Predictions for 2010-2020

[Morgoth]

why can't these be done in a capitalist system? In a capitalist system it would be super, because then we've got the rich children who have parants with 6 houses and 9 condos to fill and take well care ofl them, while they live happily too, the children will be very well connected as all business and intuitive leaders are, and then we could have far more to get those one-childs what they need to achieve their dreams to the full too.

it can be done, but its much easier in a socialistic system control is more enforced there, how will you deal with all the logistics ? at the moment in South Africa any mother can actually claim child grants, the maintenance and control over those who are working and those who are not just isn't there. I have no idea why the IUF doesn't deal with all of it, it would be easier to run under 1 body and the sad part is that this whole child grand system is a legacy of the old regime where the coloured population were given child benefits (maybe we should tell the ANC this so they can scrap the system)

As opposition to our own current pseudo system which is doing nothign but lowering the birth rate of the most well capable, and increasing the birthrate of exactly those who don't have the resources.

I agree but,good luck telling that to the human rights activists.

I think that all we need to do is to acknowledge what has brought us here really it is a crime to bring hardship into the world, not only for society but for the child too. one can't care for something that doesn't or decidedly won't exist neither does even fall part of any form of whole either.

Hence I am a pro choice supporter of abortions, imho its more cruel to bring a child into poverty then just kill him, we need a massive birth control under the uneducated, but how do you implement such a system and how do you prevent them to not exploit the system as they are currently in SA.

 

[WilD_CaT]

@ PHENOM:

Wow. I am not taking the piss, but seriously, how can you be that confused about your own beliefs. Speaking about Ayn Rand and capitalism but then you turn right round and say we should force abortion and technology, RFID's and other chips on people to keep them in line.

Ayn Rand is a traditional libertarian/capitalist. She would never advocate FORCED abortions and RFID's on people. That goes against the very libertarian philosophy she believes in. The ability to choose how to live. To chose ones own beliefs and values and not force your own on others.

Government can never be objective. In order to remain in power, politicians need support of the masses. They give in to mob mentality, thats the problem with democracy. You cannot have an objective government in a democratic system. So it means you have to choose "objective", "moral" people to run the country and give them absolute power to remain in charge so that they don't have to bow to the masses. The problem with this is that you CANNOT choose "objective" and "moral" people. The people who run government come from the very same immoral society that us ordinary plebs come from. They have the same feelings, emotions and vices we do. They are not all knowing beings. To err is to be human. Its is also a fact that giving someone absolute control means if they decide to tramp all over our rights then there is nothing we can do about it. And if we agreed to give them this power in the first place, we are the ones to blame when this happens. Not them.

Government cannot exist without exerting force or in the libertarian (Ayn Rand) sense, without commiting crimes such as taxes(theft) etc.

Its like you don't want any sadness, hardship or misery in the world so you want to force it out.

If you give rich people the choice of having 6 sixes, then surely everyone else has the same choice. Otherwise we are not "equally" free in the sense that the same laws/rules don't apply to everyone. Again, this is against what Ayn Rand believes in.

Your philosophical views on children are so confusing, but this be because I find the way you expressed yourself confusing.

"humanity which has a duty to care of it" I'm sorry. So because some couple decides to have a child I am now suddenly obligated to care of it? Thats absolute nonsense. For libertarians the axiom of non-aggression or force is central to that philosophical belief. If you having a child obligates me to give my property/labour away to the child in order to take care of it, then I should be legally allowed to prevent you from having children in the first place.

Your actions cannot give you any rights with respect to my property/labour without my express voluntary permission, otherwise it is an act of aggression and goes against libertarian views. I have no obligation to your child or anyone else's child, period. That might seem harsh, but life isn't a paradise. It is not possible for everyone to have everything they have ever wanted, get over it.

 

[WilD_CaT]

The only reason the above is valid in Ayn Rands mind is because she thinks an unborn fetus is not a living human being. If thats the case than abortion is not an act of aggression.

However there are many people and libertarians who believe a fetus is technically a growing human being, so abortion is thus an act of aggression and should be criminalised. Remember, freedom is not about doing whatever you want with your body/property(Since you aren't allowed to beat someone to death with your fists just because its your body and you can do what u want with it) its about not harming others or their property. The implication being any act is valid if it doesn't harm anyone or their property.

As for your pregnancy test. What if people don't want your pregnancy device with a simple cellphone chip? If it is forced it goes against libertarian philosophy. If it is voluntary than it isn't a practical solution to the "problem" is it?

 

[WilD_CaT]

I have never reccomended RFID, or sterilisations and the like? We don't need RFID or [forced] sterilisaitions for anything, and they should never be tolerated either. a simple pregnancy test device fitted with a cellphone chip would be all we need.

Voluntary or not? If not, then the forced implementation is a crime itself. If not forced then it is not a workable solution, as you need everyone, or almost everyone, to have one for it to be a practical solution to the problem.

I have said that having a child that you can't take care of, is only brining hardships on this world, not only to youself, but as the crime goes, on others, on the child above all, and on the public too. When this happens, the individual liberties of others are broken, and therefor It catagorises as a crime just as all other.

It would be bringing a hardship on you, possibly, and the child, possibly, and others, possibly. It is not a crime if no direct harm can be correlated. For example by driving a car you are polluting the environment. Pollution affects my health. However I cannot sue you or hold you criminally liable for damage to me as I cannot prove the exhaust fumes from your car directly affected my health.

Just have a child and being poor is not a criminal offense. So what if life is hard?

Yes, we could use some simple tech, and how would using technology be any diffrent from even visiting the municipality or driving the road everyday? we are being monitored all over, it's not to restrict our liberty, it's to protect it.

LOL. Dude banning cars on the road would also mean no one would die from car accidents. And from your perspective that wouldn't affect our liberties, it would protect it! WOW! Freedom = Slavery!

The idea of liberty or the libertarian philosophy is that freedom is a negative right. The right not do to harm to others or their property. The implication as I said is that any act that does harm others or their property is an illegitimate act. Now who determines what constitutes harm? THe person being harmed. For example, a trespasser, by trespassing on your property is not physically damaging it. But according to the owner, trespass constitutes an act of aggression on his/her land and is thus a criminal offense. So if your solution is FORCED on people it is a violation of individual liberties because it is NOT voluntary.

How would such a pregnancy test, to ask a person to take one in their own home in their own privacy, at least once every 2 or 3 months be anything even near tyranny?

Because a tyrant forces his will on others, similarly to how you want to force this solution on others.

Not voluntary, thus an invasion of our liberties.

Yes and Ayn Rand vowed for a government which is ruled by objective ethics. ie. Punching somebody in the face is a crime, obviiously, because tht would harm them and thus restrict their own liberty to be free from attack, same here even far more so, a crime is a crime, and people's liberties should be protected.

And thats why some libertarians love her and same critic her. "Objective" government? No such thing. As I said. the people in government come from the same society that apparently needs to be ruled for their to be "law and order". So if they come from the same bunch of people prone to crime then how can they be "objective"? It is just a claim. An assertion , "if" it was possible, "if" we could do this. So? "If" we can invent a device that can manipulate atoms and make anything we desire problem solved? Meaningless.

The main reason we have anarchists is because if this "objective" government decides to trample on our liberties, or any government, then there is nothing we can do, as we cannot take on a police force or military.

What i'm saying is that the child (be there one), does not 'belong' to her, but to the child him(/her) self (yes, NOT 'YOUR PROPERTY'), and this child should have the rights to live their life to be a benefit to them self and to the ability to build on and for the society which brought it here. The society and community has no need to take care of the child, but then again, that would be a crime as per the objectivist government, it would be a crime owing to the fact that the child's rights were neglected, and therefor the society would need to help the government take care of the child, as a child is new to this world and in no way could have the means to it's own rights by itself alone.

No it would not be a crime.

You see in your understanding of rights there is a conflict. You say the child has these rights and these need to be enforced. So the community "must" step in. Don't the people have those same rights? What if by stepping in to help the child, they neglect their own child? Or they get fired from their job because they weren't at work and now they cannot afford food for themselves? Then what? If people are free to do as they wish as long as they do not do harm to others, how can "forcing" the community members who have not committed an act of aggression not be considered a crime?

It is a objectionable necessity for a parent to take care of the child that they have decided to bring here, and if they don't then the parent is committing a crime. If we could use the state that seeking a objective criteria for analysis (perfect or not, it should be formal), then we could stop injustices like these happening before they take place, at the on sight of the government and it's objective form of analysis, perfect or not, it is realavant, and we would not really be effecting anything negatively either, because the person who has undergone the abortion would simply go home as nothing happened in the first place.

The reason the parent commits a crime because his/her actions will harm another life(The Child). However the others members of the community have no obligation what so ever. You are talking about objective morality which I personally agree with.

This system would only work if limited to property rights. No other laws. However technically since taxation is not voluntary, it is an act of aggression and is thus itself a criminal offense. So government cannot exist in an objective legal system. For government to exist the law has to make concession/provisions for the government.

You can have an objective legal system or government but not both.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Oh come on. really ? the device is not even as anal probing as that last paragraph.

how much more so than a piece of supermarket meat is? why not enforce vegetarianism first?

How are cattle and sheep, or even chickens or fish, any less sentient that a fetus would be?

Nothing here will permanently harm anyone, and the mother is about to commit something that could be objectified as a crime too. Objectified here as in the same sense as we don't allow mothers to drink or take narcotics while raising children, as we can't really rely or predict accurately who will really go outside at the right time and schedule everything correctly and so on motherly duties, if the mother does narcotics, it's a criminal offense - same here. There is nothing that says that narcotics are always bad, just that we as a society which relies on an objective(towards) government, could not allow the helpless children witin our borders to be treated like this. It is a crime to the child and to society who will now need to look after the ill child too.

Lol abortion is not a crime as it does not harm another human being (A fetus is not a sentient human being) but if a mother takes drugs it is a crime as the fetus is harmed?

You can't have it both ways. If you regard the fetus as a human being, both could be acts of agression and thus criminalised. If the fetus is not a human as such, then neither are acts of aggression and neither act is criminalised. Pick one.

LOL, as soon as you use the words "we as a society" then your objective legal system becomes subjective. Because if "we as a society" saw it fit to take from 1 group and give to another then it is acceptable to our society as a whole but not the group we took from.

An objective legal system doesn't care what "society" thinks or wants. If an act is breach of the law, regardless what "we as a society" feel it is illegitimate.

If the societies considerations are taken in to account then your system become subjective not objective.