From: dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: none
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:42:50 GMT

slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:

>dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes:

>>slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>>People will use Hillary's law (if it makes it
>>>that far) as a way to justify treating kids like hell.  If the kids
>>>don't like it, let 'em get a divorce!  

>>I assume that I can substitute "Parents" for "People" in your first
>>sentence without changing your meaning (otherwise the sentence makes
>>less sense.)  I'd say that parents who would use this law as an excuse
>>for maltreatment are the same parents who would maltreat their children
>>regardless of what the law says.  Oh, sure, they would indeed say
>>something like this -- "If you don't like it, get a divorce!".  That's
>>called rationalization, and they'd find a way to do it under any 
>>circumstances.  Only now, the law would give the children a real 
>>way out.

>A real way out to where?  Or do the newly-emancipated 7,8,9,10,11, and
>12-year olds get to manage for themselves?  Do we set up yet another
>government agency to deal with the flood of divorcees? [...]

Please go back and read the original post by Anne Mitchell (who, I'm
sure you remember, was against the idea as well.)  Clinton's remarks
were specifically about kids 12 and older, NOT 12 and under.

You raise a good question, regardless.  To where?  Well, where do these
kids go NOW?  Too many of them hit the street because they think they have
no other option.  Do you really think it would be wrong to expand the
necessary government programs to help these kids? (Private charities
would be better; of course they would be better, but they're simply
overwhelmed.)

Suppose the child could take his or her parents to court instead of
simply hitting the street.  Part of the judgement would almost certainly
involve a settlement about where the child would live (a relative, a
friend, a charitable boarding school, or as a last resort, a government
program.)  Part of the judgement would also include who would pay for
this; if the parent is at fault, they should bear the burden, rather
than the taxpayer.

(As a tempering measure, I'd also like to see counseling and arbitration
programs set up to head off most cases from hitting a court in the
first place.  But that's really an implementation issue; I won't go into
details here.)

>When one of us screwed up, no matter where we were in the neighborhood,
>somebody's parent was there to yell at us.  When Mr. Jones started
>beating up on wife and kids, a few of the other husbands took him out
>for a few cold beers and a few short, hard words.  Mr. Jones learned
>to settle down or move out.  

Unfortunately, that's just not the world we live in anymore.  Our
cities are too crowded, our fellow citizens are less likely to stay
in one place, and people spend too much time watching TV instead of
getting to know their neighbors.  And today, nobody knows if Mr. Jones
might have a gun to scare off any well-intentioned neighbors.  (This
last point is REAL.  It happened to two very good friends of mine,
and I helped them move out of their apartment *the next day* after
'Mr. Jones' threatened them.)

>The studies have been done, ladies and gents.  When the cop is in a car
>and the neighborhood doesn't know him from Adam, crime stays high.  Put
>the man on a four-block beat, let him get to know the neighbors, let
>the neighbors realize Officer Brown is always around, and crime drops
>like a rock.  Social pressure is what works.  Government offices just
>feed government worker's families - they do not solve moral problems,
>because government is amoral.  Only people are moral.  Systems are not.
>People in systems must act like systems, not people.  The key is not
>more systems.  It's more people.

I agree with everything you say here.  But consider what happens today.
We *do* rely too much on the government, and on social workers who are
overworked, and who sometimes make very bad decisions.  Social systems
alone just can't do the job, as I said above.  Today, it's the government,
not the families, that decides when to start intervention.  Why not give
the affected and now nearly helpless family members -- the teenagers
-- a better chance to help get out of dysfunctional families, rather
than relying on the meddlesome government to start the process?

(As an aside, and just to play devil's advocate:  Is it really
"government interference" to allow kids to divorce their parents?
Then is a *marriage* divorce also a case of government interference ?  And
then is *marriage itself* a case of government interference?  In
all three cases, the goverment is simply facilitating what the parties
themselves have started.)

Dan Breslau
dan@codex.com
Disc claimer:  "Hey!  That's my floppy!"