"Constitutionally, it is very simple. Freedom demanded must be freedom given.
Even the conservative idea of "small government", if it is based on the proposition that "all [wo]men are created equal", will be clear: You must "butt out" of others' personal lives, and intimate decisions. You may enjoy your freedom by expecting it and protecting it for all..
Patriarchy, religious "beliefs" imposed upon others, and any however-well-meaning interference in the lives of others are all unconstitutional in our system of government. Priests cannot overrule the rile of law.
Those who pursue the goal of controlling reproduction among others should study the history where it was tried. If they know the history and still oppose women's reproductive rights, they are not "reachable"." Richard
"Freedom: Does that mean that Conservatives are free to not fund Planned Parenthood, Medicaid, Insurance plans, etc that fund many of those "intimate" decisions?
I mean the challenge here is that doctor's appointments, birth control, "intimate" education, etc all cost money. And if a free person has a child they can not afford to care for, medicaid & welfare transfer a large portion of that cost to tax payers.
So how does the concept of Rights and Responsibilities fit into your idea?
If citizens are free to do as they wish and incur negative consequences...
Shouldn't they carry the burden of their personal choices and actions?
Or does it make sense to you that their consequences should be metered out across the rest of the population?
I am more of a "you break it you buy it" kind guy.
Not a "you break it, we buy it"..." G2A
"Individual freedom in relation to our governments.
To make it clear:. Constitutionally, it IS simple, and your taxes comprise no exception.
A liberal representative democracy requires an ACCEPTANCE of the Social Contract your argument rejects..
Here's a historic, academic presentation to inform citizens of the concept and necessity of the Social Contract:*
(*Republicans (especially) need to grasp this concept if they are to ever going to be happy in our form of constitutional government. It is in the Social Contract itself where responsibilities of citizenship reside.)" Richard
"Conclusion. Sorry... That was too long so I skipped to the conclusion... I agreed with the last sentences.
"Social contract theory is undoubtedly with us for the foreseeable future. But so too are the critiques of such theory, which will continue to compel us to think and rethink the nature of both ourselves and our relations with one another."
I personally have no problem fulfilling my obligations to our society and paying my taxes. And I am fine caring for the old and truly disabled from the public purse.
However I believe that all citizens should be held to the "Social Contract", which means to me that everyone follows the law, has only the children they can afford and are capable of raising well, everyone strives toward continuous learning for the betterment of our society, etc.
The question then becomes what should our society do with people who break our social contract?
Do we keep writing them checks and allow them to continue breaking the contract?
Or is there a natural consequence that we let them experience?" G2AThoughts?
"My KISS interpretation of Randian beliefs. Different people have different beliefs and behaviors:
- Some are highly driven to learn, work, improve, create and to be independent
- Some are happy to do a solid days work for their pay.
- Some have lower ambitions and are happy to receive from others.
- Some are highly driven to try to con, steal or take from others.
Now you can deny this simple reality if you wish, however the first two categories are who make our country great. The second two categories are a drag on the country. The question is how to use social norms and government laws to push everyone into the first 2 categories?" G2A
"Omitted from the List. 5. Our choice of behaviors, while in theory unlimited, is in practice circumscribed by factors out of our control." RB
"Yeah I just don't see 5 making the list for American citizens.. We are all very lucky to live in America. I do agree that some choices are limited by the luck of birth, however given our free K-12 education system, welfare systems, job training programs, higher ed programs, extensive library systems, free internet access, family planning programs, etc.
I am thinking each citizen is in large part responsible for their own choices, behaviors and results. We won't all become Jeff Bezos, however we should all be able to attain a nice family and reasonable income if we make solid choices, learn and work at it..
- Some are highly driven to learn, work, improve, create and to be independent
- Some are happy to do a solid days work for their pay.
- Some have lower ambitions and are happy to receive from others.
- Some are highly driven to try to con, steal or take from others.
- Our choice of behaviors, while in theory unlimited, is in practice circumscribed by factors out of our control." G2A
"The US ranks 13th in social mobility among OECD countries. That's behind all of Scandinavia, Finland, Canada, and Australia. We are, however, ahead of the United Kingdom, Italy, Chile, and Slovenia. We are behind countries that have a much stronger and more extensive system of public welfare (meaning, not just cash benefits) than the US does.
Many years ago, I a guest at an "Engineers' Day" dinner put on by the employer of my then-current inamorata. The keynote speaker talked about the trends of the future. Afterwards, someone at our table remarked that what the man said was fine if you were a member of the Tucson Chamber of Commerce, but if you had been working for the last 20 years at Dodge Main, it wasn't so cool. "He's just told us that the blue collar middle class is on its way out." That seems to have happened. The blue collar middle class that was able to send its kids to a decent public university without having them accumulate mountains of debt is gone. It took with it an important part of upward mobility; namely, a parent's ability to make it so much easier.
While individual choices are important, I don't think it's entirely possible to let late-stage capitalism entirely off the hook." RB
"I agree that capitalism rewards those who are most effective, efficient and provide quality. And as I often say our American consumers are exclusively focused on features, quality, performance, personal value (ie cost), etc.
Thus we reap what we sowed... We wanted more government benefits, regulations, easy immigration and lower cost products and services... And we got them.
The consequence was jobs moving over seas and a glut of low end workers. Now what do you want to do to turn this around? " G2A
"You are putting too much blame on the American consumer, and on liberalism generally.
What about technological advances, and greed? Let's say the owner of the Susquehanna Hat Company needs 10 sewing machine operators (median salary $24,000/yr.) to maintain production. If he installs the proper equipment, the whole shebang can be done by robotics, overseen by a single technician (median salary $57,000). How is that one going to pan out? If he saves money, is that going to result in lower prices, or are the prices going to stay the same, with shareholders reaping the difference? How many robotics technician jobs are going to be available for those who do the smart thing and retrain?
I know how I'm betting. My example uses displacement of low-wage jobs because those were the ones I could think of offhand, but the same pattern is going to be replicated even in better paying professions (e.g. truck driving)." RB
RB, As I said... "capitalism rewards those who are most effective, efficient and provide quality"
And American consumers are exclusively focused on features, quality, performance, personal value (ie cost), etc. And I will add one, people with IRAs / 401Ks / Pensions do not invest in funds that return lower than average.
And these same "greedy" people will reward companies who offer good products for a good cost, and the companies who give them a higher rate of return. Now is that really "greed" or is it common sense?
And they will punish companies that do not automate, off shore or do other things to remain competitive. And yes this going to be a big problem with limited knowledge, skills and/or flexibility.
So back to my question... How do we make America be the most effective, efficient, trained, flexible and quality provider? Just making it more expensive to do business and invest in America certainly is problematic.
I mean as I often note: many Americans don't "Buy American" even today.
"Actually most of my craziest ideas are regarding making sure almost all kids are raised well. When the parents and kids fail it is often too late. Unfortunately no one likes my ideas. So here is the question.
Why does our society allow people who would never pass an adoption screening to make and raise babies? Why do we pay them to do so? Then complain about the achievement gap? Our nation’s children deserve better." G2A
"For a "small government" guy, where do you place the idea of a government that would decide who could or could not have children ? A "child permit" before pregnancy ? What happens with an "illegal pregnancy" ? Only the "most worthy" allowed ? Certainly, Mein Führer !! A master-race !" Neal
"Small is relative... And as I said, no one likes my ideas... They are happy to protect the freedoms of the adults while babies go home with people who they would not let baby sit their own infant. They fight to ensure that older Public Employees make more and their jobs are secure even as a large portion of our unlucky kids fail in school and life. We are putting the freedoms, incomes and security of adults ahead of those of our most helpless citizens. That is a choice we are making and many kids are suffering for it. :-(" G2A
We tried changing that system once. It's called eugenics, and it has fallen out of favor.
"Since the Clinton presidency, the government has been moving away from perpetual cash for reproduction.It also strikes me as a bit facile to link the achievement gap with welfare receipt by parents." RB
"Eugenics: "the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics"
My view is different... "Children have the right to a stable home and qualified, non-stressed out, mature, supported, dedicated, etc parent(s).
I am sorry to say, but responsible Parent(s) do not have a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 15th child when they can not afford to house and take care of child 1 or 2 themselves..."
I don't care about the parent's genetic traits, I care about their parental capabilities, behaviors and dedication to make good choices for their children. And unfortunately it looks like the pay for kid programs are coming back. PBS Family Welfare Limit Changes" G2A
"Should pretty much anyone be free to make and keep a baby in your view?The consensus of commenters has been similar to that of RB's and Neal's. In essence that adults get to keep making babies in America whether they can afford them or are capable of caring for them responsibly or not. Personally I disagree, I think our society has a duty to the child(ren) first and until we accept this responsibility the poor unlucky screwed up kids will stay with us. Angel should never have been allowed to have more than 2 children and social services should have kept a close eye on them.
What would you do if a "not good parent" kept making babies?
Here is an update regarding the poster child for unfit mothers.
What do recommend our society do?" G2A
There is massive fraud and waste in the government welfare systems, which Trump has ordered reduced just yesterday, and today we hear of a local millionaire who has been collecting food stamps just to prove the point.Before this Sean had stated:
Yes, many on welfare "need it" and are struggling-- nothing wrong with that but the longer it goes on and the easier it is to get, the less we are actually helping folks towards self-sufficiency. It is too easy to get ON welfare and too hard to get off. That needs to change, and government should strongly encourage and enable that change. OR (eventually) get out of the "charity business" altogether.
The problem with this argument (as has been discussed before) is that we know that there's not this massive underclass of people just sucking of the teat of government when they could be doing something productive. Most of our "welfare" spend is on children, seniors, and the disabled, while the able-bodied folks tend to cycle through pretty rapidly.And I had stated:
I have to disagree or we would not have so many unlucky and undereducated children in this country who are trapped in generational poverty and broken homes. Please remember that I am not concerned about the short term spend. I am worried about the longer term hopelessness and even more screwed up kids.Now with this in mind, I am going to define the following:
