Loyalty to the State

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, March 31, 2008 03:34
VIEWED: 19263
PAGE 4 of 27

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 9, 2008 4:16 PM

I wanted to clarify my thought about the original dilemma being framed improperly (was busy, had to rush away): When I think of kids, I rarely think of my "rights" or the state's "rights"... or indeed any adult's "rights" at all. What comes first to mind is responsibility.

Now, I'm a BIG believer in balancing rights and responsibilities. IMHO, if you're given the responsibility to do something you should automatically have the right to decide how that gets done.

Raising children, for some reason that I can't fathom, is one of the areas where that equation doesn't hold for me. There are NO rights for parents, or for the state, or for anyone else. In my book, the only person with "rights" is the kid. And IMHO the rights (needs) of children are as follows: The right to food, water, and shelter. The right to move freely in their environment. The right to be unafraid of the people they routinely encounter. The right to learn from experience (as opposed to the bullshit that both parents AND "the state" foist on young children) and the right to be inquisitive. The right to feel loved.

Whatever system best meets those needs is the system I want. Parents rights? State's rights? All bullshit.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 9, 2008 5:21 PM

I wanted to add: I know there are people who will think that my system would create a generation of wusses. That children are toughened by adversity.

That is simply not the case. There are too many studies to ignore that children raised in fear, hostility and danger wind up suffering from permanently-wired PTSD. They are more prone to anxiety, anger, and depression; less able to judge people's true motivations; more gullible and and less able to protect themselves from predators etc. When children DO emerge less scathed from a hellhole life, it's because of someone who believed in them: an aunt or uncle, teacher, neighbor etc. Their love (that unquantifiable) helped those children believe in themselves.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, March 9, 2008 8:25 PM

Clarification ?

Since the parents obviously took upon themselves the responsibility of raising a child, doesn't it stand to reason that so long as they do it in a fashion that meets the childs basic needs, they logically have the right to make decisions regarding the care and welfare of the child, within reason ?

I think you're misunderstanding Sarge's point just a little bit, or you two are somehow miscommunicating here...

And that's prettymuch true - children are not made stronger by adversity, but rather emotional depth, breadth of life experiences, and proper coping mechanisms that nature evolves at certain stages of development barring interference by outside influences.

What does much of the damage in those situations is children running up against certain trauma, or certain kinds of it, before developing coping mechanisms relative to it - that can be devastating, with lifelong consequence, even if the incident in question is quite small.

-F

SERGEANTX

Sunday, March 9, 2008 9:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
... And IMHO the rights (needs) of children are as follows: The right to food, water, and shelter.

But these sorts of things aren't rights in any meaningful sense. They are responsibilities, responsibilities imposed on someone else. I think you're conflating the rights of children with the responsibilities of their caretakers. And as you've acknowledged, you can't impose a responsibility on someone without the rights that go along with it. That's why parents rights are absolutely central to the issue.

I hope you at least appreciate by now that I'm not making this argument out of concern for the unfettered freedom of parents to do whatever they please. I'm making it because I've seen, personally and repeatedly, parents neglecting their responsibilities as a direct result of their rights being interfered with. I've heard parents eagerly seizing on excuses for not disciplining their children, or even not attending to their material needs, because they've bought into the assumption that ultimately, it's not up to them. They even turn this around and end up assuming that the schools should be raising their kids for them. And I've never really seen kids benefit from that attitude.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Sunday, March 9, 2008 10:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That children are toughened by adversity.

I agree with you whole-heartedly here. That attitude is asinine. Adversity is adversity. It sucks. For children or adults. I suppose it's possible to find positive 'takeaways' from bad experiences and overcoming adversity can strengthen self-confidence, but in my experience, people who avoid adversity are almost always better off than those who are stuck with an abundance of it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Sunday, March 9, 2008 10:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
What it boils down to is who gets the benefit of the doubt, who's decision it should default to, and since the family, barring an abusive environment, is a positive force and beneficial to a childs mental health - versus the State, which is ruinous to it...

Without some damned compelling evidence, I do believe that ought to be a parental decision, and the State can go to hell, it's not really any of their business, whatsoever - because it is a social, rather than legal issue at the heart of it, somewhere the State has utterly no business interfering to begin with.

Yeah... that pretty much sums up my p.o.v.

Quote:
Now I do believe any child old enough to comprehend what they are being asked, SHOULD be asked, at least get their input on the process ...

That hits on something I haven't addressed here, and probably should. I see children's rights as a progressive sort of thing. From birth to grade school age, kids can't really be said to have anything more than very basic rights (the right to be free of abuse essentially), because they don't yet have the capacity to make reasonably informed decisions for themselves. But as they develop that capacity, they assume the rights that go along with it. To the point that a relatively mature 14 year old (for example), especially one capable and willing to take care of themselves, should have nearly all the rights of an independent adult.

Quote:
In all honesty what we have in the public school systems today, folks, it ain't education, it's indoctrination.

That's been my line since my kids were in grade school. And while I suppose it's fair to point out that indoctrination isn't necessarily bad, I do think we should recognize it for what it is, and not try to pretend it's something more noble.

Quote:
Consider this - the teacher picks some book and foists it on a child to read, or offers a set of equally repulsive and boring works to "choose" from ...

LOL... my youngest son went through something exactly like that. I got a call from his teacher when he was in fifth grade. She was concerned about him because he was only barely participating in her semester reading "game". It was some pathetic 'incentive' plan to reward the kids with pointless 'prizes' for reading a certain number of books from the supplied reading list. She'd called to express her concern that Noah wasn't developing his reading skills. I had to laugh because he read at least a couple of novel sized books a week and had just finished "The Fellowship of the Ring". I explained to her that he really didn't have time to read the books on her list because he was far too busy reading books that actually mattered to him. Further that the incentives she offered weren't nearly as compelling as following his own interests. I thought that was a pretty good thing.

To her credit she agreed with me and her concerns were assuaged. But the default attitude seems demeaning. Maybe that kind of things works for some kids, so I won't say it's complete bullshit, but I do know that all too often the so-called 'underchievers' are anything but. They're just too busy doing they're own thing to be bothered with school work.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

AVENGINGWATCHER

Monday, March 10, 2008 1:53 AM

Well I see that I came into a very interesting debate. Now without further ado I shall put in my two sense and I own everything that I am about to say.

We keep talking about rights as though rights are inherent, really all that rights are are a set of rules we collectively agree that everyone should follow. In a strictly natural sense there are none, and even when we say rights we don't mean them to include everyone. All rights are exclusive to a specific group, therefore they exclude another group.

As far as humans go we are pack oriented creatures, and by nature protect our genetic and familial relatives. So by rights any creature that would hurt or mistreat it's offspring is harming or killing off it's own chances of genetic survival and those traits would be weeded out.

I firmly believe that some adversity most certainly strengthens an individual. A parents role is then to guide and protect a child against obstacles that would causes undue harm or suffering, without causing the child to turn out to be unable to learn on it's own. A parent teaches a child to analyze and learn.

So, that being said currently schools teach children memorization and homogenization. This actually limits a child or an adult for that matter. However it is the parent's lack of involvement that has caused this depredation of our school system, which in turn is caused by the rampant consumerist attitude of our lifestyles.

So here's my opinion on a parent's choice to home school over an entity's decision to limit a parent's choices. The government can piss off when it comes to how I choose to raise and educate my offspring. I choose the best way to teach my child until my child is able to learn on it's own because I want to preserve my genetic line. And speaking as a liberal here, try t tell my children what to think without my approval and you will be facing me from the barrel of a gun, because "violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived"

Let the flame war begin!!

When there are no heroes where will we turn?

SIGNYM

Monday, March 10, 2008 2:30 AM

Quote:
But these sorts of things aren't rights in any meaningful sense. They are responsibilities, responsibilities imposed on someone else. I think you're conflating the rights of children with the responsibilities of their caretakers.

It's all in how you think about it. Saying that parents have "rights" creates the category (parents' rights) that people fill up will all sorts of ideas. In Southeast Asia, parents have the "right" to sell their girls into prostitution so that dad can continue his opium habit. It's not considered unusual, in fact, the girls consider it their duty to help support the family.

Quote:
And as you've acknowledged, you can't impose a responsibility on someone without the rights that go along with it.

That's exactly the opposite of what I said.

Quote:
I hope you at least appreciate by now that I'm not making this argument out of concern for the unfettered freedom of parents to do whatever they please.

I never thought you were. Perhaps its to your credit that you can't imagine how adults could twist the idea of parents' rights into something horrific... but I'm sure we all know of terrible abusive families, and the first thing that dysfunctional families do is prevent outside interference. Keeping the victims isolated. It's amazing how invested even the victims become in "keeping the family secret". The image of a parent standing at the door with a gun, preventing "interference" could either be heroic or predatory- depending. The discussion needs to be opened up, I think, to include that scenario.

Quote:
I'm making it because I've seen, personally and repeatedly, parents neglecting their responsibilities as a direct result of their rights being interfered with.

This statement doesn't make much sense to me. What responsibilities? What rights? I'd need more details to understand what you're saying.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 10, 2008 2:35 AM

Quote:
As far as humans go we are pack oriented creatures, and by nature protect our genetic and familial relatives. So by rights any creature that would hurt or mistreat it's offspring is harming or killing off it's own chances of genetic survival and those traits would be weeded out.

That statement is too broad to have any meaning. People exist on a continuum; SOME people are extremely devoted to their children, but... honestly? If you look over the historical record children in general are not treated very well.

Quote:
I firmly believe that some adversity most certainly strengthens an individual.

If the caregivers are the source of the adversity that's not a good thing.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

GEEZER

Monday, March 10, 2008 3:33 AM

So obviously, no one involved in this discussion has actually read the entire article and related court decision.

The whole thing started when one of the minor children reported emotional and physical abuse by the father. The Family and Children's Services attorney representing the children asked that the two youngest be sent to public school so they could have an outside source checking for continued abuse. As part of the trial court ruling (unfortunately no link available) the judge, while deploring the quality of the children's homeschooling, assumed the parent's constitutional right to homeschool. The appeal of this judgement is what generated the decision that most homeschooling is not legal under current California law.

So we do have the children, or at least one of them, acting in their own behalf to complain of abuse (good for them). We have the State requesting that the children be sent to public school as a method (one option among several) of checking for continued abuse. And we have the Appelate Court finding that laws passed 50 or more years ago on who can teach children have been pretty much ignored (pretty sloppy, I'd say). Looks like it's time for the State legislature to review the laws on the books and see if changes are needed.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE