The Freeman 1989 - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

26Freedom,Coercion,andFamily Sizeby David C. HuffThe freedom of a husband and wife tobear as many children as they wish is animplicit aspect of the principles of libertyupon which our nation was founded.America's early citizens and statesmen clearlyunderstood the many social and economic advantagesof large families, recognizing in thefamily structure a rich treasure of ingredientsfor the sustenance of society which far overshadowsany benefits a civil government canprovide. As Gary North has observed:The family ... provides a basic division oflabor, and this leads to greater productivity.It provides a zone of safety against life'sbattles with a fallen, recalcitrant environment.. . . It provides men and women witha stake in the future, and in so doing, makespossible habits of thrift that lead to vast capitalgrowth.... It provides welfare and educationfor its members. It reduces the needfor a huge state bureaucracy, so it acts as aweapon against the illegitimate expansion ofstate power. 1As might be expected, the concept of thefamily as the cornerstone of a free society, aprincipal steward of a society's capital, and akey facet (through steady population increase)Mr. Huff, chieffinancial officer ofFox-Rowden-McBrayerin Atlanta, Georgia, is married and has three children.of a society's economic vitality has not lackeddetractors. Most parents with more than twochildren would agree that large families aresubtly and sometimes noisily discouragedtoday. The task for advocates of freedom is toinquire beyond the specific bias against largefamilies and discern the root ideology involved.It will prove to be quite familiar.Any consideration of the freedoms involvedin choosing family size necessarily involves thelarger issue of ownership and property rights.Even to question the fact that the ownershipand responsibility for children vests exclusivelyin their parents once would have seemed superfluous.Yet in the current environment of ZeroPopulation Growth, Planned Parenthood, andGlobal 2000, private ownership of children nolonger enjoys unanimous consent: "The 'right'to breed implies ownership of children. Thisconcept is no longer tenable. Society pays aneven larger share of the cost of raising and educatingchildren. The idea of ownership is surelyaffected by the thrust of the saying that 'Hewho pays the piper calls the tune.' "2Does this tune sound familiar? While one obviousresponse is the insight that a "society"has no existence or identity apart from the individualscomposing it, such a coercive mind-setmerely regurgitates a common statist strategy.Any drive for omnipotence by the state or itsagents always involves an insatiable appetite tocontrol private property for the "good of society."And understandably so, since the ownershipand control of private property is integralto a free society and therefore an inherentenemy of central planning.Given that the tenets of interventionismidolize the state as a benevolent, all-wise parentto its children, it is not a difficult leap for governmentto concoct a policy which includes seizureof the "right to breed" and thereby arrogatesthe ultimate control of family size to thestate. Only then can it begin to enact the kindof "necessary" controls (to protect society, ofcourse) envisioned by some: "It can be arguedthat over-reproduction-that is, the bearing ofmore than four children- is a worse crime thanmost and should be outlawed. One thinks of thepossibility of raising the minimum age of marriage,of imposing stiff penalties for illegiti-