Article by Bob O'Connor wiki-formatted by --Anthony.Sebastian 00:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
On a quick scan I couldn't find any mention of another point of view on this subject. Let's get represent some arguments and research on the other side, please. Right now all I find is: "also look at the negatives to the potential practice. Violations of personal freedom, of civil or human rights, and of the potential misuse of governments being involved in the process are discussed." Yes--elaborate that thought. :-)
Also, the arguments here are first and foremost philosophical, so shouldn't the Philosophy Workgroup be billed first? --Larry Sanger 05:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I have to say--once again--that this article is woefully short on any critical material. I found just one paragraph, and it does not detail arguments in any substantial way. The moral arguments against what would be shocking and unprecedented government intrusions in erstwhile private matters must be very strong indeed. After all, to say that parents should be licensed is simply to say that, ultimately, the government should take responsibility for declaring who may or may not have children.
I do admit that I could find only a couple of philosophy articles critical of the proposal. But, knowing the habits of philosophers as I guess I do, I think this reflects the fact that most philosophers are apt to dismiss the proposal without a serious hearing, so it isn't worth writing about. Does that mean that an article on the subject should be largely uncritical? I don't think so. I think it is worth rehearsing the outlines of the parental-rights objection to the proposal, which anyone with even a modest education in political theory and rights theory ought to be able to construct.
I also see no mention of public reaction to the very notion of licensing parents in the (relatively) liberal West -- which is apt to be somewhere in the vicinity of disbelief, laughing dismissal, and the harshest outrage. Is this because the idea has been so seldom heard-of that there has been no appreciable public reaction? This is relevant at the very least to the issue of the political feasibility of the policy.
There's also little here about the policy's workability.
Finally, I wonder if there shouldn't be more of a mention of China's famous one-child policy, which seems relevant to issues of workability and rights, even though the justification there is population control. --Larry Sanger 20:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments from history editor
In the introduction, I put what I thought might be organizing categories. For me, it was hard to follow subsequent sections that seemed to jump suddenly from eugenics to population control. Give this some thought. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that it seems very choppy.
- We might also want to consider a different name. When I first saw the title, I took "licensing" to be an adjective rather than a verb. I expected an article on large corporations that hold licenses for many subgroups or individuals. I'm of the opinion that whenever possible, encyclopedia articles should be written about nouns rather than verbs. --Joe Quick 23:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I confess that I first read it as "licensing patents". Howard C. Berkowitz 00:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I suggested "Licensing parenting" as less ambiguous. --Anthony.Sebastian 02:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)