It isn't all about property...

[inibo.livejournal.com]

(Well, actually it is, but we won't go there.)

On a previous thread I was said to be an exemplar of the libertarian obsession with property rights, my property rights in particular. Maybe, maybe not, but let's pretend it's not all about property for a bit. I'd like to quote one of my favorite bloggers, Will Grigg. This particular piece is about John Holdren. "Holdren is Barack Obama’s “Science Czar,” in which capacity he counsels the president regarding the role of science in public policy."

Now whether or not Grigg connects his dots the way he intended is one thing, but in the course of the piece he discusses the idea and proponents of compulsory population control. It is that I want to touch on.

“How can we reduce reproduction?” wrote Garrett Hardin in a 1970 Science magazine article entitled “Parenthood: Right or Privilege?” “Persuasion must be tried first…. Mild coercion may soon be accepted – for example, tax rewards for reproductive non-proliferation. But in the long run, a purely voluntary system selects for its own failure: noncooperators out-breed cooperators. So what restraints shall we employ? A policeman under every bed? Jail sentences? Compulsory abortion? Infanticide?... Memories of Nazi Germany rise and obscure our vision.”

I like Grigg's comment: "Oh, those dreadful Nazis: If only they hadn’t given totalitarian eugenics such a bad name..."

Hardin was one of many anti-natalist luminaries – the list included Kingsley Davis, Margaret Mead, Paul Ehrlich, and sundry Planned Parenthood leaders – who endorsed the 1971 manifesto The Case for Compulsory Birth Control by Edgar R. Chasteen. That book offered one-stop shopping for policy-makers seeking draconian population management methods.

So let me ask about the morality of this... I hesitate to call it philosophy... this idea that someone, somewhere can make a determination as to who is or isn't fit to reproduce. On no other grounds than a kind of visceral horror that people could not just conceive the idea, but promote it as good public policy, I would think anyone who wasn't completely dead inside would be thinking torches and pitchforks.

Nevertheless, it is not only promoted, but by academics who depend to a large extent on grants and subsidies from many and sundry levels of government.

Though I do not claim to speak for all libertarians or voluntarists I have to ask why progressives wouldn't be as appalled at this as they are about Tibet or, dare I say Iran or Darfur? Why does it take a "right-wing" Christian "extremist" like Grigg to to even ask the question?

The deeper question is, why would you want any entity to have the power to be able to implement such a policy whether or not it is on the agenda today or not?

Comments

[redsparkle.livejournal.com]

I think there are a lot of progressives that are appalled by such a thing. Dare I say, the majority of them. I have very little faith that any kind of restriction on reproduction like that would ever happen.

It's not really "is parenthood a right or a privilege" as much as it is "is your body yours and yours alone, or can the government take control over it?"

[inibo.livejournal.com]

I think there are a lot of progressives that are appalled by such a thing

Well, the same way progressives only hear libertarians talk about property and guns, I only hear progressives talk about hate speech and gay marriage as though a government license to marry were something to be coveted rather than detested.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

And who, praytell, would enforce the rights of the social contract that is marriage if not government?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

If it's a social contract then it's not in the government's purview, otherwise it would be a legal contract.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'...as much as it is "is your body yours and yours alone, or can the government take control over it?"'

There's that property rights talk again.

[inibo.livejournal.com]

[lucian-maxwell.livejournal.com]

What does this have to do with property rights? It seems to me that you are confusing human rights, civil rights, and specifically property rights.

[inibo.livejournal.com]

What does this have to do with property rights?

Only insofar as it touches on self-ownership.

The point is it's not the only thing I think about.

BTW, property rights are not civil rights, they are human rights.

[lucian-maxwell.livejournal.com]

property rights are not civil rights, they are human rights.

That's the eternal debate between the ideologies. One side claims they are human rights, the other claims they are civil rights (that should be eliminated).

Typical Libertarian short sighted worldview.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

If it ever became a valid threat to the greater good to breed excessively, it should be regulated because the act in question is then an infringement on the rights of others - the rights of all versus the right of the individual to procreate as s/he sees fit.

And what of those who have proven themselves to be unfit parents?

Do as you like, so long as you harm no other.

In the absence of such factors though, yes, such a thing would be an infringement of the individuals right to self ownership at the very least.

Re: Typical Libertarian short sighted worldview.

[star-white.livejournal.com]

Oh no! you used the term "the greater good".

We all know how libertarians feel about that concept.

Re: Typical Libertarian short sighted worldview.

[pseudofire.livejournal.com]

I think it's extremely problematic to say that the mere existence of another person/people is in itself an infringement upon the rights of others.

Re: Typical Libertarian short sighted worldview.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

That's one of the dumbest strawmen I've seen since they banned me from Conservatism: I didn't say 'the mere existence'. Read it again. Look for the part that's bolded.

Re: Typical Libertarian short sighted worldview.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

If you want to put it that way, it is for the greater good that everyone's property rights, including self-ownership, must be respected above all else.

As I stated.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

In my reply.
Yep. There.


But if a situation occurred where further breeding became a direct threat to others (limited resources, etc) , the group would be entirely within their rights to defend themselves by pre-empting that individual right for the duration of the crisis.

Or, more plausible, if someone had proven themselves unfit (molestation, neglect, abuse, etc), proven themselves to be someone that will harm any child produced and left in their care, it is up to the group to remove existing child from the individuals custody, and ensure that the individual does not create any more innocents to harm. Happens all the time.

So I now have two un-assailable situations in which the right to reproduce can and should be removed and that removal enforced according to your own rules.

Now what?

Re: Typical Libertarian short sighted worldview.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'And what of those who have proven themselves to be unfit parents? '

Like black folks, right?

No, dipshit, like people that physically/sexually/mentally abuse children.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

But you know that's what I mean.
You're just being a douche.

Re: Typical Libertarian short sighted worldview.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I don't see any way to "regulate" procreation that doesn't involve putting cameras in bedrooms or forcing sterilization.

Either the idea that individuals have rights or the idea that the whole has a communal right will hold sway. The two cannot co-exist in law, and there is no balancing act to be had. Where one philosophy exists, the other is absent and each obliterates the other where one of such concepts is held. Any attempt to find such a balance is a futile exercise in hair splitting that produces irreconcilable contradictions.

The kind of harm is indirect, but the punishment is direct, individual, and personal. Can you not see that this is an inherently harmful basis for the law to act?

Also, parents proven to be unfit have demonstrated direct harm and direct punishment follows. The two situations are not remotely suitable for comparison.

They co-exist every day in every society.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

As with everything else, finding balance is key.

Try again.

Re: Typical Libertarian short sighted worldview.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Read the threads.

[robert-johnson.livejournal.com]

"On no other grounds than a kind of visceral horror that people could not just conceive the idea, but promote it as good public policy, I would think anyone who wasn't completely dead inside would be thinking torches and pitchforks."

It's nice to see a thoughtful post on the subject that makes absolute sense.

"The deeper question is, why would you want any entity to have the power to be able to implement such a policy whether or not it is on the agenda today or not?"

I wouldn't. I suspect progressives in this case think they can "fix" things. There's a certain amount of hubris involved.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Malasadas was correct the first time when he spanked you.

[inibo.livejournal.com]

And you're a stupid poopy head. What does that have to do with what I said? Or are you OK with compulsory population control?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"And you're a stupid poopy head"

"telemann" is apparently some kind of music genius, so he has an excuse (or at least a reason, perhaps excuse is too benign) for his being rude and dismissive. While I don't always agree with you, you are always well reasoned, so I was curious as to what kind of genius you are to stoop to his level ;)...just wondering? (obviously, I hope, this is TIC, as this is the second time I've done it :D))