The most shocking thing about this for me is the revelation that 15 million people get child benefit.
So in a very overcrowded country with very high house prices, supposedly desperate to reduce its 'carbon footprint', the government thinks it is appropriate to encourage one in four of the population to have more children; furthermore it chooses to do this by taxing and spending.
Uh?
Abolish child benefit. If people are going to complain that they'll be too poor to properly bring up their children, well they should have thought about that earlier.
Compulsary sterilisation of all the population. Then those who want children must pass some sort of test to prove that they are able to bring them up properly.
I know where you're comming from, but the problem with abolshing child benefit is that it penalises the children and they had no choice in the matter of being born.
The other thing to consider is that the 15 million people would include not only those receiving it now, but probably those who have applied and been rejected, and those who were receiving it previously (at least for a time). Also child benefit covers a period of at least 16 years, I think it goes on longer for those who have children in higher education (to age 19?).
"Compulsory sterilisation of all the population" isn't exactly libertarian though is it? I can sympathise with the idea, but I think you might offend our trollish friend...
I don't think that I claimed that it was libertarian.
As for offending freddie, he is at liberty to be offended if he wishes to be. To be true to libertarianism (as it has been explained to me) I should be at liberty to be as offensive (or pleasant) to him as I wish.
The problem with such a philosophy is that somebody's liberty infringes somebody else's liberty. For example, I want the liberty to be able to go into a pub and not have to breath somebody else's tobacco smoke, however, that person wants the liberty to be able to partake of a cigarette while they drink their pint in the pub. Where does one draw the line?
Even the principle employed by Human Rights legislation is open to problems. (One only enjoy something as a Human Right if it doesn't infringe somebody else's Human Right to something.) Does the second person also loose their Human Right to that thing because by having it they are, through Human Right legislation, preventing the first person from enjoying their Human Right? And so we go round in circles...
I didn't think that Freddie had made any specific point regarding libertarianism, at least on this thread, but maybe you know better than I do.
I'm not convinced about the claim that people are better at drawing the line than the state.
Take communisism for example. The basic principle that everybody is given what they need is basically sound (regardless of whether you or I actually believe in it). However to actually achieve that ideal somebody has to do the mecanics of the giving out and that person will be able to abuse the system. Human nature being what it is they will do, so the whole system breaks down.
Alternatively, to take the example that I cited above of smoking. The state has been forced to draw the line because most smokers weren't prepared to draw a reasonable line themselves. The amount of whinging that smokers have done this year about their "right to smoke" while ignoring other people's right to smoke-free air has been immence.
There are some things which it is better for the state to draw the line because they relate to many, many people, or a very broad picture needs to be considered. And there are other things that people are better at drawing the line because they are more focused. I don't think that a one-size-fits-all approach is workable.
Going back to the OTT suggestion of mine of universal steralisation and Freddie's complaint that prospective parents should consider the cost of bringing up prospective children. Freddie himself make the point in that complaint that many individual people aren't good at making that decision. My proffered solution to Freddie's complaint is that the decision should be taken away from the people as a whole before they make it (because they aren't any good at it), rather than afterwards (because doing that would unfairly penalise those who had made a sensible decision in good faith based on the current situation).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-11-22 12:44 am (UTC)So in a very overcrowded country with very high house prices, supposedly desperate to reduce its 'carbon footprint', the government thinks it is appropriate to encourage one in four of the population to have more children; furthermore it chooses to do this by taxing and spending.
Uh?
Abolish child benefit. If people are going to complain that they'll be too poor to properly bring up their children, well they should have thought about that earlier.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-22 11:19 am (UTC)I know where you're comming from, but the problem with abolshing child benefit is that it penalises the children and they had no choice in the matter of being born.
The other thing to consider is that the 15 million people would include not only those receiving it now, but probably those who have applied and been rejected, and those who were receiving it previously (at least for a time). Also child benefit covers a period of at least 16 years, I think it goes on longer for those who have children in higher education (to age 19?).
no subject
Date: 2007-11-22 03:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-22 07:28 pm (UTC)As for offending freddie, he is at liberty to be offended if he wishes to be. To be true to libertarianism (as it has been explained to me) I should be at liberty to be as offensive (or pleasant) to him as I wish.
The problem with such a philosophy is that somebody's liberty infringes somebody else's liberty. For example, I want the liberty to be able to go into a pub and not have to breath somebody else's tobacco smoke, however, that person wants the liberty to be able to partake of a cigarette while they drink their pint in the pub. Where does one draw the line?
Even the principle employed by Human Rights legislation is open to problems. (One only enjoy something as a Human Right if it doesn't infringe somebody else's Human Right to something.) Does the second person also loose their Human Right to that thing because by having it they are, through Human Right legislation, preventing the first person from enjoying their Human Right? And so we go round in circles...
no subject
Date: 2007-11-22 11:42 pm (UTC)Or at least I think that's his point.
Help me out here, Freddy...
no subject
Date: 2007-11-22 11:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-23 01:15 pm (UTC)I'm not convinced about the claim that people are better at drawing the line than the state.
Take communisism for example. The basic principle that everybody is given what they need is basically sound (regardless of whether you or I actually believe in it). However to actually achieve that ideal somebody has to do the mecanics of the giving out and that person will be able to abuse the system. Human nature being what it is they will do, so the whole system breaks down.
Alternatively, to take the example that I cited above of smoking. The state has been forced to draw the line because most smokers weren't prepared to draw a reasonable line themselves. The amount of whinging that smokers have done this year about their "right to smoke" while ignoring other people's right to smoke-free air has been immence.
There are some things which it is better for the state to draw the line because they relate to many, many people, or a very broad picture needs to be considered. And there are other things that people are better at drawing the line because they are more focused. I don't think that a one-size-fits-all approach is workable.
Going back to the OTT suggestion of mine of universal steralisation and Freddie's complaint that prospective parents should consider the cost of bringing up prospective children. Freddie himself make the point in that complaint that many individual people aren't good at making that decision. My proffered solution to Freddie's complaint is that the decision should be taken away from the people as a whole before they make it (because they aren't any good at it), rather than afterwards (because doing that would unfairly penalise those who had made a sensible decision in good faith based on the current situation).
no subject
Date: 2007-11-23 01:44 pm (UTC)On the other hand, it also says he was born in 1899, which seems unlikely!
He seems to have gone rather quiet for now. I also notice that he's never actually made a post himself, only comments and replies.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-23 03:39 pm (UTC)