Confirmed! Rich People Live Off The Work Of Others!

[Sunshine]

My assertion is that income is a product of laws created by men; .

Before there were laws the more you hunted and gathered the more income you had. A law reflects this process it does not create it..

And if you didn't hunt or gather, you starved.

In those days defective humans were somehow disposed of or left to die. That meant that most were actually able to hunt and gather. We have so many disabled/defective people in this day and age which we are morally obligated to support that neither you nor I will ever see less taxes come out of our paychecks. And having worked in the trenches, I can vouch for the fact that most of them aren't just lazy. They really can't be self supporting. Every year I taught, I had students who would say, 'surely that person can push a broom.' I would have to respond, 'OK, show me a job where all that is required is to push a broom.' Even janitorial work requires that a person have some common sense and/ or physical ability.

I was going to retire in August, but with this illness, I now have to plan to work as long as possible. Not many people with my illness are able to be gainfully employed. Because my job is so cushy, I will be able to work far longer than most who have this. My children have stepped up in case I need anything. But my goal in all this is not to need assistance beyond my retirement if at all possible.

 

[daveman]

Before there were laws the more you hunted and gathered the more income you had. A law reflects this process it does not create it..

And if you didn't hunt or gather, you starved.

In those days defective humans were somehow disposed of or left to die. That meant that most were actually able to hunt and gather. We have so many disabled/defective people in this day and age which we are morally obligated to support that neither you nor I will ever see less taxes come out of our paychecks. And having worked in the trenches, I can vouch for the fact that most of them aren't just lazy. They really can't be self supporting. Every year I taught, I had students who would say, 'surely that person can push a broom.' I would have to respond, 'OK, show me a job where all that is required is to push a broom.' Even janitorial work requires that a person have some common sense and/ or physical ability.

I was going to retire in August, but with this illness, I now have to plan to work as long as possible. Not many people with my illness are able to be gainfully employed. Because my job is so cushy, I will be able to work far longer than most who have this. My children have stepped up in case I need anything. But my goal in all this is not to need assistance beyond my retirement if at all possible.

I don't think you'll find anyone advocating an end to all public assistance. I have no problem helping people who truly need help.

I do have a problem with helping people who can work but refuse.

 

[ShackledNation]

Before there were laws the more you hunted and gathered the more income you had. A law reflects this process it does not create it..

And if you didn't hunt or gather, you starved.

In those days defective humans were somehow disposed of or left to die. That meant that most were actually able to hunt and gather. We have so many disabled/defective people in this day and age which we are morally obligated to support that neither you nor I will ever see less taxes come out of our paychecks. And having worked in the trenches, I can vouch for the fact that most of them aren't just lazy. They really can't be self supporting. Every year I taught, I had students who would say, 'surely that person can push a broom.' I would have to respond, 'OK, show me a job where all that is required is to push a broom.' Even janitorial work requires that a person have some common sense and/ or physical ability.

I was going to retire in August, but with this illness, I now have to plan to work as long as possible. Not many people with my illness are able to be gainfully employed. Because my job is so cushy, I will be able to work far longer than most who have this. My children have stepped up in case I need anything. But my goal in all this is not to need assistance beyond my retirement if at all possible.

You are absolutely right that there are people that we should help, for logical and moral reasons. But why should "we" be equated with government violence?

Too many people assume that those who advocate reducing government aid to the poor advocate reducing any aid to the poor. In fact, we simply advocate people aiding the poor through voluntary means rather than coercive ones. The market is better at helping the poor than the government, for those who help the poor in the market do so out of altruism, whereas those who help the poor in government do so to buy votes and political power.

 

[alan1]

Before there were laws the more you hunted and gathered the more income you had. A law reflects this process it does not create it..

And if you didn't hunt or gather, you starved.

In those days defective humans were somehow disposed of or left to die. That meant that most were actually able to hunt and gather. We have so many disabled/defective people in this day and age which we are morally obligated to support that neither you nor I will ever see less taxes come out of our paychecks. And having worked in the trenches, I can vouch for the fact that most of them aren't just lazy. They really can't be self supporting. Every year I taught, I had students who would say, 'surely that person can push a broom.' I would have to respond, 'OK, show me a job where all that is required is to push a broom.' Even janitorial work requires that a person have some common sense and/ or physical ability.

I was going to retire in August, but with this illness, I now have to plan to work as long as possible. Not many people with my illness are able to be gainfully employed. Because my job is so cushy, I will be able to work far longer than most who have this. My children have stepped up in case I need anything. But my goal in all this is not to need assistance beyond my retirement if at all possible.

It's like a continuance.
Keep the defective alive so that they can breed more defectives and you end up with more defectives to support.
Sorry, but that doesn't seem conducive to keeping a species alive and thriving and bettering itself.
I prefer to not let the defectives of society breed. Let them die if they can't support themselves.
Others my call my position cold, but I want the continued survival of my species.

 

[Sunshine]

And if you didn't hunt or gather, you starved.

In those days defective humans were somehow disposed of or left to die. That meant that most were actually able to hunt and gather. We have so many disabled/defective people in this day and age which we are morally obligated to support that neither you nor I will ever see less taxes come out of our paychecks. And having worked in the trenches, I can vouch for the fact that most of them aren't just lazy. They really can't be self supporting. Every year I taught, I had students who would say, 'surely that person can push a broom.' I would have to respond, 'OK, show me a job where all that is required is to push a broom.' Even janitorial work requires that a person have some common sense and/ or physical ability.

I was going to retire in August, but with this illness, I now have to plan to work as long as possible. Not many people with my illness are able to be gainfully employed. Because my job is so cushy, I will be able to work far longer than most who have this. My children have stepped up in case I need anything. But my goal in all this is not to need assistance beyond my retirement if at all possible.

It's like a continuance.
Keep the defective alive so that they can breed more defectives and you end up with more defectives to support.
Sorry, but that doesn't seem conducive to keeping a species alive and thriving and bettering itself.
I prefer to not let the defectives of society breed. Let them die if they can't support themselves.
Others my call my position cold, but I want the continued survival of my species.

LOL. That takes me back to my Biology 101 class in college. One day I had the audacity to put up my hand and ask if things like life prolonging medications had a tendency to weaken the human race. The class became a den. All I could hear was 'Hitler' and 'Nazi.' Good luck with your belief. I have often wondered how long it would be until there were more people who need to be supported than there are who are doing the work. In my line of work, where I have seen a lot of retardation and debilitating mental illness, it seems we are there now, but we aren't just yet.

An illness, per se, doesn't render one incapable of producing a normal offspring. But a genetically transmitted disease also does not terminate the person's right to procreate. The Human Genome Project is no doubt taking us closer to the time when genetic illnesses will be no more.

When I was in law school, my Constitutional Law professor said that every right we have, even the right to procreate, can be regulated. But when anyone mentions that perhaps it should be half the population goes ape shit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Before there were laws the more you hunted and gathered the more income you had. People were naturally Republican capitalists. A law reflects this process; it does not create it or replace it with something supposedly superior like socialism

And if you didn't hunt or gather, you starved.

In those days defective humans were somehow disposed of or left to die.

we're not talking about defective humans we're talking about helpless humans rendered that way by liberal programs.

 

[Sundial]

There's no assumption that unearned income is the same as income unjustly acquired - at least not by me.

No? Then what did you mean by "Confirmed! Rich People Live Off The Work Of Others!" ?

That ownership is a means of living off the work of others. In other words, having an income without working.

Lots of people live off the work of others - children, the aged, the disabled, for example. Only about half the population of this country work. The other half live off the people who do the work. (Well, it's a little more complicated than that. Some people work, but don't get paid for it. But the general point is the same.)

Anyway, there's nothing AUTOMATICALLY unjust about having an income with no work.

On the other hand, when crazy people start to argue that the people who do the work are living off the non-workers, you have to say something, in order to point out that they're crazy.

 

[dblack]

There's no assumption that unearned income is the same as income unjustly acquired - at least not by me.

No? Then what did you mean by "Confirmed! Rich People Live Off The Work Of Others!" ?

That ownership is a means of living off the work of others. In other words, having an income without working.

Nah, we went over that. Ownership means having the right and responsibility of deciding what happens with whatever it is that you own. If what you own is capital, you have the 'right and responsibility' to decide how it is used. That 'deciding' is work, believe or not. Very important work, actually. Granted, many will outsource this work to others - in which case they won't make as much since they'll have to share it with the people helping them decide what to do with it - but they still have to pick someone smart or they'll simply lose their money.

In any case it's not, as you keep insisting, 'living of the work of others'. Not when we're talking about people who derive their income via investment. You're trying to equate investors with invalids and dependents, as though capitalists are simply leeches on society. But I think that I, and others here, have shown repeatedly that that's nonsense.

On the other hand, when crazy people start to argue that the people who do the work are living off the non-workers, you have to say something, in order to point out that they're crazy.

Sure. Agreed. But saying something equally stupid in the other direction hardly rectifies things.

 

[Sundial]

My assertion is that income is a product of laws created by men; .

Before there were laws the more you hunted and gathered the more income you had. A law reflects this process it does not create it.

Aristotle is often considered the first conservative because he understood this process and because he didn't think liberal thinking could improve upon it.

That's a good point. Before there were laws, if you hunted and gathered, the product of your work was yours to do with as you wished.

Afterwards, some people were given title to the land, and the people who did the work had to turn over some portion of the value of their work to the owners. If they didn't, they'd go to jail. Or starve.

The law, in other words, created a means for one group of people (the owners) to live off the work of others (the people who actually did the work).

What the USMB right-wing nut squad would have you believe is that it's not the hunters and gatherers who produce the things that are hunted and gathered, but the owners.

They do this by trying to conflate the forest (the thing that is owned) with the owner.

It's crazy, but it's true.

 

[Sundial]

Before there were laws the more you hunted and gathered the more income you had. A law reflects this process it does not create it..

And if you didn't hunt or gather, you starved.

In those days defective humans were somehow disposed of or left to die. That meant that most were actually able to hunt and gather. We have so many disabled/defective people in this day and age which we are morally obligated to support that neither you nor I will ever see less taxes come out of our paychecks. And having worked in the trenches, I can vouch for the fact that most of them aren't just lazy. They really can't be self supporting. Every year I taught, I had students who would say, 'surely that person can push a broom.' I would have to respond, 'OK, show me a job where all that is required is to push a broom.' Even janitorial work requires that a person have some common sense and/ or physical ability.

I was going to retire in August, but with this illness, I now have to plan to work as long as possible. Not many people with my illness are able to be gainfully employed. Because my job is so cushy, I will be able to work far longer than most who have this. My children have stepped up in case I need anything. But my goal in all this is not to need assistance beyond my retirement if at all possible.

Sick or disabled people weren't always left to die. In some cases they had family who helped take care of them.

From the point of view of the owners of things - medieval lords, for example - that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. A worker with a sick or injured family member really can't quit. The owner can treat him as badly as he wants.

 

[Sundial]

And if you didn't hunt or gather, you starved.

In those days defective humans were somehow disposed of or left to die. That meant that most were actually able to hunt and gather. We have so many disabled/defective people in this day and age which we are morally obligated to support that neither you nor I will ever see less taxes come out of our paychecks. And having worked in the trenches, I can vouch for the fact that most of them aren't just lazy. They really can't be self supporting. Every year I taught, I had students who would say, 'surely that person can push a broom.' I would have to respond, 'OK, show me a job where all that is required is to push a broom.' Even janitorial work requires that a person have some common sense and/ or physical ability.

I was going to retire in August, but with this illness, I now have to plan to work as long as possible. Not many people with my illness are able to be gainfully employed. Because my job is so cushy, I will be able to work far longer than most who have this. My children have stepped up in case I need anything. But my goal in all this is not to need assistance beyond my retirement if at all possible.

You are absolutely right that there are people that we should help, for logical and moral reasons. But why should "we" be equated with government violence?

Too many people assume that those who advocate reducing government aid to the poor advocate reducing any aid to the poor. In fact, we simply advocate people aiding the poor through voluntary means rather than coercive ones. The market is better at helping the poor than the government, for those who help the poor in the market do so out of altruism, whereas those who help the poor in government do so to buy votes and political power.

"Voluntary means"? Isn't that just another way of saying, "We hope some other dummy does it, so we don't have to"?

 

[Sundial]

And if you didn't hunt or gather, you starved.

In those days defective humans were somehow disposed of or left to die. That meant that most were actually able to hunt and gather. We have so many disabled/defective people in this day and age which we are morally obligated to support that neither you nor I will ever see less taxes come out of our paychecks. And having worked in the trenches, I can vouch for the fact that most of them aren't just lazy. They really can't be self supporting. Every year I taught, I had students who would say, 'surely that person can push a broom.' I would have to respond, 'OK, show me a job where all that is required is to push a broom.' Even janitorial work requires that a person have some common sense and/ or physical ability.

I was going to retire in August, but with this illness, I now have to plan to work as long as possible. Not many people with my illness are able to be gainfully employed. Because my job is so cushy, I will be able to work far longer than most who have this. My children have stepped up in case I need anything. But my goal in all this is not to need assistance beyond my retirement if at all possible.

It's like a continuance.
Keep the defective alive so that they can breed more defectives and you end up with more defectives to support.
Sorry, but that doesn't seem conducive to keeping a species alive and thriving and bettering itself.
I prefer to not let the defectives of society breed. Let them die if they can't support themselves.
Others my call my position cold, but I want the continued survival of my species.

Let's all hope you don't get sick yourself.

Actually, what do I care?

You're sick already.

 

[Sundial]

In those days defective humans were somehow disposed of or left to die. That meant that most were actually able to hunt and gather. We have so many disabled/defective people in this day and age which we are morally obligated to support that neither you nor I will ever see less taxes come out of our paychecks. And having worked in the trenches, I can vouch for the fact that most of them aren't just lazy. They really can't be self supporting. Every year I taught, I had students who would say, 'surely that person can push a broom.' I would have to respond, 'OK, show me a job where all that is required is to push a broom.' Even janitorial work requires that a person have some common sense and/ or physical ability.

I was going to retire in August, but with this illness, I now have to plan to work as long as possible. Not many people with my illness are able to be gainfully employed. Because my job is so cushy, I will be able to work far longer than most who have this. My children have stepped up in case I need anything. But my goal in all this is not to need assistance beyond my retirement if at all possible.

It's like a continuance.
Keep the defective alive so that they can breed more defectives and you end up with more defectives to support.
Sorry, but that doesn't seem conducive to keeping a species alive and thriving and bettering itself.
I prefer to not let the defectives of society breed. Let them die if they can't support themselves.
Others my call my position cold, but I want the continued survival of my species.

LOL. That takes me back to my Biology 101 class in college. One day I had the audacity to put up my hand and ask if things like life prolonging medications had a tendency to weaken the human race. The class became a den. All I could hear was 'Hitler' and 'Nazi.' Good luck with your belief. I have often wondered how long it would be until there were more people who need to be supported than there are who are doing the work. In my line of work, where I have seen a lot of retardation and debilitating mental illness, it seems we are there now, but we aren't just yet.

An illness, per se, doesn't render one incapable of producing a normal offspring. But a genetically transmitted disease also does not terminate the person's right to procreate. The Human Genome Project is no doubt taking us closer to the time when genetic illnesses will be no more.

When I was in law school, my Constitutional Law professor said that every right we have, even the right to procreate, can be regulated. But when anyone mentions that perhaps it should be half the population goes ape shit.

It's funny how Republicans are for personal freedom - for themselves - and for forceably sterilizing people they believe are inferior to them.

 

[Sundial]

No? Then what did you mean by "Confirmed! Rich People Live Off The Work Of Others!" ?

That ownership is a means of living off the work of others. In other words, having an income without working.

Nah, we went over that. Ownership means having the right and responsibility of deciding what happens with whatever it is that you own. If what you own is capital, you have the 'right and responsibility' to decide how it is used. That 'deciding' is work, believe or not. Very important work, actually. Granted, many will outsource this work to others - in which case they won't make as much since they'll have to share it with the people helping them decide what to do with it - but they still have to pick someone smart or they'll simply lose their money.

In any case it's not, as you keep insisting, 'living of the work of others'. Not when we're talking about people who derive their income via investment. You're trying to equate investors with invalids and dependents, as though capitalists are simply leeches on society. But I think that I, and others here, have shown repeatedly that that's nonsense.

On the other hand, when crazy people start to argue that the people who do the work are living off the non-workers, you have to say something, in order to point out that they're crazy.

Sure. Agreed. But saying something equally stupid in the other direction hardly rectifies things.

I just can't go with you on this, dblack. I have to go back to what - I think - I've already said.

There's no doubt but that making an investment strategy is work. If it wasn't, rich people wouldn't be paying others to do it for them.

But however much income you want to assign to the making of the strategy, rather than the ownership of the thing, the fact remains that some part of the income comes purely by right of ownership. I would argue it's rather the larger part. You - I gather - would argue that it's a small part.

However, there are plenty of rich people who don't make investment decisions at all - either because they've hired someone to do it for them, or because they've owned the same things forever - and they're still plenty rich. If they're not making any investment decisions at all, where does the income come from?

I am equating owners with children and the disabled. I think that's a very good analogy. The nut squad keeps insisting I hate the rich - but I don't hate the rich, any more than I hate children or the sick. Saying that someone is dependent on the rest of us isn't the same as saying that I hate them, or they should be eliminated or destroyed. That's just a projection of the USMB nut squad's squalid defective perverse immorality on someone who doesn't share it.

 

[Dragon]

Ownership means having the right and responsibility of deciding what happens with whatever it is that you own. If what you own is capital, you have the 'right and responsibility' to decide how it is used.

Well and good, but it doesn't follow from this that you should be entitled to own all of the fruits of your capital investment, instead of those who supply the labor. It could as easily be set up so that you are entitled to get back your investment and a reasonable percentage in return if the investment succeeds, but have the remaining proceeds go to those who do the work (both creative and grunt work) -- the exact inverse of the way it's set up now. Or something in between. What we treat as fixed, is fixed only if we choose to make it so.

That 'deciding' is work, believe or not. Very important work, actually. Granted, many will outsource this work to others - in which case they won't make as much since they'll have to share it with the people helping them decide what to do with it - but they still have to pick someone smart or they'll simply lose their money.

Nevertheless, here we see an illustration of why you have presented a fallacy. Yes, allocation of resources is work -- but that's not why a person owns the goods produced. The person who does that work owns the goods produced IF AND ONLY IF he is the same person who owns the capital. If the decisions are "outsourced," the person making them has no right of ownership.

There is a theory of property ownership that is, or at least used to be, common among libertarians involving improvement of resources. But how could it be clearer that the person who improves a resource is not the owner? Or if he is, he isn't the owner BECAUSE he improved the resource, but for a different reason altogether. The system of property ownership we actually have is radically different from the theoretical base for it that many libertarians (at least used to) believe.

It all comes down to what defines ownership. Sure, small business owners usually work damned hard, but that isn't the reason they own their businesses or the goods/services the businesses produce; they would own all that whether they worked hard or not. And that's as true of the "work" of allocating resources as it is of any other work.

 

[daveman]

In those days defective humans were somehow disposed of or left to die. That meant that most were actually able to hunt and gather. We have so many disabled/defective people in this day and age which we are morally obligated to support that neither you nor I will ever see less taxes come out of our paychecks. And having worked in the trenches, I can vouch for the fact that most of them aren't just lazy. They really can't be self supporting. Every year I taught, I had students who would say, 'surely that person can push a broom.' I would have to respond, 'OK, show me a job where all that is required is to push a broom.' Even janitorial work requires that a person have some common sense and/ or physical ability.

I was going to retire in August, but with this illness, I now have to plan to work as long as possible. Not many people with my illness are able to be gainfully employed. Because my job is so cushy, I will be able to work far longer than most who have this. My children have stepped up in case I need anything. But my goal in all this is not to need assistance beyond my retirement if at all possible.

You are absolutely right that there are people that we should help, for logical and moral reasons. But why should "we" be equated with government violence?

Too many people assume that those who advocate reducing government aid to the poor advocate reducing any aid to the poor. In fact, we simply advocate people aiding the poor through voluntary means rather than coercive ones. The market is better at helping the poor than the government, for those who help the poor in the market do so out of altruism, whereas those who help the poor in government do so to buy votes and political power.

"Voluntary means"? Isn't that just another way of saying, "We hope some other dummy does it, so we don't have to"?

You're awfully generous. You'll give a man the shirt off someone else's back.

 

[daveman]

It's like a continuance.
Keep the defective alive so that they can breed more defectives and you end up with more defectives to support.
Sorry, but that doesn't seem conducive to keeping a species alive and thriving and bettering itself.
I prefer to not let the defectives of society breed. Let them die if they can't support themselves.
Others my call my position cold, but I want the continued survival of my species.

LOL. That takes me back to my Biology 101 class in college. One day I had the audacity to put up my hand and ask if things like life prolonging medications had a tendency to weaken the human race. The class became a den. All I could hear was 'Hitler' and 'Nazi.' Good luck with your belief. I have often wondered how long it would be until there were more people who need to be supported than there are who are doing the work. In my line of work, where I have seen a lot of retardation and debilitating mental illness, it seems we are there now, but we aren't just yet.

An illness, per se, doesn't render one incapable of producing a normal offspring. But a genetically transmitted disease also does not terminate the person's right to procreate. The Human Genome Project is no doubt taking us closer to the time when genetic illnesses will be no more.

When I was in law school, my Constitutional Law professor said that every right we have, even the right to procreate, can be regulated. But when anyone mentions that perhaps it should be half the population goes ape shit.

It's funny how Republicans are for personal freedom - for themselves - and for forceably sterilizing people they believe are inferior to them.

Need help swinging that big brush?

 

[daveman]

Ownership means having the right and responsibility of deciding what happens with whatever it is that you own. If what you own is capital, you have the 'right and responsibility' to decide how it is used.

Well and good, but it doesn't follow from this that you should be entitled to own all of the fruits of your capital investment, instead of those who supply the labor.

Those who supply the labor are paid for that labor. You seem to conveniently leave out that fact.

 

[ShackledNation]

In those days defective humans were somehow disposed of or left to die. That meant that most were actually able to hunt and gather. We have so many disabled/defective people in this day and age which we are morally obligated to support that neither you nor I will ever see less taxes come out of our paychecks. And having worked in the trenches, I can vouch for the fact that most of them aren't just lazy. They really can't be self supporting. Every year I taught, I had students who would say, 'surely that person can push a broom.' I would have to respond, 'OK, show me a job where all that is required is to push a broom.' Even janitorial work requires that a person have some common sense and/ or physical ability.

I was going to retire in August, but with this illness, I now have to plan to work as long as possible. Not many people with my illness are able to be gainfully employed. Because my job is so cushy, I will be able to work far longer than most who have this. My children have stepped up in case I need anything. But my goal in all this is not to need assistance beyond my retirement if at all possible.

You are absolutely right that there are people that we should help, for logical and moral reasons. But why should "we" be equated with government violence?

Too many people assume that those who advocate reducing government aid to the poor advocate reducing any aid to the poor. In fact, we simply advocate people aiding the poor through voluntary means rather than coercive ones. The market is better at helping the poor than the government, for those who help the poor in the market do so out of altruism, whereas those who help the poor in government do so to buy votes and political power.

"Voluntary means"? Isn't that just another way of saying, "We hope some other dummy does it, so we don't have to"?

No, it is another way of saying taking on the responsibility to help others yourself and encouraging others to willingly help others rather than demanding the government do so under the threat of imprisonment.

What do you think is better: Give to the poor because it is the right thing to do, or give to the poor because if you don't you will go to jail?

Its called private charity, it exists, and unlike government money it is not wasted paying bureaucrats. Most money spent on welfare and all these social programs get lost in the bureaucracy and don't actually help the problem at all. Today, 70 cents of every dollar spent by the government to fight poverty goes, not to poor people, but to government bureaucrats. Few private charities have the bureaucratic overhead and inefficiency of government programs.

The truth is that government is simply bad at helping poor people because individuals in government are motivated by politics and power far more than altruism. No wonder so many in government demand more welfare spending. They get 70% of it!

 

[Sundial]

LOL. That takes me back to my Biology 101 class in college. One day I had the audacity to put up my hand and ask if things like life prolonging medications had a tendency to weaken the human race. The class became a den. All I could hear was 'Hitler' and 'Nazi.' Good luck with your belief. I have often wondered how long it would be until there were more people who need to be supported than there are who are doing the work. In my line of work, where I have seen a lot of retardation and debilitating mental illness, it seems we are there now, but we aren't just yet.

An illness, per se, doesn't render one incapable of producing a normal offspring. But a genetically transmitted disease also does not terminate the person's right to procreate. The Human Genome Project is no doubt taking us closer to the time when genetic illnesses will be no more.

When I was in law school, my Constitutional Law professor said that every right we have, even the right to procreate, can be regulated. But when anyone mentions that perhaps it should be half the population goes ape shit.

It's funny how Republicans are for personal freedom - for themselves - and for forceably sterilizing people they believe are inferior to them.

Need help swinging that big brush?

It was a big brush. Most Republicans are not as selfishly stupid as the ones on here. Sterilizing disabled people is more of a NAZI policy than a plank of the GOP.