Parenting licenses

[The Free Joy State]

People are inexplicably more afraid of the hypothetical future of people mooching off the system than the present reality of child poverty. I guess these people haven't heard of Scandinavia. :/

But we're getting a little off track here. The same question still applies. Why does the same plurality of voters; which seems to consider that response to "dead-broke dads" adequate or they would've distanced themselves from it; then balk at the idea of vasectomies as a means to enforce parenting licenses?

A state trying to enforce force vasectomies on any sort of scale needs to be toppled.

I love how this thread has brought disparate people, of all political persuasions, together.

[Picairn]

I love how this thread has brought disparate people, of all political persuasions, together.

Hands off my reproductive organs!

[Page]

People are inexplicably more afraid of the hypothetical future of people mooching off the system than the present reality of child poverty. I guess these people haven't heard of Scandinavia. :/

But we're getting a little off track here. The same question still applies. Why does the same plurality of voters; which seems to consider that response to "dead-broke dads" adequate or they would've distanced themselves from it; then balk at the idea of vasectomies as a means to enforce parenting licenses?

A state trying to enforce force vasectomies on any sort of scale needs to be toppled.

Agree 100%, I just people would apply the same to all the other ways the government treats people's bodies like state property.

[Saiwania]

Agree 100%, I just people would apply the same to all the other ways the government treats people's bodies like state property.

That is more or less how it is in China to some extent. Previously, China's government successfully did a lot to prevent women in their country from having too many children and those that did had permanent IUDs implanted. And now if China ever gets desperate enough for some population growth, I wouldn't put it past them to just do exactly the same thing in reverse for newer generations.

I predict that perhaps in a decade or two, there will be reports of some Chinese women mysteriously becoming pregnant even if they don't remember having sex, and the answer will probably be that they were artificially inseminated whilst under anesthetic if they went to the doctor for any reason like for a health check.

[Katganistan]

IF you ever want to write a novel with the most dystopian setting ever, just grab all of GuessTheAltAccount's ideas about how to make the world an authoritarian nightmare on this and his previous account or accounts.

[Greater Cesnica]

See, a revolution where you and I would be shooting from the same side of the barricades. Never thought we would see that day.

I would also join the unlikely army of the reproductive freedom fighters.

GC reporting for duty.

[The Blaatschapen]

IF you ever want to write a novel with the most dystopian setting ever, just grab all of GuessTheAltAccount's ideas about how to make the world an authoritarian nightmare on this and his previous account or accounts.

It would be nice for us, non mods, to know their other accounts.

[Stellar Colonies]

It's enforceable. For men: reversible vasectomy in childhood. For women: implant contraception, and forced abortion if that is removed.

...in childhood?

The bodily autonomy of male children is already trodden upon enough.

[Heloin]

IF you ever want to write a novel with the most dystopian setting ever, just grab all of GuessTheAltAccount's ideas about how to make the world an authoritarian nightmare on this and his previous account or accounts.

It would be nice for us, non mods, to know their other accounts.

This is how they plan to snarl you back into the fold. Don't fall for it!

[Katganistan]

It would be nice for us, non mods, to know their other accounts.

This is how they plan to snarl you back into the fold. Don't fall for it!

I'd have got away with it too, if it weren't for that pink pigtailed kid....

[The Two Jerseys]

Because requiring licenses to drive a car and own a gun did such a great job preventing car crashes and murders...

[Galloism]

So yeah, this is a thing. Or they tell them to keep their legs closed.

They don’t see the irony at all, because of the hyperagency problem.

1) Source because I'm really struggling to believe this.

2) I'm pretty sure I know what the hyperagency problem is but I went to check and I'm getting a whole bunch of transhumanist stuff I'm thinking maybe I don't know...

This thread is instructive. It barely got started before one of our posters, Vassenor, suggested men should just keep their legs closed instead of getting a vasectomy.

Regarding hyperagency, there's a sexist thing hyperagency/hypoagency - in most contexts (aside from sex, which is a weird carveout), women are not held responsible or as responsible for acts they do, good or bad, no matter how much they controlled the act or result thereof. In most contexts (again, sex being a weird carveout) men are held responsible or more responsible for anything that happens to them, no matter how out of their control it was at the time.

It's this weird sexist thing.

Some people call it the actor/object problem.

[The Free Joy State]

IF you ever want to write a novel with the most dystopian setting ever, just grab all of GuessTheAltAccount's ideas about how to make the world an authoritarian nightmare on this and his previous account or accounts.

Of course, any dystopia based on this thread would have to be short-lived and fraught with guerrilla activity. There would be secret reversals, hidden pregnancies, "illegal" children smuggled out of the country, people would be allowed to have children and refuse as a mark of protest. People aren't going to sit down and be told them that -- based on some arbitrary government metric -- X must be sterilised to ensure they can never have children while and Y must have children.

That's the problem with some modern dystopias I've read; the writer stops at "how cool" and doesn't think about plausibility.

IF you ever want to write a novel with the most dystopian setting ever, just grab all of GuessTheAltAccount's ideas about how to make the world an authoritarian nightmare on this and his previous account or accounts.

It would be nice for us, non mods, to know their other accounts.

Pretty sure I've worked out one of their previous accounts.

The Switzerland thread basically clinched it for me.

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

1: Good luck getting that through any form of congress/parliament at either the state or federal level

B: Good luck enforcing this restriction. How's it going to be achieved? Is the Procreation Gestapo going to knock on everyone's doors and ask "Hello there friend, have any kids under the floorboards?"

3: Good luck fitting this on the budget

[Radiatia]

Personally I'd actually be in favour of this, but I'm aware I'm in a minority. People are too attached to their genitals and their biological imperative to breed to actually think rationally about this topic. It would also be very difficult to enforce.

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

Because requiring licenses to drive a car and own a gun did such a great job preventing car crashes and murders...

Damn son that's a pretty nice false equivalency, where'd ya find this?

[Forsher]

Because requiring licenses to drive a car and own a gun did such a great job preventing car crashes and murders...

Damn son that's a pretty nice false equivalency, where'd ya find this?

Licence regimes aren't effective at stopping bad or dangerous driving... the only things that are are measures that say "look, people are fuck ups, let's make the roads differently" or which reduce VKT (i.e. less driving => fewer crashes). Whether they'd be effective at containing gun incidents (deliberate and otherwise) in a society that applies the entitlement so apparent in car drivers to gun ownership is an interesting question.

What licence regimes are good at is making sure you know everyone has sufficient capacity to do the task.

[Forsher]

Licence regimes aren't effective at stopping bad or dangerous driving... the only things that are are measures that say "look, people are fuck ups, let's make the roads differently" or which reduce VKT (i.e. less driving => fewer crashes). Whether they'd be effective at containing gun incidents (deliberate and otherwise) in a society that applies the entitlement so apparent in car drivers to gun ownership is an interesting question.

What licence regimes are good at is making sure you know everyone has sufficient capacity to do the task.

"License regimes aren't effective at stopping bad or dangerous driving" is a pretty rash claim, since I doubt you can show any country that does not require licenses.

Also, you'd have to show how licensing DOESN'T reduce vehicle mile/hours driven. If that's what you mean by VKT.

These are idiotic challenges.

We know licence regimes don't stop car crashes because they keep happening.

Similarly, VKT trends are completely independent of licence status since, you know, everywhere has (a) licences and (b) trends in VKT.

You want to suggest that licences can actually have desirable impacts on those kinds of figures, you need to provide some kind of evidence. The best you can do is look at changes in status, e.g. increasing/decreasing the age/standards for particular levels of licence. Have a read of this: you'll notice that they specifically decide to reject the principle that safety rests on road users... which is what licencing is about.

Licences are an effective means of reducing motor vehicle caused death and serious injury is not a position you want to be defending. Maybe you'd like to say "ah, but it was so much worse before licences"! And, sure, maybe it was... but to average about one child abuse incident per day in a country of five million isn't a policy success.

[SD_Film Artists]

"License regimes aren't effective at stopping bad or dangerous driving" is a pretty rash claim, since I doubt you can show any country that does not require licenses.

Also, you'd have to show how licensing DOESN'T reduce vehicle mile/hours driven. If that's what you mean by VKT.

These are idiotic challenges.

We know licence regimes don't stop car crashes because they keep happening.

Similarly, VKT trends are completely independent of licence status since, you know, everywhere has (a) licences and (b) trends in VKT.

You want to suggest that licences can actually have desirable impacts on those kinds of figures, you need to provide some kind of evidence. The best you can do is look at changes in status, e.g. increasing/decreasing the age/standards for particular levels of licence. Have a read of this: you'll notice that they specifically decide to reject the principle that safety rests on road users... which is what licencing is about.

Licences are an effective means of reducing motor vehicle caused death and serious injury is not a position you want to be defending. Maybe you'd like to say "ah, but it was so much worse before licences"! And, sure, maybe it was... but to average about one child abuse incident per day in a country of five million isn't a policy success.

If the fleshy bit behind the steering wheel is mentally or physically unfit to drive then it only makes sense for an instructor/examiner to spot this. In Europe you need to be over 24 yrs old to have an unlimited motorcycle licence (mopeds are available at around 16 yrs old), and insurance companies give concessions to drivers who have completed advanced licences/training courses. These companies would have no incentive to do this if training doesn't do anything.

More on-topic, parenting licences sound too draconian. There's good cases for it sometimes but it's too much of a blunt tool.

[Foxanist Revolutionary State]

I fully support the idea of parenting licenses. Too many kids had their lives ruined because of stupid parents.

[Forsher]

I would consider stopping SOME crashes to be effectiveness. And there is no law in the world which is "effective" in the sense "completely prevents the crime".

So... a premise I don't accept (that licences affect the number of car crashes) is the centrepiece of your rebuttal to my position?

AND, if that's your definition of "effective" then what are we to make of this?

But it isn't. It's yours.

Insofar as I defined effectiveness in what you just read, it was total prevention. Of course, I didn't actually say that, but I could see how you might think it.

Seriously, this is such a gross self-contradiction that I think your attempt to redefine "effective" in the latest post, is treating me like an idiot who can't see the contradiction you put forth.

There's a contradiction only if (1) I accept the premise that licences affect car crash rates or (2) I say effectiveness is not a total reduction or (3) both.

Considering I've done none of (1), (2) or (3) I'm really quite at a loss.

You lost me there at the end. Or you tried to. You're also repeating the same idiotic stunt but this time defining "policy success" as "100% reduction in harm" which again begs the question. If licensing is less effective than road improvements, why does it therefore follow that it's entirely worthless? Both should be more effective than either alone.

The claim being made is of this form:

• If car licencing and parental licencing are equivalent
• and car licencing is effective
• then it follows that we can attribute the road toll in a licence regime to the regime
• therefore, we'll be averaging about one child abuse case a day
• but that isn't remotely close to success, anyway

In other words, even if car licencing is effective it doesn't work.

Let's say that you're trying to pull a 1 tonne load up a hill and you decide to attach a chain to a car. Let's say your car manages to pull the load to the bottom of the hill, but then cartoon physics takes over and you find yourself at the top of the hill driving a steering wheel. You have achieved something. Was it the goal? No.

Was the car idea a success? No. Did employing it have worth? No. Did it have an effect? Yes... the load did get as far as the slope.

Demonstrating an effect is not enough to validate effectiveness.

And, sure, maybe you're thinking I'm making up my standards for what is successful in motor vehicle safety just for this thread. Reasonable. Maybe I'm a devious untrustworthy motherfucker. Read this. I'm sure I've stated the case in much stronger terms before, so I'll do so now: it is a complete moral failure to trade lives for time savings, but that is the practice of contemporary society.

You don't have to agree, that failing to reach a specific goal is a marker of worthwhileness, but I do think that when it comes to traffic. And I am not inherently wrong for doing so.

Even if we were going to make the tradeoff (accepting that there is a tradeoff to be made, which I don't)... there are other problems with parental licences.

Reducing road accidents to ZERO could be achieved by making "VKT" zero. IE banning cars and selling off the roads as residential property. But only an idiot would consider that preferable (with no replacement).

There you go, again, assuming that you know what someone is saying. What if I did reply to you "well, yes, no-one should be driving private vehicles", then where would you be?

And you make another error because someone can say "well, there should be a replacement",

But, hey, you found why car licences and parenting licences are a false equivalency (for anyone who isn't an extinctionist). Thanks.

If you insult my intelligence again with the "less-effective-than means ineffective" nonsense, I will conclude you do not argue in good faith, and banish your posts from my screen.

Pro-tip: don't assume premises you hold to be true are used in the construction of points other people make.

[Adamede]

So what exactly would the punishment be for people who get pregnant/have children without a license be?

Forced abortions? Confiscation of the children?

[Katganistan]

So what exactly would the punishment be for people who get pregnant/have children without a license be?

Forced abortions? Confiscation of the children?

There are evangelists and other busybodies in the US busily trying to make all abortions illegal, so no.

And they won't fund putting kids into foster care, so no.

Most likely some Dickensonian bullshit where the parents are sent to prison with their offspring, to raise them behind bars.

[Forsher]

These companies would have no incentive to do this if training doesn't do anything.

Naive, very naive.

What licence regimes are good at is making sure you know everyone has sufficient capacity to do the task.

That is the incentive.

Insurance companies are looking for signals that reduce risk. Aside from niche circumstances in which taking a course accelerates progression to a better class of licence, spending time and effort to do something meant to improve skills in something most people already consider themselves to be good at is a signal of a conscientious driver. It is entirely unclear to an insurance company whether they're better for being conscientious or because they're better trained.

But let's not confuse training with licences, shall we? You can have the one and not the other, very easily. Consider, for example, the firearms licence... basically you do something to demonstrate that you're not a fuckup and if you succeed, you get a licence.

Though, I've come round to Engadine Mcdonalds 1997's thinking that there's a false equivalency... how do you know if someone has the capacity to be a parent? Possibly, is that really a false equivalency or just a complication with the comparison. It seems a more solid footing to stick with the previous notion that the possibility of saying "fuck it, no-one should have a licence" is possible with driving and cars but not with parents?

Pro-tip: don't assume premises you hold to be true are used in the construction of points other people make.

OK, it's clear now that you were claiming car licenses are COMPLETELY ineffective.

I'll look into it, and if I conclude that you're wrong, I will judge you very harshly for wasting my time.

If you're not convinced by the fluctuations in road toll and VKT independent of car licence changes, I don't think you can find proof that will satisfy you.

[The Blaatschapen]

So what exactly would the punishment be for people who get pregnant/have children without a license be?

Forced abortions? Confiscation of the children?

There are evangelists and other busybodies in the US busily trying to make all abortions illegal, so no.

And they won't fund putting kids into foster care, so no.

Most likely some Dickensonian bullshit where the parents are sent to prison with their offspring, to raise them behind bars.

And given the US laws regarding prisoners working, it would basically be slavery.