that's because people aren't state property,and can have children if they want, whereas the adoption agency is a public body. Can you tell the difference?
You have proposed mandating unnecessary operations on innocent people.
(You have proposed mandating unnecessary operations on innocent people.
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Tue 4 Aug 2009, 9:20,
archived)
Well, people are state property really.I mean - everyone has to abide by state control - law and order.
Why should we let them breed unchecked and thus provide an unreportable issue?
Wouldn't it be far more practical to regulate breeding so that we can at least ensure that the children have some sort of standard of upbringing that will give them (potentially) a decent start in life?
(Why should we let them breed unchecked and thus provide an unreportable issue?
Wouldn't it be far more practical to regulate breeding so that we can at least ensure that the children have some sort of standard of upbringing that will give them (potentially) a decent start in life?
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Tue 4 Aug 2009, 9:23,
archived)
No the state is public property.Your way round is called totalitarianism.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Tue 4 Aug 2009, 9:27,
archived)
Sorry - you're right.The state is public property, the individual is state property.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Tue 4 Aug 2009, 9:28,
archived)
That's bizarrely circularif it isn't frighteningly authoritarian.
And the ownership of individuals is called slavery.
(And the ownership of individuals is called slavery.
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Tue 4 Aug 2009, 9:31,
archived)
Not really - just how it is.That's why the individual can be incarcerated, but not the public.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Tue 4 Aug 2009, 9:33,
archived)
No that's fucking nuts.Being able to incarcerate somebody doesn't say anything about ownership, only power of force. And they can only legally do that under a certain set of very well documented circumstances, anyway. If they truly owned you they'd be able to do it for no reason at all. But even if they acted like you were state property, it wouldn't make it so.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Tue 4 Aug 2009, 9:36,
archived)
What - and they can't?The individual is absolutely owned by the state - force is right - hence most people don't break the law - as they're afraid of going to prison.
Only the state has the power to imprison - it's how society works.
(Only the state has the power to imprison - it's how society works.
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Tue 4 Aug 2009, 9:38,
archived)
Either you're trolling,or you're genuinely the worst person I've ever communicated with.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Tue 4 Aug 2009, 9:39,
archived)
I enjoy debate and discussion - I don't mean to offend, though.I'll argue black is white for the joy of the sport.
But authoritarianism is how society works - society needs an authority to regulate itself just as a cell needs a wall to stop its insides falling out.
(But authoritarianism is how society works - society needs an authority to regulate itself just as a cell needs a wall to stop its insides falling out.
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Tue 4 Aug 2009, 9:45,
archived)
Ah, Devil's Advocate,it's good to know what I'm dealing with here, at least.
Of course society needs authorities and regulations. It doesn't need to demand absolute control over everybody's lives. Society exists for the benefit of people, not the other way round, and that means one of its duties is to human dignity. Being able to raise one's own children is something so fundamental to being human that the state should never be allowed to dictate on it, although I'm all for providing good education so that people can make their own informed decisions. And I can't say I'm in favour of rewarding social irresponsibility with cash hand-outs and council house priority. These things were largely a necessary response to the effects of WWII, but it's difficult to take it away now without people complaining about their "rights".
(Of course society needs authorities and regulations. It doesn't need to demand absolute control over everybody's lives. Society exists for the benefit of people, not the other way round, and that means one of its duties is to human dignity. Being able to raise one's own children is something so fundamental to being human that the state should never be allowed to dictate on it, although I'm all for providing good education so that people can make their own informed decisions. And I can't say I'm in favour of rewarding social irresponsibility with cash hand-outs and council house priority. These things were largely a necessary response to the effects of WWII, but it's difficult to take it away now without people complaining about their "rights".
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Tue 4 Aug 2009, 9:55,
archived)