Emphasis added.
Before you start trying to cull out the low IQ folk, you might want to brush up on contraception. Like Depo-Provera. 
I’m strongly opposed to your proposal. Government exists to protect people’s rights, not to sterilize people. Your proposal does not protect anyone’s rights.
I’m interested in the payment for low IQ. How stupid do I have to be to earn a good living?
I was hoping to get some reasoned, rationale input, debate, and discourse going here. Instead most of you are simply trying to distract from the issue at hand. FYI “depot injection” is the actual medical term. “Depo” is simply a trade name.
But it really would be great (and maybe unrealistic) if y’all could focus on the topic at hand – i.e. my hypothetical policy proposal. Thanks,
I did not say equals. I said correlated with. There is a big difference.
And income and IQ are most definitely positively correlated. That is a fact.
No test. You decide if you want to participate with this program. Totally up to you.
I see nothing in the Constitution which allows the U.S. government to take the sort of action you’re proposing, even if it did lead to a rise in IQ. (And I doubt that it would produce a rise in IQ.)
It is entirely optional whether one wants to participate or not – i.e. they have the right to choose.
This is sooooo true. For example, we seem to be plagued with a surplus of Wall Street Welfare Queens. So, I would suggest that we change your plan to pay Wall Street executives not to reproduce. That way, we won’t have to go bail out their mooching asses every 20 years when they crash their own companies. I say we start with offering a cash payment to big Wall Street Welfare Queens like Jamie Dimon, and then work our way down the ladder from there.
Actually there is a lot in the Constitution giving individuals freedom to make their own choices, and that’s what this program would offer.
And it’s a fact because…
The offer stands for them too. It stands for every US citizen of reproductive age. How could it possibly be more fair?
Ok, no point in getting into a “my research paper is better than your research paper” debate. Forget IQ.
The hypothetical proposal gives people a choice, all people. If you have thoughts on the proposal itself, I would really appreciate you sharing them. Thanks,
You haven’t addressed the challenges to the idea that eugenics has any benefit to society, so I think you need to back up your argument a tad. As it stands, you’re offering cash bounties to citizens to essentially mutilate themselves. I mean, I could say “let’s pay people to pierce their ears” and you’d get fewer negative side effects due to complications, so my idea is automatically better than yours in that respect.
I think you misunderstood me. The only actions that the government should take are those that are necessary to defend the rights of one or more persons. It says so in the Declaration of Independence. It does not become justifiable for the government to take an action, simply because that action doesn’t violation anyone’s rights. The question is: is the action is necessary to defend anyone’s rights? If not, the government has no grounds for taking that action.
I was suggesting limiting the program to Wall Street Welfare Queens.
Mutilate? So is that what PETA endorses for having pets spayed and neuter’ed? Funny, I always thought they wanted to protect animals. I think you should read up on vasectomy and tubal ligation.
Again, we don’t have to pass judgement on eugenics, the individual can decide that for himself/herself. That said, please read the articles I referenced with the 3 links in an earlier post.
Actually, government exists to exert power — which is it’s own reason and it’s own reward.
But if they have low IQs they won’t have the intelligence to make the right choice.
Perhaps because $1000 would be less of a temptation to a Wall Street executive than to a migrant field-worker.
I see. But we can let them choose, for example… unprotected promiscuous sex, lots of children out of wedlock, alcohol, cigarettes, junk food, obesity, and drugs? So we should “protect” them from my hypothetical sterilization proposal, but they can go to town with everything I listed – is that about right?
Do you think a 2050 USA full of migrant field-workers will be able to compete with China?
Actually, there is a link, that has been the subject of recent research, having to do with atypical brain structure. There was a study by a ?neurophysiologist at ?Harvard … ah, I found a link to the story on NPR. (I’m amazed; I can never find articles.)
Of course, that the study was conducted by professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the University of California does under cut the argument that preventing reproduction is the only way to decrease criminal behavior.