Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Market formalism solves dysgenics


In the Chapter On The Subject of Reactionary Capitalism, Part 2, Component 7, dysgenics is addressed. The solution given is that there should be a reproduction licencing market where a person's bad behavior in internalized as increased licencing costs. Productive people who contribute to society are financially credited for their contribution, while destructive people are financially charged for their cost. This creates a method that, while discriminatory, is not explicitly racist. Either the market pays you, or you pay the market, to reproduce. The effect is subordinate the evolution of man to capitalism.

This solution is unsatisfying to both White nationalists and liberals for the same reason: it is meritocratic. There is no explicit guarantee of any racial privileges for any group. As such I don't expect it to find any champions any time soon. Under reproduction licencing, the people who cost society money, (from crime, terrorism, bad mental health, chronic illness, whatever), just die off. It is cruel, but fair and impartial. It fulfills the pithy axom that I spelled out in Teleportation, and other r-selected disasters, when I said that "the way to have less poverty is to have less poor people."

If you think criminals, terrorists, and the mentally ill have a right to reproduce you might want to consider revising that belief. What about the children's rights? If you think the chronically ill have a right to pass on defective genes to their children, are you taking into account the rights of the children? There is a tendency of adult humans to treat rights as if only other adults have them. There is an implicit belief that children have rights only slightly better than those of pets. If you believe that reproduction is a right then you must explain why children have rights lower than adults. This is not a Boolean proposition: it is completely possible that neither adults have the right to reproduce nor children have the same rights as adults. Whatever. I simply assert that reproduction is not a right.


No comments:

Post a Comment