I am concerned with growth of the Parent state.
Some children are going to school longer, especially the ones who need it the most. In some charter schools, which have had great results, the children are going to school nearly 30 to 50 percent longer. They are going to school longer because they are behind others in their age group and because it takes time to teach what these children are missing. One of our solutions for the children, whose parents did not know how to raise them, was to take them out of their environment more, enforce discipline, and push them harder in their studies. The parent government treats these people as if they are children, which the irony is that they are.
The government is presently taking your money for retirement to pay for other's retirement and has been doing it for the past 70 or so years. Now the government has come up with a better idea of letting you keep your own money for retirement, instead of giving it to the government, but mandates, via federal law, what you can and cannot do with the money. The government also provides incentives to suggest what you should do with you own money. The parent government has moved from being treating me like a child to treating me like a teenager. I have more freedom, but I am bribed or threatened into doing the things which are good for me. It is better, by far, but still short of standing on my own two feet.
My question, to the pro-democratic anti-capitalists, is what becomes of these children who did not have parents? What happens to the children whose main teacher was the government? What do the parents, who are semi-responsible, but whose retirement decisions are strongly suggested by the parent government, teach their own children about saving?
In other words, once the government becomes your parent, how do you go back to standing on your own two feet?
cube
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is an interesting question. I don't want to see kids go uneducated or old people starve.
Since I view either of these conditions as unacceptable, I want to ensure that either they take care of themselves (mandated retirement accounts) or are able to get an education despite irresponsible parents (increased involvment of schools) but at the same time I don't want to offer incentives for irresponsible behavior.
One can make a plausible lassiez faire libertarian argument that you should just let the old people who don't save starve (it would take a lot to convince me of this) but I don't see how anyone can argue that society doesn't need to form a safety net for children when parents fail. Even on a pure cost basis it seems obvious that we need to do all we can to make children into productive adults.
Exactly what methods one should use to achieve this goal and determining if particular programs are counter effective is tough and there is room for a lot of arguement here.
a safty net must be formed that is ture.
Though i am more concerned with breaking the cycle of needing the net.
I guess one could aruge that they safty net is always neccassary. I would aruge that you can lessen the need for it, by breaking the cycles.
It is like homelessness, if you can help the ones that are permantly homeless, that will free up resouces to help those temporaraly homeless, and then you can work on breaking the cycles that seem to exist.
does forming the social saftly net perpeutate the social saftly net?
Post a Comment