If a woman keeps on having more and more kids, and continues to leech off the system should the government have the right to order a woman to get her tubes tied? Believe me I am all for personal freedom, with minimal government interference in our lives, but if a woman who is irresponsible and has kids uncontrollably continues to milk the system, that is not fair to the tax payers, plus later on in life the probably of her kids turning into thiefs and killers is increased because of bad parenting……what im trying to get at is, at what point does a government have the right to infrindge on this womans personal privacy because doesn’t the government have to look out for us taxpayers?
it doesnt have to include all of these but i have to make 10 amendments based on either personal freedom,privacy,expression/press,guns,citizens rights,government rights,immigration,drugs/alcohol,crime&punishment,taxation,defense of country,search&seizure,trial procedures&protections. also a short preamble,i aint creative so please help.
You intend to leave your three children no less than two million dollars each by the time you retire at 70. A paragon of virtue that you are, in that you uphold the importance of industriousness, discipline, education, personal freedom restrained by responsibility to loved ones and to others, you and your wife will do everything you could including sending your children to the most exclusive universities in the land, to make them successful financially and otherwise. In your view, leaving them two million when you retire is just a blissful gesture of parenthood, and the responsibility that collective parenthood calls for in our society.
To achieve your goal, you have to start investing on the dates of your children’s birth days which happen to be on your 30th birth day for your first child, on your 32nd birth day for your second child and 34th birth day for your third child. You and your wife share the same birth day.
You might consider using the commonly used Consumer Price Index (CPI) to measure the magnitude of the invisible economic force that nibbles at your well-intentioned well-being of your children, that is, you should protect your children against the illusion of having a Victorian Mansion in the most coveted spot in the land, while indeed, they may not be able to afford an umbrella-sized roof over their head, just to mention one of the necessities of life, say, in NYC……….
The state of the economy suggests that CPI in 2000, when you start investing, is almost 100. It is predicted to be 327 in 2040. That implies a reduction in buying power i.e. the change in cost of living of almost 3%. The nominal interest rate is expected to be 10% (on average) over the period you are considering.
You are required to come up with a sound financial planning to achieve your goal. Determine how much, where, when and how to invest to achieve your goals?

Which is more likely to directly restrict your personal freedom today: the Nanny State or the Patriot Act?
cvq, if I would have had room, I would have added all those! Thanks for your answer.
ooooolala, I think that is an excellent answer, but to a different question.
I was looking for your take on which was more restrictive to your everyday life: the Nanny State or the Patriot Act. Thanks for your response, but I’m still not clear what your answer is to the question asked.
I don’t believe there’s a difference, or at least do not think that one could exist without the other. Its more like two aspects of one whole.
It is inevitable that the social safety net eventually become a prison cell, and its gradualism & empty promises that make it possible.
Ron Paul on marijuana, prohibition, and personal freedom
