I’ve heard people make this kind of argument before: ‘People with children are actively invested in the future of the nation. People without children are on a 100year free-trial.’
I have kids but this is such a dumb take. Some of the worst people that don’t give a shit about anything or anyone other than themselves have a kids. It’s not hard. The barrier to entry is super low.
On the other hand, some of the most genuinely thoughtful and kind people in the world have no kids whether by choice or otherwise.
Fair enough. Its not my position, either… However this is the logic for the idea. Seemingly nobody even tried to rationalize this in-thread, lol. Its literally not-un-thinkable :p
First, let me steelman your argument :] ‘Having children doesnt automatically mean that you’re a good, responsible, person.’ Let me know how I did. Given the above–
Of course having children doesn’t imbue a person with extra knowldge or virtue. However removing such barriers to vite (like lower voting age, allowing non-homeowners, allowing some fellons, et al) also does not grant extra knowldge or virtue. If the goal of society is to promote the ideals of the knowldgable/virtuous, it becomes necessary to find ways to delineate the two. One metric could be education level, another could be Starship Troopers, another could be a threshold of tax expenditures (after +$x of taxes paid)… There are many, including selecting for only those with children. This option has a few benefits. Chief among them, IMO, is that (at large) they want their children to inherit a functional society. Thus they may be more forward-thinking and more resistant to flippant changes in order to achieve a sense of stability. And, stability is good for society.
What evidence do you have that shows that the majority of people with children are more forward-thinking and more resistant to flippant changes in order to achieve a sense of stability?
Also, why do you think the goal of society is to promote the ideals of the knowledgeable/virtuous? And why is limiting voting rights the best way to do this?
Shouldn’t the goal of society to be to promote education so that as many people as possible have the opportunity to be knowledgeable and virtuous? I think you’d agree with this, but I know you’ll loop it back and say limiting voting to people with children would help this, to which I say again, where is the evidence?
Its syllogistic reasoning and gnosis :] I mean, sure I could try to find study, but if its easily falsifiable then be my guest. There is not a study on every imaginable topic, sometimes you just have to spitball with your intuition.
I picked ‘knowldgable and virtuous’ as a stand in for whatever value you’d like. It sounded good at the time, still does. Assuming that knowledge and virtue is hard to come by, this would mean many people do not meet these standards, and thus their opinions on society are questionable. If its open to everyone, why not let the Canadians vote too? ;]
Knowledge is not necessarily a virtue in itself. Pavlov preformed his experiments on children. We blind rabbits with chemicals to ‘prove’ that its harmful, lol. The search for all knowledge requires killing a lot of things, which is not a sign of temperance, for instance. I think the two ideas overlap, but I also think the Venn has a large gap…
Encourage child abuse? Are you suggesting people will take on children to so they can vote? Im not saying it wouldn’t happen, but I think it’ll be happen less than more. Or, another way, that a great mant of people are already taking on the duty of rearing children without any benefit (okay, maybe tax write-offs).
Well, whats the ambient level of abuse? Do you think it’ll tick up significantly? Lets say a growth of +5%? Im very doubtful. Abusing foster kids has an immediate economic incentive, the vote is a 50/50 gamble on a slow trickle of incentive. The game-theory will still favor abusing foster kids, IMO.
I’ve heard people make this kind of argument before: ‘People with children are actively invested in the future of the nation. People without children are on a 100year free-trial.’
Its not unthinkable, tbh.
I have kids but this is such a dumb take. Some of the worst people that don’t give a shit about anything or anyone other than themselves have a kids. It’s not hard. The barrier to entry is super low.
On the other hand, some of the most genuinely thoughtful and kind people in the world have no kids whether by choice or otherwise.
This would be a horrible way to do things.
Fair enough. Its not my position, either… However this is the logic for the idea. Seemingly nobody even tried to rationalize this in-thread, lol. Its literally not-un-thinkable :p
There isn’t much to rationalize, it’s not a good idea at the surface level, you don’t need to dig deep to see that.
Lol, if you insist :p I take it you’ve never tried a Steelman?
I mean, feel free to fix the logic and then we can talk about.
First, let me steelman your argument :] ‘Having children doesnt automatically mean that you’re a good, responsible, person.’ Let me know how I did. Given the above–
Of course having children doesn’t imbue a person with extra knowldge or virtue. However removing such barriers to vite (like lower voting age, allowing non-homeowners, allowing some fellons, et al) also does not grant extra knowldge or virtue. If the goal of society is to promote the ideals of the knowldgable/virtuous, it becomes necessary to find ways to delineate the two. One metric could be education level, another could be Starship Troopers, another could be a threshold of tax expenditures (after +$x of taxes paid)… There are many, including selecting for only those with children. This option has a few benefits. Chief among them, IMO, is that (at large) they want their children to inherit a functional society. Thus they may be more forward-thinking and more resistant to flippant changes in order to achieve a sense of stability. And, stability is good for society.
What evidence do you have that shows that the majority of people with children are more forward-thinking and more resistant to flippant changes in order to achieve a sense of stability?
Also, why do you think the goal of society is to promote the ideals of the knowledgeable/virtuous? And why is limiting voting rights the best way to do this?
Shouldn’t the goal of society to be to promote education so that as many people as possible have the opportunity to be knowledgeable and virtuous? I think you’d agree with this, but I know you’ll loop it back and say limiting voting to people with children would help this, to which I say again, where is the evidence?
Its syllogistic reasoning and gnosis :] I mean, sure I could try to find study, but if its easily falsifiable then be my guest. There is not a study on every imaginable topic, sometimes you just have to spitball with your intuition.
I picked ‘knowldgable and virtuous’ as a stand in for whatever value you’d like. It sounded good at the time, still does. Assuming that knowledge and virtue is hard to come by, this would mean many people do not meet these standards, and thus their opinions on society are questionable. If its open to everyone, why not let the Canadians vote too? ;]
Knowledge is not necessarily a virtue in itself. Pavlov preformed his experiments on children. We blind rabbits with chemicals to ‘prove’ that its harmful, lol. The search for all knowledge requires killing a lot of things, which is not a sign of temperance, for instance. I think the two ideas overlap, but I also think the Venn has a large gap…
It’s pretty damn unthinkable when it excludes most gay people.
True, but it also disquifies the incels. Probably balanced ;]
No. No it is not balanced. It is a blatant attack on gay people by a bigot.
Theres a lot of people that dont have kids. Theres a lot of kids looking for adoption… If the law is applied evenly then I see no conflict.
There’s a lot of people who shouldn’t be parents. Maybe we shouldn’t encourage child abuse. Just a thought.
Encourage child abuse? Are you suggesting people will take on children to so they can vote? Im not saying it wouldn’t happen, but I think it’ll be happen less than more. Or, another way, that a great mant of people are already taking on the duty of rearing children without any benefit (okay, maybe tax write-offs).
Oh good, as long as it’s only some child abuse…
Well, whats the ambient level of abuse? Do you think it’ll tick up significantly? Lets say a growth of +5%? Im very doubtful. Abusing foster kids has an immediate economic incentive, the vote is a 50/50 gamble on a slow trickle of incentive. The game-theory will still favor abusing foster kids, IMO.