Question

[JayDubya]

I would favor all men who have intercourse and ejacuates sperm in a woman must report each event to a government agency. And if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy that she can request the man be legally punished, including prison and a fine equal to the cost of forcing the woman to gestate for 9 months, give birth, and all cost she would pay for raising the child to adulthood. If he can't pay then the taxpayers will be forced to, which is often the case now.

That work for you?

:screwy

 

[Lursa]

I am unAmerican. I am even unWestern. I think our whole culture is built upon an unstable foundation. But, for the record, I am not anti-American.

Yes, and that is how it was intended, as not 'anti-'.

How can a regime, who's foundation is individual freedom, require more from it's people?

By making them be more responsible for themselves and their lives and by holding them accountable.

I don't think it can. I think it must progress from worshiping the freedom of the individual to embracing the freedom of the community. The leviathan is the subject of politics, and the strength of the leviathan is determined by it's members. Citizens are not isolated individuals, but all our actions effect every single person.

And you dont explain how this force and coercion will take place and how you can prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority. If people want to reduce people of color in the country or state, they can just reinstitute bans in interracial marriage, for example.

Tyranny, force, coercion, all keep people immature, dependent, less and less capable of taking care of themselves, making decisions, taking responsibility. And if the individuals are weak, so will the society be. Individuals are the foundation and diversity is what makes pretty much everything in the natural world stronger. IMO this is true for society too...culturally, industrially, inventively, creatively, cooperatively, etc.

 

[Lursa]

Could? Sure, but what I've said prior rules this out.

I missed how the tyranny of the majority would be avoided. What was it?

The community should coerce the good. Tyranny, racism, religious nutcases, etc, are not good and should not coerce. They should be coerced to change or be removed.

Sure it should. But why on Earth do you believe that 'society's agenda' will be any less corrupt or of higher character/goals than you imply those of individual's are? It will be who ever weilds the biggest club and has the loudest voice.

 

[Radical]

You assume everybody thinks with a common belief, have equal intelligence, rational reasoning, similar social goals, etc. - and moral compass.

Hitler or the like couldnt force his radical beliefs on Germany' citizen. He was doomed from the get-go.

Living on an extremely unpopulated island might better suit your vision. I'm willing to bet if there is just one more person residing on the island with you - your society is doomed to failure.

Your objection doesn't seem to be logical, but practical. What do you say to my logical objection?

Nevertheless, to your practical objection, I fail to understand why we shouldn't strive for something that is difficult to obtain. People do not have a common belief, equal intelligence, reasoning skills, social goals, etc. But there is a better organization than the chaos we allow now. Also, some of these beliefs, social goals, etc. are ultimately harmful to the community. For example, America is a fat nation, and many people think this is OK. However, we spend 17% or more of our GDP on health. This restricts other, productive things we could do with our income. I also think money spent on video games, tobacco, alcohol, sound systems, gambling, coffee, TV's and cable, and the like are all kinda wasteful. At the very least, the time is wasted when we could be productive. If these are all wasteful, the State should strive against them.

 

[Radical]

By making them be more responsible for themselves and their lives and by holding them accountable.

Then we agree. I think I simply recognize this as coercion. Who does the coercion? The State. The only thing that I might press that you might not is I do not care about majority opinion. If the minority is correct, that coercion to A is better than B, then the majority should be overruled. This means that I am not democratic either. I want to do this through taxes, fines, etc. I specifically want to target the culture itself, not the symptoms of poverty, selfishness, raunchiness, etc.

 

[Radical]

I missed how the tyranny of the majority would be avoided. What was it?

I don't support democracy. That's how it's avoided.

Sure it should. But why on Earth do you believe that 'society's agenda' will be any less corrupt or of higher character/goals than you imply those of individual's are? It will be who ever weilds the biggest club and has the loudest voice.

Meritocracy should help a little. But really, it's not the system that is so important. I want to change culture from worshiping individuality to worshiping conformity. When your body fights against itself or won't heal itself, you get very sick. It's the same way with a nation.

 

[Lursa]

Then we agree. I think I simply recognize this as coercion. Who does the coercion? The State. The only thing that I might press that you might not is I do not care about majority opinion. If the minority is correct, that coercion to A is better than B, then the majority should be overruled. This means that I am not democratic either. I want to do this through taxes, fines, etc. I specifically want to target the culture itself, not the symptoms of poverty, selfishness, raunchiness, etc.

The state should only be able to use force if needed to protect our rights as interpreted under the Const. You have said you object to that. That is what protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It is already in place.

And as I said...who determines which is 'right?' You said the community...and that would still end up the majority. There is nothing remotely in place to ensure it is 'right' or positive or beneficial.

But this has strayed far from the topics in this sub-forum. I'm not particularly interested in such a non-American perspective on governance, it's for another subforum IMO.

 

[Lursa]

I don't support democracy. That's how it's avoided.

yeah I got that. I'm not interested in such a non-American perspective to governance, even tho we dont have a true democracy.

Meritocracy should help a little. But really, it's not the system that is so important. I want to change culture from worshiping individuality to worshiping conformity. When your body fights against itself or won't heal itself, you get very sick. It's the same way with a nation.

And the word conformity really makes me ill when it comes to life in general, so again, not an interest that I'd want to pursue. And it's in opposition to meritocracy, which I do support, very much. Again, not really topics for this sub-forum.

 

[Removable Mind]

Your objection doesn't seem to be logical, but practical. What do you say to my logical objection?

Nevertheless, to your practical objection, I fail to understand why we shouldn't strive for something that is difficult to obtain. People do not have a common belief, equal intelligence, reasoning skills, social goals, etc. But there is a better organization than the chaos we allow now. Also, some of these beliefs, social goals, etc. are ultimately harmful to the community. For example, America is a fat nation, and many people think this is OK. However, we spend 17% or more of our GDP on health. This restricts other, productive things we could do with our income. I also think money spent on video games, tobacco, alcohol, sound systems, gambling, coffee, TV's and cable, and the like are all kinda wasteful. At the very least, the time is wasted when we could be productive. If these are all wasteful, the State should strive against them.

Yeah...we're a messed up nation...along with every other nation.

You've found yourself in a serious quandary, it seems. Waking up in an out-of-control nation must be disturbing to you.

 

[betuadollar]

I would favor all men who have intercourse and ejacuates sperm in a woman must report each event to a government agency. And if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy that she can request the man be legally punished, including prison and a fine equal to the cost of forcing the woman to gestate for 9 months, give birth, and all cost she would pay for raising the child to adulthood. If he can't pay then the taxpayers will be forced to, which is often the case now.

That work for you?

Well the Catholic church has long had a paternal registry. In the Catholic church, all children are baptized and all are assigned a father, even if unknown. Truth.

What I personally advocate is a tattooing system; every f***er should be required by law to tattoo his name on every f***ee. This I assume was the true origins of the phrase: Kilroy was here.

I thought we were talking about abortion. Silly me.

 

[Removable Mind]

Well the Catholic church has long had a paternal registry. In the Catholic church, all children are baptized and all are assigned a father, even if unknown. Truth.

What I personally advocate is a tattooing system; every f***er should be required by law to tattoo his name on every f***ee. This I assume was the true origins of the phrase: Kilroy was here.

I thought we were talking about abortion. Silly me.

What your talking about is setting up a system to monitor's women's reproduction. In essences what you really want to do is significantly diminish or dismantle women's equal protection under the law, due process under the law, and of course "right to privacy" because you think government should monitor women's abortions and decide if they have too many.

In other words, the Constitution says that's a no-no. You can't discriminate against women because they don't have a dick. Ya catchin on yet?

 

[betuadollar]

What your talking about is setting up a system to monitor's women's reproduction. In essences what you really want to do is significantly diminish or dismantle women's equal protection under the law, due process under the law, and of course "right to privacy" because you think government should monitor women's abortions and decide if they have too many.

In other words, the Constitution says that's a no-no. You can't discriminate against women because they don't have a dick. Ya catchin on yet?

That's precisely what I want to do, yes. Women should not be permitted to use abortion as a means of contraception at taxpayer expense.

And if you think women have a greater right to taxpayer money than the taxpayer himself, you have a really distorted sense of entitlement. Constitutionally guaranteed abortions; wow, imagine that.

 

[Scrabaholic]

That's precisely what I want to do, yes. Women should not be permitted to use abortion as a means of contraception at taxpayer expense.

If you are in the USA, they aren't.

 

[Removable Mind]

That's precisely what I want to do, yes. Women should not be permitted to use abortion as a means of contraception at taxpayer expense.

And if you think women have a greater right to taxpayer money than the taxpayer himself, you have a really distorted sense of entitlement. Constitutionally guaranteed abortions; wow, imagine that.

You act as though ALL abortions are paid for by the taxpayers. That's false. And not just a little bit false, but a whole big bunch of false. You've been getting your information from the wrong sources. It's against Federal law for abortions to be paid for OTHER THAN in the case of rape, incest, or the long-term health or life of the woman.

You want to provide some facts from a legitimate source to backup your claim, we'd all love to read your source's information.

 

[year2late]

That's precisely what I want to do, yes. Women should not be permitted to use abortion as a means of contraception at taxpayer expense.

And if you think women have a greater right to taxpayer money than the taxpayer himself, you have a really distorted sense of entitlement. Constitutionally guaranteed abortions; wow, imagine that.

Tell me, in the US, what federal dollars are spent in this fashion?

 

[betuadollar]

You act as though ALL abortions are paid for by the taxpayers. That's false. And not just a little bit false, but a whole big bunch of false. You've been getting your information from the wrong sources. It's against Federal law for abortions to be paid for OTHER THAN in the case of rape, incest, or the long-term health or life of the woman.

You want to provide some facts from a legitimate source to backup your claim, we'd all love to read your source's information.

Well I'm glad we cleared that up.

 

[Logicman]

 

[Removable Mind]

Well I'm glad we cleared that up.

No, it's not cleared up. You made a claim and it'd be appreciated if you'd offer legitimate sources to backup your claim.

 

[Radical]

Yeah...we're a messed up nation...along with every other nation.

You've found yourself in a serious quandary, it seems. Waking up in an out-of-control nation must be disturbing to you.

I've been doing it all my life.

Also, cannot tell if patronizing or I'm simply so fundamentally against the system that we can't relate.

 

[Radical]

The state should only be able to use force if needed to protect our rights as interpreted under the Const. You have said you object to that. That is what protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It is already in place.

And as I said...who determines which is 'right?' You said the community...and that would still end up the majority. There is nothing remotely in place to ensure it is 'right' or positive or beneficial.

But this has strayed far from the topics in this sub-forum. I'm not particularly interested in such a non-American perspective on governance, it's for another subforum IMO.

There are other ways to protect people.

The community is the ethical object of politics. If the majority of individuals want X, but X is not good for them (or as good for them), we should not give them X. The community doesn't get to decide what is right, it has nothing to do with the will of the majority or minority. This is my objection to Locke and Rousseau: it's not the community's will that matters, but what is truly good for them.

 

[Radical]

yeah I got that. I'm not interested in such a non-American perspective to governance, even tho we dont have a true democracy.

Sounds like a personal problem. You should work on that.

And the word conformity really makes me ill when it comes to life in general, so again, not an interest that I'd want to pursue. And it's in opposition to meritocracy, which I do support, very much. Again, not really topics for this sub-forum.

The smaller the culture barrier, the easier interaction is. Those that have poor worldviews would function better for themselves and others. Those that don't care about others are useless to the State from the get-go. And then standard laws, like speed limits and drugs and violence, these are all places where conformity to the good option would dramatically benefit the State.

 

[Removable Mind]

I've been doing it all my life.

Also, cannot tell if patronizing or I'm simply so fundamentally against the system that we can't relate.

We can't relate. You can't provide a workable framework to overcome all of the woes this nation has. You have a lot to say about our nation's failures, but no genuine solutions considering the obvious diversities and the many facets of human nature and characteristics that exists not only in America, but everywhere.

 

[Lursa]

I'm simply so fundamentally against the system that we can't relate.

This.

 

[Lursa]

I think when women opt to avail themselves of taxpayer money as a means of reconciling irresponsible behavior, that they likewise contractually agree to permit, grant, public scrutiny. I would also favor the creation of a national data base for those who opt to routinely use abortion as a means of contraception.

I was waiting for an answer to this, not more justification of your sentiments on it.

So again...how does the govt discover and track people's irresponsible behavior?

Exactly how would you...or the govt...determine any 'irresponsible behavior' on the part of women. Or men?

 

[betuadollar]

I was waiting for an answer to this, not more justification of your sentiments on it.

I think it's a mute question since, being somewhat out of the loop, I was incorrect to assume that abortions are being provided freely at the public charge. But hypothetically speaking, I don't think it's necessary to "prove" irresponsible behavior, merely to record it. Not all who seek abortion are raped or coerced, and very few to the best of my knowledge immaculately conceive; their behavior is therefore irresponsible. And far too common. I would also add that from a socioeconomic standpoint, I am definitely not a fan of "single-head-of household," either. Imagine the strength of our economy if all children were born without such economic encumbrance.