Topic: Mother of 15 Kids: “Somebody needs to pay for all my children." (Read 6692 times)
Alpha's arguments define why I am a positivist.
December 06, 2011, 04:53:35 AM
Alpha exemplifies every single reason why I am a socialist.
December 05, 2011, 07:37:43 PM
I guess the question to you Alpha, is... What do you do with the children if she can't take care of them?
They die, of course. People have been dying for thousands of years. You think people back in prehistoric times complained about dying? Hell no! So what's the big deal?Agreed, it's not a big deal at all. The only logical course of action is to do nothing.
I like how the correct answer came from someone who doesn't have the ability to form logical arguments and will resort to appeals to emotion every single time.
Its a question of values. Your answer makes sense to you as it fits your values. Others may feel that the children's lives are worth trying to save and their answer will be equally "logical."
Just kidding, but I would like some straightforward responses from Alpha.
His role is to provide things to talk about every day. He does that. It seems unreasonable to expect him to do that and to debate us daily as well
December 05, 2011, 07:10:10 PM
I guess the question to you Alpha, is... What do you do with the children if she can't take care of them?
They die, of course. People have been dying for thousands of years. You think people back in prehistoric times complained about dying? Hell no! So what's the big deal?Agreed, it's not a big deal at all. The only logical course of action is to do nothing.
I like how the correct answer came from someone who doesn't have the ability to form logical arguments and will resort to appeals to emotion every single time.
Its a question of values. Your answer makes sense to you as it fits your values. Others may feel that the children's lives are worth trying to save and their answer will be equally "logical."
Just kidding, but I would like some straightforward responses from Alpha.
December 05, 2011, 03:23:46 PM
I guess the question to you Alpha, is... What do you do with the children if she can't take care of them?
They die, of course. People have been dying for thousands of years. You think people back in prehistoric times complained about dying? Hell no! So what's the big deal?Agreed, it's not a big deal at all. The only logical course of action is to do nothing.
I like how the correct answer came from someone who doesn't have the ability to form logical arguments and will resort to appeals to emotion every single time.
Its a question of values. Your answer makes sense to you as it fits your values. Others may feel that the children's lives are worth trying to save and their answer will be equally "logical."
December 05, 2011, 12:01:40 AM
The answer to all these soon-to-be moot arguments is the ever-increasing penetration of and dependence upon technology in society. All your morals are applicable to humans, and humans are on the way out. Note that this does not have to imply any sort of extinction or extinction-level event.
December 02, 2011, 07:46:25 PM
Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?
This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.
This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.
Children are humans. They are not different. And they are not in dept to anyone , and none owes them nothing.
That means we should help all children but not forced to.
I generally agree. The area where I think we may differ is whether or not taking away the child's right to move freely by privatizing land justifies reimbursement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividend
You guys sensationalize "X is theft, Y is SLAVERY" all the time, and then justify stealing from every child born too late to claim scarce resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!
So yeah, we all do owe something to children. They are entitled to their share of this planet we all got for free.
The children received life for free. That doesn't mean they owe something to their parents, the parents should feel in dept to the child because it's their fault the child exists but if he doesn't ... maybe you should take him but how could you tell if he wants to come with you or not? If you can't, convince the parents to give him away, if they don't want to maybe you should do something .but let me out of it.
If they want property they can inherit it or buy it or fight for it just like we all did. Or maybe you want to give some of your property for free.
Yes property is theft just as much as eating any life form is murder. So maybe you should stop murdering. I know i won't.
Land was not privatized until after agriculture, before then it was free.
Asking me to unilaterally give away my land (if I had any) is just as nonsensical as asking rich supporters of income taxes to just give away their earnings - you're asking people to cooperate on a prisoner's dilemma instead of fixing the system.
And I am fighting for it, in part by helping this movement. When the world uses cryptocurrency, land taxes will be among the few that still work.
So you are proposing communism right? Or more exactly anarchism? we all are equally wealthy even if some are imbeciles and other are quite bright . you are proposing the we can't individually own anything just as a community? or what exactly do you propose?
I'm proposing geoism, and in relation to this topic, a basic income for children, parents, everyone. It's compatible with anarchism (as geoanarchism) or an otherwise minarchist state, but not with communism (Marx hated the idea).
In a statist world, geoists generally advocate more economic freedom and land taxes.
In an anarcho-capitalist world, market forces will encourage land rent automatically, since it is more efficient. People wouldn't even call it a tax, they'd just call it rent.
December 02, 2011, 06:23:32 PM
Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?
This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.
This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.
Children are humans. They are not different. And they are not in dept to anyone , and none owes them nothing.
That means we should help all children but not forced to.
I generally agree. The area where I think we may differ is whether or not taking away the child's right to move freely by privatizing land justifies reimbursement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividend
You guys sensationalize "X is theft, Y is SLAVERY" all the time, and then justify stealing from every child born too late to claim scarce resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!
So yeah, we all do owe something to children. They are entitled to their share of this planet we all got for free.
The children received life for free. That doesn't mean they owe something to their parents, the parents should feel in dept to the child because it's their fault the child exists but if he doesn't ... maybe you should take him but how could you tell if he wants to come with you or not? If you can't, convince the parents to give him away, if they don't want to maybe you should do something .but let me out of it.
If they want property they can inherit it or buy it or fight for it just like we all did. Or maybe you want to give some of your property for free.
Yes property is theft just as much as eating any life form is murder. So maybe you should stop murdering. I know i won't.
Land was not privatized until after agriculture, before then it was free.
Asking me to unilaterally give away my land (if I had any) is just as nonsensical as asking rich supporters of income taxes to just give away their earnings - you're asking people to cooperate on a prisoner's dilemma instead of fixing the system.
And I am fighting for it, in part by helping this movement. When the world uses cryptocurrency, land taxes will be among the few that still work.
So you are proposing communism right? Or more exactly anarchism? we all are equally wealthy even if some are imbeciles and other are quite bright . you are proposing the we can't individually own anything just as a community? or what exactly do you propose?
December 02, 2011, 05:27:10 PM
Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?
This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.
This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.
Children are humans. They are not different. And they are not in dept to anyone , and none owes them nothing.
That means we should help all children but not forced to.
I generally agree. The area where I think we may differ is whether or not taking away the child's right to move freely by privatizing land justifies reimbursement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividend
You guys sensationalize "X is theft, Y is SLAVERY" all the time, and then justify stealing from every child born too late to claim scarce resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!
So yeah, we all do owe something to children. They are entitled to their share of this planet we all got for free.
The children received life for free. That doesn't mean they owe something to their parents, the parents should feel in dept to the child because it's their fault the child exists but if he doesn't ... maybe you should take him but how could you tell if he wants to come with you or not? If you can't, convince the parents to give him away, if they don't want to maybe you should do something .but let me out of it.
If they want property they can inherit it or buy it or fight for it just like we all did. Or maybe you want to give some of your property for free.
Yes property is theft just as much as eating any life form is murder. So maybe you should stop murdering. I know i won't.
Land was not privatized until after agriculture, before then it was free.
Asking me to unilaterally give away my land (if I had any) is just as nonsensical as asking rich supporters of income taxes to just give away their earnings - you're asking people to cooperate on a prisoner's dilemma instead of fixing the system.
And I am fighting for it, in part by helping this movement. When the world uses cryptocurrency, land taxes will be among the few that still work.
December 02, 2011, 04:53:39 PM
"The attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell." -- Karl Popper
I know many of you may have watched this already:
Milton Friedman - Freedom vs. Fairness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_7fu2lNNB8
December 02, 2011, 03:10:26 PM
I am only a voluntaryist.
December 02, 2011, 03:08:41 PM
I feel like Atlas is getting less coherent and more extreme by the day. It's kind of disturbing.
Like what the fuck does this even mean:
It seems like there's at least one sentence in every one of his posts that I can't make heads or tails of.
Like what the fuck does this even mean:
Quote
There is something called desire and it isn't exclusively met by government.
It seems like there's at least one sentence in every one of his posts that I can't make heads or tails of.
I don't know his age, but I am getting the feeling that he may be a minor. I am putting him on ignore just to be safe.
December 02, 2011, 03:00:14 PM
I feel like Atlas is getting less coherent and more extreme by the day. It's kind of disturbing.
Like what the fuck does this even mean:
It seems like there's at least one sentence in every one of his posts that I can't make heads or tails of.
Like what the fuck does this even mean:
Quote
There is something called desire and it isn't exclusively met by government.
It seems like there's at least one sentence in every one of his posts that I can't make heads or tails of.
December 02, 2011, 02:56:43 PM
I'm not OK with anyone taking someones children away.
December 02, 2011, 02:55:41 PM
...snip...
You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so. And this improves on what we have now how?
You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so. And this improves on what we have now how?
Yes because the system can adapt, fail and improve.
On the first day that its OK for random strangers to take kids on their own say so, a lot of paedophiles will be exhausted. So many kids and so little Viagra. Of course you are Ok with this as it allows the system to fail and improve.
That won't happen. Greater societal forces will overcome any pedophile.
By magic? If there is no legal restriction on taking other people's kids, you may find that a little more than magical thinking about "greater societal forces" is needed.
Heh, it's not magic. People don't like kids getting rape. They'll get upset and defensive before then. There is something called desire and it isn't exclusively met by government.
December 02, 2011, 02:53:26 PM
I'd love to know how these privatized CPS units (if that's what you're even suggesting - it's hard to tell sometimes) are going to turn a profit or where they'd get any of their money. Probably from the same endless charity well that will pay for the health care, education, and food for the millions of poor that charities can't afford right now, even with (crappy) social safety nets in place. And if that well runs dry, fuck it, they're just poors, right? The free market will adapt and if "adapt" in this sense means letting millions die, well then that was just the will of the almighty free market, hallowed be its name.
If, on the other hand, you're actually advocating a society where anyone can kidnap anyone else's kid if they suspect abuse, you're even crazier than I gave you credit for.
If, on the other hand, you're actually advocating a society where anyone can kidnap anyone else's kid if they suspect abuse, you're even crazier than I gave you credit for.
December 02, 2011, 02:51:48 PM
...snip...
You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so. And this improves on what we have now how?
You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so. And this improves on what we have now how?
Yes because the system can adapt, fail and improve.
On the first day that its OK for random strangers to take kids on their own say so, a lot of paedophiles will be exhausted. So many kids and so little Viagra. Of course you are Ok with this as it allows the system to fail and improve.
Are you OK with it? NO? Then stop them. Or you don't want to take that responsibility ?
December 02, 2011, 02:51:33 PM
...snip...
You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so. And this improves on what we have now how?
You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so. And this improves on what we have now how?
Yes because the system can adapt, fail and improve.
On the first day that its OK for random strangers to take kids on their own say so, a lot of paedophiles will be exhausted. So many kids and so little Viagra. Of course you are Ok with this as it allows the system to fail and improve.
That won't happen. Greater societal forces will overcome any pedophile.
By magic? If there is no legal restriction on taking other people's kids, you may find that a little more than magical thinking about "greater societal forces" is needed.
December 02, 2011, 02:45:48 PM
...snip...
You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so. And this improves on what we have now how?
You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so. And this improves on what we have now how?
Yes because the system can adapt, fail and improve.
On the first day that its OK for random strangers to take kids on their own say so, a lot of paedophiles will be exhausted. So many kids and so little Viagra. Of course you are Ok with this as it allows the system to fail and improve.
That won't happen. Greater societal forces will overcome any pedophile.
December 02, 2011, 02:45:14 PM
Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?
This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.
This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.
Children are humans. They are not different. And they are not in dept to anyone , and none owes them nothing.
That means we should help all children but not forced to.
I generally agree. The area where I think we may differ is whether or not taking away the child's right to move freely by privatizing land justifies reimbursement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividend
You guys sensationalize "X is theft, Y is SLAVERY" all the time, and then justify stealing from every child born too late to claim scarce resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!
So yeah, we all do owe something to children. They are entitled to their share of this planet we all got for free.
The children received life for free. That doesn't mean they owe something to their parents, the parents should feel in dept to the child because it's their fault the child exists but if he doesn't ... maybe you should take him but how could you tell if he wants to come with you or not? If you can't, convince the parents to give him away, if they don't want to maybe you should do something .but let me out of it.
If they want property they can inherit it or buy it or fight for it just like we all did. Or maybe you want to give some of your property for free.
Yes property is theft just as much as eating any life form is murder. So maybe you should stop murdering. I know i won't.
Jump to: