Someone has to pay...
Collapse
X
-
I'm not a fan of government intervention in much (I like things like clean water, aviation standards and national parks), but you could just reverse the tax structure so that there is a disincentive for having kids that you can't afford rather than being rewarded. Welfare moms might think twice about popping out another kid if meant their handouts would be reduced for each additional kid rather than increased. In the short run, it would mean breaking up "families" like hers that can no longer feed everyone, but it wouldn't take long before some beneficial change would take place.
I'm marginally ok with government hitting the irresponsible in their pocketbooks/EBT accounts; their fallopian tubes, not so much.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by WickedKitchen View PostIf a population has less than 2.5 births per family it will eventually decline. That's why you can't stop at 1.
Comment
-
-
Of course, it's a matter of opinion (and in my case, some wine) but I think that more people that not would choose not to prove financial responsibility to whatever Vegan's criteria is ergo the decline. I think America might actually be in this scenario at the present moment but that's another discussion. I think it's human nature. I guess I have this mindset from the things that I observe in the communities in which I live and work. There are people that do things for the betterment of society such as work, education, innovation, recycling, green energy, community service, donations, etc. but MOST people don't give a flying F. Yeah, MOST people. I don't have any stats to back it up but I'd bet my life it's a heck of a lot more than 50/50.
I don't think I'd advocate for a system as strict as China's, nor to I think Vegan has anything close to that but after all, there's 1.37 billion of them. Billion. There's a lot of stuff in China, but most of the population has less than the American citizens in some of our poorest communities. I, for one, think that America has too much. I do enjoy my right to buy snus from Sweden but that too could raise some interesting talking points.
I think three is a good number. Maybe not force the sterilization after three, but if you have a forth...yeah. Maybe go light on the novacaine too...and I'm not saying that it should be the woman either. As a man with a vasectomy, it wasn't all that bad. Hell, I was firing the howitzer in less than 48 hours (that's the wine talkin'...but it's true). In addition to the three cut-off, a freakin test should be in order before you have number two. I'd like to say that the test should be administered before the first, but I've seen people change after having a kid and I, myself, think of life differently and have since I've had my first. Maybe I'm optimistic.
Alas there are too many variables to consider with employing a concept like this but it's got merit for good discussion. Snus on.
Comment
-
Comment