All your kids belong to us

[_ajax18]

Sometimes I'll flip to MSNBC but this little gem by Mellissa Harris-Perry was probably the most disturbing piece I've ever seen.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/shorter-mel ... -belong-us

I can't believe they're stating this skewed sense of fairness so clearly. Having kids is their decision alone, but paying for it is the responsibility of the village. No Beastie it's not outcome driven ethics. In her view, the world owes it to her and its expected.

People like this help me understand why human beings have chosen war in the past.

[_EAllusion]

The comments section on that link is interesting. It's amazing how many people think of children as their property to do with as they please. Even the official comment can't understand the notion outside of property and so imagines her as advocating that children be viewed as public property. We're stewards of children, not their owners.

She's arguing that society collectively has responsibility for ensuring the well-being of children and their rearing into responsible adults. Most people people agree with this notion to some extent, which is why we have laws that allow the state to remove children from abusive environments, but people differ on how far parental authority extends and where social responsibility begins. If I were to guess, I suspect she goes too far compared to my views, but your link is filled with idiots who can only think, "I own my child, not you!"

[_EAllusion]

People like this help me understand why human beings have chosen war in the past.

Because someone argues that society as a whole has stewardship responsibilities for children rather than only the family unit, you understand why such a person might need to be eliminated with violence? There's a sane response to that viewpoint.

[_EAllusion]

On another note, Newsbusters wants to be the conservative media matters, but is chronically infected with asinine misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what it chooses to comment on. Conservatives can do better than this.

[_ajax18]

Society as a whole doesn't have the right to decide if people have children or not. Why then should it have the responsibility to provide for them? And yet that responsibility is violently enforced upon society. It doesn't seem very fair to me. I find it very disturbing when things aren't fair.

Think of it this way EA. I'll go out and have some kids at your expense. I'll make the decision about how many you can afford and what you'll provide them. You'll spend your life at work, pay it, and appreciate the opportunity to propagate my DNA because that's what I think you should do. Does that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside? Do you want to jump through your computer and wring my neck now? Of course you do.

[_EAllusion]

Society as a whole doesn't have the right to decide if people have children or not. Why then should it have the responsibility to provide for them?

Because children are people who don't decide if they want to be born or not? I think society has some responsibility to protect and nurture children, who, by virtue of being children, lack full capacity to take care of themselves. For example, if a child doesn't have someone to properly take care of them, I don't think we should throw them to the dogs. I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a social safety net. That goes to securing the basic welfare of the people.

Do you want to jump through your computer and wring my neck now? Of course you do.

No I don't. But then again, I don't see children as expendable property, so we have very different outlooks on life.

[_ajax18]

Yes you do. You're a human being. You want to see your own genes propagate and prosper. I can't see you being very happy about having to do that for me to the point that it limits your ability to do that for yourself.

[_beastie]

Ajax refuses to recognize that human beings live in interdependent groups, and thereby our actions always affect one another. I'm sure he welcomes the fact that good actions of others in his group affect him positively. That's the way it should be. But he seems to think that some fairness property in the universe dictates that the bad actions of others shouldn't affect him negatively, and it's only due to the intrusive government that they do.

I've tried repeatedly in the past to point out that when children are born to people either unable or unwilling to care for them properly, that bill will come due to larger society in one way or the other. We can try to "pay it forward", by intervening at a younger age, in the hope that said intervention will allow and encourage the children to become productive members of society one day. Or we can close our eyes to their situation and pay it in terms of 50,000 dollars a year to keep them imprisoned in the future. I'm not saying it's inevitable that neglected and impoverished children end up committing crimes if society turns a blind eye to them, but it certainly increases the odds. I'm also not saying that they necessarily won't turn to crime if society does intervene, but it certainly increases the odds that they won't, once they have a feasible alternative.

That's why I think ajax needs to move to a desert island. That way he can live the life he wants, the life untouched by the actions of others.

[_ajax18]

Ajax refuses to recognize that human beings live in interdependent groups

I think it's a bad deal.

[_EAllusion]

Yes you do. You're a human being. You want to see your own genes propagate and prosper.

It's like your an anthropologist from one of Jupiter's moons. No, people are not necessarily driven by a desire to see their own genes propagate and prosper to the greatest extent possible, especially to the point that any other motivation that gets in the way induces violent rage.