3 ms·
Yes. The line for state involvement interfering with the raising of children has to be somewhere well beyond "barely adequate". Many things can be problems we
by colechristensen 4y ago
Yes. The line for state involvement interfering with the raising of children has to be somewhere well beyond "barely adequate".
Many things can be problems we all hope to be better that do not fit into the set of problems the state should be responsible for.
People seem to think and want more and more for the government to take the responsibility to fix things despite plenty of evidence that they really can't do so all that well. Beyond a certain threshold yes, but that threshold is not "if there's still a problem the government isn't doing enough".
- pmyteh 4y agoThere is a lot that government could be doing which would make family breakdown less likely and less traumatic: building enough social housing that local authorities are capable of discharging their homelessness duties, for example, or reopening the children's centres. So I certainly wouldn't want to sign on to the idea that our present state of child protection is fine. But corporate parenting is hard, and we're depressingly bad at it :-(
- treeman79 4y agoDestruction of the nuclear family is a “goal” of Marxism. They believe the only allegiance is to the state. https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/blm-removes-website-language-blasting-nuclear-family-structure/ https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/blm-removes-website-language-b...
- hulitu 4y agoI would be careful when i read about marxism from an american newspaper. YMMV.