the supported people?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a badly chosen example. However, I don't see why you call it oppression. There is no right to have a bunch of children and then letting them starve, thus the government wouldn't be violating any right if they stopped people who did this from reproducing further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good lord you Europeans are scary.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Then what less scary solution do you propose to people having children and then neglecting them?

I see only two other possible solutions (of course these can be combined):

1) Deadbeat parents are free to reproduce further and the government forces other people to provide for the children at gunpoint.

2) Deadbeat parents are free to reproduce further and their future children starve, go without proper medical care and education etc.

These solutions both punish innocent people who have had no say in bums deciding to have children. The solution I propose, though it may not seem very appealing, punish those who are actually responsible for children growing up under horrible circumstances.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I see only two other possible solutions (of course these can be combined):

1) Deadbeat parents are free to reproduce further and the government forces other people to provide for the children at gunpoint.

2) Deadbeat parents are free to reproduce further and their future children starve, go without proper medical care and education etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're not being very imaginative. You completely ignore the role to be played be private organizations relying on voluntary funding, such as charitable foundations. Such private organizations already do far more for the welfare of the needy than do our innumerable government bureaucracies.