Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Compulsory Sterilisation

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul_r)
    I don't mean to antagonize you.

    perhaps maybe try and spend some time volunteering in a council estate community? Or maybe have a read of something liek this; http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chavs-The-De.../dp/184467696X

    Think. Question. Challenge your preconceptions. Who knows maybe that'll change your mind?
    Sorry, im just tired of people - being told you're stupid is quite trying when it's 20 different people yanoo?

    I'm doing this for my debate like I've said, im no neo Nazi who converts people into haters of benefits.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The pragmatist inside me says yes, the libertarian inside me says no.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    It isn't a two or three pound wage difference; it's a two or three pound per hour wage difference. If you are employing someone on a 40 hour week for 50 weeks of the year then increasing their wage by two pounds costs £4000 (ignoring that some of that increase will disappear to taxes).

    Yes but in the short run, if the firm has no spare capacity to expand production, they will not be able to hire any other workers. On top of it this windfall in wages will be taken as profit by the company. If you are proposing a drop in the minimum wage, one obvious effect is a fall in consumption in the economy due to lower wages, causing a lower level of demand, which as you stated earlier is a cause of unemployment.

    Hence why I think the minimum wage is unnecessary; the market sets a lower limit anyway. All the minimum wage does is prevent people from gaining experience.



    Yes it does; if it market signalling didn't work didn't then we'd all still be agricultural workers.

    People change careers when they are able to get a higher wage in a job they are able to do. The jobs with the highest wages many people are unable to do as they have not been educated to do so. People do not decide to become educated in a certain field/ at all to a certain extent based on the wages. There are many other factors such as the enjoyability of school, parental pressure etc.

    Firstly, a five year old's parents have an incentive to give him a good education. If they don't they will pay the price in the long term. Secondly, a lot of children (not quite so young) want to be successful and want to take education as far as they can.

    The children in question here are the ones who's parents perhaps care less about their education; the ones who have not been to college or university and do not consider it important that their children do. This is not fair on the children, who did not choose the parents, nor on society, who will pay for the shortcomings of the children. This often leads to the emotional appeal of if the parents don't care, why should society pay for the errors, but I'm sure you're intelligent enough not to fall for this flaw.

    Secondly, market forces don't stop just because the timescale is long; what would occur is that the number of people training to become accountants would drop as those people would go into other more profitable professions, and supply would decrease. If market forces didn't apply then people would continue to training to become accountants regardless of the decrease in demand. There's also the possibility of existing accountants applying their skills and experience elsewhere.



    The only way to increase labour productivity is through capital investment; the problem with the UK is that there are a lot of obstacles to capital investment including the high tax rate. Low wages don't increase productivity, low benefits only reduce consumption (and hence increase investment). And Hong Kong is as rich as London; its economy is growing away from the UK economy.



    But historically the poor have doubled their incomes without state help. If the minimum wage is removed then it becomes easier for youths from poor families to gain experience and hence, when they leave their families, support themselves with higher wages later on. If the state makes it illegal to employ youths for less than minimum wage and reduces the incentive to find work (as the welfare state is a burden on the working) then people will stay poor for longer. And the skills of employees do not deteriorate; they improve. Your suggestion that people can only increase their wealth with significant state help conflicts with history.

    Where is the evidence for this? Over what time period? You refer to history a great deal but you neglect the shift from overwhelmingly unskilled labour dominating the economy to skilled labour being the more important deiving force of the economy. There is nothing to prevent youths gaining experience, and the apprenticeship scheme ensures that if firms really do want to train young workers and not just exploit them, they at least give them experience and training for a minimal wage.

    Children's consumption is paid for by their parents; it isn't a problem. What is a problem is when someone is entitled by law to be allowed to consume without producing; that creates a burden on other people in society.

    ...And to avoid this situation we must educate them properly to allow them to work in the future.

    It wouldn't result in hyperinflation because there isn't enough money in the economy for it to do so; hyperinflation only occurs if the money supply is rapidly increased. Hyperinflation would be necessary for full employment on a £50/hour wage - without it unemployment would occur.

    Not necessarily. Inflation can be caused by large increases in the average wages, look at the 1970's and the Philips curve, not requiring a rise in the money supply, though in the 1970's there was not hyperinflation, it was not a 900% rise in average wages. If everyone was made to pay their employees this much I very much expect that all firms would agree to increase prices to ensure that a profit is made, not the firing of their employees, but it is a ridiculous scenario anyhow.

    Society was correcting itself or we would have never reached this level of wealth. The UK went from a poverty striken agricultural economy to a rich, industrial economy over the course of the 1800s with very little in the way of a welfare state, and even substantial burdens in the form of military conflicts around the world. The poor of the 1920s were far better off than the poor of the 1810s. And we could achieve the level of growth in Hong Kong; Hong Kong has no natural resources. If we cut the welfare system we could also cut taxes; do you not think that having the lowest tax rate in Europe would generate a lot of investment?

    Sorry who benefited from the industrial revolution? The poor, who moved from the simple but relaxed life of the country to the busy uncomfortable, long hours, low aid jobs in the factories? I think you will find that it was the rich who exclusively benefited. It was not until the 20th century that universal free schooling was introduced, which gave the poor the opportunity to move up the social ladder. Growth was achieved, but this ultimately would not benefit the poor until the mid 20th century. If you read these history books you seem so fond of, you will see that slums dominated London, and these were slowly eradicated with the help of the welfare state. Please also note that workhouses were not abolished until the 1930's, this being the last option for the poorest of the poor, and largely worse than a life in agriculture, where the industrial revolution meant that there were now far fewer jobs, once again at the expense of the poor.

    And foreign aid is nowhere near as useful as competent government.
    The government giving the aid or receiving it? If you mean the one receiving it you are certainly right, but we have very little control how competent they are
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Sorry I messed the format of that up. Hope you can still understand it.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    You may think these people aren't fit to breed. Somewhere in the country, someone will think the same of you.

    There is no fair, safe and just arbitrator of this idea, thus it should not and could not be implemented.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miraclefish)
    You may think these people aren't fit to breed. Somewhere in the country, someone will think the same of you.

    There is no fair, safe and just arbitrator of this idea, thus it should not and could not be implemented.
    I understand that - many people will.

    I'm not looking at whether it will be, I'm looking at reasonings behind it
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Just don't fund the excessive children. Then they won't have so many.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexandra's Box)
    Just don't fund the excessive children. Then they won't have so many.
    But what if the children turn into people like their parents? Or the children, as a result of financial shortages turn to petty theft that affects honest hard working people?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I hate i when you upvote someone in one thread for a well constructed sensible post & then, pow, they start a moronic thread which makes everybody on the internet a little more stupid :/
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crusherjosh)
    I hate i when you upvote someone in one thread for a well constructed sensible post & then, pow, they start a moronic thread which makes everybody on the internet a little more stupid :/
    Pardon?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alistair122)
    Yes but in the short run, if the firm has no spare capacity to expand production, they will not be able to hire any other workers. On top of it this windfall in wages will be taken as profit by the company. If you are proposing a drop in the minimum wage, one obvious effect is a fall in consumption in the economy due to lower wages, causing a lower level of demand, which as you stated earlier is a cause of unemployment.
    But a reduction in the minimum wage would allow more people being employed and hence consumption would remain the same, but with more production resulting in a higher amount of labour being put toward investment (assuming none went to reducing prices).

    People change careers when they are able to get a higher wage in a job they are able to do. The jobs with the highest wages many people are unable to do as they have not been educated to do so. People do not decide to become educated in a certain field/ at all to a certain extent based on the wages. There are many other factors such as the enjoyability of school, parental pressure etc.
    I agree that there are many factors, but it makes no sense to ignore the financial incentives for people to invest in education.

    The children in question here are the ones who's parents perhaps care less about their education; the ones who have not been to college or university and do not consider it important that their children do. This is not fair on the children, who did not choose the parents, nor on society, who will pay for the shortcomings of the children. This often leads to the emotional appeal of if the parents don't care, why should society pay for the errors, but I'm sure you're intelligent enough not to fall for this flaw.
    But why do we need the government to help them? Universities have an incentive to attract students, although arguably secondary schools lack an incentive system for encouraging such students.

    Where is the evidence for this? Over what time period? You refer to history a great deal but you neglect the shift from overwhelmingly unskilled labour dominating the economy to skilled labour being the more important deiving force of the economy. There is nothing to prevent youths gaining experience, and the apprenticeship scheme ensures that if firms really do want to train young workers and not just exploit them, they at least give them experience and training for a minimal wage.
    Look up the Luddites for an example of unskilled workers doing jobs which previously required highly skilled workers. "Computer" was once a job title rather than a device. Certainly there are counterexamples where once skilled individual becomes able to do the work of a hundred unskilled individuals, but technology works both ways in that regard and in the long run everyone benefits from it, and there is always another job to be done somewhere. And how is an unpaid apprenticeship less "exploitative" than a low paid apprenticeship?

    ...And to avoid this situation we must educate them properly to allow them to work in the future.
    But the government is the worst entity for doing that job.

    Not necessarily. Inflation can be caused by large increases in the average wages, look at the 1970's and the Philips curve, not requiring a rise in the money supply, though in the 1970's there was not hyperinflation, it was not a 900% rise in average wages. If everyone was made to pay their employees this much I very much expect that all firms would agree to increase prices to ensure that a profit is made, not the firing of their employees, but it is a ridiculous scenario anyhow.
    The Phillips curve is about using inflation to reduce unemployment; not about high unemployment being used to reduce inflation. High unemployment would occur if wages were raised to a level where there wasn't actually enough money to pay everyone an appropriate amount.

    Sorry who benefited from the industrial revolution? The poor, who moved from the simple but relaxed life of the country to the busy uncomfortable, long hours, low aid jobs in the factories? I think you will find that it was the rich who exclusively benefited. It was not until the 20th century that universal free schooling was introduced, which gave the poor the opportunity to move up the social ladder. Growth was achieved, but this ultimately would not benefit the poor until the mid 20th century. If you read these history books you seem so fond of, you will see that slums dominated London, and these were slowly eradicated with the help of the welfare state. Please also note that workhouses were not abolished until the 1930's, this being the last option for the poorest of the poor, and largely worse than a life in agriculture, where the industrial revolution meant that there were now far fewer jobs, once again at the expense of the poor.
    Your view of pre-industrial Britain is severely flawed. There wasn't a "relaxed life" in the country; there was a muddy, cold, dark and dangerous existence - particularly for people working with large animals - the hours were just as long and even more strenuous than they were in the factories.

    The rich did not benefit exclusively at all: in 1800 it would take six hours of labour for a man on the average income to afford to light a room for one hour a night - the average person could not light their home. By 1900, however, it would take the average man about 10 minutes. By 1950 it took 8 seconds of labour and today it takes half a second. It certainly did not take until the mid 20th century for the poor to be affected by this massive progress.

    Over the course of the 19th century calorie consumption, life expectancy, sanitation, energy consumption, and use of rail transport increased for virtually everyone. The industrial revolution improved living standards for every segment of the population; this was also the case in America and Western Europe.

    The workhouse was an attempt by the government to help the poor; they created it in first place.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    But a reduction in the minimum wage would allow more people being employed and hence consumption would remain the same, but with more production resulting in a higher amount of labour being put toward investment (assuming none went to reducing prices).
    No it wouldn't. Many low paid workers would now have much lower wages, meaning much less disposable income and hence less demand in the economy. As I stated earlier, unemployment would not decrease by a noticeable amount, especially in the short run as there is not the demand or the spare capacity in the economy in the first place to warrant it.

    But why do we need the government to help them? Universities have an incentive to attract students, although arguably secondary schools lack an incentive system for encouraging such students.
    Because its a) our social responsibility and b) economically worthwhile in the long run

    Look up the Luddites for an example of unskilled workers doing jobs which previously required highly skilled workers. "Computer" was once a job title rather than a device. Certainly there are counterexamples where once skilled individual becomes able to do the work of a hundred unskilled individuals, but technology works both ways in that regard and in the long run everyone benefits from it, and there is always another job to be done somewhere. And how is an unpaid apprenticeship less "exploitative" than a low paid apprenticeship?
    This is not a common occurrence and the increasing number of skilled jobs relative to unskilled has been represented by the growing middle class. From car production lines to checkouts, computers have been replacing low skilled labour, highlighting the need for greater education. Apprenticeships are paid at a minimum wage of £2.60 an hour, for which skills are taught whilst the company is able to benefit from the labour. This ensures that for a lower wage the apprentice is taught, and not just exploited, as with internships, helping to earn them a higher wage in the future.

    The Phillips curve is about using inflation to reduce unemployment; not about high unemployment being used to reduce inflation. High unemployment would occur if wages were raised to a level where there wasn't actually enough money to pay everyone an appropriate amount
    The long run Philips curve shows that employment generally stays stable. As wage rates rise, unemployment decreases in the short run, however these then are made unemployed as they suffer fro the money illusion, leaving a higher rate of inflation with the same rate of employmen. Although the long run curve can be shifted with measures such as the one you suggested, lowering benefits, though these are assumed to be JSA, not child benefits, as these are likely to have very little effect on a persons choice to work. Another way the long run curve can be shifted, is by educating more, which allows people to fill the available job posts.
    Your view of pre-industrial Britain is severely flawed. There wasn't a "relaxed life" in the country; there was a muddy, cold, dark and dangerous existence - particularly for people working with large animals - the hours were just as long and even more strenuous than they were in the factories.

    The rich did not benefit exclusively at all: in 1800 it would take six hours of labour for a man on the average income to afford to light a room for one hour a night - the average person could not light their home. By 1900, however, it would take the average man about 10 minutes. By 1950 it took 8 seconds of labour and today it takes half a second. It certainly did not take until the mid 20th century for the poor to be affected by this massive progress.

    Over the course of the 19th century calorie consumption, life expectancy, sanitation, energy consumption, and use of rail transport increased for virtually everyone. The industrial revolution improved living standards for every segment of the population; this was also the case in America and Western Europe.

    The workhouse was an attempt by the government to help the poor; they created it in first place.
    Haha "severely flawed"... well I may have exaggerated the benefits of pre-industrial country life, but can you really say that the poor of the 20th century benefited from the industrial revolution? I think that the number of hours you are able to light a room by is not a great measure, and this was caused by technological advances, not because the value of the average wage had increased hugely. Also you use average wage not median wage, which does not compensate for the level of inequality, which was massive.
    It may also interest you to know that from the 1830's grants were given by the government to church schools, and by 1890 they were made compulsory and free, by the state- because it was recognised that schooling was underconsumed, which would have bad implementations on future society.
    At the start of the 20th century there were still many people living in overcrowded, unhygienic housing whilst the rich were living in abundance tasting the spices from India and sugar from Jamaica. Was this a fair, self-correcting society?
    Workhouses were a form of slavery in many of the cases. They were a place for the poor to go when they had no other options, and in return for food and a bed they were forced to do heavy labour, through which the institutions became self-funding, and eventually profit making for the capitalists who took over running them later on.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raiden10)
    A really scary place this is.

    "Hitler got mass sterilisation right" - 9 positives, 9 negs

    "Science degrees are more worthwile than media studies" - 20 positives, 40 negs
    It shows media studies is twice as dossy as science.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    Everyone should be free to do what they want with their own body - that is why I am pro drug legalisation, and pro right-to-die (by not sectioning people who make a rational decision to commit suicide, and allowing euthanasia).

    However, I don't believe that people should have the right to impose on other people's bodies. Everyone should make their own choice for their own body. That is why alcohol is, in my opinion, worse than some incredibly harmful drugs. Because it often makes people harm others which is infinitely more harmful than it hurting themselves.

    Where does this leave me for forced sterilisation?

    You are bringing another body into the equation; the child. This is not a topic of rights to one's own body, this is about how an individual is allowed to affect another.
    This is a true situation (four of the kids have been adopted by a family friend): a woman who is a bit 'off' mentally has lots of babies by lots of partners. She is incapable of taking care of them herself, and they are taken off her. She pops out more and more, and they seem to have inherited some issues (the family friend is worried about the younger two kids, as the older two have gone off the rails, for example, one of them beat up a lady in her 70s to steal her handbag).
    I think that this woman should be forcibly sterilised; she does not have a right to produce children who may not get adopted and quite possibly will have issues, which is not the best circumstance to be creating people.

    Another example that is true, but I have no personal knowledge of, is a woman deemed unfit to look after children, so has decided to keep popping them out until she is allowed to keep one. The unnecessary cost to the country is immense, but the larger issue here is that not all the kids have been adopted, and many of them have severe physical disorders.

    Ah well, when they crack immortality, everyone's going to have to be sterilised to be able to allow that future anyway
    Why don't they try to her mental health problems instead of proposing to sterilise her.

    This is just a excuse to practice tyranny. It really is the slippery slope.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Do a game show like The Running Man and the winners get to have babies?
    I have had so many conversations about bringing The Running Man 'to life' and various unethical 'prizes'... hahaha
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chapman.)
    There isn't that many people in need of a kidney transplant.
    The govt could sell the kidneys to foreigners to reduce the deficient. That would be the individual doing good for society.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    The govt could sell the kidneys to foreigners to reduce the deficient. That would be the individual doing good for society.
    Not our society though.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chapman.)
    Not our society though.
    Yes our society, we'd make a profit.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by najinaji)
    I love how most people's reaction to this is saying that we should cut benefits...

    So instead of people not being able to have children, they'll be able to have children who starve. I don't know how many of you have studied history (or current affairs) to any extent, but people don't simply stop having children because they're too poor to afford them. See Africa.
    Is that not more to do with the catholic church telling everyone that contraception is bad rather than them wanting to have children?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    Is that not more to do with the catholic church telling everyone that contraception is bad rather than them wanting to have children?
    That's kind of one and the same. If they saw that having families resulted in mass starvation and yet still did it because of the Church, then they are having children despite being too poor to afford them.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 4, 2012
New on TSR

Ways to improve university

Should university be free and harder to get in to?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.