ticking

In this paper, the author Lafollette argued that parenting should be licensed.

Lafollette first discussed two criteria for regulation:
(1) the behavior can be potentially harmful to others
Example: driving recklessly leads to injury and fatality, so driving is licensed
(2) competence is required
Example: lawyers, pshychiatrists, drivers need skills

In terms of parenting, bad parents can do great harm to children, so the first criterion is satisfied. As for competence, parenting does need skills and practice.

Lafollette believed that the only ways to deny the necessity of parenting regulation are to
(1) deny licensing any potentially harmful activity;
(2) deny the two criteria of regulation
(3) deny that parenting satisfies the two criteria, assuming the validity of the criteria
(4) show that even though parenting satisfies the two criteria, there exist special reasons that licensing parents isn't good
(5) show that there is no reliable and just procedure for implementing regulation

(1)(2)(3) are trivial, the author focused on (4)(5)

Theoretical objections to licensing:
(1) people have free right to have children, which shouldn't be licensed.

Lafollette's opinion: even if people have right to have children, the right might be limited to protect innocent people, i.e. children. Parents' way of rearing children might be unacceptable even if they consider it fit. He believes that a person has a right to rear children if he meets certain minimal standards of child rearing. Denying a parenting license to someone who is not competent does not violate that person's rights. Rights are conditional.

The purpose of licesing is to prevent serious harm to children, and prior restraint required by licensing would not be very onerous for many people.

(2) a parental licensing program would deny licenses to applicants judged to be incompetent even though they had never maltreated any children (prior restraint)

The author argues that individuals denied license are given the opportunity to reapply easily and repeatedly for a license. [take counseling or therapy to improve their chances of passing the next test]

The author reasoned that: even though one needs to be worry about prior restraint, if the potential for harm is great and the restraint is minor relative to the harm we are trying to prevent, then such restraint is justified. 

My thoughts:

Practical objections to licensing:
(1) what are adequate criteria of "a good parent"? Knowledge problem

Author: the proposal is only to exclude the very bad parents.

My thoughts: in terms of excluding bad parents, probably only the extreme cases are to be distinguished. What about other cases?

(2) there is no reliable way to predict who will maltreat their children

Author: Other licensing programs are not predict 100% accurately, so we cannot demand more in terms of parental regulation. We can use existing tests that claim to isolate relevant predictive characteristics that signifies bad parents to find potentially bad parents. He also believes that tests will be improved.

My thoughts: just because the other similar regulation is not perfect doesn't mean you can adopt this system into parenting.

(3) administrators might unintentionally misuse that test, which would harm innocent individuals.

Author: the fact that mistakes are made shouldn't lead us to abandon attempts to determine competence.

My thoughts: the same as before. In addition, to get pass the test, individuals might use other ways to cheat.

(4) any testing procedure will be intentionally abused.(administrators' self interest)

Author: there is no reason to believe that the licensing of parents is more likely to be abused than drivers' license tests or other regulatory procedures. In addition, individuals can appeal.

My thoughts: red-tape? bureaucrats' self-interest?

(5) It is hard to implement this program

Author: if it is important enough to protect children from being maltreated by parents, then surely a reasonable enforcement procedure can be secured.

My thoughts: costs?