Published in the Laissez Faire City Times, May 7, 2001
In the Winter 1980 issue of Philosophy and Public Affairs, Hugh LaFollette, a philosophy professor at East Tennessee State University, published an article arguing for the need to license parents.[1] The argument is quite straightforward. "We," or "our society," understandably require licensing for automobile operators, physicians, lawyers, pharmacists, psychologists, and psychiatrists, all activities that require a certain competence and are "potentially harmful to others." The two criteria of potential harm and ascertainable competence apply even more to parenting, which is "an activity potentially very harmful to children." Therefore, would-be parents should be forced to demonstrate their competence, obtain a license, and perhaps be trained, before rearing their children, for the same reasons that we strictly regulate the adoption process. "Undoubtedly," LaFollette writes, "one should be wary of unnecessary government intervention in individuals' lives. In this case, though, the intrusion would not often be substantial, and when it is, it would be warranted."Since it was originally published, this paradigmatic article has been reproduced in more than a dozen books of public policy, ethical philosophy, and "environmental ethics." The proposal has gained disciples in other countries, and these are often more radical than LaFollette himself, who thought that alternative systems could perhaps protect children adequately. "For example," he wrote, "a system of tax incentives for licensed parents, and protective services scrutiny of nonlicensed parents, might adequately protect children." Two Canadian public health specialists argue that "[n]o one should be allowed to raise children until they have finished high school, completed a parenting course, and obtained a licence."[2] A famous British surgeon, Sir Roy Calne, argues that people should have to pass a parenting test and obtain a reproduction license before being allowed to have children.[3]
Note how narrow a conception of rights underlies Prof. LaFollette's argument. Prior restraint of the kind involved in licensing is justified "if the restriction is not terribly onerous and the restricted activity is one which could lead easily to serious harm." In this perspective, only a limited number of real rights exist: rights of free speech (which, coincidentally, apply mainly to intellectuals like LaFollette), religious rights, right to vote, and rights of association. Presumably, individuals will associate to talk and worship, for what else is there to do? Even the enumerated rights can be limited to protect third parties. And "rights" to engage in hazardous activities, like parenting, are conditional on meeting minimal standards. Determination of the nature of harm and the cost of restraint, and definition of real and conditional rights, presumably belong to "society."
Also underlying the proposed scheme is an underestimation of the efficiency of free human interactions, combined with an overblown confidence in political and bureaucratic processes. Statists tend to compare imperfect markets with perfect government. In this perspective, LaFollette would certainly agree with the World Bank researchers who recently wrote: "A priori, parents would ideally always be willing and able to protect children from tobacco themselves. If this happened, there would be little need for government to duplicate such efforts ... Perfect parents, however, are rare."[4]
LaFollette would probably add, in his usual cool way, that the parent licensing system will not be perfect, but just less imperfect than the harmful system of totally private parenting that we now have. This completely neglects the effect of the proposed system on the growth of state power. It is recommended not to laugh at slippery slope arguments when you are actually speeding on a very slippery one.
In evaluating the efficiency of a parent licensing system, we must factor in the impact it will have on the relations between the individual and the state. LaFollette argues that the system "would increase the likelihood that more children will be adequately prepared for life as adults." This is the standard argument for limiting everybody's liberty in the name of manufactured pubic health causes. Under this general umbrella, the goal of protecting children is especially attractive, since the exploited children cannot defend themselves.[5]
Gun control, the war on drugs, the witch-hunt against child pornographers, tobacco prohibitions, are all aspects of the same trend. Indeed, on all such issues, the same politically-correct, public-health crowd is usually on the statist side of the barricades. LaFollette wrote "Licensing Parents" before Jonesboro, Dunblane, and Littleton, and could not grasp the tragic irony of overly-protected children mass-killing their little classmates. The society being created is not exactly what LaFollette envisions for when children will be adults. The point is that, in the eyes of the authorities, they will never be adults.
It is not clear if, in LaFollette's scheme, a license would be required before conceiving a child, or only for keeping and rearing the baby. LaFollette claims that enforcement problems are "not insurmountable." "We might not punish parents at all," he adds, "we might just remove the children and put them up for adoption." Of course, laws are ultimately enforced by armed men, and scenes similar to agents with fully automatic weapons seizing Elian Gonzalez would be repeated. Usually, though, parents would let a social worker "peacefully" take their children away because they know that they have no chance against the SWAT team. So, with a few exceptions, the tyranny would be soft and quiet -- tyranny with an invisible hand.
The project of licensing parents is symptomatic of the rise of what we may call the "Sanitary State," large components of which have already been put in place with the apparent consent of the majority. The Sanitary State is the continuation of the Social State, whose mission was to maximize social welfare. The Social State itself followed the Redistributive State, whose official goal was to redistribute income from the rich to the poor, and which conveniently built up its electoral clienteles this way.
The Sanitary State's mission is to keep its subjects healthy, and cure them when their lifestyles do not correspond to public health diktats. It acts within the limits of the rule of law, which now means that there is a law for every situation, and that you are always free to explain yourself before a judge. The tyrant is nice, soft, and relentlessly pursues its wards' happiness. The majority has nothing to fear. The dissenting minority cannot do much, if only because the state has made sure to disarm ordinary citizens for public health reasons.
Unrealistic? The people will never accept this? Let's hope so. But consider what our ancestors would have said if they had been told that the driver's license would become an ID card, that the state would assign citizens unique identifying number that would become necessary for most private transactions (except for the most trivial), that people would need the government's permission to own or carry guns, that they would need to fill in forms when they deposit more than $10,000 in cash, etc.
Welcome to the 21st century.
[1] Hugh LaFollette, "Licensing Parents," Philosophy and Public Affairs, Winter 1980, pp. 182-197.
[2] National Post, February 22, 1999.
[3] The Observer, August 7, 1994.
[4] Prabhat Jha et al., "The Economic Rationale for Intervention in the Tobacco Market," in Tobacco Control in Developing Countries, edited by Prabhat Jha and Frank Chaloupka (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 164.
[5] See my "Why I Hate Children," Laissez Faire City Times, April 2, 2001; reproduced at http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artchildren.html.