Split Popuation Control and Pregnancy Insurance (was DeSantis survey)

[Jimmy Higgins]

This thread is about the state meddling in campuses and academia. Not about sexual reproduction.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I concur that it makes good sense to acknowledge the degree to which any person tried to minimize their moral shortcomings. IMO, there are no saints. I eat meat, but I acknowledge the moral issues it brings, as well as the environmental issues it leads to. If and when vat grown meat can be produced as a substitute, I will support it. The same goes for seafood farms. And population control.

Population control is assuredly evil. Ask the Chinese.

If you can get people to voluntarily get vasectomies, though, I say go for it.

I keep pointing out "accidental impregnation insurance" as a compulsory buy-in for all folks who can impregnate someone else would promptly lead from this gentle kick in the wallet resulting to a swift snip to the vas deferens

Insurance markets where risk can't reasonably be determined work very poorly.

 

[Jarhyn]

I concur that it makes good sense to acknowledge the degree to which any person tried to minimize their moral shortcomings. IMO, there are no saints. I eat meat, but I acknowledge the moral issues it brings, as well as the environmental issues it leads to. If and when vat grown meat can be produced as a substitute, I will support it. The same goes for seafood farms. And population control.

Population control is assuredly evil. Ask the Chinese.

If you can get people to voluntarily get vasectomies, though, I say go for it.

I keep pointing out "accidental impregnation insurance" as a compulsory buy-in for all folks who can impregnate someone else would promptly lead from this gentle kick in the wallet resulting to a swift snip to the vas deferens

Insurance markets where risk can't reasonably be determined work very poorly.

The risk can easily be determined by looking at the sum total of child support payments required, regardless of whether these payments are being rendered.

This is exactly the risk.

As to the pool, it goes to the entirety of people mechanically capable of creating a need for child support payments.

It's one of the most straightforward risk pools to calculate because it's literally two numbers.

 

[bilby]

The risk can easily be determined by looking at the sum total of child support payments required, regardless of whether these payments are being rendered.

This is exactly the risk.

No, that's the cost of a claim. The risk is the cost of a claim multiplied by its probability.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The risk can easily be determined by looking at the sum total of child support payments required, regardless of whether these payments are being rendered.

This is exactly the risk.

As to the pool, it goes to the entirety of people mechanically capable of creating a need for child support payments.

It's one of the most straightforward risk pools to calculate because it's literally two numbers.

No, because you can't determine who is careful and who is reckless.

 

[Jarhyn]

The risk can easily be determined by looking at the sum total of child support payments required, regardless of whether these payments are being rendered.

This is exactly the risk.

As to the pool, it goes to the entirety of people mechanically capable of creating a need for child support payments.

It's one of the most straightforward risk pools to calculate because it's literally two numbers.

No, because you can't determine who is careful and who is reckless.

You can assume that humans, being humans, so long as they carry the capability, are in fact "reckless".

If they weren't, they would have gotten a vasectomy and had faith in it's reversal if they ever decided to be methodical rather than reckless.

 

[Jarhyn]

The risk can easily be determined by looking at the sum total of child support payments required, regardless of whether these payments are being rendered.

This is exactly the risk.

No, that's the cost of a claim. The risk is the cost of a claim multiplied by its probability.

The probability of liability is literally momentary liability (the "1") divided by the population (the chances).

The average cost of a claim across the population of claimants is the exact monetary risk, as the probability of the total population to cause the total risk is 1.

 

[bilby]

The risk can easily be determined by looking at the sum total of child support payments required, regardless of whether these payments are being rendered.

This is exactly the risk.

No, that's the cost of a claim. The risk is the cost of a claim multiplied by its probability.

The probability of liability is literally momentary liability (the "1") divided by the population (the chances).

The average cost of a claim across the population of claimants is the exact monetary risk, as the probability of the total population to cause the total risk is 1.

So what you meant to say was:

The risk can easily be determined by looking at the sum total across the entire population of child support payments required, regardless of whether these payments are being rendered.

This is exactly the risk.

Whereas my understanding was that you were saying:

The risk can easily be determined by looking at the sum total for each payer of child support payments required, regardless of whether these payments are being rendered.

This is exactly the risk.

Determining the risk across the entire population is not particularly helpful in assessing the individual risk, which varies markedly from one person to the next because of the wild variety of degrees to which people engage in risky behaviour.

Which was the topic under discussion - not every person who is capable of impregnating someone has anywhere close to a similar degree of risk of doing so, and a proposal by which the responsible person massively subsidises the irresponsible is hugely counterproductive.

Your notion (I hesitate to elevate it to the status of "idea") is stupid and deeply flawed, and you need to drop it (ideally in favour of something else that has some possibility of achieving the objective; But as doing nothing at all would be superior to your notion, just dropping it would do).

 

[Jarhyn]

The risk can easily be determined by looking at the sum total of child support payments required, regardless of whether these payments are being rendered.

This is exactly the risk.

No, that's the cost of a claim. The risk is the cost of a claim multiplied by its probability.

The probability of liability is literally momentary liability (the "1") divided by the population (the chances).

The average cost of a claim across the population of claimants is the exact monetary risk, as the probability of the total population to cause the total risk is 1.

So what you meant to say was:

The risk can easily be determined by looking at the sum total across the entire population of child support payments required, regardless of whether these payments are being rendered.

This is exactly the risk.

Whereas my understanding was that you were saying:

The risk can easily be determined by looking at the sum total for each payer of child support payments required, regardless of whether these payments are being rendered.

This is exactly the risk.

Determining the risk across the entire population is not particularly helpful in assessing the individual risk, which varies markedly from one person to the next because of the wild variety of degrees to which people engage in risky behaviour.

Which was the topic under discussion - not every person who is capable of impregnating someone has anywhere close to a similar degree of risk of doing so, and a proposal by which the responsible person massively subsidises the irresponsible is hugely counterproductive.

Your notion (I hesitate to elevate it to the status of "idea") is stupid and deeply flawed, and you need to drop it (ideally in favour of something else that has some possibility of achieving the objective; But as doing nothing at all would be superior to your notion, just dropping it would do).

The risky behavior is ejaculating sperms into a uterus

If someone wants the momentary, immediate power to ejaculate sperms into a uterus, they are a part of that risk pool. Their insurance should be calculated as some percentage of a child support payment at their pay scale.

If someone doesn't want kids, well, all the more reason to hurry up on those more reversible vasectomies.

Let someone drop the tax when they get snipped or married

Let them pick it up again if they get reconnected or divorced.

Let them collect benefits for when they were paying in.

It can be like Social Security, only it's for paying out to kids on the basis of being in that risk pool.

A lot of people will probably be like "I don't want to have to pay extra taxes for having sperms shoot from my willy!"

If that's really the case though, you have the option to make sperms  not shoot out yer willy, or to make it much more difficult to quit liability for children in the relationship.

 

[bilby]

The risky behavior is ejaculating sperms into a uterus

Yes, and the physiological capability to do so is so massively disconnected from the actual incidence of people doing so - many who could, never do, while many others do so very frequently and repeatedly.

So your notion is dumb, and founders on the fact that it requires the former group to subsidise the latter, while having the stated intention of discouraging the latter.

Your plan is insane, and your good intentions can never compensate for that insanity.

You need a new plan; Preferably one that isn't massively counterproductive and stupid.

 

[Jarhyn]

The risky behavior is ejaculating sperms into a uterus

Yes, and the physiological capability to do so is so massively disconnected from the actual incidence of people doing so - many who could, never do, while many others do so very frequently and repeatedly.

So your notion is dumb, and founders on the fact that it requires the former group to subsidise the latter, while having the stated intention of discouraging the latter.

Your plan is insane, and your good intentions can never compensate for that insanity.

You need a new plan; Preferably one that isn't massively counterproductive and stupid.

The issue is that there's no way to formally distinguish which someone is until they actually do it, and a long history of people who dong-dong-dash on pregnancy is large and the number who lie about their fertility also is large, and the percentage that "stealth" is also too large.

If someone doesn't intend on using their sperms they ought be willing to get a probably reversible vasectomy.

Part of the goal here is in fact population control by consent.

I think taxing as a methodology to drive towards helping to control the pet human population is the only way to accomplish it.

We already do this with social security, and are looking into doing it with healthcare with the ACA and single payer options. This is the same thing, but to those who share the liability on not having to pay.

And if you'll note, nowhere am I saying that married mothers wouldn't be able to collect benefits... Just those who wish to pose active risks of ending up in a situation where they might end up sperming into a uterus.

TomC could probably tell you a story about how unexpected a pregnancy can be.

Instead of saving for retirement you get to save for accident (or even on purpose).

 

[bilby]

The issue is that there's no way to formally distinguish which someone is until they actually do it, and a long history of people who dong-dong-dash on pregnancy is large and the number who lie about their fertility also is large, and the percentage that "stealth" is also too large.

I agree. But the existence of a problem isn't evidence that your proposed solution is viable or reasonable; And in fact it's neither.

 

[Jarhyn]

The issue is that there's no way to formally distinguish which someone is until they actually do it, and a long history of people who dong-dong-dash on pregnancy is large and the number who lie about their fertility also is large, and the percentage that "stealth" is also too large.

I agree. But the existence of a problem isn't evidence that your proposed solution is viable or reasonable; And in fact it's neither.

Something's gotta give though. The only way to mitigate "ding dong dash" is "prepay".

The only way to uniformly guarantee prepay is taxes.

There needs to be a way to escape prepay, and that way must be capable of being validated.

And there needs to be a social mechanism to encourage a reduction in fertility to manage the population more intelligently, which people will actively opt into for some reason.

This together sums to "prepay a liability tax on being able to get someone pregnant, or get a vasectomy to avoid it".

 

[Bomb#20]

Something's gotta give though. The only way to mitigate "ding dong dash" is "prepay".

The only way to uniformly guarantee prepay is taxes.

There needs to be a way to escape prepay, and that way must be capable of being validated.

And there needs to be a social mechanism to encourage a reduction in fertility to manage the population more intelligently, which people will actively opt into for some reason.

This together sums to "prepay a liability tax on being able to get someone pregnant, or get a vasectomy to avoid it".

And if in spite of this ingenious incentive for male behavior modification somebody does get you pregnant, this sums to "prepay a bus ticket and a hotel stay out of state, or get a full-term pregnancy and delivery to avoid it". Says the elephant about the girl's reproductive organs and says Jarhyn about the boy's reproductive organs, "This belongs to me now."

 

[Jarhyn]

Walking around with sperms is in many ways like walking around with a gun.

When you get hot and heavy and emotional, having that much power to make that much impact is not wise in any way.

But we have some folks really interested in playing cowboy and firing bullets, same as we have folks really interested in seeing wild oats.

There is just no reason to want to have that outside a situation where you actually plan on using it.

I don't care whether it belongs to me (I'd rather it not!) But it really doesn't belong to anyone. There is just no compelling argument to be able to "accidentally" impregnate someone.

Pregnancy should only ever happen on purpose or in the wake of someone who has already solved against the risk.