Timothy C. May, speaking for parents everywhere, writes:
This won't cut it. No outsiders can interfere with how I raise my children, in terms of the views I expose them to. ("Public schooling" is not the issue, as children can be sent to Xtian, Buddhist, Adventist, or whatever schools,...so long as minimal standards are met. There is no requirement for ideological or memetic balance.)
I reject the notion that the state needs to intervene in families in order to make sure that balanced and appropriate views are provided.
This notion that the state is not permitted to interfere in the workings of the family unit can work both ways. It can also suggest that no outsiders can intefere in the way you treat your wife, or when your children get large and muscular, how they might decide to "raise" you. Too bad when they decide that paying the nursing home to pamper ol' Grandpa Tim is dipping too deeply into the family vacation budget. Social Darwinism carried to its logical extreme is not a pretty sight, even for one fond of viewing the misfortune of others as "evolution in action."
Practically, any system such as Mike proposes above would fail. Parents have control over the reading material of children. Ditto for television, movies, etc.
Parents have control in the home. Children have access in lots of other places, like libraries, which have historically resisted any attempt to censor any but the most egregious reading material based solely on the age of their clients.
We saw this idea that "parents cannot force their children ..." reach its fruition in the Branch Davidian case, where the BATF had to burn the children in order to save the children.
Had it not been for the fact that having children covered with scars, welts, and bruises is not considered child abuse in the state of Texas, all the children would have been removed from the compound prior to the raid, and only the adults would have been toasted. Family interference cuts both ways. Besides, if kids were twice the size of adults and had six inch fangs, you wouldn't hear any of this "can't interfere in the family nonsense." Parents would demand 24 hour in-home protection from the state and raise taxes to pay for it. Most such rhetoric is just an excuse for parents to impose their will on people who cannot yet defend themselves. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $