Chinese population control policy is not ethically more palatable because the Chinese government now allows two children instead of one under certain narrow conditions...The Chinese government still forcefully inserts itself into the intimate marital relationships of Chinese citizens. The policy change still views children as commodities whose production can be regulated like any other commodity in a centrally controlled economy. Families exist at the pleasure of the state and for the sole purpose of the support of the state. Rearranging the superficial details of a policy built on a rotten foundation does not halt the moral decay. There is no cause for celebration and there should be no kudos for Chinese leaders until they completely abandon all efforts to dictate who may have children and how many children they may have.Then I woke up this morning to a Washington Post editorial saying:
Yet the thinking behind the one-child policy has survived: the arrogance of power, the notion that the state’s judgment is superior to the individual’s. Having created an economic superpower on the sweat of hundreds of millions of workers who labored for skimpy wages in coastal factories, China now faces the reality that the lower birthrate could weaken economic growth. So the party is fiddling with the population controls again, as coldly as did the original architects of the policy...The one-child policy was a stake driven through individual freedom. Rather than continue to tinker with this misguided philosophy, China should abolish population controls altogether and unleash the ingenuity and energy of its people by allowing every one of them, individually, to make life’s most important decisions.Sarcasm aside, I am very pleased that diverse ideologies can agree on the affront to human dignity posed by the one child policy. I would now like to apply this sentence from the Post's editorial to other topics: Yet the thinking behind the one-child policy has survived: the arrogance of power, the notion that the state’s judgment is superior to the individual's.
Is it not that same arrogance of power that leads to state intervention in school curriculums, parenting practices, food choices, education in morals, and the exercise of religious beliefs? The many mandates of the Affordable Care Act are examples of that same arrogance of power. The state knows what kind of medical care you need. The state knows when treatment is no longer worthwhile. The state knows how you should be spending your discretionary income and deems you should be spending it on more health insurance than you desire. The state knows what doctor is best for you. The state knows what hospital is best for you. The state knows who is worthy of life and who should just be left to die.
Perhaps if we could do a better job of illustrating how big government is really the result of the arrogant elite exercising their power over the masses we would find more support for the concept of small government and subsidiarity. The fact that the Washington Post and I can find common ground on this principle gives me hope.