Blair Enacts Brass-like Plan for Parental Training

[_JS]

You all are blowing this way out of proportion. First of all, you have to understand that Britain and British society is not like the United States. First, it is far more urban, especially if you exclude the northern half of Scotland and currently this program only affects England - which is very urban. Second, the yob and chav culture in England produces a real problem with youth crime and youth gang related crime. The majority of people (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat) tend to focus their blame upon the parents of those youth who allow them to roam the streets, drink, smoke, gamble, etc at a very young age.

Therefore, Blair has offered this plan which is mostly voluntary as a way for poor parents to gain access to expert help. Where it is not voluntary is where a child has committed offences. Anti-social behavior orders (ASBO) in Britain are activities set by local councils that include things like vandalism, theft, flyposting, bullying, harassment, etc. This is no different than cities who fine parents or bring criminal charges against them for their children missing too much school or being criminally negligent in some other way. In other words, we do it here as well. The difference is that Blair is offering what he terms a "carrot and stick" approach as opposed to a flat out criminalising approach.

The philosophy behind this is that no one is simply a good parent just on virtue of having conceived and birthed a child. While some parents have the virtue of falling back to their parents or guardians for advice or memories of how to handle being a parent or perhaps they can purchase books, meet church officials, hire nannies, etc - not everyone has that luxury. In that case the government should step in to at least provide the possibility that these parents and children will have an improved opportunity to succeed at life.

The other option is to offer no support and allow the continuance of the status quo. Clearly that is not what Tony Blair finds suitable. Also remember that the British do not tolerate the levels of crime that Americans do.

I really don't see this as a case of nasty infringement on civil liberties. It certainly does not merit a discussion on Nazism.

[Amianthus]

I'm glad you can admit it.

No problem. I'm always happy to point out your factual errors.

[Brassmask]

No problem. I'm always happy to point out your factual errors.

I think you mean "barely technical errors".

[Universe Prince]

The British, the Netherlands, the Swiss, the Costa Ricans, the Canadians and so forth also use government as a tool to help all of society.  Seems to be working pretty good for them for the most part.  Don't remember them killing a bunch of Jews or forcing religion on anyone.  Canadians like their strips clubs and social medicine.

Not religion, just their dogmatic politics. Which amounts to the same thing. As for working pretty well, I think you're largely mistaken. For example, if it is working so well in Britain, why the need for squads of government super-nannies and mandatory classes?

[Universe Prince]

Yes, JS, I know the plan has good intentions to help struggling parents. I do not fault the intentions at all. Having good intentions about helping society is not sufficient justification for a government program.

[Brassmask]

The British, the Netherlands, the Swiss, the Costa Ricans, the Canadians and so forth also use government as a tool to help all of society.  Seems to be working pretty good for them for the most part.  Don't remember them killing a bunch of Jews or forcing religion on anyone.  Canadians like their strips clubs and social medicine.

Not religion, just their dogmatic politics. Which amounts to the same thing. As for working pretty well, I think you're largely mistaken. For example, if it is working so well in Britain, why the need for squads of government super-nannies and mandatory classes?

So, a country that leans socially should never ever have any problems of any kind every again in order to be considering working pretty well?  Jeez, I wish you felt that way about America and capitalism.

I never said those countries were perfect just that they seem to be going along pretty well.  Better if not at least equivalent to America.

[Brassmask]

Yes, JS, I know the plan has good intentions to help struggling parents. I do not fault the intentions at all. Having good intentions about helping society is not sufficient justification for a government program.

Then we should disband the army and pay for our own private police and fire services.  That'd be a GREAT idea!  A way for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.  Yay capitalism!

[Universe Prince]

So, a country that leans socially should never ever have any problems of any kind every again in order to be considering working pretty well?

No, that isn't what I said. You listed those countries as examples of countries that use the government as a tool to help all of society. And you said it seems "to be working pretty good for them for the most part." Seems to me that if it were working pretty well in Britain, they wouldn't need to propose government super-nannies and to lay "the ground for the publication of proposals to force more fathers and mothers to attend parenting classes". That just doesn't sound like they're doing well. I'm not saying they have to be perfect or that they should never have any problems. I'm just saying that the problem supposedly addressed by Prime Minister Blair's plans indicates to me that it isn't going nearly so well as you proclaim.

I never said those countries were perfect just that they seem to be going along pretty well.  Better if not at least equivalent to America.

And I never said they had to be perfect. Amazing how that works out, i'n'it? As for better than America, that probably depends on how you want to measure 'better'.

[Universe Prince]

Yes, JS, I know the plan has good intentions to help struggling parents. I do not fault the intentions at all. Having good intentions about helping society is not sufficient justification for a government program.

Then we should disband the army and pay for our own private police and fire services.  That'd be a GREAT idea!  A way for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.  Yay capitalism!

Hold on there, Einstein. I didn't say a word about eliminating anything. I didn't even say that using government as a tool to help society was inherently wrong. What I did say is that having good intentions about helping society is not sufficient justification for a government program. The folks who want a government program to teach abstinence-only sex ed have good intentions about helping society. The folks who want to ban homosexual marriage have good intentions about helping society. I doubt very much that you're going to rally behind those folks or even "just sit in the backseat and try not to f it up" for those folks. Or are you telling me you're okay with those people trying to use government as a tool to help society? You're not going to object to what they want to do because they're trying to use government as a tool to help society? No, think you will protest. I think you'll say they're not going to help society that way. So what I want to know is, who the f--- are you to tell me I'm just suppose to "sit in the backseat" and shut up about you wanting to do something that I don't believe is going to help society. Your attitude is the same attitude the abstinence-only folks have: to object to your plan is to advocate the downfall of society. Well, you're both wrong.

And since we're talking about society, I happen to believe that society is made better and stronger through voluntary cooperation rather than coerced compliance. Yeah, that is right, I do think there is a better way to help society, it's just not the way you advocate. But it is interesting to watch people like you who rail and wail about Bush and conspiracies and the unfair rule by the wealthy and all that nonsense then turn and complain about people voluntarily working together. You bitch and moan that oil companies or corporation or Republicans or someone is trampling all over the poor people, the middle class, the working Americans, and yet you despise the very idea of allowing the poor, the middle class, the working Americans to decide for themselves how their lives should be spent. You want to take their money, you want to punish people who begin to achieve financial success and stability, who get ahead in trying to provide a better future for their families (yay socialism). And I'm not supposed to f--- it up for you? You're one of the folks trying to f--- it all up for the rest of us. You're damn right I'm going to object.

Your limited thinking apparently cannot comprehend a plan to improve society that does not involve using government to enforce compliance by society to make it be and do the things you want, hence your childish "yay capitalism" sarcasm, but that does not mean people who object to your preferences do not want to help society or to see society improve. It just means they don't agree with you on how to accomplish the betterment of society. This is a simple and uncomplicated concept that I think even you should be able to grasp. That you apparently do not indicates an unwillingness to consider other points of view that, quite honestly, only gives me further reason not to go along with your way of thinking.

[sirs]

What I did say is that having good intentions about helping society is not sufficient justification for a government program. The folks who want a government program to teach abstinence-only sex ed have good intentions about helping society. The folks who want to ban homosexual marriage have good intentions about helping society. I doubt very much that you're going to rally behind those folks or even "just sit in the backseat and try not to f it up" for those folks. Or are you telling me you're okay with those people trying to use government as a tool to help society?....Your limited thinking apparently cannot comprehend a plan to improve society that does not involve using government to enforce compliance by society to make it be and do the things you want, hence your childish "yay capitalism" sarcasm, but that does not mean people who object to your preferences do not want to help society or to see society improve. It just means they don't agree with you on how to accomplish the betterment of society. This is a simple and uncomplicated concept that I think even you should be able to grasp. That you apparently do not indicates an unwillingness to consider other points of view that, quite honestly, only gives me further reason not to go along with your way of thinking.

Amen