4 ms·

And to answer OP's original question... Right to Birth Control: we're never going to agree on abortion but can we at least get this? A long time ago women woul

by Top19 9y ago

And to answer OP's original question... Right to Birth Control: we're never going to agree on abortion but can we at least get this? A long time ago women would usually stop getting their periods after 20...because they were constantly pregnant until 50 when menopause started. Having larger amount of children might very well be unsustainable in a world with less jobs and that demands a lifetime of learning (by both spouses) to stay employed and take care of yourselves, let alone 3, 4, 5+ children. If male birth control ever comes out I think this would become even more viable too. Right to Internet: I don't have great reasons for this but can anyone think of a bad one for this? Like birth control could be found to have terrible side effects, perhaps some welfare plan might cause mass dependency, but literally is there any bad reason for guaranteeing internet?

talmand 9y ago
Why stop with right to Internet? Why don't we just stop this silly game and declare that everyone has a right to anything that they could possibly want? Someone creates a technology in the future that may help people's lives in some significant, or even small, way? I declare I have a right to it and demand someone else pay for it to provide to me.
- Top19 9y ago
  Initially, your point was "grinding my gears" lol. My reasoning was "'x is good". You took that (and this next part could be wrong so please accept my apology if it is but I tried to break it down into concrete math terms) and said "no it's not, because '20x' is bad, and if we do 'x' then that means we almost certainly will commit ourselves to '20x'". But......You do have a point though. When extremist interpretations can be made...haha they almost certainly will (Islam, the Bible, anything related to communism, capitalism, etc). How do you get around that? No contract is really bulletproof, there is a spirit to every law and document. That spirit I like to think is applied through good systems, common sense, and good leadership.
  - talmand 9y ago
    Yes, it's a tough one. I consider many different ways of possibly dealing with it. I start with the notion that no matter how well a system is designed, it will eventually fall apart and requires a reboot. Sometimes actions prolong the system, sometimes they hasten its demise. These days I'm wondering if an automatic and irreversible sunset clause on every rule in the system might help. To force the people to rethink things from time-to-time. That way the rules don't slowly degrade over time as people "tweak" them for their own benefit. New people have an opportunity to contribute to the rules as opposed to being dictated by rules created by people long dead. It would have to have term limits on the people involved in making the rules for the system as well. Everything would have to be staggered though, can't have everything up for renewal at the same time. Too easy to cause chaos of which some people will take advantage. But, most likely, it won't matter in the long run because my thoughts are around the idea of trying to prevent the always inevitable violent upheaval of the status quo to "make things better". Which only means get rid of all the crappy rules we've forced on ourselves to return to a time the rules were fair and made sense. Which, of course, eventually goes downhill again.

by Top19 9y ago

talmand 9y ago

Why stop with right to Internet? Why don't we just stop this silly game and declare that everyone has a right to anything that they could possibly want? Someone creates a technology in the future that may help people's lives in some significant, or even small, way? I declare I have a right to it and demand someone else pay for it to provide to me.

Top19 9y ago
Initially, your point was "grinding my gears" lol. My reasoning was "'x is good". You took that (and this next part could be wrong so please accept my apology if it is but I tried to break it down into concrete math terms) and said "no it's not, because '20x' is bad, and if we do 'x' then that means we almost certainly will commit ourselves to '20x'". But......You do have a point though. When extremist interpretations can be made...haha they almost certainly will (Islam, the Bible, anything related to communism, capitalism, etc). How do you get around that? No contract is really bulletproof, there is a spirit to every law and document. That spirit I like to think is applied through good systems, common sense, and good leadership.
- talmand 9y ago
  Yes, it's a tough one. I consider many different ways of possibly dealing with it. I start with the notion that no matter how well a system is designed, it will eventually fall apart and requires a reboot. Sometimes actions prolong the system, sometimes they hasten its demise. These days I'm wondering if an automatic and irreversible sunset clause on every rule in the system might help. To force the people to rethink things from time-to-time. That way the rules don't slowly degrade over time as people "tweak" them for their own benefit. New people have an opportunity to contribute to the rules as opposed to being dictated by rules created by people long dead. It would have to have term limits on the people involved in making the rules for the system as well. Everything would have to be staggered though, can't have everything up for renewal at the same time. Too easy to cause chaos of which some people will take advantage. But, most likely, it won't matter in the long run because my thoughts are around the idea of trying to prevent the always inevitable violent upheaval of the status quo to "make things better". Which only means get rid of all the crappy rules we've forced on ourselves to return to a time the rules were fair and made sense. Which, of course, eventually goes downhill again.