Exactly. Now the child has surrendered to the fact that every place she drives (and how fast) will be monitored by the parent. In a couple of years when the government puts those things on our cars for tax purposes (and to make sure we're not going anywhere we shouldn't be or doing it too fast,) do you think thais particular child will be more or less likely to lie down like a sheep and surrender to that?
Again, you equate two things that are not the same. Concerned parents are not the same as a faceless govt 'forcing' you to pay toll taxes via a transponder.
Further, no one was 'forcing' her to use her parents' car. She could have had friends pick her up and go to wherever. She could have biked over to wherever she wanted to go. Or taken (gasp) a bus! She could have driven to the spot she was saying she was at and then had friends take her over to the other place. You seem to make this case out to be an impossible thing for the kid to overcome. Your transponder tax issue is so much more massive than one kid who has other viable transportation issues.
That is why I don't believe such an action is going to make her or anyone else more likely to just comply. You're comparing apples and oranges. The slippery-slope conditioning argument just doesn't fly here. Perhaps you'd have a better case if government was forcing parents to track their children, then I could see where this is going.
YOu know, if you're so bent out of shape about this, what about all the cameras that record you multiple times through the day at private businesses or parking lots or private security that records you? Why aren't you more upset about schools tracking the daughter and recording her on cameras all day, perhaps without her knowing about it? Why aren't you more concerned about that, than parents who are concerned about what their kid does when mom and dad aren't around? from a privacy standpoint, I'd rather have the parents tracking their own kids if they want to, instead of government (schools, whatever) forcibly tracking everyone.
This is why your argument as it stands falls way short. You can't logically equate the two. One is so much huger in scope and not voluntary. they are so different foundationally that it is just not proper to say equate them to each other.
I woound up re-reading this one. Have you seen and talked to kids today? Most have very little respect for their elders or authority. They don't care about trying to impress teachers or their parents. If their parents don't like what they're doing, they just do not care at all. They're being taught in an atmosphere of moral relativism and an atmosphere that teaches them to think mom and dad are stupid and that they don't have to listen to mom and dad if it makes them feel bad or hurts their self-esteem.
No, mom and dad have to ACCEPT them for who they are and what they want to do. If they want to have sex, they will. It's mom and dad's problem if they don't like it.
They are taught often so well that I am surprised that teachers seem puzzled why they can't control their classes anymore. Or that kids tell them 'F#CK YOU' to their faces and know there's nothing they can do about it.
Kids of today question authority much more than kids in the fifties did. today's kids have very little conscience and very little self-introspection. That's the scary part - I had a step-brother like this about 11-12 years my junior, and the kid just had no concept of right and wrong or any remorse over doing anything bad.
This is the future to be scary about. People like this are going to kill a whole bunch of other people and not bat an eye.