Proposed Liberal child benefit calculator

[BC_chick]

It's the reason people have had children since before there were people.

Historically, when it was the norm to take care of your parents in their old age, yes, sure it'd be a pretty good reason to have kids but in this day and age where taking care of your parents is more the exception than the rule, it's a pretty dumb reason to have kids. You're gambling on something with very low odds of winning.

[Wilber]

I totally agree and I think Huxley's argument, though ideal, is not really feasible. However, what you're saying here contradicts your post earlier which I quoted.

Society as a whole needs to be replenished but having kids to take care of us specifically is a terrible idea (as well as a big gamble).

It doesn't contradict anything. One way or another, someones kids will have to look after us when we become too old to look after ourselves. Even if we are stinking rich, we will not be able to do it ourselves. We will need help.

[Wilber]

Historically, when it was the norm to take care of your parents in their old age, yes, sure it'd be a pretty good reason to have kids but in this day and age where taking care of your parents is more the exception than the rule, it's a pretty dumb reason to have kids. You're gambling on something with very low odds of winning.

You better hope someone has kids unless you think you will be completely able to look after yourself if you make it to your nineties.

[BC_chick]

You better hope someone has kids unless you think you will be completely able to look after yourself if you make it to your nineties.

I would be grateful if my daughter takes care of me when I'm old but that's not why I had kids.

[Wilber]

I would be grateful if my daughter takes care of me when I'm old but that's not why I had kids.

It's not why I had kids either but it doesn't make kids any less essential to our society's survival.

[BC_chick]

Agreed. I was just uncomfortable with your wording earlier to Huxley but I see now that you were speaking generally.

[Wilber]

Agreed. I was just uncomfortable with your wording earlier to Huxley but I see now that you were speaking generally.

I was. Our society needs people of all ages to function.

[hitops]

"Proven false so many times, not the least of which is Nazi Germany."

Nazi Germany of course proves the failure of hawkishness. Nazi Germany were non peaceful hawks.

The nazi example is not about what Germany did, it is about what everyone else had to do to deal with Germany and what would have happened if they did nothing. Every additional year of 'peace' was millions more to the slaughter.

"There are no countries on earth that can exist like that. You either defend yourself, or contribute to an alliance. Otherwise you just go away or are destroyed. That is the lesson of history. The only nation that actively does what you are suggesting in foreign policy is Tibet, and they do not have sovereignty over their own borders as a result."

Canada doesn't defend it's sovereignty as it is. It's military policy is more often than not an extension of American imperialism. It sells the control of it's resources to foreign entities, is lax on immigration and signs free trade agreements further giving up it's sovereignty.

That is an argument for a strong military, not again one. In this case acknowledging that we do not face threats because of the US.

The Americans who used force aren't free. They live in an Orwellian permanent war surveillance state with the world's largest prison population by far.

The Romans themselves didn't view themselves as free but saw themselves as Slavish the only free peoples being the Scythians and Germans who didn't have borders.

"The only exception I can think of is India, and there was tons of internal violence even there."

Mandela gave up violence. Malta gained it's independence without violence. Actually there are tons of examples of countries getting independence without violence. Most of Africa were colonies until the mid 20th century when most were given up without violence.

Plenty of African countries had armed uprisings. But the greater point is that the imperial countries faced plenty of violent rebellion all over the place....making it less necessary for rebellion to happen by violence subsequently. That is still an example of force for the sake of freedom, ultimately making freedom easier for others. We gained freedom from the British because the British empire was declining and could not hold on anyway. But they didn't get that way by the magic of a circle of peace pipes. They were beaten back, starting with the Americans.

The most obvious example of force vs not would be Korea. South Korea is a great place to live, and that was fought for. North Korea is probably the worst place on earth. If the military was not in Korea, the whole place would be like the North. Germany would killed far more people, and taken the UK if not for force from the allies. Communism would have put even more people into misery and poverty than it did, if not for a strong super-power opposition and proxy wars. The world is a better place for those interventions.

Edited November 2, 2015 by hitops

[Bonam]

I would be grateful if my daughter takes care of me when I'm old but that's not why I had kids.

It's not a matter of physically or financially taking care of their parents. In the modern society, that function has been taken over by other institutions. However, it can be a significant source of emotional well-being. As people age, their own parents die, more and more of the people they grew up with die, etc, until the world starts to look devoid of people with whom you have significant relationships... except your children, grandchildren, etc. A retired individual who no longer works, whose spouse has died, whose lifelong friends have died, and who no longer has the physical ability to go out into the world and forge new ties has very little to live for except their descendants. One of my friends works with seniors, and she says that those of them that had no children almost universally regret it.

[BC_chick]

Bonam, I don't know if you read further but if you did, you'd notice that Wilber's wording was a bit ambiguous and it led to a bit of a needless discussion since we were in agreement.

I believe what your friend says. My grandmother was not a maternal type and she only had kids because that's what everyone did in her generation. Now she's living alone and even though none of us help 'take care' of her physically, the fact that we exist is comforting for her.

Even though in her life she probably hated having kids, in her old age she finally realized what a blessing her children were. She always says the same thing.

[G Huxley]

"
That is an argument for a strong military, not again one. In this case acknowledging that we do not face threats because of the US."

No it's the perfect example, because the 2nd world war was started by anti-peace hawks and ultimately it backfired on them and they became occupied.

"Plenty of African countries had armed uprisings. But the greater point is that the imperial countries faced plenty of violent rebellion all over the place....making it less necessary for rebellion to happen by violence subsequently. That is still an example of force for the sake of freedom, ultimately making freedom easier for others. We gained freedom from the British because the British empire was declining and could not hold on anyway. But they didn't get that way by the magic of a circle of peace pipes. They were beaten back, starting with the Americans."

There were multiple factors at work and the Americans were one of them, but after the 2nd World War there was also a major anti-imperialist sentiment which the Labour Party followed through to release the colonies.

"The most obvious example of force vs not would be Korea. South Korea is a great place to live, and that was fought for. North Korea is probably the worst place on earth. If the military was not in Korea, the whole place would be like the North. Germany would killed far more people, and taken the UK if not for force from the allies. Communism would have put even more people into misery and poverty than it did, if not for a strong super-power opposition and proxy wars. The world is a better place for those interventions."

Again North Korea were the anti-peace HAWKS, so again you show that hawkishness is wrong and makes societies miserable.

[G Huxley]

Ageing people if they saved up money could live in another country like many do. What is better for old age than a bit of sun?

Edited November 2, 2015 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

BC_Chick even from a vegan perspective you should be for lowering the population.

[The_Squid]

What is better for old age than a bit of sun?

Carrots?

[hitops]

"

That is an argument for a strong military, not again one. In this case acknowledging that we do not face threats because of the US."

No it's the perfect example, because the 2nd world war was started by anti-peace hawks and ultimately it backfired on them and they became occupied.

It was started by Germany, encouraged by Chamberlain (trying to be peaceful), and defeated by a the largest military campaign in our history.

You seem to of the mind that if only everyone was peaceful, we would have peace. Quite true. But that's not the world we live in, if we are peaceful that does nothing to stop those that are not. However armed opposition to the forces of oppression and tyranny does produce a much better, more peaceful world. We are much better off because of warfare against Germany, and proxy warfare + military buildup against the Soviet Union.

There were multiple factors at work and the Americans were one of them, but after the 2nd World War there was also a major anti-imperialist sentiment which the Labour Party followed through to release the colonies.

True, but that way was not paved by holding hands.

Again North Korea were the anti-peace HAWKS, so again you show that hawkishness is wrong and makes societies miserable.

That's why other societies need to be hawkish to prevent it. South Korean is free for only one reason - armed opposition to the North. If the South was peaceful back then, it would be ruled by Kim Jong Un today.

It does not matter that evil dictators 'should' be peaceful. They are not. Given that reality, being peaceful ourselves does not bring more peace, it just encourages more aggression.

Edited November 2, 2015 by hitops

[BC_chick]

BC_Chick even from a vegan perspective you should be for lowering the population.

1) Technically I'm not vegan.

2) If the world was vegan, over population wouldn't be as much of a problem

3) Western countries do not have an overpopulation problem, so even if we all had 1 to 3 kids, it wouldn't be problematic for the earth.

4) Do you think it's hypocritical to eat meat and be a member of the Green Party? I often think of the paradox all the time.

[G Huxley]

"You seem to of the mind that if only everyone was peaceful, we would have peace. Quite true."

Thanks I am glad you came to the same conclusion.

"But that's not the world we live in, if we are peaceful that does nothing to stop those that are not. However armed opposition to the forces of oppression and tyranny does produce a much better, more peaceful world. We are much better off because of warfare against Germany, and proxy warfare + military buildup against the Soviet Union."

It would be better again if Germany had not engaged in warfare at all.

"That's why other societies need to be hawkish to prevent it. South Korean is free for only one reason - armed opposition to the North. If the South was peaceful back then, it would be ruled by Kim Jong Un today."

It does not matter that evil dictators 'should' be peaceful. They are not. Given that reality, being peaceful ourselves does not bring more peace, it just encourages more aggression.

"That's why other societies need to be hawkish to prevent it. South Korean is free for only one reason - armed opposition to the North. If the South was peaceful back then, it would be ruled by Kim Jong Un today."

The UN wasn't being hawkish in defending SK, it was 'peacekeeping,' an expression virtually forgotten as a result of the neocons hawks.

"It does not matter that evil dictators 'should' be peaceful. They are not. Given that reality, being peaceful ourselves does not bring more peace, it just encourages more aggression."

And how are you different? Both you and the 'evil dictators' agree on hawkishness. Their mentality is not necessarily that different from your own.

Edited November 3, 2015 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

"1) Technically I'm not vegan."

Vegetarian?

2) If the world was vegan, over population wouldn't be as much of a problem.

It would still be a problem.

3) Western countries do not have an overpopulation problem, so even if we all had 1 to 3 kids, it wouldn't be problematic for the earth.

Western countries do have an overpopulation problem. This is clear from the species we have decimated and the environments we have destroyed from the buffalo formerly roaming the plains to the massive agricultural run off from the Mississippi into the Gulf of Mexico and the massive dead zone it has caused to the Pacific gyre and the Amazon which is being decimated to supply Northern markets with beef and soy beans.

4) Do you think it's hypocritical to eat meat and be a member of the Green Party? I often think of the paradox all the time.

It depends. Mcdonalds yes. Sustainably fished wild salmon, and deer on the other hand would still be green.

There are many hypocrites who vote green.

Edited November 3, 2015 by G Huxley