[quote]therajraj wrote:
I have not made any comment on whether the subsidy itself is good. If you are going to provide services, do not put ridiculous conditions upon them. That was my original point.[/quote]
Then don’t put the ridiculous condition upon the taxpayer of subsidizing these women.
See above.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Then don’t put the ridiculous condition upon the taxpayer of subsidizing these women.
[/quote]
Ok, then cut the subsidies. Agreed?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Then don’t put the ridiculous condition upon the taxpayer of subsidizing these women.
[/quote]
Ok, then cut the subsidies. Agreed?[/quote]
So argue the abolition of welfare policies. But as long as us not-the-father’s are picking up the tab, the father should be known, and he the state should be enforcing child support payments with or without the mother’s consent. Nobody asked for my consent in creating this perverted immorality subsidization scheme.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I brought up the fact that Santorum thinks it’s okay to asks his citizens for such private information including DNA testing. I have not made any comment on whether the subsidy itself is good. If you are going to provide services, do not put ridiculous conditions upon them. That was my original point.[/quote]
Why is that a ridiculous request? The father is already obligated under law to help support the child - this would be a way of insuring it.
Sure it does - you said that unwanted pregnancies are the glorious side effect of women being liberated and taking charge of their lives - that would apply to teenagers, too. They are now liberated to make these choices, and they can live with the (liberated) consequences.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m talking about the government’s intrusion into the personal lives of people. Going as far as requesting DNA samples and holding services hostage until they are provided is ridiculous. There are limits to what personal information the government should be allowed to have access to from it’s law abiding private citizens.
[/quote]
But here is the thing.
If they can intrude into my bank account to pay for the consequences of their horizontal mambo, they can intrude into their life too.
I would rather have no intruding, but since things are as they are, lets probe them anally.
Unless of course they want no money, then they can keep all their little secrets.
Ankle bracelets for welfare recipients FTW!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Why is that a ridiculous request? The father is already obligated under law to help support the child - this would be a way of insuring it.[/quote]
I already answered this. There is a limit to the type of information the government should be able to request from its law abiding citizens. You disagree? FIne.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sure it does - you said that unwanted pregnancies are the glorious side effect of women being liberated and taking charge of their lives - that would apply to teenagers, too. They are now liberated to make these choices, and they can live with the (liberated) consequences.[/quote]
Most teenagers aren’t adults… I was referring to fully grown adults not 16 year olds.
I don’t think unwanted pregnancies are a good thing.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I already answered this. There is a limit to the type of information the government should be able to request from its law abiding citizens.[/quote]
Not sufficiently. You draw an arbitrary line that doesn’t account for trade-offs. The main trade-off here is that someone’s choices are imposing huge costs on other people who had no agency in those choices. Howevever, once you start demanding concessions from the public - i.e., “pay for my bad choices” - you forfeit some of your “rights”.
The line you draw has to accommodate that; yours doesn’t, not with any rational explanation. You simply say “people should be able to [do something] with absolute freedom, and be able to make everyone else absorb the costs of the [doing something]”. Effectively, your line says complete privatization of choice, complete socialization of the bad consequences of the choices that didn’t pan out.
That’s more than dumb, more than insane - it’s socially suicidal.
No, you spent a great deal of time referring to teenagers, who under your theory, get to enjoy “liberation” as well. Congratulations - your “liberation” has liberated millions of teenagers not responsible enough to handle the enormous responsibilities of sex into personal Hells.
Then you should agree to some form of cultural approbriation for the activities that lead to it, but you don’t. You simply say “go forth and have a blast!!” and encourage reckless risk-taking (which is exactly what teenage sex is).
This is the foolishness of modern left-wing liberalism - a near theological belief in the concept of absolute freedom accompanied by absolute (or as close as you can get) absorption of the unintened consequences of all that freedom by everyone else who opted to act responsibly.
Cultural suicide.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…Effectively, your line says complete privatization of choice, complete socialization of the bad consequences of the choices that didn’t pan out.
That’s more than dumb, more than insane - it’s socially suicidal…
This is the foolishness of modern left-wing liberalism - a near theological belief in the concept of absolute freedom accompanied by absolute (or as close as you can get) absorption of the unintened consequences of all that freedom by everyone else who opted to act responsibly.
Cultural suicide.[/quote]
Quoting for emphasis.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…Effectively, your line says complete privatization of choice, complete socialization of the bad consequences of the choices that didn’t pan out.
That’s more than dumb, more than insane - it’s socially suicidal…
This is the foolishness of modern left-wing liberalism - a near theological belief in the concept of absolute freedom accompanied by absolute (or as close as you can get) absorption of the unintended consequences of all that freedom by everyone else who opted to act responsibly.
Cultural suicide.[/quote]
Quoting for emphasis.
[/quote]Indeed. You’d have to be some kinda liberal not to understand this. Not surprisingly we are collapsing. I don’t know what Canada’s gonna do once we’re not around to subsidize their socialism by saving then the money for a military. Leeching leftist lowlifes. (Not you Forbes)
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
/cheers.
We’re not the damn father and we have to pay for her welfare. Pappa needs to be known, and squeezed for every last penny of child support.
[/quote]
Seconded. In what universe is his suggestion a bad one? Bringing deadbeat dads to heel and forcing private responsibility where it should be happening?[/quote]
Just reading through this thread, and I was thinking about this scenario. What about the guy who knows he’s not the father, and doesn’t want to give this government blood test? Will you arrest him and draw his blood against his will? And all on the flimsy word of a girl who’s so screwed up that she’s managed to get pregnant at, say 18 years old, and has no idea who the father is? Think about that; think about that from the innocent guy’s perspective and how in personal liberty he is forced to concede against his will. What about the shitty white trash gal who just wants to get back at a guy and make him go through that? If you think that wouldn’t happen, then you’re naive.
But the real question is, as a “conservative”, why would you be so willing to embolden the power and scope of the government? I thought conservatives were supposed to be about small government and decreased government involvement? I thought conservatism was supposed to represent personal liberty, free from the shackles of the government?
Did something change?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
But the real question is, as a “conservative”, why would you be so willing to embolden the power and scope of the government? I thought conservatives were supposed to be about small government and decreased government involvement? I thought conservatism was supposed to represent personal liberty, free from the shackles of the government?
Did something change?[/quote]
Yes, people started confusing “conservatism” with “libertarianism”. “Conservatism” wants personal liberty properly understood, but doesn’t believe all forms of liberty are good or equal, and when people began indulging in bad liberty and imposing social costs on the rest of civilization, conservatives have to use the remaining instruments to ameliorate the effects of the bad behavior.
Government is one. It’s not the only one, and it has limits, and should have limits - but it becomes a last resort to try and save civilization from liberty run amok.
“Conservatism” ain’t “libertarianism”, and never has been. Conservatives think liberty is a Means, libertarians think liberty is an End. There is no squaring those philosophical differences.
Also, shouldn’t this be a state issue and not a federal issue? Why the hell are presidential candidates talking about something that is probably a state issue of welfare benefits?
IMHO, this is a state issue, and does not involve the feds at all. Further, and again IMHO, no benefits should be paid from any government, state or federal, to raise a child. Governments are not care takers. This whole issue is moot. Put these a’holes on notice that their government will not allow them to suck at the government teet.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Also, shouldn’t this be a state issue and not a federal issue? Why the hell are presidential candidates talking about something that is probably a state issue of welfare benefits?[/quote]
I agree, it should be, but currently welfare has a federal component (funding, etc.). But I totally agree - it should be a state level decision.
Unfortunately, now it is. It didn’t have to be that way - that was the province of family, community, church, neighborhoods, trade unions, etc., but since people were “liberated” from their responsibilities and connections with these institutions, children were being born and not taken care of, and it isn’t the children’s fault, of course.
So, government programs are left to clean up the mess of libertinism gussied up as “personal liberty” and “freedom of choice”.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
But the real question is, as a “conservative”, why would you be so willing to embolden the power and scope of the government? I thought conservatives were supposed to be about small government and decreased government involvement? I thought conservatism was supposed to represent personal liberty, free from the shackles of the government?
Did something change?[/quote]
Yes, people started confusing “conservatism” with “libertarianism”. “Conservatism” wants personal liberty properly understood, but doesn’t believe all forms of liberty are good or equal, and when people began indulging in bad liberty and imposing social costs on the rest of civilization, conservatives have to use the remaining instruments to ameliorate the effects of the bad behavior.
Government is one. It’s not the only one, and it has limits, and should have limits - but it becomes a last resort to try and save civilization from liberty run amok.
“Conservatism” ain’t “libertarianism”, and never has been. Conservatives think liberty is a Means, libertarians think liberty is an End. There is no squaring those philosophical differences.[/quote]
Okay, I could swallow the idea that conservatism and libertarianism are philosophically opposed in some regards. But I still hear conservatives, as well as libertarians, consistently calling for less government intrusion into their lives. This is not “less”, but is in fact “more”.
Seems to me, that conservatives want less government in their lives, except in areas that they want to use the hammer of government to drive their morals and beliefs. In those cases, they seem to be just fine with “more” government. In this regard, they’re really no different than the liberals they claim to despise so much.
This is why I stopped calling myself a conservative, and withdrew from the silly game of “right vs. left”; a game that those in power like to see you playing while they run shit.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Government…to try and save civilization from liberty run amok.[/quote]
The above statement, unfortunately, says alot.
Can you imagine the founding fathers saying “Life, liberty in government a proved doses, and the pursuit of happiness”? No, I don’t think so.
“liberty run amok”…funny and sad all at once.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Okay, I could swallow the idea that conservatism and libertarianism are philosophically opposed in some regards. But I still hear conservatives, as well as libertarians, consistently calling for less government intrusion into their lives. This is not “less”, but is in fact “more”.[/quote]
Less government intrusion in our lives would be fantastic. The problem with that is that such an idea is conditional - the conditions matter. What are the conditions?
Most conservatives I know do not enjoy the idea of using government to clean up these kinds of messes - they get no joy out if it, but it is the only option in light of the conditions.
But, yes, those ideas are wrapped in morals and beliefs - and while there is a wide space in freedom to pursue your individual desires, there are some lines that can’t be crossed in the name of the civilization. And those lines have been crossed, over and over, and these lines are non-negotiable.
Hence the use of the blunt instrument of government to fix them. It’s clumsy but powerful, but nothing else is working.
The difference between conservatives and liberals re: use of government is quite stark. Liberals want to enable people’s ability to enjoy social liberalism by using government to underwrite the risks of their choices.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Government…to try and save civilization from liberty run amok.[/quote]
The above statement, unfortunately, says alot.
Can you imagine the founding fathers saying “Life, liberty in government a proved doses, and the pursuit of happiness”? No, I don’t think so.
“liberty run amok”…funny and sad all at once.
[/quote]
Are you kidding? That’s exactly what the Founding Fathers talked about. The Founding Fathers weren’t libertarians, chief. Read Madison’s thoughts on why goernment is necessary in the first place. Read John Adams. Hamilton. They wanted ordered liberty and were concerned about the American experiment beng undermined by exactly the things I am talking about.
James Madison, Federalist #51:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Government…to try and save civilization from liberty run amok.[/quote]
The above statement, unfortunately, says alot.
Can you imagine the founding fathers saying “Life, liberty in government a proved doses, and the pursuit of happiness”? No, I don’t think so.
“liberty run amok”…funny and sad all at once.
[/quote]
I also wonder where “liberty runs amok”.
Las Vegas?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Not sufficiently. You draw an arbitrary line that doesn’t account for trade-offs. The main trade-off here is that someone’s choices are imposing huge costs on other people who had no agency in those choices. Howevever, once you start demanding concessions from the public - i.e., “pay for my bad choices” - you forfeit some of your “rights”. [/quote]
And I also pointed out these “bad choices” are a result of Christians holding down comprehensive sex education and demonizing birth control.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The line you draw has to accommodate that; yours doesn’t, not with any rational explanation. [/quote]
I draw the line at the government collecting my DNA - blood. What’s next? I’ll have to give a vaginal swab of every sex parter I’ve ever had before I can get an STD test?
This policy is absurd and invasive.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You simply say “people should be able to [do something] with absolute freedom, and be able to make everyone else absorb the costs of the [doing something]”. Effectively, your line says complete privatization of choice, complete socialization of the bad consequences of the choices that didn’t pan out.
That’s more than dumb, more than insane - it’s socially suicidal.[/quote]
No, I’m for teaching comprehensive sex education across the land and persuading the religious from demonizing contraception. If you did this, most of this problem would go away. Just look at the teen pregnancy rates in Canada vs the US. In Canada where comprehensive sex education is taught in every province and religious influence is waning the rate of teen pregnancy is 16 per 1000 people. In the US it’s 53 per 1000 people.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, you spent a great deal of time referring to teenagers, who under your theory, get to enjoy “liberation” as well. Congratulations - your “liberation” has liberated millions of teenagers not responsible enough to handle the enormous responsibilities of sex into personal Hells. [/quote]
No I didn’t. Please point this out.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Then you should agree to some form of cultural approbriation for the activities that lead to it, but you don’t.
You simply say “go forth and have a blast!!” and encourage reckless risk-taking (which is exactly what teenage sex is).[/quote]
No. Read above.