From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:02:15 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

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

>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:

>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.)

I understand what your saying, but it simply isn't workable.  
Look where 30 years in the war on poverty has gotten us.
It's worked pretty well, hasn't it?  We lost.

We cannot simply throw government agencies at moral/family problems.
It has never worked, it isn't working now, and it won't work
in the future.  More of what doesn't work is *NOT* the answer. 

>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.

Read what you just wrote!  How many fathers skip on child support
payments right NOW? (Yes, I know many do so because they don't get
the visitation they deserve, but let's stick to the scum who walk
because they don't want to pay).  And these parents are ignoring 
former wives/lovers and district judges!  Do you think they're 
going to give a tinker's dam about some brat-kid they were abusing
anyway?  (Remember, that's why the kid got the divorce to begin with).
They aren't going to pay squat.  Hillary's idea is not a solution, it's
craziness.  

>(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.)

These are already in place.  They don't work.  Read the last couple of
issues of "Insight" magazine.  Families which received such assistance
were no less likely to break up than families which did not.

>>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.)

That's what it comes down to.  If you want to make a change, you've 
got to be willing to put something on the line.  We are trying to use
government agencies to run interference for us.  They can't.  We cannot
legislate community.  We cannot legislate morality.  We cannot legislate
justice.  If you want to stop the violence, it is *YOUR* job to stop it.
Yours and mine.  Community can be re-built.  It's being done right now
by groups like the Guardian Angels (read P.J. O'Rourke's "Parliament of
Whores").  But we have to be willing to make a stand.  You are not just
making a stand for the neighbor kids - those kids live right next to
yours.  You are making a stand for your children as well.

>>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.

This is a democracy.  *WE* are the government.  Not the blowhards in
Washington.  This started going downhill when we handed the government
over to them.  It's time we took responsibility back into our own hands.

>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?

If this were a better chance, I'd say go for it.  It isn't.  It's a
non-workable idea freshly painted in dangerous rhetoric.  It creates
the impression that we don't have to worry about divorced kids,
because they are "competent" and can - somehow - take care of 
themselves, with no sweat on our part.  That's a lie.  If we don't
sweat, we won't like the payback.

>(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.)

True.  Look how well marriage lasts now days.  Marriage *used* to be
a public declaration of commitment before an interwoven, tightly-knit
community.  It was a ceremony whose purpose was as much *communal* as
it was individual.  Anybody who broke a marriage vow, not only broke a
promise to an individual, they broke a promise they had made in front of
the whole community.

We are trying to use government in place of 
community.  That does not work.  The government is meant to regulate
the community, not replace it.  Government cannot create the social 
taboos that community can and does.  Social taboos are what make people
abide by laws.  The laws were merely formal recognition of taboos.  WE
have switched the emphasis to making LAW important.  That ain't how it
works.  Only community will solve this problem.  Law will not.  

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

And I have a question for you.  Let's say a 12-year old tries the
divorce route.  The judge finds the 12-year old competent (congrats to
the parents for raising a mature kid).  But the judge *also* finds
the parents competent.  Should the divorce be allowed?  Is this a
"no-fault" divorce?  Or is it a "for-cause" divorce?  Used to be, 
couples could only get divorced for cause (e.g. infidelity).  Nowadays, 
that's not true.  Hillary didn't specify, as far as I know.

So, look your 12-year old in the eye across the courtroom.  Should
your child be allowed to divorce you?  Is that child as competent as
this judge has deemed (the judge has only known the kid a few hours)?
Whaddayasay?

Steve Kellmeyer