common sense is not to inspect every kid's lunch if some fatty is bobbing for donuts in a bucket of crisco everyday, there are already discrete ways to address this through pupil services or whatever else
I never said it was the right or wrong way to do things, just that we need common sense in the application of these things.
Bad laws. These "you could've hurt someone" laws are far too vague & up to interpretation. e.g. elevators are more dangerous than stairs... is that endangerment? If the child is hurt or suffers, charge them with assault. If the child dies, charge them with murder. If a potential murder conviction isn't enough deterrent then nothing else is going to work. In most cases it is just negligence, so you're really just trying to criminalize stupid. You just have to come to terms with the fact that there are bad parents in this world and punishing them isn't going to make them smarter or love their children any more. Also, at what point when criminalizing bad parenting do you draw the line? If a parent doesn't make sure their children do their homework and isn't active in their school performance, then that child is much less likely to succeed. Should we call those parents criminals too? All this social meddling has gotten out of hand. It has all been born out of the irresponsible "government should do something about ________" & "There should be a law against ________" mentalities. We need to stop building our own prisons.
Millhouse, hypothetical question for you. And please note that I've signifcantly softened my stance on this debate since the beginning of the thread. I've "Romneyed", if you will. I know you that you hate the idea of the federal government telling you what your kids can and can't eat during the school day. I get it, and I honestly don't blame you at all - Lord knows they're probably unqualified to do so. I think you said your child was a year old. Let's say in 4 years you and your wife go to your kindergarten orientation before the first day of school with all the other parents, and the teacher/principal present to you a nutritional plan for the children. As part of a plan to fight childhood obesity and engrain healthy eating habits in children from a very young age, they request that you only pack healthy snacks for your kid Mon-Thurs, and then let them indulge on Friday. There wouldn't be anyone inspecting snacks or ripping cupcakes out of kid's mouths, it would simply be a collective good-faith commitment by parents to work together and emphasize nutrition. In that scenario, would you (a) happily be a part of it because you're being respectfully asked, not told what to do, or (b) scream "FREEEEEDOMMMMM!" like William Wallace at the end of Braveheart and storm out?
Not Milly but I'll answer because I've been through it/going through it... Teachers already do what you present in your hypothetical and just about anyone can appreciate the fact that they are asking to follow certain guidelines. It often starts with this is what we are doing, this is why we are doing, and this is what we request. The key is they are asking as part of a teaching moment, or vision, which is polar-opposite of a federal or state mandate. Someone can politely ask anything they want. I can politely say yes or no. Trivial Mandates...esp if it is aimed at directly mandating certain behaviors from the govt to the individual for no other reason than the govt has decided something is correct, regardless of what you as the parent think, are awful. Closely related, food from home is often inspected already, as an FYI. One of my kids has a classmate with a peanut allergy, so snacks are packed in clear back and inspected.
I would either just ignore them or put in twinkies on tuesday just to be a d!ck until they pick a fight with me at which point i will relentlessly annoy the sh!t out of them until they say "fine fine fine you win ugh". and then my wife will say "why do you always have to be like this" and I'll shrug my shoulders i guess i just come from a long line of people who take pleasure in annoying busybodies by passively ignoring their nagging suggestions . nothing bothers a nag more than the nerve of people who ignore them i have no interest in your collective commitments. mind your own business, take care of your own kid and i'll take care of mine. it doesn't take a village to feed a kid baby carrots. peanut allergies, i get that. i'm not going to pack food that directly makes some other kid sick. if some other kid gets jealous of a wednesday star crunch and nags his parents, not my problem.
It's a good point. At some point, metrics, stats, common sense, etc, come into play. It all comes down to what is reasonable, what is not. Parents have the right to throw their 13 month baby in the air a few times to play. A reasonable person knows that if you do that for 5 hours, in the road, you've put that baby at risk. At that point, you look to legit laws and if common sense/reason shows a link to a law, that has trumped the rights as a parent. The article just linked about the parent not giving care to the child for two years is a great example. They have the right to do it but after a dozen people informed them the child was in danger, they were drug users, etc, and it was clear they should have known cost was not an issue, then "a reasonable people" should have went for care. *Now, the religious argument, there's probably a different standard/situation, one that could be debated for ages...*
i'd rather not be a squeaky wheel but it does work. half the reason we spend so much on special needs in schools is because there are jerk parents who are desperate for a medical reason why their kid is average - they're such a hassle they get their way. so we spend more and more on this and that expense but the kids with real special needs are no better off. i'm only going to be a squeaky wheel about schools overreaching and i'm going to try real hard to be nice about the stuff that's in bounds for them
Not on public roads, I can't argue that. Public property is allowed laws of usage if its voluntary i have no problem with that. But the monopoly on roads is a very different discussion. I do, however, oppose the excessively unreasonable standards used to enforce DUI laws.
Your first paragraph is pretty cryptic. You are not opposed to DUI laws because the state has the right to protect the roads? Every law on the books has standards open to interpretation, etc.
I cannot oppose public laws on public property when it is a voluntary privilege not a right. Contrary to what you think, I have no problem with local laws whatsoever, they are the best kind of laws. What I do have a problem with is complete government subsidization of roads to the point that whether you agree or disagree that most roads can be privatized it doesnt matter. The governments wont sell you the land where the roads are, they won't let you build your own roads without their permission, and they have them monopolized anyways by being able to force out any 'competition' with their undercutting bids of $0ther people$ money.
Most of this is completely beside the point (I am not talking about the government monopoly of public highways). DUI laws are a "you could have hurt someone" type law. And it has nothing to do with the government protecting public property.
Except its public property and the public gets to decide what the rules are for priveleges on its property, just like I can decide my rules for privileges on my property or you can lose those privileges. This is entirely different than governing what people eat or how they parent their children. My body is my property, no one elses, including my parents. If my parents give me a lunch that I want to eat, nobody else has the right to tell me I can't put the lunch I was given into my body. If they give me a lunch I don't want to eat, nobody not even my parents have the right to force it inside me.
Public schools are not public property? Your car is analogous to your body here. Schools tell kids what they can eat everyday. They provide the food.
