US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1937

On May 08 2015 13:49 Wegandi wrote:


/oblivious. Again, the poster we were talking about before you joined in, said that the point of Government providing BC was to lower welfare costs associated with unwanted pregnancies. Following this utilitarian line yet? So, if his argument is that it is prudent for Government to reduce its own Welfare costs associated with these unwanted pregnancies, then why advocate for recurring costs of BC, and not the one-time sterilization cost? Which was ironic given the fact this same poster then (before me and ClutZ posted) went on to say the poster he was responding to (Millitron) should be advocating for sterilization. Do you not see the hilariousness of his own dissonance? No? OK. I give up.

On May 08 2015 14:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
Well this got way to meta for me. Unwanted children cost money regardless of what the government does. It just makes sense to make preventative measures inexpensive and easily accessible. Forced sterilization is a whole different ball of wax as is welfare.

On May 08 2015 14:10 Wegandi wrote:


No one has made that argument, either in this thread, or in the Government. The argument is that these folks are too poor to afford 10-50$ of BC every so often, which is a cheaper cost to the Government than them having babies which then fall under the umbrella of Welfarism. Who on earth made the argument that the Government must provide BC because it incentivizes family planning? Really? IUD's are pretty much fire and forget (they last for a long time), and for couples/women/partners/what have you that generally fall under this lens (ages 17-26 or so) family planning doesn't enter the picture really. They just know they don't want kids. Which is fine, really, I'm 28 and I don't want kids so no fault there, but it's the hilarity that there are people out there who are so poor, they cannot afford birth control, without starving. Perhaps the homeless, but I'm not sure that sex is high up on their priority lists. We should be trying to feed and help them with shelter.

There are some people out there who would rather spend their money on other things than BC, which is their own personal decision and they should bear that responsibility not me or anyone else. (And before we talk about unwanted births we really need to talk about why it is so difficult and expensive to adopt) I'm sure there are the oddball cases where they're not homeless, and they really can't afford BC without starving/paying bare essential rent, but that's the exception, and in this case it is way more important to try and lift these people out of their predicament than to throw them some birth control. That should really be way down on the priority lists.

On May 08 2015 14:10 Wegandi wrote:


No one has made that argument, either in this thread, or in the Government. The argument is that these folks are too poor to afford 10-50$ of BC every so often, which is a cheaper cost to the Government than them having babies which then fall under the umbrella of Welfarism. Who on earth made the argument that the Government must provide BC because it incentivizes family planning? Really? IUD's are pretty much fire and forget (they last for a long time), and for couples/women/partners/what have you that generally fall under this lens (ages 17-26 or so) family planning doesn't enter the picture really. They just know they don't want kids. Which is fine, really, I'm 28 and I don't want kids so no fault there, but it's the hilarity that there are people out there who are so poor, they cannot afford birth control, without starving. Perhaps the homeless, but I'm not sure that sex is high up on their priority lists. We should be trying to feed and help them with shelter.

There are some people out there who would rather spend their money on other things than BC, which is their own personal decision and they should bear that responsibility not me or anyone else. (And before we talk about unwanted births we really need to talk about why it is so difficult and expensive to adopt) I'm sure there are the oddball cases where they're not homeless, and they really can't afford BC without starving/paying bare essential rent, but that's the exception, and in this case it is way more important to try and lift these people out of their predicament than to throw them some birth control. That should really be way down on the priority lists.

If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent themselves freely, it's a free contract"—but that's a joke. If your choice is, "do what I tell you or starve," that's not a choice—it's in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example.

[. . .]

The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No, I'm a libertarian, I'm against that tax"—but of course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.

On May 08 2015 14:21 puerk wrote:

They could afford it, if they prioritize it over food, shelter, transportation, heating and other aspects of physical and mental healthcare. The argument that you continually misscharacterize is that the probability of them not prioritising BC over everything else times the effect of an unwanted pregnancy is bigger than the impact of government subsidised BC on the population. People will have sex and they will walk into moral hazards, your approach is: let them suffer, the argument here is: we are all better off when we do not let them suffer for mistakes but rather appropriate a little money before the risk even comes up.

"We should be trying to feed and help them with shelter." be careful, that sounds like a forced wealth transfer to the weak and undeserving, slippery slope to tyranny and all that right behind the corner.

On May 08 2015 14:23 IgnE wrote:


Arguments that devolve into "person responsibility" and the right not to give a shit about anyone else are just absurd. As Chomsky said rather succinctly:

On May 08 2015 14:30 Wegandi wrote:


Where are these people who will starve/get thrown out of their place if they spent money on BC? Where are these people whose income is baseline on the Maslow scale? I'm sure there are a tiny few, but where is this epidemic? Where are all these people at? No, a lot of these people you cite can afford BC, but they choose to spend their money on other items. Maybe they spend 75$ more a month to eat out, or buy a DVD or spend 15$ a month on Netflix/Amazon, or something. You know, that is fine and all, each person has their own preferences. The problem is then people like you advocating because some people make unwise decisions we should subsidize their poor judgment. Now, to the issue of unwanted births, again, the system in place for adoption is atrocious. Hideous. Disgusting. It's inordinately difficult and expensive thanks to huge bureaucracies and red-tape. There also needs to be a more concerted effort on public awareness with this.

Your argument is to prevent people from learning from poor judgment. You treat everyone as a child. That's not healthy. People need to be responsible for their own decisions and we need to help foster awareness that there are available options and you are not a worse person for taking it up (e.g. letting your child go for adoption, etc.). There is a huge social stigma attached to this, which is a real shame. There are far more families who want to adopt, than there are children up for adoption.

Pro tip: Notice I said 'we', not the Government. I'm not an objectivist. Oh also, Mutual Aid Societies xonebillionsbillions over administrative State bureaucracy.

On May 08 2015 14:10 Wegandi wrote:


No one has made that argument, either in this thread, or in the Government. The argument is that these folks are too poor to afford 10-50$ of BC every so often, which is a cheaper cost to the Government than them having babies which then fall under the umbrella of Welfarism. Who on earth made the argument that the Government must provide BC because it incentivizes family planning? Really? IUD's are pretty much fire and forget (they last for a long time), and for couples/women/partners/what have you that generally fall under this lens (ages 17-26 or so) family planning doesn't enter the picture really. They just know they don't want kids. Which is fine, really, I'm 28 and I don't want kids so no fault there, but it's the hilarity that there are people out there who are so poor, they cannot afford birth control, without starving. Perhaps the homeless, but I'm not sure that sex is high up on their priority lists. We should be trying to feed and help them with shelter.

There are some people out there who would rather spend their money on other things than BC, which is their own personal decision and they should bear that responsibility not me or anyone else. (And before we talk about unwanted births we really need to talk about why it is so difficult and expensive to adopt) I'm sure there are the oddball cases where they're not homeless, and they really can't afford BC without starving/paying bare essential rent, but that's the exception, and in this case it is way more important to try and lift these people out of their predicament than to throw them some birth control. That should really be way down on the priority lists.

On May 08 2015 12:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

rank 'em and yank 'em :3

Edit: also, what if you missclick and sort ascending instead of descending? Que horrible....

On May 08 2015 14:43 GreenHorizons wrote:


lol as if there aren't over 100k kids waiting to be adopted as it is. Just stop providing birth control and let unwanted pregnancies and such explode. Cause we can drop the kids into the amazing foster system we have. We all know private orphanages are fantastic too.

How separated from reality can a perspective be...?

On May 08 2015 14:30 Wegandi wrote:


Where are these people who will starve/get thrown out of their place if they spent money on BC? Where are these people whose income is baseline on the Maslow scale? I'm sure there are a tiny few, but where is this epidemic? Where are all these people at? No, a lot of these people you cite can afford BC, but they choose to spend their money on other items. Maybe they spend 75$ more a month to eat out, or buy a DVD or spend 15$ a month on Netflix/Amazon, or something. You know, that is fine and all, each person has their own preferences. The problem is then people like you advocating because some people make unwise decisions we should subsidize their poor judgment. Now, to the issue of unwanted births, again, the system in place for adoption is atrocious. Hideous. Disgusting. It's inordinately difficult and expensive thanks to huge bureaucracies and red-tape. There also needs to be a more concerted effort on public awareness with this.

Your argument is to prevent people from learning from poor judgment. You treat everyone as a child. That's not healthy. People need to be responsible for their own decisions and we need to help foster awareness that there are available options and you are not a worse person for taking it up (e.g. letting your child go for adoption, etc.). There is a huge social stigma attached to this, which is a real shame. There are far more families who want to adopt, than there are children up for adoption.

Pro tip: Notice I said 'we', not the Government. I'm not an objectivist. Oh also, Mutual Aid Societies xonebillionsbillions over administrative State bureaucracy.

On May 08 2015 14:40 Wegandi wrote:


Everyone has the right not to be appropriated from. Where do you get this right to appropriate? In any event, Chomsky is a bumbling fool on all, but the warfare State. For a so-called anarchist he's in line pretty much policy with traditional State-socialists (the man even admitted he has zero economic knowledge...). Anyways! You make the same errs of logic - namely, because I don't want the state involved in X, I don't want X. It's really asinine to be quite frank. Just because I don't think/want the State doling out BC/Welfare/etc., doesn't mean I don't want 'assistance' to the needy. It's like if I said, I don't want the USSR to collectivize, you'd admonish me for advocating that everybody starve. It's really really dumb.

I'm all for actually effective ways to alleviate poverty and provide assistance - free-markets, Lockean property rights, Mutual Aid societies, etc. But, of course, make stupid remarks like Chomsky, as if there are libertarians are who are pro-War, pro-build muh roads!!!!, and pro-G-schools. Over here in actual libertarian land, my brethren are stoutly anti-war, pro-private infrastructure (it's a running joke about muh roads!), and are for either home-schooling, unschooling, or private schools. Chomsky is a total dufus' with that quote.

Oh by the way, next time you interview for a job, do you go in and do no negotiating because if you did you're scared you're going to starve? I mean, if that was the case how are there jobs that pay above minimum wage? Chomsky's quote denotes his zero knowledge of any economics which again, he even admitted himself.

On May 08 2015 14:52 Wegandi wrote:

Oh, please do tell me that if the State ceased its BC welfarism this explosion of babies dying in dumpsters or on the streets? Really, that's your position?

On May 08 2015 14:52 Wegandi wrote:


LMAO. Just a post ago I knew this horrible logic would show up again. Because I don't want/think the State should provide BC I believe that BC shouldn't exist? How on earth you delude yourself into thinking that is actually an appropriate leap of logic. Talk about divorced from reality.

Oh, please do tell me that if the State ceased its BC welfarism this explosion of babies dying in dumpsters or on the streets? Really, that's your position? Then you call me separated from reality. Of course adoption lines are huge because if you decided to read what I wrote there are huge administrative and bureaucratic red-tape and it is grossly expensive thanks to this as well. There are a ton of families who'd love to adopt who simply can't.

On May 08 2015 12:25 Millitron wrote:I don't really think living on welfare is any more dignified than being a beggar on the streets. It's not as obviously shameful, but it's functionally identical.

On May 08 2015 14:49 KwarK wrote:
A lot of people make very irrational choices. They buy dumb things, they put things on credit cards when they know they can't afford them, they take out payday loans. A lot of people are like children, or worse, when it comes to taking care of themselves. A lot of people grew up without anyone explaining what an interest rate was to them, or how it works, and through advertising and consumerism American society farms and enslaves the idiots who make up the majority of its labour force. And that's all fine, to an extent. I mean sure, I'd like it if there were personal finance courses in high school because that's some really important life shit right there and if your parents were dumb with money and nobody ever showed you how it all works there's a pretty good chance you're going to end up thinking that payment plans is just what people do.

I think a lot of people should be treated like children because they pretty much are children. Or at least they are when compared to my super advanced space brain. So the question is what does this mean?

Well, if they want to try and live off of fast food and ruin their health, pretty much their problem.
If they want to buy a car worth four years gross income on payments, pretty much their problem.
If they want to have way too much kids, that's actually the kid's problem because they grow up totally fucked.

As a human being I think that kids growing up totally fucked is a bad idea and that we should try and help those kids, even though their parents were dumb sack of shit plebs. And this is where it gets expensive for me because I don't want those kids being homeless just because their parents thought that their iphone5 wasn't good enough so they took out a payday loan for an iphone6. At this point it becomes my issue, even though I didn't cause it.

So, what to do here.
We could either pay for the kids, which is expensive. Or we could sterilize the poor, as Millitron would have us do. Or we could try and get them to not have kids, which is way less expensive.


Personal responsibility is a myth perpetuated by people who, honestly, look no different from the guys getting payday loans from way up here on my space brain cloud. Here you are bitching about stuff you have no control over on a forum that has absolutely no impact on anything when I bet you have real problems going on in your life that you're neglecting. Maybe you should go deal with those wegandi. Humans suck at making good choices, you, those guys, pretty much everyone and you're all vermin to us master race guys who keep you running in the rat race for shit you don't need. We use personal responsibility as a bat to beat those who let themselves be abused with for the vast majority of things, when they didn't get the job they wanted, the education they needed for that job, the social background they needed for that education etc. When they dared to aspire to the life they were told was their birthright as an American by advertisers with an interest in skinning them. Personal responsibility is a weapon that people on the top use to explain to the cattle why it's their fault they're being led to the abattoir.

And that's okay because it's a cannibalistic system and I want meat. But let's not eat the kids. It may be the personal responsibility of the parents but I think we can draw the line at only taking the money, the labour, the dignity and the health of the parents in the name of personal responsibility, we don't need to fuck the kids over. Their time will come.

On May 08 2015 21:39 always_winter wrote:
Hahaha the birth control debate is in full effect! Inb4 things escalated quickly gif.

Allow me, humbly, to submit my two cents absent an empirical study and/or senior thesis on the subject.

People have urges, bruh. Every living thing on this planet, barring the asexual species who just bang themselves or some shit (again, not a scientist), have urges. I rescued 6 grey tree frogs last summer, two of which are male and now that it's spring call non-stop, begging the females, "cmon let's fuck, I'm over here baby let's fuck."

If you think people are not going to have sex without contraceptives as some sort of incentive (lol), you, sir, are mistaken. Every high school in America basically has a yoga pants dress code- you expect those horny little fucks not to act on their urges? Please. There's a reason I wore sweat pants everyday to college classes. Inb4 erection is showing gif (movie is too damn quotable).

It's cool that you guys were raised super religious and oppose this shit on some sort of spiritual, Jesus level. I was too. At some point you just gotta look yourself in the face and say, "When in Rome (really can't help myself)" and maybe take the wheel back from Jesus for a second and just let reality take its course. One love.