[gsteichen]

Back in the 80's when the California seatbelt law was first enacted it was a "secondary enforcement" violation, meaning that you could NOT be pulled over for not wearing a belt but could be cited if you were stopped for another violation. At the time legislators swore on their children's graves that it would NEVER be changed to "primary enforcement" and that no one would EVER be stopped just for not wearing a belt. The "slippery slope" and "camel's nose under the tent" are real.

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

The principle you're applying is that the state should intervene on behalf of protecting the child's well being. Ok. Seatbelt laws are fairly trivial in this regard. On the other hand, millions of children are being put at extreme risk of shortened and degraded lives and simultaneously putting vast strains on a now largely socialized medical system. Surely you must then believe the state should be substantially intervening to ensure children are eating properly. After all, if the idea is to make a better and safer society, and apparently there are no fundamental restrictions on what the state can do to achieve these aims, then why not? What's the difference between forcing people to wear seatbelts (or rather, just punishing them for not) and doing the same for maintaining poor health? There both just forms of not looking after oneself. Children could have annual physicals at school. We could just fine parents if their children are outside of state mandated guidelines for good health.

I actually do believe that. I think especially regarding meals served at schools their should be restrictions based on nutrition. I also think that people who are obese for non-medical reasons should be charged more for health insurance.

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by gsteichen

Back in the 80's when the California seatbelt law was first enacted it was a "secondary enforcement" violation, meaning that you could NOT be pulled over for not wearing a belt but could be cited if you were stopped for another violation. At the time legislators swore on their children's graves that it would NEVER be changed to "primary enforcement" and that no one would EVER be stopped just for not wearing a belt. The "slippery slope" and "camel's nose under the tent" are real.

I believe it should be a secondary enforcement for an adult, but a primary for children.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

I actually do believe that. I think especially regarding meals served at schools their should be restrictions based on nutrition. I also think that people who are obese for non-medical reasons should be charged more for health insurance.

No side stepping. Do you believe parents should be fined, as they are fined for not wearing seatbelts, for having obese children (assuming no medical cuase)?


If no, then why not?

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

I believe it should be a secondary enforcement for an adult, but a primary for children.

Why the distinction of secondary for an adult?

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

Why the distinction of secondary for an adult?

Pardon, I would actually remove the law for people over 18. I would only make it a law for children.

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

No side stepping. Do you believe parents should be fined, as they are fined for not wearing seatbelts, for having obese children (assuming no medical cuase)?


If no, then why not?

Yes. The fines should be passed on as higher costs for health insurance. The parent should have to pay the difference (not an employer). For extreme cases (like a 100lb 5 year old) I would say it's child abuse and would actually consider removing the child from the parent's care if they didn't take steps to fix things.

[jedhead]

Shall we have laws to punish parents for misbehaving kids, after all discipline starts at home. Should parents be fined when their kids get lost at Disneyland, State Fairs etc, since they obviously where not watching their kids properly? Should social services conduct surprise home inspections on parents incase the home is not child proofed or safe enough for some government bureaucrat? How much to you want others to decide what is right or wrong for your kid? How much government intrusion in your lives do you want? In an attempt to guarantee safety for all, how much freedom are you willing to give up? Once your freedom is gone, what will you do if you disagree with some government bureaucrat on what is best for your child? Would you risk loosing custody in an attempt to fight said bureaucrat? There will always be bad parents and bad people and life is not fair. You will never be able to equalize outcomes because we are all unique.
I'll do anything to protect my kids. My children come first. But I know that not all parents are like me and I can't legislate these bad parents to be good ones even if their kids suffer. I spend a lot of time with youth organizations to try to help and be an example for those kids. Governments and bureaucrats don't care screws things up in the end, the people that do care have to stand up and work without or in spite the government.

Bob

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by jedhead

Shall we have laws to punish parents for misbehaving kids, after all discipline starts at home. Should parents be fined when their kids get lost at Disneyland, State Fairs etc, since they obviously where not watching their kids properly? Should social services conduct surprise home inspections on parents incase the home is not child proofed or safe enough for some government bureaucrat? How much to you want others to decide what is right or wrong for your kid? How much government intrusion in your lives do you want? In an attempt to guarantee safety for all, how much freedom are you willing to give up? Once your freedom is gone, what will you do if you disagree with some government bureaucrat on what is best for your child? Would you risk loosing custody in an attempt to fight said bureaucrat? There will always be bad parents and bad people and life is not fair. You will never be able to equalize outcomes because we are all unique.
I'll do anything to protect my kids. My children come first. But I know that not all parents are like me and I can't legislate these bad parents to be good ones even if their kids suffer. I spend a lot of time with youth organizations to try to help and be an example for those kids. Governments and bureaucrats don't care screws things up in the end, the people that do care have to stand up and work without or in spite the government.

Bob

I'm not advocating anything you have said. The reality is that the two extremes here are total government control, or none. You seem to advocate none. That simply cannot happen in a modern day society, so I reject it. What I would say is that obviously the correct amount should be somewhere in the middle, and that line should be dictated by the voters in the system. Laws are necessary and while things will never be totally fair, I see no problem with putting laws in place to protect those that can't protect themselves.

[Vettezuki]

Originally Posted by SeanPlunk

Yes. The fines should be passed on as higher costs for health insurance.

Via private insurance? Bet you that turns into a discrimination law suit.

For extreme cases (like a 100lb 5 year old) I would say it's child abuse and would actually consider removing the child from the parent's care if they didn't take steps to fix things.

CPS is a despotic, corrupt, and tyrannical agency as it is.

I have no objection to preaching the message, advocating, persuading, or even shaming and using peer pressure etc. I have a categorical problem against using law, which is a club, nothing else, to transform others into what I prefer. These modes of thought are not compatible. I see a curious future ahead.