[Baconmonster]

I can't help but feel worried by my feelings towards this controversial side of science, but the only real argument I can accept against this is were do you draw the line of sterilisation?

However I can't see how we can justify not stopping situations which would result in suffering and pain for children. Such as parents with heritable diseases and extreme criminal records.

[Clare~Bear]

I agree that it's selfish for parents with diseases that could be passed onto the kids and make their lives miserable and painful and/or parents that are disabled in someone so that they can't look after the kids. BUT it seems that it's peoples human right to be able to have children . . .

Just a question; are people with fertility issues who also have a disease that is likely to be passed onto their children allowed IVF (on the NHS/anywhere)? IMO it'd be silly to give it to them.

But I don't believe in the kind of eugenics that the Germans did where they selcted hair/eye colour etc.

[Notethis]

How would one of your parents being in prison result in "suffering and pain" for the the child?

[Onewingedangel]

The ability to reproduce should not be considered a human right at all.
People with violent criminal records, people who have IQs below 90, people who are just plain parasitical and serve no purpose to society other than as a money sink should be sterilized.
Their kind has no purpose.

[Emma512]

(Original post by Baconmonster)
I can't help but feel worried by my feelings towards this controversial side of science, but the only real argument I can accept against this is were do you draw the line of sterilisation?

However I can't see how we can justify not stopping situations which would result in suffering and pain for children. Such as parents with heritable diseases and extreme criminal records.

In this question you need to specify what type of eugenics to which you refer

[Clare~Bear]

I don't think the poor/ people who haven't had a chnace to get a decent education should be steralised, which is what is being suggested basically.

Society can't operate with people from all classes. If you don't have working class people then you'd have noone to do the undesirable jobs that are necessary for a functioning civilised society such as cleaning, working in factories, be shop/supermarket check-out workers, carers in nursing homes, painters, etc etc.

Most benefit scroungers might be from working class families. BUT most working class people aren't benefit scroungers.

[Classical Liberal]

The notion of eugenics was very popular amongst early 20th century intellectuals. This was very likely caused by the scientific revolution and the idea that derived from that of the scientifically planned economy, socialism.

Eugenics is the ultimate form of central economic planning. It is literally (not taking the term literally out of context) planning of the labour force. That is what eugenics is ultimately about. It is the idea that centrally planning the labour force will lead to a more productive economy because only the most productive people will be born.

Eugenics, like all forms of socialism, is doomed to fail. For the fundamental reason that planners simply cannot aggregate all of the widely dispersed knowledge of what people can do and what people want. Instead they are forced to resort to unproved axioms. Such as tall, white and blond is good.

[whyumadtho]

Everyone and everything has its place in an economy; removing one element won't necessarily make things better, just different.

[D.R.E]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Eugenics, like all forms of socialism, is doomed to fail. For the fundamental reason that planners simply cannot aggregate all of the widely dispersed knowledge of what people can do and what people want. Instead they are forced to resort to unproved axioms. Such as tall, white and blond is good.

You're talking more and more Austrian. I like it.

[Stratos]

what do you mean by wrong, what is wrong do you think about the meaning of the word when you use it?

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by D.R.E)
You're talking more and more Austrian. I like it.

Anybody who does not agree with the Austrians when it comes to socialism is just plain barmy. The argument is just so robust.

[gcmh]

I think doing so, would extinguish much potential.

[Pindar]

I don't really see a problem with eugenics, there's not really an argument against.

If you can make healthier/better babies, I really don't understand why that would be a bad thing. As long it's up to the parents and not the state.

[D.R.E]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Anybody who does not agree with the Austrians when it comes to socialism is just plain barmy. The argument is just so robust.

So why reject the rest of Austrian theory?

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by D.R.E)
So why reject the rest of Austrian theory?

I don't reject all Austrian theory. Most of it I am in complete agreement with.

The problem I have is with some Austrian policy subscriptions.

If you used Mises sort of idealised theories where everything emerges from the market then its fine. The problem is that large parts of the economy have been developed from government control, most notably banking and money. I do not agree with some of the policy subscriptions of just letting it rip as the Austrians always seem keen on. Once the government has ****ed something up I think you need to use the government to un**** the situation.

[D.R.E]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
The problem I have is with Austrian policy subscriptions.

If you used Mises sort of idealised theories where everything emerges from the market then its fine. The problem is that large parts of the economy have been developed from government control, most notably banking and money. I do not agree with some of the policy subscriptions of just letting it rip as the Austrians always seem keen on. Once the government has ****ed something up I think you need to use the government to un**** the situation.

Mises was not an anarchist. He just believe in a micro foundation for economic theory. I don't think banking and money have developed from government control, and there is quite a good chapter on how money develops through human action in Mises' book called... Human Action. As for the government fixing it's own mistakes... mainstream public choice theory has more or less discredited that point of view tbh. You don't fix the effects of mistake by repeating the mistake.

You should read from Mises directly, he's quite interesting, if only for academic interest.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by D.R.E)
Mises was not an anarchist. He just believe in a micro foundation for economic theory. I don't think banking and money have developed from government control, and there is quite a good chapter on how money develops through human action in Mises' book called... Human Action. As for the government fixing it's own mistakes... mainstream public choice theory has more or less discredited that point of view tbh. You don't fix the effects of mistake by repeating the mistake.

You should read from Mises directly, he's quite interesting, if only for academic interest.

How do you explain nationalised central banks?
How do you explain deposit insurance?
How do you explain debt to be legal tender?

The government has well and truly screwed up the monetary system of the world.

[D.R.E]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
How do you explain nationalised central banks?
How do you explain deposit insurance?
How do you explain debt to be legal tender?

The government has well and truly screwed up the monetary system of the world.

Dude, all of this stuff is fairly recent in human history. Money and banking have existed for thousands of years. The removal of these things wouldn't be the end of the world at all. Government can't fix money, because it is the problem with money.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by D.R.E)
Dude, all of this stuff is fairly recent in human history. Money and banking have existed for thousands of years. The removal of these things wouldn't be the end of the world at all. Government can't fix money, because it is the problem with money.

Its there now, and has been centuries.

I do not think just returning to gold is practical or even a good idea. I am afraid we just have to work with what I have got. The real world is not a a tabula rasa where we can just let the market spontaneously develop.

It is bonkers to have a fractional reserve, or any promise to pay, money system with gold being the source of money.

[D.R.E]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Its there now, and has been centuries.

I do not think just returning to gold is practical or even a good idea. I am afraid we just have to work with what I have got. The real world is not a a tabula rasa where we can just let the market spontaneously develop.

It is bonkers to have a fractional reserve, or any promise to pay, money system with gold being the source of money.

Once again, I've never advocated a gold based currency, only that we should get rid of government monopolies on money and remove government-backed fractional reserve banking as the default banking system. The current system hasn't even existed for 'centuries' as you claim, it's only existed since, at the earliest, the late 19th century. That's not a very long time at all.