Providing it before requiring people to use it.

I agree, that would be a good start, and in everyone’s interest. The uncertainty lies in situations where “push comes to shove”, when should the choice be forced on people, and at what point should an actual intervention against the consent of the alcoholist/drug user be performed, if it should be performed at all.

Surely I’m not the only one who recalls that in cases of pregnant women being prosecuted for drug or alcohol use when pregnant, several of those women had been on treatment waiting lists either before or very early in their pregnancies.

Surely you aren’t, and I don’t doubt such things have happened, but please excuse my naivete/youth/lack of knowledge of these cases.

Providing it before requiring people to use it. Surely I’m not the only one who recalls that in cases of pregnant women being prosecuted for drug or alcohol use when pregnant, several of those women had been on treatment waiting lists either before or very early in their pregnancies.

What constitutes “reasonable living standard”? I may well judge that differently from you.

You may. I provided some ideas (place to live, food, functional clothes, education, basic health care). Reasonable = basic needs to stay alive and healthy and an opportunity to improve and provide for him/herself (personal responsibility also applies, thus ruling out supporting unhealthy dead-end lifestyles like alcoholism, drug-use etc. Such people should be offered a choice between losing support or getting care, and at extreme cases forced into treatment [this would invoke some controversy, and again i have a qualifier "extreme". If I knew exactly what would be the correct level of state intervention/support I would have said it already])

If someone decides to have a child and stay home full time to care for it rather than go to school and get an education that would make them employable, should we support that choice?

No, we should support an opportunity for that person to become employable and provide for the child. Some support for having children is a good idea, like maternal/paternal leave and alleviating the costs of child care (tax deductions? State-sponsored daycare?) Drug use a definite no.

I tend to agree with your position on C4M, but at some cases mom-dad-child model is not the best one (even if it usually is). Depends on the mom and dad in question, I would say.

As for what Amp meant, I will shut up and wait for a clarification.

I’d say that the support of the child should be the responsibility of the state only insofar as the parents are unwilling or unable to support the child to a middle-class lifestyle.

to mean that the State should support children at a middle-class lifestyle if the parents were unable to do so, something I mentioned (but did not “feature”, if you will) in my post #117. Again, if I’m wrong on that, Amp can correct me.

As to this:

Personally, I think a rich society (U.S, U.K, Finland…) should provide a reasonable living standard to people who can not provide for themselves, and thus, equal opportunity (education, place to live, food, functional clothes, health-care).

we run into a couple of qualifiers. What constitutes “reasonable living standard”? I may well judge that differently from you. And, how do we differentiate between “can not provide for themselves” and “will not provide for themselves”? If someone decides to have a child and stay home full time to care for it rather than go to school and get an education that would make them employable, should we support that choice? What if they choose to use illegal drugs that will keep them from getting a job?

Was there a time in this Republic’s history when poor people didn’t have the franchise; when you had to have assets or income of “x” amount to be eligible to vote? I seem to recall that there was such, but I can’t put my finger on a source. Or am I just completely confused?

Yes, it’s existed at various times via such things as Poll Taxes.

Poll Tax

As that article points out, poll taxes have a very nasty history in these United States, as well as in other countries. Disenfranchisement tends to not go over all that well, leading to such things as armed insurrection.

Amp’s post #68 in this thread was the initial proposition (especially his second paragraph). I asked for clarification in post #106, which he provided in #107, and I responded to in #114.

Thanks for the clarification.
Amp talked about generous welfare, not middle-class income level. It is mathematically impossible for a society to ensure middle-class (as in average relative to income level in society) and maintain the principle that those who work harder and are more productive than others should earn more (I cannot, offhand think of a single person who would argue against that, and I know some people that are [at least by American standards] very far-left socialists).

If Amp meant middle-class income-level with generous welfare, he can correct me. Personally, I think a rich society (U.S, U.K, Finland…) should provide a reasonable living standard to people who can not provide for themselves, and thus, equal opportunity (education, place to live, food, functional clothes, health-care). Many things that a middle-class income level entails, would in my opinion be luxury rather than necessity, and not required for reasonable equal opportunity (even people below middle-class, in first-world societies, have a living standard that would be considered extragavant in poorer societies).

It is not a simple zero-sum dilemma, but rather, ensuring that each citizen has an opportunity to become a productive member of society is a State interest, and in interest of more affluent citizens.

Sounds like? Where have you seen/heard that proposition? Who exactly argued for that, and in which comment?

Amp’s post #68 in this thread was the initial proposition (especially his second paragraph). I asked for clarification in post #106, which he provided in #107, and I responded to in #114.

Choice for Men? I’m for all kinds of choices for men, but if a guy has sex with a woman and she gets pregnant and decides to have the baby, as far as I’m concerned he’s on the hook for being a father to that child. I’m not just talking about sending a check; I’m taking about establishing a family unit with the child and it’s mother with all that implies. If a man isn’t prepared to do that, he should keep his pants on. If he wants to have sex regardless, then he should take whatever precautions are necessary to lower the odds of conception. But if said precautions fail, then he needs to step up. A male who thinks that his obligations to his child can be fulfilled with a check is no man, in my estimation.

Actually, we have learned that an educated electorate is essential to the survival of the Republic. For much of our history, the populace was not well educated, but the electorate was, and we survived just fine.

Given that we now have universal suffrage, and given that all children born in the United States are citizens thereof, the “populace” being discussed are the future electorate.

I realize that you then go on to suggest that poor people should be denied the franchise, but that wasn’t on the table in this discussion.

But the proposition that the way to deal with poor kids is to give irresponsible people enough of my and other citizen’s money to give that kid a middle-class income level sounds like a lot more than simple social welfare to me.

Sounds like? Where have you seen/heard that proposition? Who exactly argued for that, and in which comment?

What’s C4M?

C4M=Choice For Men, essentially arguing that men should have a legal opt-out in situations where they don’t want to be a father (in economic sense) if the woman decides to keep the child instead of abortion/adoption. I’m not a big fan of the concept.

I can agree with that. Now, what’s the best way for the state to ensure that each subsequent generation of citizens is properly equipped to be productive, etc.? Have the State give every woman who gets pregnant and is poor enough of my money to ensure that child a middle-class upbringing? Forcibly abort poor women? Make it a condition of receiving aid that a woman submit to a DNA analysis and everyone she names or can give any clue of as her sex partners and force the winner to stand up to his responsibilities? Take kids from women or couples who can’t support kids and place them for adoption? What are the alternatives?

Not that I’m sure this has anything to do with the topic, and I’m sorry if I misread your post at 114 as a general anti-social-welfare post instead of a C4M-oriented “Fathers shouldn’t be help responsible for their offspring” post.

What’s C4M?

I’m not against social welfare. But the proposition that the way to deal with poor kids is to give irresponsible people enough of my and other citizen’s money to give that kid a middle-class income level sounds like a lot more than simple social welfare to me.

The state isn’t supporting the people who made that child pes se, but rather ensuring an equal opportunity for the child.

Who made that child per se.

It occurs=people who work harder and are more productive than other people get richer than those other people.

In a capitalist system, people who work harder and are more productive than other people get richer than those other people. This will occur even if true equality of opportunity through the elimination of racism, sexism, etc., is established. Equal opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcomes. Thus, inequality of wealth distribution ensues. That’s not wrong. That’s not immoral. And public policy should not seek to change that.

emphasis added.

(Bit off-topic)
I have a minor problem with that statement. I would say that it occurs especially or even only if equal opportunities are granted. After all, if equality off opportunity is not ensured no amount of hard work or productivity ensures that a person gets rich, or even that a person gets out poverty (how else would you explain sweatshops and subliving wages, that exist in capitalism? Or the fact that some people are very rich without really working hard personally?). Thus, I would say that ensuring equal opportunity is a very high priority in a just society. Equal outcome, not that much.

This brings me to the subject of state supporting a child. The state isn’t supporting the people who made that child pes se, but rather ensuring an equal opportunity for the child. Should we say: “Screw the kid” just because he/she happens to have parents that aren’t doing their duty (providing for the child)? Screw the kids parents, perhaps, but can you propose a fair solution that doesn’t screw over the kid’s life (hypothetical “the parent’s shouldn’t have had that kid” does not apply, it is not the kid’s fault.)?

Actually, we have learned that an educated electorate is essential to the survival of the Republic. For much of our history, the populace was not well educated, but the electorate was, and we survived just fine.

I personally believe that the best way to meet this precondition for survival is to limit the franchise. Others believe that the universalization of both education and the franchise is a better approach. The difficulty with my belief is that it is elitist and undemocratic; the difficulty with the alternative approach is that it handwaves away the fact that there is a substantial population of individuals who are either unwilling or incapable of being educated.

So, while I agree with the principle that The State has no business being in the wealth redistribution business simply to achieve some kind of “equality of outcome”, I disagree strongly that The State has no business ensuring that each subsequent generation of citizens is properly equiped to be productive, self-sufficient members.

Not that I’m sure this has anything to do with the topic, and I’m sorry if I misread your post at 114 as a general anti-social-welfare post instead of a C4M-oriented “Fathers shouldn’t be help responsible for their offspring” post. Looking back I can see how you might have been advancing a Libertarian-ish ideology rather than a C4M-ish one.

One of the purposes of the state, and one of the purposes for which the U.S. in particular was established, is to safeguard property rights. Here in the U.S., the state is to be restricted from taking my property unless it meets the burden of proving that it needs to do so for public purposes. The founders of this country were skeptical that a pure democracy would succeed, observing that no democracy has survived the electorate becoming aware that they could reach into the purse of private parties for whatever purpose they wished.

In a capitalist system, people who work harder and are more productive than other people get richer than those other people. This will occur even if true equality of opportunity through the elimination of racism, sexism, etc., is established. Equal opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcomes. Thus, inequality of wealth distribution ensues. That’s not wrong. That’s not immoral. And public policy should not seek to change that.

Who has primary rights to the fruit of my labor? Me, or the State? What does it take for the State to justify taking my resources for it’s own use?

It’s not “You versus The State”, it’s “You versus Your Offspring”. If you buy a car, and you don’t pay your mortgage, The State isn’t the one who repossesses your car. It’s The Bank. But The State is who has defined the laws which control foreclosure on automobiles. In the same way The State is who has defined who is responsible for the financial welfare of The Child.