The Problem with Libertarians...

[tandeetaylor]

When you make children's beginnings the same, you generally make them the same. I think that was the point. You're probably not going to make a math genuis in your cold, impersonal, and uncaring upbringing.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
When you have children, and someone starts telling you that you're disgustingly selfish for wanting the best for them, I'm sure you will appropriately tell them where they can go stick it.

If you knew a few ****ed up kids like I do, then you'd see why your system (and not that their parents don't love them) is really hurting others.

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
When you make children's beginnings the same, you generally make them the same. I think that was the point. You're probably not going to make a math genuis in your cold, impersonal, and uncaring upbringing.

There are many people who have different talents than their parents do and have interests that their parents have had nothing to do with. They succeeded in areas without help from parents.

[chequita guevara]

Children of ophanages tend to be pretty messed up.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Children of ophanages tend to be pretty messed up.

Like I said, it is silly to believe that if every child was brought up by the government, the facilities would be at the level of orphanages.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

Like I said, it is silly to believe that if every child was brought up by the government, the facilities would be at the level of orphanages.

Indeed, they'd probably be much worse off.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

Like I said, it is silly to believe that if every child was brought up by the government, the facilities would be at the level of orphanages.

1) prisons

2) mental institutes before nearly all the mentally ill were dumped on the streets

3) public schools

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
There are many people who have different talents than their parents do and have interests that their parents have had nothing to do with. They succeeded in areas without help from parents.

Of course, that is absolutely correct. I never claimed otherwise. But it is proven, from a pyschological standpoint, that children need a strong bond with a primary caregiver before they feel comfortable exploring the world around them. And I plan on helping my son learn about things that I didn't learn about when I was young. Maybe I'll learn a little bit with him, who knows. Of course, I will not learn as much as he will because children are learning geniuses.

The idea of giving up children so they can live in a group home, any group home, no matter how well run, is completely horrific to me. What about breastfeeding? We should pump and send it to them in bottles maybe, right? WHY? I know a much easier way. Wait, wait, I shouldn't be breastfeeding my son because not all children get that. I forgot.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


1) prisons

2) mental institutes before nearly all the mentally ill were dumped on the streets

3) public schools

Really, your claim that government can do anything of this nature well is unsubstantiated by reality. Do you think that just throwing more money at it will make it better? I don't think so.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

[sarcasm] Of course it would. All that Ridlin (can you say SOMA) would make it a veritable wonderland. [/sarcasm]

[chequita guevara]

Most likely, if children were removed from their parents, the bond between parents and children would be broken. Children would get the short end of the stick, funding wise, as people would want to keep more of their money for themselves.

Heck, people have their own kids now, and we shaft kids funding wise. How many states have their education budget "supplimented (i.e., funded) by lotteries rather than making sure schools have the resources they need to function adequately?

Another point that should be made is that having children tends to force people to be more responsible and mature. If you could have kids and not have to care for them, why worry about birth control? Why save for the future? You could act like a 20-something for the rest of your life.

Personally, I think the best way to raise children would be collectively. For example, have groups of parents with children raising their kids together. Resources are maximized, parents get plenty of support (something which is severely lacking in the nuclear family), and children have plenty of playmates. Humans are group animals, and the further we get from that, the more messed up we become.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I actually agree Che, one could easily see that a racially integrated collective (**shudders at the word**) could have socially positive effects amongst the other benefits you've listed.

The conflicts would arise where parents wish to teach social values that may not be in keeping with the Borg collective.

OTOH this is a trend already happening. Daycares often have support groups where working parents volunteer to be weekend sitters and the like.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

A common misconception is that loving parents are needed for children. One of the reason so many people are messed up over this issue is soley because they harp on how their parents don't love them, but not on any results of this. You remove the jealousy and envy and you remove the major problem with kids who don't have loving parents.

Not true, parents play a vital role in the raising of human beings. From an anthropological standpoint:

Culture is any learned behavior accepted by the majority of people in a given area. Enculturation is the act of a human being learning culture at a young age.

Children who are neglected are not being taught proper cultural norms, or at least are missing out on some, and thus become less well rounded humans. For instance, it is a cultural norm in our society (pretty much any society) for people not to rob and kill. You'll find a large large majority of convicted criminals having been raised in neglecting households, to some extent at least, and often times its because these cultural norms haven't been learned by the parents themselves because they were never taught as children. See how it perpetuates itself?

Humans who are able to most successfully adapt to the cultural norms of their group will be the ones that are the most successful, this can't be refuted. Millions of years of evolution back this up. A million years ago, the monkey that was running around the grasslands instead of helping the rest of his group dig up roots and ants to eat was the monkey that died... and with him, so did his genes.

Humans are meant (in every sense of the word) to have a parental unit (whether that be a single mom, a gay dad, whatever) to individually teach them and perhaps a few others the cultural norms they should know. All they are are "cultural tutors". The ones that don't have this, while they can grow up just fine and if they do its because they learned the norms elsewhere... however, this is rarely successful. Having children being raised by the government is not in our hardware. It wouldn't work.

Sorry for the rant, but I just love anthropology

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
1) prisons

2) mental institutes before nearly all the mentally ill were dumped on the streets

3) public schools

Public schools are really the only ones that apply here. Not public schools are bad mind you, and there are other countries that have been able to produce good public schools.

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Of course, that is absolutely correct. I never claimed otherwise. But it is proven, from a pyschological standpoint, that children need a strong bond with a primary caregiver before they feel comfortable exploring the world around them. And I plan on helping my son learn about things that I didn't learn about when I was young. Maybe I'll learn a little bit with him, who knows. Of course, I will not learn as much as he will because children are learning geniuses.

I'm sorry but that is complete bull****. I don't think Speer has a strong bond with parents, but he is still very intelligent whether you agree with him on anything or not.

I really didn't want to bring myself into this debate, but I've accomplished a large amount without a strong bond with my parents. I'm editor-in-chief of one of the best high school newspapers in the country. Heck, if I had I strong bond with my parents, I probably wouldn't have started the Alpha Centauri Nexus which was more popular than Apolyton's BAC when SMAC came out almost 4 years ago. If anything, not having a strong bond has given me an opportunity to expand.

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
The idea of giving up children so they can live in a group home, any group home, no matter how well run, is completely horrific to me. What about breastfeeding? We should pump and send it to them in bottles maybe, right? WHY? I know a much easier way. Wait, wait, I shouldn't be breastfeeding my son because not all children get that. I forgot.

They wouldn't be necessarily taken away so much as never yours to begin with.

Breast feeding isn't needed anyway. If anything, ending breast feeding will end freaks with lactation fetishes.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Another point that should be made is that having children tends to force people to be more responsible and mature. If you could have kids and not have to care for them, why worry about birth control? Why save for the future? You could act like a 20-something for the rest of your life.

If you have kids, you pay taxes to support them. That's how.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Personally, I think the best way to raise children would be collectively. For example, have groups of parents with children raising their kids together. Resources are maximized, parents get plenty of support (something which is severely lacking in the nuclear family), and children have plenty of playmates. Humans are group animals, and the further we get from that, the more messed up we become.

I would like to see this happen, but it wouldn't. It's just some utopian dream.

[Az]

How about the Kibbutz children?

the were raised in a creche, but knew who their parents were, saw them everyday, and lived with them on weekends. The kids were not messed up, but grew up to be healthy, mentally stable, strong willed individuals. Sadly, the system is now being abandoned in favour of the traditional family.

[Dis]

bah! There is nothing wrong with a libertarian goverment.

except rampant crime . But that can be dealt with vigilante style