Should we ban the impovershed from having children?

[White Sox]

Why don't we just eliminate the poor? In the future people will be happier.

We can eliminate poverty through a mutualistic or communist society.

Even as a supporter of socialism, communism or command economies, including socialism, do not give maximum production.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

We can eliminate poverty through a mutualistic or communist society.

because communism works so well

I'm not a communist, but yeah, communes have worked pretty well. I agree.

[Ethel mermania]

Try Africa, you now have 10 children to take, and that father, he will make 10 more.

Nothing racist going on here! Nooooooope!

Who gives a crap if some dude in Africa has a lot of kids?

and clearly missed the point

[Empire of Donner land]

Try Africa, you now have 10 children to take, and that father, he will make 10 more.

Nothing racist going on here! Nooooooope!

Who gives a crap if some dude in Africa has a lot of kids?

Well usually poorly developed places like countries in Africa have high birth rates because lack of birth controll. I don't think it has to do with race.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Nothing racist going on here! Nooooooope!

Who gives a crap if some dude in Africa has a lot of kids?

Well usually poorly developed places like countries in Africa have high birth rates because lack of birth controll. I don't think it has to do with race.

There's also the fact that people tend to die earlier in undeveloped and underdeveloped nations.

[Gauthier]

because communism works so well

I'm not a communist, but yeah, communes have worked pretty well. I agree.

Communism work well within a certain scale, i.e. communes. Past that and well, it usually turns into a fucking disaster.

[Shiraan]

because communism works so well

I'm not a communist, but yeah, communes have worked pretty well. I agree.

like the USSR. who wouldn't want to live there. or cuba. they don't swim here for our hot dogs, that's for damn sure.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm not a communist, but yeah, communes have worked pretty well. I agree.

like the USSR. who wouldn't want to live there. or cuba. they don't swim here for our hot dogs, that's for damn sure.

Wasn't aware that the workers controlled the means of production in those places.

[Kazarogkai]

I'm not a communist, but yeah, communes have worked pretty well. I agree.

Communism work well within a certain scale, i.e. communes. Past that and well, it usually turns into a fucking disaster.

Direct democracy has a similar issue, fine when small but once you start getting past the "small town" stage it doesn't do so hot.

[USS Monitor]

Nothing racist going on here! Nooooooope!

Who gives a crap if some dude in Africa has a lot of kids?

Well usually poorly developed places like countries in Africa have high birth rates because lack of birth controll. I don't think it has to do with race.

I wasn't saying they have more kids because of race. I was saying that complaining about how many kids they have is racist. Most of the people having 10 kids don't use a lot of resources, so they are actually causing less damage to the planet than smaller families in the US -- so it's not a legitimate complaint based on environmental concerns. It's just a roundabout way of saying, "Bwah! I don't like having so many black people on the planet!"

[Kazarogkai]

like the USSR. who wouldn't want to live there. or cuba. they don't swim here for our hot dogs, that's for damn sure.

Wasn't aware that the workers controlled the means of production in those places.

State Socialism, the workers own the means of production while the state simply manages it for them. There is a difference between management and ownership, atleast to me anyways, and they are not mutually inclusive. One can have one without the other. For example:

Person A own a factory in downtown but because of practicality reasons since he owns a couple of other factories he has it so that person B manages it for them. Person A still is the owner of the factory, it's just he doesn't manage it. Person B manages the factory, but that doesn't mean he owns it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Wasn't aware that the workers controlled the means of production in those places.

State Socialism, the workers own the means of production while the state simply manages it for them. There is a difference between management and ownership, atleast to me anyways, and they are not mutually inclusive. One can have one without the other. For example:

Person A own a factory in downtown but because of practicality reasons since he owns a couple of other factories he has it so that person B manages it for them. Person A still is the owner of the factory, it's just he doesn't manage it. Person B manages the factory, but that doesn't mean he owns it.

Sure. It's just that regardless of what they call it, state socialism isn't communism.

[Kazarogkai]

Well usually poorly developed places like countries in Africa have high birth rates because lack of birth controll. I don't think it has to do with race.

I wasn't saying they have more kids because of race. I was saying that complaining about how many kids they have is racist. Most of the people having 10 kids don't use a lot of resources, so they are actually causing less damage to the planet than smaller families in the US -- so it's not a legitimate complaint based on environmental concerns. It's just a roundabout way of saying, "Bwah! I don't like having so many black people on the planet!"

This

How many people one has is of less importance when it comes to these things than how many resources one has and how one uses said resources.

[Kazarogkai]

State Socialism, the workers own the means of production while the state simply manages it for them. There is a difference between management and ownership, atleast to me anyways, and they are not mutually inclusive. One can have one without the other. For example:

Person A own a factory in downtown but because of practicality reasons since he owns a couple of other factories he has it so that person B manages it for them. Person A still is the owner of the factory, it's just he doesn't manage it. Person B manages the factory, but that doesn't mean he owns it.

Sure. It's just that regardless of what they call it, state socialism isn't communism.

Of course not.

Socialism is the means by which to achieve Communism(a stateless, classless society whereby the workers own the means of production in a voluntary and mutual society) not communism in itself. Socialism is the means to an end, while Communism is the end in question.

[The Lone Alliance]

I wasn't saying they have more kids because of race. I was saying that complaining about how many kids they have is racist. Most of the people having 10 kids don't use a lot of resources, so they are actually causing less damage to the planet than smaller families in the US -- so it's not a legitimate complaint based on environmental concerns. It's just a roundabout way of saying, "Bwah! I don't like having so many black people on the planet!"

I'll let it slide because you're supposed to be from the 19th century but contrary to popular belief Africa is not a bunch of people living in mud huts eating Zebras.

If what you said is true then you'd be completely fine with ending all aid there right?

Really the real reason behind so many children is a survival thing, in the old days the vast majority of children would never survive to adulthood, that's why if you go back a good 100 years you'd find 'white' people having just as many, it's only the advent of modern medicine that has changed that.

[USS Monitor]

I wasn't saying they have more kids because of race. I was saying that complaining about how many kids they have is racist. Most of the people having 10 kids don't use a lot of resources, so they are actually causing less damage to the planet than smaller families in the US -- so it's not a legitimate complaint based on environmental concerns. It's just a roundabout way of saying, "Bwah! I don't like having so many black people on the planet!"

I'll let it slide because you're supposed to be from the 19th century but contrary to popular believe Africa is not a bunch of people living in mud huts eating Zebras.

If what you said is true then you'd be completely fine with ending all aid there right?

What does any of this have to do with sending them aid? People can send as much or as little aid as they want.

[Riftey]

How would this even be policed? "Excuse me sir; before you and your misses turn the lights off - Are you earning atleast 80,000 this year?" xD

[Kazarogkai]

How would this even be policed? "Excuse me sir; before you and your misses turn the lights off - Are you earning atleast 80,000 this year?" xD

That is the challenge is it not?

*To be fair though Persons in the united states are required to inform the government of their annual incomes for taxation purposes. That and requiring judicially approved work contracts for all workers would help in that regard too.

[Riftey]

How would this even be policed? "Excuse me sir; before you and your misses turn the lights off - Are you earning atleast 80,000 this year?" xD

That is the challenge is it not?

*To be fair though Persons in the united states are required to inform the government of their annual incomes for taxation purposes. That and requiring judicially approved work contracts for all workers would help in that regard too.

Most developed nations do. However you'd find this would mostly apply to developing nations; Ya know?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yay eugenics, I guess.

No. This is a bad idea.

[TestIsland]

This is a rather stupid idea...

So some poor people break the rules.
You are going to fine them and take away their children? And is the state going to pay for the children?

Well, say some poor people decide they'd risk the fine and have seventeen children. You pile on the fines and take away their children every year. Finally, they have accumulated so many fines that you decide to put them in prison (also under care of the state). Those children you take away either do well for themselves (in which case it becomes an example for other people who may not have the means or the desire to take care of their children), or they end up poor as well. Either way, your system does nothing to solve any problems you intended to and will only create a massive bureaucratic headache for future generations.

[Imperializt Russia]

We can eliminate poverty through a mutualistic or communist society.

because communism works so well

It hasn't happened.

Why not critique first contact protocols while you're at it?

[Belivonia]

Well usually poorly developed places like countries in Africa have high birth rates because lack of birth controll. I don't think it has to do with race.

I wasn't saying they have more kids because of race. I was saying that complaining about how many kids they have is racist. Most of the people having 10 kids don't use a lot of resources, so they are actually causing less damage to the planet than smaller families in the US -- so it's not a legitimate complaint based on environmental concerns. It's just a roundabout way of saying, "Bwah! I don't like having so many black people on the planet!"

Is it fair that the child in the 10 child family, does not get any food, or what little food he/she gets is not enough? It appears that you like this sort of idea because it's "not a legitimate complaint based on environmental concerns"

[Belivonia]

I'll let it slide because you're supposed to be from the 19th century but contrary to popular believe Africa is not a bunch of people living in mud huts eating Zebras.

If what you said is true then you'd be completely fine with ending all aid there right?

What does any of this have to do with sending them aid? People can send as much or as little aid as they want.

Africa is a lost cause. We should be helping those in the Middle-East where they actually have a chance of becoming a developed, peaceful society just like the whole Northern Hemisphere.

[Riftey]

Belivonia how hard is it to post that in one post rather then three? Stop trying to up your post count

#NotMod