Should the State have the power to license child births?
-
Why don't we start with dog births? Stricter license and control for anyone wishing to have an unspayed pet. It's just senseless and cruel the way we produce unwanted domestic animals.
(I like puppies until they are eating my slippers.)
Then when everyone sees how nice that is...
-
Not "no" but "hell no".
-
NO.
The state is [or should be] the servant of the people NOT the master of the people... -
@tig said:
NO.
The state is [or should be] the servant of the people NOT the master of the people...Exactly. Who (or W.H.O) would you entrust with that decision?
-
You can look at China's policies for the "what happens if..?" questions. Isn't the opposite true in western countries? You get tax breaks and such if you have kids.
Population control: Childbirth goes down when girls and women receive higher education opportunities and empowerment. You can educate the men of course, but it probably doesn't help.
-
Un autre pavé dans la mare.
'Waiting for Cornel. -
-
The State should build roads and catch crooks and leave the rest to the people.
-
@mwm5053 said:
The State should build roads and catch crooks and leave the rest to the people.
You forgot build armies and invade countries for their oil.
-
most definitely we couldn't do with out that
-
"Should the State have the power to license child births?"
No.
[flash=600,400:1653kuhc]http://www.youtube.com/v/G8kCOsfM15c?version=3&[/flash:1653kuhc]
-
Hold on! Most seem to be missing the point that the State (= Government) IS the people. So, the question could be phrased as 'Should the People have the power to license child births?
-
@mike lucey said:
Hold on! Most seem to be missing the point that the State (= Government) IS the people. So, the question could be phrased as 'Should the People have the power to license child births?
I'd like to live in that country. Which one is it?
-
Jeff / Andy, I don't think you believe that the State = Government = People and are not happy about the situation! If so, there is only one way to change that in your cases and that is to join a political party or start your own!
Most democracies operate under the political party system, not perfect by any means but its best we have currently. So there is no point in not being happy with it. If you want to have an effect you know what to do.
On subject of the Party Political System! I think it is now fast becoming a totally archaic and obsolete system considering the technology that is available to even our kids. I am talking about instant communication devices, mobile / cell phones. These devices would allow informed and conscientious citizens to be involved in an ongoing voting system that is currently being passed over to career politicians / parties. The politicians / political parties would probably still be needed but only as implementers not decision makers .... the People (conscientious) would but that's another subject.
-
Sorry, I didn't have a fully formed thought earlier.
While I think the "ideal" makes sense. The practical implications are just very fraught. How would you protect minorities and immigrant groups, etc. Who would write the regulations? Just look at food regulations as an example. The interested parties with the most clout (read: industry groups) write the legislation, and hardly anyone is the wiser or can do anything about it. I can only imagine once you have any teeth to this sort of regulation, it would make the abortion debates would look tame. -
If the purpose is to stem population growth, then without a global agreement the point is moot. And since I fail to see for what other purpose allowing the state to have this control mechanism, I gotta say NO.
I can also predict that this would lead to a kind of profiling, on the states behalf, and I don't think the state should interfere with the natural evolution of the species. For better or for worse.
Oh no!!! What have I said!
Man Mike your a little **it disturber
-
Mike, I think we're at a crossroads all right, but I think we will go the wrong direction for a bit longer before things are turned around. Corporations = Government but, government =/= the people at this point. Maybe not completely, but it's far too close for my comfort. SOPA/PIPA is the most recent good example.
The problem is that the fox is in charge of the hen house. There is no real chance for reform when the people in charge stand to lose the most by those reforms. Term limits. Campaign finance caps. Limits on civil servant salaries. Prohibitions on non-monetary or indirect contributions. The list goes on. No way are they going to vote themselves a pay cut or cap.
We need a different ballot system, not a different party system. A ranked voting system would give a real shot at another party being able to form and be elected, rather than what we have now (in the US) that ensures that one party or the other will always be elected; no great loss to the losing party regardless. Of course, the current parties enjoy the status quo and would start a media campaign trying to convince the public of their inability to figure such a difficult system out and any invented pitfalls of the system.
Perhaps we can get corporate sponsors to afford child licenses? Meet my son, John ConAgra Smith, and my daughter, Jennifer Government...
-
I was under the impression that this thread was concerned with the problems of this world, not with making excuses in the next.
-
Given that we probably will have to start introducing measures to curb population growth at some point; and given that such measures are probably more palatable in the form of simply making it less affordable to have kids, rather than proscriptive legislation; the church doesn't seem to have made a very good start on this.
Here in the UK, there are plans afoot to cap the total amount of benefits received by the unemployed to that of the average pay for those in work...around £26K. The main opponents of this are leading churchmen, including the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, who argue that this will hurt the children of such families; and that child support should be taken out of any such equation.
There have even been allegations that this is a form of social engineering, especially as the minister responsible, Lord Freud, argued for a cap not to save money but to turn around lives because it was not moral, he argued, to consign children to a life in which work was not the norm - or to give more in benefits to families than the average family could earn in work.This doesn't bode well for our future prospects of taking any necessary hard decisions....and I'm pretty sure we will have to take them at some point.
-
While I think that many would like to believe that people would have enough motivation, desire, pride or whatever to get off the dole and have an honest job it would seem that in reality there will always be a segment of the population that, given the opportunity, will take the avenue of least effort. Increasing the amount given to welfare would only feed this problem. There ought to be some sort of work program for welfare recipients, even if it's just handing out fare rate cards from the tollway booth. The kids get used to this lifestyle and can perpetuate it, and there's no way to cut welfare without hurting them. The parent(s) in many cases are not models if fiscal or social responsibility.
Advertisement