Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (9618)	3/9/2010 4:53:34 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15994

Are you saying that society has no costs of children that are not recoverable regardless of the accomplishment of the citizen? No. That would be fine, then the children born without paying the requisite fee would not be citizens. What has the government done to deserve this fee? Setting aside that the typical and the average new birth are both net pluses, lets assume that the typical new birth is a slight net minus. So what? The government isn't the same as society. Paying the government for a cost to society isn't compensating society. And yes their are governmental costs as well, but most of them are voluntarily assumed by the government. you could even say "all of them", but a government that ignores crimes against its people, isn't much of a government. At least criminals (in the sense of actually committing serious aggression or fraud on others, not in the sense of technically violating some statute or regulation) could be said to be imposing the cost on the government. But what percentage of new babies eventually become real criminals? A pretty small one. And some new babies serve to reduce crime, either by working with the government (say by becoming cops), or by their own private efforts. The cost of the crime is not a cost of birth.