Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Does the Office on Women's Health Belong in the Pentagon?
In my recent piece on fertility panics, I write:
The more relevant question, and the one rarely broached, is whether women who choose not to have children should be forced to subsidize those who do.
In a long and thoughtful response, Rod Dreher ponders this question and writes:
Well, should people who choose not to go into the armed services be forced to subsidize those who do?
I'll confess to feeling slightly uncomfortable with the idea that American uteri are a national resource to be cultivated for the greater glory of the nation state. But I do think Dreher has hit upon a fundamental disagreement central to the debate over fertility policy. If you think we're all involved in a collective project, the object of which is the reproduction of the genetic constitution of our current population, there is really nothing to do but to subsidize zygote production. Inevitably, such burdens will fall hardest on women, and so it will seem just—progressive, even—to compensate them. Where "survival," means replication, underutilized uteri are the equivalent of unmanned guard posts.
You might think that our current genetic composition is trivial, but the furtherance of our culture is crucial. And if you're skeptical that our culture can be transmitted successfully to out-groups, you will again turn to fertility. But only drastic changes are going to change the birth rate dramatically. Mere $4000 baby bonuses—state-sponsored push presents—won't get you there. And if you lurch dramatically in the direction of treating half the population as hired breeders, you're quite obviously changing the culture. So what, exactly, is being preserved?
MikeB|6.20.08 @ 1:32PM|#
If you have no children then you probably could care less about the future culture.
Jennifer|6.20.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Did the Cylons bomb the shit out of our planet and I just wasn't
paying attention? Because I had no idea humanity was in any
imminent danger of winking out of existence due to insufficient
baby production.
If you have no children then you probably could care less about
the future culture.
Mike, if you personally are incapable of giving a shit about young
people unless they share your DNA, that is indeed a sad state of
affairs, but kindly refrain from projecting your sociopathic
tendencies onto me.
Bingo|6.20.08 @ 1:40PM|#
But if you do have children isn't it possible that taking care
of them is going to distract you from contributing to American
culture?
BREEDERS!!!!
|6.20.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Kerry,
I don't really have time to draft this response any further but I
will say good rebuttal. I think it gets to the heart of the matter
with regards to "communal" vs "private" property, needs,
objectives, etc.
Nigel Watt|6.20.08 @ 1:42PM|#
This post highlights the fundamental moral quandary of government force.
MikeB|6.20.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Mike, if you personally are incapable of giving a shit about young
people unless they share your DNA, that is indeed a sad state of
affairs, but kindly refrain from projecting your sociopathic
tendencies onto me.
Jennifer, I said "probably", which is not all inclusive. You can
consider yourself excluded by my imperial fiat.
Honestly, do you really care if the US is a spanish speaking
country by 2100?
dhex|6.20.08 @ 1:50PM|#
not even: it brings up an even more base point - to whom do citizens in a country belong? each other? the state? their families? themselves?
Micha Ghertner|6.20.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Because the armed services provide a public good,
Debatable. Very debatable.
My answer to Dreher's question is: no, they shouldn't. But I
appreciate that there are moderates out there like Kerry who are
willing to take the Drehers of the world on their own terms.
Turning the debate into a question about the value of coerced
military spending probably won't be terribly persuasive to as many
people.
Chris P|6.20.08 @ 2:06PM|#
"Well, should people who choose not to go into the armed
services be forced to subsidize those who do?"
No, they shouldn't. I personally don't perceive any benefit from
the armed services, and I'd rather not pay for them. More to the
point though, it's the person who decides on a course of action
that will cost money that should pay for it (in this case the
parents who are deciding to have children should pay). And that's
true regardless of whether that decision benefits society as a
whole. For another example, if I decide to improve my yard by
planting flowers etc, and that increases my neighbor's property
value, should he have to pay me? I think not.
Also from Dreher's response:
"But if that's your view, then you should also sign on to the view
that the working population should not have to subsidize the
retired. Do we really want to live in that kind of society? I
don't."
I do. How about taking some personal responsibility and planning
for your own retirement? I wish I could start my own society.
Seasteading (http://www.reason.com/news/show/126198.html) is
looking better and better all the time.
|6.20.08 @ 2:06PM|#
to whom do citizens in a country belong? each other? the
state? their families? themselves?
Me.
|6.20.08 @ 2:12PM|#
Armed services being a public good is exactly the issue. The
(positive) benefits provided by a (properly utilized) national
defense cannot be contained to a presubscribed set of
individuals.
The benefits of a child, on the other hand, accrue far and away
mostly to the child himself and then to his family. Children are
private goods. They should not be subsidized by the public
weal.
|6.20.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Incidentally, I too will join the chorus that questions whether
armed services are indeed a public good -- especially considering
what a public bad they have lately turned out to be.
But, accepting that Rod Dreher apparently thinks they are, his
argument still fails because children aren't.
|6.20.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Armed services are a public good. They prevent us from being
ruled by a group or country even more corrupt and liberty-hating
than ourselves (which is to say, the rest of the world with partial
exemptions for New Zealand and Estonia).
The fact that we use that group to do a bunch of stupid shit that
we shouldn't be (invading Somalia, invading Iraq, etc.) doesn't
mean that they don't provide a public good in addition.
|6.20.08 @ 2:17PM|#
In 1950 U.S. population was ~152 billion.
U.S. population is ~304 million today.
In 1950 world population was ~2.6 billion.
World population is ~6.7 billion today.
Y'all can do the math.
I humbly suggest confidently assert that
different cultures attempting to outbreed each other is just
fucking bat shit insane.
Your thoughts?
Guy Montag|6.20.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Does the Office on Women's Health Belong in the
Pentagon?
I think that office is between corridor 2 & 3 on the A ring.
Maybe between 4&5. Can't look today because I am working from a
secret undesclosed location on Crystal Drive.
More to your point, I would prefer they move that office out near
the Office of Naval Research, or anyplace in DC or Maryland. Never
see any hotties coming in or out of there and that space could be
better utilized for hotties.
Guy Montag|6.20.08 @ 2:19PM|#
JsD,
I had no idea we had such a massive population decline since the
1950s.
Those ZPG folk of the 1960s and 1970s certainly kept there success
a secret!
|6.20.08 @ 2:19PM|#
If you have no children then you probably could care less
about the future culture.
I'll assume you're joking and refrain from calling you an
imbecile.
jtuf|6.20.08 @ 2:20PM|#
The whole point of government is to prevent people from using force or fraud to harm others. We handle this task collectively, because a system of individual vendettas favors ever increasing violence. Keeping the society going via births is not its concern any more than mainataining a food supply or building homes. It is fine to leave these tasks to individuals.
|6.20.08 @ 2:20PM|#
I got'cher culture right here, honey.
If the kultur needs babies, the only sensible plan is
governmental breeding and indoctrination plans. Careful screening
and and manipulation of genetic material, and cradle-to-grave
Christian education and citizenship training will put
OurGreatNation back on the path to righteousness.
That, or the mineshaft option.
robc|6.20.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Mike, if you personally are incapable of giving a shit about
young people unless they share your DNA, that is indeed a sad state
of affairs, but kindly refrain from projecting your sociopathic
tendencies onto me.
Maybe MikeB is a Pak descendent.
Guy Montag|6.20.08 @ 2:22PM|#
TTB,
Don't forget the 10:1 optimum ratio of women to men for the
project.
I suggest a government progrem be started immediatly.
robc|6.20.08 @ 2:23PM|#
If I ever have kids, I still wont care about the future (meaning after I am dead) culture. That will be their problem, not mine.
|6.20.08 @ 2:26PM|#
If you think we're all involved in a collective
project
And if you think that, GFY.
|6.20.08 @ 2:26PM|#
The more relevant question, and the one rarely broached, is
whether women who choose not to have children should be forced to
subsidize those who do.
And, as mentioned before, a relevant question is whether that's
even true with the current setup. The structure of most social
insurance programs is that that people who choose not to have
children are subsidized by other people's children. It's part and
parcel of the whole thing, and determining exactly where the
subsidy lies is a difficult task.
|6.20.08 @ 2:26PM|#
"Well, should people who choose not to go into the armed services be forced to subsidize those who do?"
No, they shouldn't. I personally don't perceive any benefit from the armed services, and I'd rather not pay for them. More to the point though, it's the person who decides on a course of action that will cost money that should pay for it (in this case the parents who are deciding to have children should pay). And that's true regardless of whether that decision benefits society as a whole. For another example, if I decide to improve my yard by planting flowers etc, and that increases my neighbor's property value, should he have to pay me? I think not.
I'll try to make this simple enough for you to understand. Armies
have historically been able to raise their own funds unless opposed
by other armies. Those who refuse to wield a sword can still die by
one.
TallDave|6.20.08 @ 2:28PM|#
I'll confess to feeling slightly uncomfortable with the idea
that American uteri are a national resource to be cultivated for
the greater glory of the nation state.
That should be a line in America the Beautiful. "Her bountiful
uteri" or something. I mean, we've already got "purple mountain's
majesty" and we all know what THAT means.
jtuf|6.20.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Maintaining a military is the cost of having a foreign policy. It's fine to make people who choose the foreign policiy (directly or via representatives) pay the costs of that foreign policy. Hence the link between taxation and representation.
TallDave|6.20.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Don't forget the 10:1 optimum ratio of women to men for the
project.
I suggest a government progrem be started immediately.
Finally, socialism I can get behind. And beneath. And on top of.
Preferably all at once.
|6.20.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Thanks for catching the typo, Guy. U.S. population figures are in the millions. World figures in the billions.
Mike M.|6.20.08 @ 2:33PM|#
I personally don't perceive any benefit from the armed
services, and I'd rather not pay for them.
Ah, a touching sentiment from another great American.
I'll be sure to pass that along to the Coast Guardsmen who rescued
people off their rooftops in post-Katrina New Orleans, as well as
the National Guardsmen who are piling up sandbags desperately
trying to save the small towns near the Mississippi.
|6.20.08 @ 2:35PM|#
I'll wield my own sword, thank you very much.
I guess I didn't make it simple enough. Oh well.
Guy Montag|6.20.08 @ 2:36PM|#
Mike M.
Shouldn't those collectives be piling their own sandbags rather
than leaching the labor that could be better used in eliminating
counterrevolutionary elements of our society?
Micha Ghertner|6.20.08 @ 2:37PM|#
MikeP,
Armed services being a public good is exactly the issue. The
(positive) benefits provided by a (properly utilized) national
defense cannot be contained to a presubscribed set of
individuals.
Let's not forget, though, that maintaining a well-functioning
electoral democracy is also a public good in this sense. The
positive benefits provided by a well-functioning electoral
democracy (such as: electing politicians who use military power
wisely) cannot be contained to a presubscribed set of individuals.
And if we can solve the latter problem of providing the public good
of a well-functioning electoral democracy using noncoercive means
(e.g. education, persuasion, public shaming, etc,), perhaps there
is reason to think we can solve the former problem of providing the
public good of national defense using noncoercive means.
|6.20.08 @ 2:46PM|#
I'll be sure to pass that along to the Coast Guardsmen who
rescued people off their rooftops in post-Katrina New Orleans, as
well as the National Guardsmen who are piling up sandbags
desperately trying to save the small towns near the
Mississippi.
What will you say to the Army Corps of Engineers, whose handiwork
made those situations worse than they might otherwise have
been?
"Win some, lose some," maybe?
|6.20.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Guy,
You may be a fuckhead difficult sometimes but
I know you don't get pedantic about typos. ;-)
Fluffy|6.20.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Honestly, do you really care if the US is a spanish speaking
country by 2100?
No, why would I?
Not only will I be dead, but any children of mine will probably be
dead. Maybe even any grandchildren.
Any grandchildren who survive have a fucking century to
learn how to speak Spanish. That's not exactly a pop quiz coming up
on Monday.
What's the big deal if people in the US speak English or Spanish or
Cambodian or Esperanto a century from now, anyway? Do you
have novels you've written in English that you think won't
translate well or something?
Besides, any language shift in the US is likely to produce a Creole
tongue anyway. And I hate to break it to you, but that's what we've
already got. Exchanging one hybrid tongue for another one is not a
big deal. Especially considering the fact that neologisms would
change English over the course of a century even if there was no
Spanish influence at all.
Guy Montag|6.20.08 @ 2:49PM|#
P Brooks,
The Army Corps of Engineers is really about as closely associated
to the Army as the Public Health service is.
TallDave|6.20.08 @ 2:54PM|#
Honestly, do you really care if the US is a spanish speaking
country by 2100?
As long as we have individual rights, we can speak in binary for
all I care.
TallDave|6.20.08 @ 2:55PM|#
I'll wield my own sword, thank you very much.
Sounds like you won't be part of Guy's new program, then.
Guy Montag|6.20.08 @ 2:58PM|#
TD,
Someone else came up with the program, or should we spelli ti the
enlightened way, programme, I only enhansed it.
Mike M.|6.20.08 @ 2:58PM|#
What will you say to the Army Corps of Engineers, whose
handiwork made those situations worse than they might otherwise
have been?
You mean the Army Corps of Engineers that wanted to start major
upgrades to the levees and floodwalls back in the '70s, but was
stopped by a federal judge at the behest of environmental groups
such as "Save Our Wetlands"?
|6.20.08 @ 3:02PM|#
The funny thing is that Mexico is unlikely to be a Spanish speaking country in a century. Probably some kind of spanglish creole with random Chinese curses, like in 'Firefly.'
Jennifer|6.20.08 @ 3:15PM|#
As long as we have individual rights, we can speak in binary
for all I care.
Well, maybe that's taking it a bit too far. I don't give a damn if
Americans in a hundred years speak English or Spanish, but if
there's a serious chance we'll all be forced to communicate
exclusively via R2-D2 binary beeps I'll push out as many young'uns
as it takes to prevent this horror from befalling America.
If the government agrees to subsidize me.
Heavily.
With your tax dollars.
But not mine.
Otherwise I don't give a shit because, as MikeB explained already,
it's impossible to care about the future of humanity unless you've
birthed some babies. The hormonal changes flip on the empathy
switch. I don't have kids, so the fucking Nazis can take over the
country for all I care.
Guy Montag|6.20.08 @ 3:15PM|#
Isn't this where we begin the debate about giving the Western USA to it's rightful owners?
Jennifer|6.20.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Guy, why should I give a damn who owns the Western USA? It's not like any descendants of mine will be around to think it matters.
z|6.20.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Children are private goods. They should not be subsidized by
the public weal.
Who do you think will pay for old people? That's right, children.
If you don't have any, then it will be other peoples children. If
they don't have any, well, Logan's Run.
|6.20.08 @ 3:36PM|#
I just thought of a great "fictionalized" acronym for the Pentagon. G.E.M., or "Giant Euclidean Mass". You're welcome.
z|6.20.08 @ 3:38PM|#
The fact is there is a government forced transfer of wealth from young to old. As long as that is true, young people are a public good.
Chris P|6.20.08 @ 3:40PM|#
"I guess I didn't make it simple enough."
No you didn't. Did you mean unable instead of able? Either way, it
doesn't matter. A well armed and trained militia is better suited
for defending the country against foreign attacks than any
professional standing army, and also can't be used for illegal wars
overseas.
"I'll be sure to pass that along to the Coast Guardsmen who rescued
people off their rooftops in post-Katrina New Orleans, as well as
the National Guardsmen who are piling up sandbags desperately
trying to save the small towns near the Mississippi."
It may sound cruel to you, but I'm against those uses of the armed
forces too. It's simply not the federal government's
responsibility, nor is it within their authority. If you want to
live below sea level in an area prone to hurricanes and flooding,
that's fine. But I shouldn't be forced to bail you out when things
go wrong. Now if anyone wants to volunteer their time and money and
money for these kinds of activities, that's fine with me (and if I
didn't have to pay so much in taxes to support the armed services I
might be inclined to donate a little more myself). But I don't get
the benefits of living near the ocean, so why should I have to pay
the costs?
|6.20.08 @ 3:40PM|#
Who do you think will pay for old people?
Since old people are the wealthiest of any age cohort, I suggest to
a first order that they pay for themselves. Social Security and
Medicare need to be retired, and the poor elderly taken care of as
poor people rather than elderly people.
If they don't have any, well, Logan's Run.
I'm not sure I like the idea of all the elderly wearing those
skimpy outfits.
Guy Montag|6.20.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Jennifer, the point is not if we care, the point is that this
thread is not following the pattern of wacky tangents present in a
majority of the other threads that could result in the immediate
destruction of the universe while WE are still alive in it!
Stop pretending to be obtuse.
z|6.20.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Since old people are the wealthiest of any age cohort, I
suggest to a first order that they pay for themselves.
If there aren't any people capable of doing work(i.e. young
people), who will they pay their money to?
|6.20.08 @ 3:46PM|#
The fact is there is a government forced transfer of wealth
from young to old. As long as that is true, young people are a
public good.
I suggest you look up what "public good" means. Young people are
not public goods.
What you are describing is better termed "slavery".
|6.20.08 @ 3:50PM|#
If there aren't any people capable of doing work(i.e. young
people), who will they pay their money to?
Is there really so little difference between "fewer" and "none" in
your thinking?
|6.20.08 @ 3:51PM|#
Either way, it doesn't matter. A well armed and trained
militia is better suited for defending the country against foreign
attacks than any professional standing army, and also can't be used
for illegal wars overseas.
That is delusional thinking.
z|6.20.08 @ 4:02PM|#
Is there really so little difference between "fewer" and
"none" in your thinking?
There is a difference between fewer and too few.
|6.20.08 @ 4:28PM|#
There is a difference between fewer and too few.
Maybe you should join the Post Apocalyptic Club.
Guy Montag|6.20.08 @ 4:39PM|#
Young people are not public goods.
Not even the big fat ones covered by Time and Newsweek?
|6.20.08 @ 4:46PM|#
@z
The fact is there is a government forced transfer of wealth
from young to old. As long as that is true, young people are a
public good.
And if that were stopped, then you wouldn't need any further
government incentive to reproduce: children have been recognized as
a retirement plan from time immemorable. As usual, this argument is
being mis-characterized - the government doesn't need to subsidize
people to have children - it merely needs to stop subsidizing those
don't.
@MikeP
Since old people are the wealthiest of any age cohort, I
suggest to a first order that they pay for themselves.
If you're defining old people generically as all those over 65,
yes, certainly. OTOH, not many old people stay wealthy in the last
year or two of their lives, when they tend to suffer from expensive
medical conditions, and need the assistance of pricey
care-takers.
I'd be more interested in seeing a study telling us the average
wealth of people in the last years of their lives, rather than
merely lumping everyone in a certain age-group together. Elderly is
generally defined as over 65. Given that the average life-span is
somewhere around 77 now, it's not clear how useful it is to lump
together people who are elderly, but able and healthy, and those
who are engaged in the rather expensive process of dying.
robc|6.20.08 @ 4:50PM|#
Pig Mannix,
Consider for lots of people, the process of dying is pretty cheap
and instantaneous, I think they would pull up the average wealth to
a pretty decent number. Although, for say those high school kids
wrapping their new car around a tree, are we going with their
wealth or household wealth?
|6.20.08 @ 4:55PM|#
I get it: Kerry doesn't want to have kids. Great. But what does
that have to do with libertarianism?
And why does Kerry aggressively misread Rod? The important bit of
the question, not quoted:
"In Europe and the US, there's an enormous problem right around the
corner, as the Boomers age and expect Social Security and Medicare
paid for by a generation smaller than their own. It's a nice, tidy
libertarian point, that the childless shouldn't have to subsidize
the childbearing. But if that's your view, then you should also
sign on to the view that the working population should not have to
subsidize the retired. Do we really want to live in that kind of
society? I don't."
This subject, some will recall, is exactly the subject that Kerry
left out of her recent article. It seems to me that someone so
interested in these questions would address the role of the welfare
state, and then would, in light of that role, help us understand
what counts as a subsidy. My take: we don't come anywhere close to
subsidizing natalism in the US.
|6.20.08 @ 4:56PM|#
Consider for lots of people, the process of dying is pretty
cheap and instantaneous, I think they would pull up the average
wealth to a pretty decent number. Although, for say those high
school kids wrapping their new car around a tree, are we going with
their wealth or household wealth?
Just because it's instantaneous, doesn't mean it's cheap. My
personal experience is that a high-school kid getting killed
wrapping their car around a tree is still around $60k.
|6.20.08 @ 5:02PM|#
Rod Dreher says:
But if that's your view, then you should also sign on to the view that the working population should not have to subsidize the retired.
Sign me up!
Gilbert Martin|6.20.08 @ 5:05PM|#
"The more relevant question, and the one rarely broached, is
whether women who choose not to have children should be forced to
subsidize those who do."
Everyone who chooses not to have children is already being forced
to subsidize those who do in all sorts of ways - through the
federal tax code, through property taxes that pay for public
schools, etc.
|6.20.08 @ 6:27PM|#
Gilbert, I'm afraid you're going to need to explain why you think those things are subsidies. It isn't obvious at all.
|6.20.08 @ 6:45PM|#
If you think we're all involved in a collective
project,
... then, F*CK YOU! Because my freedom is more important than your
stupid idea.
|6.20.08 @ 6:50PM|#
In a long and thoughtful response, Rod Dreher ponders this
question and writes:
Well, should people who choose not to go into the armed services be
forced to subsidize those who do?
The answer to both is: NO. Nobody should be forced to do anything -
the question answers itself if you believe coercion is evil.
If women decide NOT to reproduce, they will simply be replaced by
younger generations of women who grew up in large families, bred by
cultures that reward fertility. Feminists will simply be bred out
of existence by beautiful Latinas.
Guy Montag|6.20.08 @ 10:18PM|#
Feminists will simply be bred out of existence by beautiful
Latinas.
WOW, that is the most beautiful thing I have read in weeks.
Little known fact, lots of Latinas know how to weld too! At least
in my fantasies anyway.
Micha Ghertner|6.20.08 @ 11:42PM|#
You have welding fantasies? Your ideas are intriguing to me and
I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Or was this a Rosie the Riveter reference? Fetish porn at the
link.
|6.20.08 @ 11:44PM|#
The US tax breaks for children are not really subsidues. The tax code is regressive so that you are taxed at a rate related to your income level. I get a huge tax break for having a stay at home wife becuase the fact that I feed 2 mouths with my income means I am less "wealthy" then a single guy, therefore I am taxed at a lower rate. Same for kids. If we had a flat tax then it would be an other story.
|6.21.08 @ 12:06AM|#
becuase the fact that I feed 2 mouths with my income means I
am less "wealthy" then a single guy
Ah yes...so when I single guy spends his money on a snowmobile,
he's simply disposing of his income. But when you're feeding your
wife & kids, that's special.
BTW, did a government agent force you to get married and have
kids?
|6.21.08 @ 4:00AM|#
Honestly, do you really care if the US is a spanish speaking
country by 2100?
Oh, for the halcyon days of yore when people actually had
existential concerns about their children, fearing that they
wouldn't have the chance to grow up before humanity was destroyed
in a thermonuclear war.
Now people are worried that their children's children's children's
children's children might grow up speaking Spanish.
Jennifer|6.21.08 @ 12:16PM|#
I get it: Kerry doesn't want to have kids. Great. But what
does that have to do with libertarianism?
In an ideal world, nothing. But we live ina far-less-than-ideal
world where many people think a woman's childbearing activities or
lack thereof are Matters Of The State.
Gilbert Martin|6.21.08 @ 12:41PM|#
"Gilbert, I'm afraid you're going to need to explain why you
think those things are subsidies. It isn't obvious at all."
A single person having to pay for the education of someone else's
children isn't a subsidy?
That most certainly is obvious. If you don't think so, then you are
the one who needs to explain why it isn't.
Gilbert Martin|6.21.08 @ 12:46PM|#
"The US tax breaks for children are not really subsidues. The
tax code is regressive so that you are taxed at a rate related to
your income level. I get a huge tax break for having a stay at home
wife becuase the fact that I feed 2 mouths with my income means I
am less "wealthy" then a single guy, therefore I am taxed at a
lower rate. Same for kids. If we had a flat tax then it would be an
other story."
Let me simplify it for you.
Anyone whose total dollar amount of tax payments exceeds the total
dollar value of government services that is being provided
personally and directly to that specific individual in exchange for
his money is subidizing someone else.
Anyone paying less than that amount is being subsidized by somebody
else.
What anyone's tax bracket is or how many mouths you have to feed
has nothing to do with it.
No one's income or wealth level is a "service' provided to them by
the government. And no one who chooses to have children is
providing any "service" to anyone else who chooses not to.
Jennifer|6.21.08 @ 1:28PM|#
Concerning subsidies: in the small city/large town of West Hartford, Connecticut, the average homeowner's property-tax bill for this year is just over $600 per month, or $7,200 per year. Meanwhile, the school system's per-pupil spending is just over $11,000 per year. So the average two-child family paying their average $7,200 a year in taxes is getting $22,000 per year in educational "services" alone; there's a subsidy to the tune of $15,000 per year.
Robert Enders|6.21.08 @ 2:20PM|#
If I can be drafted and be required to kill people, can women be drafted and required to give birth so to replace all the people I killed?
|6.21.08 @ 3:10PM|#
No one's income or wealth level is a "service' provided to
them by the government. And no one who chooses to have children is
providing any "service" to anyone else who chooses not
to.
Well, there are a couple of ways of looking at that - when I'm 93,
senile, and in need of open-heart surgery, I certainly hope
someone's around who *isn't* 93 and senile to perform it...
And if you don't have children, who's going to be paying taxes to
subsidize your medicare, social security payments, etc.?
Yup. Someone who was somebody else's child, of course...
Which side comes out ahead in this shell game is anyone's guess.
But it's not quite as one-sided as some people would have you
believe...
DannyK|6.21.08 @ 6:45PM|#
You could make an argument that investing in kids is like
investing in infrastructure -- the alternative is living in a
country with crappy infrastructure and retarded, unhealthy
kids.
Look at the recent research regarding lead poisoning and the crime
rate to see how child health can touch on all sorts of seemingly
unrelated areas.
Jennifer|6.21.08 @ 7:28PM|#
You could make an argument that investing in kids is like
investing in infrastructure -- the alternative is living in a
country with crappy infrastructure and retarded, unhealthy
kids.
Yeah, wouldn't it suck if America were the sort of nation where,
say, major Interstate bridges collapsed for no reason, and our
schools churned out large numbers of illiterate graduates because
they were too busy giving self-esteem lessons?
Well, okay, we already ARE that kind of nation.
|6.21.08 @ 8:46PM|#
Well, okay, we already ARE that kind of nation.
True enough, but if I remember your stance on this issue (which seemed to line up with mine), it's the case that many parents are not holding up their ends of the bargain as far as investing time and energy into their kids, getting their kids more involved in the learning process. And if what you say is true (I have no reason to doubt it), and a lot of teachers have to spend time teaching t3h self esteem to kids, that is an epic fail on the part of many parents.
|6.21.08 @ 11:49PM|#
"Ah yes...so when I single guy spends his money on a snowmobile,
he's simply disposing of his income. But when you're feeding your
wife & kids, that's special."
No, but that's the way a progressive tax works. The more income you
supposedly have the higher your tax rate. It is no different then a
single person claiming the personal exemption. I was pointing out
that the deductions and credits for children and spouse are
designed as progressive tax features, not explictly to encourage
having kids.
|6.22.08 @ 1:29AM|#
Jennifer, that may describe the world, but it doesn't describe
the US, among other places.
Gilbert, what makes you think that educating children is a
responsibility of parents? The state requires children to go to
school. Do you favor or oppose that requirement? If you oppose it,
I suppose it's fair enough for you to complain about the state
expense implementing it, but if you favor it (as Kerry no doubt
does), then there's no reason to think that the parents should pay.
Make the argument if you'd like, but it seems to me you're going to
have a hard time make a libertarian case there.
Jennifer|6.22.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Jennifer, that may describe the world, but it doesn't
describe the US, among other places.
So I simply imagined that story about the Minneapolis bridge
collapse? And those stories about American students' abysmal
performance rates compared to other countries is just al-Qaeda
propaganda? I'm sure the nation's colleges will be glad to learn
they can save big bucks by dismantling their remedial-reading
programs, because (test scores notwithstanding) we do NOT live in a
country where high school graduates need remedial-reading
instruction.
|6.22.08 @ 2:20PM|#
This was the bit I was responding to: "But we live ina far-less-than-ideal world where many people think a woman's childbearing activities or lack thereof are Matters Of The State."
Gilbert Martin|6.23.08 @ 8:37AM|#
"Well, there are a couple of ways of looking at that - when I'm
93, senile, and in need of open-heart surgery, I certainly hope
someone's around who *isn't* 93 and senile to perform it..."
Plenty of people were having children long before any governments
existed at all, much less government policies aimed at subsidizing
child rearing. If you have enough money, there will be somebody to
provide you with services when you are old. That's the way the
market works.
"And if you don't have children, who's going to be paying taxes to
subsidize your medicare, social security payments, etc.?"
I'd be much more likely to have enough money to finance my own
retirement and healthcare if I weren't be required to pay for a
bunch of other people's my entire working life.
"Yup. Someone who was somebody else's child, of course..."
Everyone who ever lived was somebody else's child. That doesn't
prove the existence of any obligation to finance someone else's
childrearing.
Gilbert Martin|6.23.08 @ 8:38AM|#
"Gilbert, what makes you think that educating children is a
responsibility of parents? "
Because children are the responsibility of their parents and no one
else.
"The state requires children to go to school. Do you favor or
oppose that requirement?"
I oppose it.
|6.23.08 @ 12:27PM|#
Gilbert, is it your view that the state should make parents educate their children? Make parents care for their children? Feed them? Clothe them? I'm curious how far you are willing to go.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245