But the idea that everybody will have as many kids as Rand or Ian is not remotely plausible. |
We agree the collapse of the human population to 0 in one generation isn't remotely plausible, but negative birth rates are a crisis in of themselves.
That somebody has to breed for the human race to continue is not what is being denied. What is being denied as that this gives anybody a right to take my property off me if I choose not to breed, or contribute to those breeding. |
Right shmight. You already have a coercive entity called "the government" violating your right to life, liberty, and property. What I am saying is that some small fraction of what that coercive entity does is beneficial. Not moral, not "a good idea", but nonetheless factually beneficial to that society's long-term economic growth. In this thread I propose a way to accomplish the same thing without centralization and with far less waste. Looks like I have to tell my "benefits of gradualism" parable again...
Imagine two nearly-identical countries starting off with similar levels of government tyranny and economic development as the United States, but taking two very different approaches to libertarian reform.
- The first country elects someone like me president and goes through the gradual Minarchist approach, cautiously taking away government programs that do not constitute a competitive advantage, privatizing public property, etc - but keeping the coercive programs that do constitute a competitive advantage, like court subpoenas or this Childless Tax. Eventually centralized government shrinks to just 2% of GDP, and 8% of GDP is coercive government-enforced transfer of wealth to competing non-governmental charities, including those financed by the childless for the benefit of those who have or adopt children. Birth rates are high, economic growth is awesome, and there's talk of reducing coercion even further, like gradually phasing out the "childless tax" to see if the free market manages to keep the birth rates high enough.
- In the second country, everyone is suddenly enlightened by Anarcho-Capitalism one day and they get rid of government right off the bat. Poof, no more government! Yaay? But what ensues is chaos. People don't know whether they can take their kids to school anymore - who runs those schools? They don't know whether to stop at a red light - why should they? Birth rates collapse - people know they should save money first, since there's no public schooling, no free health-care for kids, etc. Before natural order has a chance to set in, gradually and painfully, people declare Anarcho-Capitalism a failure and restore their statist government the way it was, or even more tyrannical than before.
Which is the better scenario?
Well, I suspect that a voucher system may be a good transitional method between full state schooling and free-market schooling, but that doesn't mean that I am going to argue that justice requires that people pay taxes to fund the school vouchers. |
There are more costs associated with children than just education. Pregnancy and the birth itself is a tremendous effort and risk, which has many medical expenses associated with it. Then kids need lots of on-going doctor visits. And food. And clothing. And other baby stuff. And living space - in fact a bigger house with a large backyard would be nice. And toys. And more toys. And a babysitter. And a computer. And braces. And then there's the risk that Tommy will trip Jimmy in the playground, causing Jimmy's mommy to sue Tommy's mommy. And somebody needs to spend the time cooking, cleaning, parenting, teaching, etc, etc, etc. And eventually you have to teach them to drive. ... ... ... Did I mention that suicide was a possibility?
I'm not sure that mere survival is normatively attractive. What is great about merely surviving? The reason to live cannot be to live. |
Beats the alternative. Survival is prerequisite for everything else, good or bad, moral or immoral.
[...] it takes at very least $10,000 a year to raise a child (including education) [...] substantiate your claim without using ANY gooberment lies...
|
Yes, the government actually spends more than that per pupil just for crappy public schooling alone! What the costs would be like in a freer market, without public schools, semi-socialist health-care, and so on is anybody's guess. The exact amount is irrelevant, the bottom line is that kids aren't cheap.
I see what Alex is pushing for here. He wants a larger population of children to chose to abuse from. Maybe, just maybe with all these new children running around he can find that magical one that does not mind the abuse. |
Once again - I am not a pedophile, I'm a libertarian. Your failure to see the difference is your own. You get a free pass with me, but you should be careful - some people would sue you for libel and win. Or reciprocate by spreading rumors about you. Which some people do more effectively than others.
everyone else seems to be against his eugenics / Invisible Social contract |
This isn't a democracy. And I'm not advocating eugenics. Nor is the "social contract" my philosophy recognizes "invisible", it is based on empirical science and is mostly expressed through the principle of self-ownership. I'm still an Anarcho-Capitalist, I just don't suffer from blind faith nor from any delusions about its practical flaws. This thread highlights one of them.
(I'll come back to this thread and finish replying... eventually...)