AZspot AZspot

blue bits. red rocks.
Sunday 30 November 2008

Here is a simple political concept that deserves discussion: should not all children be provided complete care by the state? I do not mean to suggest that children should be taken away from their parents, but instead that the cost of their upkeep should be borne by the state. Note that I am talking about the cost of their upkeep, not any luxuries. We already provide educational upkeep at state expense; should we not extend this principle to all forms of child care: feeding, clothing, health care, and education behind secondary school? The moral principle behind this is simple: children cannot be held responsible for their lack of earning power; they cannot provide for themselves. Therefore, should they not be provided for by the state? For all of human history, the financial burden of raising children was borne by the parents, and there was a strong financial incentive for parents to do so because children provided their support in their old age. But the economics have completely changed. Children are no longer taking care of their parents in their old age; indeed, older people are wealthier than the young. Old people are sustained by the state (through Social Security and Medicare), so they don’t need the support of the young. Chris Crawford

A GNT creation ©2007–2011