Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Crime of the Century  (Read 14763 times)
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #60 on: August 17, 2010, 03:48:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Most of the intelligent people will have noticed a pattern to your behavior: the ad hominem attack.

Perhaps. But I distinctly remember being attacked also.

What I don't recall is anyone (yourself included) offering their sincere opinions on this subject nor their sincere solutions to the problems. Most people (like you) have only given one-liners that don't even address the issue. Most of the others who have responded only offer snide remarks or empty catch-phrases.

I can think of only two people who actually had something meaningful to say here and who actually took the time to enter into constructive dialogue about the subject.

Are polite discussion and sticking to the subject lost arts?


.
Logged
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 811


WWW
« Reply #61 on: August 18, 2010, 08:11:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Exactly. People unable to feed and care for themselves ought to be required to use contraception and thus not burden other people (taxpayers) any more than their own inability to feed themselves already places on others. And, if they irresponsibly have children anyway, in flagrant defiance of this, then yes, I believe they should be sterilized.

IMO, no person, who cannot properly care for themselves, has any business having children. They need to spend every bit of their time trying to get themselves into a position where they CAN take care of themselves and their own needs. Once this is done, then they can think about adding to their own responsibilities.

I am not sure what any honest, sensible person could possibly find wrong with this way of thinking.

Jack


Jack, I did have a lot of sympathy with your point of view at the start of this thread, but the above paragraph and some of your previous comments make me wonder just how you would like to impose your ideas.  Presumably the people concerned include a huge proportion of all Africans, living on that continent.  If you just avoid helping them they will all die of disease and starvation anyway.  Is that what we want?  Any woman who refuses to use contraception could be picked up by the 'Special Police', restrained and dragged into an operating theatre to be sterilised.  Or perhaps just drugged to achieve the same end.  Come on, just how would you propose implementing your ideas?
As others have said, the earth will survive and outlive us all.  If humans degrade it enough we will perish as a species, and the earth will not be beautiful anymore.  But so what?  Give it a few thousand years and it will be beautiful once more and other species will flourish. I think your idea of environmental preservation involves killing off all those less gifted and lesser achievers than yourself so that you can appreciate the 'beauty' of the earth without it being messed up.  By killing off, I don't mean murder neccesarily, just left to the 'law of the jungle'.

It pains me to have to write this because I consider myself environmentally aware and am all to aware that population growth is a huge problem.  But your way of thinking is a long way from mine.  High birth rates are usually a symptom of poverty and sometimes a lack of education.  Those are the areas that need to be addressed.  Forced sterilisation and letting those too weak to help themselves wither away without help is just lacking in any humanity.

As for accusing Russ of being cerebrally deficient, that is just so obviously wrong.  I would say that all of the contributors to this thread so far are probably well above average intelligence, and probably a lot more intelligent than me.  I take no issue with you personally, but it scares me when an obviously intelligent person holds such views.  Russ's mention of Germany in the 1930's is exactly where my mind had gone too.  Forcible birth control is only a step away from a police state and 'the final solution'.  That may not be what you intend, but that would be the only way of implementing your ideas.

Mankind has spent most of his existence scrabbling around to eke out a life, mostly of hardship.  For a few centuries, some of us have had the luxury of having a more comfortable life, though many do not.  If we can help those less able to fend for themselves, to educate them, perhaps future generations will inhabit a world where all people can enjoy a comfortable and sustainable lifestyle.
If not, we will just have to bow to human nature.  I for one have no wish to be involved in any sort of artificial population control whether it be selection by race, religion, intellect or financial independence.

Jim
Logged
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491


WWW
« Reply #62 on: August 18, 2010, 09:19:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Russ's mention of Germany in the 1930's is exactly where my mind had gone too.  Forcible birth control is only a step away from a police state and 'the final solution'.  That may not be what you intend, but that would be the only way of implementing your ideas.

And you don't have to go back 1930s Germany. The US conducted syphilis testing on disposable African-American males, without telling them. A Canadian province (Alberta or Quebec, can't remember) practiced forced sterilization of people with mental handicaps. All that by way of saying that although I don't claim the wisdom of the ages, I've lived long enough that I do not believe that any one human, or any committee, has the wisdom and foresight to make the kind of life decisions that John seems to be advocating.

Recently, people in the financial sector made a ton of money in transaction fees and by betting against the investment advice that they were giving their own clients. They have money now and others lost theirs. Which group's genes do you want to see passed on? You might suggest that the people who got duped deserved it, but that's a pretty primitive understanding of Darwinism, and imo would be applying simple-minded solutions to very complex issues. Or even more crudely, what if some hoodlum went next door to his rich neighbors and stole all their money, so that now he had the wherewithal to look after his kids and the previously rich dude didn't. Are we to then set up committees to study HOW people earned the money they have before deciding to give them licenses to procreate?

The thing is, after 5 minutes of early morning thinking, we can come up with a thousand objections to what John is suggesting. I think he got carried away because he was incensed at the repulsive behavior of some corporate entities in the Gulf, a point of view with which I have more than a little sympathy. We seem to have bred the idea that the purpose of the surrounding culture (us, our society) is to exist so that rich guys in corporations could get richer. Healthy economies are good for everyone, but the bottom line is that what we do in the commercial sphere fits inside the surrounding culture and should derive its purpose from it. I mean, we don't allow companies to buy and sell black people anymore, do we? Yes, it seems to be good to dig up some oil because the way we live seems to depend on it, including a lot of good things. But I don't think that means that the people who dig up the oil should be allowed to do so at any cost, or to pass those costs on to others when it's convenient.

There does exist the narrow-minded view that corporations should only be concerned with their own profit, that they have no other purpose. Well, okay, but over the last century we have given corporations more and more of the rights that were previously only given to individual human beings. Seems to me that some responsibilities should come with those rights. We allowed the creation of corporations to suit our needs. If and when they don't fulfill those needs anymore, we have the right to dismantle them. Maybe sometimes we ought to, for the same reasons that we put crooks in jail.

But I am pessimistic. Our mode of government, representative democracy, came about in part to protect ordinary citizens from the abusive arbitrary power of the nobility. Since the avg joe was being taxed, it eventually dawned on people that the avg joe should have a say in how his/her money was spent, and not the business of some earl or duke to decide. Somehow, we now live in this world where those same governments seem to cater more to the needs of corporations, as if whatever they want is necessarily good for everyone else. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #63 on: August 18, 2010, 10:20:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Jack, I did have a lot of sympathy with your point of view at the start of this thread, but the above paragraph and some of your previous comments make me wonder just how you would like to impose your ideas.  Presumably the people concerned include a huge proportion of all Africans, living on that continent.  If you just avoid helping them they will all die of disease and starvation anyway.  Is that what we want?  Any woman who refuses to use contraception could be picked up by the 'Special Police', restrained and dragged into an operating theatre to be sterilised.  Or perhaps just drugged to achieve the same end.  Come on, just how would you propose implementing your ideas?

Jim, first of all, I would like to thank you for your honest and sincere response: so thank you.

Second, I understand that the ideas I set forth are replete with their own problems, mostly emotional, as we human beings are an emotional lot. I believe, in many instances, our emotions and ability to sympathize are what lift us up to a spiritual level, so long as the facts add-up and make sense. On the other hand, when the facts are against us, clinging emotionally to ineffective beliefs and practices only harms us in the end.

Yes, I agree, if we fail to help those who are starving and can't help themselves, they will ultimately starve and die. This is a cold, harsh reality of nature: when any species overpopulates beyond the ability of the natural surroundings to sustain all the created lives, a certain percentage of that population will die-off. As cold and harsh as this is, there is nothing evil or wrong with this. It is as it should be, and was designed to be, by nature itself. By our continually trying to keep a population alive by feeding it, we thereby ensure those lives will continue and reproduce still more lives, all of which then likewise need to be fed, and all of which likewise will reproduce still more needy mouths, which in turn creates a never-ending cycle of trying to keep an ever-growing body of people alive by artifical means. This in turn creates a greater and greater need for our own natural lands to be cut down, so more and more farms can be created to supply these food items, thereby creating a never-ending need to cause a continual deforestation of our planet (not to mention waste our own taxpayer's money) in this essentially foolish and futile enterprise.

So the question is, which is the greater evil, ultimately? Allowing nature to work as it was intended to work, by decreasing what clearly is "surplus population" ... or defying nature itself, continuing to keep those people alive, thereby ensuring that still more people will be born to a totally depauperate region, and thus continue-and-continue to spread and continue-and-continue needing to be fed by outside help, which in turn will continue-and-continue to require still more resources from us and others ... itself requiring the clearing of more and more natural lands in favor of making room for more-and-more farms?

Which manner of handling things is more rational, more responsible, and (really) more sane? Simply allowing nature to procede as nature itself intends? Or neurotically meddling with other people, creating a never-ending and ever-growing financial burden to ourselves, and thereby increasing this problem exponentially which (ultimately) will cause the deforestation of more-and-more of our planet, because we not only have to make room for more-and-more people that will survive and reproduce still more people, but we also have to make room for more-and-more farmlands to sustain them, which means less-and-less of our natural world left over. Although no sensitive person likes to think about the misfortunes of other persons, I think in the long run the proposal I make is more sensible, more natural, and (ultimately) better for our world in general. And I think the current model is ultimately more destructive to our world.

To address your other point, yes, any person not able to care for themselves should not be adding to this miserable situation by compounding this problem with another life to care for ... and if a person proves to be so irresponsible that they do so anyway, they should be sterilized. Again, I understand the emotion of not wanting to interfere with another human being's liberty, but I also understand the reality that there really are people unfit to have and raise children. I think if anyone really wants to have children, then they will so order their lives so that they can be properly provided for. I also think that anyone who has not so ordered their lives that they cannot even provide for themselves, then they have no business having children. At least not until they get their life in proper order. And I very much do think that if any person can't see the basic sense in this, that they have a problem with reality. I do not think our government has any business taxing its productive citizens to pay for the livelihood and reproduction of its unproductive citizens. I do understand that some people fall victim to bad circumstances, but such people usually bounce right back out of it into good circumstances again. It's the habitual parasite, or the incapable, that I am talking about.

As far as how I would implement all of the ideas, I do not have all of the answers, but if I were in a decison-making prosition I would get busy figuring it out.




As others have said, the earth will survive and outlive us all.  If humans degrade it enough we will perish as a species, and the earth will not be beautiful anymore.  But so what?  Give it a few thousand years and it will be beautiful once more and other species will flourish. I think your idea of environmental preservation involves killing off all those less gifted and lesser achievers than yourself so that you can appreciate the 'beauty' of the earth without it being messed up.  By killing off, I don't mean murder neccesarily, just left to the 'law of the jungle'.

That is a nihilistic view of the problem. That is tantamount to saying as an individual, "Well, since I am going to die at some point anyway, I may as well not make the effort to have a good life." Some people actually live their lives based on this kind of nihilism, but effective people try to make the most of whatever life they do have, while it is around to be enjoyed.

It is my view that this same truth should apply to our care and treatment of our planet. Just because the sun may grow cold and all of life may at some point come to an end, doesn't mean we shouldn't take care of our planet as best we can while we do have it. A nihilistic view of one's own mortality is as senseless as a nihilistic view of the world itself. Making the best we possibly can with what we have is far more sensible and (ultimately) preferable, if we're going to live quality lives.

I also disagree with your implication of "killing off" anyone. Killing is an action. Allowing to die is non-action. Most scientists out in the field allow the animals to kill and be killed as nature intended. If a tortoise falls to its back, the objective scientist lets it die. Emotionally, the scientist may want to right the poor creature, but intellectually and naturally he will allow it to die (or to right itself, if the creature has the strength to do so). Again, this is not evil, it is the way it should be. It is my belief that we humans constantly meddling in the way things should be *IS* our problem ...




It pains me to have to write this because I consider myself environmentally aware and am all to aware that population growth is a huge problem.  But your way of thinking is a long way from mine.  High birth rates are usually a symptom of poverty and sometimes a lack of education.  Those are the areas that need to be addressed.  Forced sterilisation and letting those too weak to help themselves wither away without help is just lacking in any humanity.

Well, Jim, I again appreciate and respect your open and honest dialogue on this issue. This is exactly the kind of non-infammatory dialogue I was hoping for. However, to be unwilling to see the consequences of allowing every single human being to live, and to reproduce, even when the environment won't naturally support this ... and even though this means more-and-more deforestation of our planet ... is NOT being very "environmentally-aware" at all. And I say this seriously and with respect.




As for accusing Russ of being cerebrally deficient, that is just so obviously wrong.  I would say that all of the contributors to this thread so far are probably well above average intelligence, and probably a lot more intelligent than me.  I take no issue with you personally, but it scares me when an obviously intelligent person holds such views.  Russ's mention of Germany in the 1930's is exactly where my mind had gone too.  Forcible birth control is only a step away from a police state and 'the final solution'.  That may not be what you intend, but that would be the only way of implementing your ideas.

I do not want to go back to the insults, as I do not think they are productive, so I will just stick to the facts. Regardless of where your mind (or Russ' mind) went, to compare what I said to Nazi Germany was a flat-out inaccuracy, and (really) by a country mile. First of all, I have no hatred towards any race of religion, nor are the policies I suggested directed towards any. The policies favor ANYONE able to sustain himself. In point of fact, this is Nature's policy. Any person of any creed or race that can succeed is to be saluted. Any person of any race or creed that cannot should not be "helped," they should be allowed to do whatever they can for themselves, but if that winds up being nothing, then this is the way it goes sometimes in ALL of life. To artificially keep every single non-self-sustaining person alive ... and (worse) to encourage and pay for them to reproduce more of the same thing ... is ultimately the greatest evil to our world, and really to the people themselves. That would be like keeping and breeding every stray dog in every dog pound, and keeping and breeding every pup they had. That's just crazy. It simply compounds and makes more problems for all. While I don't like stray dogs getting killed either, I do believe they should be spayed/neutered so that they don't further compound the problem. Before anyone has a heart attack about the comparison to dogs, they ought to realize the principle is the same: it is simply irresponsible to facilitate (nay, TO FUND) the continual reproduction of any creatures that do not have their own home and cannot even care for themselves. Again, I do not believe any living being should be intentionally harmed or mistreated, but I certainly believe that those who cannot sustain themselves shouldn't be bred to create more of the same.




Mankind has spent most of his existence scrabbling around to eke out a life, mostly of hardship.  For a few centuries, some of us have had the luxury of having a more comfortable life, though many do not.  If we can help those less able to fend for themselves, to educate them, perhaps future generations will inhabit a world where all people can enjoy a comfortable and sustainable lifestyle.

I believe any decision to "help others" ought to be an individual choice. If I decide to help someone, that is up to me. I do not want to be "forced" to help everyone in the world, through taxation. I worked for my money, it's my money, and if I only wish to help myself and my close loved ones, I should be able to. The way things stand, the government robs all of us citizens, through taxation, and spreads our money around to help people who can't help themselves ... creating more and more of them ... which means more and more costs ... and then forces us to pay more and more taxes to keep this insane spiral going.

I simply believe that people are responsible for their own decisions. I also believe that, if more people focused FIRST on their responsibilities, and only then worried about their "rights," that this world would be a far better place for all. The responsibility NOT to have children, when one can't even properly care for oneself, is arguably the greatest personal responsibility there is. And yet no one DEMANDS that people take charge of this responsibility; instead they reward the flagrant IRresponsibility of having children anyway, and "force" everyone else to foot the bill.

I think this is the greatest immorality of all ... to reward the irresponsible and to "force" the responsible to foot the bill.




If not, we will just have to bow to human nature.  I for one have no wish to be involved in any sort of artificial population control whether it be selection by race, religion, intellect or financial independence.
Jim


You in fact do believe in governmental "force" ... you just believe that government should "force" every responsible and capable individual to "help" those who are either not responsible or not capable. You can't have it both ways.

My belief is simply that the government force should be reversed: that capable and responsible people should NOT be forced to pay the bills for the reproduction of the irresponsible and incapable, but that the irresponsible and incapable should be forced not to reproduce, but to take care of their own responsibilities first.

In my view, your way (the current way) creates continual overpopulation, continual deforestation, and continual heavy taxation ... while my way would reduce the population, would reduce the need for deforestation, and it would ultimately reduce taxation also.

Again, I sincerely appreciate your views,

Jack




.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 10:36:17 AM by John Koerner » Logged
Mark Anderson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13



WWW
« Reply #64 on: August 18, 2010, 01:18:06 PM »
ReplyReply

This thread started out by talking about the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and I think John K. for bringing that to my attention.

I have followed somewhat desultorily the discussions that have followed, but want to step aside from the back-and-forth give-and-take, to make a few comments.

I think the issue for many of us is that it is just extremely frustrating to try and figure out how we as individuals can effect any realistic changes when it so often appears that corporate and governmental entities are making short-term gain decisions that result in long-term harm to the environment. And I think we need to acknowledge that human populations are part of many of the planet's ecosystems, at least by impact even if we don't actually live in the deep oceans or the vast majority of the Antarctic. And take responsibility for our often negative impact on those ecosystems.

It seems very difficult to reach any sort of consensus about how we as humans ought to be inhabiting our environment. Consensus on what we consume, consensus on how much of it we ought to consume, and consensus on how to dispose of the waste products that result from our consumption. Perhaps the ideal solutions are aggregated at corporate & governmental levels, because it would seem their positive effect on the environment would be so much more powerful in seeing actual benefits to the environment than if I individually undertake to use my bicycle in place of my car whenever possible. But if you can't get corporations or governments to adopt rational policies regarding consumption of resources, isn't the next best thing for each one of us to take some responsibility for our own consumptions?

I am not preaching here, or exhorting, and certainly not scolding, because all I have to do is look in the mirror and know that I am as much a part of the problem as of the solution. It's tough to live in 21st century America, as I do, and not be a contributor to the degradation of the environment.

One of the interesting things about what is going on right now, though, is what is happening in China. We all know about the environmental horror stories coming out of China -- the dependence on soft coal, the air and water pollution, the deforestation, the subsiding water table (picture what happens if and when sea levels rise at the same time that Shanghai is sinking.....in a city of 21 million permanent residents), etc. But there is another story coming out of China these days, and that is the emerging sector of green technologies.

Let me digress, and disclose that I have a great fondness for China, having studied the language for decades, lived in China for several years, taught Chinese off and on, catered Chinese meals for friends and colleagues, and next year will be leading photo tours and workshops to China (somehow balancing the benefits of cross-cultural understanding with the detriments of the carbon footprint incurred by flying participants to and from China).

As an autocratic, top-down government, China can effect change relatively quickly (at least as compared to the pace of regulated change in Western democracies). Already China's green technology sector is very competitive with companies in the US and Europe, and Chinese companies are projected to become the dominant providers of green technology solutions in the next decade.
Logged

Fine art photo tours & workshops to China - http://toursabroadchina.com
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 811


WWW
« Reply #65 on: August 19, 2010, 11:05:49 AM »
ReplyReply

As an autocratic, top-down government, China can effect change relatively quickly (at least as compared to the pace of regulated change in Western democracies). Already China's green technology sector is very competitive with companies in the US and Europe, and Chinese companies are projected to become the dominant providers of green technology solutions in the next decade.

And this is where, despite Jack's arguments for reducing state influence, lies the only hope of securing the future for the Human Race.


I believe any decision to "help others" ought to be an individual choice. If I decide to help someone, that is up to me. I do not want to be "forced" to help everyone in the world, through taxation. I worked for my money, it's my money, and if I only wish to help myself and my close loved ones, I should be able to. The way things stand, the government robs all of us citizens, through taxation, and spreads our money around to help people who can't help themselves ... creating more and more of them ... which means more and more costs ... and then forces us to pay more and more taxes to keep this insane spiral going.

I simply believe that people are responsible for their own decisions. I also believe that, if more people focused FIRST on their responsibilities, and only then worried about their "rights," that this world would be a far better place for all. The responsibility NOT to have children, when one can't even properly care for oneself, is arguably the greatest personal responsibility there is. And yet no one DEMANDS that people take charge of this responsibility; instead they reward the flagrant IRresponsibility of having children anyway, and "force" everyone else to foot the bill.

I think this is the greatest immorality of all ... to reward the irresponsible and to "force" the responsible to foot the bill.
.

Jack, this is what we call a society.  You are not the only one who gets incensed about lazy spongers and people who seem to take but never contribute.  We use our bicycles for many local journeys, switch off all electrical items not being used, do not waste water, never throw litter down, take old Mr Briddon next door (aged 90) for his doctors appointments, and generally try to be good neighbours.  However we also believe that the state has a huge role to play in domestic and foreign affairs. Taxation and forced sterilisation are really not very similar in their impact.  I really can see your point of view though, however we will just have to agree to differ. Perhaps you could make a trip to a remote African state in the grip of drought and see a parent watching their child die from lack of basic nutrition or clean drinking water. I would dare you to say to these people that they will all just have to die through natural selection and not be moved to help then somehow.  It is just that we can not all go there ourselves and so most are prepared to give money through charity or state-funded aid to help the plight of those unable to help themselves.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #66 on: August 20, 2010, 07:46:15 AM »
ReplyReply

This thread started out by talking about the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and I think John K. for bringing that to my attention.
I have followed somewhat desultorily the discussions that have followed, but want to step aside from the back-and-forth give-and-take, to make a few comments.
I think the issue for many of us is that it is just extremely frustrating to try and figure out how we as individuals can effect any realistic changes when it so often appears that corporate and governmental entities are making short-term gain decisions that result in long-term harm to the environment. And I think we need to acknowledge that human populations are part of many of the planet's ecosystems, at least by impact even if we don't actually live in the deep oceans or the vast majority of the Antarctic. And take responsibility for our often negative impact on those ecosystems.
It seems very difficult to reach any sort of consensus about how we as humans ought to be inhabiting our environment. Consensus on what we consume, consensus on how much of it we ought to consume, and consensus on how to dispose of the waste products that result from our consumption. Perhaps the ideal solutions are aggregated at corporate & governmental levels, because it would seem their positive effect on the environment would be so much more powerful in seeing actual benefits to the environment than if I individually undertake to use my bicycle in place of my car whenever possible. But if you can't get corporations or governments to adopt rational policies regarding consumption of resources, isn't the next best thing for each one of us to take some responsibility for our own consumptions?
I am not preaching here, or exhorting, and certainly not scolding, because all I have to do is look in the mirror and know that I am as much a part of the problem as of the solution. It's tough to live in 21st century America, as I do, and not be a contributor to the degradation of the environment.
One of the interesting things about what is going on right now, though, is what is happening in China. We all know about the environmental horror stories coming out of China -- the dependence on soft coal, the air and water pollution, the deforestation, the subsiding water table (picture what happens if and when sea levels rise at the same time that Shanghai is sinking.....in a city of 21 million permanent residents), etc. But there is another story coming out of China these days, and that is the emerging sector of green technologies.
Let me digress, and disclose that I have a great fondness for China, having studied the language for decades, lived in China for several years, taught Chinese off and on, catered Chinese meals for friends and colleagues, and next year will be leading photo tours and workshops to China (somehow balancing the benefits of cross-cultural understanding with the detriments of the carbon footprint incurred by flying participants to and from China).
As an autocratic, top-down government, China can effect change relatively quickly (at least as compared to the pace of regulated change in Western democracies). Already China's green technology sector is very competitive with companies in the US and Europe, and Chinese companies are projected to become the dominant providers of green technology solutions in the next decade.

Very interesting post Mark. Thanks.




.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #67 on: August 20, 2010, 08:34:36 AM »
ReplyReply

And this is where, despite Jack's arguments for reducing state influence, lies the only hope of securing the future for the Human Race.

Hello again Jim.

My arguments were not in favor of reducing the state influence, but rather shifting the "force" of the state towads the parasitic not the contributors. I don't think productive citizens should be forced to foot the bill for the unproductive. I think the unproductive citizens should be forced not to have any more children.

As things stand, you and I pull our own weight, make our own money, feed and shelter ourselves, and pay taxes. And we get no extra benefits.

Yet an unemployed couple, who don't have the talent (or will) to make their own money, or feed and shelter themselves, and who don't pay taxes ... they get all the befefits in the world: food money, shelter money, grants for education, etc. Worse, they get more money if they reproduce.

Meanwhile you and I, who pay taxes and keep the economy rolling with OUR money, not only don't get any extra benefits ... but we have to foot the food, clothing, shelter, and education bill for people who contribute nothing to the pot.

Where we disagree is in "who" should be forced to do something they don't want to do? I say it's the UNproductive who should be forced. As things stand, it is the productive who get forced. For example, if I decide I have the right NOT to pay any extra taxes to feed the dead weight of society, you think it's perfectly okay for the government to "force" me or to throw me in jail. Even though I am a contributing member of society, you have no problem at all if my right to keep my own hard-earned money in my pocket gets taken from me and/or you have no problem at all if I get thrown in jail (my freedom taken away) for refusal to do so. Which means you don't mind this force being implemented against yourself either. You think this is perfectly okay.

Yet, for some reason, you weep at the thought of a NON-productive person being forced "not" to have children, and you weep at the thought of such a person being forcibly-sterilzed if they decide to have children anyway.

To my way of thinking, this is simply bass-ackwards. We are the one who deserve the freedom by being productive, contributing citizens. It is the "dead weight" of society, who contribute nothing, who should have their freedoms curtailed, not us. Rather than forcing everyone "else" to pay for the non-contributors, it is the non-contributors who should be subject to force ... either to get back into a position of contribution or to have their rights to reproduce removed.




Jack, this is what we call a society.  You are not the only one who gets incensed about lazy spongers and people who seem to take but never contribute.

Yes, Jim, I realize this is a society. But my being incensed isn't just about my own wallet, it is about the basics of right-and-wrong also. Worse, it is likewise tied-in to the issue of overpopulation, land-clearing, as well as all of the extra foods and fuels required to supply and deliver to these extra masses of dead weight to our society.

A truly well-run society ought not to carry any dead weight, same as any other smooth-running system or machine. Government taxes taken from us all should therefore BENEFIT us all. For example, the taxes that get taken from everyone should be put into roadways that benefit everyone; a postal system that benefits everyone; a police system that benefits everyone; etc. If everyone gets taxed, and everyone benefits from the use of said tax, then this is a fair system of taxation, and I am quite happy to be a part of it.

However, when the contributing taxpayers get their money taken and they fail to benefit at all, and only the people who DON'T contribute are the ones who derive benefit, then this is an UNfair (and quite frankly bullshit) method of taxation. Such a system is an affront to any concept of "fairness" you want to talk about. Worse, the system (by NOT forbidding reproduction, and in fact by encouraging it through more money offered) actually sets up a greater-and-greater perpetual need for more-and-more taxation of its contributing taxpayers, the more-and-more mouths that get created needing to be fed on a handout.

Again, not only is this an abomination of nature, by keeping alive the unfit, and not only is it an affront to any concept of "fairness" to us contributing citizens, but the tremendous and exponential population growth that our proposterous current system facilitates is ALSO precisely why more and more of our lands and resources are needed.

And, plainly and simply, this insanity needs to stop. It is the irresponsible and incapable who should have their rights suppressed, not the capable and responsible. It is the irresponsible and the incapable who ought to be forced NOT to have children, not the capable and the responsible who should be forced to foot the bill for their wanton irresponsibility. Because, plainly and simply, anyone who cannot support themselves (let alone a child) but who has a child anyway *IS* irresponsible. And it is this irresponsiblity which is the problem and is what should be addressed, rather than being allowed and encouraged.




We use our bicycles for many local journeys, switch off all electrical items not being used, do not waste water, never throw litter down, take old Mr Briddon next door (aged 90) for his doctors appointments, and generally try to be good neighbours.

You sound like a very kind and responsible person. Hats off to you.




However we also believe that the state has a huge role to play in domestic and foreign affairs. Taxation and forced sterilisation are really not very similar in their impact.

I respectfully disagree.

I would rather see the one-time use of my tax money allocated to sterilizing an irresponsible person, than see it used every month of every year to feed their offspring ... and their offspring's offspring ... etc., etc.

A quick snip to the irresponsible is the more logical, the more economical, and the fairer way to handle this issue than forcibly making the responsible pay their food and shelter bills for a lifetime.

If the irresponsible don't want to be snipped, they can simply choose to be responsible and not have children. Pretty simple really.




I really can see your point of view though, however we will just have to agree to differ.

I appreciate your seeing my point of view. I also see yours, and I also have feelings of sympathy to those in a truly bad spot. Where we differ is in the feeling of responsibility for it. While I sympathize, I do not feel in any way responsible for anyone else's situation, because I simply am not. I also don't feel anyone else is responsible for my situation, nor do I ask for anyone else's "help" to get myself out of any bad situation; I simply get myself out of it.

And, again, I believe the world would be a better place if everyone else acted likewise.




Perhaps you could make a trip to a remote African state in the grip of drought and see a parent watching their child die from lack of basic nutrition or clean drinking water. I would dare you to say to these people that they will all just have to die through natural selection and not be moved to help then somehow.  It is just that we can not all go there ourselves and so most are prepared to give money through charity or state-funded aid to help the plight of those unable to help themselves.

Again, while I sympathize for the plights of the unfortunate, I believe it is a neurotic disorder of thinking to somehow feel "responsible" for getting everyone who's in a bad spot OUT of their bad spot. That is up to them and that is up to their mother. It was also the mother's choice to have sex and get pregnant, which IMO would make a starving woman a non-thinking idiot to do this to herself and her potential child. The last thing I personally would want to do (or have the inconsideration to do) would be to bring a life into this world that I couldn't properly take care of. It is my view that we really don't need "more" people in this world who are that thoughtless and that inconsiderate to do so. So my bleeding heart tends to stop when I think of the piss-poor mentality that created that tragic life to begin with.

And then, when I think of the millions and millions of dollars it will take to continue feeding all these people forever ... who will then make more-and-more needy mouths to feed ... requiring more-and-more food and money ... which in turn will require more-and-more deforestation to make room for more-and-more farms (all of which, of course, requires the usage of more-and-more fossil fuels which likewise destroy our world and environment) I get pretty cold-hearted about the whole thing, Jim, when I take into acount the whole picture.

So, yes Jim, I would dare. Because, when I consider ALL the facts, I truly believe allowing the incapable and the thoughtless to perish is ultimately the better solution for the world, and for us all, because it is as nature itself indended.

Jack




.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 09:08:23 AM by John Koerner » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad