> I didn't suggest genocide, not at all your alternative is to eliminate a significant potion of the population
managing populations is something you do with sheep and cattle, not human beings.
using the word "eliminate" and 'treating people like cattle' isn't consistent with merely incentivising them to not have children.> The comment I'm responding to explicitly recommends forced reduction in fertility rates, removing agency where does it? It's a comment previous that the same poster talks about Chinas 1cp, and as I understand it, it was implemented as a fine for having more than one child. Do punitive fines, and tax/welfare incentives/disincentives count as being "forced" or "non-agency"? > Any law that tells human beings how many children they are allowed to have is fascism, yes. I disagree. Point me to a commonly accepted definition of fascism that agrees, without requiring too much subjective interpretation. Anyone can have their own notion of what constitutes freedom/oppression etc. > Any directive telling human beings how they have to reproduce is eugenics by definition. Again, show me that definition. Most that I've seen limit the choice of who can procreate. A flat rule of 1-child applied to everyone equally doesn't seem to apply to me as there is no differentiation based on genetics. But in any case, a rose by any other name: deciding something fits a definition doesn't really change the semantics, so it doesn't really make any difference, especially if you are using a special-case, or non-standard application of the definition (e.g. like arguing abortion is bad based on whether it counts as murder, or not). |
Managing populations does not have to include killing people. China's one child policy strictly and explicitly prohibited couples from having more than one child. You're softening the definition of what I was responding to to discredit my response.