Unique Solution to Sterilize the "under class"

[EPW]

Radiation or something? I doubt many men would agree to have their balls cut out for any price.

[David Floyd]

Most men on 'Poly probably would, given that they don't use them anyway.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're an idiot. Why would you want La'Twan McCrackbaby running around, when you could simply have paid his mother $10,000 not to have him?

The solution is not to pay welfare at all. I know, it's brilliant innit.

Paying people not to have kids is like the antithesis of 'libertarian'.

Note that the 10k you spent on his mother would result in long-term savings, as the potential La'Twan McCrackbaby will more than likely suck down WAY more than 10k in terms of either social services or prison fees.

You're assuming:

1. The majority of those who would take advantage of the program would be black.
2. That the economy has no connection with the birthrates. You need to have people to sell to if you want to make money.
3. That the government should be in the business of paying people to be sterilized.
4. That La'Twan will be a 'criminal, useless eater or partake of public services.

The solution to welfare problems is to stop giving people money for welfare without:

a) some form of drug checkup. Why do we force people who want to get a job to be tested for drugs, when we don't test those on welfare? It should be the opposite.

b) some form of accountability. Say you can go on it for a year, and then you have to go off it.

c) do away with it altogether. We shouldn't be paying people to do nothing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Most men on 'Poly probably would, given that they don't use them anyway.

Hey, I'm not the one who wants the government to pay for my vasectomy.

[David Floyd]

The solution is not to pay welfare at all. I know, it's brilliant innit.

DING DING DING! I agree! I thought I made that clear! I'd much rather eliminate welfare altogether than pay people not to have kids. However...

Paying people not to have kids is like the antithesis of 'libertarian'.

Libertarianism is not politically possible; therefore, my point is to minimize the damage. Paying people not to have kids, when we understand that the majority of those taking us up on this program are people we don't want having kids anyway, is preferable to paying for those kids from birth to incarceration.

1. The majority of those who would take advantage of the program would be black.

The majority would certainly be minorities, I think that much is obvious.

2. That the economy has no connection with the birthrates. You need to have people to sell to if you want to make money.

Then why is it that the countries worldwide with the highest birthrates are the poorest countries in the world, whereas countries with the lowest birthrates tend to be the richest countries in the world?

3. That the government should be in the business of paying people to be sterilized.

They shouldn't, it just that, if the government has to be in the business of paying people for being poor (which, apparently, they have to be), I'd just as soon they sterilize the poor people who elect to receive government funds.

4. That La'Twan will be a 'criminal, useless eater or partake of public services.

Look at the statistics for blacks growing up in poverty. While some escape, most end up dead, incarcerated, or desperately poor. Not racist, just true.

a) some form of drug checkup. Why do we force people who want to get a job to be tested for drugs, when we don't test those on welfare? It should be the opposite.

I agree, except that if you agree to receive welfare, it should come with sterilization.

b) some form of accountability. Say you can go on it for a year, and then you have to go off it.[/quote]

I agree, except that if you agree to receive welfare, if should come with sterilization.

[DinoDoc]

Let me get this straight. Your ass is so stupid, that you think stalking deer with a shotgun is a sport? You're a ****ing idiot.

Who the hell hunts deer with a shotgun?

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmm, seems Floyd and I would get along.

Wish you were up here.

Then why is it that the countries worldwide with the highest birthrates are the poorest countries in the world, whereas countries with the lowest birthrates tend to be the richest countries in the world?

USA is wealthier than Europe + Canada, and you have a higher birthrate than either.

Northern Europe (Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland and the UK) have higher birthrates than Spain, Greece and Italy, and are all wealthier.

The exception to this is Germany.

I agree, except that if you agree to receive welfare, if should come with sterilization.

Here's where I part company from libertarians. Catholics see sterilization as mutilation. It would be akin to chopping a hand off of welfare recipients. I can agree with not paying them, or drug testing them, but I can't agree with sterilization.

[David Floyd]

The fact that you know the difference =

[David Floyd]

USA is wealthier than Europe + Canada, and you have a higher birthrate than either.

Northern Europe (Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland and the UK) have higher birthrates than Spain, Greece and Italy, and are all wealthier.

The exception to this is Germany.

You are making a silly argument, because you are comparing First World countries.
A more accurate measure would be comparing this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

Against this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate

Yes, it's not 100% congruent, but obviously, the poorest nations which overwhelmingly exist in the Global South also have higher birthrates than those richer nations in the Global North.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, I think it fair to compare apples to apples.

I think there are very real cultural factors that also come into play, but in general, having a low birthrate in the developed world is an economic drag.

[David Floyd]

I don't think the numbers back that up in absolute terms.

OTOH, having a high birthrate in a poor country such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo is an absolute economic drag, and you can't argue otherwise. 49.6 births per capita, which ranks 1st in the world, compared against a per capita GDP of $330, which ranks 2nd to last? Don't tell me that having more babies there would be a good thing

[David Floyd]

Also, as for USA vs. Europe comparisons:

US birthrate = 14.0/1000
Norway = 12.0
Luxembourgh = 11.5

As against per capita GDP:

Luxembourgh = $82,441
Norway = $53,738
USA = $47,440

Hmmm.

[Boris Godunov]

This plan will do nothing to reduce the number of *******s in the U.S., unfortunately.

[David Floyd]

That depends on what you mean by ******s

[MRT144]

This is one step below the Irish Solution.