So the assertion seems to be: the “consent of the governed” justification for democratic power is called into question if you allow the voting power of existing voters to be diluted by the introduction of new voters.
OK, fair enough, there’s a certain theoretical cleanness there.
Shall we trade tight governmental restriction of immigration for tight governmental restriction of procreation?
The fuck do you think public schooling and the culture in which kids are raised is?Okay, that was a bit mean, but it’s late and this vaguepost is about me, so…
Look. It’s an ecology of organisms and not an economy of interchangeable cogs. All species must act in a process of continuous renewal to overcome entropy or vanish from the Earth. But you better believe that how people feel about handing over assets to their kids is different from how they feel about handing them over to outsiders.
And cultural transmission has got to have a different rate of power if it begins in childhood.
So this does actually count as a difference in kind.
Were humans immortal, then you might see tight restrictions on procreation for the reason you just said.
But you better believe that how people feel about handing over assets to their kids is different from how they feel about handing them over to outsiders.
“Their” kids? Sure. But your kid is my outsider.
And cultural transmission has got to have a different rate of power if it begins in childhood.
No particular reason this should matter, if the actual theoretical foundation here is “I’m a voter and thus I have the right to keep my political power from being diluted.”
Seems fairer (by the democratic logic being used) just to say “every voter currently in the system gets a lifetime supply of X Add a Voter To the Polity tokens [probably X = 1], you can spend that on a child or a foreigner client as you see fit.”