My proposal for a Federal Eugenics Program follows below. Importantly, all options are entirely voluntary, and as such neutral with regard to race, religion, ethnicity, education, etc.
[ol]
[li]Cash payment to any man or woman willing to have a vasectomy/tubal ligation. The amount could be decided on later, maybe somewhere in the 1-5K range, and it would likely have to be titrated down with time after the age of 18. These details could be worked out later.[/li][li]Cash payment for long-acting depot injection contraceptives for females under the age of 18, or to their guardians. Guardian consent would be needed for this. Repeat for cash as needed until age 18, at which time cash could be offered for tubal ligation. If something similar exists for males under 18, offer that to them on the same terms.[/li][li]For criminals, offer vasectomy/tubal ligation in exchange for commuted sentences[/li][li]For those with mental impairment or known hereditary disorder, offer higher cash payments for vasectomy/tubal ligation[/li][/ol]
I am curious to hear others’ thoughts on this. I am particularly interested in the opinion of staunch pro-lifer’s.
What’s the overall goal? General population reduction? Or do you feel the people who’d accept this offer represent some self-selected group?
I’d also strongly question the idea that there’s a general genetic link to criminal behavior. And I don’t see why criminals who’ve been convicted of crime should be allowed to go free early (and perhaps commit new crimes) in exchange for sterilization. These two ideas combined would probably increase the crime rate.
The assumption is (and it could be wrong), that the people who avail this offer will primarily be low income individuals. Low income correlates with low IQ, and IQ is hereditary. Hence, low IQ would be negatively selected, and over time general IQ in America would rise.
BrainGlutton. Your points and references on eugenics are appreciated.
But the hypothetical policy I am proposing would be entirely voluntary, so why should my personal view, or your personal view, or anybody’s personal view on eugenics matter? Can’t the individual decide if he wants to avail one of the options himself/herself?
After all, isn’t more choice always better? (As long as it really is voluntary)
I’m not sure what racism has to do with this discussion so I will ignore you comment about it.
I find it a little amusing that in the novel from which the OP chose his username, two hero-protagonists (Dagny and Hank) have brothers who are antagonist parasites/looters. So much for genetics.
That is quite incredibly disingenuous of you. It’s a thread about eugenics. Eugenics has always been bound up with racism since it was first conceived in modern times. Furthermore, this:
is a fairly transparent racial dog whistle. No way the person who thought this up was thinking in color-blind terms.
Because it’s, as you state in the beginning, a eugenic policy. To justify spending tax dollars on it, you first have to justify eugenics as such.
People already have the choice to get sterilized. Many do. Usually they have to pay for it. A program to do it for free I could get behind, just as another aspect of UCH, but why pay them a subsidy?
Although preferring a lower population myself, I’ve rather noticed that individuals heavily in favour of eugenics whether progressives as earlier or libertarians as later do have a point since they themselves should never reproduce.
Because preventing the conception of even one unwanted child could save US tax payers tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run – e.g. welfare, the prison system, the judicial system, law enforcement, security, etc. In short, there is a tremendous potential ROI for something like this.
Free birth control and free abortions should cover that ground quite sufficiently, and as stated above I have no objection to free sterilizations, either; but to subsidize them is something you only do when trying to actively discourage reproduction of the target population.
Well, I’m willing to pay devil’s advocate here. With one caveat…
johngalt2014, you mention in your OP that you believe low income=low IQ. But IQ is a TERRIBLE indicator of future societal contributions. For anything such as you propose to work to a societal benefit from a eugenics standpoint - that is, for the betterment of the race genetically - you’d need something better. Hell, Paris Hilton is one of the richer people on the planet and I’d seriously consider paying good money to see very bad things happen to her. I think your thesis - assuming you’re not jumping on the hidden ‘low IQ=blacks’ and ‘blacks shouldn’t breed’ bandwagon - need serious work.
Now, on the other hand, I think there’s some serious possibilities in offering a cash payment for teen women to NOT become pregnant. I’d accept as a postulate that having children during one’s teen years has a negative impact on a woman’s future earning potential and other prospects. I also believe that economics is the study of incentives and that cash is one of the greatest incentives of all. Toss some sort of small payment towards teens (I’d bet it needn’t be much) for each quarter they don’t become pregnant and the payments cut off forever if they DO come down pregnant and you might just benefit both the kids and society as a whole.
But the eugenics things? Galt, you’re gonna have to make your case that you’re not one more scientific racialist before I’d buy that thesis about low IQ and such.
That sounds like a general population-control measure. I see no eugenic purpose in making that same offer to everybody.