GEORGE S. writes:

Economist Bryan Caplan has written a book called Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. This is pro fertility by a college professor.  Actually one of his reasons for more kids is to produce a libertarian baby juggernaut. He says he wants to,

3. Increase the frequency of libertarian genes – and the long-run prospects for liberty.  Genes have a strong effect on political views.  So assuming libertarians are right about policy, increasing the frequency of libertarian genes is good for the world.  It will take a few centuries, but libertarian natalism is one of the least unrealistic paths to liberty we’ve got.

Laura writes:

Libertarians will not create any baby boom. They lack the philosophical premises, Caplan’s arguments aside.

I have not read this book but it seems that Caplan makes the case that parenting is not as big a deal as people make out because scientific research shows that genes determine life outcomes. While it is certainly true that in some ways parenting is not as determinative as current trends make it seem (in other words, one cannot create an Ivy League athlete out of a child who is congentially clumsy or weak), there are other ways in which it is more work than current trends acknowledge. The deterministic influence of genes when it comes to relationships and culture is not thorough enough to erase the need for significant parental labor. If it were, we would see only minor shifts in cultural patterns over time and not the major revolutions in thought and habits.

The work required to instill the habits, virtues and learning required for family and communal bonds, and for the transmission of culture, takes a great deal of work. Libertarians don’t have time for that. It takes a lot of effort just to be a libertarian and keep everything in line with one’s rational scheme. 

                                                — Comments —

Jesse Powell writes:

There are multiple parts of this libertarian scheme to take over the world through breeding that I find both infuriating and ridiculous at the same time. The main premise the libertarians argue is that being a parent isn’t that much work and so having lots of kids really isn’t a big bother since genes determine everything anyways, and if libertarians have lots of kids then their political beliefs, which will be passed on through inheritance, will take over the world. What makes such fantastical nonsense even more infuriating and laughable is the claim these libertarians make that “science” and “empirical data” are on their side. 

What is the idea behind libertarianism anyways? That everybody should be free to do whatever they want? That human beings don’t owe any obligations or duties towards other human beings? I know one of the pet causes of the libertarians is that drugs should be legalized since using drugs is a “victimless crime”; they use the same logic when they say that prostitution should be legalized. Isn’t feminism itself just a variant of libertarianism? Isn’t “men’s rights” also just a variant of libertarianism? 

The libertarians are asserting that parenting doesn’t matter, that what children become is determined by their genes much more than it is determined by the love and values their parents gave them and instilled in them. Now, why is it that libertarians would come to such a conclusion? Well, if what children become is simply inherited then that means that children don’t have to get in the way of the libertarian’s hedonistic self-centered pursuits. The claim that children don’t need lots of parental attention isn’t based on science at all; it is simply a convenient assertion that fits nicely with libertarians’ self-centered approach towards life.

 In real life libertarians probably have among the lowest fertility rates of any political ideology and it is the supporters of patriarchy, who invest in the wellbeing of their children very heavily, that have the highest fertility rates.

Brittany writes:

I was looking through JessePowell’s previous posts and I realized he is an atheist. If he is an atheist and he says libertarians do not think they owe people anything, what does he as an atheist think people owe each other? Why is he against divorce as an atheist? It’s not a sin according to him.

Cynthia Tarnasky writes:

Thank you for your site. I really appreciate the perspectives I’ve gotten here since discovering this site a few months ago. I’m writing to respectfully disagree with Jesse Powell’s characterization of libertarians. I consider myself a reforming libertarian, in that I now see the family as the basic unit of society rather than the individual. I came to that conclusion based on resources I came to from your site, and for that I thank you. But on to my point. I know that your audience will be able to grasp the difference between leading a hedonistic lifestyle oneself and preserving the right of others to do so. Most libertarians are hard working, those who aren’t live simply, believing you only have a right to what you earn. Many are socially conservative themselves, again while maintaining the right of others to make their own decisions. Are there problems with this view? Of course, but not really the type Mr. Powell describes.

I haven’t read the book mentioned, but I have to say that the current climate of childrearing does make it seem like more work than it is, probably because doing more and more of the wrong thing will never make it come out right. Putting your child in ten, twenty, or fifty activities a week will never be the right way to raise a child. But many people exhausting themselves doing all the wrong things think of parenting as an impossible task. It also makes multiple children seem like an impossibly large burden, when the opposite is generally true, both to parents and children (I can’t imagine being an only child when my parents get old and are in need of assistance. How lonely that must be). So while childrearing is not easy, it is definitely more simple than a lot of people believe, and if that is the message of the book, I’m all for it.

Laura writes:

You are right that libertarians are typically hard-working. I also agree with you, as I said in the original entry, that current trends make parenting seem more important than it is in some areas, thus creating an excessive amount of work. The idea that one can cultivate – by ceaseless activity and the acquisition of many very particular skills – success in one’s offspring and determine their whole lives is dramatically overblown. It ruins parents in some cases and causes marital tension because the spouses don’t pay attention to their relationship at all. Also, the notion that a college education – or a particular type of college – will determine a child’s entire future is overblown and many do not have many children because they think they can’t afford it for this reason.

On the other hand, the current culture downplays other aspects of parenthood that constitute a different sort of work. This is the job of instilling character, transmitting culture and communicating purpose. Fortunately, this job can be done without constant chauffering and expenditure. I think Cynthia makes a very important point and Caplan’s book is probably worthwhile in emphasizing this.

Jesse writes:

In response to Brittany, being an atheist and being a libertarian are not the same thing. I attacked libertarianism for downplaying people’s obligations towards each other because I see that aspect of libertarianism as being bad. An atheist can indeed make moral judgments about what is “right” and what is “wrong,” what is “good” and what is “bad.” You mention divorce. Divorce is bad because it has bad consequences. I could list the negative consequences of divorce; depression and upset among the persons who got divorced, especially on the part of the person who didn’t initiate the divorce; the negative consequences suffered by the children of divorce; how divorce creates a level of insecurity among all those entering into marriage; how the threat of divorce causes harmful defensive behaviors in both men and women such as women continuing their careers after marriage in order to be financially better off if a divorce later occurs; the list of harms from divorce goes on and on. 

You suggest that I can’t be opposed to divorce because I don’t see divorce as a “sin” in a religious sense. It is true that I don’t oppose divorce based on religious reasons but I do oppose divorce based on the numerous secular reasons that I listed above. 

On the broader issue of my belief in patriarchy as opposed to feminism, the same thing holds true in regards to feminism as regards to divorce; the problems that feminism causes are endless and so therefore patriarchy, which does not create the problems that feminism creates, is better. 

I wish to further add, if I may, that I do not believe that a real transformation of American culture can take place solely on religious grounds. Though the number of atheists in America may not be that large it is still true that secularism is the dominant way of thinking in America’s political system and that the moral rules of people’s lives are heavily influenced by secular concepts. Secular based opposition to feminism and religious based opposition to feminism should work together in the great crusade to overturn feminism.

In response to Cynthia, you mention the difference between leading a hedonistic lifestyle oneself and preserving the right of others to lead hedonistic lifestyles. You further go on to talk about libertarians working hard and taking care not to make themselves a burden on others. 

On the issue of not being hedonistic yourself but defending the right of others to be hedonistic; there is a contradiction there. Why aren’t you hedonistic yourself? If you aren’t hedonistic yourself that implies that you think being hedonistic is wrong or at least not the ideal. If you think that being hedonistic is wrong then why are you concerned with protecting the right of others to be hedonistic? Why is moral failing in oneself not acceptable but moral failing in others A Okay? 

This moral argument reminds me of the feminist claim that it is perfectly fine for a woman to choose to be a stay-at-home mother but also perfectly fine for a mother to be a career woman, that feminists respect the choice of women regardless of what the choice is. This argument implies that it is the preference of the woman that is important, not the needs of the child. I say that the needs of the child come first and that therefore the working mother should be condemned while the stay-at-home mother should be praised; the two choices are not morally equivalent to each other, one choice is superior to the other. 

On the subject of libertarians working hard and not wanting to be a burden on others, that is a value that is laudable. However, is there a corollary value that the libertarian does not owe an obligation towards others because the libertarian, supposedly, is not imposing obligations on others themselves? If that is the case then I would approve of the value that one should not be a burden to others while at the same time condemning the assertion that one does not owe support to others. 

You might say that I am being biased suggesting that the libertarian should give to others while not expecting anything in return; however, I am not being biased because I would place the same burden not only on the libertarian but also on the others the libertarian interacts with. 

People should be generous in their orientation towards others. Mutual generosity works a lot better than mutual selfishness. In the romantic context men should be oriented towards serving women and women at the same time should be oriented towards serving men. An actual relationship can be established between a man and a woman when they both seek to serve and please the other; if both the man and woman are selfish, concerned about their “rights,” then who will take care of the children?

Please follow and like us: