Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms

24.

THE BABY SELLER

At first blush, there could be fewer things more heinous than child selling. The very concept evokes pictures of child abuse, venality, and greed. Since toddlers are among the most helpless of human beings, our hearts go out to the supposed victims of child selling, and we become enraged at those who perpetrate such a despicable act.

But a moment’s reflection will convince us that the word picture offered above is erroneous. For child selling is no more than child adoption; only in the latter case no money or other valuable consideration changes hands, while in the former it does.

Certainly, no one opposes a couple adopting a baby who is abandoned, or whose parents can no longer care for him. Provided it is done with proper safeguards to deal with the possibility of child abuse, and assuming no intentions other than bringing up a happy and healthy tyke, there is nothing at all problematic about adoption. Our movie stars are forever going to South America or Africa for this purpose, and no one, except for maybe a few late-night television comedians, castigate them for this. Indeed, it is an entirely virtuous act, even if the motives behind it might sometimes be less than fully pure (e.g., personal aggrandizement, publicity), provided that the toddlers are cared for and brought up with love and affection.

But, if X is virtuous, why does it become contemptible just because money changes hands? If it is a good deed to adopt a toddler, why is it illegal to do so when the natural parents are paid to give up their progeny (or, in some case, if the parents pay those who adopt their children)? If it is licit to wash a car, should it be against the law to pay someone to do this (be paid by someone for this purpose)? Given that it is legal to wear a propeller beanie hat on your head, it would be a moral monstrosity to incarcerate someone for “crime” of engaging in such an act under the marketplace or cash nexus.

Yes, yes, babies for sale may be associated with child abuse. It may well even be the case that when the right to bring up a baby is sold, the child is likely to be treated poorly, while in contrast, when the adoption takes place with no money changing hands, the baby’s welfare is much improved. I am unaware of any evidence to support this contention, nor is any likely to be found, since adoption for money is illegal. But, let us stipulate that this is true: When adoptions are handled in the marketplace, there are more likely to be abuses than when cash considerations play no role in the proceedings.

So, should we now prohibit an act just because it is statistically correlated with evil and obnoxious behavior? Of course not. If we did, we would immediately prohibit, as a crime, the “act” of being a teenage male. We should lock up all boys as they turn 13, for the “crime” of being a male teen, and then let them go free when they no longer exhibit this “evil” characteristic, namely, upon their 20th birthdays. Why? Because there is a positive statistical correlation between taking on these characteristics, and being guilty of murder, rape, theft, drag racing which eventuates in vehicular manslaughter, etc.

Perhaps clarity might be shed on this entire unhappy legal episode merely by a change in nomenclature. At present, the illegal act, and the title of this chapter is, “baby selling.” This, it must readily be admitted, sounds horrible. In contrast, did we but call it “adoption selling,” a good bit of the venom might be banished. No one wants to eat “cow flesh” whereas we are all (well, most of us) entirely willing to consume hamburgers, steak, etc. Perhaps, had we been calling them “cow-flesh burgers” they would have been, by now, outlawed. Then, through mere verbal legerdemain, we could end the prohibition of these fast-food items.

But this tells only part of the story. There is a visceral hatred of the market that burns fiercely in the hearts of socialist, fascist, and other interventionistic ideologues. They will not accept what they would undoubtedly interpret as a cheap trick: the alteration from “baby selling” to “sale of adoption rights.” Nor is this loathing confined to professional demagogues. It has seeped out, with a vengeance, to the general community. Until and unless this irrational fear and loathing for the free enterprise system can somehow atrophy (the present book is one of many that attempts to move us in this direction), we will continue to suffer from this type of unjust governmental interference with markets.

Money oils the wheels of commerce. When commercial activity is prohibited as in the present case, there are unrequited buyers and sellers who cannot interact with one another for the purpose of mutual gain. To wit, in this case, under present institutional arrangements, there will be some transfers of guardianship rights over kiddies from some parents who value them less, to other potential parents who would value them more, that will not take place. (Who is likely to be the better caretaker of the children: natural parents willing to sell adoption rights, or those who value the children enough to pay for the rights to care for them?) Only that subset of all such transfers will occur that can be accomplished without the intermediation of money. The children will suffer as a result of this pernicious law.