Children raised in government facilities

What would you think of the government raising children, for the sole purpose of working for the government filling positions (state/federal/ they could also be used more military purposes (think of the clones in star wars) Would you help pass this ? Why or Why not ?
  • Yes
    Vote A
  • No
    Vote B
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy
Updates:
Some of you aren't getting the picture, they aren't slaves or brain washed to believe that the government is god and if you don't obey your doing to get killed. These are kids that are raised in an orphan home environment, they get food, shelter, friends and they have the freedom to do what every they want for hobbies, art, music, sports when they turn 16 they repay the government that raise them by working, they get paid for doing these jobs they can live where ever they want
when they are of age or have enough to live on their own, but they are restricted to government jobs.

0|0
312

Most Helpful Guy

  • Here is the essential problem:

    A child is born that is unwanted by both the father and mother.

    Here is society's trilema:

    1. The child will require resources to stay alive, but forcing parents to take care of a child they don't want would invade their right to privacy and freedoms regarding family choices (Grinswald v. Conn.; Roe v. Wade)

    2. Leaving the child completely unprovided for would be equivalent to killing the child.

    3. Nobody wants to pay for that child.

    So, basically, society wants people to have their reproductive and familial autonomy, not kill excessively produced children, keep excessively produced children alive, and also not pay for these children. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too!

    Well, the solution is to then reframe the issue into one involving a "right to life" approved solely by the child.

    This child would otherwise be dead. The biological parents did not want this child. The mother would have aborted it physically, and the father would have aborted it financially, in both instances, the necessary support for the child would be terminated - leading to its death. Society, through its people or its government, is under no duty to care and provide for the child's life. So, this is a child that would otherwise be dead.

    It therefore owes a moral obligation to the person or entity that kept it alive, where all others would have cared less if it died. In your scenario, the government's generosity (really, the taxpayer's generosity) does not stop at merely keeping the child alive. The child is required to work and recoup the cost of its initial care. However, it is not limited to military jobs. It can choose to work in any array of government jobs, jobs that the rest of the civilian population would otherwise not take.

    Why is this "fair" or "moral"? These are children that would otherwise not exist! They would be dead right now, but for the taxpayers not offering them a chance to live. This is essentially a financial deal, a finance structure. The taxpayers will front the costs of raising a child that would otherwise die, and in return, get to recoup those costs through its labor as an adult, working in necessary jobs that the rest of the population would otherwise not take. Everyone wins here.

    I'm all for it, and I think it's a very creative solution that is more cost effective than the current "free lunch" child welfare or privatized social security (i.e., forced fatherhood or prison for willful nonpayment of child support; forced motherhood or prison for murder by abortion) model.

    1|3
    2|1
    • I was thinking more of babies being born for the sole purpose of doing the jobs, not taking babies or orphans. But that way works to.

    • Show All
    • @ QA: if this topic is of interest to you, you may find the following two links interesting: link and link

    • For obvious reasons, it's hopefully clear why neither the radical Democratic model for child welfare and reproductive autonomy ("biological affinity test") nor the radical religilous Republican proposed model for reproductive autonomy (i.e., outlawing abortions) are proper legal frameworks. The former gives unequal power to the female biological parent, while although the latter gives equal rights and obligations to men and women, it unnecessarily takes away reproductive autonomy and liberty.

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Girls & Guys Said

311
  • Of course not. What if those children want to do something else with their life that's not military or governmental? They probably wouldn't have the freedom to leave and pursue other interests.

    Also, I wouldn't ever trust a person raised by the government to work in the government. That shows they have no connection to the people. It's a pretty bad idea, really.

    2|4
    0|0
  • isn't there movies about this? I think it would depend on the economy and how their government works.

    it might help lower unemployment. if you are raised by the government to do government work odds are they would teach you to fill jobs they need.

    0|1
    0|0
    • There's a few movies like this, hitman is one, star wars to, but that is mainly for military purposes I'm just talking about regular jobs.

    • I wonder, can you still learn things like painting, writing, playing a musical instrument. things that wouldn't effect your job but would help you be an individual?

    • I don't see why not, they aren't prisoners they can do what ever they want as a child but as they get older the person of them being born is to service the government that raised them

  • This is assuming that man can devise a smarter system than the one God decreed. Such hubris will always backfire. We have a foster care system already, and it's a disaster.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Ever heard of the Janissaries? They were slaves in to Ottoman empire, raised from childhood to be soldiers for the empire. Over time they also began to fill administrative roles within the government. Eventually it the entire empire became dependent on these "slaves", a fact that was not lost on the Janissaries. They had become indispensable to the empire. This allowed them to dictate policies, gain wealth, and even organize coups whenever they wanted a more accommodating sultan on the throne. The slaves became the slaveholders, and they used their power to benefit themselves at the expense of the empire, until its eventual collapse.

    History shows that going down this path only leads to ruin. And that is only looking at it from a practical point of view, discounting the pesky issue of human rights.

    0|1
    0|0
    • "they aren't slaves"

      "but they are restricted to government jobs"

      These two statements are completely contradictory.

    • Slaves don't get paid and can do what ever they want outside of their job doesn't sound that bad to me

  • Are you suggesting this for all kids, or for those who don't have appropriate parents?

    If the latter, how is this different in your mind from what exists today?

    As for generally billing kids for being raised, take a look at the national debt. We already are.

    0|0
    0|0
    • The children as breed and raised at the place. No kids are taken in.

    • I'm not sure what the point of this would be.

      Especially given we need to get rid of civil servants, not add more.

    • its just a hypothetical question lol I'm not referancing anything to now.

  • Of course not. That's akin to slavery, and it's no way for a child to grow up. You cannot just breed a bunch of humans to use as robots and control their lives. Absolutely not okay.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Restricting people to government jobs for their entire lives still doesn't fly with me. Especially when it's just specific people, not all citizens.

  • That sounds like something the communist party or current democratic party would do.

    That is anti-freedom and anti-entrepreneurship that our country was founded on. If anything, we need less government.

    0|1
    0|0
  • well it might work for a while but the moment they become self aware, they could, especially if they where trained for the military, become dangerous

    0|1
    0|0
  • No, it would make the labor market ineficient, because the most capable wouldn't fill the jobs. When anybody can take a position, people have an inceptive to better themselves in order to get that position. In that case people compete with each other to get that job, by going to school etc etc. If something like what you mentioned excisted, people wouldn't be as motivated to better themselves and to study harder, making the labor market and society worst off. Also bringing people with only one type of mentality (the one that the same goverment teaches them) to do such important jobs, would be very rigid and ineficcient. I can see these clones creating a dictariorship, because basically no body else outside the real world, would be able to input their ideas. This is one of the main pillars or democracy: Different minds getting together to debate and make decisions on decisions.

    0|1
    0|0
  • MONARCH PROJECT

    0|2
    0|0
  • That is still slavery. These kids are mostly being raised in non-profit homes ran by Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, or something other than the government.

    The kids should be raised to understand free market principals, and how to get a student loan for college to go out and make something of themselves. They will repay society by paying off those loans and paying way much more in taxes down the road.

    Remember, Steve Jobs was an orphan and contributed much more $$$ in taxes and other benefits to society than if were forced to work as a slave in a minimum wage environment of digging ditches.

    0|0
    0|0
    • They owe their life to the government that raised them. They can do what they want as long as it helps the government, more jobs could be created to give them a wider range of jobs or that suits what they want to do.

    • They don't owe the government anything but taxes. The government is there to serve us. Remember, most of these kids are not raised by an unloving government, but by very loving Christians in Christian homes, or by loving people who adopt them. We really need less government and more people who care and contribute. I would rather these kids be raised to care and contribute value than become a government droid that wants to only take. Your suggestion has been tried in Germany & Russia.

    • "Your suggestion has been tried in Germany & Russia" 1930s and they were communist, 2000s and freedom should work out differently. Maybe they could have a option to serve their government and get extra perks or do what they want.

  • In order to have such a plan there's always a reason behind it, example, those were the exact same methods of Adolf Hitler hints there is always a tyrant dictator with a future plan to instate such an idea. So the question is pretty much self explaining.

    A: Who would be supplying those children for the government? B: would you want to be one of those government serving children? D: The government isn't a person or parent, so why would a government want to have its own family? There would have to be a master plan somewhere.

    0|1
    0|0
    • In addition I would like to add. Individual people aka Jane and John Doe citizen may have their own idea of this concept and it's good in their own mind. But when it's someone in a governmental position's idea, that's a political power idea hints he or she is very a dangerous person not with the same ideas, bank on it. Hitler's ideology was everybody had to be perfect and the government decided what you would be, a janitor, plumber, backer, whatever. continued

    • Show All
    • Hitler ordered the Brown Shirt to turn in or report anyone who wasn't loyal to, talked bad about or against Hitler or his government and those who were considered impaired or wasn't a benefit to Hitler, you name it. In the end when Hitler say how well the Brown Shirts turned over their own people, gave them up, had them killed etc, even Hitler lost trust in them and Hitler had them killed. Hitler was suppose to be against communism yet his ideas and actions were communist.

    • Getting the wrong idea is where it all starts. Some folks in the US for example think it's a good idea to convert to communism because their idea in their own mind is perfect. They have it down how it's suppose to work in other words. But the reality of it is government lets them think their own way to get their way. But once the conversion is over it goes the governments way nothing less than unpleasant to the people.

  • Shit, they basically do that in China LOL

    0|1
    0|0
  • No but I also think that women who can't afford their children who keep getting pregnant by different men should be spayed/tubes tied... And baby's daddy's who have no involvement with their kids neutered or at least vasectomy's.. Once they have three children/ strikes that is... I'm not totally heartless but how many welfare baby's? It's like idiocrocy.. Responsible people can't afford to have kids till their mid 30's because of tax's when those are the people who should be having lots of baby's for being smart lol just saying

    2|5
    0|1

Recommended myTakes

Loading...