Well, I guess this certifies you as a crackpot.
In the scenario at hand, we have a church or non-profit watching as I starve and torture my children, and now you're saying, "let it happen, some kids just slip through the cracks."
No system will ever protect all children,unfortunately,human nature being what it is,but my fear of government interference is visceral.
Apparently to the point of denying that it is a legitimate function of government to prevent parents from starving and torturing their children.
You've got some issues, apparently, that lead you to your preposterous position on child-raising. But even for a guy with issues, this is just plain idiotic.
You've got some issues, apparently, that lead you to your preposterous position on child-raising. But even for a guy with issues, this is just plain idiotic.
No it is not. Most of the world runs on this defacto standard. For purely pragmatic people, the question should be: Does giving the government the power to prevent parents from starving and torturing their children produce better or worse results for the society?
Every policy has costs, and the costs of making the government powerful enough to do this have been huge, and horrible for a huge number of children, probably more than the tiny number who are starved and tortured by their parents.
After all, the social workers have to be paid and must justify their jobs. They do not have any genetic investment in the children. Taking perfectly healthy children from good homes and placing them into the hands of molesters has happened a number of times. It is pretty clear that people who are not related by blood to children statisticly do not treat them as well. The old evil stepmother cliches have a shadow of reality about them.
Does this happen more times than the number of children tortured and starved by their parents, who have a genetic predisposition to care for them? No one keeps the statistics.
Using huge amounts of resources to solve tiny problems is a bad idea. Most of the nanny state is based on emotional appeals to instinct (the desire to care for children, for example) rather than on fact and logic.