Against. Such systems in fact have been implemented in the past. They were, bluntly speaking, the most perverse form of totalitarian subjugation imaginable. Consider: who decides the criteria? Are people with low IQ's barred from procreating? How about people with bad teeth? Or is it people who are convicted of crimes? Which ones? What if our criminal law system is flawed? Do you feel comfortable in snuffing out of existence genetic lines of a race based on a necessarily biased and imperfect set of criteria?

hmmmm....... If you read my idea properly, you will see I only suggested that those who couldn't pay for bringing up their kids shouldn't be able to depend on state support...I made no mention of low IQ, criminality and so on. Get off your soap box. If you have no money to raise a child properly, is it ok? 'The State' will just have to pay? no way! why should I have to pay for other people's children if they can't pay for them?

Maybe a license (U.S. spelling) would not need to be required, but some form of adult education in parenting could be required, or, at least, recommended. Such a class could be recommended at the application for a marriage license. However, as not all prospective parents wish to be married, there are other methods of communicating the message. Hospitals could distribute information about parenting classes to the parents of newborns.

Hello,

My earlier comments were posted erroneously as "industry" participant", but I have no particular expertise in this area of social services. However, I do not seem to be able to find a way to delete that classification of my earlier comment.morrison bonpasse

I tend to agree with the sentiment of your idea. Having children you cannot afford clearly imposes negative externalities on society. However, I think the legal and moral barrier of a licensing system per se may too onerous to overcome.

How about working toward something in between? We could at least reduce some of the subsidies parents receive for having children bringing the price a little more in line with the true cost. The tax code is full of these. The more recently legislated child tax credit is the most egregious as it is available regardless of income.

Employers and unions also subsidize child-bearing in cases where they offer health insurance plans which automatically extend to an employee's children. As such employees with many children essentially enjoy a higher salary than their co-workers who choose to have smaller families.

And if you lose your job, you lose your child? What about your dog?

There are two fundamental problems with this idea:

1) Who pays for the infrastructure to be developed and maintained to take care of licensing/classes, etc? The taxpayer? The government is the least efficient body in existence today, why do you want it to be bigger? Do you want to pay for someone else to learn to be a mother?

2) Someone has to decide what standards will exist. What if you don't agree with the standards? There is a lot in society today that I don't agree with. What if you need to agree for instance to teach that abortion is ok or that that abortion is not ok to get a license? This can too easily turn into a political engine to achieve some fouled up agenda of some radical group.

How about this idea: When you have kids, you have a responsibility for them. If you don't want to have that responsibility, don't make babies.

There seems to be a lot of concern on this site about not wanting to pay for other people's whatever. I find this disconcerting. I'm less concerned about poor people having babies and making me pay taxes for them than if those people are skillful enough to raise a child. But any way you cut this idea it wouldn't work. Poor people are disallowed to have babies? That smells like class war.

does anyone seriously think poor people should not be allowed to have children? That's disturbing. The rich are not universally fabulous parents. Poverty sometimes occurs despite a parent's best hardworking efforts. Our economic system is based on cycles with winners and losers. The gap between rich and poor is increasing, not decreasing. Denying people families because they got the short end of the economic stick is cruel and totalitarianesque.

I can understand the motivation behind this idea, having once worked with a guy who had 7 kids, was making the same low wage as I was (both small shop welders), but loved tax time as his earned income credits meant that he got more back than he put in (so he claimed, I never checked if thats even possible, don't really care, truth be told). He'd go and have a big weekend of beer drinking with his buddies right after the check came in.

But I'm still against this one, for the reasons already mentioned by other posters, and for two other reasons right off the top of my head (could probably come up with others, but how many do I really need?).

1. How on earth could this be enforced? What penalty would be imposed on those who had children without "permission". Just the costs of proving paternity would be an absurd burden on the tax payer. Just think how many new born babies would be abandoned in trash cans and public toilets by mothers not wanting to get in trouble! How do you mask a pregnancy? Eat at McDonalds every day, blow up like a balloon and no one will know! If you'll pardon my bluntness, this one is even dumber than the fat tax idea I was just reading about (I'm a 6' male who weighs 190 if anyone is wondering).

2. Try, please try, to remember that many great individuals have come from very humble backgrounds. Our society allows people to rise above their beginnings if they have the intelligence and dedication to do so. Just because a persons parents are not terribly bright or motivated does not mean they will never contribute something of value to society.

Some of the worlds greatest leaders, artisit, musicians, scientists and thinkers came from poor parents.

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/aa/carnegie

http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/Choir/3228/Gershwin/index.html

http://www.soundgenerator.com/news/showarticle.cfm?articleid=8764

Would we have been better off without Andrew Carnegie? George Gershwin? Henry Ford? James Brown? All their parents were poor.

The idea has merit, but would not work, you cannot be held back from recreation due to your income level.There are many, many poor people out there with genetic advantages such as intellect, size etc. whom would be exempt if this came to pass. Furthermore, those with the finances may not exactly be "good" or people, a lot of those with money have no commendable faculties.

I think that we should increase the education yes, but that is all we can do.

Actually, you don't need a license to buy a Ferrari, you just have to have enough money to buy it. You don't need money to buy a baby because you make it yourself. If you can make a ferrari, then you can have one of those too. Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to make a baby than a Ferrari.

The answer should always be less government not more government. Why not fine people for not brushing their teeth (maybe a good idea) based on the fact that it a unpleasant for the rest of us.

We need less social programs, more people relying on people and relationships. Social programs create laziness and abuse because it is not personal enough. People feel like they don't have to own up anything. Society and government cannot be a mentor or a role model to a person, only another person can provide that.

Those type of people need expectations placed upon them.

I brought this up in another thread regarding causes of crime. I feel very strongly that this would solve a host of our societal problems.

Unfortunately, although perfectly rational, the idea is ahead of its time. Wait until the pains of overpopulation are bad enough, and your idea will be implemented.

The conservative opposition to this sort of thing is purely reflexive and bogus, as is their opposition to abortion.

Eugenics is, of course, a loaded term, but I have a couple of points in defense of this odiously pragmatic idea. First of all, I believe financial solvency IS the most humane and rational basis for a eugenic, horde-thinning strategy. 2nd point is, when people object to eugenics they often point to individuals who overcame obstacles to achieve greatness, or made a famous contribution to society. While I do not deny that such inspiring stories can and do occur, to me the existence of these overachievers does not come close to counterbalancing all of the detrimental effects that poverty wreaks upon any society (not to mention the disadvantaged individuals, themselves). Finally, I'll point out that it is emotionally manipulative to identify the brilliant life of an actual historical person in any discussion of eugenics, because it inevitably calls to mind the notion of erasing a life-- which is murder. Say what you will about eugenics-- it is not murder or genocide except in some philosophical sense.

In the case of poverty, use of the system is not the same as abuse of the system. Cases where people are blatently taking advantage stick out to us, but that does not mean everyone is doing the same.

But logic like that is why the majority of abortion providers are located near poor areas. People assume that poor automatically equals bad parenting, crime and all sorts of negative things. In my opinion however, one wrong-headed, intitled, priveledged child can do more damage in a lot of cases than a group of disadvantaged kids. The only difference is, we don't send cops after these crooked politicians most of the time!

I would consider support of legislation that says parents are not able to claim their child on a tax return until they take a parenting class - perhaps a series of classes, but that is a loaded weapon depending on the ideology of whatever politician who happens to be in office - Hitler's youth anyone?.

Are we talking about eugenics, if so why, thats a socialist Idea.

In the past people did have a license before having children.

It was called a marriage license. - I'm English and never know if I should use English or American spelling.

To adopt a child you have to go through all sorts of interviews and means tests.

But people have children all the time when they are ill-prepared to look after them.

Yes it is an unenforcable idea, but even if it was introduced volentarily it might give out the right message.

Reminds me of China's one baby policy (is it still in effect?). While it's certainly disconcerting to see people have children for which they may not be able to care properly, it's abominable to see the things state enforced limits can lead people to do.

licencing won't work ... but mandatory training after giving birth might. I think employers (who do have to have licences) must have mandatory training also ... in how to treat employees since they would be nothing without them and yet there isn't any legislation that says they must treat them with any more respect than the garbage

i think the world could benefit from the inception of a 'parent license'. if only to give the little guys a better shot at life!there could be a test.. from which, lets say... prospective parents had to score 75% overall in order to be granted a license.including criteria regarding income and holdings, criminality [although i realise this would be hard to police, i think we could safely say that convicted paedophiles and those convicted of extremely violent crimes could safely be refused license], societal interests [racists? homophobes?... we surely don't need those characteristics passed on to kids] and yes, dare i say it, intelligence.

now this is not to say that, for example... a low income prospective parent is automatically rejected. so long as they score well enough in the other categories they are still able to have children.

and if prospective parents were having trouble meeting criteria, there could be extra adult schooling/counseling/benefit schemes in order to help them reach that goal. at the very least people would think a lot longer and harder about having children.