Gender Selection

I do not favor government regulating gender selection... just like I don't favor the government telling me what is "indecent" with regards to TV and radio programs.

The skewed gender ratios are even more serious in India and China. The ratios probably aren't as high, but the absolute numbers of people are immense.

Ignoring this problem would be the epitome of willful libertarian blindness. Few things short of outright war would pose a greater danger to a country's political stability than tens or hundreds of thousands of young men for whom there are no women.

It wouldn't be too good for the women, either: In places with skewed sex balance, prostitution becomes a thriving industry.

BB: I'm certainly sympathetic to Mark's libertarian position, but I've got to agree with BB. Yet another instance in which libertarianism sounds good in theory but may not work in practice.

As the War on Drugs and the reduction in abortion rates (in spite of abortion remaining completely legal) demonstrate... government is a poor tool to use when it comes to forcing free citizens to make certain choices. The usage of drugs fluctuates over time, correlating far more with various socioeconomic factors (local and otherwise) than with illegality. And as for abortions, they're not happening as often as they used to... suggesting that addressing the problem is a task perhaps best left to other means aside from government.

I'm surprised to see such staunch critics of government bureaucracy (MW and, to a lesser extent, BB) propose that inefficient government bureaucracy should be used to address this particular issue.

I think the reason they are proposing that government bureaucracy should be used is precisely because, of all other options and in this particular situation, it would be the least inefficient way of approaching it. Goverment IS good for some things, after all (albeit a precious few). Besides, the result of having skewed sex ratios would be a problem whose gravity, I think, you are dismissing (although as a gay man, it wouldn't be so bad for me).

We could always deregulate not only gender selection technology but also marriage. If there's a surplus of guys, let the gals have two of them.

"It wouldn't be too good for the women, either: In places with skewed sex balance, prostitution becomes a thriving industry."

See? The free market is wonderful at solving problems.

John S.:

I disagree. I find it hard to believe that government is the least inefficient way of handling this.

I'm not dismissing the gravity of the situation... just saying that the government isn't likely to be the best way of addressing it.

By the way, I too am a gay man.

Mark and John S.: I didn't even think of it from that perspective. But what about all the poor lesbians?

Anyway, in Arab culture anyway, non-governmental pressures haven't solved the problem but have in fact exacerbated it. I'd like to think American culture wouldn't have the same bias, but that isn't even the question. If society has an interest in maintaining a balanced gender ratio (I think it does), then if such a balance doesn't/wouldn't happen on its own I think we'd be wise to use governmental force to coerce it. Unless we'd get tons of women per man, anyway.

Mark: "government is a poor tool to use when it comes to forcing free citizens to make certain choices."

I've always been baffled at how libertarians equate "Government should be involved," with "Government should force people to make certain choices." It's absolutely bizarre. My theories are that either these libertarians have no experience with government, or they are projecting their own authoritarian impulses.

The market is a fine place in which people can satisfy their individual desires. But there's more in the world than individual desires. Any good government must concern itself with its own perpetuation---unless you plan for libertarian Utopia, once achieved, to be automatically self-extinguishing.

A self-perpetuating government must concern itself to some extent with the production and quality of its next generation of citizens. That doesn't necessarily require ham-fisted regulation. Governments can offer incentives as well as punishments. It could trt something as subtle and elegant as marriage---a hugely successful and unintrusive government policy that many libertarians seem utterly uninterested in defending.

The essential problem with libertarianism is that is assumes that good government just sort of happens on its own, so we all need only concern ourselves with the selfish pursuit of pleasure. Reality dictates otherwise. Real governments die unless someone sustains them.

Of course it's only prudent for government to be concerned with the production and quality of its future citizens.

The issue, though, is whether or not the government is the best tool for addressing the problem. How will the government coordinate the distribution of the incentives and inflict the punishments? Will these incentives and punishments be leveraged more effectively than a non-government approach? If you can sensibly answer both of those questions and then conclude that the government is the best way to go here, then I might believe it. Otherwise, don't bet on it.

I don't see this big distinction between government and non-government approaches. You're still equating government with central planning. But almost any solution would involve the government in some way. The government recognizes marriage; does that make it an evil government-controlled institution? The government allows businesses to form corporations; does that mean that the government is forcing people to collect capital and start businesses?

I don't know what steps a government might take to rectify a sex imbalance in its population. It's a big and complicated subject. But I know that objecting to the government doing anything---simply because it's government action---means that nothing will be done.

We're not talking about marriages or corporations... we're talking about the choice a couple makes about which gender they want their child to be.

It's nice for the government to decree that there should be a certain ratio of women to men or men to women... but how is it going to be backed up? What enforcement is there going to be and how will it be carried out? A law without enforcement is like a leader without any followers: just a guy going for a walk.

Mark: The government should be the servant of society... so hopefully if there's a law it's because society feels a balanced gender ratio is important, no just the government workers.

As for backing it up, one simple way would be to calculate a payment schedule at the beginning of each year that says "each family that gives birth to a girl gets $X, and each family that gives birth to a boy pays $X", or make gender-based tax breaks or what have you.

MW: And how are you going to avoid fraud?

BB: "I've always been baffled at how libertarians equate "Government should be involved," with "Government should force people to make certain choices." It's absolutely bizarre."

But that's exactly what we're talking about here. The only way for a system of carrots and sticks from the government to work in the hope of maintaining a balanced gender ratio is to make the penalty so high and the reward so generous that it really comes down to forcing people to make certain choices. If the carrots and sticks aren't significant, there's no point in having them because they won't be effective.

Many people aren't going to like the idea of being penalized in this way by their government.. and while those same people would probably agree that having a balanced gender ratio is essential, they wouldn't necessarily agree that a system of government incentives and punishments is the best way to go about it.

Ben: "I've always been baffled at how libertarians equate "Government should be involved," with "Government should force people to make certain choices." It's absolutely bizarre."

Mark: "The only way for a system of carrots and sticks from the government to work in the hope of maintaining a balanced gender ratio is to make the penalty so high and the reward so generous that it really comes down to forcing people to make certain choices. If the carrots and sticks aren't significant, there's no point in having them because they won't be effective."

Your thinking is entirely too limited. You’re ignoring the fact that people have minds, and that they participate in a culture. You’re thinking of people as if they’re animals. You’re thinking only of punishing or rewarding them for the narrowly defined action that you perceive as being the problem, without noticing that these people have beliefs and values. It’s like the Aesop fable about the wind and the sun.

The underlying folly is the libertarian fantasy of a country held together solely with sticks and carrots, and entirely without culture or shared traditions. That’s really where we disagree, Mark. No laws are enough to make people behave as they must in a free society. For any government to stand, most of its citizens must believe in a common moral code, transmitted via culture and traditions.

Try an experiement: Give people the chance to steal $1000 from a neighbor. Most people, I think, would refuse. Then convince them that they will never be caught or punished for the theft in any way. Most of them will still refuse. The reason that they don’t steal from their neighbors is not that they fear getting caught. They don’t steal because they believe that stealing is morally wrong. If most people didn’t believe that stealing was morally wrong, then we could never hire enough policemen to catch all the thieves, nor could we ever build enough prisons to hold them all.

So when you confidently assert that the only way for government to meaningfully affect behavior is through carrots and sticks so massive that they effectively eliminate all personal choice, you’re only correct within the libertarian know-nothing conception of the relationship between government and culture. In the real world, where government and culture are closely connected, it isn’t so hard to change behavior without treating people like animals.

BB: "The underlying folly is the libertarian fantasy of a country held together solely with sticks and carrots, and entirely without culture or shared traditions."

Who's talking about a country without culture or shared traditions? I'm certainly not.

BB: "Your thinking is entirely too limited. You’re ignoring the fact that people have minds, and that they participate in a culture. You’re thinking of people as if they’re animals. You’re thinking only of punishing or rewarding them for the narrowly defined action that you perceive as being the problem, without noticing that these people have beliefs and values."

I'm sorry... I didn't think I had to assert the obvious; that people participate in a culture, have minds, beliefs, and values... and are not animals.

But if you want to talk about these beliefs and values, I think a majority of those with strong religious beliefs will avoid choosing the gender of their child(ren), as they will likely see this as a matter for only God to decide. Others will probably decide on a girl or a boy depending on what they've always wanted to have or by some comparison to children they have already.

BB: "So when you confidently assert that the only way for government to meaningfully affect behavior is through carrots and sticks so massive that they effectively eliminate all personal choice, you’re only correct within the libertarian know-nothing conception of the relationship between government and culture. In the real world, where government and culture are closely connected, it isn’t so hard to change behavior without treating people like animals."

Oh I agree that government and culture are closely connected. The key, though, is what influences what to the greater degree. The culture influences government far more than the government influences culture. Look only to the unpopularity of the government's Terri Schiavo actions, the unpopularity of the GOP's Social Security plan, and the failures of the government's drug policy for evidence of that... just to name a few. If the culture has greater influence on government than the government has on the culture... which by many measures it does... then it is the culture that must decide what it deems appropriate for dealing with the gender selection issue. Once the culture has decided, the government often has no choice but to follow suit... making the culture's decision and subsequent actions more important to the overall goal than any action by the government.

"If the culture has greater influence on government than the government has on the culture... which by many measures it does... then it is the culture that must decide what it deems appropriate for dealing with the gender selection issue. Once the culture has decided, the government often has no choice but to follow suit... making the culture's decision and subsequent actions more important to the overall goal than any action by the government."

The cultural decision may be 'more important', whatever that means, but typically governmental action is still necessary. Cultures act through government, yes. So if we're having a cultural discussion, then one of the questions should be: How should we instruct our government to act? At which point the libertarians start complaining about the idea that the government should act at all.

This is where libertarianism just gets loopy: It amounts to a prohibition on cultures expressing themselves through government. It is essentially a denial of self-government: "No, you can't do that, because it involves government action, and that makes us libertarians uncomfortable."

To see this, read back through your posts and replace 'the government' with 'a majority of the people'. Suppose that a majority of the people (which is to say, the government) want to encourage sex balancing in the next generation. You can try to persuade them that they're wrong, of course. Or you can shoot down specific proposals. But it's a non-argument to say to the majority, "You shouldn't do what you want because you plan on using the government." The obvious response is: "We ARE the government. It is our agent. It is filled with our representatives. It expresses our will. So who are you to tell us that the government shouldn't do what we think that it ought to do?"

Cultures don't have to act through the government, though.... and this is one of those situations where society can take care of this itself... without laws or government bureaucracy.

Society doesn't need to act through the government to achieve a beneficial solution to this dilemma.

The government expresses your will or, more accurately, the will of the majority? Some of the time, sure. Would the government express the will of the majority on this issue? That depends on many things... such as lobbying, money, political maneuvering, the media, money, spin doctors, and money. Did I forget to mention money? What the majority of the nation's people really want is often manipulated too much to be considered "the will of the majority".

And let's not forget that there are limitations to the power of the majority in our system of government.

Mark: I agree to the extent that, with this as with almost every other issue, I wish our government reacted better to the actual will of the actual majority. Then again, I've been participating in The Business Experiment and the results of actual democratic decision-making aren't that impressive....

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill, From a speech in the House of Commons on November 11, 1947.

I reckon i am the first girl in this discussion. I am against gender selection ... it is up to mother nature to decide what the sex of the next child is. Just because we have the ablility to choose the sex, and genes of the child doesnt mean we should use them. Gender selection is being misused. It was created to only avoid serious diseases that is passed down through generations. Honestly ... why do u want to choose the gender? Is the gender not chosen not good enough? Nothing is ever completely 100% accurate ... What would you do if you spent all that money, time and hassle to avoid having a certain gender and wind up having it anyway? Would you not love them enough? Would you ever tell them?