[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

Somewhere in that cite, I believe, is a study which indicates that, so long as basic, fundamental needs are met, ie, food, clothing, shelter, the future outlook for poor kids doesnot really depend on poverty, on how much money their parents have or make, but on fundamental aspects of character they learn from those parents. So unless you can make the case that poor people are by nature less honest, less honorable, etc., than say, politicians or lawyers, I'm not sure how you would draft any law justyfing the removal of their children.

Argus, I actualy agree with you. The key is that the basic, fundamentals need to be met. Even to meet those needs requires an obligation on which the parents must deliver. For example if a sole-support parent is on welfare, and cannot afford to provide even the basics of food, clothing, or shelter, then they are not in a position to deliver on those obligations.

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

Well, luckily, at the end of your post here, you offer a fine example of yourself doing exactly this. I couldn't have asked for a better example.

You quote me, then a response from yourself asking a question. But note: in the very quote attributed to me, I already answered the question, clearly and unambiguously:

YOU offered me this...and your proof that I avoid answering direct questions is that...I didn't answer the same question twice? Once was insufficient?

Christ, you quoted my answering the question. You quoted it...and then you have the gall to say I'm not answering it?

Did you even read the passage of mine that you were quoting before you asked your (already answered) question?

Let me point out the difference between the way you interpret words and I do.

You said "I'm not questioning the recognition of a problem" and you expect me to interpret that to be "Yes, I recognize there is a problem.". Unfortunately, semantics is important and "not questioning" is not the same as "acknowldeging". It is clear to me that because you jump to assumptions, you expect me to as well.

Well, then let me repeat the point I've made more than once on this matter and which you absolutely refuse to address:

IF "the threshhold [you] have specified as the financial barrier is lowered to virtually nothing," then this part of the debate is completely over. The other qualifications don't matter here, because this is the one we're talking about.

I'm not sying hundreds of thousands of parents would not be qualifed if the barrier was reduced to zero; I'm saying you have abandoned your argument altogether, asked me, "But what about if the barrier doesn't exist? What then?"

What then? Why, we are not arguing about your proposed qualifications anymore. You ahve just gotten rid of one of them completely.

Because, my dear bloodyminded, we are bracketing the problem. You refuse to actually address the issue because that would actually defeat your argument.

Let me slowly explain the mathematical logic to you. At at level of $0 YOU agree that no problem exist. At the level I proposed, YOU claim that a problem exist. It is therefore a logical certainty that the level at which the problem appears (at least according to you) MUST BE BETWEEN THE TWO. It matters not that you refuse to define the specfic level. Anyone even putting aside what their feeling on the issue would rationally acknowledge that there is no other logical conclusion.

Yes, i see what you mean, but this is a result of your convoluted semi-Socratic method, as well as your tendency to pluck decontextualized passages from my answer, and then respond to them with more questions.

Yes it is a common ploy when your own words are put to you, to claim, "oh you took it out of context". Well, my dear bloodyminded, all the words are there. You are free to quote the rest of the context and demonstrate how I so abused your quote by taking it out of context.

The point here was to answer another unsubstantiated claim you made: that the real-time numbers of babies born will decrease under stricter licensing procedures. And i even granted that it could well decrease. However, it would not decrease enough, and so there would still be lots of homeless babies. Meanwhile, if the financial barrier is "decreased to zero," this of course means the financial barrier is eliminated. So your argument ends at that point.

Can you quote that unsubstantiated claim? I dont' believe that I made such a claim. I do believe it MAY decrease, but even if it does not, nothing about my argument changes. What I do believe will decrease is the number of kids belonging to unqualifed parents.

I have already addressed the irrefutable logic of that the level of the finanical barrier must exist. I need not address any further.

Sure, you've given me an opportunity to "peg a more realistic measure"; ie come up with a wantonly useless and meaningless guess (along the lines of your arbitrary "one year," for no purpsoe other than to keep this debate within strict parameters to be ordained only by yourself. You'll go so far as to say, "What if my qualifications aren't in effect?" (ie eliminating financial barriers). As if the argument isn't over at the moment you deign to do this.

What would i like? You wish me to humour you and arbitrarily choose some number, with no method or rationale behind the plucking it out of thin air? Why? What's the point of this? I feel you're being mischievous.

1. If the financial barrier is lowered to zero, then what are we debating?

2. If I am to randomly pick some number, without reason or rationale (which is what picking some random number IS...without reason or rationale), then how is that useful? how does it even make any sense?

Hey you already came up with a "a wantonly useless and meaningless guess" (remember the glut of hundreds of thousands of babies), if you wanted a specfic number, you can easily make another guess. That you don't want to is fine with me. I have already proved what I need to.

You have cornered yourself, hence your frustration.

Not really. I've proved my point. Anyone reading this thread can see that, whether you do or not is irrlevant to me.

And the question is wholly legitimate. You know it is, which is why you criticize the perfectly good question even as you ignore it.

Of course it is a legitimate question. It is far more legitimate question than the nonsense you raised about feasibilty. But why raise it now, after you declared that your ONLY objection was feasability of impementation?

It is a common tactic when your arguments are exhausted to suddenly come up with another objection.

It would be the right objection to raise, and you should have raised it first, and I woudl have addressed if first. At this point why bother addresssing it, until we have agreed that the current objection (feasabilty) has been addressed.

??? What..it's "too late"? the quesiton might have been answered, but since it comes up now...forget it?

Yes forget it.I'll be happy to address it if another poster brings it up. It is my view you are just bringing it up to be disingenuous.

[...]

So should they ignore the agreement? I'm sure such a scenario was never considered when the agreement was signed, but, don't we have to live by our agreements?

There is quite a simple fix. As part of the federal-provincial HST agreement, the province should require that the job offer by the Federal government to the employee be conditional upon the employee waiving the severance clause. IOW, the employee gets to choose between a severance and a federal job.

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

You cannot eliminate "child poverty" in any event, as the very nature of the definition used (being a percntage of those below the mean) is that is it will always be present.

Yes, I realize that. As long as a relative measure is used to measure poverty, you will always have poor people and poor kids.

That is not the original point of the thread. I agree that a more realistic measurement of poverty would be an absolute measurement. However even if you use an absolute measurement, to define who is poor, my premise remains:

Kids in poverty is a result of poor parents having kids. If we want less kids in poverty, we should discourage poor parents from having kids they cannot provide for.

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

Holy cow, Renegade. We both agree to have a civilized discussion, and yet you keep pulling the same stunts:

Notably, inventing my opinions for me...and then implying I'm being uncivil when I perform the heresy of objecting to this.

Look I want to keep it civil, however you have accused me of inventing opinions in two separate posts now. I have even quoted where I have drawn the opinions from. You provide no response about why my conclusion of your opinion is wrong. In fact I have simply restated exactly what you have said WORD FOR WORD, yet you conclude that it is an invented opinion. If I have not interpreted your opinion correctly it is based upon my MISUNDERSTANDING of your position, and I offered you the opportunity to correct it. Your repeated accusation of calling it an invented opinion is nothing more than an insult and will be treated as such.

Anyway, virtually your entire post, which breaks my post up into one decontextualized quote after another, which you then expect me to answer, finally comes to the crux of it.

Not every child. Merely most of them. That's the hundreds of thousands to which I referred. I even gave you the possibility--as doubtful as I think it is--that it could be half of that number.

If that is your conclusion it is nothing short of ridiculous. You have concluded that hundreds of thousands of parents would not be qualified as parents, EVEN when the threshold I have specified as the financial barrier is lowered to virtually nothing. Unless you have some evidence that hundreds of thousands of parents are drug users, incompetent, or underage, your conclusion is so unbelievable that it is not worth responding to as an objection.

???? Obviously $1 dollar would not be "too high," just as obviously this doesn't in any way fit into your proposals.

Sure it does. I have specified what I think is a suitable target. Im open to modification to what ever seems to be the right number. I have repeatedly said this. It is your issue that you dont wish to explore this.

You wish to pin ME down to a specific number; even though I've made it clear that I oppose this idea in its entirety.

And then you call this "evasion," as if your question is a good one that deserves an answer. But it isn't. I reject the idea that finance play a part in this scheme; that poor people become a babymaking service class for the well-to-do.

It's not evasion: it's rejection of your premise entire.

Actually you have already been pinned down to a number. You quoted a number which make zero sense . Do you remember saying this???("I do NOT think there is some level under your proposal where there will not be more babies than "suitable" parents.". IOW, you have said even at the zero dollar level, it would still result in hundreds of thousands of unsuitable parents.

I have given you at least a couple of opportunities to peg a more realistic number, but since you refuse to do so, Im fine to use you last stated position, as it illustrates how truly ridiculous your position is.

In you post you admit why you refuse to come up with a number. It not as per your original objection (ie that it would end up with a glut of babies), it is specifically because you are opposed to the concept. That you are opposed to the concept is obvious. That I have addressed your original objection, is also obvious.

Again, since this is your notion, not mine, what do you propose? You've said a year...it was the only specific you'd offer. So let's go with that in the meantime.

Actually Ive suggested a couple of levels, none of which you commented on. What would you like instead? I can start at $1 and increment it by $1 until we find the point you consider unreasonably high?

Exactly. (unqualified by your standards, not mine...and your financial reason would be the major obstacle.) What is to be done with them?

Your position makes no sense. If I offer to lower the financial barrier to virtually nothing, how can it continue to be a barrier? Since you refuse to actually discuss the level of the barrier, your objection is irrelevant.

And another pertinent question: what kind of society has the majority (or even a plurality) of its citizens not allowed to have children?

Well, well, I somehow knew it would come to this. I gave you the opportunity to list your objection. You indicated that your ONLY objection was implementability of the system. I somehow had the feeling that once you were cornered in your position you would raise this objection. I feel no particular compunction to address objections such as this, because if you had originally raised this, then this would have been the focus of discussion rather than the details we have already gone through. IOW, it makes no sense to have gone through the discussion we have already gone through unless we were already past this objection.

I will not waste my time addressing this objection except to say that a society is perfectly within its rights to hold parents to obligations toward their child.

What are the social consequences of this?

More children brought up in environments where parents can live up to their commitments.

I'm not questioning the recognition of a problem. It's the proposed solution that makes no sense to me.

I see. So you agree that there is a problem in this area?

Still want to avoid answering a simple question eh? I guess you don't want to explicitly admit to a problem.

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

Right. And hundreds of thousands of children were not instantaneously homeless as a result of the change in policy.

Huh? I have no idea on what your response means. Which "hundreds of thousands of children were not instantaneously homeless as a result of the change in policy"? Which policy? Your response makes no sense to me.

But you can't assume that, since there is a problem, there must be an easy fix. There isn't one.

I don't and there isn't an easy fix. What I'm proposing isn't necessarily easy.

????

No. Not only do I NOT think that, but I was perfectly clear and explicit that I do not think that.

Huh?

Which part don't you agree with?

The part which I said: "You also agree that having enough for a day is a rarity"

This was based upon your statement:

the number of parents who don't have any support system whatsoever, and not enough assets for even a day, are a rarity

or perhaps when I said this:"there a level you consider appropriate which is not going to generate "glut of hundreds of thousands of homeless babies"?

Which was based upon this:

we'd have a glut of hundreds of thousands of homeless babies

every year

.

Sorry I'm really not understanding your position. Where did the glut of homeless babies come from? Unplanned pregnancies? Do you believe that EVERY parent who has a child would not be qualifed under my licensing rules? If so what condition would disqualify them. In my response I assumed you meant under the "asset and income" rule. If something else, please clarify.

You've really got to stop inventing opinions for me that I do not hold. You complain about my not answering matters head-on...but when I DO so, you ignore it, restating the orginal (false) claim about my alleged opinion.

Look, I'm not trying to invent your opinions. I am trying to understand your position you claim to articulate so clearly. Well, it isn't clear to me. Perhaps we can retain as a civilized dialogue if you didn't accuse me of inventing opinions and stuck to correcting misumderstandings.

Again: I do NOT think there is some level under your proposal where there will not be more babies than "suitable" parents.

OK. Then let's backtrack. What under my proposal makes parents unsuitable if not the financial criteria?

Hey, it's your claim in the first place. You're the one who thinks babies could be taken away from financially unsuitable parents and adopted by those with more means. It is up to you to determine at what levels this would be feasible.

Yep. And I've suggested them. My responses were based upon the presumption that you thought the level was too high. You indicate above that there is NO level which would end up with more babies than "suitable" parents. If I read that right, even a parent is required to have $1 in their account, that woudl be too high a barrier and it would cause people to be disqualifed from parenthood. Am I understanding your position correctly?

Because my claim, unchanged, is that it would NOT be feasible.

Yes it is your claim, IOW your opinion.

This point was obvious already. I"m asking you why you think there wouldn't be more babies than potential adoptees. Are there hundreds of thousands of parents in Canada who are (first) financially qualified according to you, and (second) willing to adopt?

Let me understand your question. First, there are approximately 377,000 births in Canada each year. Link so you are assuming that the majority of these births would be to unqualified parents, and want to know where they will be placed?? Is that your question?

Where's your evidence for this claim?

What claim? That families can adopt out? There are currently waiting list for babies for adoption. There are currently a significant number of interational adoption, pointing to local demand.

Like I said: hundreds of thousands of babies are born each year.

That doesn't make hundreds of thousands of unsuitable parents each year. In fact the vast majority, under the rules I propose would be suitable, a small minority would not.

I have identified no such level because I am not seeing how you propose to deal with all the babies.

An evasive answer if I've ever heard one. (ie "I won't answer your question becuse I'm not happy with yours")

I'm not questioning the recognition of a problem. It's the proposed solution that makes no sense to me.

I see. So you agree that there is a problem in this area?

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

I will say that I really do consider your ideas largely impossible...which is why I see this as nothing more than a thought-experiment, along the lines of imagining, just for fun, a different society that could never be. Or thinking about how I"d spend my lottery winnings, even though I don't buy lottery tickets.

Pretty much every set of regulations we have today started as a "thought exercise". All it really ends up taking is one or more series of events which are preventable and catch enough public attention, in order to pressure legislators to turn "thought" to "action". I'm sure at one time any movment in the US to license firearms was simply a thought-experiment. With time and changing conditions, thought started to become action.

More food for "thought"

Moving Toward a License to Parent

Should we need a license to be a parent?

Should You Need a License to Parent?

In case you think there is no support among the public, the last link did an online poll:

If a license to marry is required, should we also have a license to create children?

Absolutely (43%, 13 Votes)

Absolutely not! (43%, 13 Votes)

Abstinence is best (14%, 4 Votes)

Fair enough...but the number of parents who don't have any support system whatsoever, and not enough assets for even a day, are a rarity; and they would already be part of existing provisions, existing laws in place to protect children.

Sure, a day might be extreme, but clearly there are significant number of people having kids they cannot afford and then asking the state for help to support them. If you allege that there are existing laws in place to deter this behaviour, then why are they not working. Protecting children after they have been brought into the situation is not enough. Some measure of prevention is necessary.

Because you are here citing only the extreme case, it has little to do with an argument for government expansion in this area. You might argue that institutions such as Child Welfare Agencies are insufficient here (I'm not declaratively stating that's the case, because I don't really know...but it could be the case)...but that is a matter of being insufficient within an already-existing purview. We wouldn't need to change the way things are done, but rather make more efficient what is already in place.

Again, making the current situation more efficient doesn't do anything to prevent people from having children they cannot afford. It simply tries to remediate after the fact.

But that is a guess. And since most babies are not planned in the first place, I'm not seeing it. Possibly some degree of greater caution would prevail, but I see no evidence to lead me to believe the difference would be profound.

Instead, we'd have a glut of hundreds of thousands of homeless babies every year.

Heck, if the numbers were cut in half (which I sincerely doubt) we're still talking somewhere around the level of 250 000 babies.

Each year.

There are not enough homes to take them in. We make a mistake if we look at the numbers of people who are able, under your proposed qualifications, to take in babies, and assume it sufficient. And subtract from that the number of qualified candidates who simply wouldn't want to adopt. (ie the vast majority of them.)

You seem to have created an estimate (out of what, I have no idea) based upon my proposal of assets for 1 year. You also agree that having enough for a day is a rarity. So somewhere in between is there a level you consider appropriate which is not going to generate "glut of hundreds of thousands of homeless babies"? What is that level? Since you seem capable of doing an estimate of how much of a glut is created based upon requring a year's worth of assets, simply work backwards and estimate what level is required so that you have no glut and current adoption channels can handle placement.

Abortion (while I support the right) simply isn't an option for a lot of people either, because they are fundamentally opposed. We certainly can't go down the road of prescribed--and forced--abortions.

Parent who are not qualified parents have the option of aborting or if they are fundamentally opposed, adopting out.

So even as you raise many good points, and have explained them throughout this post rather well, it ultimately comes down to hoping that not too many babies will be born. When, in my opinion, it would be hundreds of thousands a year, every year, on and on.

Again, I don't know where you got the "hundreds of thousands" number. If your number is based upon requiring a too-high level of assets and income. Great, let's reduce it, or require some proof of additional guarantees of support (eg parental support). You have not identified the level you are ok with.

Fundamentally, I don't thank moms on welfare without other means of financial support ought to be having more kids.

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

That's why I became so aggrieved.

Look, if the words "are comfortable" makes you uncomfortable, I'm happy to substitute "have not considered".

I can think of at least one serious problem here, one that may well be intractable: how many would-be parents plan their pregnancies? I admit i don't know the stats, or if any good ones exist, but I'd personally be surprised if half of all pregnancies were planned. The idea of two people, first married, then planning to get pregnant...well, that sounds sweet, but it's not the universal reality, nor likely even in the majority of cases.

(Hell, the majority of babies aren't even born to married couples. Not anymore.)

And what about the women who spend the first three months in an indecisive limbo? ("Should I keep it or abort?") We're talking about untold tens of thousands of women here. Does the necessity for a license kick in at the moment of decision? How does this affect the woman's (legally-protected) right to privacy about this matter?

Does her doctor have some obligation to report pregnancies to the authorities--after which said authorities send letters or make phone calls, demanding to know when the woman has made her final decision?

What if a couple has a baby, doesn't bother with the licensing...but fulfills all your obligations anyway? Despite your analogy, this is not at all like having a driver's license, in which a three-pronged test must be completed before a license is issued (written, eye exam, practical-driving test).

These are some of the details that concern me. And they can't be worked out as we go; they'd have to be figured out before anything was implemented.

A unplanned pregnancy has 8-9 months (give or take), from coneption to apply for a licence. If they think that they might keep the child, even in the first 3 months, they should apply. There is no issue if the pregnancy never comes to term. The necessitiy for a license should be sometime prior to birth. Application for a license doens't really affect the woman's privacy. We file our income, and expect the details to be kept private. We take blood test and expect the results to be kept private. I realize tht many babies are not born to married couples. That is why implementing any kind of controls during marriage licensing is an outdated concept. The doctor is under no obligation to report a pregnancy because up to that point nothing has been done to break the regulations. A license is required by the time birth comes around. A parent who doesn't get a license even though they qualify, should face some kind of penalty (eg a fine). Further the parents are taking a chance that a license may not be granted and they could face additional consequnce. This is stong motivation for them to get a licence prior. If you don't like the driver's license analogy, simiply look at any other licensing analogy. If there are significant penalties for qualified people to practice without a license, it is a strong motivation to get a license, and the vast, vast majority will. There are very few unlicensed doctors practicing pretending that they are licensed.

The license should also be a prerequisite to further program enrollment.

I'm not sure--I mean, why 17 specifically?--but this one doesn't concern me so much. For I am a believer in legal age limits generally (which is why I am opposed to trying criminal children as adults, which I consider profoundly opposed to society's principles).

So I appreciate the logic of this one, even as I still have issues with imnplementation. That is, I am having trouble thinking of this beyond the purely academic, interesting-for-its-own-sake quality. As in, "What would be some interesting ways that society could be different than it is?"...even as I know it cannot ever occur. It's a thought-experiment, for fun, and has nothing of utility beyond that.

17 is what I think a reasonable number is. I would accept that 16 could be or 18 could be, however I strongly doubt 14 year olds are old enough to accept the responsibilties of parenting. I'm not sure what issue you have with implementation. It is easily measurable.

I think we'd have to define "drug use." For example, the illegal substance marijuana is less harmful (both physically and in terms of parental impairment) then is an addiction to many legal painkillers. A child is better off with a convicted pot-user than with a person (perfectly legally) addled by Demerol or Percocet or Oxycontin.

I define drug-use as illegal drug use. You may be correct that a child is better off with a conficted pot-user than a perception drug addict, but the issue is one is easily measurable and the other may be harder to measure. Your argument here is analogous to saying that a sleepy driver can be more dangourous than a slightly intoxicated one, and so we should not set a standard for intoxication.

This sounds reasonable on its face, but what IS "legally competent"? How is this determined, and who determines it? Would each pregnant woman undergo a psychiatric observation? Would the competence measure be determined by psychiatric opion, or by lay knowledge--"common sense" is the usual, and laughable, term?

I don't think that most professional psychiatrists and psychologists would be comfortable in making this assessment...since to my knowledge there IS no measure for parental competency. How could it be devised without being totally arbitrary?

Does a parent who believes in Creationism over Evolution qualify as incompetent? They're certainly fantasists, hostile to the objective world around them.

The state presumes someone is competent. They are only legally incompetent once someone petitions the court and has them declared incompentnt. (for example through mental disease). My suggestion is relatively benign, however it allows for the case of perhaps a mentally undeveloped indiviudal is set on having a child. Their guardian can petition the court to have them declared legally incompetent.

Like i said, I have no problem with this one. We could implement it right now, without any extra licensing methods.

No you still have a problem with this one. Without licensing you would not act to prevent a child being born. Even after birth what would you do? Take away the child before molestation occured?

As I understnd the law now for known child molesters, in most cases they have to give notice if they intend to move to a new neighbourhood. Licencing is the quivalent for notification and permission for parenthood.

Big problem here.

Very, very, very, very few would-be parents have sufficient income and assets to provide for a child for a year. The number is vanishingly small. You've not only insisted that the poor can't have babies--at all; you've also removed most of the middle-class (at least the young and unestablished) from parenthood.

So we'd we have is the majority acting as a service class--babymakers--for the well-to-do, and for people who have garnered enough savings and assets, which is not most young parents.

And even given that scenario (which is ugly enough), there simply wouldn't be enough of them. The number of babies would far outstrip the number of "suitable" candidates for parenthood. So what do we do with all these little buggers?

It seems your problem is centered around the level of assets required. I'm ok to moving it to whatever is a reasonable level. If it is not 1 year, how much is it? 6 month? 3 months? 1 day? Clearly if potential parents only have assets to take care of a child for 1 day, they are not prepared to have a child, nor do they have support systems in place. You are guessing that the number of babies would outstrip canidtes for parenthood. My guess, is that we would have less babies.

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

No...it's your choice, as you have made this a snarky pissing contest, complete with the ugliest of allegations, from the start. (Then objecting to my COUNTER-insults as unseemly.)

But if you like, no problem: I have no compunctions about debating with effete little bullies. .

Hey I'm always up for examining my actions and if an apology is due I'll give it. Let's look back at the first exchange that set you off on your little tirade:

You said:

I agree completely. And when and if you mess up badly enough, THEN the government can intervene.

And I responded:

It would seem that you are comfortable even with proven child-molesters having kids, and would wait until their child was molested before acting, even when it is completely obvious that it will occur.

How is that a misreading of your statement? I even used the word "seem" to indicate that it was my interpretation of the consequences of your statement. It still is. It is neither an insult nor as far as I can tell, inaccurate.

If in all circumstances you are unwilling to act proactively, as your statement indicated your position to be, the logical conclusion I made is correct.

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

Those are already on the books, Renegade. No further intrusion required. The only difficult one here is the first. I would be open to a cautious, conservative change on this issue, personally, but I think family members should be the first and natural candidates for adoption.

And it would not require a sea-change in government intervention.

Ok, so you agree that the rescrictions are reasonable, and as you put it "already on the books". What is not "already on the books" is the preemptive qualification (ie the parents must be qualifed to meet the conditions prior to allowing parenthood).

You are "open to a cautious, conservative change" great. Your issue is that it is not implementable. How about this "cautious, conservative change":

1. In order to have a child a parent's are required to obtain a parrentig license.

2. A license is not given unless both parents are at least 17

3. A license is not given if the parents has a conviction for drug use unless they can prove they have been drug-free for at least a year.

4. A license is not given to anyone who is not legally competent.

5. A license is not given to a previously convicted child-molester or peadophile.

6. A license is not given unless the parent has sufficent income and assets to provide for a child for a year.

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

OK. So I agree with two of the three rules in place.

Along with virtually everyone.

If this was your argument...we wouldn't be having an argument.

You're coming along. So you agree that it is reasonable for the state to intrude and you agree on at least some of the conditions are reasonable conditions.

That it wasn't necessary is not my opinion, it's demonstrably true. Your source confirms this.

Nonsense. Perhaps you can give your theory or quote the source on why rules were enacted which were unnecessary.

And we aren't talking about a democracy; "Enough people from society believed it was necessary and implemented such rules"?

You mean the Church hierarchy.

Again, moot, as (aside from a handful of very common, mostly-still-agreed-upon restrictions) people were free to marry whom they wished.

I see. First it was no restrictions, now you admit that there were a "handful of very common" restrictions. Good job, you're coming around.

Same as now. So, we don't need your vaunted million-fold increase in government intervention.

Can you please explain how you came up with the "million-fold increase" estimate? Since you haven't even adressed the specfic suggestions I've made, I'm curious as how you came to this estimate.

And we don't count on nature to dictate an age of marital consent. There are laws in place.

Great. You finally got my point.

---------------------------------------------------------

Sigh. It's stated, Mr. think-the-worst-of-everybody-by-default. It's stated. Yes? Yes.

No. The were simple questions. It seems that on one hand you don't think marriage licences are necessary, yet you believe there are "two of the three rules in place". Unless you are holding contridictory positions, how can you have rules without implementing an enforcement system such as licensing? The reason I ask you explicit questions, is because you don't answer them, and you object when I infer your position.

OH...I also think terrorism is a bad thing. I mean, I'm not sure if I ever explained to you in explicit terms that I don't like murder...so, for future reference, i have stated it outright, and hopefully won't be expected to preface each post with a list of things I do and do not support.

If you want to make it a snarky pissing contest, I'm more than happy to oblige. If you don't I will refrain as well. Your choice.

BTW, in disputing Marriage Licensing, you haven't manage to respond to the post on restricting parenting. I provided suggestions, you did not respond. Please respond to this post #46

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

Exactly. The "sanction" was for already-existing actions that had nothing whatsoever to do with state intervention. The contract was sanctioned in a way that Canada sanctions some of my behaviors that have nothing to do with their enforcement, or lack thereof.

The Church was not decreeing who could and could not get married. People just got married, and the church nodded its benign head.

No the Church didn't simply sanction any two individuals who got married. Whether you agreed with them or not, they had standards. For example it would not sanction the marriage of close relatives, or same-sex indiviudals, or people who were already married. You presumption that "the church nodded its benign head" is quite wrong. Just time warp to the Middleages, and take your same-sex underaged lover to the local priest and ask that the bless your marriage. See what happens.

I never said they weren't accepted; I said they weren't necessary.

That they wern't necessary is your opinion. You have agreed that it was accepted. That was my point. Enough people from society believed it was necessary and so implemnted such rules.

Sure, it's a bit of a separate argument---which you summoned. Not me. In a typical conservative formulation, you implied that it "used to always be done this way, and it worked great, so let's bring back the old-timey methods."

When, in fact, such matters are more important NOW than they were in the "olden days."

I can certainly demolish your argument, what I am pointing out is that EVEN if we accept your premise, (which I don't) it still doen't make any sense.

The state implements controls when necesary. If it was necessary back then to establish a age of consent to marriage, it woudl have done so. It did not do so becasue nature established a minimium age for a father so an explicit law was not requred. Today as we no longer require fathers to consent and the consent is delegated to the individuals participating in the marriage, we cannot count on nature to dictate an age of consent.

---------------------------------------------------------

I'm still trying to figure out your position. What is it? Do you think that marriage licenses are necessary? Should anyone be able to get married without regard to ANY qualification?

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

But if you read down a little further in the very cite you source, you'll see that it says just what I was saying.

In your citation.

Perhaps you should quote what you mean. What it says is that "For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families." And that may be true, but that doesn't preclude the fact that the contract was sactioned by the state of the church.

"Marriage licence application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-1800s with many available dating from the 1600s in colonial America."

Even if you hold that marriage licenses are a "recent" phenomena, for the last several hundred years they have been accepted in modern socitey.

But again, since marriage was so commonly a private practice, of a couple declaring themselves married to one another in which the State was entirely absent, this is virtually irrelevant.

Well even if what you say is true, since in today's society the state DOES interevene in setting the standard on who can enter into a contract, what the state did (or in this case didn't do) in the past is virtually irrelevant.

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

But you here cite a relatively recent and temporary phenomenon: throughout the majority of human civlization, "marriage"as we know it was often a private affair, in a way that wouldn't even be recognized as "marriage" in contemporary parlance.

Depends upon what you mean by "recent". Marriage Licenses have been issued since the Middle Ages. Before that the Church (which at the time had many of the elements of government) sanctioned marriages no later than 1215. Marriage licence

The vast majority of our laws are "recent" by scales, so I woudl argue that state intervention in parenting has at least as long a history as many of our other interventionist policies.

Also, there was not some conscious laws developed about "Marriage Licenses" enacted specifically to protect children from harm. That had nothing to do with it.

True, nor did I claim as such. The laws didn't prevent them from phyiscal harm from parental actions, but what it sought to do was preemptively prevent them from genetic harm due to parental inbreeding.

And as for "consent"...well, I hope you're aware that thta has historically not been too clear. A woman, after all, was effectively the property of her father, later "given" to a husband. (The form of this property-transference is still traditionally in place with the father handing over his daughter.)

Yes, traditionally the daughter was thought of as property of the father. If we agree at the time the state sanctioned this position, it was the father who had to agree to let his get married. The question of consent becomes was the father able to consent. Nature dictates that the father woudl be an adult of at least in his 20s. So even if we use age as the only criteria to determine that an individual can consent, the indivudal agreeing to marriage, was able to consent.

Today, as the idea of a daughter being a father's property has been rejected, we still need to look at whether the person entering a marriage is capable of consent. Most state marriage laws have minimium ages for marriage. There was a historical correlatoin between marriage and parenthood. As this correlation weakens, their is no minimium age of consent for parenthood.

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

The details are part and parcel of the objection. you cannot separate the idea from how it could be implemented. You're creating a false dichotomy between an abstract idea and its rules and methods of implementation.

Ok then, it seems that is your only objection. Fine I have proposed some ideas before. I will repeat them here:

An individual should achieve a minimium age before becoming a parent.

A parent is responsible from keeping a child safe from harm. A history of child negligence or violence could render a individual unfit to be a parent.

Continued illegal drug use could render a individual unfit to be a parent.

Not having mental competance to undertaing the role of parent. For example through a medical condition such as dementia.

Perhaps you can tell me which of those are not implementable and I'll be happy to withdraw them. Is it your contention that none of them are implementable as a standard. If you don't agree that they are measurable or implemntable, please tell me why.

The argument is a "do-you-still-beat-your-wife" equation, and it is thoroughly unfair.

How about we save ourselves a whole lot of typing on arguing the rules of "fair" debate if we just stick to responding to points directly? Agreed?

Since there are often ALREADY rules in place about staying a certain distance away from children, it could be enforced in this situation too. If the mother doesn't comply with the rule, she is subject to losing her children in the same way that abusive or neglectful mothers already are subject to it.

It's not a gigantic step; your proposal is.

So your position is that the state pre-emptively remove a baby from a known child-molesting parent (even if there is no proof that they have molested this particular baby), using EXISTING rules specficing that child molesters stay away from children. Did I get that right?

Insults are one thing; some simply go too far, and can have no effect beyond provocation.

Really bloodyminded, a poster who demonstratably uses name-calling wants to define debate civility? Give me a break!

Again: you cannot prevent them from procreating; you can prevent them from being parents.

Please tell me how. By taking away their kids?

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

I would like to address another issue. It seems based upon some of the conversations I've had that some posters believe that society categorically rejects the idea of controlling who becomes a parent. I would submit that society has no such aversion and actually historically has implemented such a mechanism, however historical mechanisms are ineffective today due to a changed environment.

The historical mechanism I refer to is a Marriage License. There are likely a number of reasons for state sanction of marriage, however one of them is it sought to restrict who could marry and thus procreate. One example was to establish the couple didn't pass on gentic defects, and the they couple was capable of consent. The disconnect between such a mechansim and current society is that while in the past,extreme soceital pressure was excerted to force parents to also be married, today very little such presure exist. Thus today even the most unfit individual can become parents with the only minimal requirements being set by nature.

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

I listed a whole raft of pertinent questions about implementation, and questioned how these rules could ever be specifically designhed and agreed-upon (including the matter of how millions (literally) of individual enforcements could be done.)

Your reply--evidently "clariy[ing] your position" in a way that I do not--was...well, there WAS no reasonable reply. You dismissed these matters as trivial details to be figured out at later. Somehow. But without thinking these "details" through, you HAVE no argument. Because they are EVERYTHING to such an argument. That is,. your argument is 100% useless and meaningless without addressing the complexities in real detail.

Look, I'm not trying to avoid going into details. In fact I'd be happy to have that discussion. I simply want to clarify where you stand. So as I understand, you objection to having in standard is that you don't believe it is implementable. Did I get that correct, or are there other objections I should be aware of? If there are others, let's get the on the table. If not, let's get into the details.

If you are going to make implications--and then, explications--about a posters' stance on child molestation, of course you are going to receive insults.

In fact, that's WHY you said what you did. You successfully tried to provoke me, by stating something ugly, mean-spirited, unfair, and absolutely inimical to any civil argument. You were looking to make the debate uncivil. Obviously you know this, so why be coy about it?

I'm looking for you to take a position. It took a while but you finally did. Unfortunately you had to lose your temper before you did. If you are explicit about takeing positions, I will no longer have to interpret your position.

I would support such a rule. But convicted child molesters are already registered, including their crimes and their place of residence. So we don't need to come up with some brand new method of enforcement on this matter; the mechanisms arer already in place.

It is great that you support such a rule, but there is no current mechanism to prevent them from having kids. Registering their place of residence doesn't prevent them from procreating. So what happens in the current system when they procreate?

So what? You KNOW it is an unfair question. Just because I didn't directly answer a ridiculous question (or even a good question, for that matter) doesn't mean that you are somehow forced to "conclude" that the worst possible answer must be the correct one. It's a logical fallacy...used in service of trying to provoke another poster through the worst of all insults.

No, just trying to get a straight answer out of you.

No, you didn't. You implied it very strongly...but that's apparently not good enough.

If you don't think I have anwered explicitly, all you need to do is ask a direct question. No, an implication is not the same as a direct answer.

Fine, then we have at least a single point of agreement. Using the surveillance methods already in place, and thus leaving the non-convicted out of the picture, we could conceivably prevent known child-rapists from having children.

Completely apart from your idea as a whole.

So your position is to use "surveillance methods already in place" to prevent known-child molesters from having kids? Actually I am not aware "surveillance methods already in place" watch a child-molester in his bedroom with his partner and somehow prevent them from becoming parents. Are you aware of such surveillance?

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

I did. So did another poster.

You ignored all of them.

You did what? Agree that there should be a standard before people are allowed to be parents? Yes, I know you agree that parents should be held to a standard, AFTER they are parents, but that is not what I'm asking. Your two-word sentences, do very little to clarify your position.

I wouldn't have thought it necessary to deny that I am ok wiht child molestation. I think elementary notions of civil discourse would help all of us to assume better of one another.

But ok, we'll play it your way--if you insist upon being a mean-spirited little pussy:

There is a wonderful irony when the poster who relishes in calling me such terms such as "mean-spirited little pussy", "thunderously ignorant knuckledraggers" starts giving lectures on what constitues civil discourse. Keep it up, it really adds amusement to my day.

I'm not ok with child molestation.

Great, but you haven't addressed the rest of the question. How do you propose to prevent it? I mean in situations where a known child-molester who has history of child-abuse to his or other kids, proposes to have more kids. Please explain.

I note well, however, that YOU have not stated outright YOUR opposition to child molestation. (Implying it is not, according to you, sufficient.) Therefore, we can only conclude that you DO support child molestation. By your standards, mind. Congratulations.

Hey, unlike me, you never asked me my position. Since you asked I will tell you. I am against allowing known child-molesters having access to additional kids including their own through procreation. I think I have already stated that, but I have no problem stating it again. I am fine with a policy which uses the power of the state to preemptively prevent such an indiviudal from becoming a parent again and thus having access to additional kids.

[Can't compete with immigrants.]

I am 23 years old, and know quite a lot of people from high school who are now proudly walking around with unplanned infants in both arms, people who I know are somewhat unfit for parenthood.

I have a rather controversial theory that parenthood should be perhaps a privilege, something which requires certain qualifications. Unfortunately, I cannot claim I would be an adequate judge of ''where to draw the line'' , and am also aware of the extremist overtones of suggesting something like this.

Pretty much the topic we are discussing here: Ontario budget to focus on child poverty

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

So, other than financial qualifiers, what else would render a person unfit to have children?

There are at least a couple I can think of.

An individual should achieve a minimium age before becoming a parent.

A parent is responsible from keeping a child safe from harm. A history of child negligence or violence could render a individual unfit to be a parent.

Continued illegal drug use could render a individual unfit to be a parent.

Not having mental competance to undertaing the role of parent. For example through a medical condition such as dementia.

Also, given that this plan would reduce the number of children born in Canada, and given that birth rates are already low, and given that the aging baby-boomer population dictates a need for us to have an even greater population to sustain this aging population, I can only assume that you also plan to greatly increase immigration levels to compensate. Is that accurate?

The issue of why population growth is requred is tied to how social programs are structured. They are structured as pay-as-you-go pyramid schemes which depends upon ever larger populations. Sooner or later, that is not sustainable because the population cannot grow indefinately. The real solution is to fix the social programs so that they don't depend upon population growth.

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

Now I know youi're not even reading your OWN posts, much less rationally trying to think things through:

You have not suggested what any of this "hard evidence" is--not for exactly WHAT constitutes the potential guidelines drawn up for parents, nor how any of it could be conceivably enforced.

I can't believe you here summon the notion of "hard evidence" when you repeatedly shy way from any explicit matters: on exactly wHAT the rules would be (sans your repeeated and meaningless platitiudes); how they could be enforced (think: millions of children. Millions.); you won't even go into the absolutely crucial, deal-breaking matter of how a licence could be devised...precisely what criteria would be included. You claim it could be "refined" as we go along...but refined from what? You offer zero informaiton to support your view, as if these are trivial details that don't much matter. On the contrary, the details are everything; they are the very crux of any discussion on such a topic.

I'd be happy to debate what the details of the standard should be, by why even bother since you don't even agree that there should be a standard. If you agree that there should be a standard, then lets move to the next step of examining the details of the standard.

I already corrected you,

Actually you did not. You simply took offense at my statement. That is not the same as correcting it.

... and gave you an opportunity to back away from this misconcieved, degenerate little insult. Yet you insist upon remaining a real dick on this point. This is just a pantywaisted, bullying little attempt to "win" a debate, because your failure to talk about specifics (which, again, are everything to this argument) is exposing how ill-thought out your statism really is.

Since you are insisting on implying that I'm ok with child molestation, I feel compelled to invite you to perform a difficult and possibly dangerous sex act upon your own person. Enjoy.

I have to hand it to you, you really do give me a chuckle. I've asked you to explicitly deny that your are ok with a policy that permits even child-molester to have children and potentially molest again. You refuse to deny it and talk around the issue. If it is not your position, all you need to say "No, that is not my position" and explain how you would prevent such an occurance. You inability to do, leads me to conclude that it IS your position.

I thank you heartly for your invitation, and I may take you up on it, but whether I do or don't will reamain a private matter.

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

a) If they fail to adequately provide support for their child (without government support), the children should be confiscated? If so, should those children be placed into government care? Or, should they be immediately adopted out?

Actually I would suggest a prevenative approach. Eg Parenting should be licenced so that only qualified individuals should be given official sanction to be parents. If individucals undertake parenting without regard to licensing requirements, then they should be assessed, and if deemed incapable or unsuitable, yes they risk that the child woudl be immediately placed in adoption.

Do you favour reinstating a system of eugenics, whereby those deemed unfit to be parents are sterilized?

No. I don't think even unfit parents should be forcibly sterilized. However in extreme cases, where an indivdual repeatedly trangresses and is never likely to ever become a suitable parent, then sterilization may be the only option.

We make it illegal for non-desirables (and I am sure you are able to define this category) to have children, and we force abortions on anyone who tries, that does not meet your parenting requirements?

At at brutal level of enforcement, yes it does. Your question is somewhat like asking if we shoot all potential bad-drivers, would be have safer roads? The answer is yes, however it is a loaded question. I believe a system to qualify parents can enforce compliance can be implemented so that in the vast majority of cases doesn't need to rely on forced abortions.

Secondly, you seem to suggest that there is a much greater probability that the wealthy will make better parents (as defined by the money their children are likely to make) and that we should remove barriers for them to have children?

No I am not saying that the wealthy make better parents. In fact in some cases they may be worse parents. (For example the parents may be so busy with jobs that they really have no time to parent). I am suggesting that ONE of the obligations of parenting necessitates a finanical commitment and the wealthy by definition are able to fulfill this commitment, however there may be others they do not fulfill.

Infertility? Do you propose free fertility and egg donors for all infertile rich people?

Careers getting in the way? Do you propose to give large amounts of money to mothers who have children, providing they have proven themselves capable of having children?

No I don't propose free fertility nor do I propose giving any additional funding to "qualifed" parents. I am not suggesting that the government intervene to encourage population growth.

I mean really, if these people are fit to be parents (which means they are wealthy, using your only mentioned determinant), then they should have no need for money to help them?

The economic barriers the government imposes aren't a deterrent to the rich. They are a deterrent to the middle class who except for government interference would be able to fulfill their parental obligations. The type of interference I am referring to is for example, the government imposes rules which makes it difficult and expensive for a middle class family to hire a foreign nanny or child-care worker. In many countries middle-class families rely on easy and cheap access to these domestic workers to help deliver on the obligations of parenting. The government has introduced barriers which make this option only available to the wealthy.

Perhaps you are referring to free will as a barrier. Should we perhaps force wealthy females of child-bearing age to give birth to multiple children?

No. You seem to assume I am out to encourage wealthy people to have kids. I am not and nor should the government. It should be up to individuals to decide of their own free will whether or not they will assume the obligations of parenthood. However, if they do, they should be held to those obligations.

I would really like to understand the specifics of your ideas to eliminate child poverty, as it seems like you have given this a lot of careful consideration.

Hopefully I've helped answer. If not, please ask.

[Ontario budget to focus on child poverty]

You cannot extricate emotion from human endeavours. Period. It is intrinsic to what we are. In every single argument. Without exception.

And your idea IS an emotional argument at it's core.

So why you'd hold my argument to a different standard than your own...well, you don't elaborate on that.

The intent of putting rational rules in place is to extricate emotion from decisions such as parenting. I don't propose rules based upon emotion, I propose that we debate the rules for what constitutes the responsibilites of a parent supported by hard evidence.

You say my idea is "emotional argument at it's core". Which part? What emotion? I have no idea what you mean. I hold my argument to the same standard as yours. So if you believe my ideas are driven by emotion. I'm all for exploring it, but I don't see it.

A child molester is already undert scrutiny from the law.

But just so you know (since evidently you don't)--child molestation crosses all socio-economic boundaries. This might be hard for you to believe, but children in affluent families are not safer from child molestation. Further, the vast, overwhelming number of child molesters are totally unknown except by their victims. So early state intervention would not turn up all these child molesters.

Oh, by the way...I don't think you need to lower yourself to the rather greasy, shutting-down-debate standards of insinuating that I"m somehow ok with child molestation. ("It would seem you're comfortable with....") It's beneath you.

At least part of what you said I agree with (ie child molestation crosses all socio-economic boundaries). I already know that the state scrutinizes child molesters. My example was if there is an individual who had a history of molesting children (including his own), should the state prevent him from having more? This has got nothing to do with wealth or socio-economic boundries. It can be a wealthy child molester just as easily as a poor one.

I didn't imply that you are ok with child molestating, I implied that you are ok with known child-molesters becoming parents and thus being given additional opportunity to molest again. If this is not an accurate reflection of your position, please feel free to correct me.

The statism you propose is not "rational," either. It's predicated on servility to Power.

Show me that it is not rational. It is predicated on two premises. That first premise is that parents knowingly take on an obligation to their children and should be held accountable by the state to fulfill this obligation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to agree with this. The second premise is that it is justified for the state if there is reasonable cause that the obligations will not be met, to intervene in allowing the individual to undertake those obligations.

All of my ideas are rational outcomes of these premises. If you believe otherwise show it. To date, all you have demonstrated are your emotional responses ("you're disgusted", "repugnant to you"). You seem to claim emotionalism in my responses, I challenge you to point it out.

[Is it time Federalize/Nationalize Minimum Wage?]

There is a constitution that partially addresses that. However, there's only so much that institutions can do to mitigate horrors like Nazism.

True, but the part that concerns me is what the constitution fails to address.

My idea for a revolution in government would be for cross-political citizen interest groups to study some area of government activity, and to agree on communicating objective measures of how the government is doing at that activity.

In the area of health care, that would mean the group would agree upon some objective measures of how healthcare is being administered, and then collect and regularly publish statistics on how those measures are doing.

There are groups that do this now, however they are all set up with money from either private, government, union, or some other professional group. They are all political in nature, and don't represent the general interest.

I have been posting on this topic on my blog for years now.

Even though your ultimate interest is in removing government from such areas, I'm sure you can agree that an interim goal in your interest would be to show how government is doing (in your view, failing) at delivery of services.

I do think that something like this will arrive at some point in the future. There are some examples of groups that have tried to do this, and have taken initial steps. I have joined several of these and most recently have engaged with a TTC interest group in Toronto where I live.

MH, I am complete supportive of the idea of objective measurement of government. IMV it would have to be against goals the government itself sets. For esample if the goal is to reduce poverty, then a cross-political group can likely come up with measures of the extent to which the government is achieving this goal. It is much harder however to agree on whether the goal is "good" or "bad", as a cross-political group will have differing ideologies on the role of government and consequently what its goals should be.

it

[Is it time Federalize/Nationalize Minimum Wage?]

But... you have invested it right ? Doesn't the precept that your labour is yours end after you SPEND your money on something ?

Not at all. If you earn money through employment and spend the money on a car, the car is yours, in the same way the wages of your labour are yours. IOW, the act of exchanging the direct wages paid for your labour for another article of value, doesn't change the notiion that you possess it.