[Chancellor]

Quote by: Captain Cardio I think we've stumbled across the root of the disagreement - how much of a parental role should the government be taking?

To which I would answer, "none."

Or - which rights do we hold to be more important, the parents or their children, and at what level of importance for each?

Any powers not specifically given to the federal government under the Constitution belong to the states or to the people. Since parents have a certain responsibility for their children and since children are not legally capable of running their own lives, some preference must be given to the rights of the parents.

You're fine to have your opinion about either of those, but simple statements like "They do.",

Of course, that was specifically in response to "This is such a weird strain of American libertarianism, this concept that parents deserve complete control over their children." Would you have preferred I say "Parents do deserve complete control over their children"?

"..get the leftists/socialists out of America!"

Do you understand that in making this statement I'm saying something about the underlying philosophy of what America is? Do you understand that in making this statement I'm saying that being a leftist/socialist (I use the terms synonymously) is inconsistent with the American ideals of limited government and maximized liberty.

or "you are the socialist!" are far too commonplace, and don't actually say anything about what the best course of action is.

Identifying someone's political/philosophical bent isn't necessarily a bad thing and it's not your place to make any assumptions about how the term is being used.

By labeling stances all-inclusively as either 'right' or 'left' or 'socialist' or 'totalitarian' or whatever words we want to use, we drift away from the reality of the situation - and only attempt to associate our opponent with something bad - basically, intelligent sounding ways of saying "well if you believe that, you're wrong".

A person's particular position may indeed be a "right" (conservative), "left" (liberal), "socialist" (see "left") or "totalitarian" (see "right" and "left"). Using such terms as shorthand makes for shorter posts.

The fact of the matter is that the government is involved already with parenting in some aspects - we have social services. You can't beat your children to discipline them, you can't have them standing up in your car without a seatbelt, you have to feed your child regularly. If the government finds out you aren't obeying those and an enormity of other rules I can't cite (as I'm not a parent) - they get involved.

That doesn't make such involvement right and it's really beneath you to use the "Well, the government does it and so that makes it right" argument.

Only a very small minority actually want the extreme in society of either socialism or totalitarianism. (maybe those arent the correct words for the extremes - but whatever, you get the point)

Most Americans are sheeple and don't have a clue about what they want. They like the idea of the government providing all kinds of social programs and creating all these regulations to stick it to the rich and to the corporations. They have this entitlement mentality going on. But in order for government to provide all these things for them it has to violate the Constitution, usurp powers it does not rightly have, and effectively become a socialist state complete with a huge bureaucracy.

So the issue isn't whether we want socialism or big brother or whatever- its what level of government involvement is appropriate, preferable, practical and/or best for our society - in this specific situation?

Any level that goes beyond the bounds of the Constitution is inappropriate and anyone who is an American should already know this to be true!

Some of you guys are saying it's under the parents responsibility - some of you are saying that the children have rights - well ok, but we need to address why, and figure out the root philosophical difference that is behind the scenes in this debate.

Do we have to address why in a thread about whether tobacco companies should be allowed to give free cigarettes to children? Here's it what it comes down to: the parents brought the children into this world, the parents are responsible for them.

(I don't mean to put words in your mouth because I could be wrong with my following interpretation - but the actual interpretation here isn't the point - it's that we should be striving for more complex and deeper interpretations if we are going to advance the discussion): For example: The underlying philosophy could be; Parents have more rights than children. (and/or) If the circumstance is bad enough, then people should have sufficient motivation to elevate themselves out of a situation their parents put them in. Which could mean on a deeper level, that people's willpower or free will should be given alot of credit.

The United States of America has a long but almost lost history of people pulling themselves up by the bootstraps.

Somebody on the other side however, could be saying "Kids can grow up and overcome their messed-up childhood." isn't an ok stance, because children have more rights than their parents (and/or) if we are to value equality in our society, especially given the deterministic nature of our world, then we should be ensuring certain basic rights for young citizens.

Obviously it's a wrongheaded view because it's like letting the inmates run the prison. Cambodia (or Laos) tried something like this by putting the children in authority over their parents after the United States pulled out of Viet Nam.

You guys also seem to disagree about whether children deserve a good childhood - the discussion doesn't have to end there.

I'm not taking any position on whether they do or not. I am, however, challenging the assumption that they "deserve" a good childhood. See "entitlement mentality."

But regardless, I want to clarify again, that my interpretations are not up for scrutiny. I would merely like people to consider more in depth, an intelligent style of discussion, so we can move the tendancy more towards debate, and away from merely argument.

That you posted it puts it up for scrutiny.

My apologies for having singled the two of you out - I am just trying to raise the expectations for the quality of debate at volconvo, and I would hope other people would do the same more often.

It's nice of you to make the attempt. Just understand that there is a place for the shorthand of using certain terms in the place of full sentences.