Monday, May 26, 2008

How Generous That Government Is

Want government to run more of your life? Tell you which doctor to go to, which lightbulbs to put in your house, and how much water your toilet can flush? Is that really what you think the role of government should be?

When government becomes the granter of privileges and not the guarantor of rights, tyranny exists. Tyranny like this:

China announced Monday it's making exceptions to its one-child policy for some families affected by the devastating earthquake two weeks ago.

The Chengdu Population and Family Planning Committee in the capital of hard-hit Sichuan province announced that families whose child was killed, severely injured or disabled in the quake could get a certificate allowing them to have another child.

How generous the Chinese government is.

9 comments:

Ronnie said...

Your choices with over population are mass infant death and poverty, regulations on population growth, or a massive welfare state. None of those options are appealing and China went with the most direct, front-end solution to the problem. I know you never see government regulations as the solution, but name a better one for over-population.

Darren said...

The problem isn't over-population, the problem is poverty. So my solution is prosperity.

To hear you imply support for this "one child" policy is appalling.

Ronnie said...

I have to say that our disagreement comes from a fundamental difference in the way we look at people. You see people as logical and able to usually make correct decisions, I'll agree under most circumstances, but when it comes to procreation all logic goes out the window. Many people have more children then they can afford to raise, and especially afford to raise in way that gives them a possibility of a future. You can let your country sink into poverty and therefore become a welfare state, you can watch people struggle and ultimately die, or you can say government intervention is worthy of preventing those two possibilities. I think it's a drastic decision that would have to be approved by more than a majority of a population, but something that a country should be able to do in extreme circumstances.

Margaret said...

When my husband and I got married almost 38 years ago, we had decided on having 2 children before we married. We stuck to that. We knew we couldn't afford to have more children than that. I am often amazed at poor people who choose to have many children but then can't afford to feed them well, dress them in clothes they don't keep clean and sometimes generally neglect them. This is not true of all poor families and I apologize if it sounds like a generalization. I'm thinking of a family in our area who has 10 children who come to school dirty and smelling badly. All of them have mental problems and yet they continue to have babies.

I do not agree with China's policy because parents are forced to have abortions or to abandon their baby daughters in order to be able to try to have the much-loved son. I know of people who have adopted one of these beautiful abandoned baby girls.

I agree with the tongue-in-cheek comment of the author of this blog...How generous the Chinese government is.

Hmmmmm.

Darren said...

You're willing to let government make even the most personal of decisions for people because you apparently believe that a few people in Beijing, Washington, or wherever know better than you do what's best for you. Wow.

Ronnie said...

I specifically said more than a majority of voters, so it wouldn't be a couple of people in any city, it would be maybe 2/3 of all the people of the country. We take the route of providing welfare for people who have too many children, many third world countries just let the families starve, and China restricts them from ever being born. If the people would like to ensure that neither mass welfare or death occur their solution is about the only one I can think of. It's great to just say prosperity is a solution, but realistically looking at China what's more likely: a simple ban of more than one child per family or a complete retooling of their entire economic system?

Darren said...

I don't believe in taking rights away from people, Ronnie--even if by majority vote.

Ronnie said...

But that is what law is, the systematic removal of freedoms and rights to help maintain other freedoms and rights. It's an issue of weighing the right to procreate vs. the right for children to live in adequate conditions.

Darren said...

I don't think that should be your decision to make. Perhaps your views will change when you're a parent.

Ponder this, though, Ron. "Your" people won't always be in charge. Do you want George Bush, Dick Cheney--or even me!--making these kinds of decisions for you? I certainly prefer to make my own decisions, without my supposed betters on the Left "helping" me make the "right" ones.