Should we ban the impovershed from having children?

[Fortitudinem]

Reminds me of certain regimes that went down in history as infamous, evil, corrupt, and everyone today would gladly nuke those regimes.

[New DeCapito]

If we're going to be emotionless about this matter, still no. We need people to do the jobs that the people with money won't do. You can't have the architect without the builders, metaphorically.

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

if it makes you happy.

but we generally think of both parents as "having children" even though only the woman makes the child from scratch.

Women usually take male sperm to produce a child, yea.

If we're speaking about families, then we include both men and women.

If we're speaking about families, we speak about a social relationship of children living with adults in a way recognized and protected by law. One of custodianship, with both obligations and privileges bestowed on some designated adult or adults.

The state should help parents, because parenting is valuable social work. Without state or charitable support, parenting is work without pay, and the consequences good or bad are far too wide for it to be left to charity.

But whether or not the state supports parenting financially, the state still has a duty to prevent bad parenting. Children are subjects of the state, and the state cannot deputize authority to any Dick or Molly who volunteers. The state can't just leave custody of children to whoever "has" the child.

The idea of children being "made" by a man and a woman, and being subject to one or both of their "makers" until adulthood, is quite vile. That makes children property.

I would rather the state wrestle with adults about the right to impregnate or gestate, than for the state to wrestle with those same adults over the custody of a living sentient child. It's bad either way, but before birth there is one less loser.

[Risottia]

Funding foster homes would be "government assistance". Can't have that.
The OP's plan is to "give" the children to anyone who wants them and has sufficient income.

So basically the State would use eminent domain on kids and then sell them for profit? State capitalism, yay!

I guess Michael Jackson or Jimmy Savile would qualify ...

There is still a case for parent licensing: to prevent the most needy children from being born at all.

Now all we need is to identify the poverty gene. Darkies and injuns, we're coming fer ya!

Or am I reading too much in the OP?

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

Reminds me of certain regimes that went down in history as infamous, evil, corrupt, and everyone today would gladly nuke those regimes.

You can't nuke the past.

"What would happen if I went back in time and shot Hitler?" ... bad science fiction.
"What would happen if I went back in time and nuked Berlin?" ... so bad it's not even science fiction!

[Inguala]

Who's going to clean my house and do my gardening if that kicks in? Me?! Don't make me laugh.

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

There is still a case for parent licensing: to prevent the most needy children from being born at all.

Now all we need is to identify the poverty gene. Darkies and injuns, we're coming fer ya!

Or am I reading too much in the OP?

I can't defend the OP. First time parents are usually in their 20's while peak earnings are in the 40's and 50's. Any parent licensing scheme based on current earnings would fail, and any scheme based on projected future earnings would have horrible gender and racial bias built into it.

But that was my own opinion: we could prevent some children from being born at all, when there is a high likelihood that neither biological parent will be able to care for them.

Noting your previous point that money is not all of caring, and a person can still be a good parent even if they don't earn anything in employment. I have no problem with the state paying all the support of a woman or man who is being a good parent. My concern is what to do about bad parents: not supporting them is obvious, restorative measures are called for, and necessary for the welfare of the children.

But don't you wonder what could be done to prevent a known problem from recurring? Not a punishment, the purpose isn't to punish bad parents, just a preventative measure to stop them doing the same harm again to some other child?

[Padanyia]

If we're going to be emotionless about this matter, still no. We need people to do the jobs that the people with money won't do. You can't have the architect without the builders, metaphorically.

Arguing hypothetical labor shortage is so dumb when no major developed nation is anywhere near full employment.

Automation will soon take many jobs away and create vast unemployment regardless also.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm asking if we should require licenses to have children, with those who can't afford children without government assistance not allowed to.

Being wealthy has very little to do with being a good parent, although we've managed to create a paradigm where not being wealthy does lead to harm.

I'm not averse to the idea of requiring a license to breed, but I am averse to the idea that it should be based on a financial metric.

Base it instead on whether or not someone will be a good parent. There are a lot of rich people who should never breed.

[Betoni]

I've got a modest proposal to improve the idea.

[Padanyia]

I'm asking if we should require licenses to have children, with those who can't afford children without government assistance not allowed to.

Being wealthy has very little to do with being a good parent, although we've managed to create a paradigm where not being wealthy does lead to harm.

I'm not averse to the idea of requiring a license to breed, but I am averse to the idea that it should be based on a financial metric.

Base it instead on whether or not someone will be a good parent. There are a lot of rich people who should never breed.

Can you really be considered a good parent if you can't take care of your kids without government assistance?

[Grave_n_idle]

Being wealthy has very little to do with being a good parent, although we've managed to create a paradigm where not being wealthy does lead to harm.

I'm not averse to the idea of requiring a license to breed, but I am averse to the idea that it should be based on a financial metric.

Base it instead on whether or not someone will be a good parent. There are a lot of rich people who should never breed.

Can you really be considered a good parent if you can't take care of your kids without government assistance?

Sure.

To me it's far more important that your kids are loved and not abused, than that they get all their food and clothes paid for by their biological parents.

[Galloism]

Can you really be considered a good parent if you can't take care of your kids without government assistance?

Sure.

To me it's far more important that your kids are loved and not abused, than that they get all their food and clothes paid for by their biological parents.

Your metric doesn't actively screw the poor in favor of the middle class and rich.

You sir, are unamerican. Turn in your flag and your gun peacefully, and this doesn't have to get ugly.

[Ashmoria]

if it makes you happy.

but we generally think of both parents as "having children" even though only the woman makes the child from scratch.

A "solution" of birth control will only solve part of the problem which is bad parenting.

Not to deprecate the role of a woman in bearing and birthing the child, but there is a lot more to parenting after that. I think both women and men should be given at least one chance at parenting (parenting-after-birth if you like) but I also think they should be disqualified from trying again if they do it very badly.

Being very poor should not disqualify them. Even a criminal record should not disqualify them, unless perhaps it is very relevant like child sexual abuse, or child murder.

But let's be clear that a woman who has failed to be a parent previously, should not expect to automatically get parental custody of a child just because she gave birth to it.

I'll respect her bodily sovereignty and not force contraception, or abortion, on her. But the bodily thing does not give her renewal of her parenting license if she lost that license previously, by failing as a parent.

we already have a system for that, eh?

[Ashmoria]

Being wealthy has very little to do with being a good parent, although we've managed to create a paradigm where not being wealthy does lead to harm.

I'm not averse to the idea of requiring a license to breed, but I am averse to the idea that it should be based on a financial metric.

Base it instead on whether or not someone will be a good parent. There are a lot of rich people who should never breed.

Can you really be considered a good parent if you can't take care of your kids without government assistance?

yes.

[Sun Wukong]

Being wealthy has very little to do with being a good parent, although we've managed to create a paradigm where not being wealthy does lead to harm.

I'm not averse to the idea of requiring a license to breed, but I am averse to the idea that it should be based on a financial metric.

Base it instead on whether or not someone will be a good parent. There are a lot of rich people who should never breed.

Can you really be considered a good parent if you can't take care of your kids without government assistance?

So, what? Everybody who uses the public school system is now a bad parent?

[Galloism]

Can you really be considered a good parent if you can't take care of your kids without government assistance?

yes.

What? Poor people can be good parents?

How dare you treat poor people like people. We're supposed to demonize the poor so they stop having incentives to be poor. You're unamerican. Get in line behind Grave_n_idle. This is gearing up to be a long day.

[Immoren]

Being wealthy has very little to do with being a good parent, although we've managed to create a paradigm where not being wealthy does lead to harm.

I'm not averse to the idea of requiring a license to breed, but I am averse to the idea that it should be based on a financial metric.

Base it instead on whether or not someone will be a good parent. There are a lot of rich people who should never breed.

Can you really be considered a good parent if you can't take care of your kids without government assistance?

Think of it less as "government assistance" and more as "extremely extended family".

[Ashmoria]

yes.

What? Poor people can be good parents?

How dare you treat poor people like people. We're supposed to demonize the poor so they stop having incentives to be poor. You're unamerican. Get in line behind Grave_n_idle. This is gearing up to be a long day.

and all rich people are EXCELLENT parents because they can buy their kids fancy shoes and a new car on their 16th birthday.

stuff is all it takes.

[Immoren]

What? Poor people can be good parents?

How dare you treat poor people like people. We're supposed to demonize the poor so they stop having incentives to be poor. You're unamerican. Get in line behind Grave_n_idle. This is gearing up to be a long day.

and all rich people are EXCELLENT parents because they can buy their kids fancy shoes and a new car on their 16th birthday.

stuff is all it takes.

Buying someone a car two years ahead before they are allowed a drive?
What a decadence!

[Ashmoria]

and all rich people are EXCELLENT parents because they can buy their kids fancy shoes and a new car on their 16th birthday.

stuff is all it takes.

Buying someone a car two years ahead before they are allowed a drive?
What a decadence!

many places allow you to drive when you are 16 and in those states that don't he can drive it around the estate...or if they are VERY good parents they will let him drive wherever he wants and pay the legal fees when he gets caught doing it.

[Imperial Esplanade]

I'm asking if we should require licenses to have children, with those who can't afford children without government assistance not allowed to. If you had children illegally, you would either have some kind of penalty if you could manage or your child would be given to a relative or the state. I can see many advantages to doing this.

- Much fewer welfare payments

- Much less crime

- Much better educational outcomes/less behavioral disturbances in school

- Better for the economy/higher gdp per capita due to less welfare and other economic advantages

- More globally competitive

- Likely a genetic eugenic effect; with a smarter population and all that entails

I don't refer to forced sterilization, or to deliberately targeting any certain ethnic group. I think we should have a parental licensing program like you need to drive a car, and you would have to pass a test and meet a certain income threshold to prove you can take care of a child without government and ideally even charitable assistance. I think that the first nation to implement a program like this or some other eugenic program will quickly become the best/most competitive in the world. For those who would tell me there's a chance I'll be not allowed to have children/sterilized, I can honestly tell you I would be willing to be sterilized to further the cause of eugenics if I could eventually adopt children.

Well, no. I'll just leave it with this... just because someone is poor does not mean they aren't taking in welfare payments (without contributing anything to society), active in acts of crime, behavior issues in school or even just bad/stupid students, inherently worse for the economy, make the country less globally competitive, or are even impoverished due to eugenics.

[The Black Forrest]

and all rich people are EXCELLENT parents because they can buy their kids fancy shoes and a new car on their 16th birthday.

stuff is all it takes.

Buying someone a car two years ahead before they are allowed a drive?
What a decadence!

My high school had the children of wealth. First cars were very expensive. Porsche was a common brand.

[Valkalan]

I believe that planned parenthood (not the organization Planned Parenthood but rather the practice) should certainly be encouraged at all levels of society, but to ban the poor from reproducing is madness. Aside from being a violation of personal liberties and being immensely expensive to enforce, such policies would spell doom for the state which depends upon the growth of the population to finance transfer payments. The situation is particularly acute when it comes to social security pensions, where declining fertility compared to a growing pool of retirees will no doubt place enormous strain on the taxpayer. This is a key reason why Germany is accepting thousands of foreign refugees at this time. In the long-run this will not save money as the OP claims.

[The Black Forrest]

What? Poor people can be good parents?

How dare you treat poor people like people. We're supposed to demonize the poor so they stop having incentives to be poor. You're unamerican. Get in line behind Grave_n_idle. This is gearing up to be a long day.

and all rich people are EXCELLENT parents because they can buy their kids fancy shoes and a new car on their 16th birthday.

stuff is all it takes.

My parents were bad. I had to get my own first car heap.