When should the government get into our pants?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...

Is there a point where the government can tell someone that they aren't allowed to father any more children?

If there is such a point, I think that point can't come before a guy like this is something other than a freaky anecdote. How common is this kind of thing? If we are going to cross that line and start telling people they can't have anymore kids because of guys like this, let's make sure guys like this are a common enough problem that government intervention will make a difference in society.

I wish, but no, I don't believe they should have that ability.

Phone dp.

Aren't you against big government?

He's a massive douche, but this level of douchiness is a rare enough even to where the government has no need for involvement. Free societies have anomalous crap happen. This is one of those things.

This is more an issue for me with some of the fundamentalist Mormon communities, who are looking at populations in the tens of thousands, most of whom are supported by welfare. That kind of sh*t is super problematic, because it's forcing the government to subsidize some very squicky things. And if it continues, you could conceivably see them making a significant impact on the popular vote.

This guy? He's an ass, but doesn't really matter that much in the long run.

Exactly what problem is it you propose government should solve here, Rosenhane? Because I'm not seeing one that can't be handled with the laws in place...

Can't he do porn to help make ends meet just like the Octomom?

Hey, why not? It's already screwing us!

[rimshot]

Robear wrote:

Exactly what problem is it you propose government should solve here, Rosenhane? Because I'm not seeing one that can't be handled with the laws in place...

I'm not proposing anything, I asked a question. It's an interesting situation. Just think about the carbon footprint from all those extra people. I am aware that he is the outlying case, but we often make laws based upon the extreme cases. We don't make anti hate crime legislation because of the Joe Martins of the world, we make them because of the Matthew Sheppards.

Robear wrote:

Exactly what problem is it you propose government should solve here, Rosenhane? Because I'm not seeing one that can't be handled with the laws in place...

I'm not proposing anything, I asked a question. It's an interesting situation. Just think about the carbon footprint from all those extra people. I am aware that he is the outlying case, but we often make laws based upon the extreme cases. We don't make anti hate crime legislation because of the Joe Martins of the world, we make them because of the Matthew Sheppards.

If by "government can tell someone that they aren't allowed to father any more children" you mean a judge deciding in a court case such as this, the defendant must get a vasectomy to prevent further stress/tax on affected persons and social programs, then yeah-- I kind of do think the government should have such authority, given the circumstances. If you're bringing up a fear of some hypothetical law forcing a limited number of children as population and welfare control based on this edge case, then no-- the gov't should GTFO.

"Just asking a question" is a way of making an assertion while saying you're not making one. It's a way to hide your opinion and manipulate, not honestly argue a case.

Make your argument, or don't. What do YOU think should happen? And why?

Malor wrote:

"Just asking a question" is a way of making an assertion while saying you're not making one. It's a way to hide your opinion and manipulate, not honestly argue a case.

Make your argument, or don't. What do YOU think should happen? And why?

Ooorrrrr she could just honestly be curious about other people's viewpoints on this situation. I don't find that impossible.

Malor wrote:

"Just asking a question" is a way of making an assertion while saying you're not making one. It's a way to hide your opinion and manipulate, not honestly argue a case.

Make your argument, or don't. What do YOU think should happen? And why?

Should the government ever have a voice in the reproductive freedom of an individual? My knee jerk response is no. Then I think about the resources being consumed by this one guy, way more than his fair share. About the impact on the environment that one guy having 30 children has, about making sure those children are all well fed and educated properly. I want to say he is being greedy and taking too much, but can I say his rights should be curtailed because he doesn't pay the externality costs of his perfectly natural drive to have sex?
I can't say that we should, but I can see why some might argue that we should.

The government in my pants? Only if I get dinner and a movie first.

Agent 86 wrote:

The government in my pants? Only if I get dinner and a movie first.

Even if dinner consists of government cheese, and the movie is all American propaganda?

I'm generally good with some tic-tacs and a youtube I've never seen before.

Last I checked, it takes two people to make a child. Note that there are 30 kids here, but only 11 women... that's almost three each.

At that point, I think you just shrug.

The answer here is more comprehensive sex education. That is when this man should have been told not to father any more children, before he did it.

Malor wrote:

"Just asking a question" is a way of making an assertion while saying you're not making one. It's a way to hide your opinion and manipulate, not honestly argue a case.

Make your argument, or don't. What do YOU think should happen? And why?

Or it might be a sincere question intended to spark some discussion. Not having an opinion one way or the other is a perfectly valid position to have.

No, the government shouldn't and isn't allowed to tell him (or the ladies he is with) what they can do with their bodies.

What they can do is deny him the break in child support payments he is requesting. The state is already taking 50% of his paycheck every week, the maximum that is allowed, and will continue to even if he has more kids. He has no (financial) incentive to stop now. Ladies have a (financial) incentive to not have any more of his kids as some are only getting $1.49/mo from him to support his child.

Hell, at this point I would tell him to round up all the ladies and children and cash in on the notoriety with a feature documentary, a reality TV show, or just become carnies and put together a traveling family show. Probably would work out better than a minimum wage job. Needs a good agent to set that up, but I doubt he has the resources to work that out.

Again, we've got women who've had an average of three children with this guy... why isn't anyone talking about them? Should they be punished?

I don't think there's any way that we could ever do anything about this without screwing over regular people in the process.

Malor wrote:

Again, we've got women who've had an average of three children with this guy... why isn't anyone talking about them? Should they be punished?

I don't think there's any way that we could ever do anything about this without screwing over regular people in the process.

People aren't talking about them because they aren't in court asking for leniency on child support payments. No one is punishing the man just as no one is punishing the ladies. He's just trying to (and failing at) stopping 50% of his paycheck from going away to support his kids before he gets any of it.

Malor, I agree with you on the gender bias that's at play in this discussion, it's just that the article rosenhane started this discussion with was not about the man being in court for having lots of kids. He was in court by his own choice asking for leniency from child support laws. No one is being punished by the government for anything here.

what are the reasons we are considering not letting this guy have more kids? Is it pure economics - the fact that he can't support these kids financially? He doesn't sound abusive or mean. Is it because he's the unlucky combination of poor with Super Sperm?

Given that there's a whole state full of people trying to breed their religion into popularity, I worry that this guy's got a lot more going against him than his admittedly questionable sexual habits.

Malor wrote:

Again, we've got women who've had an average of three children with this guy... why isn't anyone talking about them? Should they be punished?

I don't think there's any way that we could ever do anything about this without screwing over regular people in the process.

While this guy is certainly odious, I think Malor has the right of it.

Should the government ever have a voice in the reproductive freedom of an individual? My knee jerk response is no. Then I think about the resources being consumed by this one guy, way more than his fair share. About the impact on the environment that one guy having 30 children has, about making sure those children are all well fed and educated properly. I want to say he is being greedy and taking too much, but can I say his rights should be curtailed because he doesn't pay the externality costs of his perfectly natural drive to have sex?
I can't say that we should, but I can see why some might argue that we should.

I can't. Resource utilization? Seriously? Does parentage matter for figuring per capita utilization? Are there enough 30 child fathers to affect resource utilization rates in the US population? Can we really argue that the guy paupering himself is not a consequence of his behavior?

We don't legislate to extremes. We sometimes cite what seem to be extremes as justification for legislation against crimes that are actually more common. I think that's what can be seen in the Shepard case; his was not a "one in a million" case, but was instead an extremely *violent* example of what was actually pretty common social behavior.

If you think about it, there's little reason to legislate to the extremes. There are no laws in the US against cannibalism, for example, because we have laws against murder and desecration of corpses. Same thing with this - the guy's clearly made his life into a living hell, and he's actually trying to work it out, looks like. Or at least, if he's trying to evade responsibility, he'll continue to be harrassed. Permanently. Until one of his kids grows up and shoots his ass. :-\

rosenhane wrote:

Should the government ever have a voice in the reproductive freedom of an individual? My knee jerk response is no. Then I think about the resources being consumed by this one guy, way more than his fair share. About the impact on the environment that one guy having 30 children has, about making sure those children are all well fed and educated properly. I want to say he is being greedy and taking too much, but can I say his rights should be curtailed because he doesn't pay the externality costs of his perfectly natural drive to have sex?
I can't say that we should, but I can see why some might argue that we should.

That's some dangerous logic right there. What you're suggesting is the notion that anyone consuming more resources than their "fair share" (which, incidentally, are weasel-words of the highest caliber) should have their resource-consumption forcefully limited by the government.

Or, to paraphrase, F*** The Poor.

I am not onboard with that, not one bit.

This is nothing that couldn't be solved by removing the demonization of contraception.

And as a counter point, this will get a lot of media attention but how is this more detrimental to society than Schilling squandering tens of millions of Rhode Island's tax dollars? One person can do far more damage than this.

Who's going to consume more resources? This guy and his 30 poor kids or someone wealthy who owns multiple houses, multiple cars at each house, takes multiple vacations each year to exotic, far-flung locations (by private jet, of course), etc.?

And are we really talking about resources from an environmental standpoint or resources as in "my tax dollars being spent on people I don't like"?

If it's environmental, then the wealthier you are the more resources you're going to consume, the more CO2 you're going to produce, etc. If it's tax dollars, then learn to focus your concern on the big ticket items. Who's going to burn through more of your tax dollars? This guys kids or, say, the F-35 fighter program that just broke the $200 billion mark of cost overruns?