• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The justification for wealth-redistribution.[W:2037]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

That is correct. Unless you are confused and think birth control = sterilization, then you seem to understand and, therefore, agree that there is nothing wrong with contraception use being a requirement for welfare.

So, you moved the goal post and think any person on welfare should be forced to use contraception? Let's say they got pregnant, would they be jailed or would their other children be punished too?
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Due process being the key word. To 'assume' a person will do something without due process being applied is lawlessness. Taking away a person's biological function for life assuming they will commit the same crime is a great example. You're basically taking an authoritarian approach to law into the totalitarian realm.

That post doesn't make a lot of sense to me the way it's worded, but in any event, we suspend or even terminate every other type of civil liberty in certain cases. Conceiving children is, for some reason, taboo and completely sacrosanct, even though the restriction is benign (i.e. it doesn't also cause other rights to be restricted, doesn't cause your life to change, etc.).
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

So, you moved the goal post and think any person on welfare should be forced to use contraception? Let's say they got pregnant, would they be jailed or would their other children be punished too?

If the birth control failed, they shouldn't be held responsible for that. If administered as a shot, they wouldn't have to be relied upon to be responsible to take it and that's good since their circumstances make their responsibility suspect.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

That post doesn't make a lot of sense to me the way it's worded, but in any event, we suspend or even terminate every other type of civil liberty in certain cases. Conceiving children is, for some reason, taboo and completely sacrosanct, even though the restriction is benign (i.e. it doesn't also cause other rights to be restricted, doesn't cause your life to change, etc.).

So, suspending and/or terminating every other type of liberty justifies doing it through reproduction rights? Poor people shouldn't be punished by force through reproduction rights. There is nothing just about it.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

If the birth control failed, they shouldn't be held responsible for that. If administered as a shot, they wouldn't have to be relied upon to be responsible to take it and that's good since their circumstances make their responsibility suspect.

So, you think they should be forced a shot to make sure they don't get pregnant because they are poor, and that is not totalitarian in nature?
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Wealth redistribution has been going on for over 30 years. Redistributing the wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper 5%.

Wow, I thought people had moved past trying to pass off this lie.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

So, you think they should be forced a shot to make sure they don't get pregnant because they are poor, and that is not totalitarian in nature?

No. I think they should agree to take the shot as a condition of getting welfare; not because they are poor. If they want to pay their own way in life, it's all good. If they want others to pay their way for them, they should be willing to accept the conditions that come with that. No birth control; no welfare. It's a choice, not an order.
 
Last edited:
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Wow, I thought people had moved past trying to pass off this lie.

Nope. That lie is alive and well and liars are repeating it every chance they get.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

No. I think they should agree to take the shot as a condition of getting welfare.

Right, they are being forced to give up reproduction rights in order to get any kind of government support. Again, can you say totalitarian?
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Right, they are being forced to give up reproduction rights in order to get any kind of government support. Again, can you say totalitarian?

No, they agree no to have kids while they're on the dole and being supported by taxpayers. They can decline the welfare and all it's conditions if they choose. At any rate, I'll bet you're damned glad to change the subject to this after you've spent so much time trying to squirm out of admitting that you are a communist. Good to get the focus off that, isn't it? ;)
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

So, suspending and/or terminating every other type of liberty justifies doing it through reproduction rights?

No, I'm just saying that our law already sanctions much more extreme types of legal responses (including punishments) to certain situations than simply compelling someone not to become pregnant, which is a benign restriction by comparison. Despite being so much less severe of a legal reaction, for some reason it causes this extreme repulsion. Besides, the cases I was thinking of for mandatory reproduction control are essentially on the margins… the most severe cases.

Poor people shouldn't be punished by force through reproduction rights.

I never said being poor was the criterion for mandatory birth control.

There is nothing just about it.

There's nothing just about standing by idly offering a brochure to pregnant women abusing opioid pain medications or methamphetamines and brain damaging the child they're about to deliver for life, and then entitling these poverty-cycling families to life-long welfare. It's time to interrupt the poverty cycle. Welfare entitlements don't interrupt it.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

No, they agree no to have kids while they're on the dole and being supported by taxpayers. They can decline the welfare and all it's conditions if they choose. At any rate, I'll bet you're damned glad to change the subject to this after you've spent so much time trying to squirm out of admitting that you are a communist. Good to get the focus off that, isn't it? ;)

You're a hoot. To bad you can't see your own irony. You call using a democratic system to change a law to be more democratic in nature as totalitarian; while claiming poor people must agree to give up their reproduction rights in order to receive assistance, is not totalitarian in nature? I feel like we are in Alice through the Looking Glass territory:lol:
 
Last edited:
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

No, I'm just saying that our law already sanctions much more extreme types of legal responses (including punishments) to certain situations than simply compelling someone not to become pregnant, which is a benign restriction by comparison. Despite being so much less severe of a legal reaction, for some reason it causes this extreme repulsion. Besides, the cases I was thinking of for mandatory reproduction control are essentially on the margins… the most severe cases.



I never said being poor was the criterion for mandatory birth control.



There's nothing just about standing by idly offering a brochure to pregnant women abusing opioid pain medications or methamphetamines and brain damaging the child they're about to deliver for life, and then entitling these poverty-cycling families to life-long welfare. It's time to interrupt the poverty cycle. Welfare entitlements don't interrupt it.

And, your argument boils down to it's okay to restrict more rights because we already do it.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

while claiming poor people must agree to give up their reproduction rights in order to receive assistance is not totalitarian in nature?

Take a few deep breaths and just think about this for a second. Let's say a couple, presumably one with fertility problems, is looking to become a foster parent or adopt a child. Do we require anything of them?

  • be at least 21 years of age, financially stable, and responsible mature adults,
  • share information regarding their background and lifestyle,
  • provide relative and non-relative references,
  • agree to a home study which includes visits with all household members,
  • allow staff to complete a criminal history background check and an abuse/neglect check on all adults in the household, and
  • attend free training to learn about issues of abused and neglected children.
And that's in TEXAS!

So these people--who desire to become guardians of children--are prevented by the state from doing so unless those above criteria are met (among others). Is that totalitarian?

Then how is it totalitarian to propose we compel, let's say, oh I don't know, let's just say it's a man or woman who has already had multiple children, who could not provide anything to them except what was received via welfare, who has had them removed from his/her custody due to abuse and/or neglect, who has committed felonies, who abuses and/or is addicted to drugs… to undergo a procedure that prevents further reproduction?

The outright knee-jerk rejection of any talk of reproductive control is ultimately indirectly neglectful of children. It places the rights to reproduce well above the rights of children to be well cared for. It is an emotionally-based refusal to do anything preventive to interrupt the cycle of poverty.
 
Last edited:
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

You're a hoot. To bad you can't see your own irony. You call using a democratic system to change a law to be more democratic in nature as totalitarian; while claiming poor people must agree to give up their reproduction rights in order to receive assistance is not totalitarian in nature? I feel like we are in Alice in the Looking Glass territory:lol:

Right, changing the law to give corporate profits to people other than the owners of the corporation is "more democratic". All the while you think that protecting the taxpayers from indiscriminate bill foisted on them by irresponsible people is "totalitarian". You've got your head screwed on completely bass-ackwards.

Actually, I'd be fine with telling welfare mothers that there are zero raises for any additional children they have while they're collecting welfare... except that it won't happen because bleeding heart nitwits would cave in and give them more, anyway... "for the children" of course.

I think it is very reasonable for someone who wants to get on welfare to agree not to foist the responsibility for additional children on taxpayers. If you can't afford children, don't have children. If you want to have children, get off welfare and be responsible for them. This stuff is simple and fair and is about choices and responsibility.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

If you assume that the starting point for discussion is everyone with an equal share of the wealth of a company or locale or country, then the answer to what distributes it up is free enterprise. That's what it is specifically designed to do. Rewarding those who are most motivated and most skilled at taking it from others.

The theory, of course, is that will motivate those with the best taking away skills to set up circumstances that reward them the most for their skills. And that, at least some of the time, benefits everyone by the growth of job and product creating businesses.

One off shoot of free enterprise is capitalism whereby private people invest their money in financing the creation of means of production. People who are willing to rent those means hire laborers to use them to produce products valuable to consumers which allow them compensation for their labor and "rent" for the means.

Let that simmer for decades and there will be a steady flow from the equal wealth distribution starting point to a skewed distribution. The longer the time the greater the skew.

A famous economist who later became an infamous political philosopher pointed out that that process works great until it doesn't. His insight has been studied extensively by sociologist/statisticians and, based on real world experience with real societies, they have concurred. There is a degree of wealth distribution skew that becomes dysfunctional. When those at the low end are exposed to the wealthy end living beyond better, into royally, the poor demand change. The basis for most of the worlds revolutions. As there are way more poor at that point, and they are way more motivated, revolutions almost always end badly for everyone but at a wealth distribution that is back to more equal.

Societies have developed strategies for eating their cake and having it too by employing government and charity forces to create a counter flow of wealth distribution down to maintain a functional wealth distribution over a longer period of time. This, as you would expect, is discouraged by those who have lots and encouraged by those who have nothing.

That brings us to present day America.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

The outright knee-jerk rejection of any talk of reproductive control is ultimately indirectly neglectful of children. It places the rights to reproduce well above the rights of children to be well cared for. It is an emotionally-based refusal to do anything preventive to interrupt the cycle of poverty.

Not allowing certain people reproductive rights does not interrupt the cycle of poverty unless you allow this on a much wider scale. I do believe you see where this thing is going....
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Right, changing the law to give corporate profits to people other than the owners of the corporation is "more democratic". All the while you think that protecting the taxpayers from indiscriminate bill foisted on them by irresponsible people is "totalitarian". You've got your head screwed on completely bass-ackwards.

Actually, I'd be fine with telling welfare mothers that there are zero raises for any additional children they have while they're collecting welfare... except that it won't happen because bleeding heart nitwits would cave in and give them more, anyway... "for the children" of course.

I think it is very reasonable for someone who wants to get on welfare to agree not to foist the responsibility for additional children on taxpayers. If you can't afford children, don't have children. If you want to have children, get off welfare and be responsible for them. This stuff is simple and fair and is about choices and responsibility.

Yeah, look up the word democratic and look up the word totalitarian.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Oh brother, are you suggesting every time a law is changed it's totalitarian? The US government has a very good system in place so laws can be changed. I will repeat, do you know how that system works?

We are talking about an individual case where a law is changed, not the overall process of changing law. The change you endorse is totalitarian.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

We are talking about an individual case where a law is changed, not the overall process of changing law. The change you endorse is totalitarian.

How exactly is it totalitarian? This should be entertaining.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Yeah, look up the word democratic and look up the word totalitarian.

The idea that democracy is a process by which the electorate identify the common good, and politicians carry it out is unrealistic, and instead what you get is that people's ignorance leads them to largely be manipulated by politicians who set the agenda. In fact, it is even undesirable in another way in that the people that win are usually the only ones that have any sort of say or voice.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

How exactly is it totalitarian? This should be entertaining.

I already went over that twice. You endorse the government changing up the ownership picture of property. You know who else did that? Stalin.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Yeah, look up the word democratic and look up the word totalitarian.

Right. You're of the mind that democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

I already went over that twice. You endorse the government changing up the ownership picture of property. You know who else did that? Stalin.

If the left isn't lying to everyone else, they're lying to themselves.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

The idea that democracy is a process by which the electorate identify the common good, and politicians carry it out is unrealistic, and instead what you get is that people's ignorance leads them to largely be manipulated by politicians who set the agenda. In fact, it is even undesirable in another way in that the people that win are usually the only ones that have any sort of say or voice.

I agree with some of this. Only, I don't think it's politician who sets the agenda. The agenda is set by those with the most influence via money, media, think tanks, modeled legislation etc.... The politician, in many cases, may only be a puppet of his master instead of a person that represents the public's best interest.
 
Back
Top Bottom