Morfinyon
New member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2016
- Messages
- 356
- MBTI Type
- INFP
- Enneagram
- 6w7
- Instinctual Variant
- so
Lol, yes. It's hard not to target Anita though.
It's really easy actually! Just don't give a fuck.
Lol, yes. It's hard not to target Anita though.
"Externalized"? Is that just a fancy way of saying spread across society? If so, then I suppose for the same reason one might want the cost of anything distributed in this manner.
So then independence means paying for the books you check out of the library, or for the police officer who comes to take the report when your car is stolen? See previous comment.
When cost is a barrier, access is not easy. Otherwise we could just as well say that everyone has easy access to everything not prohibited by law, and some things that are.
Why not everything then? Where do you draw the line?
Why not everything then? Where do you draw the line?
You've already paid for your share of books. Books can be consumed by anyone with the ability to read not one half of the population based on their biological sex. The books and library example would match your argument if you stated only people who could consume BC would absorb the externalized costs (i.e. women for birth control or men for male enhancement drugs).
You're comparing the police as public service to birth control... I don't even know where to begin. In the way our societies are currently structured police are a social service that are needed, without them many people can be at risk of real danger. This is implicit in the 'social contract' and we also surrender our authority to the police as a result. Again, if you want to stay consistent with the example then women consuming socialized BC would have to surrender some of their authority over their own sexual choices. But you would oppose that naturally. You'd argue to high heaven that women should be fully independent in their choices when it comes to sexual activity but would make a stand when arguing that the costs of those decisions should be offloaded onto society as a whole. It's not consistent to have it both ways. You argue for the independence of the one making the choice but argue for the people paying the bill to have no choice and just accept it.
Yes we pay for the police but as a result we surrender some of our personal liberty to police authority. In our present society police are necessary to live and function in relative safety and security. In my humble opinion birth control or male enhancement drugs do not meet this criteria. I still believe they should be made available and certainly not banned from production and sale but it's a personal choice to consume these products and thus should fall under personal costs.
I hope this makes sense.
Addendum: Again, this goes back to the zero sum game in the liberal mindset whether they realize it or not. In order for Person A , let's say this is a woman wanting birth control, to have independence and freedom in her choice to engage in unprotected sex then the choice of Person B, the citizen/neighbor paying for it, must be curtailed. If Person B complains about "Why am I being made to pay for this?" they are almost immediately labeled and deemed a sexist, misogynist, or some other unsavory label. Some choices have to be taken away so others can exist. Zero sum.
Some men seem justifiably concerned about the prospect of having to pay 18 years worth of support for a child they never wanted, which suggests BC should be on their radar as well.It actually looks like a our basic human needs (that are on the first and mostly second bottom tiers of this chart) are mostly taken care of except sex. It's sort of concerning that we're denying this, no? And Security is listed after physiological needs btw haha.
No, what you are writing doesn't make sense because it mixes up several criteria that really are, or at least should be, independent.
(And BTW, we don't surrender any liberty to the police. What we do surrender is to society as a whole, to the law that stands above all of us. Police, like the courts, are just an enforcement mechanism.)
On the next level, many people include education in this list, and expect even childless people, or those paying for private schooling, to fund the public schools through taxes. They realize that educating young people benefits not only those young people, but the employers who will eventually hire them, and the communities they will contribute to as productive adults rather than prey upon as criminals.
So how do we get from here to birth control? In some sense, it is simply an extension of health care, as are drugs for male sexual issues. More specifically, the consequences of unprotected sex reach far beyond the woman (or man) having it. STDs are a public health concern, and babies are expensive, first to birth and then to raise.
Regardless of one's position on the issue of welfare, one way or another society as a whole pays for unwanted babies. Paying for birth control is cheap compared with what we pay for those consequences, the proverbial stitch in time.
I would like to see both paid for through universal health insurance.
As for books, I think you seriously overestimate the ability of the majority of the population to benefit from a good amount of books in the average library. Might as well resurrect the old Blockbuster Video model and have each reader rent what he/she wants.
Some men seem justifiably concerned about the prospect of having to pay 18 years worth of support for a child they never wanted, which suggests BC should be on their radar as well.
As for sex, since when is it a basic need? It is necessary for propagation of the species, but not necessary to the survival of an individual.
It actually looks like a our basic human needs (that are on the first and mostly second bottom tiers of this chart) are mostly taken care of except sex. It's sort of concerning that we're denying this, no? And Security is listed after physiological needs btw haha.
I got 83%. I love that this test addresses issues that feminists don't usually talk about, like financial independence and "men's/women's jobs." The only one I disagreed with was the "women should be able to choose any path in life" one. I don't think gender should be used as a free ticket to sit at home while your significant other takes care of you. Plus it makes us look bad.
You Are 100% Feminist
The examples are discrete, moving from one end of the continuum toward the other as to how much consensus there is for public funding. The common element is the common good. When relying on what is essentially a fee-for-service/product model jeopardizes public health or safety, public funding is warranted. Similarly, when a modest amount of public funding now allows us to save on greater costs later, that makes economic sense. The other considerations at play are primarily ideological rather than practical.Not sure I follow your argument now because you're the one that used several examples to illuminate your point as if to demonstrate common reasoning throughout all the examples (libraries, police, etc.) Now you're saying they are independent and can't be compared?
But the police are in turn accountable to the courts, and to the same law they enforce for you and me. This shows where the real authority is. In a democracy and not a police state, the police are supposed to work for us, and we as voters have ultimate authority over them, through our elected representatives.The police enforces the law, we agree. Functionally we do surrender our authority to the police since the police are supposed to represent the will of the society. If a police officer orders you to do X, Y, and Z you are expected to comply unless it violates your basic constitutional rights and/or Miranda rights.
This is why I put education after national defense and public safety on that continuum. "State education services", as you put it, are not the only way to educate the young. It is, however, the only way to ensure that all young people are able to receive an education leading to gainful employment and productive, informed citizenship. Public education has long been a hallmark of our democracy, and the means by which generations of Americans have been able to improve their circumstances and contribute to innovation, a hallmark of the American economy. As for government schools, I am against much of what goes on in them. As with other government programs, however, the answer is to correct them, not scrap them. The "every child/family for themselves" model of education, rationed based on ability to pay, is an experiment that has been run many times already, with even worse results than our state-provided education.I understand this but I still disagree that schooling ought to be a taxpayer funded service. This sort of reasoning assumes that the only way to educate the young properly is through state education services. Thus, when anyone raises concerns or opposition to government education they are labeled as being 'anti-education' or they are perceived as not caring about children. This is akin to anyone opposing affirmative action being labeled a racist of some sort. One can be very pro education and also against government schools. Government schools shouldn't be synonymous with education.
Black families were disrupted first and foremost by slavery, under which children were often sold away from parents, and parents from each other. These were the first black single mothers. You are overestimating the average person's ability to follow cause and effect relationships in matters like sex. The fact is, people will have sex. Even when there was no welfare, and before modern birth control, people had sex. They had sex within marriage, even when there were already too many mouths to feed. They had sex outside of marriage, just tried harder to cover it up. Orphanages were overflowing, and death rates were high.The pill, male enhancement, or IUDs do not prevent STDs so the health risk reason here doesn't really apply. Condoms and abstinence are primarily the best deterrents against STDs. I agree that babies are expensive to raise which is a fine disincentive for people to dabble in risky sex. When you have a state that supplies truckloads of welfare benefits for single moms the effect is that it makes the role of the father less significant which in turn mitigates some of the consequences of women engaging in risky sex. Consequently and tragically, the biggest casualties of these programs were the black families which are all but destroyed. The reasoning is simple, if they have a baby they will receive benefits. One of the cornerstones of economics is that whatever you subsidize you increase and whatever you levy you get less of. If one wants to argue 'babies are expensive' then the government programs that subsidize single motherhood should also be looked at instead of just socializing the costs of the pill.
There you go wanting to punish children for the sins of their parents again, and throwing out the baby (here, literally) with the bathwater. I for one am willing to let a few "welfare queens" slip through in the interests of helping far more women and men who want to do the right thing, but have extremely limited means.This kind of argument sort of eliminates female responsibility don't you think. It assumes that females are deterministic and will birth unwanted babies without a government provided pill. Females can also refuse sex for men that refuse to use a condom. Except for in the rare case of rape all of this is within the power of women to decide what kind of men they want to be with. Why are you saying the only solution here is to subsidize bad decisions on the part of females?
Also, what makes you think they will even get/use the pill even if it is made free? What's the incentive? I mean sure, women that really don't want kids might benefit but there are plenty of women out there that want welfare children. It's typically these women and families (mostly single mother households) that have the largest concentration of children per capita.
I was taking issue with this: "Books can be consumed by anyone with the ability to read not one half of the population based on their biological sex." But really I was being facetious.What exactly am I overestimating? I apologize if I'm not following.
Here you are overestimating the appeal of living off welfare. The fact that it seems the best option should tell you something, namely that these (mostly) women feel they don't really have other options. How many grew up on welfare, perhaps with a single mother themselves? How many got a limited, perhaps fragmented education? How many lived in neighborhoods ruled by gangs? How many were raised to depend on men, one way or another? How many had little cause to believe that they could actually support themselves with a reasonable standard of living through gainful employment? Until we break this cycle, there will be some women who think the best option is gaming the system.Yes, a lot of guys would love women to get free access to BC but that doesn't solve the problem necessarily. It can't be assumed that all the women that would be welfare risks would automatically take BC especially if there are financial benefits in single motherhood. Also, it doesn't solve the problem of women choosing under prepared men to risk their eggs with. (Rape cases excluded of course)
It is the same argument: cost effectiveness, providing the greatest good for society as a whole, while minimizing harm.Yes so why should the government subsidize sex? I mean, I'm not for government education either but the education argument is a far more persuasive one than the BC one.
If we don't have enough food or water, we die as individuals. If we don't have sex, we die as a species.This is an arbitrary list but even if we accept it then do you think everyone ought to have a right to sex? Because what we are talking about here is the government providing certain services to people on the taxpayer dime. Maybe you'd agree that the government should provide enough food as to not starve or water not to die of thirst, or a sanitized toilet to shit in, but sex? Why shouldn't sex be a personal matter?
Men are looked down on even more for staying home with kids. This is what needs to go. Women and men should have the same options available to them, and not be judged for which they choose because of their sex.unless staying at home means staying home with kids. I would respect a woman who desides to be there for the kids. actively engaging with them in activities and teaching them to communicate. That is if the household income can take it oc. to be looked down upon for this is not good.
unless staying at home means staying home with kids. I would respect a woman who desides to be there for the kids. actively engaging with them in activities and teaching them to communicate. That is if the household income can take it oc. to be looked down upon for this is not good.
This is an arbitrary list but even if we accept it then do you think everyone ought to have a right to sex? Because what we are talking about here is the government providing certain services to people on the taxpayer dime. Maybe you'd agree that the government should provide enough food as to not starve or water not to die of thirst, or a sanitized toilet to shit in, but sex? Why shouldn't sex be a personal matter?
Men are looked down on even more for staying home with kids.
Women and men should have the same options available to them, and not be judged for which they choose because of their sex.
This is an arbitrary list but even if we accept it then do you think everyone ought to have a right to sex? Because what we are talking about here is the government providing certain services to people on the taxpayer dime. Maybe you'd agree that the government should provide enough food as to not starve or water not to die of thirst, or a sanitized toilet to shit in, but sex? Why shouldn't sex be a personal matter?