It is theoretically desirable, but it could not be applied in practice. It is both theoretically desirable and practically applicable. He suspends judgment on whether it is a good idea or not. What principle does LaFollette present in favor of licensing parents?
In this post, I explain why libertarians—or at least minarchist BH-libertarians—ought to endorse parental licensing. The basic idea is simple: See more below the fold. All else equal, causing harm to anyone, including a child, is sufficient and necessary to justify interference.
Children are vulnerable—especially to those who raise them. A policy meant to reduce harms that happen to children and so ensure their rights are respected is worth taking seriously.
Licensing Parents Hugh Lafollette Lafollette’s thesis and argument is that we should require all parents or potential parents to procure a license prior to having children. A response to hugh lafolettes paper licensing parents October 6, by Leave a Comment Home > Library > Articles an introduction to the mythology of a deity by hebrews & Essays > Sexual a description of the cyclops a painting by odilon redon Arousal the battle against aids . According to Hugh LaFollette in his essay Licensing Parents, it is and would be both right and possible to do so. I will attempt to argue LaFollette's point by using the different scenarios and analogies presented in his essay.
Parental licensing is such a policy. This is not a requirement to be licensed to get pregnant, carry a baby to term, or give birth. It is a requirement to be licensed to raise a child.
With such a requirement in place, if you have a baby, are not licensed to raise children, and do not get licensed, the baby would be removed from your home and put up for adoption by someone licensed.
The point is not to punish you but to protect the child. It should be clear that parenting is potentially extremely harmful. If that is right, licensing parenting can reduce significant harms and rights violations.
Libertarians should thus take it seriously.
I think BHL readers will raise 2 main objections. The first objection, I suspect, will be an aversion to regulation of all sorts. Parental licensing is similar: Granted, we would need a licensing institution.
Consider that abused children are more likely than unabused children to commit violent crimes when adults. InLaFollette tells us The damage [of child neglect and abuse] does not stop with the [immediate] victims. Their maltreatment affects how they will treat others when they grow up.
They are far more likely to abuse their own children, and they are more likely to become criminals.
This is much higher than the effects of factors normally thought to cause criminality—including unemployment and crack cocaine use LaFollette5. This means we can reduce the numbers of crimes—violent crimes—in the future by reducing the number of abusive parents now—the point of parental licensing.
Reducing crimes means we can reduce police forces, courts, etc. Of course, the police, courts and such would be needed to deal with violations of the new licensing law as well as remaining crime, but the overall change could be great.
Admittedly, a parental licensing program would require interference before there is any harm—but so do laws against drunk driving, laws requiring clear and honest labeling of foods and drugs, etc.
We lack knowledge, the claim might go, about good parenting and how to test for it.Libertarianism and Parental Licensing Back in December of , I posted “Licensing Parents,” defending a view Hugh LaFollette had introduced into philosophical literature in that the state should license parents (LaFollette further defended this stance in ; see Note 1).
Now that Lafollette has demonstrated that a parent licensing program should be in effect and is desirable, he refutes 5 common objections to the implementation of the program.
The first is that we don’t have the means of testing what is a ‘Good Parent’. While this may be true, it’s not what is required by the program. Licensing Parents Hugh LaFollete Would the licensing of parents be morally right and theoretically possible?
According to Hugh LaFollette in his essay Licensing Parents, it is and would be both right and possible to do so.
This paper is an extension of Hugh LaFollette’s original philosophical work, “Licensing Parents”, which was published in Philosophy and Public Affairs in Back in December of , I posted “Licensing Parents,” defending a view Hugh LaFollette had introduced into philosophical literature in that the state should license parents (LaFollette further defended this stance in ; see Note 1).
LaFollette is not a libertarian and as I indicated then, I disagree with him about a lot–including the need to license medical doctors and lawyers.
In Hugh Lafollette’s paper, “Licensing Parents” he talks about the need for government licensing of parents. His argument states that for any activity that is harmful to others, requires competence, and has a reliable procedure for determining competence, should require licensing by the.