5 ms·

> parents are wrong This whole premise implies that you know what's "right" and "wrong" better than other people. I find it fundamentally abhorrent to impose b

> parents are wrong This whole premise implies that you know what's "right" and "wrong" better than other people. I find it fundamentally abhorrent to impose by beliefs on others in this manner. That is the whole point. Economic success/mobility is only one outcome of many that a child rearing strategy can optimize for. What gives any of us the right to override parental decision making to optimize for this outcome above others? Regarding reservations, I've not seen any factual refutation of any of the points that I made - namely that most of them are fundamentally economically unsustainable no matter how we feel about it. My life experience supports my worldview - I was born into poverty to immigrants who value education and achievement, and am now quite comfortable. This happens all the time.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Societies have collective understandings of what is right and wrong. It is possible for individual parents to be incorrect about those concepts. Our society reserves the authority to deprive parents of access to their children in only extreme cases of danger... But we reserve that authority, yes, because societies have a concept of what is right and wrong. If you can agree it would be morally abhorrent for a society to stand by idly while a parent sets their own child on fire or starves them to death, you can agree that there is such a thing as non-fundamentally-abhorrent imposition of beliefs upon others about morality and their own children. To be clear, the authority to remove a child from parental care is exercised with extreme reservation and would be inappropriate to do so merely if parents are teaching their children "wrong" things. But in the larger question of teaching: my goodness, how do you think we teach people to be good citizens without teaching them at least something, as a society, about "right" and "wrong?" It's nonsense to imagine that's a parent-only responsibility. Of course it's a shared responsibility between parents and everyone else in the child's environment; kids aren't raised in a vacuum, and the position "schools have no business teaching right from wrong" is unimplementable nonsense (mostly dreamt up by people who wish they didn't have to be part of a larger society). Rather, it is parents who have the responsibility to be involved in the educational process so that their children are taught what the parents believe is right (but of course, that introduces the challenge that not everyone will agree, so it's good we have processes in place for that). > My life experience supports my worldview Yes, I have no doubt that the fact you got extremely lucky supports your worldview. That tends to be how that works. The larger trends look more like https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/american-dream-broken-upward-mobility-us https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/americ...
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  The whole point of individual liberty is to minimize the amount of authority our society reserves, and the what it dictates/moralizes to individuals; to decentralize power/authority as much as possible, and let people interact without intervention as long as they're nonviolent and non-fraudulent. > we teach people to be good citizens There is no one way of being a good citizen. This isn't the PRC. > something, as a society, about "right" and "wrong?" The whole point is that in a truly free society, this "something" is the strict minimum required for peaceful coexistence. Basically true crime and property law. These are morally justified in defence of fundamental liberty. Everything else should be out of the scope of government/society's authority. Telling people how to raise their children or what to think is absolutely not justified in defence of fundamental liberty, so it's out. If you want to raise your kid in a forest school, who is anyone else to stop you? What is the source of moral authority that gives strangers more control over child rearing than parents? If you want to sell your kidney to fuel your heroin habit or feed your children, who is anyone else to tell you that you can't? What is their source of moral authority over your kidney that supersedes your own? > parents who have the responsibility to be involved in the educational process This seems to be a common thought, but where is it codified? Who imposes this responsibility on parents? What is their source of moral authority to do so? > The larger trends look more like Your article doesn't address my point about domestic culture.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > There is no one way of being a good citizen. This isn't the PRC. I don't recall claiming there was one way. There's generally one curriculum, of course, for public school (at least since we decided standardization was valuable), but the standard for social studies tends to include things like teaching critical thinking and how to evaluate multiple competing viewpoints. In my high school, we studied Hobbes, Locke, Marx, Adam Smith, and several other authors whose names currently escape me. > Telling people how to raise their children or what to think is absolutely not justified in defence of fundamental liberty, so it's out. Again, the government can and will tell you you may not set your child on fire or starve them to death and will deprive you the liberty of raising them if you try. This is, of course, in defense of their fundamental liberty. Sometimes fundamental liberties clash. Pure liberty doesn't exist in a society as large as ours. It is always walking hand-in-hand with responsibility. > What is the source of moral authority that gives strangers more control over child rearing than parents? Speaking in the broadest sense? The fact those children will be partially deciding the fate of those strangers in the future because they'll vote. This is real "we live in a society" stuff and I think you can't see it because your moral code may be incompatible with living in the kind of collective post-1930s society that has adapted to avoid Great Depressions and the like. This is why even if you raise your kid "in a forest school," as you said, the state will require you to teach some minimum standards and you can be stripped of homeschooling rights for failure to comply (varies from state-to-state). > If you want to sell your kidney to fuel your heroin habit or feed your children, who is anyone else to tell you that you can't? What is their source of moral authority over your kidney that supersedes your own? Are you postulating absurdities now? You know this society does not allow you to sell your kidney, right? The state has a vested interest in not allowing for the creation of a market for kidneys in a similar sense to its vested interest in not allowing for the creation of a market for child pornography. Is this an issue you want to discuss? Take it up with someone else. > This seems to be a common thought, but where is it codified? Who imposes this responsibility on parents? What is their source of moral authority to do so? State laws, each state, we live in a society and the state has obligations to make good citizens of the children of the state. You can have all these qualities in a free society without it being the PRC; perhaps you didn't know, but while the PRC happened a continent away, the US had a "Great Society" project and a lot of modern philosophy of governance came of it (along with some nifty things like social security, an arts endowment, some pretty neat civil engineering projects...). I don't know what point regarding domestic culture you mean, so I'm going to merely re-assert that (a) you have a great plan for if parents are good at their jobs but no idea what to do for people who's parents didn't get with the program like yours did (and those are people who, in a fair society, deserve a chance just like you do) and (b) the numbers show that the average case looks a lot more like "they aren't with the program" than your experience. I appreciate this discussion. It helps me test my priors to have someone from such a radically different worldview call them into question.

shadowgovt 4y ago

Societies have collective understandings of what is right and wrong. It is possible for individual parents to be incorrect about those concepts. Our society reserves the authority to deprive parents of access to their children in only extreme cases of danger... But we reserve that authority, yes, because societies have a concept of what is right and wrong. If you can agree it would be morally abhorrent for a society to stand by idly while a parent sets their own child on fire or starves them to death, you can agree that there is such a thing as non-fundamentally-abhorrent imposition of beliefs upon others about morality and their own children. To be clear, the authority to remove a child from parental care is exercised with extreme reservation and would be inappropriate to do so merely if parents are teaching their children "wrong" things. But in the larger question of teaching: my goodness, how do you think we teach people to be good citizens without teaching them at least something, as a society, about "right" and "wrong?" It's nonsense to imagine that's a parent-only responsibility. Of course it's a shared responsibility between parents and everyone else in the child's environment; kids aren't raised in a vacuum, and the position "schools have no business teaching right from wrong" is unimplementable nonsense (mostly dreamt up by people who wish they didn't have to be part of a larger society). Rather, it is parents who have the responsibility to be involved in the educational process so that their children are taught what the parents believe is right (but of course, that introduces the challenge that not everyone will agree, so it's good we have processes in place for that). > My life experience supports my worldview Yes, I have no doubt that the fact you got extremely lucky supports your worldview. That tends to be how that works. The larger trends look more like https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/american-dream-broken-upward-mobility-us https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/americ...

thegrimmest 4y ago
The whole point of individual liberty is to minimize the amount of authority our society reserves, and the what it dictates/moralizes to individuals; to decentralize power/authority as much as possible, and let people interact without intervention as long as they're nonviolent and non-fraudulent. > we teach people to be good citizens There is no one way of being a good citizen. This isn't the PRC. > something, as a society, about "right" and "wrong?" The whole point is that in a truly free society, this "something" is the strict minimum required for peaceful coexistence. Basically true crime and property law. These are morally justified in defence of fundamental liberty. Everything else should be out of the scope of government/society's authority. Telling people how to raise their children or what to think is absolutely not justified in defence of fundamental liberty, so it's out. If you want to raise your kid in a forest school, who is anyone else to stop you? What is the source of moral authority that gives strangers more control over child rearing than parents? If you want to sell your kidney to fuel your heroin habit or feed your children, who is anyone else to tell you that you can't? What is their source of moral authority over your kidney that supersedes your own? > parents who have the responsibility to be involved in the educational process This seems to be a common thought, but where is it codified? Who imposes this responsibility on parents? What is their source of moral authority to do so? > The larger trends look more like Your article doesn't address my point about domestic culture.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > There is no one way of being a good citizen. This isn't the PRC. I don't recall claiming there was one way. There's generally one curriculum, of course, for public school (at least since we decided standardization was valuable), but the standard for social studies tends to include things like teaching critical thinking and how to evaluate multiple competing viewpoints. In my high school, we studied Hobbes, Locke, Marx, Adam Smith, and several other authors whose names currently escape me. > Telling people how to raise their children or what to think is absolutely not justified in defence of fundamental liberty, so it's out. Again, the government can and will tell you you may not set your child on fire or starve them to death and will deprive you the liberty of raising them if you try. This is, of course, in defense of their fundamental liberty. Sometimes fundamental liberties clash. Pure liberty doesn't exist in a society as large as ours. It is always walking hand-in-hand with responsibility. > What is the source of moral authority that gives strangers more control over child rearing than parents? Speaking in the broadest sense? The fact those children will be partially deciding the fate of those strangers in the future because they'll vote. This is real "we live in a society" stuff and I think you can't see it because your moral code may be incompatible with living in the kind of collective post-1930s society that has adapted to avoid Great Depressions and the like. This is why even if you raise your kid "in a forest school," as you said, the state will require you to teach some minimum standards and you can be stripped of homeschooling rights for failure to comply (varies from state-to-state). > If you want to sell your kidney to fuel your heroin habit or feed your children, who is anyone else to tell you that you can't? What is their source of moral authority over your kidney that supersedes your own? Are you postulating absurdities now? You know this society does not allow you to sell your kidney, right? The state has a vested interest in not allowing for the creation of a market for kidneys in a similar sense to its vested interest in not allowing for the creation of a market for child pornography. Is this an issue you want to discuss? Take it up with someone else. > This seems to be a common thought, but where is it codified? Who imposes this responsibility on parents? What is their source of moral authority to do so? State laws, each state, we live in a society and the state has obligations to make good citizens of the children of the state. You can have all these qualities in a free society without it being the PRC; perhaps you didn't know, but while the PRC happened a continent away, the US had a "Great Society" project and a lot of modern philosophy of governance came of it (along with some nifty things like social security, an arts endowment, some pretty neat civil engineering projects...). I don't know what point regarding domestic culture you mean, so I'm going to merely re-assert that (a) you have a great plan for if parents are good at their jobs but no idea what to do for people who's parents didn't get with the program like yours did (and those are people who, in a fair society, deserve a chance just like you do) and (b) the numbers show that the average case looks a lot more like "they aren't with the program" than your experience. I appreciate this discussion. It helps me test my priors to have someone from such a radically different worldview call them into question.