I got flamed in a libertarian forum. When he keep explaining that I do not think he's serious. I thought this is totally ridiculous that a movement that legalize porn, prostitution, bdsm, consensual women trafficking, and even anarchism would prohibit billionaires from making too many kids.
Well, here we go:
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/smf/index.php?topic=10311.0
Is this a common opinion among people in western hemisphere to think that it's wrong if Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. produce as many kids as they can afford?
That has to be one of the most restrictive, asinine, anti-libertarian things I've ever heard. Restriction on reproduction? It doesn't get more basic than that.
That's either a total ruse, or someone has done a little too much thinking without enough reasoning. Have a look at where this line of non-logic leads:
If government would prohibit the poor, the dumb, the retard from breeding too many kids, I would still be against that. Even though there is a reasonable case. After all, aren't we tired of keeping supporting all people that do nothing but breeding. But government is so messed up it shouldn't have that kind of power no matter what.
But to prohibit our most productive members, not parasite, most productive members from breeding too many kids is just beyond common sense. To say that it's immoral, is just nonsense.
However, I sensed that it's what many actually feel deep inside.
It's justified under morality (sex outside life long monogamous marriage is sin), under feminazism (one male getting many females hurt women dignity). But the idea that kids' right to spend quality time with his biological dad is so profound that it justifies limiting the number of kids billionaires can make is just beyond reason.
Anything social democrat throw at capitalists are still far tolerable than these obvious genocide against the rich, be it slow.
genepool
Brother you have been miss understood there it seems.
however what they said about "sharing responsibility" arguement is valid basic arguement that can be used regardless to wealth of parents.
on the other hand i can see how are they unaware of evolutionary psychology and it's not social darwinism.
i know you a Libertarian, i never see you supporting actual welfare state, so i wouldn't call you social democrats i saw what you had to say there, but try to be a bit politically correct in such cases to avoid flaiming imho.
Well genepool/Chaghlar, since you seem to be perfectly content to hold a conversation with yourself using the two accounts you've created, I'll just answer the question put forth by the thread title:
No.
Carry on with your MPD.
John James
Please take your false accusation back, we are differant people, he's my friend, we are from differant countries, mpods may check our ips and can take a look weather we use proxy or not.
if you re read my post i've said on that forum they used personal responsibility arguement and i agree with it, however the people are there unaware of evolutionary psychology...
Chaghlar often ask me to reply to his post. In fact, he is the one that introduced me here. That's how we often talk together.
To be frank, I am quite disilusioned with liberal, libertarians, and atheists. If you are not free to make as many kids as you CAN afford, and you can't even pay to have that right, what's the point of arguing whether public school should be funded or whether immigration should be allowed or whether this tariff should go or not.
We're not talking whether should government limit the number of kids welfare recipients make. On that one I can understand.
We're talking about whether government should limit the number of kids billionares can make. They can afford their kids and they are productively contributing to society. We are like welfare recipient compared to them.
To his credit, gdp from http://www.wendymcelroy.com doesn't say that government should limit the number of kids. He does think making many kids is immoral calling it child abuse.
The problem is, if people think it's immoral, it'll be easier for government to find an excuse to prohibit.
In fact, as I said in other posts http://freemarketforever.com/2012/03/15/biggest-market-distortion/ government does limit the number of kids billionaires can make.
You guys crack me up. But you're right, to prohibit the number of kids "rich" people may have is neither a standard libertarian position, nor is it in any way sensible.