Should we ban the impovershed from having children?

[Harkback Union]

*gasp* SOCIALIST COUNTRIES?! WHERE?!

Paradise-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba

In case you didn't know, copper is extremely valuable and 60% of chile's export is copper. Sure, go ahead and compare its economy where copper mining comes with over 50% profit margins (Average oil profits are around 7 %) to the venezuela who suffered from
-Endless chains of coups, strikes and riots
-Endless drug wars fueled by american demand for overpriced drugs (Literally, the country is a warzone).
-Widespread Corruption and deliberate undermining of the venezuelan state by the local elites.

Then of course, blame all of the country's problems on Socialism, despite all of the problems presisting at the time socialists took power (Powerty rates were insanely high). Meanwhile, claim that Chile is better off because of lack of socialism, despite its rapid rise since the 1990's was marked by abandoning chicago economics, massive investments in education, labor unionization and mild but efficient programs to help the poor... and copper prices rising by 400%.

[Pope Joan]

Margaret Sanger and W.E.B. DuBois would approve.

It's all about eugenics, in the name of social policy.

[Immoren]

*gasp* SOCIALIST COUNTRIES?! WHERE?!

Paradise-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba

"Just copper"
I hope whoever wrote that wasn't being serious.

[Luxdonia]

Behind the invisible hand of the market is often the iron fist of the state.

Sigged. I love that quote, Blaat!

[The Wolven League]

I see nothing that can go wrong with this plan.

Nothing at all.

[New Werpland]

Paradise-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba

(Image)

I was unaware that the means of production were owned by the workers in these societies. I was also unaware that the fact that rentier states tend to be economic failures was so shocking to people.

That's because it fails each time someone tries to implement economic democracy. Anyways State Socialism doesn't necessitate that.

Then of course, blame all of the country's problems on Socialism, despite all of the problems presisting at the time socialists took power (Powerty rates were insanely high). Meanwhile, claim that Chile is better off because of lack of socialism, despite its rapid rise since the 1990's was marked by abandoning chicago economics, massive investments in education, labor unionization and mild but efficient programs to help the poor... and copper prices rising by 400%.

Actually Chile has only had a Socialist president for two terms, the three others were either Christian Democrats or Social Democrats.

[Napkiraly]

Fun fact: Charlie Chaplin was born into a poor as fuck family. So was Larry Ellison. And Howard Schultz who was born in government housing. And Oprah. Man, look at all the people we could never have had if we decided to practice social Darwinism claptrap.

Then why not encourage everyone to have double the amount of children and have double the geniuses?

Because that's not how genetics works silly goose.

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

I'm asking if we should require licenses to have children, with those who can't afford children without government assistance not allowed to.

Hmm, MAYBE.

Most parents can't "afford children" when they have them, any more than home buyers can "afford a house" when they take out a mortgage for the full cost of a house. Yet most parents do live up to the responsibility they take on.

So I'd go for One Child (as either father or mother) without preconditions, and a Second Child for those who prove to be a good parent to their first child. But regardless if they use government assistance, they could have a second. The only people refused a second child would be those who have already screwed up parenting their first.

But beyond that, third and further children, yes.

If you had children illegally, you would either have some kind of penalty if you could manage or your child would be given to a relative or the state. I can see many advantages to doing this.

- Much fewer welfare payments

- Much less crime

- Much better educational outcomes/less behavioral disturbances in school

- Better for the economy/higher gdp per capita due to less welfare and other economic advantages

- More globally competitive

- Likely a genetic eugenic effect; with a smarter population and all that entails

All bad reasons. Not a word about the outcomes for the children themselves, just a load of fascist "state above individual" crap bad reasons.

I don't refer to forced sterilization

Then you don't have the strength of your convictions. Forced sterilization and forced abortion are NECESSARY to properly implement a parent licensing scheme.

Punishing "illegal parents" by giving the child to someone else (a) could be a reward in some cases not a punishment, and (b) does nothing to prevent the existence of the children you are trying to prevent the existence of.

, or to deliberately targeting any certain ethnic group. I think we should have a parental licensing program like you need to drive a car, and you would have to pass a test and meet a certain income threshold to prove you can take care of a child without government and ideally even charitable assistance. I think that the first nation to implement a program like this or some other eugenic program will quickly become the best/most competitive in the world. For those who would tell me there's a chance I'll be not allowed to have children/sterilized, I can honestly tell you I would be willing to be sterilized to further the cause of eugenics if I could eventually adopt children.

"Parent licensing" is not inherently wrong. The test of competency is right, if we consider the "test" to be having a child and then succeeding (or failing) to be a good parent to that child. That is, One Child unconditionally, a Second Child conditional on passing the One Child test.

What you're proposing is a right of parenthood based on ALREADY HAVING a proven capacity to support the child for the next 18 years, which would restrict the "right" to heirs and heiresses, or middle aged people.

As well as denying the chance TO TRY to many good parents; as well as scorning the motivation to work and succeed which being a parent forces on many people, your method would utterly fail at producing a talented and economically competitive nation. It would produce a chronically-shrinking-population nation, and put the nation's future in the hands of predominantly selfish people who ranked family second after their own careers.

Parenting should be considered a conditional right. Everyone has it by default, but they can lose it if they don't live up to it's demands.

[Risottia]

I'm asking if we should require licenses to have children

No.

It's
a) against human rights as detailed in the UDHR and in the ECHR (for those in CoE countries).
b) unenforceable unless you can and want to check whenever people have sex, and making unenforceable laws undermines the rule of law.
c) costly because you'd have to conduct a helluvalot of trials against supposed child-making-criminals, and build and fund a lot of foster homes
d) detrimental to kids, which would be better cared by their families if they're given the funds: granted, some people are unable to care properly for their kids, but poverty isn't a sufficient cause for that - and being rich alone doesn't make one a good parent. But there's a lot of other measures, more practical and less expensive, to ensure that kids are cared for properly, ranging from welfare measures to entrusting kids to part-time foster families, and foster homes and eventual adoption only for the most desperate cases.

Hence, this idea is stupid, and it made everyone who read it more stupid.

[Ashmoria]

I'm asking if we should require licenses to have children, with those who can't afford children without government assistance not allowed to. If you had children illegally, you would either have some kind of penalty if you could manage or your child would be given to a relative or the state. I can see many advantages to doing this.

- Much fewer welfare payments

- Much less crime

- Much better educational outcomes/less behavioral disturbances in school

- Better for the economy/higher gdp per capita due to less welfare and other economic advantages

- More globally competitive

- Likely a genetic eugenic effect; with a smarter population and all that entails

I don't refer to forced sterilization, or to deliberately targeting any certain ethnic group. I think we should have a parental licensing program like you need to drive a car, and you would have to pass a test and meet a certain income threshold to prove you can take care of a child without government and ideally even charitable assistance. I think that the first nation to implement a program like this or some other eugenic program will quickly become the best/most competitive in the world. For those who would tell me there's a chance I'll be not allowed to have children/sterilized, I can honestly tell you I would be willing to be sterilized to further the cause of eugenics if I could eventually adopt children.

no

the police state required to keep people from unauthorized breeding would make the country not worth living in.

in the modern world (supposing you aren't suggesting controlling the breeding habits of other countries) all you need to do is make contraception and abortion free and freely available and the women will take it from there.

[Gauthier]

I'm rather amused that the OP hasn't called for a poverty castration task force to hunt down and snip poor people.

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

I'm asking if we should require licenses to have children

No.

It's
a) against human rights as detailed in the UDHR and in the ECHR (for those in CoE countries).
b) unenforceable unless you can and want to check whenever people have sex, and making unenforceable laws undermines the rule of law.
c) costly because you'd have to conduct a helluvalot of trials against supposed child-making-criminals, and build and fund a lot of foster homes

Funding foster homes would be "government assistance". Can't have that.

The OP's plan is to "give" the children to anyone who wants them and has sufficient income. I guess Michael Jackson or Jimmy Savile would qualify ...

d) detrimental to kids, which would be better cared by their families if they're given the funds: granted, some people are unable to care properly for their kids, but poverty isn't a sufficient cause for that - and being rich alone doesn't make one a good parent.

Right. If it's possible to turn a bad parent into an adequate parent by giving them a government handout, then giving them the handout is the most humane, simplest, and most cost-effective government action. Most good for least harm.

But there's a lot of other measures, more practical and less expensive, to ensure that kids are cared for properly, ranging from welfare measures to entrusting kids to part-time foster families, and foster homes and eventual adoption only for the most desperate cases.

Welfare sure. The state should be scrupulous in ensuring the basic welfare (housing, feeding, education and social connection) of it's citizens who are children.

There is still a case for parent licensing: to prevent the most needy children from being born at all.

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

I'm asking if we should require licenses to have children, with those who can't afford children without government assistance not allowed to. If you had children illegally, you would either have some kind of penalty if you could manage or your child would be given to a relative or the state. I can see many advantages to doing this.

- Much fewer welfare payments

- Much less crime

- Much better educational outcomes/less behavioral disturbances in school

- Better for the economy/higher gdp per capita due to less welfare and other economic advantages

- More globally competitive

- Likely a genetic eugenic effect; with a smarter population and all that entails

I don't refer to forced sterilization, or to deliberately targeting any certain ethnic group. I think we should have a parental licensing program like you need to drive a car, and you would have to pass a test and meet a certain income threshold to prove you can take care of a child without government and ideally even charitable assistance. I think that the first nation to implement a program like this or some other eugenic program will quickly become the best/most competitive in the world. For those who would tell me there's a chance I'll be not allowed to have children/sterilized, I can honestly tell you I would be willing to be sterilized to further the cause of eugenics if I could eventually adopt children.

no

the police state required to keep people from unauthorized breeding would make the country not worth living in.

in the modern world (supposing you aren't suggesting controlling the breeding habits of other countries) all you need to do is make contraception and abortion free and freely available and the women will take it from there.

Empower women, all the problems of bad parenting will be solved?
Maybe relevant to mention here that I'm not a woman.
That seems quite naive to me, and quite sexist too.

[Ashmoria]

no

the police state required to keep people from unauthorized breeding would make the country not worth living in.

in the modern world (supposing you aren't suggesting controlling the breeding habits of other countries) all you need to do is make contraception and abortion free and freely available and the women will take it from there.

Empower women, all the problems of bad parenting will be solved?
Maybe relevant to mention here that I'm not a woman.
That seems quite naive to me, and quite sexist too.

no, the problem of poor people having too many children at the wrong time will be solved. poverty isn't a sign of bad parenting.

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

Empower women, all the problems of bad parenting will be solved?
Maybe relevant to mention here that I'm not a woman.
That seems quite naive to me, and quite sexist too.

no, the problem of poor people having too many children at the wrong time will be solved. poverty isn't a sign of bad parenting.

You mean "poor women" not "poor people".

I use the politically correct terms where they are factually more correct, and where they avoid dubious assumptions.

But in this case, can't we call "a person who gives birth to a child" a woman?

[Ashmoria]

no, the problem of poor people having too many children at the wrong time will be solved. poverty isn't a sign of bad parenting.

You mean "poor women" not "poor people".

I use the politically correct terms where they are factually more correct, and where they avoid dubious assumptions.

But in this case, can't we call "a person who gives birth to a child" a woman?

if it makes you happy.

but we generally think of both parents as "having children" even though only the woman makes the child from scratch.

[Tekeristan]

You mean "poor women" not "poor people".

I use the politically correct terms where they are factually more correct, and where they avoid dubious assumptions.

But in this case, can't we call "a person who gives birth to a child" a woman?

if it makes you happy.

but we generally think of both parents as "having children" even though only the woman makes the child from scratch.

Women usually take male sperm to produce a child, yea.

If we're speaking about families, then we include both men and women.

[New Chalcedon]

I do love the way that everyone who wants to legislate selective-breeding into law wants to do it on their terms. Here's a basic test. If you want laws to prevent certain people from breeding, then ask yourself this question: Would you be alright with someone you disagree with writing the criteria?

If the answer is "no", then perhaps your attempt to "improve the gene pool" might be better described as "ensuring that only people I like get to have kids".

[The Huskar Social Union]

Not a fucking chance.

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

You mean "poor women" not "poor people".

I use the politically correct terms where they are factually more correct, and where they avoid dubious assumptions.

But in this case, can't we call "a person who gives birth to a child" a woman?

if it makes you happy.

but we generally think of both parents as "having children" even though only the woman makes the child from scratch.

A "solution" of birth control will only solve part of the problem which is bad parenting.

Not to deprecate the role of a woman in bearing and birthing the child, but there is a lot more to parenting after that. I think both women and men should be given at least one chance at parenting (parenting-after-birth if you like) but I also think they should be disqualified from trying again if they do it very badly.

Being very poor should not disqualify them. Even a criminal record should not disqualify them, unless perhaps it is very relevant like child sexual abuse, or child murder.

But let's be clear that a woman who has failed to be a parent previously, should not expect to automatically get parental custody of a child just because she gave birth to it.

I'll respect her bodily sovereignty and not force contraception, or abortion, on her. But the bodily thing does not give her renewal of her parenting license if she lost that license previously, by failing as a parent.

[Minoa]

I'm not convinced by the idea of banning the impoverished from having children – This is just discrimination.

(Darn you touchpad for making me edit having to edit the post more than once!)

[Xeng He]

There is absolutely no way robotics will take over that many jobs that we can afford to ban anyone who would ever possibly rely on government or private assistance from having children.

Before you use the custom NS Summertime comeback (though it technically isn't summer anymore, is it?), which is "IT WOULD WORK STFU!", ask yourself if you have a Master's in Engineering.

So what's the problem, then? Automated labor is typically cheaper, isn't it?

[Vashtanaraada]

This is just extremely capitalistically, conservative social Darwinism. How bloody disgusting.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Perhaps banning rich people from having children would more effectively reduce childhood poverty.

[Napkiraly]

Perhaps banning rich people from having children would more effectively reduce childhood poverty.

Exactly. No spoiled people to inherit they never earned. Which is amazing since it's the same mentality used by certain people on a certain political spectrum towards those on, say, government assistance. "You didn't earn that money, why should you get it?!?!??!?!".

So they should be on board with it.