In what sense are we trusting them? Even voluntary incentive-based sterilization programs have a less than savory history.
Planned Parenthood is still around (at least for now), so access to birth control is there. This program would presumably help those who don’t want kids, but can’t/won’t stick to a birth control regimen.
… or who would prefer to never worry about pregnancy/parenthood/child support payments and don’t want to, or medically cannot, stick to a continued temporary birth control regimen such as artificial hormones.
Absolutely appalling. The idea that the government would pay to sterilize citizens is simply grotesque.
It would be equally grotesque if a private entity did the paying, but then I would admit they they have the right to make such an offer. The government should never do such a thing, and anyone that did would be be contemptible.
And thankfully sterilization is still possible without government bribes.
By the way, is male sterilization the same as castration? I believe that some men undergo voluntary castration, usually as a way to stop wanting to rape women or children in those men where it has become a serious problem otherwise unfixable.
Male sterilization is a vasectomy generally done under local anesthetic thru a small incision, the vas deferens tubes (that carry sperm from the testes) are cut and sutured. It is often referred to as band aid surgery, and now an even less invasive method is available. no scalpel required. Castration is the complete surgical removal of the testes.
Forced (ie., court-ordered) sterilization is generally chemical castration. Sterilization is otherwise generally via vasectomy.
So does taxation. Just saying.
Another way this could work is to give every 14 year old (we need to start that young with the people it’s aimed at) £10k in trust, although they can only withdraw say £1k a year until they’re 18.
The sterilization can be temporary.
Then there is an option to buy back the right to reproduce. That right costs whatever that £10k in trust would be worth; so if you’ve left the money in the trust, this costs you nothing, effectively. If you’ve spent the money, then you need to earn the fee - and therefore demonstrate responsibility.
This also means that responsible people effectively have an overdraft for emergencies. Unless they’ve already had kids.
It’s genius I tell ye!
Uh… what?
Governments fuck everything up and generally behave evilly. When you pay tax, some of it is going towards evil.
That’s why small governemnt is a good thing and why this cunning system isn’t going to work. But it’s fun to think about how this policy could be made to work if we did trust the government.
It’s not fun if everyone else has to play according to your rather arbitrary rules.
Looks like your aim is off then.
Among my close group of friends, over 50% are childless by choice. All are well educated, hold good jobs, and in my opinion, would make great parents, but had decided not to. All would jump at a free $15k to do what they are already doing.
First how do you expect to overcome our current problems in society on earth if you don’t bear many children who will grow up and discover/invent things to overcome our current obstacles? It seems to me you are limiting human innovation by limiting the people who will discover great things for humanity. To me children are the answer, not the problem.
Second this is a sterilize the poor plan, by it’s very nature it seems doomed to collapse current society at it’s core core level.
Third $15k is insignifiant it someone’s life in the US and insulting and simular to the practices that the Europeans used against the Native Americans to buy their land for worthless beads. And that is exactly what you are doing in your suggestion, as they will die out, not having heirs and the rich will get their land.
I’m not sure where you got the idea from, but I can assure you that the rich don’t inherit your property if you die heirless and intestate.
Who gets it, the poor? Surely those who are sterilized won’t have any family claim on it, who is left?
In this theoretical social policy, sterilization by choice is being advocated, unless you are saying that short term financial gain is a trick (and this could very well be the case) on the poor. However it also seems that you are comparing potential life lost, by way of sterilization to the real native lands lost by way of “worthless beads” or broken treaties for example. And IMO the potential life would not have been in existence previous to the sterilization, while native lands were already in existence.
In other words, the future loss of potential life does not compare to the real loss of native land, and it seems kind of an insult to tell a native that the lost value of his or her land- equals what your loss would be by having a sterilization procedure done by your permission.
Small government isn’t good, and governments don’t “fuck everything up” or automatically behave evilly. They are effective & generally trustworthy at some things, and terrible & untrustworthy at others. Choosing who is and isn’t allowed to breed happens to be one of the latter, as demonstrated by history.
What you are calling potential life I am calling real life real living beings who would inherent real lands. There is no doubt that without this program, or one like it, children will be born, heirs to their parents and inheritors to the land.
It may be considered potential live only in the case of the individual, in a large enough group, which the OP’s premise would include it is unquestionable that life and bloodlines would terminate, and thus their claim on the land.
Comparison to the Native Americans is very applicable and it is insulting to state otherwise. There treaties that were made by one generation caused a loss of land in another generation and this still goes on today from treaties made in the early history of our country.
Yeah, and in that case it’s an excellent bit of free money to the childless. That is another selling point!
That’s the entire point - I chose a figure around that because it’s enough money that pretty much everyone would welcome it, while at the same time it’s low enough that the only people whose behaviour will be affected are those who are terrible at planning for the future. Which correlates highly with being the “wrong kind” of parent.