Via Dick Puddlecote, this from someone who claims to be libertarian.
The state should require parents to be licensed. That is, there is no moral right to raise a child, and we would do well to think of it as a privilege that the state grants and can refrain from granting to certain individuals. If you don’t like that way of putting it, I am comfortable with a weaker claim: whatever moral right to raise a child there might be is defeated when the parent-to-be is significantly likely to cause the child substantial and avoidable harm, or, of course, if the parent does cause the child such harm. Those that should be refused a license to parent a child are those who are likely, in parenting, to harm the child. Those that should have a parenting license revoked are those who do harm the child. (In our society, the latter is called “termination of parental rights” because there is an assumption of such rights. Its worth pointing out that I have not seen a good defense of the claim that natural biological parents should be assumed to have the right to raise the child they create.)
Wow! I mean, really, wow! There is so much that is so wrong here – and Dick has pretty much covered it already.
For someone who opens with a statement that they generally oppose state interference in the form of licensing this is staggering stuff.
Actually, I have no problem with licensing in the professional field for those activities where there is high risk – or, perhaps, more mundanely, driving a motor vehicle on public roads. The justification being risk management by ensuring a basic level of competence – and in some cases regular demonstration of ongoing competence. It also gives the consumer a recourse in the event of complaint – a licensing body may act as arbitrator. Of course, it is not imperative that such licensing bodies are the remit of the state.
But for such an idea to include the personal and private sphere such as reproduction is taking statism to a whole new level. I agree, there is no “right” to have a child, which is why I am often frustrated that large sums of taxpayers’ money is spent trying to provide procreation for prospective parents who are constrained by stubborn biology. So, no, not a right, but libertarian principles mean that they have the freedom to do so without permission from the state. And I agree, some people really shouldn’t breed. But the state making the decision about who may raise children? The state acting as arbiter? The state deciding that a women who has undergone nine months of pregnancy may not keep the child because she couldn’t pass the exam? The state; the most incompetent and corrupt organ known to man? That state? Jeebus!
As Dick points out, mission creep would set in sooner rather than later. The licensing body would start to poke about, micro-managing the child’s upbringing and ensuring, of course, that it is imbued with all the appropriate right-on ideas of the day, no matter how damaging they might be. Cohen’s argument that this would only apply in a benign libertarian state is remarkably naïve and betrays an inability to see the world as it really is – governments are not constrained by their predecessors and the type of people who make it to the top are invariably nasty, self-serving, corrupt and malignant tyrants who would use such a programme as a means of social engineering to underpin their power base.
And, perhaps, most telling here is the term “likely”. This is just so wishy-washy that it can be used to justify all sorts of tyranny in the right circumstances. If parents cause harm, then the rule of law applies, just as it applies in any assault against the person. What is being proposed here is pre-crime on a grand scale. That someone is deemed “likely” to cause harm does not mean that they will cause harm, such judgements are highly subjective. If they do cause harm, then invoke the rule of law. Otherwise, leave well alone.
For those enamored with the status quo, the immediate question is “are you seriously suggesting we not test and license medical doctors but that we do test and license parents?” (One can imagine the annoyed utterances following the question.) The answer is simply yes.
I am not suggesting that we do not licences doctors. No one is, so far as I am aware, so this is a straw man. Such licensing is a reasonable proposition. The licensing of parents is not – yet Cohen appears to be suggesting just that; not licensing doctors yet having parents licensed. The decision to have children and raise them is nothing to do with the state and nor should it be except where there is evidence of harm and therefore the law has been broken. Otherwise – no one else’s business. The raising of children is not a professional service and should not be confused with such.
I have to say here that Andrew Cohen who penned the article really needs to revisit his libertarian principles. This idea is not libertarian at all. Quite the opposite; it is the antithesis of libertarianism..
I agree. But I think that those who do have children should be expected to socialise them (including use of the lavatory, cutlery etc.) before they arrive at reception class. Anyone who arrives at school unable to do those things (disabled children excepted, of course) should be sent back home again until he has mastered them. As a quid pro quo, no child should leave primary education until he can read and write enough to cope at secondary school. And if that means some children staying on at primary school until they are 13-14, so be it.
What about people who bring a baby into the world with no means of supporting it? No job, never worked, no home, so they expect the taxpayer to provide all that free? My response to that is no. Their babies should be fast tracked for adoption.
In such cases, the baby is nothing but a meal ticket for the parent. We have to break that link, otherwise the feckless and idle will always have a trump card to unlock the benefits system.
Remove the incentives for such behaviour. The welfare arrangements should provide a minimum level of support to enable people to get back on their feet, not a meal ticket.
I don’t know where you’ve been for the last 30 years, Rip van Winkle, but the benefits system is not exactly generous. People are FRIGHTENED of being made unemployed, because it means they might lose their home. They are not thinking ‘hurray, I am now on easy street’.
You appear to forget that I’ve recently been through this system myself.
So why the jibe about ‘meal tickets’ when you know from first hand experience that it is a travesy of the truth?
Er because you have chosen to interpret a phrase out of context of the discussion?
She won’t get back on her feet, she never got on to her feet in the first place. Same for the babys father. You can’t provide for the baby without giving her what she wants, which is a free house or flat, and money to live on with no need to earn it herself. At which point they have got us coalboxed, and the whole thing will continue in the same vein through successive generations of freeloaders who know no other existance.
Unless you take her baby away, and tell her shes back to square one, with no house, no money, and no excuse for not finding full time work to support herself.
There should be a pre-announced moratorium on new welfare households. Those who are already established will have to be sustained until existing children reach the age of majority. Let people know in advance, that they can’t play the system by getting pregnant, and their options will be a homeless shelter, life on the streets, or working for a living.
We would then be in a better position to provide for those families who have fallen on hard times due to illness or death in the family, or loss of jobs. Such people deserve some extra consideration related to their track record.
Yes, but this discussion isn’t about welfare and I really don’t want to get dragged into a discussion on it. Another time, maybe.
I disagree with licencing as you do. Surely it would be easier just to demand state sterilisation of everyone who lives north of Northampton?
Not that I would support such an illiberal policy, but given the government region with highest proportion of lone parents on income support is in fact London, your policy seems somewhat mistargeted, even in its own terms. Indeed, around 20% of all the IS(LP) claimants nationwide actually live in the capital.
No chance it was written tongue-in-cheek then?
It would appear not.
It is straight forward enough, the protagonist is one of those people who describe themselves as a socialist libertarian or left wing libertarian i.e. not even slightly libertarian. Or as I like to call them – fascist bastards.
That’s a term I usually apply to right-wing libertarians, many of whom appear to be supportive of coercion by employers and shills for corporatism.
Oh dear, sense of humour required. Blimey I didn’t think it was that hard to spot.
John, the author states in the comments that the article wasn’t satire.
Ta for the link, LR. 🙂
I think John was referring to Lerxst above.
I did wonder whether it was tongue in cheek, but I’ve obviously spent too long in the company of Mail readers spouting such stuff in deadly earnest…
Had an internet holiday at Christmas, so didn’t see this till now.
I think I smell the stench of anti-smacking nuttery here. It’s all in what you consider to be “harm” you see. An anti-smacking nutter will see giving a naughty child a thick ear as “assault” and therefore “harm” is being done. Therefore (as in Norway) a child could be taken from perfectly good parents by the state.
Nasty, sneeky, vicious bastards these anti-smacking nutters.