The Problem with Libertarians...

[Flubber]

what ogie said

[Apocalypse]

You people say kids need love but you don't support it with examples of important things only parents can do but government can't.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
But you can't create loving parents for everyone. Furthermore, like I said earlier, the vital functions of parents can be replaced by the government.

Considering the dedication and efficiency and cost effectiveness with which other government services are performed, you've got to be kidding, or simply high.

Do you seriously think that kids don't need love? Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

How many kids have you raised (or turned over to the government, and what's their status (Facility level and term of sentence?)

Seriously, child and adult psychologists have long identified how kids from near post birth to adolescence have both their emotional development and their views of human interactions and relationships role modeled for them by parents.

You people say kids need love but you don't support it with examples of important things only parents can do but government can't.

Actually, other than asserting "government can do it" you've failed to support how, at what cost, and with what quality of service "government" would take over all parental functions for all kids on a 7/24 basis. Until you do something beyond BAMMING, there's nothing which needs to be supported from the other side of the argument.

[tandeetaylor]

Children need individual attention, especially in younger years. They need the bond of one or two parents. Babies, especially, have a very strong need for stability and knowing what's going on. If you have children, you understand this. When we bring my son out shopping or on errands, it interrupts his normal scheduele, he doesn't understand, he gets upset. He sometimes needs a whole day back in his environment and routine to calm down again. Do you suggest that the government hire a person to take care of each child? How about their parents! The effects of group day care are being studied, and so far they have shown that the younger children the greater the need for individual attention. They need a person who cares about them enough to be patient even when it's hard, to not give up and leave them crying in the next room because it's too hard to find out what's wrong with them, they need people who care about them enough to consider their actions, their parenting approaches and what effect they will have on their children. They need their parents.

You can make good parents. No, the government can't do it, people can. By raising their children with love and caring. Good childhoods make good parents. Bad childhoods can to, but it's significantly more difficult. It requires fixing everything wrong that happened.

[Ming]

If you really think the government can do a better job then parents, just spend a day or so visiting kids that are "wards of the state" in their institutions. You will see that "government" really doesn't have a clue on how to raise children properly.

[chequita guevara]

We're still animals. We have genetically adapted ourselves to a particular mode of reproduction and child rearing. Just because rearing children in a creche might be more "efficient" from a Taylorist point of view doesn't mean it is the best method for raising children from the standpoint of creating functional humans. This is one of those things the early 20th Century Communists were way off-base on, but then, they didn't have the benefit of late 20th Century psychology to show them they were wrong.

On the other hand, just because you have functioning genitals doesn't mean you're capable of raising the children you create.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Considering the dedication and efficiency and cost effectiveness with which other government services are performed, you've got to be kidding, or simply high.

You are forgetting that raising many kids together is more efficient. A family with 4 kids does not have to spend 4 times as much money as a family with one kid. It's easier to share clothes, TV, toys, and whatnot. Sure it might be inefficient, but it still would be cheaper than individual families raise the children. Cost has nothing do to with this anyway. You shouldn't put a price on children's happiness and well being.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
How many kids have you raised (or turned over to the government, and what's their status (Facility level and term of sentence?)

What does this have to do with anything? Even if I did raise kids and/or turn them over to the government that would only be an incredibly small statistic not worth bringing up in debate. You need to focus on the issue at hand.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Seriously, child and adult psychologists have long identified how kids from near post birth to adolescence have both their emotional development and their views of human interactions and relationships role modeled for them by parents.

Actually, other than asserting "government can do it" you've failed to support how, at what cost, and with what quality of service "government" would take over all parental functions for all kids on a 7/24 basis. Until you do something beyond BAMMING, there's nothing which needs to be supported from the other side of the argument.

I'm just trying to bring forth the fact that parents aren't needed. You can bring up statistics about how parents can with development and the like, but your side of the debate can never bring up evidence that it is impossible or even very difficult for children without loving parents to function in live.

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
PS. Sorry for the flames Apoc. I didn't realize it was you when I first replied, but I still stand by my post.

I honestly don't care.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Ming
If you really think the government can do a better job then parents, just spend a day or so visiting kids that are "wards of the state" in their institutions. You will see that "government" really doesn't have a clue on how to raise children properly.

You really don't think this would change if it became a main fuction of the government?

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

You really don't think this would change if it became a main fuction of the government?

Nope.


After all, they always do so well with their main functions.

Why do you NEED the government to do if parents can? So others won't envy them? I don't give a rat's ass if other kids envy my son. Would you send your kids to school with barefeet so that no one would envy his expensive shoes?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Yet this goes completely counter to Libertarian POV doesn't it? A goverenment whose sole function is to raise kids and establish the morals for those kids is not very Libertarian. Libs believe strongly in the rights of the individual and the individuals rights to establish their own code of morality seperate and distinct from government influence.

The plan you suggest merely takes a broad swipe at achieving mediocrity (if the gov could even pull it off) in child rearing as an attempt to even the playing field and bring those with poor family lives to parity at the expense of those with good family lives. I for one would not have traded my childhood and expect the same for my child.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Nope.

After all, they always do so well with their main functions.

I guess thats why national defense started sucking once the feds took over it.

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Why do you NEED the government to do if parents can? So others won't envy them? I don't give a rat's ass if other kids envy my son. Would you send your kids to school with barefeet so that no one would envy his expensive shoes?

Many parents can't though. It's about fairness. Your kid has done absolutely nothing to deserve something over some other kid. Your selfishness disgusts me. And that shoe comment doesn't really work out well since pretty much all kids in the US have shoes.

[Stefu]

Oh, look at this. Perfectly good thread hijacked all the way to hell, with ample moderator participation!

I tend to feel that "What libertarians don't realize is that America today in 2003 is incapable of having a working libertarian society" would be more the point of this thread than child-rearing, yesno?

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Your selfishness disgusts me.

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.

EDIT: And I never said that I didn't hope the best for all children and wasn't willing (voluntarily) to help bring that about. My husband and I have even talked about adopting sometime down the road when we are more financially stable.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Yet this goes completely counter to Libertarian POV doesn't it? A goverenment whose sole function is to raise kids and establish the morals for those kids is not very Libertarian. Libs believe strongly in the rights of the individual and the individuals rights to establish their own code of morality seperate and distinct from government influence.

The plan you suggest merely takes a broad swipe at achieving mediocrity (if the gov could even pull it off) in child rearing as an attempt to even the playing field and bring those with poor family lives to parity at the expense of those with good family lives. I for one would not have traded my childhood and expect the same for my child.

Not everyone will be completely equal with the system that I desire. If a kid does well in math, the kid will be moved into better math classes. If the kid does better in english, the kid will be moved into better English classes. Thus what a kid has will be based on their individual ability. I'm not trying to argue everyone should be the same in everything, just start off the same. Libertarianism is really only unfair in the starting position of people.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Stefu
Oh, look at this. Perfectly good thread hijacked all the way to hell, with ample moderator participation!

I tend to feel that "What libertarians don't realize is that America today in 2003 is incapable of having a working libertarian society" would be more the point of this thread than child-rearing, yesno?

I'm trying to argue what is needed for an otherwise libertarian society in the US to work. I believe the US could function in a very libertarian type society as long as one of the few functions of the government is to raise the children.