Why Birthrates Are Irrelevant Under Capitalism

Thinking morally Right or Wrong, not politically left or right, about birthrates requires opposing collectivist intrusion in family life.

Hardly a day goes by without a headline lamenting the fact that the peoples of the world aren’t prolific enough in the baby-making department (with a few sub-Sahara African exceptions, but birthrates are trending down there as well). Quite a change from the population bomb worries of the 1970’s and 80’s.

The reasons are many and overwhelmingly good: Access to the pill and abortion give women control over when and when not to have children; reduced infant mortality removes the necessity to have a large brood just to ensure enough of them survive to adulthood; higher living standards reduces the need for “free” child labor, etc.

But according to many politicians and pundits, the human race is doing reproduction wrong. Birthrates are “too low,” we’re told, or, in the past, “unsustainably high.” Either way, they claim, we’re headed for some demographic cliff that will apparently destroy civilization unless ordinary people start having the “right” number of babies on schedule. The proposed solutions vary—tax credits, subsidies, penalties (for example, the disastrous and immoral Chinese one child policy)—but the premise never changes: your reproductive choices are now a matter of public concern.

Well, they’re not.

Under capitalism—properly defined as the social system that protects individual rights—birthrates are not a problem to solve, a target to hit, or a lever for policymakers to pull. They are irrelevant. The idea that a country can have the “wrong” number of children is not an economic insight—it’s a notion put forth by collectivists that put the nation, “society,” “the common good,” or some other grouping above the individual.

Having a child is not a civic duty or a patriotic act. It is a personal decision with lifelong consequences for the people directly involved. If you want kids and are willing to take on the responsibility, great. If you don’t, also great. No one else gets a vote.

The moment someone asks “But what does society need?”, the conversation has already gone off the rails. Societies do not reproduce. Individuals do. “The economy” does not have children. People do. Framing reproduction as a national concern treats human beings as cogs in a societal wheel—future workers, taxpayers, or caregivers—rather than as individuals with lives of their own. That framing is not neutral. It implicitly assumes that people exist to serve collectivist goals.

Much of the current birthrate panic comes wrapped in economic anxiety. We’re told that fewer babies mean fewer workers, fewer taxpayers, and too many retirees drawing benefits. Translation: the system depends on a steady supply of new people to keep the math working. If true, the problem isn’t that people aren’t having enough kids. The problem is a statist political system built on compulsory redistribution that requires population growth to stay afloat.

In a genuinely capitalist society, no one is entitled to other people’s future labor by default. Retirement is something you plan for. Healthcare is something you insure against. Old age is not a bill automatically sent to the next generation. If a statist government program collapses unless citizens reproduce on cue, that is not a moral argument for more babies—it’s a flashing warning sign that something else is morally Wrong; that the system is running out of other people’s money.

On the other end of the spectrum, there was the fear of overpopulation: too many people, not enough resources, impending doom. This view treated humans as passive consumers who show up, eat stuff, and strain the system. Capitalism takes a radically different view. People don’t just consume; they produce. They invent, adapt, and solve problems. Prosperity comes from human ingenuity, not population quotas. The more minds, the better.

Which brings us to the policies. Once birthrates are declared a “problem,” government inevitably steps in to “fix” them. Subsidize parents. Penalize the childless. Nudge behavior with tax codes and benefits. Dress it up as “support,” but the logic is the same: use state power to steer private life decisions toward politically approved outcomes.

Whether the goal is more or fewer births doesn’t matter. Incentives, penalties, and demographic planning all rest on the same assumption—that individuals may be manipulated for collective ends. That assumption is incompatible with capitalism which takes individual rights seriously, meaning that your bedroom, your family plans, and your long-term commitments are off limits to policy makers.

The language alone should make us uneasy. “Replacement rates,” “demographic sustainability,” “population shortfalls.” These terms reduce people to inputs in a statist maintenance plan. They turn both children and parents into economic units. That’s not how a free society talks about human life.

None of this is an argument against children or family. Quite the opposite. Children matter precisely because they are not a means to someone else’s goal. Parenting is meaningful because it is chosen, not conscripted. A child should be wanted by their parents—not demanded by economists, politicians, or headline writers.

A capitalist society does not need the “right” number of babies, because it is founded on individualist principles: voluntary choice, personal responsibility, and above all respect for individual rights. If those are in place, people will make the decisions that make sense for them. Some will have enough kids for a soccer team. Some will have none. Some generations will grow. Others will shrink.

So the next time someone announces a birthrate crisis and starts eyeing your life choices, be on your guard. Your life is yours. You are not a demographic lever. You are not a national resource. And your reproductive decisions are yours and your partner’s alone.