David Davis, at the Libertarian Alliance, seems prepared to consider an hypothesis involving direct state control of reproduction. He says:
I am beginning to think that there is an agenda going on down here, regarding who will and who will not be “authorised” to have children.
He may well be right. If there is the possibility of increasing the number of people who depend upon the state for their employment, and will therefore support it, it now seems rather unlikely that the present government would miss the opportunity.
However, if they do institute some form of official control, it will be unnecessary because the existing system is working quite adequately.
People like Mrs. Underclass and myself do not have children, because we could not afford to make a proper job of it as well as paying for a house, and did not relish the thought of handing them over for state conditioning and eventually having them taken away by social workers for ‘television denial abuse’ or for exposing them to ‘inappropriate influences’ (like Kipling, perhaps).
Our former neighbours, however, had six when we knew them, and were working on a seventh; they probably have nine or ten by now. All state-dependent from birth; all guaranteed to remain so for life; therefore reliable socialist voters.
This is not news.
Of some comfort to us (though not to our parents) is the thought that thanks to our choice what promises to be one of the most loathsome, vicious and indefensible tyrannies of the last five thousand years will be deprived of a couple of slaves.
Aficionados of schadenfreude might also consider that once the ‘voting’ process is subjected to proper socialist progress, and automated, the whole vast class of bred-to-vote-Labour inadequates will be made redundant by a few techies, who will ensure that the ‘voting’ machines deliver the required result.
The next move will be entirely to dispose of this class, as an unjustified waste of public money. This will be facilitated by accustoming the public to the idea of compulsory medication, which is being done now. Numbered ballot-papers didn’t scare them; why should numbered syringes?
I, too, can do Conspiracy Theories.
I’m not saying that any person should not have the right to beget any other.
It seems to me to be a basic human right.
What I’m trying to highlight is the seeming intrusion of the State into interpersonal child-parent relationships. Also, I suspect that the State wants to be able to regulate not only who can beget a child but more importantly who can have that child for socialisation afterward.
Little, male, unprepossessing boys, say under about aged 2, may be regarded as expendable in a (very) few (highly publicised) cases, to be able to bring about new controls, derived from “lessons learned”.
An animal right, I’d say. Human rights consist of the making of fire and the use of tools.
Your suspicion is a plausible one. It is hard to believe that a government of this nature would omit such a precaution.