Age restrictions that don't protect children

Decision-making is a crucial skill, which is developed in early childhood.

the reason why helicopter parents (overprotective parents) do so much harm to kids is because they remove decision-making from children.

the most common and most idiotic excuse is that they are "preventing kids from making mistakes".

Anyone who has even a tiny bit of brain in his head knows that making mistakes is how you learn. Once you prevent kids from making mistakes and from decision making, you are effectively making kids dumber.

And helicopter parents usually raise kids who lack social skills and thinking skills. Because "protection" is a flawed idea.

Consider this: How does one learn to play chess? By trying, making mistakes, learning... the only way to not make a mistake in chess is to not play it at all, and thus not learning much at all how to play.

Mistake is a crucial part in learning, because learning consists of learning what works and what doesnt work, by testing, trying...ect.

Any progress made in science is made through trial and error, testing, failing, testing again...ect.

And many scientists make mistakes constantly.

Now, imagine if we wanted to "protect scientists" by only letting them do things where they cant make a mistake. Entire scientific research would crumble.

What stupid people usually do is applying double standards. they apply to kids standards which they would never apply to adult, not even to partially retarded adults who are dumber than kids, not even to adults who did terrible mistakes.

And their excuse is always circular "because kids are kids".

the reason why today's generations are still retarded despite all the technological advances, is because kids are taught from early age to be everything opposite of competent.

Scared, obedient person who isnt allowed to decide or make mistakes, and isnt challenged to solve problems on his own, is pretty much how you build a retard.

Parents are generally allowed to restrict their kids from getting vaccines, even the ones that have been tested the most thoroughly

I would actually prefer if kids were able to reject vaccines even if parents want them to get it.

Vaccines are something which wasnt researched enough, and 90 IQ parents are about as capable of making medical decisions as a child is, but at least child has a good sense of obvious harm of vaccine. "Vaccine hurts" is pretty much the best excuse not to get a vaccine, because apparently vaccine hurts in more than one way. It has effectively sterilized the population who was dumb enough to believe that vaccine is "all good, no harm". Any time something presents to be "all good, no harm", its most likely a lie and even more harmful long term than things which claim they contain harm.

But it does take world falling apart for dumb population to learn. Usually, only simple explanations work with people. And current simple explanation is: World is getting worse in many crucial areas, despite greatest medical effort to improve things. So maybe the medical effort is not only unnecessary and costly, but contributing to harm.

Because while vaccines are tested short term, the only tests of them we have so far in long term, the only long term results so far were harmful.

And long term results matter more than short term results. Short term victory for bigger long term loss is a bet only idiots make.

I think shifting the responsibility for children's well-being from parents to the government is a terrible idea. No parent will support such a move, even if it's by baby steps. Sure, there are some bad parents out there, and we need laws to protect children, but beyond that, the government needs to stay out of our private lives. In general, government has no business taking any degree of control from parents, there are only a few things government is good at, and parenting isn't one of them.

The first amendment forbids government to get involved in the religious issues you mentioned, and on everything else, the fourth amendment protects our privacy against unwarranted government intrusion, no way should we allow government to get involved in how we choose to raise our children. If they don't have enough evidence that a crime is being committed to get a warrant, then what we do in our home or family, is none of their damn business.

Setting boundaries that limit government involvement in our personal lives is critically important if we want to protect individual liberty, foster personal responsibility, and promote economic prosperity. Our government has already encroached on our personal lives way too much, our country was founded on the principle that legitimate government exists only by the consent of the governed, with the Constitution establishing specific boundaries to prevent abuse, which seem to be weakened every week under the current regime.

Especially now, when the government's appetite for totalitarian control is so exposed, we need insist that the primary role of government is to secure rights, not to manage society.

.

I think shifting the responsibility for children's well-being from parents to the government is a terrible idea.

The government is already controlling what kids do and don't do, but it's doing so via parents. And the parents are the ones voting for the government as well. At the end of the day, adults are controlling what kids do, I'm just saying they should control slightly less.

Our government has already encroached on our personal lives way too much

I don't think the government should tell kids what to do, I just don't think the government should legally restrict kids from practicing a particular religion because it conflicts with their parents' beliefs. Maybe this will be unpopular, maybe it will require an amendment, but I think it's preferable to the current system, even if it's unlikely.

the government's appetite for totalitarian control

If the government gives kids the right to do [x], that's reducing the total amount of totalitarian control. Totalitarianism can come from parents—I mean, you don't trust the government, and it's the parents voting for that government, no? Abusive parents exist, just because the control isn't directly coming from the government doesn't mean it can't be totalitarian.

no way should we allow government to get involved in how we choose to raise our children

Of course the government gets involved. That's why it's called the government. But original argument wasn't about government making decisions for children (your straw man), but government ensuring children make decisions and have a choice.

Also, USA already has "mature minor" and "emancipated minor" in its law. I don't know why are you pretending that something which is already part of law cannot be part of law.

I think shifting the responsibility for children's well-being from parents to the government is a terrible idea.

The government is already controlling what kids do and don't do, but it's doing so via parents. And the parents are the ones voting for the government as well. At the end of the day, adults are controlling what kids do, I'm just saying they should control slightly less.

Do you really think the government can do a better job than parents?

Our government has already encroached on our personal lives way too much

I don't think the government should tell kids what to do, I just don't think the government should legally restrict kids from practicing a particular religion because it conflicts with their parents' beliefs. Maybe this will be unpopular, maybe it will require an amendment, but I think it's preferable to the current system, even if it's unlikely.

Oh pulease, the government does not "legally restrict kids from practicing a particular religion because it conflicts with their parents' beliefs". Sure, there are parents that restrict kids about religion, but there are also parents that encourage their kids to think for themselves. What is certain is that increased dependency on government systems and a reduction in parental accountability will result in a less responsible population and an erosion of our civil liberties.

the government's appetite for totalitarian control

If the government gives kids the right to do [x], that's reducing the total amount of totalitarian control. Totalitarianism can come from parents—I mean, you don't trust the government, and it's the parents voting for that government, no? Abusive parents exist, just because the control isn't directly coming from the government doesn't mean it can't be totalitarian.

Parental authority is not inherently totalitarian, it can become "authoritarian", but totalitarian really only applies to government. Again, there are certainly bad parents out there, but in general, parents are going to be better than government at raising responsible, well-adjusted kids in a safe and supportive manner. You can never detach authority from responsibility, parents are ultimately responsible for the welfare and upbringing of their children, anyone who would abdicate that responsibility to government control is a bad parent.

In the end, I think we need to minimize government intervention to avoid dependency, enhance personal responsibility and limit bureaucratic influence.

Under common law, a parent can take money that their child earned and then go spend it on alcohol. I think it's pretty obvious how that is not protecting the child.

What if the child spends it on alcohol because the parent won't teach the child to delay gratification?

I think there is a degree of mostly harmless egotism entailed in the average person's decision to have kids. Things like the right to attempt to instill your values in them (albeit with little to no control over their final decision as adults), which includes restricting them from doing things which constitute major violations of said values. If you disallow that, then you take away one motivation to have kids, at a time when the government is struggling to keep birth rates from plummeting even further than they already have.

Everyone waxes poetic about all the ideal qualities a parent should have but at the end of the day it's a hugely expensive (in both time and money) volunteer job, and volunteers aren't exactly forthcoming relative to the level of need. Honestly if a parent can put food on the table and isn't beating, molesting, or neglecting them like the meth-head parents from that one episode of Breaking Bad then they're qualified in my book.

Honestly if a parent can put food on the table and isn't beating, molesting, or neglecting them like the meth-head parents from that one episode of Breaking Bad then they're qualified in my book

I mean, sure, we can lower standards, but it won't make more people want to have kids, because the two are mostly unrelated. China has very low standards, and their birth rates are among lowest in the world.

But the reason why world is a mess in the first place is because bad parents raise incompetent kids.

Once you start increasing number of bad parents, you can only expect for future world to be worse.

And among worst "non-physical abuse" parents happen to be parents who deny decision making of kids.

Because it's a very special type of abuse, which basically tells to a kid "You are too stupid to decide anything, just obey.".

And after decade of such abuse, kid's decision making abilities severely degrade.

And then, once adult, the decision making ability is much inferior than in adults who didn't have helicopter parents.

It is one type of abuse which is designed to convince person that person's interests or thoughts dont matter, everything will be decided for them anyway, and they don't get a say.

And of course, such people end up having terrible social skills, because when you are used to be in relationship where everything is decided for you, you can't even think on your own, so once you actually have to think on your own, you cant.

Doesn't make a lot of difference who they are or where they are from, as basic operating systems are programmed before they are capable of thinking otherwise.

Technological intelligence is now the way forwards...Maybe competing systems will homogenize rapidly

Because I doubt that human clever/stupidness will be eradicated any time soon.

What if the child spends it on alcohol because the parent won't teach the child to delay gratification?

I'm fine with parents preventing that, I just want more strictly enforced restrictions so that if parents overrule their child, it must be for the child's benefit. So a parent can force their kid to save, but they can't dip into their kid's savings to buy cigarettes. My position is not "let kids decide everything."

at the end of the day it's a hugely expensive (in both time and money) volunteer job, and volunteers aren't exactly forthcoming relative to the level of need

I'm not saying ban those people from being parents, I'm saying restrict the degree to which they can harm their child.

Do you really think the government can do a better job than parents?

On some things, yeah. If a parent wants to abuse their child, I think it's good that the government bans that.

the government does not "legally restrict kids from practicing a particular religion because it conflicts with their parents' beliefs".

If a parent bans their kid from a certain religion, the government will enforce that ban by enforcing the parent's authority on the matter. They're not washing their hands of the conflict.

Parental authority is not inherently totalitarian, it can become "authoritarian", but totalitarian really only applies to government. Again, there are certainly bad parents out there, but in general, parents are going to be better than government at raising responsible, well-adjusted kids in a safe and supportive manner.

That's why I only want the government stepping in in certain cases, and never to take authority for themselves, just to give autonomy to the child.

 autonomy to the child.

This is rarely a benefit to the child. If ever. Kids need guidance first, autonomy later. You can ease them into autonomy with guided choices until they are ready to bear the consequences on their own.

Savant,

Do you actually have any kids? I raised three, and they were self-destructive all the way through their teen years, when you are doing it it seems like a parent's primary role in caring for a child is to check their excesses and protect them from the bad choices they make, especially when they are teenagers. It's a full-time job too, no way the government could handle it.

PS I speak as one who knows too, I happen to be the world's greatest Dad, and I have a coffee mug to prove it.

This is rarely a benefit to the child.

Sometimes other things like safety override autonomy, I just don't believe in restricting autonomy for the sake of restricting autonomy.

Do you actually have any kids?

Nope, confess I don't. But if one parent can force their kid to be a Muslim instead of a Christian and another parent can force their child to be a Christian instead of a Muslim, they can't both be right. If the government is willing to let kids be wrong about religion, then it should at least give them a choice.

I raised three, and they were self-destructive all the way through their teen years, when you are doing it it seems like a parent's primary role in caring for a child is to check their excesses and protect them from the bad choices they make, especially when they are teenagers.

That's why I keep saying I'm fine preventing kids from making destructive choices. It's the non-destructive choices I think they should be allowed to make.

It's a full-time job too, no way the government could handle it.

Saying kids are allowed to do something isn't raising them. The government has already been making reforms along these lines by preventing abuse for example, it's not like my proposals are super unique and unprecedented.

Have you read Lord of the Flies?

I have. Not what I'm advocating, and even if I were, fiction isn't a data point, because that's not how thought experiments work. Just because I grant something for the sake of argument within a work of fiction doesn't mean I think reality will behave in the same way. For example, in the fat man version of the trolley problem if I am a utilitarian but don't shove the fat man, I would have to justify that. But for answering a question like "would a fat man actually stop a trolley?" the thought experiment isn't really data.

The entire book was a thought experiment. I think you might have missed the essence of the book if you think it was entertainment slop.

The entire book was a thought experiment.

Did you read my full comment? I called it a thought experiment.

Devout religious ideologists were not forced to become such...They we programmed relative to circumstance...The human is essentially an organic, self-propelled computer and materials handling device....It is essential that said devices are formatively programmed...Overthink such as age restrictions comes with the territory, and may or may not be viewed as problematic...Nonetheless, technological progress and therefore material evolution moves on apace...Whether or not any of this has any greater significance can only be guessed at.

Experience is the best guide both for children and parents.

Experience is the best guide for both children and parents.

Is a sweeping statement.

It sweeps everything else away.

Under the carpet.

That is how you do it.

Nope, I use a a vacuum cleaner.

Over the carpet.

And under the chair.

You must have a potty under your chair.