How could you realistically implement a policy like a parenting license...

How could you realistically implement a policy like a parenting license, where only certain qualified people were given the privilege of having children?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=oXWgJSpvbic
youtube.com/watch?v=3DGdyZS4v8Y
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

You couldn't, because you don't reasonably have the right.

Ask China.

Easy.
In reality they only want to police the shrinking number of white people. So many have been taught in school that they are the enemy that a lot will just subject themselves to it "for equality".
You assume younger white people of breeding age and approaching such aren't regularly told in every level of education that they are evil.

brap

Define qualified people?

Don't you mean BBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP?

>Parenting licence
Do you really want to be like the Yuros/Bongs? Should America realistically implement a policy like a TV licence, where only certain qualified people were given the privilege of watching TV?

...

It isn't set in stone, and I've had conversations with other people on here before about it. Basically the parents would have to be married, making a certain amount of money a year, show little to no signs of previous mental illness, no to little predisposition to drug or alcohol abuse, among other things.

What's the actual method? Everyone is infertile, but kids can be done in a lab? Illegal labs would rise, but it would make accidents and overbreeding in the 3rd world decrease.

So normal law abiding people will subject themselves to it while the niggers and Muslims that ignore laws will even further out breed us.

damn i want a country wife now

I'm pretty sure Noelle Foley is autistic. She's dating a clown.

Actually some German user making a similar point talked about how females could be given IUDs or something similar at the age of 12 and prevented from breeding unless proving themselves worthy of parenthood in which case it could be deactivated.

>thicc and thiccer

if you're pregnant illegally you're given forced abortion, both parties are sterilized.

if it's an accident you just get a free abortion and a fine.

yeah

>(((free)))

the problem is we'd have to establish a constitution on birthing rights that CAN NOT BE CHANGED or else schlomo kikeberg can use it to exterminate while people even faster by denying them all licenses.

Deal with the problem and only the problem. Develop an artificial uterus and get rid of cunts and the niggers who knock them up.

Left to their own devices white men will only have as many sons as they want and can feed.

They need some cummy

youtube.com/watch?v=oXWgJSpvbic

This si the worst idea ever. As soon as leftists get into power they will use it to destroy families.

>oh goy you have to adopt 4 black kids from africa before you can procreate a child, it's a condition of the license

fuck off with this socialist bullshit

I don't think you need to bar people from having children, just have incentives for better parenting. Like, for instance, giving people tax exemptions for parents with children who get higher test scores than their peers. Giving people a reason to raise their children better.

user that's wickedness. It's not a brave new world.

Imagine if humans lived like ants in that each city(nest) has it's own fertile queen and the worthy men all breed with her. By technology the pregnancy is accelerated to only a couple of weeks and the likelihood of twins is increased. The queen would obviously use a Tinder like app to choose the next guy to breed with. The leftists would eventually make the app block all non-blacks from ever reaching out to the queen. We were born too early, bros. Too late to explore the Roman Empire, too early to become ape-ant hybrid species. Sup Forums who would you pick to be the only queen breeder of the world?

rights are a man made concept.

A man made concept to describe something real and inalienable.

rights are a might made concept

they even rhyme so it's easy to remember, Might, Right, wew isn't that cool?

rights don't exist unless you're willing to kill for what you say rights are.

plane and sample.

>those thighs
makes me weak

How are rights real and inalienable if they can easily be violated or destroyed effortlessly by somebody wielding more power than you? I can't change the laws or electromagnetism no matter what I do but if you tell me you have an inalienable right to property I can just shoot you with a gun and take all of your property, ergo it doesn't exist, it's a social structure created by our civilization.

Inb4 the govt mandates all non-Jew babies must be mixed race.

The concept of real inalienable rights is based on flawed reasoning. These rights are socially beneficial but they are not 'inalienable' or 'real', even the NAP isn't a 'real' right, it's just an arbitrary rule people made up to have a more civilized society.

It can be taken, but unjustly.

The only right I consent to having taken away is the right to harm others, and I do so in exchange for others not being able to harm me.

The point is that you can do anything you want if you don't live in society, so you should stop thinking of society as the source of your rights.

True. Rights are just arbitrary rules people made up. It's like monopoly. The rules of the game are just made up. You can as easily use the board as a frisby.

> It can be taken, but unjustly.
Justice is made up and doesn't exist either.

> you should stop thinking of society as the source of your rights.
Society literally provides the police, lawyers, etc. that make the laws, rights, provide contract enforcement, etc. that lets you do all of this without me or somebody else being a warlord and forcing things down your throat with a gun.

The only good rights are the ones that promote a health community that can advance civilization to the stars.

anything that threatens those rights must be destroyed.

>Society literally provides the police, lawyers, etc. that make the laws, rights, provide contract enforcement, etc. that lets you do all of this without me or somebody else being a warlord and forcing things down your throat with a gun.
That's why we have society, yes. And we avoid that by taking away some rights, because if we didn't we'd lose many more rights. But make no mistake, you're still having rights taken away.

Here is how it works. There are no rights, just survival which is based on might. When an entity that has the most might comes along (the state) it can decide how to augment how people survive and decide to layer new rules over this, using it's might. If people don't play along they end up in prison. That's how reality works. Libertarians do not want to digest this concept because they have heads made out of concrete.

oh also,

most people don't give a shit about rights, not really.

what they give a shit about is surviving, so naturally what they really really give a shit about is money and all other forms of power. Your average grunt will be happy with a money and four good walls to keep his family safely inside of and fed while he's off killing the people you pay him to kll.

more Noelle senpai

I'd rather see her dad kicking ass back in the day
>new gags don't know about mick

>muh le back in the day
cena > cuck foley

Not feasible. Birth control, abortion, sex ed, childhood developmental programs, and adoption are the way to do it.

Libertarians define "right" as the ability to do something, and say that at birth everyone has the ability to do anything that is physically possible. If you disagree with this statement, we can talk.

The rest of libertarianism is about protecting those rights, which have been defined above.

>Running for president
>States that vote for me get rewards in the form of cool experimental programs that would ultimately benefit society (If proven successful, said programs get extended to other parts of the country)
>One such program would be a "family loan"
>Large money loans (Let's say 100k) for newlywed couples, but 25% debt would be dropped per baby.
>Younger couples will be prioritized
>You have to have a good enough credit score
>If they picked me in the primaries, they automatically move to the front
>This secures my nomination
>Only the top 20 states that vote for me get them
>This secures me in swing states that are more likely to vote based on current situations
>This not only prevents minorities from gaining access, but also excludes low agency white trash types.
>Countries within the Northwest, Midwest, and Appalachia suddenly gain modest population increases.
>Congress now has to transfer seats away from states like New York, Illinois, and California to states like Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
>If combined with deportations of illegals and anchor-babies, ending birthright citizenship, and stricter border control, this could replace left-voting Hispanics with right-voting whites.
>Baby boom in rugged, conservative areas forces the zeitgeist more towards the right, as Cascadia, the Heartland, Dixie, and Appalachia have more cultural clout in addition to political power.
>If the cultural shift is big enough, this could impact how America exports culture to other parts of the world.

Come to a scrap yard for a day and try to argue against
A) a child license
B) obliterating all forms of government assistance for anyone under 60.

Tax incentives.

>Running for president
>States that vote for me get rewards in the form of cool experimental programs that would ultimately benefit society (If proven successful, said programs get extended to other parts of the country)
>One such program would be a "family loan"
>Large money loans (Let's say 100k) for newlywed couples, but 25% debt would be dropped per baby.
>Younger couples will be prioritized
>You have to have a good enough credit score
>If they picked me in the primaries, they automatically move to the front
>This secures my nomination
>Only the top 20 states that vote for me get them
>This secures me in swing states that are more likely to vote based on current situations
>This not only prevents minorities from gaining access, but also excludes low agency white trash types.
>Countries within the Northwest, Midwest, and Appalachia suddenly gain modest population increases.
>Congress now has to transfer seats away from states like New York, Illinois, and California to states like Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
>If combined with deportations of illegals and anchor-babies, ending birthright citizenship, and stricter border control, this could replace left-voting Hispanics with right-voting whites.
>Baby boom in rugged, conservative areas forces the zeitgeist more towards the right, as Cascadia, the Heartland, Dixie, and Appalachia have more cultural clout in addition to political power.
>If the cultural shift is big enough, this could impact how America exports culture to other parts of the world.

Here's an explanation of how a family loan would work:

youtube.com/watch?v=3DGdyZS4v8Y

lol I've worked at a self-service auto yard before and if anything that's probably impacted my idea more than anything else, just the volume of unfit trash that have children. Also wtf does that second part about under-60 welfare have to do with what I was saying?

> Libertarians define "right" as the ability to do something, and say that at birth everyone has the ability to do anything that is physically possible. If you disagree with this statement, we can talk.
The rest of libertarianism is about protecting those rights, which have been defined above.

It's still an arbitrary concept and doesn't change the issue that it is an idea that has no translation into reality unless it can be enforced. Without a state your ability to 'do something' is relative to how much power you have.

Is the green statement really arbitrary?

you could never do so in America, we are founded on freedom, having the gov't choose who can and cannot have children or how many they can is a direct infringement upon the freedoms this country was founded upon.

And that's not even mentioning the whole slippery slope eugenics meme

holy shit, violation of the constitution and personal liberties much

> Is the green statement really arbitrary?

It is an arbitrary rule to allow people to 'do something that is physically possible', yes. One could create a rule that everyone should be locked in cages or that they should all be personal slaves of another person. these rules need to be justified. Libertarians just say them, treat them as axioms and the beg the question in every debate.

those legs hnnnnnnng

Mick Foley is so brain damaged his sperm passed on some to his children.

If I'm really asking this you think I give much of a shit? The Constitution has obviously failed considering it barely applies to America anymore or its founding, and it won't be the basis of some science-focused supercivilization which crushes and stamps out weakness and promotes strength, which is what I care about.

genius sperm donors are the solution to America's dysgenic trend.

It is a simple sell - smart donor = smarter kids = more successful = richer. All americans care about is getting rich. IF genes can give them an edge, they will take it. Black women are tired of being poor and having stupid violent kids.

That wasn't the green statement. The green statement is that you HAVE those rights when you are born.

What's arbitrary is valuing them enough to try to keep them. Being a statist cuckold or an actual cuckold is also arbitrary, but I arbitrarily can't respect the last two types of people.

just saying that everything is a social construct isn't going to get you anywhere

THICC! ! ! !!!!

Well it's a good thing that wasn't what I was doing and there was more to it than that and other people were also pointing out similar things if you had paid any attention.

if you don't believe in the constitution or at least it's core ideas you're a fucking piece of shit, just fucking kys and take your shitty ideas away from the human race

>justice is made up
>right are a man made concept
So you are calling these things social constructs if they're made up by society...
I agree 100%, almost everything is a social construct, but that's a meaningless distinction to make

> That wasn't the green statement. The green statement is that you HAVE those rights when you are born.

This is begging the question. If you define a right as 'the ability to do something' yes, it's true according to this definition a baby can 'do something' therefore they have rights. But this is a completely vacuous and pointless statement based on begging the question. It's like me saying drooling is how I define rights, therefore babies have rights because they can drool. The statement is utterly without meaning.

When you are born you are an entity limited by your environment and the forces it exerts over you. You are put in a crib and you are stuck unless you can climb over. This proves nothing about rights, it's just a statement that action is possible.

> What's arbitrary is valuing them enough to try to keep them. Being a statist cuckold or an actual cuckold is also arbitrary, but I arbitrarily can't respect the last two types of people.

I'm not a statist or an anarchist, I'm just pointing out reality as it is. You have no rights, you have survival of the fittest. If an entity comes along that has more might than you, it can do as it pleases with you if you can not stop it. It can establish new rules to layer over survival of the fittest that are more just for everyone it threatens or it can push draconian insane rules enslaving everyone. If it has the power it can make it possible. If it doesn't, it's not the most powerful entity. It's just the law of nature, not cuckold.

A Constitution is only as good as and only has as much meaning as the people who interpret it and their quality. Something like this is meant to produce the highest quality of people possible, which purely freedom cannot produce as it will lead to massive human mistakes. What I care about is a society of driven and unified powerful humans who can achieve unparalleled feats of science, engineering, art, math, etc. and expand to the cosmos and dominate it in man's image. Compared to that nothing else, not man's Bible's, nor his sacred law texts like the Constitution hold any meaning.

Who is the girl on the right?

She erects my pecker.

>unified
taking away the right to reproduction isn't exactly going to help unite everyone, it would have the opposite effect

Everything is alienable you retard. Break into my house and see how lo g you think your rights are going to last

You haven't understood a word I've said. Read it again slowly and then I'll respond to you.

You'd have to implement parental welfare for both mother and father.

No wagecuck is qualified to be a parent by virtue of not having enough time for parenting.

Fuck you, we need an excuse to dome niggers and their children.

Only pure whites should breed.

What if we do something like this, but in reverse. Say, we identify who shouldn't be allowed to have kids and would make an awful parent, and pay them NOT to reproduce? It's cheaper to pay for one bad generation to be a dead end than to pay for multiples of them.

remove any kind of freedom and live under a fascistic state. fucking cuck

>cuck as an insult coming from a leaf

Incentivize a proxy for the desired demographic.

For example democrats love niggers so they have section 8, welfare, etc. etc. the more kidz the more money. this has caused a huge swell in the negro population.

To stop it cut funding for those social programs. Start giving bigger tax breaks to college educated middle class families. Longer maternity leave etc. helping the desired proxy.

Education is also killing birth rates. Educated women don't reproduce.

Up until the 1950s it was legal to sterilize undesirables. With a favorable Supreme Court you could mandate birth control for those under a certain economic threshold.

Etc. etc. etc.

This is the text in green:

> Libertarians define "right" as the ability to do something, and say that at birth everyone has the ability to do anything that is physically possible. If you disagree with this statement, we can talk.

This statement simply makes no sense whatsoever. At birth people do not have the ability to do anything that is physically possible. And I don't know any libertarians who define rights as such. So I haven't the slightest idea wtf you are talking about.

Because the concept is thus: Rights are not made by man, only recognized to belong to man with the source of those rights being the Creator of the Universe, be it Nature, God, Allah or whatever.

Thats why they can never be taken away, because a man cannot override the supreme authority.

That's why rights are ENUMERATED in the Constitution, which means that they are officially recognized as pre-existing to the document.

The Constitution doesn't GIVE you anything, it recognizes in law (the supreme law of the land) that you have those rights, and had them before the document was even written. They were recognized to be better protected, which is the only legitimate reason for instituted government.

>Education is also killing birth rates. Educated women don't reproduce.
educated people don't reproduce because they understand the downsides of unprotected sex and have better things to do with their time than just fuck like poor people do

wanna cummy

>Being more of a cuck than a leaf


>mfw

> god made rights

Even if it were true that god is the source of our rights, there is no proof that any of our rights are the same as the ones god created. Where is the rock solid proof? Nowhere.

nah, rights arent about any of that shit, it all just boils down to you can do anything that you want as long as it doesn't impede some else's ability to what they want, unless the thing that they wan't to do impedes someone else's right to do what they want to

TLDR: treat others as you would like to be treated

>At birth people do not have the ability to do anything that is physically possible.
Yes they do.

It is physically possible for a baby to crawl, but not much else. This changes as you grow up, but the concept remains the same.

Why do you think the Jews via cultural Marxism have pushed soft standards in education to inflate (white female) grades so that they are the majority of college attendees all while filling their heads with bile and feminist degeneracy?

>saying MFW and not attaching an image

I wouldn't. I don't trust any organization to make laws determining who does or does not get to have children. What I think you are trying to accomplish with this is the general improvement of the human race via eugenics, and I think there is a better way than policing people's reproductive activities.

What I would do is to encourage people to do genetic screening for certain heritable issues. I would encourage that by providing it free (as in paid for by the government, obviously) screening. For the sake of this example, I will use heart disease. When a couple decides they are going to have a child they will go to a clinic which will select a pair of sperm and egg that do not have the genes for the heart disease, or at least a pair that has the least amount of recessive genes in the event that passing it along is unavoidable. If a sizable portion of the population elect to have their children screened for heritable diseases, the next generation will be largely rid of the disease. It will even benefit the population that does not elect to have their children screened because the screened children may pair up with the non-screened children which will give the resulting children a much reduced, though not entirely eliminated, possibility of having the gene in question.

This method would help eliminate undesirable genes over the course of several generations without infringing upon anyone's right to have children with who they want.

Holy shit guys.

Just offer free tax breaks to people who attend parenting courses so people can get a chance to learn shit they should have been taught by their parents but due to a shitty boomer generation it sort of became lost knowledge.

People would voluntarily subject themselves to a chance to become better people.

You can't really do more than that without coming up with an overly complex thing that would surely backfire somehow.

The proof, as the philosophy goes is found in the observation of Nature. The right to life for example all creatures on earth are endowed with some sort of defense and will defend themselves from lethal violence if possible.

The right to property is observed in that all creatures own their own body and are the sole master of it, which is not to say one cannot be heavily influenced into certain actions but ultimately you are your own property (inb4 slavery).

Actually, they are. Because if rights are made by man, they can be altered or removed by man. Thats why the philosophy says they are recognized as given to us by the supreme authority of the universe because then they are not subject to the domain of man.

Therefore all persons under Soviet rule had the right to private property, they just abdicated those rights voluntarily and submit to slavery.

wanna cummy in tummy

youtube.com/watch?v=oXWgJSpvbic

you are making a lot of asumptions about intent there, fucking source?
-assuming that the jews are not enjoying the increased education as well
-assuming that sending white women to college is in order to lower reproduction rates
-assuming that having more children will result in more successful kids

why do you think that rights must come from a supreme being and not just a society deciding to not be cunts to others so that those people wont be cunts to them

> Yes they do. It is physically possible for a baby to crawl, but not much else.

The ability for a person to do as they please without being stopped by some outside entity is an arbitrary rule. You still have not explained how it is 'inalienable' or 'real'. You just keep repeating yourself and saying 'this is what we say a right is'.

I don't think anything, I"m just passing along what I've learned.

It's for the protection of those rights really. Put it this way, if Trump passed a law right now and said "You user have the right to buttfuck my daughter". You would probably think that's pretty cool, and buttfuck his daughter routinely.

Then lets say one night you had a really big cum and blew his daughters ass out, and the next day he passed an executive order taking that "right" away.

In truth, it was never a right to begin with, but a privilege.

By saying Rights are endowed to each human by the supreme authority of the universe (above man) then that means Trump could pass 100 executive orders tomorrow curtailing or removing your right to private property for example but it wouldn't make any difference. See?

The concept is just circular. I could say it's a right for me to have one hundred slaves. Or for me to have huge muscles and a million dollars. These are just statements I am making the same as someone who says it's a right for person to have the NAP or something more basic such as being physically able to do something (I must assume you mean without being stopped by someone else).

Once a concept is defined, it becomes "real." Whether you consider it of value is another thing. entirely.

Libertarians consider rights, as they have defined them, to be valuable. Others don't. As far as I'm concerned, there is little more important.

We say that rights are inalienable because even if they are taken away by force, we refuse to give up our claim to them.

Animals exist in a state of survival of the fittest, not one with inalienable rights they abide by. There is no right to life or property, animals steal from each other and kill each other all the time. This doesn't explain inalienable rights at all.

but those executive actions around property would have effects, look at fucking Russia, they were able to do just that. If it can be taken away by even one person, it can be taken away by anyone

So are refrigerators, doesn't make them any less real

Refrigerators aren't a concept, well, the concept of what a refrigerator is may be, but refrigerators, unlike rights, are physical objects, with real, physical extension. Your analogy is completely wrong.

yeah okay, the concept of a refrigerator is real tho, it is a real concept

> Once a concept is defined, it becomes "real." Whether you consider it of value is another thing. entirely.

This is just you watering down the concept of 'real'. If any concept that can be defined is 'real', everything can be 'real' and therefore the concept of 'real' is deflated.

> Libertarians consider rights, as they have defined them, to be valuable. Others don't. As far as I'm concerned, there is little more important.

It's a subjective value that libertarians hold, not an inalienable 'real' concept based on reason, like 2 + 2 = 4 or an empirical observation such as gravity. One could claim it's their right to enslave libertarians and it will be as 'real' as a libertarians right.

> We say that rights are inalienable because even if they are taken away by force, we refuse to give up our claim to them.

If someone has more force they can take all of your rights away. Sorry. :(