Mother of 15 Kids: “Somebody needs to pay for all my children."

[Hawker]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions.

The strongest desire of the people is that social services are provided for children such as these.  Part of that if forcibly taking the children from the family.  Only the state can authorise that.

It is not the strongest desire of the people. The government is not the people. It only happens to be the power in charge. Anything can happen as long as the might allows it, even revolution.

You are dodging the point.  We are in agreement the children need to be taken into care.  Only the state can do that - you can't be advocating a situation where private individuals can come to someone's house and take their children on their own authority, can you?

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions.

The strongest desire of the people is that social services are provided for children such as these.  Part of that if forcibly taking the children from the family.  Only the state can authorise that.

It is not the strongest desire of the people. The government is not the people. It only happens to be the power in charge. Anything can happen as long as the might allows it, even revolution.

You are dodging the point.  We are in agreement the children need to be taken into care.  Only the state can do that - you can't be advocating a situation where private individuals can come to someone's house and take their children on their own authority, can you?

Yes, I am, if the general society allows it. I don't think there should be a monopoly on such things. Monopolies are hard to hold accountable.

[Hawker]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions.

The strongest desire of the people is that social services are provided for children such as these.  Part of that if forcibly taking the children from the family.  Only the state can authorise that.

It is not the strongest desire of the people. The government is not the people. It only happens to be the power in charge. Anything can happen as long as the might allows it, even revolution.

You are dodging the point.  We are in agreement the children need to be taken into care.  Only the state can do that - you can't be advocating a situation where private individuals can come to someone's house and take their children on their own authority, can you?

Yes, I am, if the general society allows it. I don't think there should be a monopoly on such things. Monopolies are hard to hold accountable.

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?

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions.

The strongest desire of the people is that social services are provided for children such as these.  Part of that if forcibly taking the children from the family.  Only the state can authorise that.

It is not the strongest desire of the people. The government is not the people. It only happens to be the power in charge. Anything can happen as long as the might allows it, even revolution.

You are dodging the point.  We are in agreement the children need to be taken into care.  Only the state can do that - you can't be advocating a situation where private individuals can come to someone's house and take their children on their own authority, can you?

Yes, I am, if the general society allows it. I don't think there should be a monopoly on such things. Monopolies are hard to hold accountable.

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.

[Hawker]

...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?

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. 

[deuxmill]

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.

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.

We got nothing for free . our ancestors fought for supremacy. They were lucky to be given intelligence. Unlike other life forms.

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.

[ALPHA.]

...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?

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.

[Hawker]

...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?

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. 

[deuxmill]

...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?

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 ?

[rainingbitcoins]

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.

[ALPHA.]

...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?

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.

[deuxmill]

I'm not OK with anyone taking someones children away.

[rainingbitcoins]

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:

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.

[cbeast]

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:

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.

[ALPHA.]

I am only a voluntaryist.

[beckspace]

"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

[Explodicle]

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.

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.

We got nothing for free . our ancestors fought for supremacy. They were lucky to be given intelligence. Unlike other life forms.

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.

[deuxmill]

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.

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.

We got nothing for free . our ancestors fought for supremacy. They were lucky to be given intelligence. Unlike other life forms.

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?

[Explodicle]

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.

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.

We got nothing for free . our ancestors fought for supremacy. They were lucky to be given intelligence. Unlike other life forms.

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.

[Crypt_Current]

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.