From: king@glacier.Stanford.EDU (Robin King)
Subject: Re: Are children property? (parental responsibilities)
Organization: Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University, California
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 04:10:09 GMT

judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes:
>
>You seem to see children as "property" of the parents.I see children as
>part of our communal future.  That means that while you pay taxes today to
>put them through school, they will in turn pay taxes to pay for your Medicare

	He said "responsibility" of the parents.  And maybe some
	of us aren't happy to have others' responsibilities foisted
	apon us through socialistic taxation.
					
>I am a firm believer in community and civic responsibility and not living
>one's life just for oneself.  

	Me too.  WHEN I WANT TO!  

>Because of that, if I see a child about to do something foolish or dangerous I will stop that child.  I will, and have often
>done so in parks, parent a child that is not my own. 
		   ^^?^^
	Well, of course, it's only right to help others avoid accidents,
	BUT NOT MANDATORY.

 Therefore, I believe,
>as I think many other parents in this forum do, that we have a civic 
>responsibility for all children within our community.  In other words, we
>are our brother's keeper.

	I resent the implication that I *must* be.

>Others,most notably evident in this post, but also in others, seem to believe
>that our society is one of each person for himself.  

	Each person is *responsible* for himself!  Our country
	was not founded on the premis of free handouts for everyone.

>Your civic responsibilty
>begins and ends with you (and any children you happen to have - though there
>are some who will abdicate even this responsibility).  As long as you are
>not hurting anyone else, then whatever you do with your own property is your
>own business. And if others in the community don't like it, well, they should
>just stay out of your face.  In other words, you are NOT your brother's keeper.
	Well, you're starting to lose your footing on the old
	slippery slope...  You're assuming a lot and your words
	are open to any interpetation.

>I look at the results of each type of community and have chosen the one I
>down and out in LA, people will step around you.  If you're down and out in
>New York, people will step ON you."  I vote for a community where, if you're
>down and out, people will reach out and lend you a hand.  

	Because they WANT to... you can't legislate goodwill.
	You can force taxes to pay for the helpless but too much
	abuse has caused a justified backlash and resentment.

>Thus, if you see a child fall into a river and do nothing to save that child'
>life, then you are as negligent as if you had pushed the child in yourself.

	SPLASH!!!  You slid down the slippery slope and into the river too!
	You can't require people to risk their own lives.  It's nice
	when they do, but you're going too far here.  As for calling
	911, any normal person would.  But your example of "civic
	responsibility" is off base here.

>That is the model I live by and the one I believe will make a better world.
>Clearly you disagree.  But I cannot imagine living in your community.  It see>ms awfully cold and lonely.  

	I'd sum it up with:  Let people offer to help when they
	want.  Most people like to help and will often go quite 
	far out of their way to do it.  But to assume that we're
	here to shoulder your responsibilities, both financial
	and civic, goes against my concept of freedom in America.
	
	Robin King
	king@glacier.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky ba.general:4243 misc.kids:25337