Cabalamat and eugenics

In defending his thought that the dim should not be allowed to have children he says this:

Let\’s say you\’re right, and that\’s why people have children. People want to do lots of things, and in general I\’m in favour of letting people do whatever they like. But not when what they do causes negative externalities for others.

Having a child is of course a huge negative externality for everyone else (there are positive ones for pensions too….).

But essentially his claim is that he should be allowed to decide how many, if, whether, children you have because of the effects upon him.

Not sure what response is really possible here but, umm, fuck off bubba.

 

5 thoughts on “Cabalamat and eugenics”

  1. But essentially his claim is that he should be allowed to decide how many, if, whether, children you have because of the effects upon him.

    You know perfectly well that’s not what I’m claiming. So stop being an arsehole.

  2. Either children are a private matter, or they are a public resource. If they are a private matter, why do we taxpayers pay folk to give birth to them and bring them up?

    If they are a public resource, why don’t we get to set standards, shanghai them into grammar schools, make them pull their knickers up, and wash their filthy hands?Why have our schools turned out three generations of complete wasters, with more self esteem than you could shake a stick at, and none of them know that you need to have a verb, in a sentence.

  3. The negative externalisties are not caused so much b y the children, but more by the state’s reaction to them.

  4. Philip is too modest to mention himself when he proposes a gene pool for the “top 20 per cent” needed to ensure Britain’s prosperity.

    So the Master Race is … Linux nerds? Well, who’d have guessed it?

  5. Ah, the old trope “if you intervene at all you must accept any kind of intervention is ok” … err no!

    But the fundamental problem is the throw-away “externalities” idea as if is an excuse for anything.

    Pareto-improvements don’t help – since it seems people want children quite a lot. But I don’t see a problem with making contracts not to reproduce.

    If he believes in some kind of general aggregate welfare (a dubious proposition at best) we have no reason to suppose the welfare-function supports his view (actually my newly found intense preference for annoying him may have shifted it against him).

    Real human preferences (meddlesome, political and self-serving as we are) destroy any hope of creating any kind of coherent welfare-function, or of it having any moral significance if we did.

    Which is the point – externality is a Coasian opportunity – not an justification for intervention by itself.

    If he believes in any kind of individual rights over anything as trivial as his choice of breakfast cereal or the content of his blog posts then the idea of aggregate general welfare has to go.

    So what is his argument really amounts to is a $10 word for “because I want to”. an offense to his preferences may motivate a political argument for eugenics, but is not a justification for eugenics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *