Re: Municipal contraception questions.
- Municipal contraception is intended as a beginning, not an end, but a
first step to set precedents which, once set, become easier and easier
for more and more levels of government to follow, including the feds and
UN eventually, as the local benefits become obvious to everyone. It is a
way to get the ball rolling. The strategy revolves around the political
problem of how do we get there from here. It is not intended to cover
everyone, just to cover someone as preferable to covering no one. Just
as one state broke the dam on gay marriage, for others to follow, one
town can break the dam on serious contraception funding.
As for eligibility, contraception is so cost-effective, that a town can
afford to fund contraception considerably beyond it's residents, for
anyone who might potentially move in and use local public school or
childcare taxes. Normally I would expect the free or subsidized price
contraception to be given out to anyone who is physically within the town
at that moment. Though negatively priced contraception, where the town
pays people to take it like Project Prevention:
might have to be limited to town residents depending on the budget
situation, or one level up, meaning town funding for county residents,
county funding for state residents, state funding for national residents,
and/or national funding for world residents (as in the current USAID
funding), or perhaps continental residents, as in NAU or OAS, or EU.
Basically, as the ability to pay for itself depends on public school
eligibility and saving the money many times over in school and child
services, eligibility for contraception would be tied to potential
eligibility for the school or child services that it prevents.
So what I am saying is that it is still cheaper for the taxpayers of a
town to fund contraception for everyone in the county, one level up, than
for town taxpayers to fund public school for just the town children
produced by the absence of such funding. This being justified by the
significant likelyhood that a county resident family with children might
move into the town and use municipal child services and that chance times
the cost of child services still exceeding the cost of contraception.
This is intended as a response to the reality that serious global
and national contraceptive funding is a political pipe dream because
supporters are in the minority and are thus helpless. But supporters are
not necessarily a minority in every town, city, county, and state,
especially with current political migration and especially with political
migration which could be purposefully accelerated.
I don't see how municipal contraception can work. For one thing, everyone
does not live in a municipality. A significant number of people do not
live in any town. Another thing is that what sort of residency
requirements will be in place to get contraceptives from that town/city?
If someone has just moved there and does not yet qualify for free
contraception, they end up with babies. Some people and classes of people
are very mobile, so would frequently end up being "caught without". Or,
various municipalities "buying from the lowest bidder" and getting things
which outright do not work. Municipalities currently have an incentive to
have as many people COUNTED as living in them as possible to get federal
and state funds.
I think the contraceptives should be provided by national or
international groups - to ALL. It should be something which cannot be
easily stopped, forgotten, or run out of - such as vasectomy, tubal
ligation, or at least implants.
Enforcement for irresponsible breeding should be enforced locally. Your
neighbors are the best people to know if you've got an unregistered
screeming baby, not someone thousands of miles away. Your neighbors and
local police and courts are the ones who know if there is a giant family
of unsupervised children drinking, vandalizing, robbing, assaulting while
their egg and sperm doners fail to guide these children.
Perhaps what should be required is to put up a significant bond to cover
the damage these children will directly do, as well as having the
would-be breeder pay for a license. The license would cover such things
as parent training, evaluation as to WHY someone wants a child,
background checks, inspection of the physical premises where the child
will be. Perhaps to then pay a tax as well - similar to a "Nuisance tax".
The collected taxes and fees could then fund or partially fund
Plastic nappies should be outright banned worldwide for their
environmental impact! If somebody doesn't want to wash poopy diapers,
that person doesn't want to take care of a baby.
--- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, aditmore@... wrote:
> Breeders deserve every torture I can imagine including an overpopulated
> future. There's no torture not deserved by those who scorn municipal
> contraception and insist on breeding or who deny overpopulation. The
> only innocent are the wildlife and the nonbreeder children of the
> overpopulating scum.
> Antiabortion breeder Moos are already dropping like flies in places
> Darfur and Somalia, and I'm not sorry, and won't become sorry when
> similar conditions come here.
> I rethought all of it and put it out on my website:
> Cynical Future
> I am quite cynical of there even being any sort of tomorrow. The world
> "we will leave our children" is such that I would not dream of putting
> someone I loved - or even someone I disliked - into it.
Free Sunroom Estimates
From top-rated sunroom builders. Get up to 4 free bids today!