Federal funded birth control

[–]CadillacRainbows120 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati17 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig24 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mythandros8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mythandros1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't have that option, no. States have conquered almost every worthwhile inch of land on this planet.

Do you ever wonder what makes these parts of the world worthwhile?

Your argument looks utterly ridiculous when you think outside of mere decades and look at the bigger historical picture.

Care to elaborate?

What, I'm supposed to move to Somalia because American voters are idiots?

No. But you have the option of moving there if you don't like paying the second lowest tax rate in the world.

Fact is that if I don't pay, you support violence to be used against me to get me to comply or punish me for non-compliance. How you can obfuscate that fact and say "not violence" is beyond me.

We clearly have a different definition of violence. To me, violence is physical.

Oh, and at least try not to be a hypocrite, I know damned well there are some parts of government you support that I do not. Only difference is you being a baby about the small things.

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do you ever wonder what makes these parts of the world worthwhile?

You have the causation terribly mixed up. I am saying that those areas of the world that, in the absence of human settlement, would be ideal for human settlement, are already conquered by states. That is, I'm saying that most of North America compared to most of North Africa is really good land for human settlement, but it is entirely claimed by states.

I am not talking about worthwhile in the sense of "made worthwhile by humans". And yes, I know quite a bit about what has made the developed world worthwhile in the latter sense. In my opinion, what made the West great was consistent rule of law, strong property rights, and an extraordinary curiosity towards the natural world. In all of these, the culture is declining. I don't credit states with any of it.

Care to elaborate?

I'm saying that when you consider that for most of human history, wilderness was only ever just beyond the horizon, it makes a lot of sense to say "well if you don't like it, just leave town, dude". It makes absolutely no sense to say this when you're talking about thousands of miles of wilderness still claimed and still violently defended by states. To this day, most of the North American continent is undeveloped, but it is claimed to be owned by a few states.

We clearly have a different definition of violence. To me, violence is physical.

If I refuse to pay taxes, you don't support any physical action be taken against me?

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You have the causation terribly mixed up. I am saying that those areas of the world that, in the absence of human settlement, would be ideal for human settlement, are already conquered by states. That is, I'm saying that most of North America compared to most of North Africa is really good land for human settlement, but it is entirely claimed by states.

You should have stated that you meant "worthwhile" to mean "fertile land".

I am not talking about worthwhile in the sense of "made worthwhile by humans". And yes, I know quite a bit about what has made the developed world worthwhile in the latter sense. In my opinion, what made the West great was consistent rule of law, strong property rights, and an extraordinary curiosity towards the natural world. In all of these, the culture is declining. I don't credit states with any of it.

Try moving to northern BC, the land is decent (a bit cold) and there are virtually no people up there. I'm seriously talking like a population density of 50km per person.

I'm saying that when you consider that for most of human history, wilderness was only ever just beyond the horizon, it makes a lot of sense to say "well if you don't like it, just leave town, dude". It makes absolutely no sense to say this when you're talking about thousands of miles of wilderness still claimed and still violently defended by states. To this day, most of the North American continent is undeveloped, but it is claimed to be owned by a few states.

Fair enough point.

If I refuse to pay taxes, you don't support any physical action be taken against me?

No. I simply suggest not allowing you to use infrastructure that's paid for by taxes. With basic necessity's being the exception (water and waste management...that's about it). This would apply to anything which was funded or built by the government. (might have a bit of an issue considering a good deal of the US's internet network were built on government money)

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Try moving to northern BC, the land is decent (a bit cold) and there are virtually no people up there. I'm seriously talking like a population density of 50km per person.

Heh. Wouldn't you know it, my life goal is to move to Alberta actually. Not BC exactly but I hear it's similar culture, climate, etc. Funny world we live in.

No. I simply suggest not allowing you to use infrastructure that's paid for by taxes. With basic necessity's being the exception (water and waste management...that's about it). This would apply to anything which was funded or built by the government. (might have a bit of an issue considering a good deal of the US's internet network were built on government money)

I would find that agreeable, except for the fact that by law companies are prevented from competing with government utilities. For example, you may not be aware of this, but if you have a farm on the edge of some towns, you are legally required to pay for the electric monopoly to run a line to the edge of your property even if you do absolutely nothing with the electricity. In such cases, you are literally not allowed to opt out of the grid. This is really the case, upon closer examination, with almost every major service that government has swallowed up.

Competing trash collection? Nope. Competing mail? Only certain types of mail allowed. Competing water/electric? Most cases, just straightforward no. Et cetera.

So frankly I find it kind of dishonest to say "well you have to pay because you use it" while it is completely illegal to have any alternative. Just like the old saying goes, "government breaks your legs, hands you crutches and says 'if not for us, you couldn't walk!'"

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Heh. Wouldn't you know it, my life goal is to move to Alberta actually. Not BC exactly but I hear it's similar culture, climate, etc. Funny world we live in.

Yeah, Alberta is pretty good. Just don't move to Ontario.

I would find that agreeable

I highly doubt that. Take into consideration that you would either be forced to be an on demand fee for using a sidewalk and not allowed to drive or use the bus, or have internet access, or a phone (cellphone maybe), as all of those things are funded or were funded (created using government funding) with tax money.

For example, you may not be aware of this, but if you have a farm on the edge of some towns, you are legally required to pay for the electric monopoly to run a line to the edge of your property even if you do absolutely nothing with the electricity. In such cases, you are literally not allowed to opt out of the grid.

I wasn't aware of that, but I am aware of something slightly more messed up.

Bit of a story here, you see my grandfather has has been out striping David Suzuki for being "green" for 50+ years, and he built his house with extra insulation, keeps the heat at 65, doesn't waste water, ect ect things to reduce his carbon footprint. Including building a septic tank, which has a negative environmental impact (you read that right, it's actually GOOD for the environment), well the township didn't like that, they got in a bit of a legal battle with him over it (keep in mind this was 43 years ago) because part of the way they funded their waste management was simply making everyone pay equally, despite the current waste management infrastructure being technologically retarded and just pumps it into the ocean. In the end they just gave up after he demanded that the township pay for his waste as he classed it as a resource, part of it was probably because it's an entirely closed system, so they couldn't really do anything about it. Then he ran it illegally for 40 years, shut it down about 2 and a half years ago because it was full (kinda, septic tanks are weird) and he's 82 so he doesn't quite feel like cleaning it.

He worked out the entire lifetime cost of it's 40 year operation at 500$. That was 490$ in instillation, and 10$ for a few cups of this weird bacteria stuff.

So yeah, I do know how governments do often fuck with things like this, but at the same time I understand why. Had enough people switched to septic tanks, it would have driven the cost for the main sewage usage up to the point where the remaining "customers" wouldn't have been able to afford it. And considering how most people are to stupid to not break a septic system, I doubt building one for everyone would have been a good idea.

Seriously though, septic tanks are amazing.

Competing trash collection? Nope. Competing mail? Only certain types of mail allowed. Competing water/electric? Most cases, just straightforward no. Et cetera.

Trash collection is great where I am, and super cheap. No idea about mail. And our electric is some of the cheapest in the world, while still being far less damaging than most places.

So frankly I find it kind of dishonest to say "well you have to pay because you use it" while it is completely illegal to have any alternative. Just like the old saying goes, "government breaks your legs, hands you crutches and says 'if not for us, you couldn't walk!'"

Agreed to an extent. But the point is that there isn't a REAL alternative. Private companies? Well then you're just paying someone else plus a markup, not to mention they are more likely to fuck up. (best example of how private companies who have their customers by the balls, Lockheed Martin, they have fucked the US government over for over a trillion dollars in the past decade, and their work has been sub par. Sukhoi, the Russian government owned company of a similar role, has gotten more done with 6billion that Lockheed has with 600billion, because they have a monopoly and don't need to be good at their jobs)

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I highly doubt that. Take into consideration that you would either be forced to be an on demand fee for using a sidewalk and not allowed to drive or use the bus, or have internet access, or a phone (cellphone maybe), as all of those things are funded or were funded (created using government funding) with tax money.

Which is why I specifically stated that I would find it disagreeable if I am still disallowed to seek out those services through alternative providers, as is currently the case.

Think of it this way. Everything that I pay for in my life and is generally free to competition, I get excellent service and quality for my money. Pizza? I have a thousands of options of toppings and dozens of companies just in my town. Same goes for most businesses that have low barriers to entry. I would much rather have the option to opt out of paying for street maintenance in areas I don't live or frequent, and have the option to voluntarily pay for such things in places I do live and frequent, because I would expect the quality of that maintenance to be much higher, the more those services have to work for their money. As it is right now, if they do a shitty job and impede traffic all the time for months, they still get money all the same. The same cannot be said of hotels that incessantly renovate and drive away customers.

So yeah, I do know how governments do often fuck with things like this, but at the same time I understand why. Had enough people switched to septic tanks, it would have driven the cost for the main sewage usage up to the point where the remaining "customers" wouldn't have been able to afford it. And considering how most people are to stupid to not break a septic system, I doubt building one for everyone would have been a good idea.

You have some fairly serious misconceptions about supply and demand. If veganism suddenly becomes ridiculously popular, do pizza shops all go out of business? Maybe, maybe not. Depends how much the remaining non-vegans want pizza. Maybe somebody invents vegan pizza and that takes off. Who knows, who cares. The point is that it's utterly ridiculous to force somebody to pay for a service they don't want, for the benefit of those who do want it. Can't just make vegans pay for pizza because your business is taking a loss. Loss is a good thing, it signals that you are overproducing and/or overpricing the product or service, assuming a stable demand.

Trash collection is great where I am, and super cheap. No idea about mail. And our electric is some of the cheapest in the world, while still being far less damaging than most places.

Where do you live? All of the above is shit where I live. Absolute shit. The electric monopoly charges us extra for switching to better meters to make up for lost income, it's complete bullshit and we have no other choice. Trash collection is inconsistent and unreliable. Mail, even more so. I rarely have complaints about deliveries from UPS or FedEx though.

Private companies? Well then you're just paying someone else plus a markup, not to mention they are more likely to fuck up.

So then you stop buying from them. I am not given the option to do that with government services, and people like you specifically tell me that they're perfectly willing to support violence against me to get me to continue paying. Doesn't seem logical really to think that a service that everyone is forced to pay for by threat of violence is going to be less likely to fuck you over than a service that has to at least keep stable customer satisfaction.

(best example of how private companies who have their customers by the balls, Lockheed Martin, they have fucked the US government over for over a trillion dollars in the past decade, and their work has been sub par. Sukhoi, the Russian government owned company of a similar role, has gotten more done with 6billion that Lockheed has with 600billion, because they have a monopoly and don't need to be good at their jobs)

Fascism is inefficient, I don't disagree. I don't support corporatocracy, I support comparatively free markets. Why you think a private company working for the government is an example of that, I can't understand.

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Think of it this way. Everything that I pay for in my life and is generally free to competition, I get excellent service and quality for my money.

Minus the internet, or virtually anything else technology related.

Pizza? I have a thousands of options of toppings and dozens of companies just in my town. Same goes for most businesses that have low barriers to entry.

Don't try to compare pizza to infrastructure.

I would much rather have the option to opt out of paying for street maintenance in areas I don't live or frequent, and have the option to voluntarily pay for such things in places I do live and frequent, because I would expect the quality of that maintenance to be much higher, the more those services have to work for their money.

In which case, everyone would loose.

As it is right now, if they do a shitty job and impede traffic all the time for months, they still get money all the same.

As it would be had roads been privately run. To many people seem to forget that business isn't about providing a service, but making money. If you allow private companies to take over important things like this, then a monopoly will form and then we will have another Lockheed Martin.

I would rather have a shitty service and a few right wingers be pissed then not have roads.

The same cannot be said of hotels that incessantly renovate and drive away customers.

But it can be said for other companies like Telus, Shaw, Rogers (the internet company, not the chocolates), virizon, Microsoft, Apple, ect ect ect. All of these companies are technologically retarded and their actions piss people off, but they are still doing fine.

You have some fairly serious misconceptions about supply and demand. If veganism suddenly becomes ridiculously popular, do pizza shops all go out of business? Maybe, maybe not. Depends how much the remaining non-vegans want pizza. Maybe somebody invents vegan pizza and that takes off. Who knows, who cares. The point is that it's utterly ridiculous to force somebody to pay for a service they don't want, for the benefit of those who do want it.

Unless 99 out of 100 people want it, and it requires 100 people to get running. Especially when that 1 guy does want the service, but is just pissy about the payment options.

Can't just make vegans pay for pizza because your business is taking a loss. Loss is a good thing, it signals that you are overproducing and/or overpricing the product or service, assuming a stable demand.

Seriously, pizza's and infrastructure are incomparable. Pizza's aren't necessary at all, infrastructure is.

Where do you live? All of the above is shit where I live. Absolute shit.

Vancouver island.

Only real downside here is the insane housing costs, to many potheads (Jamaica? That's cute...) and lots of oblivious American tourists in the summers.

The electric monopoly charges us extra for switching to better meters to make up for lost income, it's complete bullshit and we have no other choice.

That sucks.

On a semi-related note, wasn't California going to put a tax on fuel efficient cars to make up for lost revenues from gas taxes?

Trash collection is inconsistent and unreliable. Mail, even more so.

That sucks.

So then you stop buying from them. I am not given the option to do that with government services, and people like you specifically tell me that they're perfectly willing to support violence against me to get me to continue paying.

It's not an option to not buy from them. The internet at this point is a necessity, same goes for things like waste management and fresh water. Everyone NEEDS them in today's world.

You you also going to support the "violence" that internet providers impose upon me for not buying their late 90's shit?

Doesn't seem logical really to think that a service that everyone is forced to pay for by threat of violence is going to be less likely to fuck you over than a service that has to at least keep stable customer satisfaction.

Telus. An example of a thriving company with horrible customer satisfaction and sub par service.

Fascism is inefficient,

The Nazis would disagree.

I don't support corporatocracy, I support comparatively free markets. Why you think a private company working for the government is an example of that, I can't understand.

My point is that Sukhoi vs Lockheed is an example where a mostly government controlled bit of infrastructure is vastly more competent, efficient and down right "better" than the privately owned and operated one.

[–]cknight186 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]b0w3n2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnAdultWoman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So do I think it should be free? I don't know, maybe. But (1) I don't think that it will even be close to enough to solve the problem, and (2) I don't feel like I should have to pay for someone else to have safe sex. If you can't afford birth control, either don't have sex or accept the risks.

The second point is exactly what settles the question for me. Goes also for the abortion question. I don't have a strong opinion on the legality or morality of abortion. I think any pro-choice person who sincerely believes that there are absolutely no ethical complications to the question of abortion is seriously deluded and possibly psychopathic. However I also think it's ridiculous to attempt to restrict medical practices to the extent of a ban on abortion. So I'm one of those who sees it as morally questionable, but for the sake of having a decent society, why the hell not keep it legal.

But, if someone tells me that taxpayers absolutely have to pay for free or subsidized abortions and opposing that stance is racism and misogyny, I have only hatred for such people. Why should someone be forced to pay for something they disagree with?

[–]heavygatorpicks8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]td9red5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dudealicious1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Based on what? The only ethical complication I see here is that waiting is a huge waste of time and resources and higher risks.

To me, the ethical issue seems similar to vegetarianism. We don't necessarily need to eat meat, and the way that animals are raised and killed for meat is often unnecessarily cruel, and it's not hard to understand why vegetarians have an ethical complaint against eating meat. But at the end of the day, it really is just an animal.

With abortion, one ends what otherwise would have been a human being with life, thoughts, feelings, et cetera. I understand all the ethical dilemmas in favor of the procedure. Yes, women who are raped and impregnated, absolutely they have more reason than most to not want a child. Yes, a fetus that would be born with some horrible illness, it's better not to have it born at all. But what I have an ethical issue with is abortions performed with no special reason at all. Just that the mother willingly had sex, becomes pregnant, and chooses to destroy the pregnancy. That seems rather cruel and careless. Again, I don't want it to be legally prevented at all, that won't do anything to solve the problem. What I want, in my ideal world, is for abortion without a good reason to be socially stigmatized. Just as surely as you give people a bad look if they cut in line, I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that we should expect some basic responsibility from women who participate in consensual sex.

That's a problem you can have with taxation in general (not everyone wants libraries or roads to be built). It's not something you can pretend only exists with abortions.

That is very true, but I find it especially troubling with things like abortion, wars, and other morally controversial things.

Sure, many people would rather not have a public library built and don't want to pay for it. I'm fairly pro-market myself and if I had a choice not to pay for such unnecessary expenses, I sure as hell wouldn't. But I don't make a huge deal about it because in the long run, it's just a library and it doesn't honestly cost me much at all. I don't care about it other than in the "man taxes suck and democracy is a really bad system for determining what to spend public funds on" sense.

When it comes to war, I feel utterly hopeless about having no choice but to contribute to the murder of innocent people. It's not just the cost that matters, but the consequences. Even if the war only cost me a cent per year, I would complain about being forced to pay for it. Same with abortion, I find it morally troubling.

[–]birdwomanx0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]birdwomanx0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

that's assuming that giving out free birth control will completely solve the problem of unwanted teen pregnancy

Nobody assumes that. That's a strawman argument from you.

It is thought to just take a huge chunk out of the problem and reduce the numbers.

No kids who are about to have sex think "we shouldn't use condemns, they're too damn expensive." Birth control is pretty damn cheap already, and if they're not using it now, I highly doubt that the teen birth rates will decrease that much if it becomes free.

We're not just talking about condoms when we say birth control. Not just contraceptives. Abortion is a non-contraceptive form of birth control, for example.

I don't think that it will even be close to enough to solve the problem

It isn't supposed to absolutely solve the problem. It's supposed to solve a huge part of it and make it less impactful.

I don't feel like I should have to pay for someone else to have safe sex.

The problem is: you WILL end up paying for it, as a taxpayer, if it leads to the detriment of society. Such as paying higher tax dollars for police, welfare, insurance, etc.

[–]ImBloodyAnnoyed3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ImBloodyAnnoyed1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, so you support beheading women for going out alone at night in Saudi Arabia, because although you recognize that it is am imperfect solution, the world is imperfect and so then so be it.

No. But you are taking an argument ad absurdum.

On beheading and capital punishment generally: I think it's wrong and should be stopped, but I recognize that some countries will have capital punishment for a long time. Just because we have imperfect solutions, it does not mean that I cannot prefer one imperfect solution over another. In the same vein...

People should choose their partners very carefully. But even if they do, there will always be some who divorce. That does not make me against marriage.

Most conflicts can be avoided. Sadly, no matter how much you improve education and parenting, some people or governments will resort to violence. Does not mean that I believe that everyone should carry a gun.

No matter how much you improve the justice system, some innocent people will be jailed, some guilty ones will get away. Does not mean I support crime.

Yes, education and good parenting and schooling will reduce the amount of unwanted children. And that is what we should focus on. But there will always be unwanted children because some people are that irresponsible. And I, for one, am OK with my tax money being used for (for example) abortions. I understand that it is not the optimal solution, but once the problem exists, it is an (imperfect) problem we have to deal with using the (imperfect) solutions available to us for lack of having a time machine with which we could go back and prevent the problem from arising in the first place.

[–]AnAdultWoman3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tebbo2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnAdultWoman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

At the point the populace is willing to let the government decide

More accurately, the populace is okay with using someone else's money for their goals. There are certainly people willing to use their own money to help people, but that doesn't imply the government should, since it uses more than just their own money. If they want to help people with their own money, they can directly or through a charity.

Thus far, the population has been very leary of the government having that type of intrusive jurisdiction in their lives unless there are pretty dire circumstances.

Except that same population is okay with intrusive jurisdiction in forcing people to pay for things, and is okay with removing children from neglectful/abusive parents already.

And, what happens if I can afford the baby until s/he's born but suddenly during an economic downturn I can't. Do we adopt out 2 - 17 year olds?

Sounds like it would deter people from starting families too early.

[–]AnAdultWoman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

More accurately, the populace is okay with using someone else's money for their goals. There are certainly people willing to use their own money to help people, but that doesn't imply the government should, since it uses more than just their own money. If they want to help people with their own money, they can directly or through a charity.

As a society, we have made the choice to use other people's money to create a safety net for those who are unable (yes, or unwilling) to provide for themselves. I suppose it's because the majority of society doesn't want the government to decide they can't parent.

Except that same population is okay with intrusive jurisdiction in forcing people to pay for things, and is okay with removing children from neglectful/abusive parents already.

Yes, society is ok with a lot of things incarceration, death penalty, etc. once a crime has been committed. We don't imprison or kill people who we think might commit a crime. Similarly, we don't assume poor people can't raise children.

Sounds like it would deter people from starting families too early.

Sounds like it would be a judicial and societal nightmare.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnAdultWoman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Governments are made of people, so that's just hypocritical.

*edited to add: Governments are formed by societies which are formed by people. In this case we know which came first. If there were only 2 people in the US, we wouldn't need a government.

Ok. So some people (who ever is in charge) seems to think that subsidizing poor people is a good idea. I've seen calls for welfare reform but none for ending it out right.

The existence of welfare seems based on that assumption.

So, then, people who get welfare give up their children. I don't think you'll get society to buy it but it might work.

How is holding people responsible for their actions a societal nightmare?

Where to start... we already incarcerate more people than any other country. Prison recidivism is out of control so, as a social strategy, it seems like a failed experiment. But, from a privatized, capatalist viewpoint, it makes tons of sense and money.

We already have higher incidences of childhood mental illness (autism, ADHD) and are medicating children at a much higher rate. Now, conflation does not equal causation but it's a disturbing trend.

Finally, though there are many people that are willing to raise children that aren't theres (through adoption or even foster care) I don't think there are enough to cover the sheer number of children with needs.

In 2010, 22 percent of children ages 0–17 (16.4 million) lived in poverty. This is up from a low of 16 percent in 2000 and 2001. Consistent with expectations related to the economic downturn, child poverty has increased annually since 2006, when the rate was 17 percent. Source: http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/eco.asp

All that said, I don't really disagree with you. I WISH people would be more responsible but I just can't see how to get from here to there without a lot of human casualties. It'd work if you can stomach it.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ok. So some people (who ever is in charge) seems to think that subsidizing poor people is a good idea. I've seen calls for welfare reform but none for ending it out right.

Because people tend judge policies based on their intentions and not their results.

If you look at the portions of people in poverty, they only climb/remain stagnant when you expand welfare. Reductions in actual poverty come from economic growth, and taking money away from the economy is antithetical to that.

So, then, people who get welfare give up their children. I don't think you'll get society to buy it but it might work.

No I mean your objection is based on the assumption that the poor can't take care of their children, but welfare is based on the same assumption.

Where to start... we already incarcerate more people than any other country. Prison recidivism is out of control so, as a social strategy, it seems like a failed experiment. But, from a privatized, capatalist viewpoint, it makes tons of sense and money.

I think you misunderstand what capitalism entails, and prison recidivism is highest among those with shorter sentences.

Decriminalizing victimless crimes and punishing crimes that actually victimize people more harshly would be more effective.

We already have higher incidences of childhood mental illness (autism, ADHD) and are medicating children at a much higher rate. Now, conflation does not equal causation but it's a disturbing trend.

More welfare will not help that.

Finally, though there are many people that are willing to raise children that aren't theres (through adoption or even foster care) I don't think there are enough to cover the sheer number of children with needs.

Well maybe if it didn't take so long and didn't cost so much due to government policy more people would be willing and able to do it.z

I WISH people would be more responsible but I just can't see how to get from here to there without a lot of human casualties. It'd work if you can stomach it.

I'm okay with a rough transition period if it's better for everyone in the long run. I grew up poor, got a job at 15 and have been on unemployment temporarily later in my adult life. Believe me, unemployment incentivizes not looking for most employment, because it often means getting less money overall. I had saved and prepared while in the military so I had the option of going to school while looking for work, but most people don't have that option, and I would argue that expectation disincentivizes preparing for the future(as does social security, but that's another discussion).

The problem with these kinds of policies is confusing intention and result, which makes it politically unpalatable for anyone to ever regress in wages from that, despite the fact most people don't stay in the same income bracket for very long. Even among the rich and the poorest quintiles 40% are no longer in the upper/lower quintile, respectively, a decade later; people for the most part are very transient to begin wit, but politicians convince well meaning voters with snapshots of data and intentions over results.

Consider education costs in the country. What is the result of giving out more loans/grants? More people go to college; this means demand goes up, which if there is no increase in supply, price goes up. When prices go up people cry for more loans/grants/assistance, and a feedback loop occurs. Subsidization of decisions with taxpayer dollars distorts the entire industry, or even entire economy, and overall hurts the people most economically vulnerable the most in an eventually unsustainable model.

Unfortunately the only way to enforce responsibility to have them face the actual threat of those casualties and removing barriers such as the minimum wage and lack of school choice. You can't reasonably expect people to be consistently responsible if they don't bear the costs of their decisions.

[–]AnAdultWoman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because people tend judge policies based on their intentions and not their results.

What can we use as a basis for comparison? I can't think of a 1st world country willing to not subsidize the poor - and poor children.

If you look at the portions of people in poverty, they only climb/remain stagnant when you expand welfare. Reductions in actual poverty come from economic growth, and taking money away from the economy is antithetical to that.

Subsidies add money to the economy by giving it to poor people who go out and (hopefully) spend it on food/shelter/basic necessities.

No I mean your objection is based on the assumption that the poor can't take care of their children, but welfare is based on the same assumption.

Are you asserting that poor people can take care of their children without state subsidies or that they should?

I think you misunderstand what capitalism entails, and prison recidivism is highest among those with shorter sentences.

I don't misunderstand capitalism entails.. I just don't see how making more prisons and rewarding incarceration helps our society.

Of course people with shorter sentences reoffend more often. The ones with longer sentences are still in prison (possibly offending in there).

Well maybe if it didn't take so long and didn't cost so much due to government policy more people would be willing and able to do it.

I've no doubt it would encourage people to adopt/foster. However, I just don't see a large enough percentage of the population stepping up. Orphanages would be the most likely result.

I'm okay with a rough transition period if it's better for everyone in the long run.

Fair enough. I hope that if it happens - it waits till I'm gone.

The problem with these kinds of policies is confusing intention and result, which makes it politically unpalatable for anyone to ever regress in wages from that, despite the fact most people don't stay in the same income bracket for very long. Even among the rich and the poorest quintiles 40% are no longer in the upper/lower quintile, respectively, a decade later; people for the most part are very transient to begin wit, but politicians convince well meaning voters with snapshots of data and intentions over results.

I don't know how this relates unless you're suggesting the people below the poverty line keep bouncing in and out of that percentile.

Unfortunately the only way to enforce responsibility to have them face the actual threat of those casualties and removing barriers such as the minimum wage and lack of school choice. You can't reasonably expect people to be consistently responsible if they don't bear the costs of their decisions.

I disagree with you. Dissolving safety nets for people in need just breaks down the society by forcing more people into criminal behavior (society harmful). Not paying a living wage forces more people into criminal (societally harmful) behavior. Schools have limited resources - I taught at a State university for 6 years (ending in 2011) and it was hard to find rooms big enough for some of the classes - not to mention when 1 Instructor has 120 students grading and individual attention suffers.

You can't expect children to be reasonably responsible adults but they still need to be fed. As for the parents, all to often, they're still children. Taking them away and putting the children someplace else (ie. the arms of an adopting person(s) or an orphanage) doesn't seem to do anything to promote responsibility since all the parents need to do is grow another baby until the state stops taking them away.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What can we use as a basis for comparison? I can't think of a 1st world country willing to not subsidize the poor - and poor children.

Singapore does not have a robust safety net, and there is little poverty and unemployment is extremely low. It is one of the least regulated and economically free countries in the world. Only the very poorest of the poor are subsidized, but this seems to be people literally incapable of working.

Subsidies add money to the economy by giving it to poor people who go out and (hopefully) spend it on food/shelter/basic necessities.

It doesn't add money to the economy because the money either came the economy itself through taxes, or through borrowing which inevitably comes out of the economy to pay back.

Are you asserting that poor people can take care of their children without state subsidies or that they should?

Both, but another part of the issue is increasing barriers for them to be able to, which is due to government regulation, which oddly means the government is further forcing people into dependency by doing so.

I don't misunderstand capitalism entails.. I just don't see how making more prisons and rewarding incarceration helps our society.

I think we agree there; I think we should decriminalize all drugs, which will not only reduce incarceration for drug use/possession, but also reduce violent associated with conflict resolution in their black markets.

Of course people with shorter sentences reoffend more often. The ones with longer sentences are still in prison (possibly offending in there).

No I mean the portion that reoffend is larger among those with shorter sentences.

I've no doubt it would encourage people to adopt/foster. However, I just don't see a large enough percentage of the population stepping up. Orphanages would be the most likely result.

Who said it had to the US population? Making international adoption easier would help even more people.

Dissolving safety nets for people in need just breaks down the society by forcing more people into criminal behavior (society harmful)

Based on what? Crime goes up when there is less legitimate work available, so again it's about employment and not creating black markets.

Schools have limited resources - I taught at a State university for 6 years (ending in 2011) and it was hard to find rooms big enough for some of the classes - not to mention when 1 Instructor has 120 students grading and individual attention suffers.

That could easily be an issue of the school being wasteful with resources since they have no incentive to improve or the signal mechanism for improvement are perverse/distorted.

As for the parents, all to often, they're still children. Taking them away and putting the children someplace else (ie. the arms of an adopting person(s) or an orphanage) doesn't seem to do anything to promote responsibility since all the parents need to do is grow another baby until the state stops taking them away.

It's hard to pump out another baby when you're imprisoning them for neglect.

You say you want people to be more responsible, but you don't want to hold people accountable. You can't have it both ways.

Not paying a living wage forces more people into criminal (societally harmful) behavior.

No it doesn't. Increasing unemployment does, and the more expensive employees are the fewer that get hired.

[–]AnAdultWoman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Singapore does not have a robust safety net, and there is little poverty and unemployment is extremely low. It is one of the least regulated and economically free countries in the world. Only the very poorest of the poor are subsidized, but this seems to be people literally incapable of working.

Singapore is an excellent choice. I did not know much about it. Singapore also has 3 national health plans based on what you can afford to pay - which I'm assuming would cover free birth control pills to women who can't afford it.

In fact, they have whole public campaigns about limiting children you can't afford - almost too good since they're now trying to encourage population growth.

It doesn't add money to the economy because the money either came the economy itself through taxes, or through borrowing which inevitably comes out of the economy to pay back.

Ok, fair enough.

Who said it had to the US population? Making international adoption easier would help even more people.

I hadn't thought of that.

Based on what? Crime goes up when there is less legitimate work available, so again it's about employment and not creating black markets.

Ok, I exercised Google and discovered that what was thought in the 1960's has been countered by data from the last few years suggesting there is not causation between poverty and crime.

It's hard to pump out another baby when you're imprisoning them for neglect.

Maybe a public education program might be even more effective.

I see that I have some research to do :). I appreciate your time and effort to discuss this with me.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Singapore is an excellent choice. I did not know much about it. Singapore also has 3 national health plans based on what you can afford to pay - which I'm assuming would cover free birth control pills to women who can't afford it.

That's not quite what its healthcare plan is. It mandates people put a certain portion of their income into savings which they can use on their family or themselves(like insurance there's a pool, but a pool they decide who gets to take out of it since it's their money); it has a sliding scale of subsidization based on income but nothing is fully covered(and non-citizens are covered far less with a large portion like 40% of the population being non-citizens), and both public and private hospitals must compete with each other and among each other; yes the public hospitals must compete with other public hospitals.

Maybe a public education program might be even more effective.

I see that I have some research to do :). I appreciate your time and effort to discuss this with me.

No problem. I hope I didn't come off too zealous, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

[–]ENTP2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Volcris2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

When children are had by those who cannot afford them, they either become society's problem, or they die.

Err, no. That simply isn't true. There are myriad alternatives to "everyone pays for the problem" and "starvation". Your lack of imagination is not evidence of there being no other way.

The other alternative, is to pick a gender that tends to work longer and harder, force them to pay for it, and not give them any options about it's birth. What looks like the bad option now?

Right, exactly, the way child support is currently designed gives no incentive for women to choose men who are most likely to stay in a healthy long-term relationship and be able to provide. Instead, no matter how badly the relationship falls apart, the woman can terminate the pregnancy if she wants to, but if she chooses not to, she still gets money from the father.

But again, I don't see how putting all taxpayers in the position of separated fathers is a brilliant solution. If anything, it can only possibly incentivize poorer behavior.

I believe that people should be held responsible for their actions. Fuck me, right?

[–]Volcris0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Volcris0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Volcris1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Volcris1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Volcris1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A national policy should be a safety net that only kicks in when local policy fails. I'm not saying that what your saying can't work, but I am asking you how it would. Currently, if enough people volunteered to help the hungry, you should see far higher numbers of people using it nationally. The failure of this to be the case indicates either A. not enough people are aware of the service (in which case education needs to be provided by government or volunteers) or B. Not enough volunteers exist to fully provide the service.

In either case, because only 1 out of 5 who need food assistance get it from volunteer programs, I feel I am justified in saying that, at this time, volunteer programs fail to meet the national need. Without forcing more people to volunteer or government mandating education, how would you change this?

In my view, it is the goal of successful policy to account for the reality as it stands, and not to pursue normative that are untested. There are lots of policies that could work, but how do we prove which do? And what evidence do we have that yours does?

My preferred route, federal welfare, works not because I think it's a good system, but because it is not as bad as the alternatives I have been presented. The free market does not work, as the free market only responds to economic demand, and economic demand cannot come from some one without the resources to produce demand. This is why private healthcare, without regulation, often looks for legal ways to jettison those who prove to be too costly to be worth keeping on a plan. Relying on individual generosity alone also doesn't work, because there is a massive gap between the nation's need for food assistance and it's supply of volunteers and private donors.

If both the free market and private charity are both insufficient, what source is there besides government?

EDIT: also, those families receiving food assistance are successfully able to purchase food because of it. Most of the debate about the programs are not arguing that they do not stave off hunger, but argue that they are too generous in not providing enough reason to look for work. However, since 1996, these programs have come with heavy requirements including proof that employment is either currently possessed or heavily pursued.

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I can't help but be incredibly skeptical about how they're defining "requires food assistance". It isn't defined on that page.

In my view, it is the goal of successful policy to account for the reality as it stands, and not to pursue normative that are untested. There are lots of policies that could work, but how do we prove which do? And what evidence do we have that yours does?

Well, my solution doesn't require anyone to have guns pointed at their head, so... I tend to prefer the most voluntary solution whenever possible.

My preferred route, federal welfare, works not because I think it's a good system, but because it is not as bad as the alternatives I have been presented. The free market does not work, as the free market only responds to economic demand, and economic demand cannot come from some one without the resources to produce demand. This is why private healthcare, without regulation, often looks for legal ways to jettison those who prove to be too costly to be worth keeping on a plan. Relying on individual generosity alone also doesn't work, because there is a massive gap between the nation's need for food assistance and it's supply of volunteers and private donors. My preferred route, federal welfare, works not because I think it's a good system, but because it is not as bad as the alternatives I have been presented. The free market does not work, as the free market only responds to economic demand, and economic demand cannot come from some one without the resources to produce demand. This is why private healthcare, without regulation, often looks for legal ways to jettison those who prove to be too costly to be worth keeping on a plan. Relying on individual generosity alone also doesn't work, because there is a massive gap between the nation's need for food assistance and it's supply of volunteers and private donors.

We don't know this to be the case. Have you ever heard the phrase crowding out in terms of economy? The general idea, to explain it briefly, is that it makes no sense to compare private services to government services just by looking at a country where currently the government is providing a service alongside the market. The reason being that the government is actively crowding out the market. For example, if the government randomly decided to start giving out free pizza every week, you would probably find that a lot of pizzerias are closing down. Did the demand suddenly drop? No, of course not. But compared to an entity with essentially unlimited money that can afford to take a huge loss or give pizza away for free, there is no way the market can compete. Same thing is happening here. You can't fairly compare how many people currently use government services to get food, and then assert that in the absence of those services the charity would not at all increase.

[–]Volcris1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I know what you are saying, but you can't crowd out a charitable good. Charitable supply is not impacted by demand, it's impacted by brand recognition. As for crowding out a free market solution, again, the free market never provides for those without the resources to produce demand. Crowding out implies a situation where some one would otherwise select a superior good, but because they automatically pay for a government good through taxes, they default for the inferior government good. Now, mind you, shockingly enough a government good is not always inferior, in fact the government rarely performs notably worse then the market in terms of providing an efficient service. It also is implied that a person has the resources to choose if they were not crowded out, this model cannot apply to those without resources.

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As for crowding out a free market solution, again, the free market never provides for those without the resources to produce demand.

Yes, it does. All the time. That's what charity is. People donate their labor, their expertise, their money and resources to organizations that aim for goals they agree with and prove they are doing something to accomplish. Your definition of a market is far too narrow, and you're just asserting things about markets that you can't prove to be true. You're not even making an argument for why you think this is the case, you're just assuming it is.

Crowding out implies a situation where some one would otherwise select a superior good, but because they automatically pay for a government good through taxes, they default for the inferior government good.

Which is what happens now. People are already paying for welfare through taxes, so the average person assumes the problem is relatively dealt with and does nothing about poverty. Or even if that wasn't the case and people still care just as much, they have less money now to give to organizations of their choice.

Now, mind you, shockingly enough a government good is not always inferior, in fact the government rarely performs notably worse then the market in terms of providing an efficient service.

If monopolies or oligarchic cartels that form in markets are bad because they overcharge for an inferior product/service... why do you believe that the opposite is true when you call it a government?

[–]Volcris1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're not even making an argument for why you think this is the case, you're just assuming it is." "the average person assumes the problem is relatively dealt with and does nothing about poverty."

That's not true, and not substantiated by facts, which also are not provided in that argument.

If monopolies or oligarchic cartels that form in markets are bad because they overcharge for an inferior product/service... why do you believe that the opposite is true when you call it a government?

Because those both are profit maximizing firms, government does not maximize profit. The supply/demand curve for government expenditures is not the same.

I'm asserting things about the market that are defensible, charities do not face a demand constraint, their demand is perfectly inelastic. They are entirely driven by supply side economics, which means that without adequate backing, demand will not be in equilibrium and a market failure will occur.

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because those both are profit maximizing firms, government does not maximize profit. The supply/demand curve for government expenditures is not the same.

All that ignoring profit in the short-term does is sets up huge, insurmountable problems in the long-term. The governments take huge losses to pay for unsustainable products and services today, and tomorrow the money runs out and you have millions unemployed.

I'm asserting things about the market that are defensible, charities do not face a demand constraint, their demand is perfectly inelastic. They are entirely driven by supply side economics, which means that without adequate backing, demand will not be in equilibrium and a market failure will occur.

Supply is not a static thing. Neither the supply nor the demand are limited. You can believe they are if you want to, but that is incorrect. In a different country with less welfare spending, there is no good reason to believe people would stubbornly volunteer and donate only exactly the same amount as they did before.

[–]Guvante1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Guvante0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Guvante0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

People who take more from society than they give are burdens.

And I would say that someone who is on welfare as a child is not a burden by this definition.

Assume it takes $20,000 a year for a child to be brought up on welfare by the state. Assume that for they work full time at minimum wage for their working life.

The cost to the state is $360,000. Their wages are $15,000 per year. The revenue generated by that person is $50,000 assuming the typical cost of employees at 30%. At 9% sales tax and 10% income tax, that is $6,000 per year to the state.

If they retire at 78 they have cost the state nothing overall.

You could do some better math by considering the real cost of child support programs, combining in the real expected wages, expected costs as an adult, and chances of survival, but I would doubt that the state loses on average from the program. You would probably also want to consider what happens if you don't support them.

Now realize that on top of all this, the net benefit to society is significantly higher than what the state receives in taxes, and you will realize that allowing a child to survive is a good decision.

That isn't to say that the programs are perfect, but saying they are fundamentally flawed is silly.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The cost to the state is $360,000. Their wages are $15,000 per year. The revenue generated by that person is $50,000 assuming the typical cost of employees at 30%.

I'm not sure that 30% is accurate. Labor is often cited as the largest or majority of costs to production.

At 9% sales tax and 10% income tax, that is $6,000 per year to the state.

There is no federal sales tax, but I'm not sure how you got this number to begin with.

If they retire at 78 they have cost the state nothing overall.

Except not many people work 60 years straight, and anyone who dies before that point meant it was at a loss for the state.

Now realize that on top of all this, the net benefit to society is significantly higher than what the state receives in taxes, and you will realize that allowing a child to survive is a good decision.

What net benefit are you talking about here?

That isn't to say that the programs are perfect, but saying they are fundamentally flawed is silly.

If you destroy wealth, distort the economic incentives and subsidize wasteful/irresponsible activity, I would call that fundamentally flawed.

[–]Guvante2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Labor is often cited as the largest or majority of costs to production.

And production workers don't make minimum wage.

What net benefit are you talking about here?

The money going into and out of the state is not the net economic benefit of the member of society.

For instance say I make a widget that sells for $5 at a retail store. The materials and overhead cost $2.5, I was paid $0.50, and the retail store has $1 worth of costs. I have benefited society at least $1 in profit for the production company and the retail store. Additionally I provided an avenue for the miscelanious costs, providing value to those who provide them. Finally since the end user purchased the product they got at least that much utility from it (in the vast majority of cases, sometimes they don't but that is an outlier situation) so they also benefits.

Overall even though I am only paid $0.50 I created $2-4 worth of benefit to society.

If you destroy wealth

Wait what? Where did that come from? All of the money that is goes to helping kids goes back into the economy as kids require lots of upkeep. Definitely not destroying anything.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And production workers don't make minimum wage.

I'm referring to goods and services in general. If anything the service sector has a greater portion of their costs in labor.

Wait what? Where did that come from? All of the money that is goes to helping kids goes back into the economy as kids require lots of upkeep. Definitely not destroying anything.

The tracking, acquisition, and dissemination of tax revenue is not free. That is where the destruction of wealth comes from.

The key problem is treating all spending as equal; It's not. You're right in how wealth is generated, but that's due to the subjective value theory, which requires voluntary transactions to generate wealth. Targeting spending via taxes is anything but voluntary, and the velocity of money can only increase with increased productivity. Taking money out of the economy and putting it back in over and over isn't increasing productivity.

[–]Guvante1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm referring to goods and services in general. If anything the service sector has a greater portion of their costs in labor.

It reduces but does not eliminate the economic benefit of workers. I notice how you ignored my example. Even with the wage and material costs switched the benefit to others is equal to the benefit to the worker in my example.

That is where the destruction of wealth comes from.

Destruction of wealth does not occur when money changes hands. You keep describing situations where money changes hands. Destruction of wealth happens when a good is worth less due to a change.

Taking money out of the economy and putting it back in over and over isn't increasing productivity.

Improving the living status of children who didn't chose to be there improves their chances of becoming productive members of society. How is that bad for the economy?

The only way your logic holds up is if you believe the average member of society lowers the overall value of society. If that is your viewpoint than there is no way to make macroeconomics work.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Destruction of wealth does not occur when money changes hands. You keep describing situations where money changes hands. Destruction of wealth happens when a good is worth less due to a change.

It changes hands forcibly. Unless you're advocating for an objective theory of value, forcible exchanges cannot be said to be mutually beneficial, and at least the labor theory of value ignores numerous microeconomic principles.

Improving the living status of children who didn't chose to be there improves their chances of becoming productive members of society. How is that bad for the economy?

That's a qualitative question. A cost/benefit analysis is required, and you can't just aggregate everything.

You're also focusing on what is seen, and not what is unseen. Subsidizing poor decisions increases the chances of them happening. You're shifting the costs of those decisions disproportionately onto others, which itself is arguably unethical, but also distorts the economy itself.

The only way your logic holds up is if you believe the average member of society lowers the overall value of society.

It doesn't need be the average member to be a burden. That's just aggregating data and masking numerous things. All that matters if enough people are burden to not justify the cost of subsidizing those decisions.

If that is your viewpoint than there is no way to make macroeconomics work.

Of course there is. If there are enough productive people it can still "work", but then you have them bearing the costs of others decisions disproportionately, and others bearing the benefits of others work disproportionately. By "working" that in this sense it just means there are enough people to pick up the slack, but it doesn't mean it's working as good as it could be. Collective responsibility incentivizes individual irresponsibility.

[–]Guvante1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Subsidizing poor decisions increases the chances of them happening.

I challenge this statement. I don't think financial child support creates any additional kids. The time investment required of the parent is more than enough to discourage any such behavior.

forcible exchanges cannot be said to be mutually beneficial

I do not choose whether I pay tax on gasoline, but I would gladly pay a lot more than I pay to that tax to have the level of road quality that it pays for. That would be mutually beneficial.

you can't just aggregate everything.

Why not? I am sure people have done analysis as to the quality of life improvements that the program brings. Combine that with how much productivity the average member gets from that quality of life improvement and you will see what productivity the overall system receives thanks to that payment.

Note that a significant amount of the overall benefit is received by the receiver in this case, but so long as the total of the benefits outweigh the costs it makes sense for the government to allocate funding to perform this task.

On a singleton basis you will find lots of people who don't benefit from the program, but I would bet even a sampling of 1000 people would find the program did a net positive to the group.

bearing the costs of others decisions disproportionately

This is only correct if you assume your point about incentive's. Society as a whole has to pay for some mistakes, this would be one of them. Either society has to pay or the child does.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I challenge this statement. I don't think financial child support creates any additional kids. The time investment required of the parent is more than enough to discourage any such behavior.

I think you're looking at it backwards. The time investment is there regardless of child support so you need to look at someone's willingness to have a child whether they know they'll get support or not, but let's say suddenly you don't need the time investment as much and child care is provided? More people will have kids.

I do not choose whether I pay tax on gasoline, but I would gladly pay a lot more than I pay to that tax to have the level of road quality that it pays for. That would be mutually beneficial.

Yes you do. You choose to purchase gasoline. You choose to use the roads.

Why not?

Because economics is about individual decisions.

I am sure people have done analysis as to the quality of life improvements that the program brings. Combine that with how much productivity the average member gets from that quality of life improvement and you will see what productivity the overall system receives thanks to that payment.

That might be argument that people getting help are better off; it is not an argument for any source of revenue to be ethical or the most efficient way of achieving that.

On a singleton basis you will find lots of people who don't benefit from the program, but I would bet even a sampling of 1000 people would find the program did a net positive to the group.

Except welfare can go away when you improve your station even a little, and the job market is more volatile than getting a check like clockwork, so people's incentives regarding risk are altered. It creates dependency, and pays people to fail. That's not its intention, but that's generally what happens.

Society as a whole has to pay for some mistakes

Why?

Either society has to pay or the child does.

Not really. Make the individual pay, and if the individual cannot support the child on their own, then take the child away to someone who can. It also doesn't preclude charity, so people who want to help with their own money-not someone else's-can also do so.

[–]Guvante1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not really. Make the individual pay, and if the individual cannot support the child on their own, then take the child away to someone who can.

That is more expensive and worse for the child.

Yes you do. You choose to purchase gasoline. You choose to use the roads.

I only chose roads because the benefit is obvious. We both know there are plenty of mandatory things that provide more benefit than are paid out.

I think you're looking at it backwards.

I was focusing on the first child. I would agree that multiple kids provide odd incentives that need to be considered.

Why?

Because the child is in the society.

Because economics is about individual decisions.

Microeconomics. Macroeconomics is about the gross results of changes to policy. This is certainly macroeconomics.

It creates dependency, and pays people to fail.

That is general welfare, a different topic. Although I will agree it is hard to separate the two in reality.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That is more expensive and worse for the child.

How is it more expensive, and how is it worse for the child to be put into a home that can support them better?

I only chose roads because the benefit is obvious. We both know there are plenty of mandatory things that provide more benefit than are paid out.

Not for everyone, except that which is both non-rivalrous and non-excludable, which basically limits it to national defense and police.

Because the child is in the society.

So? Society as a whole didn't bring the child into society.

Microeconomics. Macroeconomics is about the gross results of changes to policy. This is certainly macroeconomics.

Aggregation often masks the incentives of those individual choices, and distorts value signaling.

That is general welfare, a different topic. Although I will agree it is hard to separate the two in reality.

Promoting the general welfare does not mean providing for it. It just means creating an environment that promotes it, and forcing people to bear the costs of their own decisions(and not others') and reap the rewards of their own accomplishments(and not others') promotes a minimization of waste, which promotes the general welfare. The less waste there is, the lower the cost and higher the quality of living.

[–]tyciol2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Guvante0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Skyrmir0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Skyrmir1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]b0w3n0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]b0w3n-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not insulting you, you're the one insulting your own intellect by repeating false dichotomies. The lack of imagination thing isn't an insult, it's a commonly understood fallacy called the argument from incredulity, also known as the argument from ignorance. The most common cliché example of this is a creationist arguing that evolution is impossible because the creationist making the argument is incapable of imagining that all forms of life, including trees and humans and whales, developed from simpler forms of life over time. Just a bit of advice: If you take basic criticism as insult, you are not going to get far in life.

Anyway, just to throw out a couple examples, not to prove that any of these alternatives are anywhere near ideal but just to demonstrate that you are actually wrong by assuming there are only two possibilities. Children of unwanted parents could be in all cases where the parents are unable to support the child, removed from their custody. Obviously right now this is a very bad solution, given the state of the system as it is. But purely theoretically, I see no reason why this shouldn't be the case. By having children they can't support, parents are proving themselves incapable of being parents. Their children are basically orphans.

Also just to point out how dumb it is to create weak false dichotomies. If a woman gets knocked up, the father leaves, and she can't support her child, what happens? Many times, if she still has a decent relationship with her family, her parents will raise the child. Everyone just bombarded me with "SO YOU WANT KIDS TO STARVE IN THE STREET?!". No, no I fucking don't. There are better ways for society to care for unwanted children, and incentivizing an epidemic of irresponsibility is not going to cure the problem.

[–]b0w3n0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]silverionmox0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Guy_Who_Hates_Verbs2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IHaveALargePenis1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnAdultWoman6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If its my body and it affects me to such a huge degree that pregnancy affects a womans body and I choose to have unprotected sex, I would be extremely stupid to make sure someone else doesnt get me pregnant. I have to take steps to protect myself. I'm not great with analogies, but a bar tender will probably serve me enough alcohol to almost put me in hospital before he tells me I've had enough, but its my responsibility to look after my health by not drinking even if he can keep giving it to me. Its not his fault if I miss an important job interview or even become an alcoholic, because even if you accept he does have some responsibility too, its still my responsibility to protect myself and not rely on others to do that for me.

And when women have a myriad of different ways to have practically complete reversible control over their reproduction, while men only really have condoms, if we also include the fact that its happening to a woman's body and not the mans, they should actually be shouldering more of the responsibility for their OWN pregnancy than men are.

Birth control protects both parties

But only women have the power and can have a "whoops forgot to take it! or "whoops!, didnt work this time!" moment. Whether it was malicious or a true accident, men need to take responsibility for what is going to affect them too, and if they choose to have sex they are taking a big risk having sex without a condom because as regulars on this sub know, women have 100% of the power when it comes to this. While the laws may be unfair and still correctable in relation to this for men, while female's biology is not, men cant just do whatever they want anyway. They need to rely on themselves and hold themselves responsible for what is going to affect them.

Oh and FYI the part of my last post in italics is a paraphrase of the argument put forth by CadillacRainbows, you know the one thats got over 80 upvotes.

[–]AnAdultWoman2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If its my body and it affects me to such a huge degree that pregnancy affects a womans body and I choose to have unprotected sex, I would be extremely stupid to make sure someone else doesnt get me pregnant. I have to take steps to protect myself.

Then, making those steps easier would be a Good Idea(tm)?

Besides, just having bc in your cabinet doesn't help anyone if it's not used. More on that below.

And when women have a myriad of different ways to have practically complete reversible control over their reproduction, while men only really have condoms, if we also include the fact that its happening to a woman's body and not the mans, they should be shouldering more of the responsibility for getting pregnant by "mistake" than men are.

Also true, I think that since women's bc is more effective I'd want to do everything to ensure responsible use.

But only women have the power and can have a "whoops forgot to take it! or "whoops!, didnt work this time!" moment.

Making bc free and available has no impact on people's ability to use it correctly. Education is important.

Whether it was malicious or a true accident

If it was malicious, if the woman wanted to get pregnant by a certain man, then all the birth control in the world for the woman isn't going to help. Then, you need birth control for men.

Would you mind if free, effective (pill/shot) birth control were offered to men, too?

men cant just do whatever they want anyway.

Adults can't just do whatever, whenever, anyway. Sex has it's attendant risks -- STD's, pregnancy, stalker acquisition ....

Oh and FYI the part of my post in italics is a paraphrase of the argument put forth by CadillacRainbows, you know the one thats got over 70 upvotes.

Sometimes it really matters how you say what you mean.

[–]theskepticalidealist2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Then, making those steps easier would be a Good Idea(tm)?

I didn't say I necessarily disagreed with the idea. CadillacRainbows presented a sound economic argument on the assumption that the cost of free birth control outweighs the burden of unwanted pregnancies on tax payers/government. I was responding to your reaction to me saying women "get themselves pregnant" as if its somehow 50/50, when thats really a very superficial outlook.

If it was malicious, if the woman wanted to get pregnant by a certain man, then all the birth control in the world for the woman isn't going to help. Then, you need birth control for men.

Quite true, but talking about mens responsibility and womans responsibilities in pregnancy are different. Women have much more of a biological issue, its their body, they need to protect themselves and they have a myrad of options to allow them to have 100% control over that. Men on the other hand have very serious legal ramifications in the event of a pregnancy. Now whether its right or unfair for men to have to have so little power and rights over their reproduction doesnt really matter when it comes to this. Men knowing how the system is need to take responsibility themselves and it doesnt matter if he ends up with a women and an unwanted pregnancy and it being a mistake or malicious, they cant just act as if the system is different. And women need to accept that its their own bodies and today they have in the end 100% responsibility for getting pregnant both legally and medically. Before we had so much birth control, the figure would have been less, but still the woman that chooses to have sex is more to blame if there is an unwanted pregnancy since she chose to subject her body to that risk.

Would you mind if free, effective (pill/shot) birth control were offered to men, too?

Only if you could show a sound economic reason for it complete with figures, which you may well be able to do I dont know. If you couldn't, then I would say no and if you want to have sex you need to pay for it. I am for the idea of a national health service here in the UK, because I believe its benefits lead to economic growth more than not having it.

Sometimes it really matters how you say what you mean.

I thought it was obvious in my wording and formatting. I guess people sometimes kneejerk.

[–]AnAdultWoman2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I was responding to your reaction to me saying women "get themselves pregnant" as if its somehow 50/50, when thats really a very superficial outlook.

Women don't get themselves accidentally pregnant. Short of using a sperm donor she's just as prone to human error as men are.

Quite true, but talking about mens responsibility and womans responsibilities in pregnancy are different. Women have much more of a biological issue, its their body, they need to protect themselves and they have a myrad of options to allow them to have 100% control over that.

This I agree with except the 100% part. Birth control does have a failure rate.

Men on the other hand have very serious legal ramifications in the event of a pregnancy.

And, women don't have legal and economic consequences to pregnancy?

And women need to accept that its their own bodies and today they have in the end 100% responsibility for getting pregnant both legally and medically.

I still argue with the 100% responsibility. Though she certainly has more choices than men have which should change.

but still the woman that chooses to have sex is more to blame if there is an unwanted pregnancy since she chose to subject her body to that risk.

Under that reasoning, men who don't want to play legal Russian roulette with pregnancy should be 100% abstinent, too.

I thought it was obvious in my wording and formatting. I guess people sometimes kneejerk.

It wasn't obvious to me. I apologize for I falsly characterizing you.

I suppose that my real point is that pregnancy, reproduction, and children are both a men's issue and a woman's issue. It doesn't really make sense to focus all the power, all the control, and all the blame in one gender. I don't think it would be male friendlier that way - do you?

Pregnancy, reproduction and children are also a societal issue. We want healthy, well cared for, and stable children for ongoing generations. Once again, I'd like to see a more balanced approach and right now, it is swayed towards the woman. I just don't see how men would even consider abandoning the fight and walking away would be acceptable (or even desireable) to men.

tl;dr I don't think pregnancy can ever be a 100% w/regard to either gender's rights. I think both genders must have a place at the table w/regard to negotiating what happens.

[–]theskepticalidealist2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women don't get themselves accidentally pregnant. Short of using a sperm donor she's just as prone to human error as men are.

Its not about errors, its about responsibility and how many choices a woman has regarding her reproduction. You're quite right in that women don't "get themselves pregnant", they choose to have sex knowing the risks without taking adequate precautions to protect themselves despite having a plethora of options to choose from. A genuine mistake isnt the same thing as "get themselves pregnant", but if I have plenty of options to protect myself and choose to undertake a risky activity that I know will have a profound affect on my body let alone life anyway and get hurt, then really I'm "getting myself hurt".

This I agree with except the 100% part. Birth control does have a failure rate.

True true. But its so negligible its not worth thinking about. If you're worried your pill isnt enough, take it in combination with one or more of the others like condoms, cervical cap, diaphragm, IUD, implants, patches. Etc. In the end they can still take emergency contraception or have an abortion. They have complete control over reproduction, both medically and lawfully. Thats pretty much 100%, any mitigating factors isn't too relevant

And, women don't have legal and economic consequences to pregnancy?

Not like men do. Women can cheat on their husbands or even boyfriends (and through slightly different circumstances) legally force her partner to pay child support even if its proven they arent the biological father, due to presumed fathers laws. There's even been cases where men have been forced to pay child support when sperm was "stolen" from them, even one case where a woman saved sperm from oral sex and they never even had sex. So yes, I'd say men have more legal and economic consequences to consider. But its not about whats worse here, its about how does this affect ME, whether you are the man or the woman. It doesnt matter how bad it affects her, or how little it affects her, at the end of the day you know how its going to affect you and you need to take responsibility for that. If you want to go rock climbing with someone and they are really good and don't need to use a harness and other safety gear, that doesn't mean you don't need to if you're at more of a risk, you need to protect yourself.

It wasn't obvious to me. I apologize for I falsly characterizing you.

I just find it interesting that the original poster gets over 80 upvotes and I say the exact same thing in a slightly different way and gets downvotes as if it was different, haha

I suppose that my real point is that pregnancy, reproduction, and children are both a men's issue and a woman's issue. It doesn't really make sense to focus all the power, all the control, and all the blame in one gender. I don't think it would be male friendlier that way - do you?

You're right it is a mens and womans issue, but not the way typically presented and not for the reasons people tend to think it is. When a woman gets pregnant, that responsibility for that pregnancy isnt 50/50, especially not today. (in the way I have described)

I don't think pregnancy can ever be a 100% w/regard to either gender's rights. I think both genders must have a place at the table w/regard to negotiating what happens.

That much we agree on

[–]AnAdultWoman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're quite right in that women don't "get themselves pregnant", they choose to have sex knowing the risks without taking adequate precautions to protect themselves despite having a plethora of options to choose from.

Fair enough. There are vastly more options for women than men - something I hope to see rectified in my lifetime.

There's even been cases where men have been forced to pay child support when sperm was "stolen" from them, even one case where a woman saved sperm from oral sex and they never even had sex.

As I said above, if a woman has her sights set on your genes and she's prepared to do just about anything to do it (including rape) then you have little opportunity to thwart her. The law is not on your side about this behavior. But I think this type of relentless pursuit is rare enough not to be a standard that we have to control for in larger society.

When a woman gets pregnant, that pregnancy isnt actually 50/50, especially not today. (in the way I have described)

Once a pregnancy occurs it is 100% the woman (assuming the man is not willing to 'do anything' to prevent the birth of the child) who controls the situation. I wish people were more upfront about the possibility of pregnancy prior to sex - as much of a buzzkill as it might be - because then so many of these situations might be avoided.

[–]Tebbo99 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kencabbit15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Raenryong6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]whitehat511-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kencabbit2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]whitehat5110 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kencabbit2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

and it appears you haven't.

How do you come to that conclusion? I didn't speak on the issue. Why even suggest the possibility?

I used to be a feminist. Of course I've considered the possibility. But even asking me the question suggests that you thought it a likely explanation, which doesn't make any sense in the context of what I actually said. If you follow the discussion you might see that I actually agree that women should have birth control covered, for free even.

What I have a problem with is people bringing up misogyny as if that's all you need to say to counter the opposition and confirm your own stance as correct.

edit: That you actually responded to the question about racism suggests that you might have missed the point of the question. It was an inappropriate question to ask, did not follow from the discussion, and you had no reason to actually respond to it.

edit: Example -- "I think an unborn child is a human life, and ending that life is murder.. I can't morally support abortion rights." -> "Why are you waging a war on women?"

[–]whitehat5111 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is NOT an inappropriate question. You were working off the assumption that you couldn't be misogynistic, which is not necessarily the case, and it is seems more likely to me you might be one if a feminist is calling you one. And yes, in this case, whether or not you are being misogynistic is the end of the discussion of whether or not you are being a misogynist.

I'm not defending the argument that being misogynistic or having someone accuse you of it completely discredits whatever you're saying, in fact I never took a position on that issue (yet you are attacking me for it).

I just don't see why MRAs can't get their points across without decrying feminism. If you guys want to calmly and clearly explain with evidence that you think men are treated poorly by society, you can do that. You can even say feminism causes it in some cases, but to simply make posts about how feminism is evil and how it's the cause of all problems completely utterly discredits you in the same way as feminists lose all credibility when they say men are the root of all evil and are all likely rapists (but the difference is that seems to be the extreme in their case, while it seems normal here on MensRights).

[–]kencabbit2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You were working off the assumption that you couldn't be misogynistic

No, I wasn't. Why do you think this is the case?

and it is seems more likely to me you might be one if a feminist is calling you one.

And I'm forced to point out that in the context of this discussion I agree with the feminist on the issue, and I'm let down that the feminist is calling somebody else a misogynist instead of debating the relevant points on their merits.

And yes, in this case, whether or not you are being misogynistic is the end of the discussion of whether or not you are being a misogynist.

Right.. but what if the discussion is about whether or not a policy is fair and good? If you want to say that opposition to a certain position is misogyny, then fine -- but substantiate it. Show it, and argue the points. Framing the opposition as a woman hater and making that the thrust of your disagreement with them isn't treating the issue honestly.

I just don't see why MRAs can't get their points across without decrying feminism.

When the points have nothing to do with feminism, they occasionally do. But for the points that are specifically criticizing feminist theory and its impact on education and policy... well, of course we're going to criticize feminism as that is the point.

If you guys want to calmly and clearly explain with evidence that you think men are treated poorly by society, you can do that.

And it's done here, on a regular basis -- but all of this seems completely nonsequitur to the discussion up until now. You're just going on a rant about this subreddit at this point without any pretense of engaging in discussion... so we're done talking, I think.

[–]whitehat511-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kencabbit0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]whitehat5111 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kencabbit0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]whitehat5110 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kencabbit0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]whitehat5111 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kencabbit0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jonas223XC11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EleisonJoy4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnAdultWoman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wallsie-12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]32koala2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]32koala0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]32koala1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wallsie-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]32koala0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wallsie0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]32koala0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wallsie0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Beatsters2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]whitehat5115 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tebbo-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]whitehat5113 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dschuk-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]onetenth19 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Logicmancer8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]metsakutsa5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]revokatt3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hardwarequestions3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dukec3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They're working on it.

I don't know too much about actual pills for guys to take, but the thing with that is that it's really hard to make a man infertile without just shutting down his testosterone production, which is just a bit of a bad thing health wise, and would nullify the purpose for the pill in the first place because it would kill your libido

There's also RISUG, which hits the front page of various subreddits about once a month. RISUG involves injecting a compound into your vas deferens (the tubes that come out of your testicles, and deliver semen), which molecularly rips apart sperm that pass it by doing something sciencey. This process theoretically lasts at least 10 years, is very effective, outpatient, very cheap, easily reversible, etc. There are some complications that have been brought up in pasts threads on it, I'm too lazy to look them up though. It's in human trials in India at the moment, but it isn't very far along the process in the US, so don't look for it anytime soon.

[–]im_not_bovvered2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dukec1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tb0n3-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tb0n31 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tb0n31 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tb0n31 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]opgrop21 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lightfiend3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]opgrop4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kuonji3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]opgrop1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kuonji13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Curebores13 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]whitehat5118 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kuonji1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]broken_cogwheel9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]broken_cogwheel1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn't say anything about government except for the last caveat... so you can keep your projections to yourself.

Also, as anyone who has lived with socialized medical care, they can tell you that it is far from perfect... but the benefits in most systems vastly outweighs the downsides.

Lastly, we already are paying for those who can't pay for themselves, except those who can't pay for themselves are consuming extremely costly emergency services instead of preventative or normal care levels that those with health care (my healthcare, personally, is excellent.) already enjoy.

Most important note of all: I am not trying to convince you. Bluntly put, if you don't understand to societal and economic value of providing healthcare on a state or nationwide front--and why that value is vastly greater than what we currently have--then I'm afraid there is little hope of understanding by a simple reddit post on the matter. What is most important to me is not that every person in the united states is healthy, it is that 1) people are not bound to their employer for their health, which gets complicated if your significant other also relies on you for health care. 2) that for reasons completely beyond one's control, they are not financially destroyed and can eventually live a normal life--that is, someone between jobs gets cancer after their previous employer's healthcare ran out (if they had it.)

[–]amatorfati0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn't say anything about government except for the last caveat... so you can keep your projections to yourself.

It's not about what you directly said, it's what is implied. If I say "that is a really nice house", all I'm doing is saying a particular house is nice. But the assumptions necessary to make such an assertion are that there are qualities that houses can have that make them look nice, and that this particular house has those qualities.

You're saying that something "should be" the system, and for you to assert that as anything more than mere opinion (that ice cream "should be" chocolate because chocolate is my favorite), that requires premises that may or may not be true. And to your particular assertion, these premises necessarily involve axioms about the proper role of government, ethics, and economics.

Lastly, we already are paying for those who can't pay for themselves, except those who can't pay for themselves are consuming extremely costly emergency services instead of preventative or normal care levels that those with health care (my healthcare, personally, is excellent.) already enjoy.

I don't disagree that we already subsidize healthcare to a large degree. However, my disagreement is with that status quo also. Simply because something is currently present is not evidence that more of that something is preferable.

[–]broken_cogwheel1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not about what you directly said, it's what is implied. If I say "that is a really nice house", all I'm doing is saying a particular house is nice. But the assumptions necessary to make such an assertion are that there are qualities that houses can have that make them look nice, and that this particular house has those qualities.

While true, I specifically said otherwise to clear up any implications I made or others may have thought I made. So I don't see the point of you argument.

You're saying that something "should be" the system, and for you to assert that as anything more than mere opinion (that ice cream "should be" chocolate because chocolate is my favorite), that requires premises that may or may not be true. And to your particular assertion, these premises necessarily involve axioms about the proper role of government, ethics, and economics.

The reason I say it should be is for social imperative. There are a myriad of solutions to the problem of healthcare in the generic and specific. Single payer is, to my knowledge, the best option. If you have evidence to show why it is not, then be my guest.

You can argue against my assertion, but claiming that my assertion is improper (I have yet to read any argument that my assertion is false) -- you're not making any point. Feel free to make one or not, but until you do my assertion stands.

I don't disagree that we already subsidize healthcare to a large degree. However, my disagreement is with that status quo also. Simply because something is currently present is not evidence that more of that something is preferable.

See above. Best obtainable solution in the short term. Compromise is an integral part to working as a social group.

The problems are all multifaceted. The biggest issue with health care is that it costs an insane amount of money and is the leading cause for debt and bankruptcy in the country -- I mean, no wonder we don't have a healthy economy when people can't spend money because they're broke as shit. This leads to socioeconomic downturn for a large number of Americans. Lower socioeconomic status is the single most important metric for quality of life.

Last note: The status quo is rarely agreeable, but unfortunately we're limited by it in many ways. I argue for the path most rational.

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The reason I say it should be is for social imperative. There are a myriad of solutions to the problem of healthcare in the generic and specific. Single payer is, to my knowledge, the best option. If you have evidence to show why it is not, then be my guest.

Social, social, social.

Again, what you're talking about is the ethical nature of what "should be" done, and to make an ethical argument, you must make assumptions, justified or unjustified, about some theory of ethics. So, people like you who generally value altruism and believe it to be more or less what is "moral", believe that what should be done in terms of social decisions is to promote giving to others whenever possible.

People like me who believe what matters most in ethics is choice and responsibility come to very different conclusions. We too care about the social imperative, but we have fundamentally different understandings of what is best to achieve what goal. You don't get to claim the social imperative for yourself.

(I have yet to read any argument that my assertion is false)

The burden of proof is on you. You're the one proposing an ethical necessity. You said "should be", not me. I could be a total nihilist for all you know.

I argue for the path most rational.

And yet when I respectfully criticize elements of your logic and try to show you step by step where you might consider revising your conclusions, I get downvoted. I don't like this game. I have generally found that the people most in a hurry to call themselves rational are probably the least.

[–]broken_cogwheel1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Guvante1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]millstone6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pocketknifeMT3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]amatorfati1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CertusAT3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnAdultWoman2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CertusAT1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnAdultWoman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CertusAT1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's only our reality because we make it our reality. There are other solutions.

I pay a lot of taxes on average, probably enough to support another human, in full. In fact, i have no problem with that, i believe that we should care for the poorest members of our society.

But, if you do something you are responsible for it. So either abort or care for it yourself, if you can not fully support your child it will be taken away and given to a family that can. Done. There are a lot of caring, loving, financily and emoti9onaly stabel families that want adoption, why not give them a chance instead of support a person that:

can't responsible prevent pregnancy, doesn't have the courage to abort, doesn't have the financial to actually care for the child

i know it sounds harsh and it is, but i don't give a fuck because it is only harsh to the person that actually made the mistake. if the child is born it will be placed in a family that can actually support it and doesn't just drain taxes.

[–]AnAdultWoman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's only our reality because we make it our reality. There are other solutions.

Look, if we can't agree to talk about actual reality, then I don't think the discussion will be fruitful. A logical construction that relies on a false premise is trivially judged to be true.

Other solutions most certainly do exist - some more palatable than others. But, right now, biological parents have a much stronger claim to their children. What are the steps that would need to be taken to convince the majority (in the US) that voiding that biological bond (without the biological parent's permission )can be beneficial? Sure, we already do it in the foster system so maybe there's a model but, last I looked, that wasn't working out very well, either.

At the very least, if you're talking about alternate solutions that aren't reality but could be, you should be able to outline the realistic steps to get there.

[–]CertusAT1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]keeponthesunnyside1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CertusAT1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]keeponthesunnyside1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CertusAT1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MuFoxxa2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MuFoxxa1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dschuk1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]stompsfrogs1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnAdultWoman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Skyrmir1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vishtr1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]marauding-lunatic1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LAMFF1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]silverionmox1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	Federal funded birth control
Author	Dschuk
Upvotes	216
Comments	234
Date	January 31, 2013 3:40 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/17lw3t/federal-funded-birth-control/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/federal-funded-birth-control.1605226 https://theredarchive.com/post/1605226

Comments