Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal bethanie's Journal: Parental Guidance vs. Libertarian Ideals 48

Journal by bethanie
In my quest to catch up with a week that flew by with nary a newspaper, I ran across this NYT editorial (yes, I obviously get the daily headlines -- it helps round out my news diet of NPR, /., and the local paper).

And for me it brings up a serious dilemma in my personal beliefs: 1) that parents are ultimately responsible for their children until those children come of age and 2) that the government/law should keep its freakin' nose out of my personal business (like how I raise my kids).

On the one hand, I do believe that parents of children who commit crimes should be held criminally accountable alongside them -- they're your kids, it's your job to keep them in line, and if you don't, you're responsible for their criminal behavior (and you're *both* going to be punished under the law).

On the other hand, I am fairly politically libertarian and would like to restrict the range and reach of government as much as possible. I despise laws that protect us from ourselves and try to tell us how to raise our children. glh's recent experience in the ER with his daughter illustrate how wrong things have gotten.

I also have a BIG problem with the government trying to require homeschooling parents to submit their children to a variety of standardized tests. My mother, a public school teacher (and registered Democrat), and I have nicely heated discussions about that one. (Somehow, she always ends up with her feelings hurt...)

Where do others here fall in this argument? I'm sure that there's an intelligent thread or two in here somewhere!!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Parental Guidance vs. Libertarian Ideals More

Parental Guidance vs. Libertarian Ideals

Comments Filter:
  • but i agree with everything you say. I had an interesting thread on the subject of raising one's own kids and its relations to law (on a theoretic plane rather than a current one) but this is one area we forgot to hit. I feel you covered it well

  • Agreed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cyberdyne ( 104305 ) * on Monday July 14, 2003 @09:34AM (#6433337) Journal
    Hm. You "balance out" NPR and /. with a left-wing propoganda factory of dubious integrity? I know /. isn't exactly a textbook example of professional journalism, but NPR must be seriously screwed up if adding the NYT to the mix balances anything out...

    And for me it brings up a serious dilemma in my personal beliefs: 1) that parents are ultimately responsible for their children until those children come of age and 2) that the government/law should keep its freakin' nose out of my personal business (like how I raise my kids).

    Right behind you there - they're called "your kids" (as opposed to "the government's kids" or "society's kids") for a reason.

    On the one hand, I do believe that parents of children who commit crimes should be held criminally accountable alongside them -- they're your kids, it's your job to keep them in line, and if you don't, you're responsible for their criminal behavior (and you're *both* going to be punished under the law).

    On the other hand, I am fairly politically libertarian and would like to restrict the range and reach of government as much as possible. I despise laws that protect us from ourselves and try to tell us how to raise our children. glh's recent experience in the ER with his daughter illustrate how wrong things have gotten.

    Where is the contradiction? Your kids are exactly that: yours. Raising them and keeping them the right side of the law is your job - fail, and you're responsible for the consequences.

    I also have a BIG problem with the government trying to require homeschooling parents to submit their children to a variety of standardized tests. My mother, a public school teacher (and registered Democrat), and I have nicely heated discussions about that one. (Somehow, she always ends up with her feelings hurt...)

    Well, she does have a big vested interest in making home-schooling as difficult and unpopular as possible; it's a bit like asking a laid-off steelworker about the merits of steel imports ;-)

    I went to a private (UK) school myself. Just to confuse matters, private high schools in the UK are known as "public schools" (yes, a public school is a type of private school). As far as I can tell, private schools tend to provide far better education than the government ("state schools" in the UK) ever could - there's a good reason all the universities are private, although they receive government subsidies (a payment per undergraduate student): it works.

    I'm a big fan of the voucher concept, from what I've heard of it so far. A similar system for healthcare is being proposed for the UK, as a first step towards de-socialising the current disaster of the NHS: instead of being forced to pay through the nose for private treatment, you'll be able to get most of the bill paid using the funds which would have treated you on the NHS (five years later) otherwise. Result: More patient choice, shorter waits for treatment, less workload for the NHS, and all at less cost to the government. The only loser is the "everything must be government owned" lobby!

    With a bit of luck, and careful management, school vouchers could result in a system where everyone can have a proper private education, instead of being forced into government schools by their income. A net win for everyone, except the same vested interests represented by your mother...

    • Hm. You "balance out" NPR and /. with a left-wing propoganda factory of dubious integrity? I know /. isn't exactly a textbook example of professional journalism, but NPR must be seriously screwed up if adding the NYT to the mix balances anything out...

      Well, maybe I should have said "round out" instead of "balance." It was late and I was very tired, and having been off /. for a week has allowed my word choice muscle to get a little flabby.

      Personally, I don't think there's much of any way to get a "bala
      • She thinks that there are a lot of really stupid people out there who should be prevented from making mistakes with their progeny. And naturally, it falls to the government to fulfill this role. (Like there are no stupid people in government?!?)

        I believe that this can explain the major divide in opinion between the far right and far left crowds. The far left believe that collectively, people know better what to do than a single person. The far right believe that individual will make better decisions whe
        • the right see a group decision as being not as good as the one they would have made.

          On the whole, your premise sounds really good, but how do you account for the "religious right" who want to use the law to enforce their moral beliefs for everyone? (Thinking specifically about the abortion issue, if you need a more concrete example.) So in that case, the pendulum has swung back to the "groupthink" side.

          I think that, rather than distinguish between "left" and "right," the distinction should be made bet
          • Well then, as I read it, the "religious right" aren't really rightists, they're leftists under Robi's view.

            Which.. actually in a certain context does make sense.
            • I always say that once you get so far to the left (or right) you start wrapping back aroudn to the right (or left). The political spectrum seems more like a loop instead of a line.

              The religious right, which I probably belong to since I am "religious" and conservative, do believe that individuals should be making the choices. Where the more extreme of these people seem to differ from me is that they believe the only way for people to make The Right Choice(tm) in their view is to legislate the other option
              • I prefer not applying labels. Like astrological signs they may 75% fit but they rarely 100% fit.

                Still, they're just soooo convienant, aren't they?
                • Reference to Onion article singing the praises of racial, gender, ethnic, and appearance based stereotypes. Very funny. But I can't find it on their site. Must be older than their archive.

                  robi
                • Hummmmm reminds me of a great Onion article declaring the wonders of racial / ethenic / gender stereotypes. Too funny to pass up. I can't find the article in their archives, but go to the site [theonion.com] to get a does of the type of humor.

                  robi
          • On the whole, your premise sounds really good, but how do you account for the "religious right" who want to use the law to enforce their moral beliefs for everyone? (Thinking specifically about the abortion issue, if you need a more concrete example.) So in that case, the pendulum has swung back to the "groupthink" side.

            The logic is that they aren't imposing it on the mother, they're defending the baby (which, AFAIK, doesn't get a say in the matter). They regard it as protecting one individual from another

      • She thinks that there are a lot of really stupid people out there who should be prevented from making mistakes with their progeny. And naturally, it falls to the government to fulfill this role. (Like there are no stupid people in government?!?)

        I'd have to trust the government a lot more than I do now to trust it with anyone's kids. :-)
      • Personally, I don't think there's much of any way to get a "balanced" diet of news and information -- either it's seriously liberally biased, or zealotry of some sort or another, or it's so beholden to the commercial interests that sponsor it that the integrity is always in question.

        For me, the key is to make every effort to try to read between the lines and remember that *everyone* has an agenda. I also never take anything as the absolute truth. Every document is just another piece of evidence in the puz

  • Easy answer.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dannon ( 142147 ) on Monday July 14, 2003 @09:43AM (#6433389) Journal
    Let us assume, for the moment, a minimalist set of laws designed to do nothing more than punish anyone who violates another individual's natural rights. Let us also imagine that the law recognizes "parental responsibility" up to a certain age of the child.

    Let's say that parental responsibility entails nothing more or less than this: If the child commits a crime, the parent takes the punishment. Also, crimes against the child are treated as crimes against the parent. At the same time, there needs to be a very, very minimal set of legally defined parent-against-child crimes. I'm talking murder and molestation here.

    All other government involvement in the parent-child relationship is unnecessary, at that point. If there's a social demand for educational guidelines, school accreditation, adoption, and so on, private organizations can handle it without the force of law.

    Just a few thoughts.
    • That sounds great. I really like the way you think!! If only we could keep it that simple...

      (I'll finish the sentence: If only we could keep it that simple, we wouldn't need any lawyers. But since the majority of lawmakers *are* lawyers who see fit to preserve their own self-interests, you can bet that it will *always* be made much more complicated that it needs to be.)

      ....Bethanie....
  • Seems straightforward enough to me -- minors are charged and punished for the crimes they commit, and adults are charged and punished for specific contributory negligence (like leaving a loaded gun out). And there's a child welfare system to intervene in cases of broad negligence.

    That's the system we have now, and I don't see why it should be replaced with yet another enormous arena for litigation. Making any sort of vague "bad parenting" criminal or actionable is a good deal for trial lawyers and bureaucra

  • I also have a BIG problem with the government trying to require homeschooling parents to submit their children to a variety of standardized tests. My mother, a public school teacher (and registered Democrat), and I have nicely heated discussions about that one. (Somehow, she always ends up with her feelings hurt...)

    Why the problem?

    Standardized tests, if we have them at all, provide a measure of the quality of education that children are recieving. While I can see the argument for a parent to teach at a
    • Why the problem? Because it's none of their freakin' bizness, that's why!

      If I've decided to teach my children myself, I don't need to comply with any of the "standards" set up to hold the public school system accountable for providing its customers with a basic level of education.

      I have opted out of that system, and the only accountability I have is to myself and my kids. The government has no business telling me what I should teach them and/or what they should be learning and when. For better or worse,
      • Hummmmmmm

        But then when the children of a home school system reach the employment market, or college entrance exams, and are found lacking in one area (lets say algebra) who is responsibile? The home school teachers. But more than likely this situation would lead to some sort of lawsuit alleging unfair admission policies that discriminated against the home schooled.

        With out any way to verify that the home schooled received the same knowledge at the end of their primary & secondary education, question
        • With out any way to verify that the home schooled received the same knowledge at the end of their primary & secondary education, questions are raised, rather than answered. Public school teachers are held to standards that assure that they are covering the material necessary for the next step in education, be it moving up to High school or college.

          The 'knowledge' gained in primary and secondary ed is superfluous. The important stuff is the three r's, which are glossed over in attempts to bring about '
        • The problem is not entry exams, the problem is standardized testing in school itself. Teachers teach for tests, not for life. If you're passing an entry exam for college, that's different from being forced to take standardized testing during homeschooling. Sending someone to college is different, since that's requirements to get in rather than requirements set by the state for getting through basic school.

          Now, the problem is the system itself. It's based on requirements, not on merit. College degrees
        • Public school teachers are held to standards that assure that they are covering the material necessary for the next step in education

          No. Those public school teachers are held accountable for trying to pass along information that has been certified as "necessary" by a political body with its own agenda, which has very little to do with education.

          As for accountability of the home-schooled; I believe that in the vast majority of situations children receive a *much* higher level of education in this format
          • As for accountability of the home-schooled; I believe that in the vast majority of situations children receive a *much* higher level of education in this format than in public schools.

            No disagreement here. The several home schooled kids I know were far and away more prepared for college than other students. They didn't have to work at the lowest common denominator of a class, like a public or private school student must.

            I'm just trying to find logical rationale explaining the positions of the many side
      • I have opted out of that system, and the only accountability I have is to myself and my kids.

        For better or for worse, our society puts the government in trust of the future interests of the adult child, insomuch as to catch those that fall below a minimum standard.

        It is the government's business that the future adult/citizen/consumer/taxpayer is going to be able to act in society. They would take the kid away from you if you couldn't provide a minimually safe environment, and by the same token they shou
        • I assume that your "minimal stake" in every child's education is your involvement in paying into the governmental welfare system. If not, then this comment won't be very applicable, and I'd appreciate a clarification of what your stake is so we can talk about it!

          If a kid doesn't receive an adequate homeschool education, they earn their living some other way than through their knowledge. It's a free market -- you either have the qualifications to meet the requirements or you go out and get them... or you d
          • And in the cases where they really *can't*, the altruists of society will be charitable and help support the truly needy.

            We tried it, it doesn't work. That's why we (USA) set up welfare.

            But anyway...

            I was thinking more of a social / moral stake, rather than an amoral financial stake. Like I alluded to earlier, the same logic that provides for preventing child pornography or taking away the children of grossly incompetent parents alows for enforcenemnt of a bare minimum educational system.

            Lord knows
    • Standardized tests, if we have them at all, provide a measure of the quality of education that children are recieving.

      Do you honestly believe this, or are you playing devil's advocate? What experience do you have with 'standardized' testing? (Why in quotes? Some horror stories I've heard about grading of compositions in these tests.)
      • Do you honestly believe this, or are you playing devil's advocate?

        I don't have an opinion. But, if we're going to have the tests, they should apply to everyone.

        • I don't have an opinion. But, if we're going to have the tests, they should apply to everyone.

          I agree with this. But I also think nobody should go through the particular tests I've seen.
        • If they have tests that apply to everyone, the tests should actually measure something that proves merit. As it stands, standardized testing in public schools is purely a political tool to attempt to show that teachers are meeting bare minimum requirements. It has very little to do with the students/education and everything to do with politics.

          ....Bethanie....
          • Standardized testing, historically speaking, was enacted by a combination of (1) politicians who wanted to demonstrate that they were concerned about public education, and (2) citizens who were concerned that their public education dollars were spent wisely. As an attempt to measure performance, I find the goal laudable. However, the problem is that education is much more than competence in certain fields. And the attempt to measure performance has warped the educational system. As a result, the system
  • Don't we see this more and more now days? It isn't my fault that fast food stores serve food fried in fat and mostly with out nutritional value. They should have told me that if I eat it 3 times a day for a few years that I will get fat!

    People seem to expect their lack of knowledge and ignorance to be a bullet proof legal wall that others (companies) must break down. I cannot understand it some times.

    grumble grumble grumble

    robi
    • I saw a funny ad parody on either MadTV or SNL the other night about the fast food lawsuit. It was a McDonald's ad. Started by showing the Big Xtra for a few seconds. Then it was legal disclaimers. The ending note was 'by the way, if you are so stupid as to think this stuff is health food, we should also point out that inhaling the Big Extra into your nose can cause serious injury.'

      Wish I could remember it. Or not be so lazy that I don't feel like googling for it:)
  • On the one hand, I do believe that parents of children who commit crimes should be held criminally accountable alongside them -- they're your kids, it's your job to keep them in line, and if you don't, you're responsible for their criminal behavior (and you're *both* going to be punished under the law).

    Until what age?

    1. 16? - when the government says they can drive
    2. 18? - when the government says they can vote
    3. 21? - when the government says they can drink
    4. other?

    At what age should a child be resp

  • I think that we (as a nation) have accepted the idea that society has an interest in the education of its (future) citizens. In my opinion, public education is a significant part of the engine that drives our society and our economy.

    We need to recognize, though, that we can't force everyone to be a good parent; we can't make every child a success in life. Some people just do not have the value that good parenting is the most important thing in your life, but they have kids anyway. Differentiation sta
    • A voucher system might help, but only to the extent that it financially aids parents that are already trying to do a good job. It's not a panacaea, and I don't see it greatly increasing the quality of the system as a whole (private/public/home schooling).

      Glad you've seen the same conundrum WRT vouchers as I have. The other trick is why should I believe John Q. Parent can pick a school any better than the public ones? There's plenty of horror stories about the piss poor charter schools in DC. OTOH, there
      • If I had access to vouchers, I doubt that I would have sent my daughters to a school other than the one they attended (a public high school). We went to some trouble to pick the schools that our children would be attending, when we were buying a house. It is a magnet school, and the breadth and depth of programs offered is extraordinary. That said, the thing that I like least is the standardized tests. The problem is not the tests themselves - they are pretty much irrelevant to even minimally competent
  • And for me it brings up a serious dilemma in my personal beliefs: 1) that parents are ultimately responsible for their children until those children come of age and 2) that the government/law should keep its freakin' nose out of my personal business (like how I raise my kids).

    I am in the same boat. Comments on #1 (and others have hinted on it in this JE)-
    The coming of age thing can be "sticky". Someone has to define what that age is, and I have a problem with the government defining that.. It's most lik
  • While I agree with you that the feds need to get out of our lives, I differ with you about the testing of home schoolers. My neices and nephew were home schooled in kansas. None of them can read, write, or do simple math. The 2 girls are now in bad marriages (married at the age of 16), and my nephew has declared a bankruptcy at age 21. This is now costing us money as in taxpayers. I have no issue with home schooling, but I have a big problem with not doing it. There are too many home schoolers who are not d

    • There are too many home schoolers who are not doing the job. In fact, in a number of cases, It would be easy to argue that they are worse than many of the public schools.

      While I don't doubt that there are a few home schoolers who are doing a less-than-optimal job of educating their children, the evidence is that home schooled children are, on average, getting a significantly better than average education. See, for example, the following links:

      • Thanks for posting the links. The info is somewhat redundant, but I appreciate knowing about the site and may visit again when it comes time to make decisions about my daughter's education!

        ....Bethanie....
      • the evidence is that home schooled children are, on average, getting a significantly better than average education.
        Which are great reasons for home schooling. It is nice to see ppl taking responsibility for their children. However, I do think that standardize testing should be done for all children, not just the home schooling.
        Hopefully, that will help solve the issue of bad schooling, wether at home, private school, or public.
        • Testing will only measure the problem, not resolve it.

          And I don't believe that tests are really objective measures, anyway. At least not objective "universal" measures.

          ....Bethanie....
  • Standardized tests are the best way for completely oblvious school and state administration officials to have numbers about how many kids are not learning certain things compared to other students. It's not fool proof, but it's probably the best they can hope for with pigeon-holed teachers or worse yet, teachers that don't care, just following along in a book the same as they ask the students to do.

    However, provided you have a parent who is not a complete moron and who actually loves their kids, they will

Slashdot Top Deals

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Close