Certainly, there's a right for reproduction. It is a variety of the rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness, and it doesn't violate any basic right of anyone.
Of course, there's no right for free IVF or - for that matter - any other free medical treatment. However, if a doctor wants to treat anyone for free for any disease - it's their unquestionable right too...

Gregv,

Really? You think there are no external costs of reproduction?

Randall, you need to be realistic. Most people are not inclined to give up their right to reproduction willingly (and I'm pretty sure that the remainder is not the subpopulation you'd prefer to eliminate from the gene pool -- this is why Shockley's payments-for-sterilization plan wouldn't have had quite the consequences he imagined). The only ways to even effectively restrict it is via heavy-handed government coercion, a la China's one child policy, or even more heavy-handed government coercion, a la Hitler. Those cures are not obviously better than the disease, and in the case of the one child policy I doubt it's scalable to the rest of the world anyway.

So, like it or not, the right to reproduction is about as natural a right as they come.

I suspect the best achievable outcome is cheap genetic enhancement technology. If I were an Ashkenazi Jew, I'd be less concerned about my own population losing the demographic battle if others were copying my group's "best" genes anyway.

Randall,

I do understand that there are external costs of reproduction. But this is the case with other liberties, too. E.g., me exercising my liberty to possess a property may offend my neighbors - if I do on it something they don't like to see. But it is not their right to have always a pretty view before their eyes - although they are free to pursue it.
Same here: I may like or dislike reproducing Arabs (or Jews - for that matter), I can voice my concerns, but I cannot infringe upon it.

Dog of Justice,

I am very realistic. I expect world population to grow by billions. But inevitability aside, what do you believe should be disallowable and restrictable?

1) What makes something a right? That a large group of people think it is? Or is there some principle from which one can reason to decide in each case whether some activity is a right?

2) Is something being a Right make it the highest level moral claim?

Cheap genetic enhancement technology and "best" genes: I do not think they view their IQ genes as their best genes.

Greg,

If the Israelis continue to allow unrestricted Arab reproduction within their borders they are essentially engaging in a suicide pact. If the Israelis want to survive they've got to do something (either expulsion or regulation of reproduction) that you consider a rights violation. So if you were an Israeli would you still hold your view?

1) What makes something a right? That a large group of people think it is? Or is there some principle from which one can reason to decide in each case whether some activity is a right?

My argument is that it takes such heavy use of force to prevent people from reproducing that the question of whether it "should" be a right is practically beside the point. Actually, I don't think it should be a right. But the reality is that we can't enforce any meaningful restriction without engaging in evil actions of enormous scale.

Cheap genetic enhancement technology and "best" genes: I do not think they view their IQ genes as their best genes.

True. But I can at least imagine a future where enough people voluntarily enhance the IQ of their children. I cannot imagine a future where enough people voluntarily abstain from reproduction (and again, to the degree that it does happen, the traits associated with a willingness to do so will be selected out of humanity's future gene pool).

"More basically, is there a basic right to reproduction? If so, why? Does it not matter what the consequences are?"

The rights that we have are the rights we have always had and always will have. What we are willing to fight for. Nothing more, nothing less.

Randall,

You might find it funny, but I am an Israeli. And I am still holding the view that a person shouldn't be judged by their nationality. And that the best way for the society to develop is to build a FREE society, not a Jewish, not a Muslim, and that holds true for Israel, too.

Greg,

Free to do what though? In the case of Israel, unrestrained reproduction among the palestinians combined with the normal freedoms associated with democracy will lead to a situation where they use their freedoms to end Israel.

Does freedom include the freedom to colonize?

Bob,

What is "the freedom to colonize"? Does it involve infringing upon others' liberties? A land free from people is free to colonize. A land where there are people but they don't recognize property rights is free to colonize as well: you aren't taking away anything that actually BELONGS to someone. Makes sense?

As to democracy: I don't talk about democracy. I talk about freedom. And these are two different notions; in fact they are opposite in a sense.

I feel this is an argument about being pragmatic versus an absolute view of philosophical rights.. It reminds me of an argument I've had with libertarians, what if marxists are organizing in your libertarian nation, arming themselves, gaining power in unions or other organizations, running for political power etc.. And one of their stated goals is to take away most of your freedoms when they seize power.

Do you sit back and let them build up until they seize power, or do you violate libertarian principles and break up their organizations and chances of gaining power, take away their guns, maybe imprison their leaders. Creating government bodies that go after them, like blacklist monitors..

I vote for option 2, because I'm not suicidal. But many ideological people vote option 1, because to do two would break their principles and it is a slipperly slope, including those government agencies built to stop the threat, being fully staffed and operational.

I also believe in western countries at this time we need less of the lawyer's view of the world of perfect fairness like natural rights and precedence, and more the general's view of pragmatism.

aa2,

I see the contradiction - but I have a way out. It's very simple. Stop being pro-democracy and become pro-liberty. One of the basic democratic principles says: "One person - one vote". And this is the source of all suicidal tendencies in a democratic society. If replaced with "$1 in paid taxes - 1 vote", it kills all your marxists' chances to gain power. (Same with Arabs in Israel). And, of course, EVERY citizen is allowed to pay more than his tax rate.

Greg,

You probably have Israeli citizenship. I'm guessing it was a way out of Russia. But I suspect you are in New York State or near there. Could be NJ or CT.

As for your argument: Lots of elections have been held and then civil war broke out the next day. Elections - regardless of whether the votes are by dollars or by person - do not resolve deep disputes over what is right and what is wrong.

The fatal flaw of libertarianism is that libertarians can't convince most of the people in the world to respect their rights. The extent to which people will respect your rights varies greatly depending on traits that are both genetically and socially determined such as IQ, religious beliefs, personality traits, upbringing, and other factors.

Look at Russia. It lacks the quality in its populace that would cause them to strongly support freedom over other considerations.

Ideological libertarianism is just plain wrong because it is incompatible with what we know about human nature. Ideological libertarianism is suicidal.

Dog of Justice,

The reason I think population control by governments will become absolutely necessary: Rejuvenation therapies.

Otherwise the population of the world will explode.

Greg.. That sounds like a good plan, I like the fact that marxists would have the opportunity to get more votes by paying more taxes(which no one would). I feel we need a lot less democracy in western nations. The original American republic had shockingly little democracy, the only vote the peopel had was congressional votes which met two weeks of the year to either approve or send the budget back. The senate where most legislative power was, the presidency and supreme court were all appointed.

Your system is like the only property owners can vote. People thought that was unfair, but to me it was an integral part of keeping liberty. Same and much more controversly with the rule that only men could vote.

Randall, I have one proposal for how to help deal with the growing population and it is also a violation of liberty.. If you want more then two children, go to mars or one of the new human settlements on asteroids, etc..

Randall,

You have a crystal ball. (but of course, you could look up my previous postings...).

As to Russia, the main problem there is not dictatorship, human nature or communism, but simple plain alcoholism.

Greg, I think the alcoholism is a symptom of dictatorship & communism, not the reverse. But I haven't been to Russia, so that's a foreigner's guess. Also, Randall is probably guessing where you are based on your IP address.

aa2, off world settlements will simply not be able to absorb Earth's excess population. Even within the next 100 years I do not foresee space colonies able to accept 1,000,000 people every day. We will either the reproduction problem or suffer the consequences - there's no third door.

Regarding the topic of the post, I think reproduction is a right for much the same reasons as Dog of Justice. There's simply no way to restrict it without draconian and evil laws that people will rebel against. That said, I'm not too worried. Kids are expensive, as as food, land, water, energy, education, etc. get more expensive so will kids, and reproduction will decline. Eventually an equilibrium will be reached globally, just as it already has in Western Europe and Japan. It's basic Adam Smith, people.

Randall you should be in favor of such as market solution too, as it will favor reproduction by economically successful (i.e., hard working, smart, cooperative, etc.) people while winnowing out the lazy, stupid and/or antisocial. Certain individuals will acquire great wealth and be able to have many children by immoral means (such as Putin) or luck (such as lottery winners or Arab sheiks), but genetically speaking they are a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of people who graduate from Ivy League and similar schools every year.

We could also support a massive effort to provide birth control in the third world.

There are countless women in the third world who already have several children and do not want more. There is a little spiral wire that they implant into the cervix through the vagina that renders the recipient sterile within days. NO special skill needed, and its really just a piece of wire. Cheap easy and effective, that has the same effect as tying tubes. But far less surgery and cheaper to perform. I'd give any third world woman of child bearing age or even girls, 2 thousand dollars each to get this procedure done. And provide food and medicine for their family.

I would not give food to women who refused to get sterilized this way. Afterall if they have so many resources that they can be adding to the population, obviously they don't need assistance, someone else needs it more. I'd have thousands of teams of people going around the whole third world sterilizing women, and providing aid and money. 2,000 dollars being the equivilant of 6 years income for people making 1 dollar a day.

And if 2,000 dollars wasn't enough I'd keep raising the amount until rapidly falling population growth goals were met in each nation. And what a difference having 2 children makes versus 6. At 2 children the population is about stable. At 6 the population triples in one generation. If you can get it down to 1, the population halves for the next generation!

What is "the freedom to colonize"? Does it involve infringing upon others' liberties? A land free from people is free to colonize. A land where there are people but they don't recognize property rights is free to colonize as well: you aren't taking away anything that actually BELONGS to someone. Makes sense?

As to democracy: I don't talk about democracy. I talk about freedom. And these are two different notions; in fact they are opposite in a sense.

You seem to say you think it is okay to displace groups who view property as communal where no individual has a specific property right. So, it would be okay for colonists to colonize the fields of a kibbutz?

Would it be okay for Jordanians to colonize Israel by renting property and moving there? After all, paying rent does not violate anybody's property rights. In fact, it acknowledges and compensates the right. Do the Jordanians have the freedom to colonize Israel?

Randall you should be in favor of such as market solution too, as it will favor reproduction by economically successful (i.e., hard working, smart, cooperative, etc.) people while winnowing out the lazy, stupid and/or antisocial. Certain individuals will acquire great wealth and be able to have many children by immoral means (such as Putin) or luck (such as lottery winners or Arab sheiks), but genetically speaking they are a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of people who graduate from Ivy League and similar schools every year.

That sounds great, except it's the exact opposite of what's actually happening: rich people have fewer children in developed and developing nations than do the poor. Care to explain that little discrepancy?

Bob,

Kibbutz is legally a business entity owning that land, and who exactly in the kibbutz owns what part is no one's (outside kibbutz) business. So it's not free to be taken over by an outsider.
On the other hand, if we deal with a situation like in America prior to its colonization - Indian tribes just living on certain spots and using the surrounding area as their hunting grounds, migrating to other lands as prey becomes scarce, and, occasionally, driving other tribes from their lands (or just killing them), then it's different. Here, colonists are, basically, demonstrating the same behavior - being "just another tribe", only stronger.
Jordanians will not be colonizing Israel if they just rent the property (or buy it) and move in. Colonization involves establishing new rules of the game, (i.e. new laws), not just population inflow.

Greg,

I didn't need to consult your old comment posts to figure out exactly who you are. Just your email address and IP address were enough due to an overlap in the leading letters of your last name with an email account that I think you had/have in Israel.

There is no privacy.

But now that I have consulted your previous posts: Did you install that ground sink heat pump or solar heating panel yet? If so, what is the result.

aa2,

Birth control: One way to do it is to require all newly born babies to lack strong instincts to reproduce. So a generation that wants kids gets to have them. But the kids do not want kids of their own. Of course this would require government coercion and biotech we do not yet have. But it would lower the sense of loss in women who want to have kids as compared to telling them they can't have kids.

Greg,

I fail to see the distinction between the kibbutz and the amerind tribe. For starters, not all tribes were nomadic. The long houses were permanent structures just like at the kibbutz surrounded by agricultural fields just like at the kibbutz.

I did not ask whether Jordanians have a right to not colonize Israel by renting property there, but whether they have a right to colonize so long as they respect property rights. If they move to Israel in sufficient numbers, they will become a sufficient proportion of the population to vote to change the laws. If they achieve such numbers and a minority of Israelis deny them suffrage, presumably they would have the right to draft a document that begins along the lines of: "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." And then to change the laws as they see fit. Would they not?

You also seem to be saying that it would be okay for Iran and a league of like-minded nations to declare Palestine a nation and for the Palestinian people to drive Israelis from their homes and into refugee camps and then to establish an Arab nation where Israel is today.

Wouldn't the Palestinians then fall into the category of: 'Here, colonists are, basically, demonstrating the same behavior - being "just another tribe", only stronger.' ?

Greg,

You are basically saying that informal systems of property ownership do not deserve respect. Groups that have formal systems for assigning property can step in and ignore the informal systems. Never mind that those informal systems were in some cases very stable and allowed land to get passed down in families for generations.

But on the other hand you seem pretty libertarian. Well, rights must be respected unless there's no formal system in place?

Randall,

The longhouses were matrilineal patriarchies, which all sounds rather formal to me. Property rights passed from one generation to the next in a very formal manner according to clear well-defined rules. It sounds to me like Greg bases his respect on record-keeping rather than anything else, which suggests colonization is okay as long as one destroys the old records.

Hi Randall,

It's off topic here, but it's you who have started it... :-)

I bought the heat pump but it turned out it's not a good one for my purposes. Because it requires water inlet temperature of at least 14C to heat. It's a joke! Where am I supposed to take 14C water in winter? I need another kind, what is called "extended range", but it's different money. I am not sure I'll have that money before coming winter.
The solar heating panel is "in the process". I also designed the roof in a way that it would collect some of the sun heat in winter, but there's still a question how efficiently it would do it. So far, it generated a 22C air on a -2C day - not clear in what quantity, though.

As to Bob's point about Jordanians moving into Israel en masse, let's combine it with the idea of "$1 in taxes = 1 vote", augment it with the constitution that doesn't allow the Government to grant any specific favors to anyone without granting them to everyone (Friedrich Hayek's formula), and suddenly Jordanians have neither means nor incentive to take over government...

Greg, your evasiveness is duly noted. I will conclude you are in favour of colonization when it works to your advantage, oppose it when it does not, and lack the intellectual honesty to simply admit so. It still doesn't answer my question though.

Greg,

The Palestinians can't vote in Israel and yet they still manage to pound Israel with rockets. If the Palestinians and Israeli Jews all voted in an election using dollars the Palestinians would still feel powerless and therefore would still pound Israel with rockets and try to blow up stuff.

Plus, your dollars per vote formula carries the risk of setting up a self-perpetuating corrupt aristocracy. Wealthy people will buy control of government and use that control to keep themselves rich at the expense of the rest of us.

In a nutshell: You are not proposing a real workable way of government. The non-voters will still get upset about the government imposed on them.

Randall,

What would be the incentive for the wealthy people to buy control of the government if, by constitution, the legislative branch of the government is unable to grant favors to specific people without granting the same favors to everyone? If the executive branch of the government is restricted to only three functions, namely enforcement of laws, enforcement of contracts, and defense?
Also compare: "your dollars per vote formula carries the risk of setting up a self-perpetuating corrupt aristocracy. Wealthy people will buy control of government and use that control to keep themselves rich at the expense of the rest of us" versus current situation where: "social parasites get control of government and use that control to continue their parasitic lifestyles at the expense of the rest of us".
Both scenarios aren't good, but the second is worse because social parasites multiply while corrupt aristocracy doesn't (it actually degenerates).

As to property rights:
I do say that informal systems are worthless. On the other hand, if those systems you are referring to kept working for generations, they should have been pretty well defined (formal) - we only don't know their details. A really "informal" system of property rights is "the one who is stronger is right", and this - very well defined! - system does not deserve any respect.

Bob,

Encountering a tribe that fits your description would indeed prevent me from colonizing that land (BTW, does your definition of "colonization" matches mine?). If I cannot convince them to move (e.g., by offering some value in exchange), I should move on.

While Jordanians respect property rights, I don't have a problem with them coming to live next to me.

Greg,

Please pardon me for saying it seems you want to nitpick words to define real problems out of existence. Real problems, however, do not disappear when we turn the page in the dictionary. I use colonization in a rather broad sense that in essence encompasses all of the definitions without limiting or excluding any.

The closest definition to what I would use in the context of this discussion is "a group of people living in a foreign country who remain connected with a parent nation". However, I would use nation in its broadest sense.

Regardless, colonization is transformative and differentiating.

Toronto and New York City each have Hasidic colonies. Pennsylvania has a rather large Amish colony. Utah is essentially a large LDS colony. The southwestern US seems to have several FLDS colonies, as we have seen in the news from Texas recently. Israel is essentially a Jewish colony in the Levant.

More and more, we seem to see Islamic colonies springing up in various parts of North America and Europe.

If the Jordanians respect your property rights by allowing you to own and enjoy your property according to the rules of Shariah Law, then, should I assume you won't mind them colonizing Israel?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Fairness shouldn't depend on knowing the identity of the people.
So if it's fair for people to get fertility treatment, then it's fair for Arabs to get fertility treatment (as Arabs are also people)
Each persons rights end where they infringe upon the rights of another. (Most legal systems have some constitutional provision like this)

The societal 'suicide' idea is flawed - Israelis were out numbered by Arabs when Israel was formed and for decades after. Trying to enforce military solutions to diplomatic problems, has caused decades of suffering. Focusing on restricting healthcare or reproductive rights on those with whom we disagree is an easy distraction from facing the more painful diplomacy required to address the situation.

M,

If the Palestinian populace were self-sustaining, your argument would have much more merit. As it is, the Palestinians basically get by on various forms of welfare including transfer payments in the form of international aid.

What right does anyone have to increase financial demands on others?

I only mean they have the same rights as people else where
(as in Human Rights don't change by ethnicity, location, beliefs etc)

Payment is a seperate issue.
I'm not saying who should pay for it
(Charity, Nationalized Health care, Private Payer, etc - is upto to providers & recipients)

Their lack of self-sufficiency & Israel's over-dependance on military-order are linked to the situation
(as in: if Diplomatic Solutions were found, both sides would collectively make tons of money from tourism & religious studies programs alone )

Legally one has a right to make financial demands on another, when that party caused or assisted in their being harmed
(though often people are moved by the plight of others & donate to aleviate the situation without any demands)

M,

Ahem: "Each persons rights end where they infringe upon the rights of another."

When the Palestinians become self-sufficient and stop relying on money from the US and from Iran, they will have a right to whatever they can afford to purchase as a result of their own production.