Children Are Worth It....to Some

Deepthought responded partially to my post about why being childfree is not free riding. He writes:

“Anyway - so you pay property taxes... so what? First of all, parents pay those exact same taxes - and, since they tend to have larger homes and focus on 'good' school districts that drive up values, they tend to pay more. So much for them being 'moochers'.

Also, you do, indeed, benefit from those taxes in the form of a literate (supposedly) well-educated population. This allows you to enjoy lower crime rates, higher economic activity overall, etc. Also, one of the main functions of subsidized schools is that educated children turn into higher-earning taxpayers that will go on to, yes, subsidize your life in the form of everything from social security to roads.”

He does not address my contention that parents receive value from their children in the form of the various satisfactions of parenthood that equal or exceed the costs that they bear in their estimation. Meanwhile, I am forced to subsidize their enjoyment of these satisfactions while receiving very little, if any, such enjoyment. If that is not “mooching”, I don’t know what is.

The arguments about how I benefit indirectly from an educated society imply that I would favor leaving children in abject ignorance, something I have never advocated. I do not doubt for a moment that parents, especially those with the larger homes in the tonier districts that Deepthought mentions, would manage to arrange for the education of their children if there were no public schools. They would provide tutors, school them themselves at home, or send them to private schools. As for the children of the less fortunate, the extent to which I benefit from their schooling is questionable, but I, and I imagine most others, would cheerfully and voluntarily support educational opportunities for those poorer children who might stand to benefit. I am not against education; I am against its coercive administration and financing. I am against welfare for folks who can easily afford to educate their own children.

Moreover, the principal beneficiaries of education are the parents (otherwise, why would so many of them finance expensive college educations?) and the children themselves (they enjoy greater opportunities and a better standard of living). That I might derive some slight and debatable benefit from parents and children pursuing their own happiness provides no basis for extracting rents from me. I keep a lovely garden for my own satisfaction that anyone might see and enjoy from the road. Moreover, I have improved my home a great deal and increased its value, and this has inured to the indirect benefit of my neighbors. Am I entitled to extract from them by force the value of these indirect and unintended benefits?

Indeed, much of my conspecifics’ consumption can be said to provide indirect benefit to me. I owe my livelihood to a vigorous economy ultimately driven by consumption, and the benefits of commerce to me are legion. Yet, I am rarely called upon to subsidize the consumption of my neighbors except in the case of consumers of the joys offered by children. Parents get all their investment in children back and then some. Otherwise, nobody would reproduce.