In writing an essay on JS Mill I came across a passage where he challenges the right to reproduce. He asserts that prospective parents should be made to take a test to see whether or not they are suitable to have progeny. One-hundred and fifty years later adoption agencies are required to excessively screen prospective child recipients.
Both these measures are done "in the name of protecting the children" but are obvious intrusions of the government into the lives - and bedrooms - of its citizens.
How do I respond to the following argument:
"We need the government to decide who gets to have kids because otherwise kids would be growing up abused and living in squalour"
Irish Liberty Forum
I would respond that the government is adequately equipped to protect children who are "abused and living in squalour" as is, and therefore, there is no reason for preemptory measures. The government's role is to protect, not preempt. Private adoption agencies are capable of ensuring that children go to caring parents.
MatthewWilliam: How do I respond to the following argument: "We need the government to decide who gets to have kids because otherwise kids would be growing up abused and living in squalour"
Why not take it to its logical (and absurd) conclusion: "Since people can't be trusted to take care of their kids, the government should take all children at birth and raise them in state-sponsered nurseries."
Or, even better: "Since, according to the government, no one is qualified to have kids, having children should be a punishable offense!"
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Well, I always think that John was coming at this on two levels...
One, he was all for government intrusion when it came to the society protecting itself. He saw unrestricted population growth as a "harm" against the society at large, so he would be all for restrictions on breeding.
Two, he really felt that educated people were better. He had schemes for increasing the voting rights of people who were educated, because they could make better judgments than those who were not. So he would be all for letting educated people breed before others.
I am for restricted population growth. If anyone feels that a person should prove their competence (to either a government or a private institution) before they can own a firearm, or a motor vehicle, or an airplane...then why shouldn't they prove their competence to have a child...an act that has far more wide-reaching impacts on the society as a whole.
MatthewWilliam:"We need the government to decide who gets to have kids because otherwise kids would be growing up abused and living in squalour"
One thing I might ask is, "how many kids are growing up abused and in squalor now because the government doesn't currently decide who gets to have kids?" Then follow that up with, "wouldn't it be better if the government didn't encourage people to have kids by paying higher welfare benefits to families with more kids?"
I agree that forcefully curbing reproduction by law would be an infringement of liberty. The real answer is to ensure that parents bear the full costs of having children.
Ronorama:I agree that forcefully curbing reproduction by law would be an infringement of liberty.
Why? Is it because there are limits being placed on what you do with your own property?
My thoughts on this go back to the "preemptive defense" issue. You think that forcing parents to bear the full cost of having children will stem population growth, and I disagree. The places with the highest population growth are the areas of the world where infant mortality is the highest and per capita GDP is the lowest. Who suffers? The children, not the parents. So a few of their kids starve to death or die from disease. We can just make more.
By restricting reproduction you are performing a preemptive defense. I would use this same idea to defend restricting weapon ownership to those who take safety and marksmanship courses, and vehicle access to those who first show an ability to operate them safely.
MatthewWilliam: In writing an essay on JS Mill I came across a passage where he challenges the right to reproduce. He asserts that prospective parents should be made to take a test to see whether or not they are suitable to have progeny. One-hundred and fifty years later adoption agencies are required to excessively screen prospective child recipients. Both these measures are done "in the name of protecting the children" but are obvious intrusions of the government into the lives - and bedrooms - of its citizens. How do I respond to the following argument: "We need the government to decide who gets to have kids because otherwise kids would be growing up abused and living in squalour"
Did you know that government-run schools, orphanages, and charities are more likely to abuse children than families? I was just talking to a relative about that yesterday. She was fuming about how bureaucrats (those working for UNICEF, in particular) seem to get away with doing anything to children, especially girls.
Whenever I hear some air-head socialist talking about the need for all children attend public school so that "the teachers can monitor the children for signs of abuse," I am stunned by the implication that parents do not have a natural instinct to protect their children from harm, and that public school teachers do.
Also, you might hear the same airhead socialist making the Orwellian proposal that children need to be "protected" from their parents "indoctrinating" them with their beliefs. I always interpret that as meaning, "It shoud be a crime for parents to teach their children what they believe! They should be forced to teach their children what I believe!"
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Jonas:If anyone feels that a person should prove their competence (to either a government or a private institution) before they can own a firearm, or a motor vehicle, or an airplane...then why shouldn't they prove their competence to have a child...an act that has far more wide-reaching impacts on the society as a whole.
The key difference is between government and private. The government is force, private is voluntary.
ama gi:Did you know that government-run schools, orphanages, and charities are more likely to abuse children than families?
Excellent point. I believe it was in 2004 (the latest stats I read) that there were over 200,000 reported cases of abuse in public schools in the United States. God save the Queen.
Jonas:By restricting reproduction you are performing a preemptive defense. I would use this same idea to defend restricting weapon ownership to those who take safety and marksmanship courses, and vehicle access to those who first show an ability to operate them safely.
And who exactly would decide who makes a good parent and who doesn't? Or what makes a good parent?
Im not sure how you can really justify your sickening beliefs that the state should be able to control the population in such a way but your "preemptive defense" garbage certainly doesn't cut the mustard. Your thought process is completely foolish, you say because a child born to a poor parent may die early, it is better they not be born at all. But who the hell knows what a childs fate will be under any circumstance. Certainly many rich people's children have died young and likewise many and in fact most poor people will see there children grow up into at least middle age. And how are children born to poor parents a burden on society anyways? You seem here to be justifying statism out of irrational fears and faulty logic.
Jonas:Why? Is it because there are limits being placed on what you do with your own property?
Well gee I wonder.
Whoa, easy boy. Sickening, eh? Overreact much?
Do you believe that 10-year-old kids should have every right to carry a loaded and concealed handgun to school?
Do you believe that, with no training and no experience whatsoever, I should be able to climb into a airplane and go flying over a heavily-populated residential area?
Jonas:Do you believe that, with no training and no experience whatsoever, I should be able to climb into a airplane and go flying over a heavily-populated residential area?
Jonas: Ronorama:I agree that forcefully curbing reproduction by law would be an infringement of liberty.Why? Is it because there are limits being placed on what you do with your own property?
Jonas:By restricting reproduction you are performing a preemptive defense.
Jonas:I am for restricted population growth.
MatthewWilliam:How do I respond to the following argument: "We need the government to decide who gets to have kids because otherwise kids would be growing up abused and living in squalour"
Jonas: Whoa, easy boy. Sickening, eh? Overreact much?
I consider it a measured response. If you think it's an overreaction, just try acting on those beliefs in the real world on people who are free to react appropriately.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
CopperHead: Jonas:By restricting reproduction you are performing a preemptive defense. I would use this same idea to defend restricting weapon ownership to those who take safety and marksmanship courses, and vehicle access to those who first show an ability to operate them safely. And who exactly would decide who makes a good parent and who doesn't? Or what makes a good parent? Im not sure how you can really justify your sickening beliefs that the state should be able to control the population in such a way but your "preemptive defense" garbage certainly doesn't cut the mustard. Your thought process is completely foolish, you say because a child born to a poor parent may die early, it is better they not be born at all. But who the hell knows what a childs fate will be under any circumstance. Certainly many rich people's children have died young and likewise many and in fact most poor people will see there children grow up into at least middle age. And how are children born to poor parents a burden on society anyways? You seem here to be justifying statism out of irrational fears and faulty logic. Jonas:Why? Is it because there are limits being placed on what you do with your own property? Well gee I wonder.
I, for one, agree whole-heartedly with you. I think that reproductive restrictions and population control would likely lend to abuse, particularly eugenics.
Your advocating state control over the right to reproduce! And Im overreacting? Are you kidding me?
Jonas: Do you believe that 10-year-old kids should have every right to carry a loaded and concealed handgun to school?
Well if it's against that school's policy than obviously not and I don't know of any kooky private school where that sort of thing is allowed anyways. Im not sure what this has to do with the right to reproduce either.
Jonas: Do you believe that, with no training and no experience whatsoever, I should be able to climb into a airplane and go flying over a heavily-populated residential area?
Absolutely and you will of course have to pay for any damage you happen to bring on that heavily populated area. That fact alone should be enough to deter those few people who own airplanes but don't know how to fly them(or haven't got pilots) from doing such a stupid thing.
I find it amusing that you accuse me of overreacting to your original post, in which you advocate state control of human reproduction! And than you proceed to come up with some of the most over the top scenarios to try and justify statism. I mean do you know of anyone calling for armed ten year olds in school?
Who gets to choose, eh? And who says that kids growing up abused and living in squalor is actually bad for them? Most children who ever grew up were what we today would call abused and living in squalor. Kings lived in squalor, compared to our modern day. Children would starve and see half their siblings die before adulthood. Their parents would beat them, work them, have sex in the same room. All these things we'd call abuse! Yet was every human, until now, so worthless and ruined? I don't think so. Tortured, damaged humans have been called geniuses. All too often the ones indulged and coddled wind up Paris Hilton.
I am not advocating that you abuse your children. But we don't really know what's best for them, or even what best means. So before you go advocating state control of which parents should be allowed to have kids, realize that these regulators got no better guidebook than any of the rest of us how to deal with our beloved screaming parasites.
Parents are obligated to care for their children, to provide for the dependency they were responsible for creating. Beyond that, who can say?