Child support reference (gofaster)

[miko2d]

Sixpence: The bottom line comes to either the family or the state. To just put it all aside and throw state tax dollars at it is liberal thinking.

 When you argue in general which oppression is worse, I cannot provide a meaningfull answer. All oppression is bad.

 In this particular case though tehre is a difference. If a family is denied the right to make a decision to pull the plug, then whoever is entitled to make such decision should foot the bill.

Otherwise you have an authrity without responicbility and oppression without recourse.

 What is the state decides it needs a road running through your property? It can pay for it or it can save public money by making you pay for it. Or for any other expence.

 Liberal thinking is not about money. It's about oppression. If you oppress some people to provide entitlements to others, it does not matter who you opress in what proportion.

 miko

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by miko2d
Liberal thinking is not about money. It's about oppression. If you oppress some people to provide entitlements to others, it does not matter who you opress in what proportion.

 miko

Well, if you word it like that, then everything that costs you money would be oppression.  Someone has to provide, so in that logic, if you provide, you are being oppressed. If I have a disabled child and decide at age 18 i'm turning my back on him and kicking him out of the house( I would not do) and a judge steps in and says "no, you have to provide and take care of said child" , I would not consider that being oppressed. I would call that laying responsibilty where it belongs.

Is case is different. You can't just put each case aside and just throw tax dollars at it. Tax and spend is liberal thinking. If providing is oppression, then yes, someone is going to be oppressed. There is no way around it.

If we have a sick relative(under 18 or not) who is draining family funds because their healthcare is through the roof, then are we being oppressed? Yet, if we spend money on universal health, we are still being oppressed. Which is it going to be?

[miko2d]

Sixpence: Well, if you word it like that, then everything that costs you money would be oppression.  Someone has to provide, so in that logic, if you provide, you are being oppressed.

 Not "everything".
 There is a free-market exchange where two informed parties enter into a contract without of their own free will, without coersion - because both see the transaction as the best choice of action available to them.

 Then there is a political coersion where parties are forced by threat/use of violence to enter into transaction that they would not enter voluntarily (or prevented).

If I have a disabled child and decide at age 18 i'm turning my back on him and kicking him out of the house( I would not do) and a judge steps in and says "no, you have to provide and take care of said child" , I would not consider that being oppressed. I would call that laying responsibilty where it belongs.

 You may not consider it opression or consider it justified but it is oppression nevertheless.

 The only just government is the one based on the consent of the government. Hense the only obligations the non-oppressive government can enforce are those that people voluntarily assume.

 If you did not consider it desirable to spend resources on some cause, why would you voluntarily assume an obligation to do so?
 This philosophy, brought to it's logical conclusion will result in the statement that only people's obligations of non-agression towards other members of society can be enforced by the government.


 Speaking of the particular hypothetical case you've mentioned. If your life's ultimate goal was to have several grandchildren, does a judge have a right to prevent you from accomplishing it? Would it be equivalent to his making your life lose it's meaning to you and thus equivalent to depriving you of your life? Would it be equivalent to depriving people of life - by preventing them from being born? Would a rigt to such actions be too much power to entrust any mortal? Would not even decision whether such action is equivalent to depriving several people of life be too much power to entrust any mortal?

 Who is entitled to decide whether one life or one life's comphort is worth several lives? You may delagate an authority about such decision but can you impose it on other people just because it makes you feel good and not call it oppression?

 miko

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by miko2d
"You may not consider it opression or consider it justified but it is oppression nevertheless."

Then child support would be oppression

 "The only just government is the one based on the consent of the government. Hense the only obligations the non-oppressive government can enforce are those that people voluntarily assume."

You cannot asume they will voluntarily assume. Hence, a court case.

 "If you did not consider it desirable to spend resources on some cause, why would you voluntarily assume an obligation to do so?"

What we spend our money on is a majority decision. Some will desire to spend, some won't. Depending on what the money is spent.
 
"This philosophy, brought to it's logical conclusion will result in the statement that only people's obligations of non-agression towards other members of society can be enforced by the government."

Would that be like child support?


 "Speaking of the particular hypothetical case you've mentioned. If your life's ultimate goal was to have several grandchildren, does a judge have a right to prevent you from accomplishing it?"

No, but it does have the right to force me to pay for the ones I have.

[miko2d]

Sixpence: Then child support would be oppression

 True. A person could not have voluntarily incured any obligation towards a child he/she created. So unless a parent had a contract (explicit or implicit) with the other parent concerning child support, imposing such an obligation would be oppression.
 Fortunately, before states got into business of oppressing parents for child support the children were not abandoned in droves - at least nowhere nearly as much as they are now when the state is in the social engineering business.

You cannot asume they will voluntarily assume. Hence, a court case.

 You mean, if someone does not want to assume obligations I want them to assume, we shoule use state machine of violence to force them? Right. That exactly is oppression.
 The only obligation state can assume without oppression/agression against individual is obligation of non-agression.
 Of course if a person refuses to voluntarily assume obligation of non-agression, he automatically forfeits the obligations of others not to agress against him, so one can oppress him without being unjust.

What we spend our money on is a majority decision - or rather of minority group backed by supposed legitimacy of majority. Some will desire to spend, some won't.

 That's what I say. Majority oppresses the minority. I come to you with a friend and a pair of weapons in a dark alley and we all vote whether you should spend some money on the cause we like.

Depending on what the money is spent.

 Who is to decide where money should be spent but a person who owns them?
 
Would that be like child support?

 People had children without state intervention. Theymay learn to do so if needed.

No, but it does have the right to force me to pay for the ones I have.

 Where did it get that right? Their right is your obligation. Did you incur it voluntarily or was it forced on you?

 By forcing you to support one child who will not have children, they deprive you of a chance to have several more children and grandchildren.
 And they deprive the poor disabled child from a chance to have siblings, who are as related to him biologically as children related to a parent.

 So such forcing costs lives of many human beings and violates a whole bunch of religions. Who is entitled to make such decisions? Society changed its views many times and will do so again while individuals did not change their method of procreation since two sexes were invented.

 US forcefully sterilised about 60,000 people in the beginning of the century - more than scandinavians or nazis ever did. You see - majority though it was a good idea at the time.
 
 miko

[Sixpence]

"You mean, if someone does not want to assume obligations I want them to assume, we shoule use state machine of violence to force them?"

Violence? A judge telling you to pay child support is not violence.

"That's what I say. Majority oppresses the minority. I come to you with a friend and a pair of weapons in a dark alley and we all vote whether you should spend some money on the cause we like. "

That is not a fair way to describe Democracy. The majority decide, not a dictator

"Who is to decide where money should be spent but a person who owns them? "

(who owns the money?)The people you elect.

"People had children without state intervention. Theymay learn to do so if needed. "

So the state should not force child support?

"By forcing you to support one child who will not have children, they deprive you of a chance to have several more children and grandchildren. "

So my tax dollars should subsidize him having more children?

"And they deprive the poor disabled child from a chance to have siblings, who are as related to him biologically as children related to a parent. "

And I should subsidize his children too?

"So such forcing costs lives of many human beings and violates a whole bunch of religions."

That is why there is a separation of church and state.

"Who is entitled to make such decisions?"

You do, by voting.

[miko2d]

Violence? A judge telling you to pay child support is not violence.

 If I do not surrrender my property on such a request, armed people will come to my house and take it. If I resist, they will attempt to kidnap me and confine me or hurt/kill me.
 The state is nothing more than an institution with territorial monopoly on violence. Whoever is in control of it - one person, a group, a "majority" is in the position to enforce their will arbitrarily.

That is not a fair way to describe Democracy. The majority decide, not a dictator

 I do not know what you mean buy "fair", so I woule not claim that it is "fair". It is accurate.
 When majority of germans approved genocide of jews and majority of turks approed the slaughter of armenians it was certainly a democratic decision but oppression nonetheless.


(who owns the money?)The people you elect.

 You mean the product of your labor is authomatically assumed to belong to the people the majority elect? And youa re just a slave to the majority? You may have assumed that obligation, it's your prerogative. Certainly not me or every single one here.
 

So the state should not force child support?

 Absolutely. If the majority wants to help those children, they can do it through charity. Or let them die. No reason to oppress me in order to collect taxes to pay armed goons to oppress someone else.

So my tax dollars should subsidize him having more children?

 You seem slow today. Of course not - and it shoudl be obvious from ths whole discussion. Coercing you to part with you property to pay for his children would be as much an oppression as forcing him to pay for his children. You should pay taxes only for you own protection from aggression - military, law-enforcement, justice system, enforcement of contracts.

And I should subsidize his children too?

 Only if you want to - through charity, etc.

That is why there is a separation of church and state.

 There is not. Preserving a life of a person through unnatural artificlal means, let alone sacrificing the "multiply" directive is contrary to many religions. If it's a person's time to die in God's opinion, what right does one have to force life-supporrt machines and drugs on the family?


You do, by voting.

 Right. And my entitlement consists of the fact that if someone does not agree with the result of my (and others') voting decision, a bunch of armed goons will kidnap him, take away his stuff and possibly kill him.
 That's exactly what's called oppression. Might makes right.

 Voting is just the mechanism that determines which particular individual(s) controll and direct that opressive power. That does not make it any less oppressive.

 miko

[Sixpence]

So Democracy is just a bunch of thugs forcing their will on others? And you call this accurate?

I may be slow, but I am not talking in circles. You state that making the family care for their disabled child is oppression, but forcing people to pay tax dollars for the state to take care of them is oppression.

Then you state democracy as a majority of thugs forcing their will on the minority.

So if the majority wants "X" amount of dollars spent on the military, the minority who don't are being oppressed? That is how our system works.

I am not in the majority so I am being oppressed? That doesn't fly Miko.

"When majority of germans approved genocide of jews and majority of turks approed the slaughter of armenians it was certainly a democratic decision but oppression nonetheless. "

So you are comparing this to a decision by a judge to make a family care for a disabled family member? Not to mention comparing 2003 U.S. Democracy to to 1939 german politics. You might as well compare it to the spanish inquisition.

" If it's a person's time to die in God's opinion, what right does one have to force life-supporrt machines and drugs on the family? "

So we watch kids die because they do not believe in medicine? Thank God for separation of church and state.

[miko2d]

Sixpence: So Democracy is just a bunch of thugs forcing their will on others? And you call this accurate?

 That's not what I said. Democratic arrangement of society and society free from oppression are two quite independent concepts. Orthogonal in mathematical terms.
 What I said is that the presence of democracy does not automatically mean absence of oppression. I never said that democracy necessarily means oppression. So a particular democracy can be a "bunch of thugs forcing their will on others", that is quite accurate. Ours is certainly included. A majority vote or a bunch of a people appointed by a person(s) elected by majority vote can take away a person's property, children, etc. if they decide his/her property can be better used "for the benefit of society" as they or their contributors perceive it or if they believe his/her ideas of raising children do not correspond to their standard - all that even when that person did not commit agression or pose danger to other members of society.


I may be slow, but I am not talking in circles. You state that making the family care for their disabled child is oppression, but forcing people to pay tax dollars for the state to take care of them is oppression.

 I do not see how that statement makes sense with "but". If you insert "and" instead of "but" it would be in accordance with what I am saying.

So if the majority wants "X" amount of dollars spent on the military, the minority who don't are being oppressed? That is how our system works.

 The legitimate functions of the state - defence and justice - are a separate issue. It's a very complex question and depending on social organisation it can constutute or not constitute oppression.
 If a bunch of amish invade our neighbourhood and you chose to defend against them, you would certainly be oppressing me if you forced me to join you. On the other hand a non-oppressive social arrangement may exist that obligates me to join you in defence or forefit my social rights.

I am not in the majority so I am being oppressed? That doesn't fly Miko.

 Here is an apt analogy. You are not free if you wear a long leash that is not pulled tight at the moment. You are not free if you willingly go on the slack leash where the master would want you to go. You are not free if you approve of the leash. You are not free if you learned the limits of your leash. You are only free if you wear no leash.

So you are comparing this to a decision by a judge to make a family care for a disabled family member?

 The detalis are different. The root is the same - unlimited power. Here a judge made family care for a disabled member. There a judge ordered a person sterilised. Over here a judge ordered slave returned to it's owner. Out there a judge ordered a man released from 10 years of wrongfull conviction to pay $140,000 back child support. In here a judge grants children custody to non-working mother rather than a working father. Whatever. All happened in US. Sure, we voted- by majority - and racial slavery got outlawed. That means if we voted to make racial slavery lawfull, it would be - and apparently you would be fine with it.

Not to mention comparing 2003 U.S. Democracy to to 1939 german politics. You might as well compare it to the spanish inquisition.

 You mean they did not have a democratic republic - created there by none else than US? They certainly did.

So we watch kids die because they do not believe in medicine?

 Well, two hundred years ago such democrats as you would watch kids die because you did not believe in medicine - and democratically burned the family for wichcraft.
 Now you would take children away from parents because you do not believe in God but believe in all kind of pseudo-scientific crap passed on as science. And have temerity to call it "separation of church and state".


 Basically, what you saing is that you do believe to have right to force me do things you want even if I have not threatened or aggressed against anybody. You believe that I am not oppressed just because you offer me a chance to register my futile disagreement in your vote. And you promice that you would subject yourself to any kind of request if my opinion comes to be a majority.
 So what? I do not care to have a slave and I do not want to be a slave. There are things in my and my family's life that should never be a subject to vote of busybodies like you because it does not concern you.

 I do not need a master. And what a low maneuver it is to suggest that I do. I do not need to be forced to help others. Force will only discourage me. There is nothing but the purest negativity and hate in the insistence that another human may not live his peaceful, non-aggressive life as he sees fit.

Socialism... confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. -- F. Bastiat

 There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster

 miko