To Cut or Not to Cut?

When I was finishing up The Myth of the Rational Voter, I weighed whether I should cut the paragraph on restricting the franchise:

But what — if anything — can be done to improve outcomes, taking the supremacy of democracy over the market as fixed?  The answer depends on how flexibly you define “democracy.”  Would we still have a “democracy” if you needed to pass a test of economic literacy to vote?  If you needed a college degree?  Both of these measures raise the economic understanding of the median voter, leading to more sensible policies.  Franchise restrictions were historically used for discriminatory ends, but that hardly implies that they should never be used again for any reason. 

A test of voter competence is no more objectionable than a driving test.  Both bad driving and bad voting are dangerous not merely to the individual who practices them, but to innocent bystanders…

I knew this paragraph might provoke hysterical hostility.  But I thought that (a) it made a good point, and (b) angry reactions would confirm my broader thesis that many people are democratic fundamentalists.  In the end, it made the cut – and probably ended up being the single most-discussed paragraph in the book.  Radio hosts brought it up again and again.

Now that I’m finishing up Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, another controversial passage is on the chopping block.  In the current draft, this paragraph concludes my discussion of cloning:

I confess that I take anti-cloning arguments personally.  Not only do they insult the identical twin sons I already have; they insult a son I hope I live to meet.  Yes, I wish to clone myself and raise the baby as my son. Seriously.  I want to experience the sublime bond I’m sure we’d share. I’m confident that he’d be delighted, too, because I would love to be raised by me. I’m not pushing others to clone themselves. I’m not asking anyone else to pay for my dream.  I just want government to leave me and the cloning business alone.  Is that too much to ask?

My reasons to keep it, as before, are: (a) it makes a good point, and (b) angry reactions would confirm my broader thesis that many people senselessly oppose assisted reproductive technology.  The downside, of course, is alienating otherwise sympathetic readers.  The upside of the downside is that controversy is excellent publicity.  Should my cloning confession make the final cut?

Advise me.

Update: Check out many additional comments on MR.  My prediction: Once a few thousand cloned humans are walking the earth, sneering at clones and people who want them will become as gauche as sneering at IVF babies and people who want them.

The post appeared first on Econlib.