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

[Detective Mask]

---

Dili ko uyon ani. Sa papel mura siya ug pro-environment, but eventually nag-restrict na sad ni sa atong freedom. Why do we have to be forced to plant a tree if we have a kid? It's like planting a tree is penalty for having a kid. And they even have the audacity to impose monetary sanctions kung dili ni matuman?

Unya unsaon man ang mga pobreng pamilya? Gamay ra gani sila kwarta para sa ilang kaugalingon, unya pugson pa gyud sila na motanom ug kahoy?

Sure, we need more trees in our country, but forcing people to do so is not the right way to do it. Especially if at the end of the day, planting a tree becomes a mere legal requirement. I mean, burden na man ni on the part of the parents, so do you think they would really feel the passion to take care of this tree that had been a legal burden for them? There's a good chance na pasagdan ra ang kahoy, hangtod sa mamatay ra gihapon. And kung mamatay, it essentially defeats the whole point of this bill.

[Gray_Fox]

Magkatawa lang ko mka remember sa gi storya akong cousin in law nga na vice president sauna sa VECO. Nagbuhat cla ug proposal nga kelangan daw ang VECO mo bayad sa mga yuta nga gi tukuran sa mga poste. Gi counter pud nla nga pde ra daw bayaran nla pero yaw lang mo palag nga ang bayad sa yuta, e hapak ra pud sa bayranan sa korente. hahahaha.

Anyway, ang point lang is wa man problema mo plant ug trees. Ang problema asa man nang mga yutaa pde mabutangan ug trees? Naglisod na gani ang mga taw pamalit ug yuta, kaltasan pa jud ang yuta para plant ug trees? Binugok man ni nga proposal oist unless ang goberno mo provide ug yuta para plant ug trees.

Asa man dae nang mga taxes gpang bayad sa gobyerno? daghan man na sobra. Mao unta na e palit ug yuta para plant ug trees. dli kay cge buhat fly over or skywalk nga mga walay gamit!

[DailyCore]

Dili ko uyon ani. Sa papel mura siya ug pro-environment, but eventually nag-restrict na sad ni sa atong freedom. Why do we have to be forced to plant a tree if we have a kid? It's like planting a tree is penalty for having a kid. And they even have the audacity to impose monetary sanctions kung dili ni matuman?

Unya unsaon man ang mga pobreng pamilya? Gamay ra gani sila kwarta para sa ilang kaugalingon, unya pugson pa gyud sila na motanom ug kahoy?

Sure, we need more trees in our country, but forcing people to do so is not the right way to do it. Especially if at the end of the day, planting a tree becomes a mere legal requirement. I mean, burden na man ni on the part of the parents, so do you think they would really feel the passion to take care of this tree that had been a legal burden for them? There's a good chance na pasagdan ra ang kahoy, hangtod sa mamatay ra gihapon. And kung mamatay, it essentially defeats the whole point of this bill.

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

[reptoid]

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

I think the idea is that we start now, I very much doubt it would be backdated. The purpose is threefold from what I can see:

1. Create a sense of national pride.
2. Focus attention on population growth and sustainability
3. Heal the environment

Perhaps after a decade of this law the ten-child family will be less common than it is today. One thing's for sure... inaction isn't going to solve anything.

[leo_trams]

ang mga tawo man hinuon ang gisilotan ani.
what about the loggers, lumber stores, lumber yards, lumber shippers, land developers..? tagpila man kakahoy ang ilang itanom?

sige ta ug tanom unya laing tawo ra ang moputol.
ang worst ani kay naa nila ang ginansya sa kahoy nga atong gitanom.

dapat ang mga government employees, ilabi na ang mga elected officials must plant 1,000 trees every year nga naa sila sa pwesto.

[machinecult]

We pay tax in a democracy, it's not optional. When you get to the checkout the cashier doesn't say "would you like to pay VAT sir"? For me it's exactly the same principle.

Paying taxes is actually beneficial for the country and its effects are mutual. For instance, we use the roads we are taxed for, we enjoy the benefit of having law enforcers around our streets, we seek to have a strong armed forces etc.. Real infrastructural improvements that promote the growth of civilization.

Planting trees on the other hand is inherently good but its more ideologically based. First, we can never say it will stop floods especially when we are experiencing abnormal climate changes that are beyond our control, added by the fact that we have a inadequate drainage systems and garbage disposal that should have been the priority. So passing this bill makes someone's ideology a law and people could end up in jail by having a different belief. Sounds like revenge of the nature-worshippers.

[reptoid]

Paying taxes is actually beneficial for the country and its effects are mutual. For instance, we use the roads we are taxed for, we enjoy the benefit of having law enforcers around our streets, we seek to have a strong armed forces etc.. Real infrastructural improvements that promote the growth of civilization.

Planting trees on the other hand is inherently good but its more ideologically based. First, we can never say it will stop floods especially when we are experiencing abnormal climate changes that are beyond our control, added by the fact that we have a inadequate drainage systems and garbage disposal that should have been the priority. So passing this bill makes someone's ideology a law and people could end up in jail by having a different belief. Sounds like revenge of the nature-worshippers.

Most countries force certain things on their citizens, usually people don't realize because they are used to it. You are forced to educate your children, you are forced to ensure that they receive certain vaccinations etc. Even pet ownership comes with responsibilities and legal obligations in many places. The reason why things are compulsory is generally because they are important and for the betterment of society. Nobody is trying to enslave you and the fine aspect is there to ensure that everybody plays their part because unfortunately human nature being what it is there are a lot of lazy and undisciplined people who would rather let other people do things while they sit back and watch.

Wouldn't you feel proud twenty years from now taking your kids to a national park for an outing, maybe have a picnic under a group of trees which belong to them, planted by you when you were a young man?

[emow]

Most countries force certain things on their citizens, usually people don't realize because they are used to it. You are forced to educate your children, you are forced to ensure that they receive certain vaccinations etc. Even pet ownership comes with responsibilities and legal obligations in many places. The reason why things are compulsory is generally because they are important and for the betterment of society. Nobody is trying to enslave you and the fine aspect is there to ensure that everybody plays their part because unfortunately human nature being what it is there are a lot of lazy and undisciplined people who would rather let other people do things while they sit back and watch.

Wouldn't you feel proud twenty years from now taking your kids to a national park for an outing, maybe have a picnic under a group of trees which belong to them, planted by you when you were a young man?

I think you are touching on this fundamental question: Who owns you? You or your government? I subscribe to an idea by Bastiat that men are better off living their own lives according to self-interest rather than a single goal designed by other men. Government is not the divine disciplinarian who can effectively straighten out men on what it thinks is right. There are rules. But not all rules are moral or in accordance to natural rights.

Even looking at it at an environmental perspective, government can never be as efficient if it were left to man to solve his problems. A top down approach with this aspect will dissolve into many anomalies and will never achieve its noble intent. Its application necessitates the use of force to free men. That is, in principle, tyranny in all its full meaning.

[reptoid]

I think you are touching on this fundamental question: Who owns you? You or your government? I subscribe to an idea by Bastiat that men are better off living their own lives according to self-interest rather than a single goal designed by other men. Government is not the divine disciplinarian who can effectively straighten out men on what it thinks is right. There are rules. But not all rules are moral or in accordance to natural rights.

Even looking at it at an environmental perspective, government can never be as efficient if it were left to man to solve his problems. A top down approach with this aspect will dissolve into many anomalies and will never achieve its noble intent. Its application necessitates the use of force to free men. That is, in principle, tyranny in all its full meaning.

This is not tyranny, in fact compared to taxing big families or a one-child policy this is simply gentle persuasion. If it's really a big deal for some folks and they think this bill is somehow oppressive I would suggest that they simply "opt out" during their child's registration of birth. It would be sad though in my opinion if a child was deprived of camping trips with his buddies and suchlike because his father was ideologically opposed to planting a tree in a public place.

There are a great many bills which I do not support and some which I find utterly ridiculous, but this bill strikes me as being beneficial on several levels and quite straightforward to implement.

[street_of_no_return]

dapat kanang sige pamutol ug kahoy maoy mananum ug taman. purbeda pud ni sila oe