← Back to context

Comment by James_K

2 years ago

> Police do not protect the victim of murder

But if they could, they most certainly should. Preventing murder is good, just as preventing a bad childhood is good.

> Your view appears to say "society" (the police?)

The police are (or should be) an extension of society. They are a part of the government, which in a democracy means the represent the will of the people, and hence they are society manifest. There are other manifestations of society that can help these children (schools, social services, etc). I am obviously not suggesting that the police become child catchers and round up all children of poor people.

> If the fault is with the parents then isn't it just as likely with the grandparents? or great grandparents? and so on down the line?

From my perspective, there is no "fault". Blaming people for things is unproductive. There are bad things which might happen, and things we might do to prevent them from happening. If we can sever this great chain of injustice of which you speak, where poverty and suffering are transmitted from parent to child like a disease; aught we not take that action? It is even in our best interest to do so, as those children who live better lives will go on to contribute more in taxes and more towards the betterment of society.

5 comments

James_K

Reply
raxxorraxor  2 years ago

Government has the responsibility to provide access to education and make it as transient as possible in regards to class. But government by experience is usually also a bad legal guardian, even if the people involved really want to help these kids.

Perhaps they get lucky and grow up in a good adoptive family. But for the others there are a few things that are quite difficult to replace.

A democracy isn't a manifested society, it is a compromise of everyone involved. Ideally at least, the reality is more gray and even in a democracy a government doesn't have the legitimacy to do everything it wants. Further its ability to evaluate which children would benefit from more direct support is limited.

So perhaps you need not only look at the children and instead try to improve the lives of the parents as well.

  • James_K  2 years ago

    > So perhaps you need not only look at the children and instead try to improve the lives of the parents as well.

    Clearly. It was other people who started suggesting that the children of poor parents should be forcibly put up for adoption. I can't fathom why anyone would think this is a good idea or even worth talking about.

    • raxxorraxor  2 years ago

      Ah, sorry, then I misunderstood your point. I though you were suggesting that it would be a productive thing to do. Empirical evidence of the past would suggest otherwise and I believe government only ever has legitimacy to remove children from their home when they are in acute and tangible danger.

      Nothing that should be decided by some sensibilities du jour.