15 comments

• 

  Steven Horwitz

  3 years ago

  Will - ever read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood? It takes your title question to its logical conclusion.
  reply
• 

  Will Wilkinson

  3 years ago

  Steve, No, I haven't. I'll give it a shot.
  reply
• 

  jb

  3 years ago

  Will,
  
  Re: The Handmainds Tale - Don't waste your time. The book is, IMO, pedantic and annoying. Watch the movie instead - much less time spent, and exactly the same message.
  reply
• 

  Brian Moore

  3 years ago

  Nice. You summed exactly how I feel about lots of things -- I think they're nice, but they don't need to be subsidized/controlled/regulated.
  reply
• 

  Castillon

  3 years ago

  Will Wilkinson,
  
  Try:
  
  Koonz, The Nazi Conscience
  
  Koonz, Mothers in the Fatherland: Women, the Family and Nazi Politics
  
  Stepheson, Women in Nazi Germany
  reply
• 

  Wintermute

  3 years ago

  Governments already subsidize childbirth highly. "Free" K-12 schooling and subsidized higher education tuition and grants, free or subsidized day care, tax and Social Security benefits for stay-at-home spouses.
  reply
• 

  brig@ddt.com

  3 years ago

  This is already policy. What is the child tax credit? $1000 per kid?
  reply
• 

  blammo

  3 years ago

  This is the inverse of China's "One child" policy, but substitutes social engineering instead of force.
  
  This sounds suspiciously democrat. Wouldn't a true conservative argue that the best way to encourage people to have more children would be to lower the average American's tax burden, and let nature take its course?
  reply
• 

  Famous J

  3 years ago

  You talk about trying to maintain the public/private distinction. What, exactly, is marriage if not a massive intrusion of the public into the private?
  
  At some point, the government decided that A) people are going to get married and B) this is a good thing, and so they put their stamp of approval on it, and lavish people who get married with whatever benefits they could to dream up.
  
  In principle, this is no different than what Douhat and Salam are proposing, only replace "get married" with "have children".
  
  Having said that, I agree that they could indeed come up with a less creepy way of putting it.
  reply
• 

  Chris Farris

  3 years ago

  Ok, am I the only one who isn't totally creeped out between this article and the Nazi's desire for the women to bear more children to support the Reich?
  
  Oh, and sorry for invoking Godwin's law, but this these similarities are creepy.
  reply
• 

  Reginleif

  3 years ago

  I like the idea of pro-family policy (as long as that includes a non-bigoted notion of the family).
  
  So would a childfree couple be thought of as a family? Guess not, from the rest of your post... you're not "really" part of a faaammmbleeee unless you've sprogged.
  reply
• 

  Laurie

  3 years ago

  Australia introduced an incentive program last year, aimed at encouraging people to have more children. The family receives $2,300 for each child. The Treasurer said, when interviewed, "You should have..one for your husband, one for your wife, and one for your country."
  reply
• 

  Gruntled

  3 years ago

  I think parenthood is not state service, but it is national service. I elaborate on this point at http://gruntledcenter.blogspot.com/.
  reply
• 

  Lynn

  3 years ago

  Thought you might like to see this. You're mentioned in it.
  
  http://www.livejournal.com/community/cf_hardcore/1165412.html
  reply
• 

  Marvin McConoughey

  3 years ago

  A world of six billion people and mass poverty is not in need of higher population. Our country already suffers from declining petroleum production, rising environmental maintenance costs, limited water resources, and massive trade deficits. Rising population threatens a lower standard of living for future Americans, more rapid environmental deterioration, greater competition for farmland and housing, even faster depletion of natural resources and, eventually, food shortages and higher risk of disease epidemics.
  reply