Man With 30 Kids Asks Judge For Break On Child Support Payments
Offline http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/tennessee-man-30-kids
OK. All you believers that the state must force the social responsible behavior of paying taxes. Tell what the state must do in this case.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
- Login to post comments
Offline You have me mistaken for someone else. I'm the one that wants to tax natural resource usage and not allow the rich and corporations to own such resources.
Paying for resources that you use doesn't make them any less used. This is a question of the penalties you would impose for so called over consumption and who according to you is consuming too much.
Your basis for determining over consumption clearly has nothing to do with the amount of resources being consumed and you don't even pretend that it does. Those concerns are monetary not environmental.
The problem is now that the education, medical and prisons systems are swamped with too many clients needing services and too few people able or willing to pay for them.
There are more people in Western Europe than there are in the US yet there are less than half the number of incarcerated people and near universal access to health care. If people in the US want to reform those systems there are working models throughout the industrialized world and in some parts of the developing world that could be adopted and no reduction in population is necessary.
You however would place even more strain on these broken system by creating a new class of reproductive crimes.
I don't praise their brutal violations of human rights. I'm saying they are the expected result of overpopulation. Culturally, they decided this present state was better than the mass famine of the past. There certainly are a lot of thing they've executed badly. But you must admit it is better than the alternative.
The alternative would have been to experience the natural decline in fertility rate that started before the policy was introduced and continued through the 20th century as China further industrialized, smoothly and possibly without incident. So no.
Obviously you never lived through the Great Chinese famine. I'd prefer not to live(or die) through a Great American one.
The Chinese famine wasn't a result of population numbers outstripping food production capacity. It happened because of mismanagement.
Are you really that naive ...
I'm not naive enough to believe what you say without citations. There are single mothers who don't receive food stamps.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
- Login to post comments
Offline Paying for resources that you use doesn't make them any less used.
What??? When the price of gas goes up, people drive less and look for alternative fuels. People suffer because of too much demand for a scarce resource. Without population controls the poor will suffer. Wars will be waged to fight because of scarcity.
This is a question of the penalties you would impose for so called over consumption and who according to you is consuming too much. Your basis for determining over consumption clearly has nothing to do with the amount of resources being consumed and you don't even pretend that it does. Those concerns are monetary not environmental.
I think you need to let objective science decide who is consuming too much. I would say if people are suffering because of scarcity and environmental damage is occurring, we need to tax high consumption of the resource and limit the size of populations consuming the resource. Your not going to eliminate scarcity long term by any other means.
The problem is both monetary and environmental. The biggest problem now is too many people receiving from government and too few giving. What other solution is there except to limit the number of receivers?
There are more people in Western Europe than there are in the US yet there are less than half the number of incarcerated people and near universal access to health care. If people in the US want to reform those systems there are working models throughout the industrialized world and in some parts of the developing world that could be adopted and no reduction in population is necessary.
They can afford it because the birth rate is low. How could a country like Haiti afford universal education and health care? Hell the USA can't. They have to reduce the birth rate before they could do that. Which is why it makes to sense to give aid to countries unless they have mandatory birth control. Then if they ever become like Northern Europe, take the controls off. But you're trying to put the cart before the horse, it won't work.
I don't think you necessarily need a reduction in population. Germany has a problem of too low a birth rate. It makes sense for them to encourage couples that can afford it to have more. What is happening in Europe is the more educated, secular class is being replaced by more uneducated, Muslim groups that encourage high birth rates. So Europe headed toward a future of bankruptcy, poverty and war with religion as the opiate.
You however would place even more strain on these broken system by creating a new class of reproductive crimes.
Given the fact that there is no evidence that having a vasectomy causes physical or psychological trauma, hell people do it voluntarily. Why wouldn't this guy do it to get out jail?
The alternative would have been to experience the natural decline in fertility rate that started before the policy was introduced and continued through the 20th century as China further industrialized, smoothly and possibly without incident. So no.
Where would they get the money to industrialize? All resources and money would need to go into buying food and fighting civil wars. Again you put the cart before the horse. And they still have a tremendous problem of not enough jobs, overcrowded roads, environmental destruction.
The Chinese famine wasn't a result of population numbers outstripping food production capacity. It happened because of mismanagement.
There is always going to be mismanagement in any system especially one that is overburdened by too much demand. If you're a manager and there are shortages, you're going to horde what you can for yourself. When you have starving masses, a guy like Mao can take total advantage of them.
What happens when there is scarcity? Greed, hording and fighting. So isn't it best to eliminate the causes of scarcity in the first place?
Are you really that naive ...
I'm not naive enough to believe what you say without citations. There are single mothers who don't receive food stamps.
OK. If any these mothers can afford more kids on their own, let them. But this guy obviously can't so he's the one that needs to go to jail if any of his kids are neglected and in need of public assistance. Then tell him stay in jail or get a vasectomy.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
- Login to post comments
DP
+1
I'm sure you'll be missed. I'll forward your Dear John letter to the rest of humanity.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Well there are certain states that have conjugal visitation rights. I believe Cali is one just off the top of my head.
I don't see the US ever trying to implement any kind of reproduction restrictions in the foreseeable future. We were sterilyzing undesirables before WWII. But the Nazis kind of turned everyone's stomach on such social engineering. Any politician suggesting anything of the sort would have his photo immediately photoshopped into a uniform of the third reich before he finished the sentence.
But the US isn't very crowded. We aren't hurting like a lot of tiny countries or island nations. Many of those are much more crowded than India which currently has around 1.3 billion citizens.
Also the US is the number 1 exporter of food so far. We're rolling in the stuff.
Americans waste more water trying to live in arid areas than anything else. Las Vegas, many places in arizona, nevada, cali, etc.
To be honest it's not how many humans exist that is the problem. At all. We could have 20 billion humans on this planet with no issue. No real damage to the environment or disasterous depletion of natural resources. It's our lifestyles that is the issue.
So why don't we address that instead of clamping down on reproduction so a smaller number of humans can live like bloated prima donnas at the expense of the rest of the ecosystem.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
So in order to correct the problem of foolishly wasted resources are you willing to live in an open air tent without heating or cooling ( summer in Texas is no picnic ), rely on transportation that doesn't depend upon a finite supply of fossil fuels, grow all of your own food, etc, etc....? How far are you willing to go ?
How do you personally define "bloated prima donna" ?
Yeah. Swamp coolers are much more efficient than the usual AC units if you need some kind of artificial cooling.
My ancestors lived in Texas and all over the Southern US for generations before AC was used. I'm sure I can manage somehow.
The entire reason why we live the way we do is because that's the way we were raised. If we weren't raised to be used to this stuff we wouldn't sit around feeling all miserable because we don't live that way.
I posit there IS A BETTER WAY. There is no way this is the only way to go. And it's unsustainable anyway. Humanity is already living like we have more natural resources than we really have. The rich countries are raping the poor countries of natural resources just to prolong this lifestyle.
But it aint' gonna last for much longer.
In a couple centuries people studying our time will probably be aghast at how we are living.
Good question. I've never personally tried to define the word. But a family of 4 living in a house large enough to house 50 people, driving SUVs all over the place, and replacing those SUVs every three or four years, heated swimming pool, summer cabin, shit like that?
Yeah, you can stretch the term prima donna to fit that.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Double Post
As far as the prison guard thing... it does happen a lot in the lower security facilities. I've witnessed it quite literally unfortunately (if ever I needed eye bleach, that was the moment.) I wasn't serious about that point. Just being difficult back to you.
I just fundamentally disagree with you on government. If you're honest about comparing the US. to fascist states, it's not the same. There are areas of our government, and people in it that are trying to push certain aspects of our laws to fascist territory, but it's not there. As for the taxes, shit let's be real, our neighbors to the north pay something like 40% income tax and I've never heard one of them cry about it. Not 100% on the accuracy of that, but that's what a Canadian friend told me. Regardless, that's far more than the average person here pays. You're going to have a real hard time convincing me that our tax laws make us a fascist state.
You insinuating that my rationale somehow characterizes mandatory inoculation as fascist is plain silly. You think the Govts. of the world didn't have a rational argument for inoculations when they were wiping out epidemic fatal diseases like polio? When they were keeping millions upon millions of kids per year from getting, spreading, and possibly dying of measles etc.? If that kind of Govt. action is fascist then, yes please, I'll have my fascism with a side of NOT dying young from polio. You think Govt's can be run for free, without collecting taxes? If not, then clearly they can justify it, and you're essentially trolling.
I agree that the population is too high, nature is disappearing and something should be done about it.
Where we disagree is the approach that would have to be taken to correct it. Or that society would even let anyone correct it. Unless you have the resources and the will to take over the Govt. you are just talking about a very unrealistic hypothetical situation.
I stick to my previous point that people aren't even convinced it's a problem yet, let alone ready to make drastic sacrifices to change it. Whether or not the fundies are one of many groups that have a vested interest in letting things go is nearly irrelevant to the bigger issue at this point. Jebus knows if there's a worthwhile bone to pick with the fundies, I'm all over it
"They always say the same thing; 'But evolution is only a theory!!' Which is true, I guess, and it's good they say that I think, it gives you hope that they feel the same about the theory of Gravity and they might just float the f**k away."
The fact is millions of Americans go to bed hungry because food costs too much. This is largely driven by the cost of land, water and oil.
Technology and infrastructure made it possible, such as the control of Colorado river. So it's not just people per acre. You need to have more infrastructure and better technology such as recycling to adequately support more population without massive environmental damage.
So suppose with all the environmental propaganda we get most everyone to become "green". Doesn't that just mean more resources to increase population? So anything we do as an individual or society to improve the environment or the economy is just speeding up the treadmill. Guys like Mr. 30 kids will take advantage of you "going green" to have even more babies that require natural resources.
The same is true for any political system that should bring about better living conditions. Even if it works, these breeders will negate all the gains.
So I think you have to stop both wealthy people that are heavy users of the environment as well as guys like him that are also very hard on Mother earth. I don't know how anyone can call themselves concerned about the environment or the plight of the poor and not support what I'm saying.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Fascism is in the eye of the beholder apparently. I'm not trolling. I was told that mandatory birth control would be "fascism". I just want to understand how people decide this but that income tax and mandatory inoculations is not. They're all something the government forces individuals to do for the health and welfare of society. How is one torture and the others not? Can you explain please.
I agree it would take something like what China went through to get Americans to even consider this. We'll just have politics continue with why not enough jobs, why food and fuel costs too much, why the government is broke, etc... While guys like him make things worse. The fact is the media doesn't want to touch it so it's not discussed.
The fact is that religion has a vested interest in continuing human misery due to problems like overpopulation, poverty, etc... After all, they're selling the snake oil to kill the pain.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
How is mutilation and a repression of freedom NOT extreme?
The people you speak of are largely volunteers. Very few nations actually practice forced castration.
Worse, a vasectomy can result in death. So you're not just mutilating and repressing people for engaging in a perfectly normal biological activity, you're also killing some of them.
"If you took all his money to pay for his kids, wouldn't his starvation be extreme punishment?"
So instead the kids should starve, eh?
"At what point do income tax rates to pay for this kind of BS become fascism and slavery to the state?"
This has absolutely nothing to do with your income tax fetish.
EXC is ethically bankrupt and hopelessly irrational in these subjects. He constantly makes ridiculous assertions despite having those assertions being proved wrong thousands of times in thousands of threads by thousands of people.
His arguments are comedic relief, nothing more.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
How is taking my money to pay for this guys offspring not repression of my freedom? If I pay a lot in taxes to support this BS, I'm not free to do what I want. So you want people to be free to have kids they'll abuse and neglect? Such compassion you have.
Why is it not mutilation when we do it to dogs and cats? It's obvious that its the thing a civil society should do.
Why don't we stop 'self-mutilation' when people decide to use birth control or sterilzation?
I said nothing about castration. Just a vasectomy as a get out of jail card for this guy.
"http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/St-Wr/Vasectomy.html#bThe evidence is that this occurs rarely. But we do know a lot of children die of neglect and effects of hunger. Which do prefer?
Your argument in favor of income tax is that it is a user fee for services provided. If that were the case, this guy should have the biggest tax bill in America. Instead he has none and instead receives welfare from the state.
Your other other argument is that taxation is the price of civilization. Well this guy is behaving in a very uncivilized manner. But instead of the state forcing him to behave in less damaging ways, the state subsidizes his way with welfare.
So neither one of your arguments are worth shit. The real agenda here is to have poor choices subsidized by the state. All your solutions have massive moral hazards that encourage the behaviors that cause problems in the first place. You create a culture that tolerates and promotes this behavior.
No, the people that argue against me are quite comedic. They claim they want to end religion. But religion is the opiate for human misery even if it is a placebo. So if you have human misery, you'll have people peddling snake oil to cure it. People telling us "this live sucks, but the next one is better."
And nearly all misery can be traced back to causes of overpopulation and the unprepared people having too many kids. So we regulate every other activity in civil society except this. So then we have human misery, then we have religion as the 'cure'.
So it's quite ridiculous to think religion could go away without addressing the root cause of human suffering. Or to think that if we just tax the rich more, the problems go away.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
"How is taking my money to pay for this guys offspring not repression of my freedom?"
You're paying less than a dollar over a decade to pay for this and a million other children. Cry me a river over your lost freedom.
And take another look at the patriot act before you make any claim of freedom in the first place. You aren't free.
"Why is it not mutilation when we do it to dogs and cats?"
Who said it wasn't?
"It's obvious that its the thing a civil society should do."
Barbaric and facist, not at all civil. Since when are you caring for this person? You feed and shelter him like you would a cat? You take full responsibility for his actions, like any pet owner does? He depends on you for everything like the average pet?
Didn't think so.
" said nothing about castration. Just a vasectomy as a get out of jail card for this guy."
What exactly is the difference between the two procedures?
That's right, effectively there is no difference.
And what was the crime again?
That's right, there was no crime.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"Your argument in favor of income tax is that it is a user fee for services provided. If that were the case, this guy should have the biggest tax bill in America. Instead he has none and instead receives welfare from the state."
No, he works a job. Welfare doesn't give anyone enough to cover child support for 5 kids, let alone 30. Your typical delusional comments is all you have. No evidence, merely ridiculous and patently false assertions.
Also, you don't have the intellect to understand taxes in general, let alone my position on taxes. You amuse me with your repetitive stupidity.
Nothing else you said was even worth commenting on.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I never claimed I was free. Of course, overpopulation leads to competition for resources(in this case oil), leading to war, leading to the end of my freedom in the form of the patriot act and all the money to pay for this war. But not this guy's freedom is somehow sacred. Where the fuck do we get the oil for all these kids if we don't go to war to steal it?
So we should arrest people for animal cruelty that sterilize their pets. We should just let millions of stays beg for survival and create a health problem.
Yes, a million other things government regulates but only this one is fascist.
Again it's your cultural bias showing. You didn't live throught the great Chinese famine obviously. You live in a country where overpopulation does not seem like a problem.
The fact is people are caring and sharing when the feel that everyone has skin in the game, that everyone is contributing to the group. When people believe some people are able to work the system, compassion goes away. Allowing some people to not behave in a civil mannor means we can't have much of a civil society.
You seem to have the Judeo-Christian, 10 commandments view of crime and morality. Like it written down somewhere what is a crime and we can't judge things by the problems they create.
For a rational person, you should measure actions by the misery they cause, not some preconceived notions of freedom and morality. Just believing something is bad because it is new. I'm not out to punish people for moral failings, I'm saying if your going to have civil society then force all civil behaviors not just paying taxes.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
"I never claimed I was free."
If you aren't free then under what authority do you get to claim a right to freedom?
And how is this guy free? He has to pay for 30 kids, ordered by the courts. Doesn't sound free to me.
"So we should arrest people for animal cruelty that sterilize their pets"
You're as good as a theist at taking things out of context.
Sure, provided the ownership of animals is criminalised as slavery was. Until then, as pet owners take absolute and complete responsibility for their pets, and said pets cannot be instructed so as to be capable of taking responsibility for themselves, such practices are necessary for society to function.
"Yes, a million other things government regulates but only this one is fascist."
Strawman. This isn't a discussion on every way governments are or can be facist, and I never made that claim.
"The fact is people ~snip~ a civil society."
And yet you argue to let this guy off of any financial responsibility for the 30 kids he's directly responsible for?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Can we say irony?
"You seem to have the Judeo-Christian, 10 commandments view of crime and morality. Like it written down somewhere what is a crime and we can't judge things by the problems they create."
Ridiculous. I am fully aware that it is the people who decide what is criminal and what is not. And the FACT is that there is NOTHING criminal about having 1, 2, 5, or 100 children. The day that changes, you'll have an argument. But it hasn't happened, and isn't likely to any time soon, so you don't.
Furthermore, making activities criminal merely increases the cost to society. Increasing education levels lowers birthrates without government intervention, which is something I'd have thought you'd be all for. As someone who hates government, are you sure want to increase its power? lol
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I thought you were leaving the Earth because it is too crowded. Why did you come back, were there taxes in space or something?
While it is unconventional for one man to impregnate 11 women, the fertility rate of these women is only .6 above the total fertility rate, which is less than many sub-populations in the US. Mexican immigrants have a fertility rate that is .9 above the total and Amish Mennonites of which there are a quarter million have a fertility rate triple the national average. The fact there are only 12 people involved in this story shows how ridiculous it is to tie this issue to overpopulation.
Furthermore, the threat of overpopulation is resource consumption. Ironically you would limit the number of children poor people have and allow wealthy people to breed uncontrolled even though the amount of resources people consume is determined by wealth.
I believe your environmental/population concerns aside from being baseless are also bogus and your true concern is that you get what you pay for and you pay for what you want. You wouldn't want to pay to help these people in any way even if it costs less.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
You have me confused again with right wingers that claim abosolute rights. The concept of absolute rights is BS. I am mearly making a claim about what it would take to greatly reduce human misery in a sustainable way. You leftist, high tax, welfare idea is a failure because of the massive moral hazards it creates. This guy is a prime example.
It amounts to about $6 a week for each kid. He has been free in that he has been and continues to be allowed to impregnate as many women as he pleases. These women collect welfare payments and benefits for these kids.
So you do support forced "mutilation" as necessary for civil society. What is so sacred about humans that you can't allow human "mutilation". And should we let science decide if a vascetomy causes massive suffering? Do you have an studies that it does cause suffering?
You're calliing it fascist. So I want a definition. Why can't I call not being able to eat because there is not enough to go around fascist?
You should to judge good and bad by the pleasure and pain it causes. And let objective science be the judge. There is no good that can come from letting this guy have more kids but pleanty of bad.
I don't argue to let him off any financial responsibility. He can't pay! Yet you think he should be free to have 30 more kids if he pleases. You have to enjoy seeing children suffer to take this position. Maybe if you experienced some extreme hunger, you wouldn't mind a little "fascism".
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
So, you want there to be a reward(generous welfare benefits) for the behavior of not getting an education and having kids, and a punishment(high income taxes) for getting a good education. So what should we expect in this future?
I want there to be a punishment(vasectomy) for the behavior of not getting an education and having kids, and a reward(high take home pay) for getting a good education. So what should we expect in this future?
The problem is now that people least equipped and least financially able to raise children are the ones with the highest birthrate. So the solution ought to be don't allow people to have children until they complete their education and are financially able to take care of them. The problem is we let kids drop out and we let failed teachers and schools continue to take for the public coffers.
I despise the influence that irrational people like yourself and religious groups have upon government. But I would not hate a government that enforced a rational social contract.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Nope never said that. I want to raise taxes on natural resource consumption and eliminate income tax, this would force the rich to pay for the extra resources they use per capita. This would encourage conservation, recycling, education, investment and work. The fact is the rich could afford 'green' technology if forced, the poor can not afford the extra cost of going 'green'.
You do realize that the many rich get richer by taking advantage of the poor?
I do think there needs to be an upper limit on everyone as long as there is lack of resources and environmental damage issues. But I do think you have to allow people that pay more in taxes to have more kids if they wish and can afford to. Making if fair would be tricky, but government can't sterilize their golden geese.
How could it possible cost less? You're creating a massive moral hazard by giving them any help without the guarantee they won't continue to behave this way. You're feeding the beast if the you think they government should help them without forcing sterilization. The problem just gets bigger for everyone.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
What do you think you're saying right now?
So you want to permit wealthy people to deplete resources at whatever scale and speed their level of wealth will allow and sterilize poor people who don't use lots of resources anyway because they can't afford to.
This is how I know your environmental concerns are not genuine. If they were you'd say wealthy people should be sterilized because their children use more resources than a dozen poor children.
I don't think it could possibly cost more because the cost of what you propose is incredibly high in more ways than one.
Aside from the higher cost in economic terms of policing and incarcerating people and performing medical procedures on them rather than providing them with education and preventative health care which is relatively cheap, there's also a social cost. This goes back to China, a country you praise for its rather brutal violations of human rights.
China has the most rapidly aging population on Earth a trend that may be irreversible. In some provinces men outnumber women nearly 2 to 1. The working age population in China will begin to shrink as early as 2013 reducing the country's overall GDP, and possibly the worst shooting spree in world history happened in Beijing in 1994, carried out by a man who was angry at the Chinese government because his wife died after being compelled to abort their second child.
The costs you would impose on society and the hazards you'd create are far worse than anything that exists now which is why no reasonable person will agree with you.
Beyond that, central to your argument seems to be the assertion these people receive some kind of government assistance but that wasn't even stated in the article you linked.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
What do you think you're saying right now?
So you want to permit wealthy people to deplete resources at whatever scale and speed their level of wealth will allow and sterilize poor people who don't use lots of resources anyway because they can't afford to.
This is how I know your environmental concerns are not genuine. If they were you'd say wealthy people should be sterilized because their children use more resources than a dozen poor children.
You have me mistaken for someone else. I'm the one that wants to tax natural resource usage and not allow the rich and corporations to own such resources.
What you have to look at is where is there are oversupplies, under-supplies, over-demands, etc... Set government policy accordingly.
Right now, we have an oversupply of unskilled labor leading to high unemployment and depression of wages for unskilled labor. This why even the poor should support what I'm saying because if there are fewer unskilled laborers looking for work, salaries for jobs like janitors, waiters, maids, etc... will go up and unemployment down.
Yes there is a problem of the rich over-consuming natural resources. So we need to take consumption of resources instead of taxing work and wealth creation. The rich can afford recycling and green technology. They just need to be forced. Raising income taxes ain't going to do this. They'll just pull their money out of the country and economy.
If we have a pay for what you use/pay as you go society, none of these concerns are an issue. We have a system now that is welfare for the poor and welfare for the rich/corporations as well.
The problem is now that the education, medical and prisons systems are swamped with too many clients needing services and too few people able or willing to pay for them. I say it is necessary to reduce populations so that if you're going to have these services, they have the money to do the job right.
I don't praise their brutal violations of human rights. I'm saying they are the expected result of overpopulation. Culturally, they decided this present state was better than the mass famine of the past. There certainly are a lot of thing they've executed badly. But you must admit it is better than the alternative.
Maybe I could have the compassion of the Dali Lama, but the problem is guys like him are just going to take advantage of compassion.
I'm saying the USA and Canada are eventually going to economically and culturally decline until we do put limits on who and how many children people can have. Apparently, this right is so sacred to you that you're will to tolerate a lot of misery that goes with it. But you have no scientific evidence that this man would in any way suffer from having a vascetomy.
Obviously you never lived through the Great Chinese famine. I'd prefer not to live(or die) through a Great American one. As it is now, we have millions of food insecure citizens. You're OK with this? How bad does it have to become before you would change your mind? Or is it just way too convenient to blame it all on Republicans?
Are you really that naive that you don't think the mothers of the 30 kids are getting food stamps and other public assistance? You really think the children are not neglected? Or are they all getting along well with $4 week he can pay for each one?
What percentage of single mothers with fathers with minimum wages jobs do you think receive public assistance?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen