3 ms·
That'd be fine and dandy, except that people have seen fit to create a lot of social structures that essentially clean up the mess bad parents create at everyon
by Kadin 16y ago
That'd be fine and dandy, except that people have seen fit to create a lot of social structures that essentially clean up the mess bad parents create at everyone else's expense.
If someone does a really shitty job parenting, they're not the big loser in that equation. A lot of really bad parents can and do wash their hands of their ill-behaved children, who become ill-behaved adults, who eventually become a drain on society in general.
If we had a social system with a really hard floor -- not just 'no welfare' or modern social services as we think of them, but something where you basically don't spend any money on imprisonment but just execute anyone who begins to look like a net cost -- then you could really let things go. Bad parenting styles would get weeded out pretty quickly, I'd imagine.
But that's not how things work and most people wouldn't be really keen on living in a system that did that. The cost of having 'safety net' arrangements that spread out the cost of fucking up is almost always a loss of freedom of action, due to the safety-net-related externalities that fuckups now involve. There are lots of cases where that might be a fine tradeoff, but it's a tradeoff nonetheless.
Having and raising children are actions so fraught with externalities, and the trend of societies seems to be in favor of greater 'safety net' systems, that I doubt very much that the trend towards greater state involvement in child-rearing will reverse itself.
- stretchwithme 16y agoWhen a society socializes the costs of those who behave badly, its certainly true that those who fail to instruct their children impose costs upon us all. But when society holds people accountable for their own actions, enforces property rights and maintains order at the expense of the disorderly, we can have a civil society and people are more likely to do what is right and do right by their children. Why everyone must suffer this mediocrity and pay a fortune for it so that we can continue with an even higher crime rate than before its creation is beyond me.
- jamii 16y ago> just execute anyone who begins to look like a net cost Plenty of cultures have done that at some point. In medieval England there was no welfare net and hanging was the punishment for most crimes. There were still criminals and beggars, probably more so than today. I wont even comment on the idea of executing people based on some arbitrary measure of worth.
- stretchwithme 16y agohow about just leaving people alone? is executing the only other answer to paying their bills? Historically, such persons have received help from others but not entitled to such help. there was an element of responsibility required on the part of the person getting help. Now they are entitled and demand it and protest it if they don't like what they receive. that seems pretty unjust to me, considering people providing the resources have no choice.