Quote from: James McMurrayMy position is "some people don't deserve to have children, let's take that right away from them."

And my position is "You can't tell who's going to be a good parent, so you aren't justified in stealing people's right to try."

The government could proactively imprison people who are in a demographic that makes them likely criminals.  The government could refuse education to people who are in a demographic that makes them likely dropouts.

The government could do those things, but they would both be terrible ideas for precisely the same reason your idea is terrible:  denying people their right to try to rise above themselves is precisely what the government shouldn't be doing.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe sense of middle-classed entitlement in this thread is overwhelming. Where's that commie droog when we need him?

Wow... I don't think we need him, Jimmy. We have you right now providing all the communism we need.


Consider: many of the poor... the welfare class, don't work at all, they consume resources from across the spectrum, money, healthcare, often housing is provided as well. And there are a lot of them.

The rich guy with the tax breaks? Sure, he's costing 'us' money by not paying his full share... sort of. Just like you don't save money of you buy at a sale (you save money by not spending it) not paying money doesn't actually cost anyone anything.  Here's the thing, other than a very small number of idle rich who inherited (and that money tends to shrink over a few generations, self correcting problem in the long view) most of those rich buggers are rich because they worked for it. Invested their money in factories and businesses... in other words they contributed to the society who's wealth they are now beneficiaries of.  The merits of their work could be infinitely tiny, but they'd still be infinitely larger than the big fat ZERO most of the welfare poor can claim.

So we have a guy dodging his share of the taxes, who produces something, vs the guys (as we can safely say there are at least 100 welfare unemployed for each rich fucker) who produce nothing and consume taxes.

Lets see. I have two buckets. One has a leak, the other does not. The one without the leak doesn't have any inflow. The one with the leak also doesn't have an inflow. Which one empties first?  That's right, the one with the leak.

So, the logical conclusion to your suggestions is that the teeming masses of dity poor will be allowed to work in those minimum wage jobs making your burgers and cleaning your toilets, but won't be allowed to spend that money on anything but basic survival needs - tobacco and DVDs are to be the privilige of the wealthy - and will be sterilised, gelded. I suppose a worthy few will be allowed to breed to keep the stocks up? You wouldn't want to run out of people to sweep your streets and park your cars, would you?

I think that deep down some of you like to imagine yourselves as the fellow in the white suit, sittin' on his porch drinking lemonade through a paper straw, rifle beside him, lookin' out on the big broad cotton field with the "nigras" singing.

"Why, they're happy that way, can't you see?"

Of course peeps could try to sort out the problems of poverty but it's probably easier to just legislate against the poor.

Quote from: JimBobOzI think that deep down some of you like to imagine yourselves as the fellow in the white suit, sittin' on his porch drinking lemonade through a paper straw, rifle beside him, lookin' out on the big broad cotton field with the "nigras" singing.

"Why, they're happy that way, can't you see?"

Projecting much?  Seriously, I haven't got a clue how you jumped from the fact that people who consume without producing are worse than people who produce but don't pay their fair share to 'you guys want to be plantation owners', in fact that is so alien to what goes on in my head that I can only assume it comes from some shit in your head. :raise:

Seriously. I work for a living. I'm reasonably happy with my financial straits. I've been poor, and I doubt I'll ever be rich. Sure, I wouldn't mind having a mansion and a yaght and bikini babes swimming in a pool yadda yadda, but your comment has about as much to do with my vision as cutting my toes of to see if they taste good would.  Seriously.

On the other hand, I have seen first hand the product of people who have without having to work for it. I've seen it in idle rich who have never had to work a day in their lives, I've seen it a lot in people who's every need is handed to them by the government.  There is no nobility in being poor, and while you can point to some guy who slaps away the charitable hand and bootstraps himself up, I can point to millions who take that money and then stick their fucking hand right back out and complain that you are still richer than they are.

Fuck you and your rob from the rich, give to the poor mentality. It neither discomforts the rich overly much, nor gives the poor a god damn thing, all it does is fuck up the rest of us working class slobs who have to get by somewhere in the middle.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe sense of middle-classed entitlement in this thread is overwhelming.

Quite. It's a bit sickening to be honest.

Who the fuck is anyone to decide whether anyone is fit to bear and raise a child? Especially some tit on an intenet forum about RPGs?

Quote from: SpikeOn the other hand, I have seen first hand the product of people who have without having to work for it. I've seen it in idle rich who have never had to work a day in their lives, I've seen it a lot in people who's every need is handed to them by the government.  There is no nobility in being poor, and while you can point to some guy who slaps away the charitable hand and bootstraps himself up, I can point to millions who take that money and then stick their fucking hand right back out and complain that you are still richer than they are.

Yup cos the millions of people who are poor deserve it whilst the rich are there because of the grace of God and their own sweat so the peeps with money should decide who should be able to have kids.

Shit man I was really trying to avoid such a crass argument but that's what you'r giving me. Fuck you and fuck the whole shitting Protestant Work Ethic that let you away with that shit.

James has a very silly thesis. JB pointed to it but I'll highlight it: assuming that you could, somehow, put James' plan into operation (and you couldn't), within a generation or two you will be running out of workers. In point of fact this is already happening to some extent in all the industrialised countries. Capital requires labour, and if it can't get it at the right price in its country of origin, it either exports the work or imports the labour.

So ethics be damned. It's an economic question.

More to the point does Spike actually see the peeps who made more money as the rightful masters who should decide who gets to breed? If this is the answer to the question I've asked throughout this thread I am very very scared.

Quote from: Garry GMore to the point does Spike actually see the peeps who made more money as the rightful masters who should decide who gets to breed? If this is the answer to the question I've asked throughout this thread I am very very scared.

Spike and James are just hegemonised, Garry. They see themselves as middle-class and they identify with the values thereof.

It's just tough luck that capitalism continually screws the middle class. No sympathy from here.

Quote from: Garry GI'm not even quite sure how you define any of your three examples so it's tough to know what you mean.

Since I've consistently said that I'm not defining the levels beyond an idea, that makes perfect sense. If you'll read what I say and realize that I keep repeating "I'm not qualified and I don't know who is" you might avoid herniating yourse;lf in the rush to reply to a thread you so obviously despise.

As to who decides, I have no fucking clue. If the idea was ever implemented (and it won't be) I'd hope that applicants were taken, credentials checked, and the best possible candidates amongst the psychological, criminological, and economical experts were picked.

Quotedenying people their right to try to rise above themselves is precisely what the government shouldn't be doing.

Having a kid isn't trying to raise yourself up. If that's why you're doing it you should probably be shot, or at least strongly warned against it.

QuoteI think that deep down some of you like to imagine yourselves as the fellow in the white suit, sittin' on his porch drinking lemonade through a paper straw, rifle beside him, lookin' out on the big broad cotton field with the "nigras" singing.

LOL. dude, I thought you were an intelligent and discerning person up until now.

QuoteYup cos the millions of people who are poor deserve it whilst the rich are there because of the grace of God and their own sweat so the peeps with money should decide who should be able to have kids.

Are you even reading this thread? First you miss my repeated statements that I don't have exact definitions and would leave it to someone who is qualified to make them, then you go off on some crazy tangent about things Spike never said. In fact what he said is that there are rich losers and poor losers. Nothing at all about God (or even Doug).

------------

Let's say we drop the monetary thing altogether and restrict the program to those proven psychologically unable or unfit to raise children. Psychopaths, gross sexual offenders, etc. Does that make any difference?

Quote

Quote from: Garry GI'm not even quite sure how you define any of your three examples so it's tough to know what you mean.

Since I've consistently said that I'm not defining the levels beyond an idea, that makes perfect sense. If you'll read what I say and realize that I keep repeating "I'm not qualified and I don't know who is" you might avoid herniating yourse;lf in the rush to reply to a thread you so obviously despise.

As to who decides, I have no fucking clue. If the idea was ever implemented (and it won't be) I'd hope that applicants were taken, credentials checked, and the best possible candidates amongst the psychological, criminological, and economical experts were picked.

Quotedenying people their right to try to rise above themselves is precisely what the government shouldn't be doing.

Having a kid isn't trying to raise yourself up. If that's why you're doing it you should probably be shot, or at least strongly warned against it.

QuoteI think that deep down some of you like to imagine yourselves as the fellow in the white suit, sittin' on his porch drinking lemonade through a paper straw, rifle beside him, lookin' out on the big broad cotton field with the "nigras" singing.

LOL. dude, I thought you were an intelligent and discerning person up until now.

QuoteYup cos the millions of people who are poor deserve it whilst the rich are there because of the grace of God and their own sweat so the peeps with money should decide who should be able to have kids.

Are you even reading this thread? First you miss my repeated statements that I don't have exact definitions and would leave it to someone who is qualified to make them, then you go off on some crazy tangent about things Spike never said. In fact what he said is that there are rich losers and poor losers. Nothing at all about God (or even Doug).

QuoteThey see themselves as middle-class and they identify with the values thereof.

Really? Nobody has ever shown me a list of values of the middle class. Do you have one I can look at? I might agree with them, but I'd at least like to see them first.

I do admit that I see myself as middle class. I'm neither poor nor rich, so don't have much choice.

------------

Let's say we drop the monetary thing altogether and restrict the program to those proven psychologically unable or unfit to raise children. Psychopaths, gross sexual offenders, etc. Does that make any difference?

Feel the warm glow of positivism.

Quote from: James McMurrayLet's say we drop the monetary thing altogether and restrict the program to those proven psychologically unable or unfit to raise children. Psychopaths, gross sexual offenders, etc. Does that make any difference?

That's a change from your starting position. Why did you start with such
a ridiculous position?

Also, a programme?

Whatever that means. I'm assuming it means you don't have a list of middle class values I supposedly endorse wholeheartedly because of my middle class identification issues.

So you're full of crap, are we clear on that?

edit: crossposted, this was aimed at droog.

Quote from: One Horse TownThat's a change from your starting position. Why did you start with such
a ridiculous position?

I'm not changing my position, I'm asking a question. It's pretty obvious that most people think it's a horrible idea if some welfare moms aren't allowed to spurt out new babies. I'm wondering if it seems like a better idea if we restrict it to people that are more obviously unfit parents.

Hell, we won't even let child-targetting sex offenders live near schools, why the hell should they be allowed to home grow their own victims?

QuoteAlso, a programe?

It's called a typo. Perhaps you've heard of them?