How would the likes of child abusers be caught in a free society? My mother works in that field (along with some of my friends’ mothers), and so it is a topic of discussion that comes up frequently.
I mean, it’s pretty clear that the state also fails at this issue. Social care is literally having to go through reforms every five minutes, meaning that they get it wrong a lot. But there are also more cases of them getting it right. As far as people who work in the sector are concerned, a lot of the failures come from things like data protection, which don’t allow for social services (in the UK, at least) to cross-examine, say, hospital and school records.
It would seem that mandatory education allows for a great number of the successes, as school staff receive training to detect common traits of abuse victims, and simply not showing up for school is also a red flag. I am opposed to state-provided education on most counts, but this does seem like a worthy benefit.
The State is the number one abuser of children. The root problem is the failure to apply the common sense presumption that genetic relatives have a greater interest in a child’s well-being - regardless of the material resources at their disposal - than genetic strangers. The State is only interested in children to the extent that pretending to care about them provides moral cover for its other misdeeds.
The State’s protection agencies lack the one thing that is most needed for effective prevention of child abuse - connection to the social network in which the child exists and a material stake in the child’s welfare.
So, the State’s protection agencies are not really protecting children so much as cleaning up the mess afterwards (and oftentimes exacerbating it by putting children into situations of irrevocable, systematic, perpetual abuse in foster homes, an industry that naturally attracts pedophiles and child abusers). A large part of how this mess is created is the social isolation created by our hyper-disconnected society. Nosy-neighbors and pesky relatives are an effective, preventive check on child abuse. The modern system relies on the long-run threat of punishment of imprisonment if caught… not nearly as effective at prevention as the short-run punishment of peer shame and exposure or family ostracism.
The correct solution is to address the root problem of isolation in the social order. This problem is created by the State in its incessant drive to “divide and conquer”. We are divided to the point we can live right next door to someone for years and hardly say two words to them. This division is crucial because it makes it difficult to escape the State’s tracking of our economic activity, which is crucial to making sure that tax revenues are bountiful.
Part of the attraction of the isolated social order that is dangled by the State to lure the masses is the prospect of freedom from family meddling - once you turn 18, you can give your parents the finger and get a MW job and support yourself! Yay! Once you turn 65, your kids can arrange to put you in a nursing home for the rest of your days, paid out of your Social Security and Medicare! Yay! No more meddling parents, no more meddling grandparents and aunts and uncles. Breathe the sweet, sweet air of individual liberty! But add two and two. Family meddling is the most effective method for prevention of child abuse. After-the-fact punishment and relocation of children to foster homes only punishes the children rather than forcing the parents to grow up and stop being lazy parents and taking it out on their kids when their kids force them to face their laziness and selfishness. Isolation allows this environment where people are never forced to actually learn or grow. They simply act out and either get away with it or get caught and punished.
This is just one more example of how the State has become a cancerous rat’s nest that has infested every aspect of life. There is no simple solution. There is no one organ that can be removed to save the cancer patient’s life once the cancer has become malignant and spread throughout the body. Only a grassroots moral reformation can change our society at this point.
@gotlucky: Believe it or not, I’m actually holding back. If I were not still tied up in constant legal issues on related matters (divorce and never-ending aftermath), I would singe your ears with how I really feel about it all.
Clayton, I do love your points, especially number 4, which I feel is particularly apt, seeing as I have lived in my house for 3 years, now, and I still don’t know my neighbour’s names.
But, as for your accusations that this is an intentional goal of the state… I disagree. It’s a moot point, really, as the end-result is still the same. I do not believe the state is capable of any kind of long-term program like the dividing of society would have to be. The state can’t do anything well, including evil. Odds are, if state policy is a cause of isolationism, it’s probably an unintended consequence.
*shrug - I guess it’s just a figment of my imagination that Caesar intentionally followed a policy of divide-and-conquer.
Not true. The State is as efficient at achieving its telic purpose as any corporation is at achieving its telic purpose. The State is the parasite par excellence and it engages in parasitism with unmatched efficiency.
No. It is very much an intended consequence. If you don’t have a very extensive network of friends and community at a significant level of trust, you can’t agree to do under-the-table-work for each other and other kinds of “off the books” exchange beyond the reach of the State’s ability to tax.
The character of modern society is determined by the interests of the State (tax, war, inflation, etc.) to a degree that defies the imagination, take a look at this book to begin to get an idea. I would argue that the author is only scratching the surface.
I would just like to add to Clayton’s point. It’s not like every agent of the state is desiring to split families apart. There may be plenty of people who work for the state who desire just the opposite (I know some like that). But, it doesn’t matter what the peons working for the state think, it’s the policies and rules that are mandated from the higher ups.
Think of people like Hilary Clinton who want to start public schooling as early as 2 or 3 years old. Take the kids when they are young and indoctrinate them with the stuff at school. Keep them from their parents from even a young age. And it doesn’t even have to be people like Hilary Clinton, it could be the PTB that donate money to get her into positions of power.
The greatest danger to children is public education. You will literally become brainwashed if you go through school without discovering anything on your own (like i did with AE, ron paul, etc), because in school you dont do any critical thinking, yet they tell you that youre doing critical thinking even if youre not.
Unless you stumble upon AE, and the idea of liberty AFTER school, but even then you may reject it like many have done.
plenty of people in private education get taught the state is great. we have ayn rand who thought a voluntary funded nightwatchmen state is great. people get taught the church is great, or other institutions as great in private education.
now in the war on kids video, there are lots of examples of private interests pushing stuff on students, private interests also push stuff on private school students.
There is no bright-line distinction between public and private. And what’s your point? “Private schools also teach crap.” It follows from this assertion that we ought to put up with tax-funded, government schools how?
who said putting up with tax funded government schools?
the point is both private and public can teach crap to children and be abusive to children.
a person said schools have students write essays on why the state is great, i was just saying all sorts of people write essays about why the state is great in public and private settings. that’s not even at all what public schools teach though, so it’s complete bs to say public schools teach kids to just say the state is great. perhaps some teachers do, but this was not school expirence. mine was more like form and making arguments for either side and some combination of subjective and objective facts. the essay form combines finding the viewpoints of others and giving ones own oppinion. people were not docked points for having their own oppinion
protecting kids wise, it seems impossible and would need some private or public nanny to keep parents in check. it leaves children vulnerable to the whims of the family or going out to make their own way, so in that sense it pushes kids to take reasponsibility and grow up sooner to take advantage of would be support groups and would be people that would mentor and facilitate self ownership and self education.
the child could be on the child’s own and choose what paths to take.
the nonfamily would have competing sets of values so the child could choose that over the values his own biological family offered. the nonfamiliy can have more of a philosophy towards how people are treated and education.
Clayton, although you are correct about genetic relatives of the child having the most incentive to actually take care of the child, but sometimes the root of the problem is the family/genetic relatives. Why would a person be abusive in the first place? It’s likely because the abusive person, was abused as a child, most likely by a family member, so the abused person grew up seeing abuse as normal. The adult abuser’s brothers and sisters likely grew up under similar circumstances, so they too are likely to see abuse as normal, even though not all of them will necessarily become abusers, they will likely at least tolerate seeing it. So on and so forth. This doesn’t mean I think non-family is any better at taking care of children than relatives, the non-relatives have far less incentive to take care of the child than the child’s genetic relatives. I think the best thing that could be done is to allow children to run away from home, without the risk of them being sent back against their will, this way the child (once old enough to do so) will be able to determine where he wants to live or not. At least this is the best solution I can think of right now. (The solution still has some problems however.)