Oh god. DJ caught one of our favourite soconuts getting weird again with a new plan to punish anyone who gets laid on even a semi-regular basis.
An incessant advocate of Strong Government Presence in the bedroom, this time he’s proposing a “Sterility Tax” (500%!) on contraceptives. The logic apparently goes that imposing punitive taxation on birth control, along with “procreation incentives” (like we don’t have those already, look at your tax return), would result in the production of great multitudes of anklebiters to fuel the work force and save the faltering economy — children as a government-run social engineering project, as it were. But best of all, those evildoers who engage in procreationless sexual congress get punished for their depravity.
Seriously… I’ve never encountered anyone, online or off, who was so clearly berserk with sexual frustration and ridden with closeted carnal angst — it jumped right off the screen and started furiously humping my leg (I had to swat it away with a rolled-up Globe & Mail).
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/tny_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
He must want to develop a time machine and travel back to Romania during the Communist era.
Wouldn’t more children right now create more burden to the tax payer? More schools, way more health care services etc? He would end up paying more taxes to support the creation of a larger workforce which would take 20 years to materialize.
Because making birth control completely beyond the reach of most women makes sooo much sense. Really, what we need is a burgeoning number of expensive babies born to women who can’t afford the Pill. Fucking brilliant thinking, that.
Celia – There you go critically thinking again. Don’t you know that is forbidden in SoCon land? Your logic and so called “facts” will not get in the way of his desire to grant freedom and liberty to everyone by controlling every action we take, especially in the bedroom.
Morality police FTW!
Too funny, JJ. It’s a gift to be able to make such hilarity out of such truly terrifying nutjob socon engineering plans.
Maybe he also has a pseudonymous porn blog in which he imagines his sperm flowing into lonely white uteri throughout the land?
Truly hilarious take on something not at all funny, JJ. Talk about laughing and crying at the same time!
Over the years, I’ve made an observation that seems to have completely escaped our lawmakers — pyramid schemes are illegal. Unless the government does it.
This is a pyramid scheme, pure and simple. Well, maybe not so pure. But definitely simple.
…had to swat it away with a rolled-up Globe & Mail
You found a use for the Grope and Flail too?
Celia’s comment begs the question, though: where do you think the 2035 workforce necessary to support all of us old farts is going to come from?
Really? Masturbation has a social and economic cost now.. what’s next, will gratuitous solo sexual pleasure be considered unpatriotic by these clowns as well?
Rob F – Oh yeah, the guy is a mini-Ceauşescu. “Heroine Mothers” and all that. Reproduce for the state! {{{shudder}}}
A favourite rant of the right-wing “not enough WHITE babies being born”, o what will decome of us when we are overtaken by the MUD people.
It hasn’t dawned on these people that our planet is already several billion over it’s carrying capacity.
Celia
You’re being too logical
Although he doesn’t make this totally clear, I think part of the “plan” is that more kids would be home schooled. Not that there’s anything wrong with that — I wouldn’t do it, but I think people should certainly be able to if they want to. However, I think at this point in time many if not most women would rather work, and for many families 2 incomes are a necessity. I can’t imagine a family with 4 kids being able to get by on the average 40K income.
valiantmauz
Numbnuts doesn’t seem to grok the fact that one of the reasons people aren’t having many kids is because they can’t afford them — and this isn’t because they’re paying high taxes to support retiring boomers, the trend started decades ago. He should blame the shift of our economy to competing with nations that make things ultra cheap.
When dad had a good union job putting quarterpanels on Chevys, he could support a family of four. Now dad puts heatsinks in computers for $2/day… in India. D’oh!
Bleatmop
Ministry of Virtue & Vice
at your service!
brebis
What a hideous thought, but probably true.
Janus
Pyramid scheme — that’s one way of looking at it, I guess
For more reasons than one, it is definitely an unsustainable model, given that this army of workers takes 20 years to reach adulthood and start paying taxes. Meanwhile, half the working population no longer works & pays taxes, plus the government gives them money for reproducing… where is all this money supposed to come from? Taxing condoms??
Duh.
Scary – Finally, a good use for the Grope!
A fair question. I hate the thought of being beholden to the government for anything, so it’s not something I worry about too much. But even so, there’s still health care and other services to consider. If the work force gets smaller, funding these things will be a major issue. We will likely see the private sector taking over some of the services government now provides, as well as continuing immigration from overpopulated areas of the world.
stageleft
Only if the right hand is used — it’s strictly for saluting
phatbiker
I’m not sure if that’s this guy’s thing. He’s more interested in making sure people are getting punished for getting what he isn’t getting
But you’re right, it’s definitely an issue for some. I don’t see the obsession with whiteness — humans will all end up being some shade of cafe au lait eventually, if the world survives long enough. So what?
JJ – it is his thing. From the Free Dominion thread:
Charmant.
Bugger. Linky here.
valiantmauz – Whoa. And I liked this:
What a sick fucker.
JJ:
Fact is, you’re already reliant on the government for a lot of things that you will need in your old age too – health care, transportation system, CPP, etc. Even if you take care of yourself and have a healthy RRSP, that won’t help you when the health system is crumbling around you and private options are illegal.
Relying on immigration to correct our plummeting birth rate is only another pyramid scheme, but I digress.
Good morrow, all!
Translation: I can’t have sex, NONE OF YOU CAN’T HAVE IT EITHER!
Lesser cultures? As in cultures that have been around for much, MUCH longer than Canada?
Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer! (er…I mean…yay, Canada, eh?) – CTZen
Scary – CPP
I’m not counting on anything being there by the time I get there.
Anyway, that is what I mean by privatization of some government services. At some point, even health care will probably evolve into a public/private hybrid, which would be a more efficient model IMO.
I agree that relying on immigration to sustain population levels is ultimately another pyramid scheme. But I’m not sure why people would want to maintain baby boomer population anyway — it was a demographic anomaly that was bound to correct itself sooner or later.
CTZen –
That nails it.
When SUZANNE is the voice of reason on birth control issues, you know how over the edge someone has climbed. She points out on FD that it will merely cause tax evasion.
RB – I haven’t read the whole thread… obviously I should do so, because it may be my one and only chance to see SUZANNE being the voice of reason (on anything).
But she’s right: with a 500% tax, there’d be a huge black market in contraception.
“Fact is, you’re already reliant on the government for a lot of things that you will need in your old age too – health care, transportation system, CPP, etc.”
Er, could you name a stage of life when a person is *not* reliant on government services? Or a time when human populations were not reliant on immigrant influx? Part of what is so silly about this whole argument, is the assumption that children have always been some kind of a panacea to crumbling infrastructures and economies. That was only slightly the case in the 1950s post-war period when a baby boom resulted in a social and economic response – some people had vision, and they were building their vision on the spoils of war. What about all the other periods in history when having a passel of kids was a great way to make sure theirs and your lives would be nasty, short and brutish? That was precisely when having a small number of kids was a way to ensure a woman’s longevity and more security for the children’s future (division of land, assets, etc.)
brebis – Just to clarify, when I said “beholden to government” I was talking in a more direct economic sense. However both you and scary both make good points about the inescapable role of government in infrastructure, etc.
brebis:
Er, could you name a stage of life when a person is *not* reliant on government services?
For most in the 19-35 age group, there is little need for most government services. Millions in America willingly forego health insurance at this stage in their lives and do just fine. There is no drain on pensions, and little reliance on EI and welfare. The subsidies they do enjoy (food and higher education, to name two) they could easily do without since they have earning power. The only things they do rely on is justice, defence, transportation, and local utilities – a small fraction of total government expenditures.
I’m not sure if you’re intentionally misreading history or if it’s just ignorance. The fact is, a high birth rate coupled with low infant mortality is exactly what enabled a tiny backwater island nation to rule most of the world for a couple centuries. Meanwhile, a low birthrate and reliance on immigration almost always correlated with (causation is debatable) social decline; the Roman Empire is the most obvious example. Peaceful immigration on the scale we are experiencing now is a recent phenomenon. But, as I said, we digress.
“For most in the 19-35 age group, there is little need for most government services.”
Oh, really? Wow, that’s a ginormous and totally false assumption. You’re assuming that the person is perfectly healthy, not having children (most women have their children before age 35, or are encouraged to), not furthering their education, and not having any psychological,physical, criminal or social mishaps causing them to need either EI or any other health or social services. And not being employed by any “government services” themselves: teachers, police, nurses, road workers etc. And not benefitting directly or indirectly from any government subsidies, programs, services or initiatives (R&D, job creation, civil service, etc ad infinitum). Are you misreading society, or just being ignorant?
As for your reading of history, it’s pretty sweeping and dangling precariously from a tendentious interpretation of “fact”. You haven’t even begun to take account of a lot of very significant events and details of history.
(You’ll notice how I tried to ignore your swipe at me but failed.)
brebis:
I do sincerely apologize for the swipe – I blame it on JJ who is a very bad influence on me.
You’re missing the point, though. The 19-35 age group contribute far more to the government than they receive in supposed benefits. Should the government collapse under its debt, due to a dearth of that age group, the ones who would suffer most are the elderly.
Since we are at risk of hijacking the thread, we can discuss your assumptions concerning the necessity of government some other time.
SF, I didn’t even start to contribute meaningfully till I was 33, and many of my cohort were the same. You are making assumptions that simply don’t bear out in reality, for a vast majority of Canadians, if you read my post. I don’t think it is all that off-topic, either, when you consider that the original post is all about how having many children is supposedly a panacea for the economy.
I agree that it’s the elderly who would suffer disproportionately, but they suffer disproportionately from any social breakdown – including the kind inflicted by US-style capitalism.
JJ, I can’t make you read that when I already have.
She wrote (in two posts)
I’d rather just outbreed all the liberals out there.
Instead, so-cons should promote a culture of marriage-based families with at least 3 kids, preferably more.
As it is, I think a lot of young people have misguided notions of families and parenting. When I was in university, I was still undecided as to whether I would go out to work and leave my kids in daycare.
I’m wondering if anyone has done any research on the fertility rates of socially conservative Canadians in Canada.
Also: I can just see a black market developing in condoms and other contraceptives. There’s already a black market in chemical abortions around the world.
If people don’t want to have kids, they won’t have them. People don’t want to pay taxes, and they avoid paying them.
———————–
Me, I’m 100% in favour of Pacheco’s idea. Why? So I can rent billboards saying: Sodomy – the tax-free way to fuck.
I didn’t even start to contribute meaningfully till I was 33
The only reason that’s becoming the norm right now is because the baby boomers are currently paying the bills. That’s not going to be happening in 20 years. Who will foot the bill for all those government programs that you believe you are so dependent on?
The point remains that our refusal to have and raise children now is going to mean that the standard of living we have come to expect in our later years simply won’t be possible. Immigration is only a short-term fix.
Wrong again. Most if not all fields will require more, not less education, and simply jumping out of school into the workforce at 18 or 19 doesn’t cut it now, and won’t any more so in the future. There will be more coop work-study programs, e.g., in the quest to adapt.
Another adaptation would be to continue making it easier for women to get the education they need; very often, their productive work life begins once their kids are no longer so young. I don’t see the point of limiting a person’s perspectives to either having babies and staying home, or going out into the workforce and not having a family. That won’t make for a healthy society, and is not fair to anybody. Nobody I know is refusing to have kids, incidentally.
Scary and Brebis – Great debate you guys are having.
It is a question worth discussing — what happens as the baby boom corrects itself, as it inevitably will. Too bad some people use it as a club to bash others for having anything but a 100% Vatican-approved sex life… and mostly because they can’t
Outbursts like Pacheco’s don’t add anything to the discussion except to tell us who isn’t getting any, and who is willing to grow the government even bigger to make sure nobody else does.
Carry on…
RB – Sorry, I missed your comment there!
Oh gawd, I went and read that thread after all…
Lotta backpeddling going on after some of the other FDers started pointing out that legislating massive taxes on peoples’ personal choices isn’t exactly “small government” thinking.
I just ran across this blog.
I see that the Big Government Conservatives are just as bad in Ottawa as they are in Washington.
Love the Conservative Nanny State pic, also.
Hi Jovan.
perish the thought.
Fortunately this person is a rather extreme example of a social conservative and isn’t involved in any way with government
Although our conservative government does tend to spend like there’s no tomorrow, they at least stay out of our personal lives for the most part. Which sounds pretty much like… the Liberal Party! So hard to tell the difference these days
Oh yeah, I guess you can tell the difference by the colour of their ties.