Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
redmartian89

parenting

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

A friend of mine quite recently proposed a "solution" to abusive and neglegent parenting.

He proposes that the state raises kids till the time they reach adulthood, through a new regime of education.

I told him that this idea runs counter to freedom, capitalism, and selfishness; but he counters that it is.

I told him that the idea was statist to the nth degree. He counters with "what about the abused kids?" and I said "let them work it out by the child protection laws and they'll support themselves"

I also mentioned that the kids not interested should not be forced to continue with it, but he disagrees, claiming they cannot make their own choices.

I cannot explain it fully, but the idea sounds way too much like Brave New World. But this technique, as far as I know, remains untested.

I am conflicted over it because, on the one hand, there are really good parents out there and freedom of choice in education is part of liberty, but, on the other hand, the abuse of kids by parents is a breach of rights as well.

On Tuesday, a 20-yr old mother came home to see her 1-yr old stabbed to death by the kid's great uncle in order to "get rid of demons" in the child.

Would this new regime solve this problem?

Any Objectivists here support this idea?

Am I being elitist in not supporting this "equalizing" idea?

Is parental abuse necessary cause for a new governmental agency, or should this idea be run by businesses, if at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A friend of mine quite recently proposed a "solution" to abusive and neglegent parenting.

He proposes that the state raises kids till the time they reach adulthood, through a new regime of education.

I told him that this idea runs counter to freedom, capitalism, and selfishness; but he counters that it is.

I told him that the idea was statist to the nth degree. He counters with "what about the abused kids?" and I said "let them work it out by the child protection laws and they'll support themselves"

I also mentioned that the kids not interested should not be forced to continue with it, but he disagrees, claiming they cannot make their own choices.

I cannot explain it fully, but the idea sounds way too much like Brave New World. But this technique, as far as I know, remains untested.

I am conflicted over it because, on the one hand, there are really good parents out there and freedom of choice in education is part of liberty, but, on the other hand, the abuse of kids by parents is a breach of rights as well.

On Tuesday, a 20-yr old mother came home to see her 1-yr old stabbed to death by the kid's great uncle in order to "get rid of demons" in the child.

Would this new regime solve this problem?

Any Objectivists here support this idea?

Am I being elitist in not supporting this "equalizing" idea?

Is parental abuse necessary cause for a new governmental agency, or should this idea be run by businesses, if at all?

This is a horribly evil idea. First, severely abused children are not as common as the news via the reports from agencies which get their funding based on need, might make it seem.

Second, it punishes the good for the crimes of the bad. It is on par with eliminating gun rights because criminals exist. It makes the assumption that everyone is doing it badly and the government can do it better.

This notion that the government could do anything better then private citizens, could only be uttered by someone with no firsthand experience in dealing with the government. They've screwed up every single thing they have touched and have almost bankrupted the richest country in history in the process.

For some imagery of how this might work out, just look at the complete and total failure that is public schools and then ask how yourself how much more completely we, as a society, should destroy each new generations ability to think at all, let alone critically and with reason. 90% of children are brainwashed in those cesspools for 8 hours a day. By my calculation, 24 hours a day would mean sheople would be 3 times as ignorant as they are now. They would go to sleep in neat rows, wake up in neat rows, sit with hands folded in neat rows, eat in neat rows and would learn to never, ever make the mistake of thinking, let alone acting, independently. They would move when the authority figure or bell commanded them to do so. They would read what some socialist afraid of being judged by a free market, who has never held a real job, tells them to read. They would wear what they were instructed to wear. Say what they were instructed to say, and in short be what they were instructed to be.

An actually this has been tried. Youth camps were quite popular in Germany during the 1930'3 and 40's.

The best argument against this kind of elitist nonsense is the argument presented by the founders of the US government regarding self rule. If we take as our premise that humanity is fundamentally evil and incapable of making decisions for themselves, then it must be remembered that those in power are also part of the class "humanity" and are therefore fundamentally evil and powerful at the same time. Elitism is inescapably flawed from beginning to end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A friend of mine quite recently proposed a "solution" to abusive and neglegent parenting.

He proposes that the state raises kids till the time they reach adulthood, through a new regime of education.

I told him that this idea runs counter to freedom, capitalism, and selfishness; but he counters that it is.

I told him that the idea was statist to the nth degree. He counters with "what about the abused kids?" and I said "let them work it out by the child protection laws and they'll support themselves"

I also mentioned that the kids not interested should not be forced to continue with it, but he disagrees, claiming they cannot make their own choices.

I cannot explain it fully, but the idea sounds way too much like Brave New World. But this technique, as far as I know, remains untested.

I am conflicted over it because, on the one hand, there are really good parents out there and freedom of choice in education is part of liberty, but, on the other hand, the abuse of kids by parents is a breach of rights as well.

On Tuesday, a 20-yr old mother came home to see her 1-yr old stabbed to death by the kid's great uncle in order to "get rid of demons" in the child.

Would this new regime solve this problem?

Any Objectivists here support this idea?

Am I being elitist in not supporting this "equalizing" idea?

Is parental abuse necessary cause for a new governmental agency, or should this idea be run by businesses, if at all?

So what happens when the state is abusing the children? I would argue that public school abuse children's minds by forcing them to conform to their warped ethics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't take much to go from your friend's idea to the extreme statist situations in Ayn Rand's Anthem or George Lucas's THX 1138. Is that what you want? I assume not. It would be an utter distaster is that happened, one worse than any government made disaster to date. Even Stalin's reign would pale in comparision. Better to die than live in the statist situations in Anthen and THX 1138. Better to be dead than so lacking in freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you may also find value in looking at possible alternative solutions. Not only are the numbers of (physically) abused children pretty low, but we're living in a country where private charity has always been pretty high.

Yes, abusing a child is a violation of the rights of that child, and like with power of attorney, if you abuse your power it is legally taken away from you. The government should step in, but only to take the child out of the abusive situation and see it placed elsewhere. Losing custody should also be permanent and irrevocable.

The non-governmental parts of this could easily be handled by charities or even (possibly) not-for-profit agencies. The not-for-profit places could charge families looking to adopt a "screening fee" for the priviledge. That money would go to hire caretakers, buy food, and pay for activities and even (possibly) education if a child is difficult to place. (It is harder to find people to adopt older children than younger ones.)

I think one of the major things that absolutely HAS to go is the policy of paying people to take on a foster child. That just breeds abuse right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...