Aug 162011
Stereotypes exist for a reason. Gentlemen… behold:
Mother of 13-year-old who smashed up shop blames government
A 13 year old thug took part in the BritRiots, smashing up stores with a golf club. Got arrested, and due to being an underage precious little snowflake, was not sentenced to anything meaningful. As it turns out he was turned in by his mother. Now, about that mother….
She is on benefits, does not live with the boy’s father and has 10 other children, the court heard.
Awesome. Can someone explain to me why “benefits” do not come with mandatory Norplant?
9 Responses to “Livin’ the dream”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Unfortunately, that would swerve into three touchy areas:
1. Religious freedom – Many religions frown on or condemn birth control. So, it would be seen as religious discrimination. I have trouble squaring that with these religious beliefs also opposing sex out of wedlock.
2. My body, my choice – People objecting to state control over people’s bodies. If you don’t want the state to control your body, don’t take the money.
3. Sexual discrimination – There is no non-surgically reversible permanent birth control for men.
> Many religions frown on or condemn birth control.
TS.
Some religions have a problem with eating meat, but their opinions should not prevent the government from handing out animal-protein-derived emergency rations in disaster areas.
Some religions deny the existence of evolution, but that should not stand in the way of the CDC fighting against a rapidly evolving contagion.
As you say… if you don’t want the icky government restrictions, don’t take their money.
>There is no non-surgically reversible permanent birth control for men.
Would that there was… would go along way to solving a lot of this…
and don’t forget, more kids= more benefits…
> >There is no non-surgically reversible permanent birth control for men.
> Would that there was… would go along way to solving a lot of this…
Perhaps not as far as you might think. Consider three scenarios:
1: 10 men, 10 women, all fertile
2: 9 sterile men, 1 fertile man, 10 fertile women
3: 10 fertile men, 9 sterile women, 1 fertile woman
In scenario 1, you could have 10 simultaneous (and of course sequential) pregnancies
In scenario 2, you could have 10 simultaneous (and of course sequential) pregnancies
In scenario 3, you could only have one pregnancy.
It is conceivable that the existence of a male-equivalent of Norplant/The Pill might actually *increase* the total number of unwanted pregnancies. Why? Because men lie. The woman asks the man if he’s on The Pill… he says yes. Thus no further precautions would seem to be required.
Unfair as it may be, if you want to reduce the number of babies born into poverty, focus on the women.
There is non reversible permanent birth control for men, mind you it’s painful but half bricks are cheap. Ask most male lambs.
Britain is currently at a 1.6 children/woman replacement rate. Sterilize the unmarried women on benefits, and you won’t have any baby-makers left.
If the government stops subsidizing the poor to make more poor, then a few things will happen:
1: The poor will have fewer kids
2: The government will spend vastly less on the poor, since there will be far fewer of them
3: Tax rates *should* go substantially lower
That in and of itself will lead to improved economic conditions. With an improved economy, the *need* for two-income families – among that class of person who thinks its better to work than mooch – will decrease. With less need for both parents to be in the workplace, there’ll be less pressure for both parents to be in the workplace. Which means that more potential moms will become *actual* moms.
The end result would be almost certainly a reduced per-capita babyrate than currently, but far from a collapse. Getting modern British women to decide that their role actually is to have 2.4 children may be a bit of a challenge, but I don’t see why it’d be too problematic. Progressive government policies could certainly help here… say, big tax cuts for families that pass certain tests to have increased numbers of children. Families that make a million pounds a year get their taxes cut by some large fraction for every kid they have. The idea being to get the *rich* to be the ones having buckets of kids; this way when the parents keel over, the fortunes get split many ways. You get the effect of “spreading the wealth” without any of the actual evil of socialism, while at the same time persuading those who are actually successful to pass on their genes.
I was more kidding around than seriously arguing with you. However, I do want to point out that progressive politics in the bedroom is probably no more likely to work than progressive politics in the boardroom ever have been. I’m honestly surprised you’d even suggest it, confirmed libertarian that you are.
> I’m honestly surprised you’d even suggest it
“It” being which part? “If you want the government bennies, you live the way we tell you to” bit, or the “tax benefits for those who are benefiting society” bit?
I’m a confirmed libertarian, but I see value in *some* government programs. Government programs that work to eliminate *themselves* seem a better idea than programs that perpetuate themselves.
It’s in the best interests of a modern nation to *not* go through a population collapse, even a slow one through birthrate decline, just as it’s in a modern nations best interest to not have a population explosion, or a massive unassimilatable influx of aliens. Policies that support that by way of being minimally intrusive for those who benefit society, and minimally coddling for those who prey on society, seem worthy of examination.