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

[high_heels]

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?

very well said. Other people would simply sit their @ss off and pinpoint on mistakes and so on and so forth. Still, I will support this bill. and those who do not support it, well......they can always nag and complain that "its the governments" job siting other reasons why this is a useless cause. and on a personal note, that is just a pathetic explanation for me.

those who are irked with my statements, argue if you want. In the end, your reasoning will not move me. I prefer to do something for my environment and for my society without being told.

[reptoid]

Originally Posted by high_heels View Post
If you look at the poll of this thread, majority agrees to the bill because they see more of the benefits compared to your line of reasoning that its a useless cause.

That's all right. Popular vote is not always the right vote.

Democracy bro..... you have to respect the majority. Maybe it deserves a referendum, but really I can't see this law being a burden to anybody.

[DailyCore]

Instead of making a requirement that affects all families around the nation, why not make the tree planting proposal voluntary and offer incentives? At least families will have a choice.

[emow]

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.

It is totally unnecessary... the history of government causes are a full proof of failures. I too want to plant more trees, in fact i keep a small garden.. But this is totally absurd, forcing people to plant trees. The bureaucracies built within this bill will be no different than any other bureaucracies. DENR is bad enough an agency with massive corruption, this will be even be more corrupt. The monitoring costs alone makes any economist cry... Gentle persuasion you say? “The prosecution of violation committed by the erring Local Civil Registrar shall be without prejudice to the filing of a criminal case against the guilty parents or parent,” Olivarez added. A criminal case on something that does not cause any violation to a third party? That is philosophically mad. and by passing a legislation on it reaffirms the strength of the government over the lives of its people, which is totally contradictory to our Republican system of governance.

[emow]

very well said. Other people would simply sit their @ss off and pinpoint on mistakes and so on and so forth. Still, I will support this bill. and those who do not support it, well......they can always nag and complain that "its the governments" job siting other reasons why this is a useless cause. and on a personal note, that is just a pathetic explanation for me.

those who are irked with my statements, argue if you want. In the end, your reasoning will not move me. I prefer to do something for my environment and for my society without being told.

precisely why we don't need this bill. I don't agree with this bill but i'm willing to plant trees on my own, in fact i have a small garden with one lemon tree on the way, if it survives. It is not the intent of the bill that is wrong, but the principle behind in its implementation that's wrong.

[emow]

Democracy bro..... you have to respect the majority. Maybe it deserves a referendum, but really I can't see this law being a burden to anybody.

Numbers cannot make black white.. Nor can it make white black. We are much of a Democratic Republic nation, often times we only know Democracy and forget the Republic.

[reptoid]

Instead of making a requirement that affects all families around the nation, why not make the tree planting proposal voluntary and offer incentives? At least families will have a choice.

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.

The incentive is that we have a big national park to enjoy for cycling, camping, walking etc. We will also improve our air quality and at the same time create a haven for wildlife. Obesity is on the rise as more and more youngsters stay indoors to play video games and watch TV. Let's given them a good reason to venture outdoors.

[reptoid]

It is totally unnecessary... the history of government causes are a full proof of failures.

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.

[high_heels]

precisely why we don't need this bill. I don't agree with this bill but i'm willing to plant trees on my own, in fact i have a small garden with one lemon tree on the way, if it survives. It is not the intent of the bill that is wrong, but the principle behind in its implementation that's wrong.

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!

[machinecult]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.