Congress proposal - REQUIRE all parents to plant a tree for each child born to them

[reptoid]

---

Education is not forced. Believe it or not you have the right whether you go to school although that's never a popular option. (Re-education camps like in Communist countries are forced. In Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge they drag children away from their families and put them to schools to indoctrinate them.) Some vaccinations on the other hand are obligatory due to the nature of the disease. Polio for instance is highly contagious. So optional vaccination for polio does more harm and debating whether its infringing our rights borders on the unnecessary.

I think you'll find that in most developed countries the education of a child is the legal responsibility of the parent whether this education takes place at a school or within the home is another matter. I think you just proved my point re: vaccinations.

The state cannot reprimand people simply for being lazy or undisciplined. These are personal issues and the government should have no say on the matter whether individuals chose to be inactive in society. States should not dictate what a person's characteristics are, that's a household affair. Doing your part for the betterment of society is noble duty for every citizen but to punish those who can not and will not seems too malevolent for a country that practices democracy under a constitutional republic. If you are truly responsible the lazy and the undisciplined shouldn't bother you.

Actually the state can and does punish you for be lazy... it's generally termed "neglect".

To tell you the truth I am fortunate to live in an area where there are so many trees and my father works in a branch of the government that deals with the environment. So I'm actually very prone to environmentalism and the value of nature. It is also not that difficult to tell whether environmentalism is sincere and when its just used by groups for their own agenda.

To answer your question, I would be more proud to live in a desert where there is freedom for my children than in a garden where trees are more valuable than my children and their rights.

You're taking an extreme stance for the sake of argument. Who said that trees are more important than your children's rights? How is you paying a few pesos and making a journey to plant a tree in a newly created national park destroying your children's future to the point that you would make them live in a desert? Sounds a bit crazy to be honest bro.

[emow]

well you are not getting my point, in this scenario I would rather act with my own initiatives because it's sad to know that people will always find a reason not to do certain things. And in truth, theres a huge number of people who simply doesnt do things on their own whether if its mandatory by the government or not. its really sad...really really really sad!

i got your point... you have the initiative to do that, and that's good. But to those who don't share your beliefs, why should they be persecuted? Coming from you, there are just people who don't want to do something whether its mandatory or not. Why persecute them? Are they of any danger to anyone? Yes, they maybe lazy and ignorant... But that aspect of laziness and ignorance does not pose any threat to anyone. Civic action from the community is more appropriate than a legal force of government.

[emow]

While I appreciate your thoughtful response I do find this attitude pessimistic. We should not dwell on the past and fear progress because of the failures of others but instead take a proactive approach and seek out a better path both for ourselves and for future generations. Instead of accepting dysfunctional government departments demand accountability and performance, giving up is not the answer.

Fear progress? Making this bill into law is a backward step in human intellectual evolution! The facts of life is that which involves economics in every aspect of legislation. It has intended consequences and unintended consequences. Is this the only way to promote the environment, with the constant threat of force? I believe you are taking your freedom so lightly.

I'm not pessimistic for just pessimistic sake. Apart from the miniscule government successes, tons of failures has caused this country to squander its capital. Giving up is not the answer as Government is not the answer. Civic action from the communities is a far better alternative than this threat of legal action. We are a Republic, not a Dictatorship. We are a people of persuasion and not of coercion.

[reptoid]

Fear progress? Making this bill into law is a backward step in human intellectual evolution! The facts of life is that which involves economics in every aspect of legislation. It has intended consequences and unintended consequences. Is this the only way to promote the environment, with the constant threat of force? I believe you are taking your freedom so lightly.

I'm not pessimistic for just pessimistic sake. Apart from the miniscule government successes, tons of failures has caused this country to squander its capital. Giving up is not the answer as Government is not the answer. Civic action from the communities is a far better alternative than this threat of legal action. We are a Republic, not a Dictatorship. We are a people of persuasion and not of coercion.

I respect your position. Unfortunately on this occasion I think you're entirely wrong. I hold liberal values and I am probably more idealistic than most, however as a businessman I also confront and deal with realities on a daily basis and the big reality here is that people are complacent and lacking in motivation. They want change, but cannot be bothered to be a part of that change. This why people like Marcos still get support.... they want a strong leader to tell them what to do. That is a dictatorship, so if you want progress and you want to preserve your freedom supporting progressive initiatives now is the answer. Don't wait until stagnation creates an opening for the next strongman.

[emow]

I respect your position. Unfortunately on this occasion I think you're entirely wrong. I hold liberal values and I am probably more idealistic than most, however as a businessman I also confront and deal with realities on a daily basis and the big reality here is that people are complacent and lacking in motivation. They want change, but cannot be bothered to be a part of that change. This why people like Marcos still get support.... they want a strong leader to tell them what to do. That is a dictatorship, so if you want progress and you want to preserve your freedom supporting progressive initiatives now is the answer. Don't wait until stagnation creates an opening for the next strongman.

so what if people are complacent, don't they have the right to live their own lives? I am my own master and i dictate what i want to do with my liberties. I respect your liberties, respect mine. You have no personal agenda in whatever any other person wish to live his life. And since you find them repulsive and utterly losers, you invoke the government to give them this "gentle persuasion" to conform to a "unified" idea of progress?

Like you, i care for the environment. But i cannot force my neighbor to plant trees if he doesn't want to. that is being consistent with respecting individual rights. An action that is wrong between citizens is still wrong between government and its citizens.

[DailyCore]

Can you imagine environmental groups like the WWF bribing officials to make legislation for them, even if it means imposing those groups' agenda on every citizen?

[reptoid]

so what if people are complacent, don't they have the right to live their own lives? I am my own master and i dictate what i want to do with my liberties. I respect your liberties, respect mine. You have no personal agenda in whatever any other person wish to live his life. And since you find them repulsive and utterly losers, you invoke the government to give them this "gentle persuasion" to conform to a "unified" idea of progress?

Like you, i care for the environment. But i cannot force my neighbor to plant trees if he doesn't want to. that is being consistent with respecting individual rights. An action that is wrong between citizens is still wrong between government and its citizens.

You're beginning to sound like a rebel without a cause. Of course people can live their own lives and I already stated quite clearly that for me folks can choose to "opt-out" at the time their child's birth is registered. Whether or not they can enjoy the national park in the future after their parents decided not to contribute is debatable and something for the stakeholders to decide.

[emow]

You're beginning to sound like a rebel without a cause. Of course people can live their own lives and I already stated quite clearly that for me folks can choose to "opt-out" at the time their child's birth is registered. Whether or not they can enjoy the national park in the future after their parents decided not to contribute is debatable and something for the stakeholders to decide.

Why couldn't they use that national park? even if they opt out they still pay taxes to pay for your park. Why should there be a national park in the first place? Don't tell me government will be spending on these parks. You know how horrible these government workers are, right?

I am no rebel. Watch your words. My cause is the belief in "Live and let live". Yours is " Live like me or else."

[Detective Mask]

Can you imagine parents who have 10 or more children being forced to plant trees?

Maayo ni na punto. Unya di ba kasagaran sa mga pamilya na daghan ug pamilya kay mga pobre na pamilya? So, unsaon nimo pag-expect na matuman nila kini na balaod?

Ug ang penalty sa mga parents kay dili sila makakuha ug birth certificate? Unya kung wala gyud, unsaon na man ang bata? Di ba requirement man gyud ang birth certificate sa pang-eskwela? And our Constitution even mandates parents to let their children have basic education, so how can they fulfill this other obligation when they are barred from doing so because they could not fulfill another obligation?

The logic would eventually be like this:
1. You need to plant 2 trees to get your child's birth certificate.
2. You need a birth certificate to let your child go to school.

So in effect...
You need to plant 2 trees to let your child go to school. Otherwise, dili sila maka-eskwela, ug posible pa na ma-sanction ang mga parents for neglect. All because they couldn't plant two trees.

The more I think about this, the more I feel that this bill is becoming some sort of a non-monetary tax for giving birth. So what are we saying here? That we should tax people for giving birth? It's not enough that we tax people for their incomes and for their "sins", we even have to "tax" them for giving birth to a child?

So in effect, what is the whole point of this bill? Is this the RH bill in disguise?

Is this really aimed at increasing trees in the country? Because like I said previously, kung motanom ta kay gipugos ta sa gobyerno, ganahan ba gyud ta na mag-atiman sa kahoy? Kung gutom ang mga tawo, ganahan ba gyud sila na mag-atiman ug kahoy?

[reptoid]

Why couldn't they use that national park? even if they opt out they still pay taxes to pay for your park.

Why? Quite obviously because this hypothetical park is paid for from the tree fund and not from income tax or VAT. You can't have it both ways, pay and use it or don't pay and don't use it, simple.

"Live like me or else". Lol... which part of opt-out did you not understand?