On Children and State services

[Christopher]

What services should a government provide to children who have no caretakers?

The Objectivist position is that one man's life is not for the benefit of other men. This is the foundation for rights.

The degree to which a society places restrictions on the rights of another person is the degree to which society must provide for that person.

Since children are not given the same rights as adults by society (nor should they be given according to Rand), society is obligated to provide minimal subsistance levels to these children when no other provider is available. For example, if a child loses his family, or if the government incarcerates the parent(s) for some crime, society then has a duty to provide for that child to the degree that society does not impart rights to that child.

The degree a society is dutifully obligated to provide for children without caretakers is currently represented by the level society asserts parents are responsible for children. The degree that society must therefore provide for a child without a caretaker is the minimal level of support the government deems acceptable that a parent provide for a child. This includes the minimal level of education, minimal level of nutrition, and minimal level of whatever other responsibilities society enforces on parents to provide for that child. These provisions are only offered by government to children who lack caretakers.

It seems to me that for society to do otherwise is to be lawfully inconsistent.

[Selene]

Chris:

You make a lot of assumptions. The first assumption which underlies the rest of your post, as I understand it, is:

government shall provide a de minimus base of support to children who have no caretakers...yes. "...society is obligated to provide minimal subsistence [sic] levels to these children when no other provider is available." ...yes.

"The degree to which a society places restrictions on the rights of another person is the degree to which society must provide for that person." This statement is confusing to me.

"This includes the minimal level of education, minimal level of nutrition, and minimal level of whatever other responsibilities society enforces on parents to provide for that child. These provisions are only offered by government to children who lack caretakers."

Do you really want to end up with that last situation?

A very significant argument has been made by the gentleman who became the George W. Bush's "man" when he was governor of Texas. The compassionate conservative dude, Marvin Olasky:

Born in Boston, Massachusetts into a Russian-Jewish family, Olasky became an atheist at 14, shortly after his Bar Mitzvah. In college, he discovered Marxism and joined the Communist Party USA in 1972, after graduating from Yale University in 1971 with a B.A. degree in American Studies. In 1976, however, Olasky became a Christian after reading the New Testament in Russian, studying Puritan sermons, and reading Walker Percy, Whittaker Chambers, and C.S. Lewis. Also in 1976, Olasky graduated with a Ph.D. in American Culture from the University of Michigan.

Olasky explains that: "To begin where poverty fighters a century ago began, Marvin Olasky emphasizes seven ideas that recent welfare practice has put aside: affiliation, bonding, categorization, discernment, employment, freedom, and most importantly, belief in God. In the end, not much will be accomplished without a spiritual revival that transforms the everyday advice we give and receive, and the way we lead our lives. It's time we realized that there is only so much that public policy can do. That only a richness of spirit can battle a poverty of soul. The century-old question--does any given scheme of help... make great demands on men to give themselves to their brethren?--is still the right one to ask. Most of our 20th-century schemes have failed. It's time to learn from the warm hearts and hard heads of the 19th-century. The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky Amazon.com Product Description (ISBN 0891078630, Paperback).

I have seen Olasky for several hours on c-span and I like him a lot. Witty and an excellent scholar.

Your thoughts Chris?

Adam

[Christopher]

I split the original post into three segments: premises, assertion of duty, measuring that duty.

Under premises:

The degree to which a society places restrictions on the rights of another person is the degree to which society must provide for that person.

Means that any government which prevents an individual from taking care of him/herself has an ethical responsibility to take care of that person. In the case of children, if we are to have laws that prevent children from working below a certain age, prevent the number of hours a child works, prevent children from determining government policies through voting, then we strict the ability of children to be self-responsible within our system. As such, we must assume responsibility for these children to the degree that we restrict their ability to be autonomous. For example: if we prevent a man from gathering food in the wilderness, either we must provide him food or our actions constitute murder.

Under assertions of duty:

Didn't seem to be your focus

Measuring degree of duty:

This is just a suggestion I offered. If the government asserts that parents are responsible to a certain degree for a child, the government is in a sense suggesting that this is the level at which children do not have their own rights to fend for themselves. Now this measurement method is not really perfect. What we do need though is some measure of understanding the degree to which the government lawfully prevents children from self-sustenance.

---

I don't know the guy well that you mention, but I am in favor of the belief that human values will accomodate most welfare behaviors in society. I don't think government is necessary to provide welfare behaviors, I say leave it up to the people. I hope the above clarifications show that I am not advocating a welfare state, I am advocating a responsible government.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Christopher

[Selene]

Under premises:

The degree to which a society places restrictions on the rights of another person is the degree to which society must provide for that person.

I would change "must" to should.

Measuring degree of duty:

This is just a suggestion I offered. If the government asserts that parents are responsible to a certain degree for a child, the government is in a sense suggesting that this is the level at which children do not have their own rights to fend for themselves. Now this measurement method is not really perfect. What we do need though is some measure of understanding the degree to which the government lawfully prevents children from self-sustenance.

Interesting issue. Gets real sticky trying to fairly sort this stuff out.

I say leave it up to the people. I hope the above clarifications show that I am not advocating a welfare state, I am advocating a responsible government.

Understood that you were not advocating a welfare state.

Adam

Idiot gets it with the quote deal

Edited October 20, 2009 by Selene