We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Logically the next step will be a state enforced eugenics programme

The Labour Party under Tony Blair becomes ever more totalitarian, registering children so that the state can decide how to regulate theit lives and threatening to ‘intervene’ in people’s lives to prevent a child from becoming anti-social before it is born. It will do this by offering state ‘help’ to ‘underprivileged’ *(as preposterous an expression as has even been contrived) families, with the threat of force if the state’s ‘help’ is not accepted.

Logically the next step will be a state enforced eugenics programme to prevent the birth of ‘anti-social children’. You think I am joking? I assure you I am not. Members of the media class have occasionally called for eugenics that without causing one tenth of the outrage amongst the chattering classes that would be caused by, say, questioning the morality of the welfare state. As long as Tony Blair and his ideological clones in the Tory Party refuse to accept that the decay of British society is a direct consequence of replacing natural social mechanisms with state regulations (i.e. the regulated welfare state) radically interventionist measures are inevitable. They are left with increasingly extreme and totalitarian ‘solutions’ to the problems they have created because the true causes, and therefore the actual solutions, are off limits not just from political action but even from discussion.

An analogue would be the officers in command of a ship attempting to come up with a method of effective navigation but refusing to allow even the possibility that the world may be a sphere rather than flat.

And as neither Labour nor the ‘Conservatives’ will countenance even the discussion of anything that might involve a significant rollback of the regulatory welfare state, people who think things like force backed eugenics could not happen in Britain are quite simply deluding themselves. Logically I cannot see how that will not happen in the quite forseeable future given what is being said on high.

27 comments to Logically the next step will be a state enforced eugenics programme

  • Johnathan Pearce

    State-forced interference in child-rearing and conception is monstrous, but medical technology is moving rapidly to the point where parents have a growing ability to decide for example, the sex of their child, and even to know whether their child might have certain traits, diseases, etc. I personally am comfortable with parents using the full powers of science to ensure they have healthy, strong babies, but I can see why this can cause ethical issues for people who say that it is immoral to mess around with Nature in this way. After all, it would be hypocritical of Blair to even flirt with eugenics, given that he is supposed to be Christian with Catholic leanings.

  • nick

    State backed eugenics will fail. It will fail because the people (?class) it is aimed at will ignore it. Just like ASBOs, speeding fines, restraining orders, child support payments, and all the other ‘little’ things the state tries to enforce to make the world a better place, it will impact upon the middle classes (for want of a better description).

    Who gets picked up for speeding? Lord Blah doing 130mph, A.Yob doing 140mph in a stolen car, or E.Veryman doing 62mph on the way home from work? Thousands of absentee fathers breed the next generation…..and contribute nothing, whereas those with jobs are hounded by State agencies.

    Any State eugenics policy will exempt those on welfare, be opted out of by the well off, and fall squarely on the shoulders of everyone else.

  • TD

    They’ll happily enforce a state-run child eugenics program to ‘rid’ us of ‘trouble’ children before they are even born , but they’ll do next to nothing to enforce a system that puts pressure on islamic extremists, even when they already know where they live, preach and pray. Unborn kids are deemed guilty, while known seditious imams and their followers are always presumed innocent.

    Such is the farcical, cowardly nature of our leaders.

  • Matt


    As long as Tony Blair and his ideological clones in the Tory Party refuse to accept that the decay of British society is a direct consequence of replacing natural social mechanisms with state regulations (i.e. the regulated welfare state) radically interventionist measures are inevitable.

    Is the best summing up of our situation I’ve seen in a long time. Beautifully put, if heartbreaking. What crazy lengths we’re going to to hide the obvious unacceptable truths…

  • “If you’ve got someone who is a teenage mum, not married, not in a stable relationship, ‘Here is the support we are prepared to offer you, but we do need to keep a careful watch on you and how your situation is developing because all the indicators are that your type of situation can lead to problems in the future’.”

    Isn’t this what traditional culture sought to do? The traditional moral codes of many cultures tried (by quite often draconian means) to create incentives and punishments that prevented children from being born into such negative circumstances.

    I think we have a pattern wherein we destroy the old informal cultural constraints on our potentially negative behaviors in the name of freedom and then turn around a couple of decades later and try to accomplish the same effect by the formal power of the state.

  • It seems that the cultural revolutions of the last century (feminism, civil rights etc.) happened far ahead of a time when we have the moral and ethical maturity to deal with them. Hence the percieved need for the state to replace the old cultural barriers with new legislative ones. When it would be a far simpler matter to teach people that they have to deal with the consequences of their actions or even show them that there are negative consequences.
    For instance: not so long ago a woman/girl who became pregnant out of a stable family situation (ie marriage) was ostracised and made a social pariah unless they married. These days it seems it is the norm for underprivileged (read lazy) teenaged girls to get themselves pregnant as a means of gaining an income.
    With their offspring more often than not being used as some form of fashion accessory.
    Back to the topic at hand…
    Why should man not use the technology at his disposal to better himself. We have so far removed ourselves from nature that we should no longer feel constrained by it. If we can build better bodies for ourselves then why the hell not. Though it should be consensual and not enforced. Manipulation of the genepool by the state is a dangerous thing and can only lead to trouble, but If I want my kids to be stronger, healthier, smarter, taller, have a prehensile tail (I could do with one myself), then why shouldn’t I give my offspring that advantage?

  • Paraphrasing Perry’s opening sentence to his 2002 posting:

    Tony Blair one of that species of politician that Britain has in abundance: well educated, articulate and not particularly right.

    Best regards

  • Radical Sceptic

    Indeed, as Blair was regaling us with this latest statist wheeze I noticed that sat at his side was the fatuous figure of Dr Phil Collins, late of the Social Market Foundation, who is an advisor to Blair on these matters. This ridiculous man is often times trotted out by some naive libertarians; who should know better; as a kind of crypto-libertarian in Blair’s inner circle. How utterly laughable. The next time I see this absurd creature show his silly face at a supposedly libertarian event I fear I shall be sick over him.

  • abc

    Tony Blair when commenting on single mothers said …because all the indicators are that your type of situation can lead to problems in the future.

    The convenience of statistical data seems to me to be a rather limited and lazy way of administering a society. I think Tony Blair probably evolved his political philosophy after gazing at an ant-hill in his back garden.

  • Blair is in denial that the core issue is the Welfare State. Typically, instead of fixing or removing the root problem, he wants to add yet more (laws/benefits/interference/regulations) in a vain attempt to do anything but admit that the cowpats covering our lawn come from one of his incontinent sacred cows.

    The eugenics predicted are of the worst kind – Sociofascist ideology has created them and now they can be controlled like lab-rats by yet more application of this demonic creed.

    The answer is very very simple in my view – stop encouraging/bribing the feckless to have children and stop supporting them if they do.

    As I lay out in my url link, we should not provide additional resources to anyone already dependent on the State who expands their family. No housing. No £500 on-off, no benefits, no rent allowances. No nothing. It might sound harsh to some, but I do believe that if 11 year olds are told this in no uncertain terms most of the problem will go away. What remains should be of a small enough scale for charitable and other bodies to focus on and remedy.

    If you cannot afford it, don’t have one. If you still have one, expect it to be taken off you due to your inability to support it.

    Deal with the problem at source and you can then avoid all the messy, distressful, criminal, expensive, inefficient, interfering nonsense that follows.

    But, no, Tony won’t do that, because he can pay for it all with OUR MONEY and employ yet more people WITH OUR MONEY to give the impression that the economy is working and his ideology remains sound.

    Cannot this administration’s irrationality be used to disqualify them from holding office?

  • Dave

    This is what the whole abortion movement had planned right from the start though, they were trying to decrease the numbers of people they didn’t like in society. It was sold as ‘freedom of choice’ but in reality women are pressured into it by social services, boyfriends, parents, society, etc.

    You guys support abortion but are against eugenics, what more right does a parent have to kill their children than the state?

  • You guys support abortion but are against eugenics

    Oh boy, you really really should avoid telling ‘us’ what we are for and against as you are clearly not on ‘our’ wavelegth at all.

    I personally happen to be rather against abortion, as in I do not think it is a ‘good’ thing… I just do not know when it becomes murder (and therefore justifies a state interest in preventing it). To say it is murder one day after conception (like the Catholic Church claims) is preposterous, to claim it is not murder a week before birth (as certain ‘Official Objectivists’ claim) is also preposterous.

    As for eugenics, I am only against state mandated eugenics. If a family or private membership society wants to practice voluntary eugenics amongst themselves, I really could not care less.

  • I think we have a pattern wherein we destroy the old informal cultural constraints on our potentially negative behaviors in the name of freedom and then turn around a couple of decades later and try to accomplish the same effect by the formal power of the state.

    A sound observation, Shannon.

  • Perry writes – and who, in their right mind, could possibly disagree:

    To say it is murder one day after conception (…) is preposterous, to claim it is not murder a week before birth (…) is also preposterous.

    Let’s try an refine that down to two periods of greater certainty, plus a middle period.

    At the latter end of pregnancy, anything after the period where N% (N>50) of babies would survive with “unexceptional” medical care shall be murder.

    At the earlier stage of pregnancy, anything less than X weeks (X less than 6) after any normal person would have known they were pregnant shall not be murder.

    And for the middle period: decision by jury of peers (same-day decision) to be held within a week of request by the pregnant person; with the jury also deciding on any conditional punishment (eg abortion plus prison term Y or fine Z, or continue pregnancy to term).

    Any use?

    Best regards

  • Dave

    actually I am on libertarian wavelength a lot of the time and agree with most things on this great blog, especially this post. I only mention abortion because I think when society pressures people into abortion it is a kind of eugenics, particularly when the state does it to young girls behind their parents/families backs.
    So its already began, no?

  • Midwesterner

    “I only mention abortion because I think when society pressures people into abortion it is a kind of eugenics”

    For some time I’ve had the unpleasant feeling that this is happening in the US and that many of the pro-abortionists intend it that way.

    As for the concerns about when a new life begins, I think it quite logically begins once new and unprecedented DNA is formed out of the parents’ genetic contributions. When a ‘right to life’ begins is very different and much more complicated question.

  • Robert

    I also can see pressure for abortion coming from insurance companies. You know, if after genetic screening (probably REQUIRED eventually) a child is found to be “severely handicapped” , or it’s derermined will have a “low quality of life”, they will NOT pay for any treatment, but gladly fund the abortion. And watch the threshhold for being cutoff gradually raised higher and higher. So if the child is not perfect, either abort or bankrupt yourself taking care of it.

    in a related matter, I read recently of a woman here in the US who aborted her child because tests showed a MILD handicap, and she wanted a child who would be a star athlete like heself. It starts being optional and eventually will be compulsary.

  • Robert, the big… no, HUGE difference between your (quite plausible) scenario of insurance company led eugenics and a mandatory state imposed eugenics programme is that your scenario will simply create a market for ‘less than perfect’ insurance which will lead to companies which specialise in catering to that market.

    As long as insurance is not so regulated as to produce only a few market players due to red-tape and state imposed administrative costs raising barriers to new market entrants (yet another reason for keeping the state out), just as there are credit card companies which cater to people who are high credit risks, so too will there be insurance companies which cater to those with less favourable genetic profiles.

    And of course such a situation would also provide more market stimulus for the ‘consumer’ genetic engineering and nanotech transhumanism that is most likely the future of our species, a prospect I very much welcome.

  • Paul Marks

    Writing in the “Daily Telegraph” today (Saturday 2nd of September) Simon Heffer makes similar points to this post i.e. both that it is statism that is cause of family breakdown and Big Brother stuff from Mr Blair will not help matters – AND that Mr Cameron and his associates are no opposition to the government’s statism.

    However, on the very next page of the Daily Telegraph this is an article by Charles Moore which says that Mr Cameron is a good leading of the Conservative party (and other rot).

    If we are to oppose things like the government’s efforts to control children (an objective of statists philosophers for a very long time indeed) we must be honest. It is no use pretending that we have a strong “Opposition” to the government.

    I think that Perry would agree that in many ways the people who control the Conservative party are (for all the froth of party combat) really part of the government rather than opposed to it.

  • Paul Marks

    “there is” not “this is” and “good leader” not “good leading”.

    What fun to be dyslexic.

    If there is a genetic marker for the condition, the abortionists will have an excuse for more action.

  • Midwesterner

    Stephen Hawking
    Toulouse Lautrec
    Homer, blind
    Byron, club foot
    Ray Charles
    Stevie Wonder
    E A Poe
    Van Gogh

    Whenever someone wonders why I don’t like genetic screening, I think of some of the people who’s future physical or mental health might have lead self appointed @#$%s to deny them access to the world.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I have a speech/respiratory handicap. It was accidental, not genetic. But who’s to say they won’t find a gene for ‘prone to accidents’?

    Feel free to add to the list.

  • tom

    Well, the Swedes got away with eugenics for a few generations. Sterilized all their troublemakers and the poor folk. I suppose the Brits might have a go at it too. I wonder though, how they would encourage their minority Asian and Black populations to go along with sui-genocide?

  • Mandatory sterilization of criminals and poor people has already been ruled unconstitutional in the US, in response to its actually being tried.

    Genetic screening and coerced abortion was tried in the welfare agencies of, IIRC, South Carolina? Part of the “health care” for the pregnant mother was to undergo mandatory genetic testing of the foetus. (Did I get the British spelling right?) If there was some bad result, the social worker would threaten the mother with “Abort, or lose all your welfare.” When you’re a dependent slave to the state, they rule your life. Of course, this policy was ruled unconstitutional in court.

    Forced sterilization roundups were done in Appalachia, in southwestern Virginia, very near me. It was a eugenics scheme. I read early 20th century documents in special collections at the University of Kentucky about eugenics schemes for undesirables including Appalachian white trash. Margaret Sander, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a eugenics advocate, and very friendly with the British eugenicists. Their “modern, scientific thinking” rationalized all kinds of horrors including making Hitler seem reasonable and possible. These thinkers used the language of Darwin and natural selection to engineer a race of Thoroughbreds. Even today, Planned Parenthood clinics are located in minority neighborhoods, reflecting that they are still pursuing the racist ideals of their founder.

    After Hitler, such thinking went out of style.

    However, coercive schemes still exist, funded by our taxpayer dollars. World family planning monies are manipulated in poorer countries, so that when a family seeks housing, food, or medical assistance from a gummint programme, they are forced to be sterilized to receive the basic survival assistance they need.

    In the mid 90s, in the Phillipines, the World Health Organization conducted an experiment that was a surreptitious sterilization programme. Women of childbearing age were required to get “tetanus shots” which were really shots of an agent that makes the immune system attack human chorionic gonadotropin, a pregnany hormone. Pregnant women spontaneously aborted and many women were sterilized. This is the WHO, people! An organization I otherwise respect trampled the rights of individuals in a most deceptive and evil way.

    The government has ZERO business promoting fertility or sterility, which is solely the possession and right of the individual. The person and the family pre-exist the state. The state exists to serve persons and families. (More Catholic theology/philosophy, sorry.)

    So, let the gummint aid pregnant women who are low income, during their prenatal phase, but good God, don’t register foetuses. I don’t know about the UK, but in the US the child is not a legal person until it’s born and breathing. Why register nonpersons as persons?

    As for genetic testing and engineering, that is a private matter. Let any person make any little bouncing baby Frankenstein they want to, it’s a matter of their own conscience.

    Actually, a re-read of the book Frankenstein would really be relevant here.

    OK…stepping down from the soapbox now.

  • Wow, my last rant post on here got smite-controlled. It’s Sunday morning, it feels like the voice of God.

    Forgot one point in my last rant which will likely appear after this one:

    Jerome Lejeune, French geneticist, came out against the March of Dimes because their organization is about preventing birth defects by preventing birth! They do genetic testing of foetuses then recommend abortion if there’s problems. I know a doctor who worked for the March of Dimes briefly who confirmed this for me. She was disgusted and quit them.

    Lejeune, whose research specialised in Muscular Dystrophy, said that such programmes actually ground medical science to a halt. There was no opportunity to learn how to better treat and manage MD if these folks are killed before they ever became patients.

  • Robert

    Perry, you are quite right that a truly free market society would provide solutions to couples with handicapped and other special needs children (Not to mention help from private charities, churches, etc, available in a prosperious society free from excess regulation.)
    IF only we had a REAL free market in the insurance industry! With mandated coverages, we have to pay for drug treatment insurance and pregancies, for example, even though we don’t use drugs are past the possibility of more pregnancies. However , if we want cancer insurance (my wife is from a family with a history of cancer), we have to pay extra. So I’m paying for what we DON’T need and have to cough up more bucks to get what we DO need.

  • Reuben

    I think Tony Blair is a man of great evil and possibly the greatest threat to a “free” society since the Nazi’s rise and the most shocking thing is nobody seems to challenge his totalitarian methods either politically or in the media.
    Trial without jury, ministers determining the length of sentences, “eugenics”, deception to lead our armed services into a war he claimed would only be a flash in the pan whilst Cheney on the other side of the Atlantic claims it will not end within our lifetime and talk of future conscription in his “war on terror” (war for oil).
    It will not be long before George Orwell’s vision of a “Big Brother” state becomes the most terrifying of realities.
    They created Extreme islamism to replace the threat from Communism to galvanise us through fear and it’s working, only this time the bomb really could drop.
    Their motto is divide and conquer, light from darkness, this is why the civil war in Iraq was engineered and the one in Lebenon was attempted.
    Ie isolating normal citizens from Hezbollah by blaming them for Israel’s horrific onslaught whilst the world sat idly by.
    I always dismissed talk of the U.N as an international force for terror but now i’m not so sure.
    The threat from “The Lightbringer’s” as they call themselves is all too real and I fear we are already too late to resist.
    But the only way to truly resist is through spreading the truth THIS is what THEY fear the most.
    Extemists are simply pawns in the game created for them.
    Smash the masons!

  • Paying some people to breed and not paying others IS a eugenics program. It seems pretty effective, too, if we look at the birth rates among various economic strata.