Training Children

Should people have the right to raise their children however they see fit?

Scenaria 1:
Denise is a psychologist. Having heard about Wiesel's kitten experiments, she decides to try some of them on her child. She covers one of the child's eyes with an eyepatch, preventing that eye from "learning" to see. Her child grows up and is killed in a car accident (16) due to her poor depth perception.

Scenario 2:
Kathy is an anti-abortion activist. Having been inspired by Paul Hill, she decides to teach her child from an early age to emulate him. She explains that it is every good person's duty to shoot abortion doctors. Her child grows up (16), kills an abortion doctor, and is sentenced to death.

Scenario 3:
Paullette is a Jehovah's witness. She teaches her child that blood transfusions are an abomination unto the Lord. Her child grows up (16), is injured in a car accident, and dies after refusing a transfusion.

It's my view that these parents are responsible for the deaths of their children. It's one thing to say that everyone has to be responsible for their own actions. But when the person you were supposed to be able to trust most gives you false information (or impairs your ability to perceive the world around you), and you take actions based on this information, it's hard to see how you could have done things better. When you have been raised in a situation of extreme psychotic religious abuse, is there any way to break free?

So, my focus here is on prevention. The three children might not have died had they been protected from their parents. And the only plausible protection that can be given to these kids is from the government.

Now, I know what you're thinking (maybe). The government... aren't they the bad guys? Shouldn't the government stay out of families? What's to keep this from being like Big Brother in 1984?

Well, that's kind of a backward view. A human stranded on a desert island doesn't need government. But a group of any size really does. Government is our human way of keeping our lives running smoothly, of smoothing out interaction with other people. The government is us (yes, I know there are dictatorships where the government is one guy) making and enforcing the rules of the game of human interaction. When the police lock up a serial killer, that's us (the government) keeping ourselves safe. When child labor, slavery, segregation, and unpaid overtime are outlawed, that's us deciding what we won't tolerate in our society. When women and minorities were guaranteed the vote, that was us deciding that they are included in us.

Government is already involved in families. When CPS takes an abused girl away from her harmful environment, the government did it. When an unwanted child goes to foster care and is adopted by caring parents, the government did it. The government says you can't mistreat your child or force them to work in coal mines. The government also says you can't abuse your spouse, or have more than one.

I don't have any specific laws that I'm promoting here. All I'm saying is that brainwashing children is harmful to them, and that the only tool we have to prevent it is government.

Conservatives & Cutting Government Spending

This issue's been percolating for awhile. Bear with me.

I work for the government. I have for the last 5 years. I put in a 40 hour week, and I go home to my wife. I'm in IT, so I put up with a fair amount of crap, too.

A fellow IT professional, who is a conservative, thinks that we government workers are being painted poorly in public opinion. I can see what she means. Occassionally my mother brings up my overly cushy job, jibing me about my benefits. In 2010, Bakersfield passed measure D, reducing pension benefits for police and firefighters. When the Tea Party rails against government spending, one of the things they are railing about is my salary.

So, I see what my coworker means. People are out for blood. They need someone to blame in a time of economic crisis. Government workers have good jobs with good benefits. Let's take that away. The difference in my opinion is: I don't see this as a unique thing for government pensions. Let me explain.

My coworker is a conservative government IT pro. She is against wasteful school spending, corporate bailouts, and welfare checks, but doesn't see why we should take away her benefits.

My mother is a conservative corporate office manager. She is against government pensions, wasteful school spending, and welfare checks, but doesn't see why we should take away the money her company needs to stay afloat. (This is a random guess. As previous posts show, my mother will not discuss religion or politics with me)

My sister is a conservative elementary school teacher. She is against government pensions, corporate bailouts, and welfare checks, but doesn't see why we should take away funding for schools.

My mother-in-law is a conservative senior widow taking care of her disabled mother. She is against government pensions, wasteful school spending, and corporate bailouts, but she doesn't see why we should take away her stipend to care for her aged, dying mother.

See, everyone's against the government spending money on other people. When the government spends money on a project that doesn't help you directly, there is a tendency to see that as your money paying for someone else's welfare. But when it comes to your programs, it's a lot easier to see the benefits.

Oh and I forgot about the fifth person in our hypothetical. He's a billionaire CEO. He's against all 4 of these programs (even the bailout; if the company goes under, he still gets paid), because he doesn't want everyone else taking his tax dollars. He earned them fair and square by being born into a wealthy family, using his money and family connections to get into expensive schools, joining elite fraternities with other billionaires, and being offered the CEO job by a frat brother. If everyone else wants money so much, why don't they just work for it?

And the thing about conservative economic policies is that they don't just stop with the other guy. You can start by denying welfare to "lazy" widows, purging "extravagant" retirement plans, and placing restrictions on "greedy" labor unions, but eventually the slope leads to removing that "cushy" 40 hour work week, and cutting those "restrictive" child-labor laws. Eventually, your program will be on the chopping block. Unless you're the billionaire CEO, in which case... carry on, good sir.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

    - Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)