« My favorite things Colombia | Main | Not Normal on the New Deal »
Comment I sent a guy on his abortion paper
I would offer more discussion on fetuses/future children buying the right to be born. Why not assign parents the right to the future income streams of their children? Benevolent parents could waive the right, but some parents would go ahead and have the kid to get the money; a Pareto improvement.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 12, 2007 at 06:44 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
This is a reductio ad absurdum of various interesting theses:
1) the moral relation between parent and child is like the moral relation between two strangers freely entering into a contract
2) any arrangement that is a pareto improvement is morally permissible (is it really obvious that the child wouldn't prefer never having been born to slavery?--not that it matters, it's a reductio for those children who do prefer slavery)
3) it's always permissible for an agent to charge 'what the market will bear' (or what the market would bear, if the buyer could enter into contracts) for an action or inaction that is within her rights
Posted by: Mike J. at Jan 12, 2007 8:57:27 AM
And with 100% tax rate on the child's labor, those income streams would amount to...?
Posted by: josh at Jan 12, 2007 9:18:30 AM
Of course it is just a thought experiment. But the rate is not 100 percent. The kid already pays to the government. Greedy parents would choose the Laffer revenue-maximizing rate on top of that, which probably means levels of taxation not too far from Western European levels, all in return for life...
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Jan 12, 2007 9:24:49 AM
I seem to recall being told in a junior-high civics class that in my home state (Kansas), parents could lay claim to their children's income until they reached the age of majority. Now, I have no idea if that is true or whether it has ever been true, but it struck me as silly, even then, for the reason that josh alludes to.
Of course, I didn't know any teenagers whose parents actually tried to deprive them of the income they might earn from a part time job.
Posted by: jonvw at Jan 12, 2007 9:32:16 AM
The problem is that there is no moral agency on the part of the child, and without this foundational feature, contractual relations are rendered meaningless or absurd.
The more interesting question is why are parents not legally indebted to their offspring for the duration of their lives, since no child is responsible for their own existence, while the parents, in most instances, clearly are.
But mulling too deeply over the fundamental question of existential agency in parent-child relations is dangerous business; it has led me to the impossible - but rational - conclusion that procreation is itself ethically indefensible.
Posted by: Chip Smith at Jan 12, 2007 9:34:35 AM
Surely the greediest parents would enslave their children. If you can take away the child's future revenue streams then you can take away the children's rights to panhandle money, or, indeed, to receive food as charity. If the children don't do as ordered, they don't eat. Work or die, that's the upshot.
Posted by: Mike J. at Jan 12, 2007 9:35:42 AM
Don't we already have this to a limited extent on a collective basis thanks to Social Security?
Posted by: Brent at Jan 12, 2007 9:51:50 AM
Oh, okay. That makes more sense.
Posted by: josh at Jan 12, 2007 9:57:43 AM
This seems to me to be rehashing a 400+ ykear old argument. Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal..
Posted by: Brad at Jan 12, 2007 10:26:55 AM
As an incentive to natality, some level of garnishee against one's offspring might be effective for a generation or two (but not for the long term), but as a disincentive against abortion, I can't see this having much of an effect: if the mother's reason for electing abortion is economic, i.e., that the household lacks the resources to give that child a decent future, then offering the mother a greater share in the indencent future she envisions for her child seems a very small incentive indeed.
Posted by: Cyrus at Jan 12, 2007 10:59:31 AM
I don't know that we can choose between existence and non-existence in any rational matter. Non-existence isn't the zeroing of benefits because those benefits don't simply become worthless, they fail to denote anything at all.
Posted by: Steven Schreiber at Jan 12, 2007 11:44:53 AM
Cyrus, you're neglecting the markets that would obviously arise, which would allow the parents to sell the rights to their child's income to a third party in order to acquire resources to raise the child. This arrangement would be even more slavery-like, but there are arguments to make in its favor as well. Businesses that purchase the rights to persons' future income would have the incentive to maximize those persons' future income, so they would presumably take an active role in getting these kids educated and giving them opportunities to suceed. With these businesses purchasing education for their children, a successful market-like system of schooling (of which vouchers only create a pale imitation) might finally be able to develop.
Posted by: Blar at Jan 12, 2007 12:23:08 PM
Isn't that more or less the situation in undeveloped agricultural societies? You have children for the express purpose of having them work in the fields and support you when you're old. The more the better, since they're going to become stronger, harder workers than you are.
Posted by: Tony at Jan 12, 2007 12:53:52 PM
Blar: There's one more logical next step, though. A third-party investor in a child will want to properly manage their investment even before that child reaches school age. To do due diligence in their investment, the investor will have to assume parental responsibility.
While blatantly buying and selling children is illegal, there are means for birth mothers to receive various considerations in the adoption process. Market implemented.
Posted by: Cyrus at Jan 12, 2007 2:13:54 PM
In an article on intergenerational justice, Philip van Parijs mentioned that the French in North Africa once instituted a political equivalent of this. Until majority, a father would hold his children's votes in trust, so a man with five children would be able to emit six votes at election time. I can't recall if only the male children's votes counted, or if the system had any effect on birth-rates.
Posted by: Victor M. Muniz-Fraticelli at Jan 12, 2007 5:39:12 PM
What about allowing the birth mother to sell the parental rights at birth? There is already a black market for this. If we let this market come to the light of day, the mom would have a financial incentive to not abort the money, er I mean baby. This could be a boon for teen moms. They could get knocked up, and sell the baby to stable, two-parent families for say, $30,000. The parents get to have a baby without the hassle of adoption, and mom gets to have a college education. Or a buttload of crack. Whichever floats her boat.
Posted by: Jeremy at Jan 13, 2007 3:10:10 PM
Not a good idea. Allowing a third person to assign an income stream from a person incompetent to contract
is also known as "involuntary servitude," i.e. slavery. I don't think people want to return to that.
Happy Martin Luther King day!
Posted by: publia at Jan 14, 2007 8:49:45 AM
Doesn't this already happen with parents who groom their children to be star athletes, actors, etc.? And in some cultures, children are expected to take care of their parents later in life.
Posted by: Trieu Truong at Jan 21, 2007 4:24:10 PM
Hi
Best wishes。
Allow me to offer my heartiest wishes.
常年提供高、中、低压锅炉无缝管、流体无缝管、结构无缝管、化肥专用钢管、石油裂化无缝钢管、
地质钢管、液压支柱钢管
合金钢管
无缝管
无缝钢管
等论文发表资讯/刊物信息，协助客户制定论文发表方案.
xicao loves
lovesxicao
网站优化
google优化
网站优化
搜索引擎优化
网站优化
搜索引擎优化
百度优化
SEO
Posted by: 钢管无缝钢管无缝管 at Nov 20, 2007 9:06:42 PM
Weight loss is easier than you think!
Posted by: adipex at Mar 3, 2009 5:39:49 PM
