Should the State have the power to license child births?
-
No.
The state can create fees and/or a convoluted licensing mechanism that would ensure that only those with the means could have children. This could lead to Orwellian problems. If "unlicensed" children were born, they would be born to those that were likely poor and had minimal education. Fines and penalties would keep them poor and uneducated and prevent upward mobility. What next, they can't vote? Social mobility prohibited or severely restricted? Denied rights held by licensed children? It would create an entire second class.
It is unfortunate that just anyone can make a child, there are certainly untold numbers of unfit parents out there - or at least unfit parenting.
To touch on a tangent; I'm of the opinion that population control is a necessity for the future viability of life on this planet. I can't see any good solution to it that wouldn't create hardship in some way; but we just can't keep growing, consuming and polluting this planet until there's disease and war to fight over what's left.
-
Here we go again.
-
The idea of licensing births seems like a practical response to Malthusian Eugenics. How do you set standards for who would receive a license? We have a difficult enough time with things like evaluating teachers... how do you evaluate the worth or practical ability of someone to bear children?
At the risk of being overly sensational this has been tried before.
-
-
Why don't we start with dog births? Stricter license and control for anyone wishing to have an unspayed pet. It's just senseless and cruel the way we produce unwanted domestic animals.
(I like puppies until they are eating my slippers.)
Then when everyone sees how nice that is...
-
Not "no" but "hell no".
-
NO.
The state is [or should be] the servant of the people NOT the master of the people... -
@tig said:
NO.
The state is [or should be] the servant of the people NOT the master of the people...Exactly. Who (or W.H.O) would you entrust with that decision?
-
You can look at China's policies for the "what happens if..?" questions. Isn't the opposite true in western countries? You get tax breaks and such if you have kids.
Population control: Childbirth goes down when girls and women receive higher education opportunities and empowerment. You can educate the men of course, but it probably doesn't help.
-
Un autre pavé dans la mare.
'Waiting for Cornel. -
-
The State should build roads and catch crooks and leave the rest to the people.
-
@mwm5053 said:
The State should build roads and catch crooks and leave the rest to the people.
You forgot build armies and invade countries for their oil.
-
most definitely we couldn't do with out that
-
"Should the State have the power to license child births?"
No.
[flash=600,400:1653kuhc]http://www.youtube.com/v/G8kCOsfM15c?version=3&[/flash:1653kuhc]
-
Hold on! Most seem to be missing the point that the State (= Government) IS the people. So, the question could be phrased as 'Should the People have the power to license child births?
-
@mike lucey said:
Hold on! Most seem to be missing the point that the State (= Government) IS the people. So, the question could be phrased as 'Should the People have the power to license child births?
I'd like to live in that country. Which one is it?
-
Jeff / Andy, I don't think you believe that the State = Government = People and are not happy about the situation! If so, there is only one way to change that in your cases and that is to join a political party or start your own!
Most democracies operate under the political party system, not perfect by any means but its best we have currently. So there is no point in not being happy with it. If you want to have an effect you know what to do.
On subject of the Party Political System! I think it is now fast becoming a totally archaic and obsolete system considering the technology that is available to even our kids. I am talking about instant communication devices, mobile / cell phones. These devices would allow informed and conscientious citizens to be involved in an ongoing voting system that is currently being passed over to career politicians / parties. The politicians / political parties would probably still be needed but only as implementers not decision makers .... the People (conscientious) would but that's another subject.
-
Sorry, I didn't have a fully formed thought earlier.
While I think the "ideal" makes sense. The practical implications are just very fraught. How would you protect minorities and immigrant groups, etc. Who would write the regulations? Just look at food regulations as an example. The interested parties with the most clout (read: industry groups) write the legislation, and hardly anyone is the wiser or can do anything about it. I can only imagine once you have any teeth to this sort of regulation, it would make the abortion debates would look tame. -
If the purpose is to stem population growth, then without a global agreement the point is moot. And since I fail to see for what other purpose allowing the state to have this control mechanism, I gotta say NO.
I can also predict that this would lead to a kind of profiling, on the states behalf, and I don't think the state should interfere with the natural evolution of the species. For better or for worse.
Oh no!!! What have I said!
Man Mike your a little **it disturber
Advertisement