Starship Tories

[Edric O]

David Cameron seems to be looking for policy ideas in rather unusual places these days. Like the books of Robert Heinlein. Alienating the entire younger generation does not seem to be the best election-winning strategy, but what do I know?

Young people could be given their adult rights as a reward for completing a modern day national service scheme, the Tory leader, David Cameron, said today.

Linking rights to responsibilities would encourage youngsters to show they are responsible citizens, Mr Cameron said today as he challenged the notion that rights should automatically come with age.

Would you like to know more?

[Khan]

Almost seems like 'do what we want and we'll give you civil rights'

[nemafakei]

So if you don't like the idea of killing people, you don't get a vote? It may not be a vote-winner, but it's an election-winner.

[Egeides]

I'm not against linking civil rights and civil responsabilities, although I do not have the same view on the topic (if they are actually to be linked directly like this):

What about I get my civil rights after defending my country against fancy-pants like those?

Or we could be more conservative individualist (and maybe constructive) and put "defending myself and fellow humans around" instead; I see no a priori relation to this guy's defense agenda. After that, if it later shows to go against his agenda, it's not my fault (it's society's! ;D) .

[GUNWOUNDS]

i believe people should have to apply for their parent's license or their reproductive license.  Sorta like in Starship Trooper's movie where the one lady says she cant wait to get her mother's license.  I mean you need a driver's license, a hunting license, a trucking license, a medical license, a legal license.    BUT NO Parental license?  Well there is social services who have the right to take away children and screen adoption parents.... maybe thats enough.  But a licensed parent would still probably enrich the quality of parenting.

Just read an article recently that said a woman and her husband beat a child to death with a hammer... and they had adopted 5 other kids.

[Acriku]

i believe people should have to apply for their parent's license or their reproductive license.  Sorta like in Starship Trooper's movie where the one lady says she cant wait to get her mother's license.  I mean you need a driver's license, a hunting license, a trucking license, a medical license, a legal license.    BUT NO Parental license?  Well there is social services who have the right to take away children and screen adoption parents.... maybe thats enough.  But a licensed parent would still probably enrich the quality of parenting.

Just read an article recently that said a woman and her husband beat a child to death with a hammer... and they had adopted 5 other kids.

Problem is people will probably exploit that license to include agenda-furthering criteria, such as heterosexual favor, intelligence favor, etc. There's plenty of dumb people raising kids, but should we not let them? Hard question.

On the topic, I wonder if people might actually go for having rights as earned and not inherited. If we treat everybody like they are immigrants trying to get a citizenship and thus the rights of the country, perhaps we'd have a better society. Who knows? This is difficult politics.

[Anathema]

i believe people should have to apply for their parent's license or their reproductive license.  Sorta like in Starship Trooper's movie where the one lady says she cant wait to get her mother's license.  I mean you need a driver's license, a hunting license, a trucking license, a medical license, a legal license.    BUT NO Parental license?  Well there is social services who have the right to take away children and screen adoption parents.... maybe thats enough.  But a licensed parent would still probably enrich the quality of parenting.

Being allowed to drive a motorized verhicle - licence required

Being allowed to carry guns - licence required

Fishing and hunting - licence required

Handling dangerous explosives - licence and educational papers required

Enganging in surgery and medicine - licence and educational papers required

Creating another sentient being at whim and treat them at your disposal - no requirements, go ahead!

A general ban on concieving children is obviously ridiculous. Can we sterilize people with history of child abuse? Interesting question, I'd have to say yes. I don't believe in reproductive rights are inalienable, or that parenting rights ever take priority over childrens rights. If you're not responsible enough to be a parent, you shouldn't be allowed to be one. There are enough responsible people willing to adopt.

I think Cameron is just trying to swing up a debate. I don't like the idea of having to earn my right to vote for example, but it should be a simple step to take them away. Prison inmates generally can't vote, I'd extend that to anyone who has a criminal record for a variable amount of time as a sort of parole. People who receive social security and who won't cooperate with civil servants to get them back on track or are openly hostile to them, shouldn't be allowed to vote and their welfare payments should be revoked. If you're not even willing to contribute to society, you should have no say.

Some rights should be treated as inalienable, such as the right to live or right of free speech. Some shouldn't.

[alchemi2]

Being allowed to drive a motorized vehicle - licence required

Being allowed to carry guns - licence required

Fishing and hunting - licence required

Handling dangerous explosives - licence and educational papers required

Engaging in surgery and medicine - licence and educational papers required

Creating another sentient being at whim and treat them at your disposal - no requirements, go ahead!

A general ban on conceiving children is obviously ridiculous. Can we sterilize people with history of child abuse? Interesting question, I'd have to say yes. I don't believe in reproductive rights are inalienable, or that parenting rights ever take priority over children's rights. If you're not responsible enough to be a parent, you shouldn't be allowed to be one. There are enough responsible people willing to adopt.

I think Cameron is just trying to swing up a debate. I don't like the idea of having to earn my right to vote for example, but it should be a simple step to take them away. Prison inmates generally can't vote, I'd extend that to anyone who has a criminal record for a variable amount of time as a sort of parole. People who receive social security and who won't cooperate with civil servants to get them back on track or are openly hostile to them, shouldn't be allowed to vote and their welfare payments should be revoked. If you're not even willing to contribute to society, you should have no say.

Some rights should be treated as inalienable, such as the right to live or right of free speech. Some shouldn't.

Welcome to the fascist state.

Define what is a good parent?

Failure to pay a parking fine on time = Criminal record = no voting rights ludicrous.

You imply anyone on welfare is there by choice = absolute rubbish.

Many children have been abused or killed by adoptive/foster parents.

Cameron is as ever trying to panda to the general public and make his right wing policy appeal to the center, as usual there is no real substance to his suggests, no time frame or implementation details.

(Oh and spell checker is a wonderful thing)

[Anathema]

These are controversial issues, I thought I'd spice things up a little by playing devils advocate (

somewhat.

Define what is a good parent?

For starters, people that actually feed their kids and send them to school. I guess you don't like the fact that civilized societies already take kids away from neglective parents. I like it that way though, but the state could do a better job at it.

Failure to pay a parking fine on time = Criminal record = no voting rights ludicrous.

Yes, that's ludicrous. Wich is why I said variable.

You imply anyone on welfare is there by choice = absolute rubbish.

Did I?

Many children have been abused or killed by adoptive/foster parents.

True, I remember about a particular case from your own country: two men who presented themselves as a gay couple adopted multiple kids and abused them. The relevant civil servants made numerous errors and could have found out long before the "couple" was actually caught. It's generally better to figure out what can be improved than it is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Also, did you just imply that most or all adoptive/foster parents are child abusers?  ::)

Cameron is actually quite similar to Tony Blair when it comes to politics, with the difference that he hasn't had a chance yet to prove he's worthless as a PM and doesn't try to hide the fact that he's a Tory.

(Oh and spell checker is a wonderful thing)

I mispelled license...I guess it's now time for me to go home and reflect on my sins ::)

[TMA_1]

"A general ban on concieving children is obviously ridiculous. Can we sterilize people with history of child abuse? Interesting question, I'd have to say yes. I don't believe in reproductive rights are inalienable, or that parenting rights ever take priority over childrens rights. If you're not responsible enough to be a parent, you shouldn't be allowed to be one. There are enough responsible people willing to adopt."

what institution has the right to pick and choose those who are capable of having children? We cannot set up any sort of institution that acts as God choosing who and who doesnt have reproduction rights. There is an absolutely huge difference between regulating tools of work and war, and regulating the process of procreation. This kind of regulation could be extremely dangerous! Talk about class alienation. What is next? Sterilizing those who have an IQ below 90? Or sterilizing those with physical disabilities?

Sure there are many terrible parents in this world, but we seem to forget that the children of these parents have minds of their own, and will some day choose to live as they wish. Now many may take the traits of their parents, but you cannot deny the rights of a person to carry their legacy. We cannot attack the problems of bad choices by taking away the free will of making good or bad choices. If we did that, what would make us different than all of the evil tyrants who did the same kinds of things before us?

To control someone's choices in this particular kind of way is to control a specific population, which could lead to an extremely disturbing kind of genocide. It could lead to a rise in frustration and anger, it could lead to distinctions between people that set one group as superior over the other. I just cant believe that any of you guys would go along with this. Come on now, I thought that some of you guys were actually true progressives.

As far as taking away voting rights to a class of people, damn... It would be a major crushing blow to any kind of egalitarian ethic in democracy. to remove these rights from one segment of society, you create a distinction between them and the rest of the population. This is insanity! If these kinds of ideas were adopted in supposed equal parts of the west, it would be a clear signal to me that the west in general would need to be purified by revolutions and war.

"Social responsibility was a way of ending the "walk-on-by society" and encouraging the idea that "we are all in this together"."

disturbing.

[alchemi2]

Actually too late i have had four children and therefore am probably more qualified to talk on the subject of the difficulties of being a good parent, from the parent perspective.

So your only criteria for good parenting is feeding the children and ensuring they attend school.

People who receive social security and who won't cooperate with civil servants to get them back on track or are openly hostile to them, shouldn't be allowed to vote and their welfare payments should be revoked.

Get them back on track implies they are choosing to be on benefits or there is something wrong with them.

If you're not even willing to contribute to society, you should have no say.

My father contributed to society for 40 years before being disable, so his welfare money should now be stopped and he should have no say!! as he is unable to return to work.

There is a a huge gulf between Blair's and Cameron's politics, when you get down to the details and methodology, don't believe all the hype and spin by the media.

Do you really believe that removing voting rights and limiting freedoms by the state is a good idea?

[Anathema]

So your only criteria for good parenting is feeding the children and ensuring they attend school.

Get them back on track implies they are choosing to be on benefits or there is something wrong with them.

My words left little room for misinterpretation, at least not this much. I'd suggest you try to put some more effort into understanding what people are actually saying but I suspect you're reading what you want the text to say, quite deliberately. Take your strawmen tactics elsewhere. Oh, and this:

My father contributed to society for 40 years before being disable, so his welfare money should now be stopped and he should have no say!! as he is unable to return to work.

I in no way implied that disabled people are unwilling to contribute.

TMA, you're guilty of the same thing. I didn't say revoking voting rights from classes of people but of convicted criminals (and not all of them). Sheesh.

Similarly, I was only advocating sterilization as a punitive sanction for child abuse and infanticide. Can you honestly say that people like this should be allowed to reproduce again if they ever get free?

[TMA_1]

I understand what you mean (and that woman committed an intolerable act). In that set of circumstances it is hard not to agree, all I am saying is that it is dangerous road to tread. Already, many felonious convicts (at least in America, not sure in other countries) lose their rights while imprisoned, that includes the right to vote if I remember right.

[alchemi2]

Anathema- Read beyond the obvious, once you start to remove rights from individuals in society, then that criteria expands, you only have to look at the terrorist act. This has been used against the miners striking and against other legal protests.

Already in this country the disabled are constantly evaluated for their benefits and many are pushed in to work that they didn't want.

The changes in social security payments introduced to stop the so called scroungers, effected those made redundant and those who wanted to work but not for minimum wage.

The one thing i will agree with is that convicts whilst serving their sentences should not be allowed to vote, that is part of the punishment for their crime.

Child abusers and child killers should not be sterilised they should be executed.

If you don't want your statements to be misinterpreted then don't be so vague, define what you mean by good parents, you started with feed and go to school presumably next you will say cloth and bring up right. But that doesn't define your criteria what does bring up right mean? what is a good parent?

You complain of my strawmen but where is your substantive argument?

[Anathema]

If you thought my statements were vague, you could have asked me to clarify. Instead you assume more then there's to be interpreted and call me a fascist.

hild abusers and child killers should not be sterilised they should be executed.

Disagree. But that's another discussion and I can understand the sentiment.

Already in this country the disabled are constantly evaluated for their benefits and many are pushed in to work that they didn't want.

I wasn't talking from a UK perspective, obviously. And I didn't have disability in mind at first, but unemployment payouts- people who receive it but who are unwilling to cooperate in finding themselves a job they can do, or even have the nerve to assault civil servants. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[alchemi2]

Acutally i didn't call you a fascist but as i quoted you i can see how you could assume i was refering to you. (As with the spell checker comment i was being filpant as i had picked up about 20 errors in my own text.)

As the subject was raised by Edric O on David Cameron's ideas, which is UK politics, i assumed we were discussing from a UK perspective.

Changes to the welfare state always have far reaching consequences and more often than not restrictions hit the innocent harder than the guilty parties, dispite the origonal intentions.

Once you begin removing rights from individuls in society, then you open the way for abuse of privilage. Already many freedoms have been undermined with the expansion of police powers under the terrorism act.

[Caid Ivik]

David Cameron seems to be looking for policy ideas in rather unusual places these days. Like the books of Robert Heinlein. Alienating the entire younger generation does not seem to be the best election-winning strategy, but what do I know?

Would you like to know more?

may I enlist? I want their citizenship  ;D

[Dante]

(As with the spell checker comment i was being filpant as i had picked up about 20 errors in my own text.)

Mm hm. I'm rather surprised nobody commented on the panda/pander thing.

Regarding the proposal itself, I can't say that I'm much impressed. One might be tempted to say "It's a good idea in principle" but it really isn't. It's just another drive for people to be more 'socially responsible,' a catchphrase of sorts that I am increasingly growing to dislike. It can be defined in two ways. The first means 'to generally follow common sense, not make too much trouble for others, and go through life without kicking up much of a fuss.' The second involves 'being a happy, healthy, productive member of a community-spirited and pro-active society.'* And if there's a buzzword I loathe more than any other it's 'pro-active.'

So anyway, the first definition I'm quite happy with. It's vague, yes, and it's supposed to be. Vague things are open to interpretation, and while they may need sorted out on occasion they can more or less be guaranteed to work for most of the time.

The second definition, the one that equates to being a government pawn and is being suggested as a virtual form of exam criteria for teenagers, is repulsive. The article phrases it as having "a sense of purpose, optimism and belonging" Good gods, am I the only person who baulks at the very thought of having optimism and purpose impressed upon me before I get to buy fireworks? Not that I ever have bought fireworks, but it's the principle of the thing. It's disgusting! I believe that governments should administrate the military, economy etc on behalf of the country, but they are to stay the hell away from the judiciary and just as far from society's general management.

That means they build and administrate schools, prisons and hospitals, etc. It also means that they don't restrict (or allow others to restrict) what we wear (this applies to both veils and hoodies), they don't instigate an ID card program, they don't interfere with the rights of prospective parents, and that they don't in any way enforce some arbitrary brainwashing technique in order to qualify for adulthood, which among other things is a biological impossibility.

Having said this, there are a few grey areas in the reasoning, but they do not apply to this argument so I won't go into them in detail. Suffice to that that sometimes, when society is a bit sluggish to initiate its own reform, the government may have to step in to some degree.

*Addition.

Happy: If I don't want to be happy then I damned well won't be, and I resent any implication by the government (not in this case, but from others) that happy people are somehow better than unhappy people. Happy people are either annoying or liars. Sometimes both.

Healthy: If people want to be unhealthy, it is not the government's place to lean over their shoulders and tell them not to be. Of course this one is actually cost effective, the morbidly obese cost us quite a lot of money each year (national health service, you see). The answer? Well there's not really any justification for treating people differently just because they're hideously and disgustingly fat and have been since the age of five. Well... there is, but I'm kind of assuming that 'it would make us richer' isn't going to cut it here. Hmm.

But really, I don't much care about fat people. It's those of us who don't want to exercise that I care about. If I don't want to exercise, you aren't going to make me! I'm underweight, that's as healthy as I want to be right now. Stupid exercise...

Productive: Possibly the worst one of all. It implies that all good people are working hard and happy doing it, while all bad people are sponging off the state and probably baby-killing communists as well (hee hee). Some of us don't want to be cogs, you see. I don't want to be productive, I don't even want a job. I see those two as necessary evils in order to further my true goal, acquisition of money. And I'm pretty sure that those idiots spouting about 'productive society' have the same goals. Hypocrites.

Member: Even the noun is offensive! I don't want to be affiliated with any of these freaks that I happen to share a nationality with, unless it is purely on a value-independent scale (i.e. 'The British' as opposed to 'The British citizens.' Call it weird, but I dislike being pigeonholed)

Community spirited: I hate community! I hate most people, I hate most of my neighbours, I hate the vast majority of my hometown, I hate most of the wider area, in no way do I ever want to interact with these people in a way that could possibly bring them any benefit!

You might say that this is missing the point, and that indeed the value behind being community spirited is not to help others and yourself, but to learn not to hate others and work together. Screw that! If I hate people I want to continue hating them. They clearly don't deserve to be liked.

Pro-active: What does this even mean? Anyone? I hate it because it has no meaning, really. It's a senseless blurb thrown at us in speeches, even by people that I quite like.

And the worst part is, according to the government one thing will lead to another! Happy people are automatically more productive and healthy! Healthy people are happier and more productive! People who love their communities are healthy and happy and PRO-ACTIVE!

Which of course implies that the rest of us are just sub-humans, squatting on the same stretch of land as these celestial citizens, and we'd be doing everyone a favour by copying their model and following the government's every word or just jumping off now and drowning. Or going to France. Maybe I'll go to France...

Gosh, that turned into quite a rant, didn't it? In summary: I hate the government and that includes the Conservative Party, therefore anything that most of them say is crap.

Having finished this post, you may now access the bonus level.