Calling All Fiscal Conservatives

[WizWom]

My solution: If the Government pays for your birth, then you get sterilized, no exceptions. BOTH parents.

Real good incentive to either get birth control or earn enough money.

I am not clear on the concept, the parents get sterilized? And the children?

Of course the children are not sterilized. No, the people responsible for making a situation in which the rest of us have to pay for their stupidity are punished.

If you can find a third party to pay for it, you are off the hook. Church, friends, family, doesn't matter, it's not my problem. You scraped together enough goodwill among people willing to pay, and doing it of their own free will.

Your rights end when you start trying to fulfill your needs by stealing from the rest of us, EVEN IF that stealing is done by law and tax.

[Betruger]

So those handout-using people are paying for the handout-reaping and -distributing government's faulty redistribution of others' wealth to them. Govt gets off from paying any penalty for its irresponsible policy. Leaving aside, for argument's sake, those people irresponsible enough to tolerate that policy with their vote.

[rjaypeters]

My solution: If the Government pays for your birth, then you get sterilized, no exceptions. BOTH parents.

Sorry, there was a tiny ambiguity in your first sentence: "If the the Government pays for your birth," Who is this "you"? You mean the parents.

Okay, no children of irresponsible parents getting sterilized, at any age.

For a moment I thought I had failed to make myself clear, but as I read the rest of your post, I see you grasp the point. If somebody else gets to pay for the birth of children of irresponsible parents, there will always be irresponsible parents and therefore, some of these children.

Now, it is fair to ask me if I think charities should take up pre- and post- natal care of children of irresponsible parents. I don't see any moral way out of the responsibility. Lots of reasons, but the gripping hand is children who are well-cared for do a lot better in the rest of their lives. Which is a bang-for-your-buck argument.

So those handout-using people are paying for the handout-reaping and -distributing government's faulty redistribution of others' wealth to them. Govt gets off from paying any penalty for its irresponsible policy. Leaving aside, for argument's sake, those people irresponsible enough to tolerate that policy with their vote.

Sorry, I don't know to whom or to what you are responding. Please expand.

[Betruger]

It's a direct reply to WizWom above that reply.

On your OP: I think it's kind of a bad premise to debate the merits and demerits of society without those programs. It starts with a bad situation and implicitly assumes that this circumstance is a consequence of a society without those programs (e.g. Starting an analogy with "suppose a man breaks his nose living in a big govt world" and then going on to argue which society (big or small govt WRT public health services) is best equipped to deal with this man's nose given his till-then big govt life; whereas the better experiment is starting with "suppose a man is born and grows up in a world he knows is ruled by policies of minimal govt and corresponding personal responsibility). I think the real root of the problem is the culture ambient to this gedanken society. That's what drives their propensity to charity, their economic and political savvy, the palette of their preferred uses of their tax contribution, their integrity WRT to things like personal responsibility, etc.

On the realistic, "logistic" aspects of realizing such a society (with no such programs), I'd say govt needs to take responsibility for informing people of the facts. I don't mean "educate" or indoctrinate them, I mean (if repeal is unavoidable, a given, a parameter) inform them. And if those programs are repealed, there ought to be immense funds available to feed this information campaign, so that the full comprehensive spectrum of consequences of a society alive with such culture would be richly detailed and realistically rendered (e.g. the difference between "Over there*" and "Young Americans"). Of course to many people, such a rendition would be in-credible, because it hinges on paradigms of lifestyle and outlooks and psychology that are probably foreign to them (being people who've known big govt life since their birth).

I think this implementation plan is halfway utopic. More realistic, IMO, is secession. Those big govt states go their way, and individualists split off to start their own thing thanks to lessons learned from the former. Ironically I expect the big govt "loyalists" to refuse to recognize the secessionist country as the more authentic USA; OTOH it would be accurate because the old USA is precisely what led to today's big govt United States via the latter's cultural drift.

Adversity is what led to the original United States, and maybe this same impetus is required for a more authentic United States to happen.

Edit: bad grammar
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_There_(TV_series) Have to enter this address manually.

[IntLibber]

But if someone cannot look after themselves, then they should be forbade from having offspring.

My solution: If the Government pays for your birth, then you get sterilized, no exceptions. BOTH parents.

Real good incentive to either get birth control or earn enough money.

That used to be done in this country. It is now considered racist.

[rjaypeters]

On your OP: I think it's kind of a bad premise to debate the merits and demerits of society without those programs. It starts with a bad situation and implicitly assumes that this circumstance is a consequence of a society without those programs (e.g. Starting an analogy with "suppose a man breaks his nose living in a big govt world" and then going on to argue which society (big or small govt WRT public health services) is best equipped to deal with this man's nose given his till-then big govt life; whereas the better experiment is starting with "suppose a man is born and grows up in a world he knows is ruled by policies of minimal govt and corresponding personal responsibility).

I started this thread because I think we are running out of money to pay for the New Deal and Great Society programs. I am interested in the thoughts of others, particularly those who wish the end of the aforementioned programs.

I think the real root of the problem is the culture ambient to this gedanken society.

I think gedanken translates to "thought". Which gedanken society do you mean? The bad situation I pose?

That's what drives their propensity to charity, their economic and political savvy, the palette of their preferred uses of their tax contribution, their integrity WRT to things like personal responsibility, etc..

I would hope what you list are good things.

On the realistic, "logistic" aspects of realizing such a society (with no such programs), I'd say govt needs to take responsibility for informing people of the facts. I don't mean "educate" or indoctrinate them, I mean (if repeal is unavoidable, a given, a parameter) inform them.

Here, I think most would agree.

And if those programs are repealed, there ought to be immense funds available to feed this information campaign, so that the full comprehensive spectrum of consequences of a society alive with such culture would be richly detailed and realistically rendered (e.g. the difference between "Over There" and "Young Americans"). Of course to many people, such a rendition would be in-credible, because it hinges on paradigms of lifestyle and outlooks and psychology that are probably foreign to them (being people who've known big govt life since their birth).

I'm sure the shock would _kill_ some people, in part because they wouldn't believe the change was coming and apply to them.

I think this implementation plan is halfway utopic. More realistic, IMO, is secession. Those big govt states go their way, and individualists split off to start their own thing thanks to lessons learned from the former. Ironically I expect the big govt "loyalists" to refuse to recognize the secessionist country as the more authentic USA; OTOH it would be accurate because the old USA is precisely what led to today's big govt United States via the latter's cultural drift.

The possibility of secession over the course of government is the subject of a potentially fascinating thread.

[Betruger]

Just running out of money IMO won't be enough of a kick in the pants for people to wise up to the root of the problems, if my intuition and experience (that culture is the root of it all, and is eminently feasible as target for effective reform) are correct. Look at the recent stimulus "solution", and its popular support. This reform came at a time when (unless Im mistaken) we were in the negative and without any truly foolproof solutions (incl. those that require deficit spending) for a while already.

Gedankenexperiment is a manner of speech from German for "thought experiment".

"Good things, hopefully" - I think doing those things justice is a natural tendency for people who aren't given all carrots and no stick, especially the immediate population of such a secession. By stick I don't mean being whipped (conversationally I've often come across this meaning) but holding the carrot at some distance, as all genuine work is by nature.
A people who choose to dissociate from the current USofA because of its excesses and abuses are probably people who yearn for a good, healthy life.
Knowledge is power, and today's lack of adversity thanks to the fruits of the USA's past successes leaves people the luxury of being complacent WRT to their education (real education, not today's nor "indoctrination" token education/totalitarian propaganda, etc) and enables a culture of "leave it to the geeks" while they binge on meaningless MTV and Abercrombie and Fitch culture.. As in e.g. Idiocracy or Wall-E. Today most American's don't care or don't believe that knowledge is power. Power to make the future happen, not just re-runs of today or yesterday. Most Americans don't know or care what the salient points of the US Constitution or the founders' writings are, when those are exactly what allowed the USA to grow into the wonderfully comfortable reality they live in today.

"Informing people" - This project would need to be of historically pretty massive proportions to succeed (not in mere esthetic but first of all in research: the demonstrated psychology must be irreproachably realistic, transparent, and inspiring). But IMO, if it happens in today's USA it would be influenced by enough people of the same unhealthy culture that brought us here and now that it would fail just as Hollywood and the news media have repeatedly failed to inform people truthfully on the war in Iraq, on the war on drugs, etc.

Another thing. My POV on this is kind of passive. If people choose to ruin themselves, I can't reasonably force them not to. Everyone is entitled to living their life as they choose to. I'm not religious, but to me that's a sacred thing, effectively. Filling that blank canvas by making your own choices is the whole point of life.

I think one of the major concurrent factors in contemporary secession would be the second amendment. Overall, I think Pat Dollard (or maybe it was someone else, but I read it while reading about Pat Dollard) called it right: for a while now we've been in a sort of civil war only without any blood spilled. The fundamental rift of (regardless how well informed) opinion between the sides in debates like the gun regulation debate (others being e.g. abortion) is really that far gone, IMO.
But those differences within today's USA that would justify secession, IMO, are those aligned on the differences between small govt purists and everyone else. It's a shame this kind of topic is taboo in popular intellectual forums like TED. This is IMO one of the major flaws in American culture and descendant cultures of English culture in general. Unreasonable, unrealistic prudishness. But back on that tangent topic - I'd definitely read and maybe contribute to a discussion over secession in the modern USA.

[KitemanSA]

Can't speak for everyone, but Chile lead the way into the social insecurity mess, and we followed. They have lead the way out too.

I must read up about Chile's Social Security example, thanks for the heads-up. Can you recommend any sources?

I think i read about it in an article in Reason Magazine about a decade ago.

WizWom wrote about "dormitories" which provide neither comfort nor dignity for those formerly on Welfare (an eliminated program)

He is writing about "welfare" a pure give-away program. I am talking about "Social Security" a program where folks were conned into "investing" part of their wages for a secure retirement but was actually a ponzi scheme.

As far as I am aware (and it has been a while so I don't know of potential long term ill effects) no-one was directly hurt by it. However, all REAL investsments are subject to market fluctuations so I have no idea how recent retirees are doing with this down market.

All I can say is that it is certainly a more MORAL system than "Social Security"!

[mrflora]

I started this thread because I think we are running out of money to pay for the New Deal and Great Society programs. I am interested in the thoughts of others, particularly those who wish the end of the aforementioned programs.

Your remark about "running out of money" is interesting. Who are we? Clearly some of us are not running out of money.

Where does the money come from? If you can answer the question you are closer to a solution.

Regards,
M.R.F.

[Diogenes]

My solution: If the Government pays for your birth, then you get sterilized, no exceptions. BOTH parents.

Real good incentive to either get birth control or earn enough money.

I am not clear on the concept, the parents get sterilized? And the children?

Of course the children are not sterilized. No, the people responsible for making a situation in which the rest of us have to pay for their stupidity are punished.

If you can find a third party to pay for it, you are off the hook. Church, friends, family, doesn't matter, it's not my problem. You scraped together enough goodwill among people willing to pay, and doing it of their own free will.

Your rights end when you start trying to fulfill your needs by stealing from the rest of us, EVEN IF that stealing is done by law and tax.

I am completely befuddled. Where did they get the notion that anyone was suggesting the sterilization of children? No, we were talking about the irresponsible parents you dumb asses! Both tubal ligation and vasectomies are reversible, but having children is not. Once you've had a child, you cannot undo that decision. If you can't pay for and support that child, then you shouldn't be having them.

[Diogenes]

My solution: If the Government pays for your birth, then you get sterilized, no exceptions. BOTH parents.

Real good incentive to either get birth control or earn enough money.

Where were you guys when I was pushing these ideas a year ago?

Calling you an evil bastard.

It's not what people call you that matters, it's what you answer to.

[GIThruster]

Wow. Forced sterilization? Really?

When starts the goose-stepping and book burning?

[rjaypeters]

Diogenes, WizWom & chrismb,

"My solution: If the Government pays for your birth, then you get sterilized, no exceptions. BOTH parents."

As I have pointed out at the beginning of this thought experiment, there is no government program to pay for the pre- and post natal care of a child, nor the delivery of said child. Who is going to pay?

Very well; to continue in your vein: What happens to the children of the sterilized parents? Are they left with the irresponsible parents who cannot afford to care for children?

[GIThruster]

rJay, actually I think that's in error.

http://www.pregnancyinsurance.org/medic ... aid-works/

Still, this is the land of opportunity. The thing that rationalizes hand-outs is that we provide opportunity to all. There are an awful lot of entitlements that can be cut before we start dumping pregnant women on the street and carving their insides out. We don't HAVE to provide medicaid money's for electric wheelchairs and we do that all the time, even for people who can use a walker. Medicaid generally provides better insurance benefits than medicare.

I'm a fiscal conservative but I'm not a heartless barbarian. I have to wonder if people who think like this have any friends or experience with the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Nonsense like this is why conservatives get painted as heartless trolls. Have some compassion. . .

[rjaypeters]

Your remark about "running out of money" is interesting. Who are we?

We, in this case, are the tax-paying people of the United States of America and anyone else who contributes to the treasury of the United States.

Where does the money come from? If you can answer the question you are closer to a solution.

I'm not an economist, but I think money is the imaginary construct we agree to use to keep track of how many resources can be used for different purposes. If I don't have much money, I cannot gather resources to fulfill my purposes.

Where does the money come from? We make it up as we go along. But it seems to be important to keep a steady and semi-rational basis for how much total money is available in any given economy.

What are you proposing?