4 ms·

Anybody up for an argument that the government should have custody of and raise all children? I know that’s a non-starter, but if you want to level the playing

Anybody up for an argument that the government should have custody of and raise all children? I know that’s a non-starter, but if you want to level the playing field for all kids, this is how you do it. Outside of that, you are leaving children to whatever shitty situation they didn’t ask to be born into. I’m not saying I’m for this. I’m not and you would have to kill me to get to my kids. Just seems like the most logical solution to an otherwise impossible problem.

zozbot234 5y ago
> Anybody up for an argument that the government should have custody of and raise all children? Because that worked really well in Communist Romania. "Let's make sure things are equally terrible for everyone, then we can call that a level playing field" is not sensible policy.
giraffe_lady 5y ago
some grim capitalist realist shit when it's easier to imagine taking everyone's kids away than it is to imagine not structuring society around the exploitation of artificial inequality.
toast0 5y ago
Seemed fine in Logan's Run, so it should be ok? I think you could do a lot of stuff to provide support to all kids without going all the way to universal government custody. Things like (optional) government paid universal day care and after school care, government paid universal health care for minors, food/housing/etc stipends (like the child tax credit, but bigger), and arguably better pay for teachers and smaller class sizes. These things wouldn't end inequality, but might more kids up to good enough resources. You could also pull a China and outlaw tutoring/test prep to reduce the advantages wealth can provide.
- listless 5y ago
  But here’s what the government can’t fix… Violence in the home (most goes unreported), Mocking education in the home, Drug abuse in the home, An example of single parent pregnancy everywhere, General neglect - nobody to read to you These are all cultural things. Culture is the software that gets installed on you and some people are getting a shitty software version that almost guarantees failure. If you don’t believe that, watch any documentary on rural Appalachia.
pessimizer 5y ago
> Anybody up for an argument that the government should have custody of and raise all children? That's either a bit strong or a bit already true, depending on how you look at it; the state sets boundaries and responsibilities on the relationships parents have with children, and if they violate those boundaries or fail to live up to those responsibilities, the legal relationship between parent and child can be terminated. I'm for it is a more practical way. It is the state's responsibility to be good at raising children, because some children will have no family to take care of them. We (at least in the US) horribly fail at this, which is a clear signal that our society is selfish and irresponsible. This should be changed. People with shitty parents should be jealous of state wards. If we can't be successful when we have complete control, we shouldn't have much to say about how well parents are doing except in the cases of gross neglect and abuse. We can't figure out what to do with constituencies that don't have lobbyists.

zozbot234 5y ago

> Anybody up for an argument that the government should have custody of and raise all children? Because that worked really well in Communist Romania. "Let's make sure things are equally terrible for everyone, then we can call that a level playing field" is not sensible policy.

giraffe_lady 5y ago

some grim capitalist realist shit when it's easier to imagine taking everyone's kids away than it is to imagine not structuring society around the exploitation of artificial inequality.

toast0 5y ago

Seemed fine in Logan's Run, so it should be ok? I think you could do a lot of stuff to provide support to all kids without going all the way to universal government custody. Things like (optional) government paid universal day care and after school care, government paid universal health care for minors, food/housing/etc stipends (like the child tax credit, but bigger), and arguably better pay for teachers and smaller class sizes. These things wouldn't end inequality, but might more kids up to good enough resources. You could also pull a China and outlaw tutoring/test prep to reduce the advantages wealth can provide.

listless 5y ago
But here’s what the government can’t fix… Violence in the home (most goes unreported), Mocking education in the home, Drug abuse in the home, An example of single parent pregnancy everywhere, General neglect - nobody to read to you These are all cultural things. Culture is the software that gets installed on you and some people are getting a shitty software version that almost guarantees failure. If you don’t believe that, watch any documentary on rural Appalachia.

pessimizer 5y ago

> Anybody up for an argument that the government should have custody of and raise all children? That's either a bit strong or a bit already true, depending on how you look at it; the state sets boundaries and responsibilities on the relationships parents have with children, and if they violate those boundaries or fail to live up to those responsibilities, the legal relationship between parent and child can be terminated. I'm for it is a more practical way. It is the state's responsibility to be good at raising children, because some children will have no family to take care of them. We (at least in the US) horribly fail at this, which is a clear signal that our society is selfish and irresponsible. This should be changed. People with shitty parents should be jealous of state wards. If we can't be successful when we have complete control, we shouldn't have much to say about how well parents are doing except in the cases of gross neglect and abuse. We can't figure out what to do with constituencies that don't have lobbyists.