Population Control 13: Excess People are Liabilities kuno

I saw this facebook wall posting by a health economist and staunch pro-RH ideologue, Oscar Picazo:

WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER - I have seen a few FB posts argue that sex and reproduction are PERSONAL matters. Well, the act itself is, but the fruits of that act are very SOCIAL matters:

(a) Unwanted children become a burden not only to the couples who produce them but to society as a whole. I will be paying more in taxes just to educate your excess children in public schools.

(b) The congestion effects of excess fertility are serious, as seen in urban traffic, environmental degradation, sprawling informal settlements, etc. These negative things affect me, not only the couples who over-produced. 

(c) The crime and other social pathologies engendered by rampaging population and poverty are real, and affect everybody.

So stop burdening me with your excess fertility. I would rather that the government increase my taxes now so I can help purchase contraceptives for poor people, rather than pay much, much higher taxes in the future for the needs of a burgeoning population. Simple, straight logic.

I replied that the "unwanted or excess children" that he despises are the family drivers, yayas, helpers, gardeners, carpenters of many rich and middle class people who like him, despise such excess population. These "unwanted children" are also the taxi drivers, bus drivers, construction workers, security guards, office janitors and messengers, salon beauticians, nurses and caregivers, that people hire because they are useful.

If Oscar and other population control advocates do not believe this, they should ask their office messengers and security guards, if they come from one or two children households. Most likely they come from four or more children households, they come from parents with excess or "unwanted children."

People are assets, not liabilities. The liabilities that people dislike -- thieves and plunderers, killers and murderers, rapists and kidnappers, other criminals both from poor and rich families, both in private and government sectors -- that is the role of government to catch and control. Promulgate the rule of law and stop coddling corrupt people and law violators in government itself.

Many rich countries now with ageing population are benefitting from our "surplus population". They prefer to get Filipino caregivers, nurses and other health professionals, rather than have more robots or their own government bureaucrats taking care many of their sick and old people.

If they do not want to pay additional taxes for public education of those "unwanted children", then they can demand that government subsidy for education should be until elementary and/or secondary levels only, privatize all state universities and colleges. Or limit subsidy to science high schools only.

Government has been around for many decades giving education and books for the poor, healthcare and medicines for the poor, housing and relocation for the poor, agrarian reform and tractors for the poor, roads and bridges for the poor, and recently cash transfer for the poor, and poverty persists, so they blame the poor? They do not blame state nannyism and government failures? Who said and enacted laws that there should be government responsibility almost everywhere and have little personal and parental responsibility in society, aren't they government politicians and officials themselves?

"Congestion effects" are caused more by government policies, not the poor. Who disapproves or fails to act on unsolicited private sector proposals to build more trains in Metro Manila? Who creates tricycle route monopoly and jeepney route monopoly and give tricycle and jeepney franchises?  It is government, both national and local.

Population Control 12: RH Bill will Become a Law

Last Wednesday, August 15, I posted this in my facebook wall:

I think the RH bill will become a law. So many people always think that for most issues, more government is the solution. Education, govt. Healthcare, govt. Housing, govt. Irrigation, govt. Cash transfer, govt. Condoms, govt. It's a culture of govt dependency and a culture of coercion. To force everyone to finance a "bright" idea, whether they support it or not.

As expected, some friends picked it up, so another round of debate, but very civil, no name calling or insults. I like it. See below. The second thread though, is different. It's clearly personal attack or insult to people who for whatever reason/s, do not support the bright idea called RH bill. Photos below are just for fun, I never used or posted any of them in my facebook wall.

Josef Garcia The sytem provides that if you dont want your tax money being spent on policies and laws you dont support, you put up a party, run for elections, and push for your own policies. Failing that, you lobby. That simple Noy, you cannot prevent the operation of government just because you dont like how it spent for a nut or bolt in the govt machinery. PARTY LIST ka na Noy, but I bet you also disagree govt spending on the party list system of representation.

Nonoy Oplas Right Jo. That is why I focus on the culture of dependency on the state, and a culture of coercion. Most politicians and political parties behave the way they do because the public themselves want that kind of culture. The framing of debate to church vs. state angle is boring, at least for me. Could have been more interesting if it's individual liberty vs. state coercion angle. Even buying condoms is government responsibility? Lousy.

On party list, I wish that system to be abolished, instead of joining it. And here's why, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/08/political-ideology-6-party-list-system.html

Josef  Garcia Haha, sabi na nga ba eh. But RH is not coercion if it precisely supports information dissemination in aid of the exercise of individual liberty to choose your own method of contraception. Parang tourism campaign lang sya Noy, like, saan mas magandang pumunta, Boracay or El Nido. Government supports the tourism because society earns from it. The same way with RH. Government points out to options to families, kung anu mas maganda for couples, because eventualy society will benefit from the reduction on the strain on resources society has to expend on a runaway population majority of which is impoverished, and who will simply continue to die like flies without government help. So Noy, I think RH will actualy support minimal government as soon as it takes effect and lesser resources are spent on an expanding poor population.

Nonoy Oplas Eh, why is Gawad Kalinga building houses for the poor with zero legislation, zero taxation, zero coercion? The same for private/charity medical missions, solidarity during flooding, zero politics, zero legislation, and welfare programs for the poor are done. If RH is so nice, it should have been done many years ago via volunteerism, like GK, Rotary/Mason/Lions/JCI etc. projects. All programs via legislation and coercion gives taxpayers zero choice.

Josef Garcia RH is so nice every middle class up family is already doing it by themselves, without government coercion, because they already have the information by which to exercise their freedom of choice. Actually, its the most popular form of voluntary, non coercive undertaking in private setting. I buy my own condoms, mind you, and not a single centavo of your tax money is spent on my condom, except the incidental social infrastructure necessary for me to buy it from the market, like roads and the legal tender i use to buy it from the gas station. It just has to be made popular to those below the middle class by extending the information already available to us. Its part of civilized activity Noy, sharing information and propagating science, so our impoverished majority do not get stuck in the stone age.

Julius Patrick If it's just spreading information, why not just let those passionate pro-RH groups do it with their own time, effort and money? No new law is needed.

Josef Garcia They already are, they just cant reach the other 50 million of the population with their resources. Eventually they wont need government resources, as the privilege gradually extends to the majority. Until then, your money can save lives, unless of course, that is one of the form of government expenditures you oppose, saving lives. Oh, we can leave the business of saving lives to volunteerism, why didnt I think of that.

Julius Patrick Don't we already have existing laws that do what the RH bill seeks to do?

Nonoy Oplas Actually I like some goals of the RH proposal, like reducing maternal deaths and teen pregnancy. But there are provisions that are non-tax related and are simply coercive, like forcing OB Gyne and related health professionals to do pro bono services at least 48 hours a year, requiring companies to do RH services after requiring them to provide their workers various privileges like vacation leave, sick leave and maternity leave with pay, high employer contribution to SSS, PhilHealth, Pag-IBIG, complying with min wage law and other labor laws.

It is good that people buy condoms and pills on their own for their own use, as well as for free distribution to other poor people. That is the spirit of volunteerism and charity, people help others with zero coercion and threats of penalties if they won't do it. But extending it far out as additional government responsibility, on top of education for the poor, healthcare for the poor, housing for the poor, tractors and AR for the poor, train fare subsidy for the poor, cash transfer for the poor, all the way to condoms and IUD for the poor. This is extending state dependency even further. And extending coercion even further.

A better compromise is if government must create new subsidies and bleeding heart program for the poor, it should also discontinue some existing program that obviously did not work because the PH government has been there to help the poor since more than a century ago. After repeated failures to improve the lot of the poor, now government and RH supporters will blame the poor why they expand too fast, so the solution is to control the population of the poor. But I am deeply skeptical if the government and the pro-RH camp will agree to such compromise. It's all more government, more government for them. Hope I am wrong?