# Spay/Neuter bad parents?



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

As a follow-up to the previous thread on the gang of children (aged eight to fourteen) who committed armed robbery in Charleston, SC, USA last week, I was forwarded another article in which a local politician there has subsequently proposed sterilising bad parents. Apparently, he has since apologised (typical chain of events for public figures: incendiary remark, surprised apology). Does anyone know anything about this? Comments?

_'Charleston City Councilman Larry Shirley says he's sorry to anyone offended by his remarks about sterilizing some parents as an answer to crime, but he was just trying to start a "dialogue."'

_


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

It would be appealing on a gut level, but I would be concerned about who is selecting the candidates for sterilization and their motives.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> It would be appealing on a gut level, but I would be concerned about who is selecting the candidates for sterilization and their motives.


Ya think?

But once we implement this wise policy we can move on to something along these lines to eradicate all the other pernicious drags on society:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan's_run


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

*Ummmm*

Isn't that like closing the door _after_ the horse has escaped? I mean we won't find out they are bad parents until _after_ they already procreated. By then the damage is already done - do I misunderstand?


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

mpcsb said:


> Isn't that like closing the door _after_ the horse has escaped? I mean we won't find out they are bad parents until _after_ they already procreated. By then the damage is already done - do I misunderstand?


You prevent the possibility of them breeding again. There's two parents, if they have one child only the defective gene pool shrinks by 50% with each generation. 

Of course its a bad idea, but that doesn't mean we can't say we like the idea from time to time.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

mp- Yeah I guess they're thinking "Wow, let's not do that again!"

This is one of those policies that sounds like a great idea and makes you wonder why nobody thought of it until now.... and then you sober up a little and realize that what seems astute after a few drinks has some downside in the light of day.

Some other interesting punishments I'd like to see that are less ...scary but are 'outside the box'..

How about when a kid backtalks a teacher and misbehaves in school mom and dad have to come stand in the corner for an hour? Anyone care to bet on how long it would take mom and dad to decide that junior needs some discipline???

Putting me in charge of the Department of Creative Criminal Penalties would be pretty entertaining but probably would not be a good idea.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Just to be clear, especially on a forum that frequently decries less virulent forms of fascism, real or imagined (e.g. foie gras ban), you're talking about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

So, yeah, people have thought of this idea before. Among the proponents were the Nazis.

For the record, I don't want dirtbags like Rep. Mark Foley anywhere near my gonads.



Chuck Franke said:


> mp- Yeah I guess they're thinking "Wow, let's not do that again!"
> 
> This is one of those policies that sounds like a great idea and makes you wonder why nobody thought of it until now.... and then you sober up a little and realize that what seems astute after a few drinks has some downside in the light of day.
> 
> ...


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> (*surprised apology)*
> 
> _'Charleston City Councilman Larry Shirley says he's sorry to anyone offended by his remarks about sterilizing some parents as an answer to crime, but he was just trying to start a "dialogue."'_


Politicians can say some interesting things but this is a doozy. You'd think that people who are selected would just take their sterilisation for the greater good of society... ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I'll say something equally as outrageous as the councilman. 

The problem does not lie in the breeding nor should we infringe upon people's individual rights of procreation (or not to procreate). The problem lies in that modern US society functions under the damaging facade of propogating the concept of the importance of self-esteem and immediate gratification. 

If you are 12 years old and can not read "See Spot run" you should not be fooled into thinking this is acceptable. Your family should care enough about you to help you correct your deficiency. However in today's world, the deficiency of many groups is seen as a virtue. Self-esteem is seen as the goal, not accomplishment.

In terms of immediate gratification, it is best summed up by something I saw on 20/20 once concerning the theft of cars and joy riding in some burg in New Jersey. When John asked a 15 year old why he felt is was acceptable to steal a Lexus, the 15 year old replied to the effect of never having a Lexus and he wanted one, therefore theft was the answer. I know some of our board members come from monied backgrounds, but I can assure you that at 15 I had no expectation of a luxury car in my future and realized if I did ever get one, it would be after years of hard work.

So in summation, between the cult of self-esteem and the rights bestowed by the need for immediate gratification, we have a toxic brew. Everyone has the right to breed, we just need to impose some social constraints on acceptable expectations and actions.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Everyone has the right to breed, we just need to impose some social constraints on acceptable expectations and actions.


Hmmmm, sounds like you're advocating more pc governmental intrusion. No smoking, no foie gras, no rude children. Can you expound further on the 'imposition'.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

I confess that state-sanctioned sterilisation is a very frightening concept, but should society take a less extreme position than 'everyone has a right to breed as much as they want', and perhaps craft a stick-and-carrot approach to support and encourage good families to grow, whilst encouraging the less responsible/fit to use birth control?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I think you hit on some core problems. It seems that the craving for self-esteem, itself not an outrageous desire in moderation, is informed and fed by our culture of rampant materialism.

Nothing wrong with nice things like, um, clothes. But I think /rampant/ materialism (particularly when employed as a surrogate for what many would call "spirituality" or a deeper religious connection, or else "meaning") can lead some people to NEED that Lexus, or the $1000 ice cream sundae I heard about on a recent NPR podcast.

Been rereading some Bertrand Russell lately, including his Conquest of Happiness. He had some views on this matter.



Wayfarer said:


> I'll say something equally as outrageous as the councilman.
> 
> The problem does not lie in the breeding nor should we infringe upon people's individual rights of procreation (or not to procreate). The problem lies in that modern US society functions under the damaging facade of propogating the concept of the importance of self-esteem and immediate gratification.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Hmmmm, sounds like you're advocating *more pc governmental intrusion.* No smoking, no foie gras, no rude children. Can you expound further on the 'imposition'.


Nothing could be further from what I am proposing. I am proposing the removal of PC intrusion so that it is okay to say things like, "You know, Johnny is a good kid, but he would make a better brick layer than brain surgeon and you are not helping Johnny by boosting his self-esteem telling him he could be a brain surgeon." Under current PC rubric, this could easily lead to litigation or at the very least, a scathing piece by Katie Couric.

When we set children up for failure, it is not to be wondered at that they become bitter and blameful. As an executive I sincerely believe my role is to set up my employees for success. If I try to employee an executive chef as a chief nursing officer, it is my fault when that person fails. Society must foster mores that help set up children for success through the teaching of deferred gratification and removing this concept of no one having limits, anyone can be <insert glamourous career here>. When a person raised on immediate gratification fails to obtain a desire NOW, they see no reason not to obtain their desires through nefarious or inappropriate means.

Just my humble opinion.

Cheers


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Nothing could be further from what I am proposing. I am proposing the removal of PC intrusion so that it is okay to say things like, "You know, Johnny is a good kid, but he would make a better brick layer than brain surgeon and you are not helping Johnny by boosting his self-esteem telling him he could be a brain surgeon." Under current PC rubric, this could easily lead to litigation or at the very least, a scathing piece by Katie Couric.
> 
> When we set children up for failure, it is not to be wondered at that they become bitter and blameful. As an executive I sincerely believe my role is to set up my employees for success. If I try to employee an executive chef as a chief nursing officer, it is my fault when that person fails. Society must foster mores that help set up children for success through the teaching of deferred gratification and removing this concept of no one having limits, anyone can be <insert glamourous career here>. When a person raised on immediate gratification fails to obtain a desire NOW, they see no reason not to obtain their desires through nefarious or inappropriate means.
> 
> ...


All of that makes sense to me, yet I see no practical application. If the government does not state and enforce what is acceptable then who does? Are you then proposing something similar to Nancy's "Just Say No" campaign? I don't mean to be antagonistic, but I still am missing how you mean the social constraints be imposed.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Probably sterilization would fall under "cruel and unusual punishment" forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

I wonder why the kids did it. For thrill maybe? There are kids from nice suburban homes who shoplift not out of need but to feel naughty. Armed robbery takes it to a new level, of course, but are these kids incorrigible thugs or just pretend gangsters getting their kicks?

I've been to that neighborhood a few times and did not feel unsafe. It's right by the aquarium, the building where Ben Silver holds its summer warehouse sale and The Boathouse restaurant. It's about a half-mile up East Bay St. from the main tourist/restaurant area and the beautiful hotel we stayed in during our last trip to Charleston, The Vendue.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I think you hit on some core problems. It seems that the craving for self-esteem, itself not an outrageous desire in moderation, is informed and fed by our culture of rampant materialism.


I strongly disagree. The motive for profit and material gain is not a "core problem," at least not in a social sense. The motive to profit, when coupled with a respect for the life, liberty and (most importantly) property of others, is a tremendous social good. In fact, there is an enormous social benefit when a producer of some economic good finds a way to maximize his profit in a free market -- the good, whatever it is, is delivered to willing consumers more efficiently, at higher quality and lower cost than all other extant alternatives. The great suffering of poverty and social decay that we see in the world exist where, for various reasons, the profit-seeking entrepreneur is prohibited or inhibited. Only someone living in First-world material abundance would think that material excess is a core social problem. There are many places in the world where the poor people are starving, not fat.

So, while the desire for personal material gain can, as in the case of your Lexus thief, be the impetus for crime (i.e., the disregard of the property of others), it is also the origin of every economic good that we call civilization, including the clothes on your back, the food you eat and the computer on which you are reading this.

It's the disregard for life, liberty and property that constitutes the various forms of social problems such as crime.

(P.S. Bertrand Russell was a socialist.)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> All of that makes sense to me, yet I see no practical application. If the government does not state and enforce what is acceptable then who does? Are you then proposing something similar to Nancy's "Just Say No" campaign? I don't mean to be antagonistic, but I still am missing how you mean the social constraints be imposed.


Society would impose the social constraints of course. It is society that lowered expectations, it needs to be society that raises.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I strongly disagree. The motive for profit and material gain is not a "core problem," at least not in a social sense. The motive to profit, when coupled with a respect for the life, liberty and (most importantly) property of others, is a tremendous social good. In fact, there is an enormous social benefit when a producer of some economic good finds a way to maximize his profit in a free market -- the good, whatever it is, is delivered to willing consumers more efficiently, at higher quality and lower cost than all other extant alternatives. The great suffering of poverty and social decay that we see in the world exist where, for various reasons, the profit-seeking entrepreneur is prohibited or inhibited. Only someone living in First-world material abundance would think that material excess is a core social problem. There are many places in the world where the poor people are starving, not fat.
> 
> So, while the desire for personal material gain can, as in the case of your Lexus thief, be the impetus for crime (i.e., the disregard of the property of others), it is also the origin of every economic good that we call civilization, including the clothes on your back, the food you eat and the computer on which you are reading this.
> 
> ...


What you are missing Phinn, is the total lack of connection the people in question have between hard work, commerce, and aquisition of material goods. Their desire for personal material gain in no way fires any desire for economic good or activity in them and certainly nothing I would remotely call "civilization". We must re-connect many segments of society with the direct links between deferred gratification, hard work, and material aquisition.

Here is a little experiment I have often conducted myself. In the course of your day on Saturday, ask people you come in contact with by what means they feel they have the most likely chance of becoming a millionare. I have ran this experiment many times and by far the most common answer I receive is the lottery. I will then ask, "So do you feel most rich people are rich due to luck or due to hard work?" They will usually attribute luck. We need to remove the lottery syndrome.

Again, just my thoughts.

Regards


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Society would impose the social constraints of course. It is society that lowered expectations, it needs to be society that raises.


Ah, the ever nebulous 'society', whose accomplishments are almost a numerous as 'they'. Sorry to seem so skeptical.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> What you are missing Phinn, is the total lack of connection the people in question have between hard work, commerce, and aquisition of material goods.


I am not missing it at all. My signature quote is devoted to that very topic.



> We must re-connect ... the direct links between deferred gratification, hard work, and material aquisition.


Those links exist as a matter of natural law. They are immutable properties of social systems that are comprised of individuals capable of decisional action.

Commerce is simply a form of peaceful, mutually beneficial cooperation. The benefits of commerce arise naturally from social interaction. Criminal violence (especially highly organized forms of criminal violence) is what negates, degrades and interferes with the natural process of a society's developing ever-increasingly complex forms of commerce.

Removing these forms of organized criminal violence would allow the links you describe to revitalize themselves.

Your reference to "deferred gratification" is especially important. Poverty is the result of preferring short-term benefits over long-term ones, and wealth is the reverse.



> We need to remove the lottery syndrome.


We need to remove many things, I agree.

It's too bad that the criminal organization we call the modern State has, in its infinite benevolence and wisdom, decided not only to run lotteries, but to run them as a monopoly.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I will then ask, "So do you feel most rich people are rich due to luck or due to hard work?"


I probably would answer "due to inheritance."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Ah, the ever nebulous 'society', whose accomplishments are almost a numerous as 'they'. Sorry to seem so skeptical.


mpcsb, you have stated you believe only governments can create and impose constraints:



mpcsb said:


> If the government does not state and enforce what is acceptable then who does?


I gave you my answer: social mores or society. If you are skeptical of the ability for this to affect change, so be it. I am skeptical also however I hold that having the government dictate what profession I might enter, how many kids I should have, etc. is wrong and against all that an open economy and representative democracy should stand for. However I am equally against the PC nonsense I have outlined above.

Freedom is scary and often unpredictable with no warranties expressed or implied.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I probably would answer "due to inheritance."


Thanks for your honesty crs.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I like the lotteries. I play both Megamillions and Powerball, same numbers every draw. I do not quite understand why people play lotteries that offer, say, a jackpot of $50,000. But a small wager for a chance at $100 million, sure, why not? My material desires are modest, but I could do a lot of good with the money.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> It would be appealing on a gut level, but I would be concerned about who is selecting the candidates for sterilization and their motives.


Though in a knee jerk reaction this sounds like a legitmate solution, there are several potential problems and flaws with this. As with most public punishments in this country, trying to decide when to impose the punishment and after how many "convictions" would be difficult. More importantly, its kind of like closing the barn door after the cow gets out. If they've already had their children, what good is sterilization going to do?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I strongly disagree. The motive for profit and
> 
> (P.S. Bertrand Russell was a socialist.)


lol. Thanks for the newsflash! Guess I'll steer clear of his nearly 100 years of intellectual contribution then.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Guess I'll steer clear of his nearly 100 years of intellectual contribution then.


Wonderful! If you could encourage your contemporaries to do the same, the world would owe you a debt of gratitude.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Bertie, I came across an interesting comment on the anti-materialistic mentality, written by Mises in his paper, _Profit and Loss_, in 1951.



> As soon as the problem of profits is raised, people shift it from the praxeological sphere into the sphere of ethical judgments of value. Then everybody glories in the aureole of a saint and an ascetic. He himself does not care for money and material well-being. He serves his fellow men to the best of his abilities unselfishly. He strives after higher and nobler things than wealth. Thank God, he is not one of those egoistic profiteers.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


I don't think people commit crimes out of a desire for material gain, since everyone has a desire to improve his condition, and not everyone commits crimes.

Crimes are committed when A tries to gain _at B's expense_, rather than through mutual benefit and cooperation.

What drives criminal behavior is either an antisocial personality, or in less severe cases, an acute lack of foresight. If you have ever spent any time around criminals, their total refusal to think ahead by more than about 24 hours is pretty much universal.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Phinn,

Thanks for taking the time to post this. While I don't consider myself a libertarian, I /am/ open to considering a range of ideas. The intellectual journey is exciting and ongoing.



Phinn said:


> Bertie, I came across an interesting comment on the anti-materialistic mentality, written by Mises in his paper, _Profit and Loss_, in 1951.
> 
> I don't think people commit crimes out of a desire for material gain, since everyone has a desire to improve his condition, and not everyone commits crimes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I don't think people commit crimes out of a desire for material gain, since everyone has a desire to improve his condition, and not everyone commits crimes.
> 
> Crimes are committed when A tries to gain _at B's expense_, rather than through mutual benefit and cooperation.
> 
> What drives criminal behavior is either an antisocial personality, or in less severe cases, an acute lack of foresight. If you have ever spent any time around criminals, their total refusal to think ahead by more than about 24 hours is pretty much universal.


So then your thesis is that the material objects obtained from theft are meaningless to the common criminal and it is the act that matters? I would submit that this describes "thrill seekers" and those tend to be wealthy folk already. To wit, The Thomas Crown Affair.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Thanks for taking the time to post this.


My pleasure.



> So then your thesis is that the material objects obtained from theft are meaningless to the common criminal and it is the act that matters?


No, what I am saying is that the drive for material gain is universal, so it is not a distinguishing factor between criminals and civilized people.

The distinguishing factor is whether one chooses to gain through mutual benefit and cooperation, as opposed to gaining at the expense of others.

Gaining through mutual benefit requires foresight and long-term thinking, whereas criminality (along with non-criminal forms of self-destruction) is usually a product of short-term thinking.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Phinn said:


> My pleasure.
> 
> No, what I am saying is that the drive for material gain is universal, so it is not a distinguishing factor between criminals and civilized people.
> 
> ...


Somehow I think you are off here. Foresight and long-term thinking is not something that modern society excels at. If it did, I would not be giving 40 year olds lectures all the time where I try to convince them they do indeed have money to save in an IRA by demonstrating how much it costs them to smoke two packs a day.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Interesting derailment.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I probably would answer "due to inheritance."


Just finished my last meeting for the day (hopefully!) and wanted to add this link into the discussion proving my point:



> Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.
> 
> We live well below our means. We wear inexpensive suits and drive American-made cars. Only a minority of us drive the current-model-year automobile. Only a minority ever lease our motor vehicles.


80% first generation wealth. An impressive example of the power of the US system IMO.

However, inexpensive suits? US made cars? Yeesh, obviously no one on this thread is a millionaire!


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Just finished my last meeting for the day (hopefully!) and wanted to add this link into the discussion proving my point:
> 
> 80% first generation wealth. An impressive example of the power of the US system IMO.
> 
> However, inexpensive suits? US made cars? Yeesh, obviously no one on this thread is a millionaire!


Interesting, but I suppose it comes down to what you consider "rich." The writers talk about millionaires who work, who have a "go to hell fund" that would allow them to maintain their standard of living for 12 years if they quit working.

In the context previously, with the lottery being mentioned, I took "rich" to mean independently wealthy, not dependent on employment for their survival for the rest of their lives. I would think that among these people, there would be a higher percentage of people with inherited wealth.

A few years ago I interviewed a farmer who has 17 acres in a town where real estate was worth about $300,000 per acre, probably $400,000 now. We were talking about farmland preservation, in which farmers are paid a price per acre, in his case probably $100,000 per acre, in order to designate it farmland forever. It's his land, but he must farm it, can't sell to a developer, and anyone he sells to must farm that land. He said that $1.7 million isn't a lot of money anymore, he could "probably" retire on it, but the land would be worth far less to his heirs with the restriction on it. Nearly $2 million "isn't a lot of money anymore." Think about it and he's right. So I'm not sure the interesting article really shoots down the notion that most, or many, truly rich people started out with inherited wealth.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Interesting, but I suppose it comes down to what you consider "rich." The writers talk about millionaires who work, who have a "go to hell fund" that would allow them to maintain their standard of living for 12 years if they quit working.
> 
> In the context previously, with the lottery being mentioned, I took "rich" to mean independently wealthy, not dependent on employment for their survival for the rest of their lives. I would think that among these people, there would be a higher percentage of people with inherited wealth.
> 
> A few years ago I interviewed a farmer who has 17 acres in a town where real estate was worth about $300,000 per acre, probably $400,000 now. We were talking about farmland preservation, in which farmers are paid a price per acre, in his case probably $100,000 per acre, in order to designate it farmland forever. It's his land, but he must farm it, can't sell to a developer, and anyone he sells to must farm that land. He said that $1.7 million isn't a lot of money anymore, he could "probably" retire on it, but the land would be worth far less to his heirs with the restriction on it. Nearly $2 million "isn't a lot of money anymore." Think about it and he's right. So I'm not sure the interesting article really shoots down the notion that most, or many, truly rich people started out with inherited wealth.


You are correct, it depends on how you define "rich". I too usually define it as not having to work. I guess I should have been more specific. Also, it shows where we stand in life as most people you will come in contact with on a normal Saturday would consider a million dollars "rich". Heck, I am sure most people working the checkout at the local grocery store would consider anyone earning 75k "rich".

However, what the article shows in that a small percentage of the US public are millionaires and the vast majority of them worked for it. I do not feel even a liberal could argue with this, but I have been known to be wrong when predicting things like that


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Somehow I think you are off here. Foresight and long-term thinking is not something that modern society excels at. If it did, I would not be giving 40 year olds lectures all the time where I try to convince them they do indeed have money to save in an IRA by demonstrating how much it costs them to smoke two packs a day.


I suspect that you are not only wealthier than the people you are lecturing (employees?), but that you also have a habit of using foresight to a greater extent than they do.

And it is also highly likely that these people, albeit with a shorter habitual time scale than you, are in turn more economically stable than others whose lack of foresight is more acute than theirs.

The correlation between wealth and foresight is not always 1-to-1 in every case, but as a generalization, it is certainly sound.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Phinn said:


> The correlation between wealth and foresight is not always 1-to-1 in every case, but as a generalization, it is certainly sound.


I agree with that statement 100%.


----------



## JMatt (Feb 16, 2006)

Just back to the original question re: spay/neuter parents.

As recently as 50 years ago we had state sponsored sterilization in the U.S. Most people just don't realize it, and I'm surprised no one on this thread already mentioned it. No less than the distinguished U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once infamously wrote in an opinion "three generations of idiots is enough" when supporting FORCED sterilization of a mentally impaired girl.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

JMatt said:


> Just back to the original question re: spay/neuter parents.
> 
> As recently as 50 years ago we had state sponsored sterilization in the U.S. Most people just don't realize it, and I'm surprised no one on this thread already mentioned it. No less than the distinguished U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once infamously wrote in an opinion "three generations of idiots is enough" when supporting FORCED sterilization of a mentally impaired girl.


Should mentally and physically imparied persons be permitted to have children, even in such cases when it is all but assured that all of their children will have similar afflictions?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

JMatt said:


> Just back to the original question re: spay/neuter parents.
> 
> As recently as 50 years ago we had state sponsored sterilization in the U.S. Most people just don't realize it, and I'm surprised no one on this thread already mentioned it. No less than the distinguished U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once infamously wrote in an opinion "three generations of idiots is enough" when supporting FORCED sterilization of a mentally impaired girl.


Holmes' precise words were,



> It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. [Citation omitted.] Three generations of imbeciles are enough.


_Buck v. Bell_ (1927) 204 U.S. 200, 207.

Of course, Carrie Buck was sterilized as part of the notorious eugenics programs that were commonplace in the United States at the time. A little Austrian dude and his band of pranksters learned quite a bit about "racial hygiene" from our experiment in "improving the stock"; perhaps a bit too much. In any event, it appears that the best evidence that Carrie Buck was an "imbecile" was that she was raped by her step-mother's nephew. Bad luck. Which was enough for Justice Holmes; OWH saw enough bad luck in the Civil War to last him his long life.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Did Plato not suggest a breeding program?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Eugenics was nowhere more popular than it was among the Progressives.

It was these same Progressives who gave us the income tax, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, anti-trust legislation, unions, Prohibition, and (apropos of an earlier topic) the minimum wage.

You don't have to look any further than two prominent figures of the Progressive Era (1890-1920), Irving Fischer (founder of the American Eugenics Society) and Margaret Sanger (founder of the American Birth Control League, aka Planned Parenthood).

The Progressives were attracted to eugenics because it lent the appearance of scientific legitimacy to their agenda of centralized social and economic control. In that sense, there was no real philosophical difference between micromanaging the price of labor or wheat, or micromanaging reproduction.

It was these people who fervently believed in the government technocrat -- the expert who could, when given governmental power, control things for the betterment of mankind.

Woodrow Wilson was, of course, the quintessential Progressive president -- an overt racist and the man who got us into World War I. His close, personal aide, Colonel House, wrote a fawning book about Wilson, called _Philip Dru: Administrator_, an absurd fantasy about a man who brought peace and prosperity to the world by being elevated to the status of benevolent autocrat. It would be laughable if it weren't the basis for various ideas that gave us unprecedented levels of death and suffering for the last 100 years.

Today, we have the left-liberal netroots, exemplified by Daily Kos and others, who (not coincidentally) call themselves Progressives. They have attempted to sanitize the eugenics component of their agenda of technocratic, centralized control over people's lives, but eugenics is simply the logical extension of core idea that an elite group of experts ought to be in charge of everyone else.


----------

