See this poll on: https://poll.fm/5008778/embed
Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
"Although Chinese population control is really more about quantity than quality of parents, it's much more subtle and voluntary than many westerners like to believe."
Exactly: so many want to think those in other nations are worse than they actually are.
Now, I don't really know if licensing babymaking is a positive or not-- but it is clearly worth considering, and Cygnus validated the possibility above. BTW my only beef with "That Guy" is not with libertarianism, reading libertarian tomes is illuminating, albeit there is so much else to read outside of libertarianism it is scarcely worth it any more; however do libertarians think even someone with rudimentary, as "That Guy" wrote above, knowledge, doesn't know libertarians want liberty for themselves yet not necessarily for others; that they want the state to help their own people who need/desire help? sheesh, don't you know by now we can see through you as you see through us
But libertarians, Republicans wont change--they think if they raise their voices we will knuckle under.
I went for the fines and education. Although I'm certainly no libertarian, the values at work here (what is a good parent?) seem much too nebulous and subjective to warrant government mandated vasectomies. If they are convicted Child abusers, reproductive restrictions of this kind seem very reasonable. However, requiring vasectomies for the masses based on changeable government standards is a recipe for authoritarianism. Perhaps better behaviour simulation and brain scanning could provide licensing authorities with a more objective manner in which to grade potential parents.
@CygnusX1
I do have a fairly good idea what birth licensing looks like, as I currently reside in China and have personal experience of the maternity care for natives. Although Chinese population control is really more about quantity than quality of parents, it's much more subtle and voluntary than many westerners like to believe. If it was merely a case of education, licensing and fines it could only be an improvement, and I'm convinced there would be very little significant coercion.
That's a subjective truth. Whatever the supposed benefits, any bodily modification should be by choice.
I can understand encouraging adult men to get vasectomies, but making them mandatory is too much like banning abortion, or as someone above noted, genital mutilation. It's bad enough that babies are presently subjected to foreskin and clitoral cutting. Let them choose.
on the bright side, vasectomies would increase sexual pleasure and eliminate anxiety about causing pregnancy. That's the Raw Truth.
I couldn't support mandatory vasectomies. To me, it seems akin to imprisoning potential criminals (innocent people), and only releasing them upon confirming that they are capable of living by the law. It might reduce crime, but at what cost?
I know that I, for one, would never submit to an enforced vasectomy. "Keep your laws off my body", and all that jazz.
I am also curious to know out of the people who support this option:
"Yes, mandatory licensing combined with physical enforcement (e.g., reversible vasectomies for all boys)."
Are also opposed to ritual genital mutilation?
"They believe in the government getting out of their wallet, out of their bedrooms, and out of their lives. Nothing could be further from the libertarian point of view than mandatory licensing of parents."
Yes, THEIR wallets, their bedrooms, their lives, not others-- rightwing libertarians don't care about others-- they are more or less solipsists. And who here (or anywhere else) ever said libertarians want mandatory licensing of parents?
Holy crap. What a bunch of nut jobs.
Though I am not a libertarian, post-postfuturist, your understanding of the ideal is obviously elementary at best. They believe in the government getting out of their wallet, out of their bedrooms, and out of their lives. Nothing could be further from the libertarian point of view than mandatory licensing of parents.
Secondly, I'm somewhat stunned by the pessimism expressed by most of those in this thread. Not only do you folks show a basic misunderstanding of genetics, you also show a very, very poor understanding of child psychology and development.
Beyond that, however, the implementation of mandatory licensing for children would be so far a move to an autocratic government that I can scarcely comprehend how you could reconcile living in a republic with legislation like that. If you're willing to trust the government to tell you when you can and cannot have children, you've already accepted that politicians know how to live your life better than you do, and you've stopped living.
"Funny" how libertarians go on about personal responsibility yet they reject out of hand licensing babymaking. What could be more irresponsible than irresponsibile parents having children who grow up to be irresponsible themselves in an irresponsible substrate?
Curiouser & curiouser.
iPan -- thanks for sharing your background and thoughts on this matter. I don't know very much about Borderline Personality Disorder and I didn't know it was related to abuse, but now I do.
I think many parents are reluctant to have children, and pass on behavioral and genetic problems. I was worried that I'd carry on the "family tradition" of being a "strong disciplinarian" and it turned out to be partially true, I often act overly angry and punishing like all my patriarchs before me. I also passed on a minor speech impediment to both my children, nothing serious, but I feel rueful about it, and I am sure I'd feel horribly remorseful if I passed on anything worse.
Thanks again for the personal info -- it reminds me of what dor said a while back - that it is interesting to learn who we are all and what our experiences have been that have led us to the opinions we have.
In reference to your thoughts about abused children Hank, I come from a moderately abusive background myself.
I have a neurological disorder as a direct result of it (Borderline Personality Disorder), and, after one mishap, have chosen to do what you propose voluntarily, and still support no law be passed.
I have a son. To make this short, I had always believed in not breeding, pretty much for the reasons you want to license parents. I had been abused. I suffer from an extremely difficult to treat mental disorder because of it. Before I had my son, I consciously realized that I did not want to continue the cycle of abuse, and therefore vowed not to have children.
I fell in love. The co-dependency I felt, itself a symptom of the abuse and neurosis, caused me to acquiesce to her wish to have a child. Basically, she planned to get pregnant, I went along with out of fear of losing her, knowing the entire time I didn't want to be a parent.
My son has Asperger's syndrome, so I meet some of your criteria on several levels. I have passed on a genetic defect. I do not meet my own criteria for parenthood. And, having learned painfully from this mistake (I am now divorced, and the trauma of my childhood abuse was amplified by this to the point that I spent more than 8 years in and out of psychiatric wards), I still would not support this policy.
Autonomy is the first Universal Value. My experiences have taught me that.
I have voluntarily chosen to do what you would enforce by law (admittedly I did make that first mistake).
iPan's idea is interesting - learning what groups of people are in favor, or not in favor, of parental licensing. Out of people I've talked to, the ones who are most supportive are teachers and psychologists. Personally, I am supportive of licensing, I have two children, and I was a preschool director for five years. I am guessing that anyone who "already has their kids" might be more supportive than those who don't have kids yet, but want some in the future.
There was an interesting comment early in the thread -- a woman wrote in who represents a "child-free" group - she said she "didn't like kids" and she supports parent licensing. She probably thinks their annoying behavior is the parents' fault.
I suppose any group who feels like they might not be allowed to have kids would hate the parent licensing plan. This could be any ethnic or religious minority, especially if they have suffered persecution in their past. Polling African-Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans and Jews might be illuminating. I live near a Chinese-American community and I'm not sure what they'd think.... Off-hand, I think they might support parent-licensing, or at least a fair percentage would. And of course, anyone who thinks they might be disqualified for any of the reasons I listed. Plus, I have seen strong-resistance from anarchists, libertarians and others who generally oppose governmental controls.
I haven't seen any marked gender-voting block yet, there are pros and cons from both sides.
One group I am wondering about, is people who have suffered abuse. I thought that they would overwhelmingly support parental licensing, to prevent what happened to them happening to others, but I think I might be wrong. There is a prevalent notion that abused children grow up to abuse others - perhaps the abused feel this perception would be used against them.
I'm interested in hearing anyone else's guesses on this topic. Personally, I was "strongly-disciplined" and I feel sorry for anyone who got more punishment than I got, and I think that impacts my opinion. Also, I have known people who were physically and sexually abused by their parents, and they seem to be semi-or-permanently damaged. My acquaintance with them impacts my decision as well. I have already mentioned on the thread my slight familiarity with people who have genetic disorders.
I'd be interested to know what the percentage of people who chose the most stringent option already have children, and conversely, what percentage of those who chose the least stringent option have children already?
Does having or not having children affect one's choice (as this policy, were it to ever be implemented, would affect future parents)?
Are you ready, willing, and able to face the consequences of becoming pregnant and giving birth without a valid license? Have you really contemplated what those consequences could possibly be?
"Yes, mandatory licensing combined with physical enforcement (e.g., reversible vasectomies for all boys). 23.08%"
Way to go. I voted the above because gridlock has run its course, is now a complete dead end, by not making decisions on the this sort of important issue we de facto make worse decisions later on.