Well, kids are where libertarianism really breaks down, because they’re moral subjects but not moral agents. A kid needs direct protection in society, and no kid deserves to go hungry at night, unlike (I’ll stipulate) a lazy adult might deserve that. But the kid, unlike the lazy adult, can’t necessarily make the free choices to act in her own best interest.
If children were worth protecting as an extension of the parent’s desires, we’d have a different situation. To an adult we can say: “You like steak? Work hard and earn enough money to buy steak, otherwise nobody cares about what you want.” But we can’t say, “You like having a well-fed kid? Work and and earn enough money to feed your kid, otherwise nobody cares about what you want.” We don’t ensure the child’s nourishment to satisfy the parent’s desires, rather we ensure the child’s nourishment because it needs to be done.
In a society of adults on equal footing making free choices, libertarianism is defensible. But when you’re talking about moral subjects who aren’t moral agents–say, the severely mentally infirm or children–then it breaks down.
You are an outsider because you aren’t a single parent, or an employer of single parents, or anyone that makes any of the choices that would be affected by the policies you want regarding single parents.
And this paragraph shows you’ve misunderstood what I said. I didn’t say anything about stomping all over anyone’s rights, and I’m not scared of anything. I’m very simply annoyed by your do-gooderism. You think you can waltz into a situation and make it all better by waving your magic wand, but you don’t understand that things are the way they are because the people that made them that way like it that way.
If you were a participant in that market, then I’d say fine, come up with some ideas. But you aren’t a participant, you’re just a fly-by-night do-gooder.
First, you know how terms like “moral agents” and “moral subjects” get on my nerves–people use the word “moral” in front of another word and think they’ve said something, but it’s all just hogwash to me.
Second, I don’t see how anything you’ve said implicates anything I’ve said.
Bob runs a company, and a bunch of single parents (including Sue) work there. Bob and the single parents are apparently happy with the deal they struck with Bob (since they accepted the deal and work for him).
Now, along comes even sven: “Ho ho ho, do I have an idea for you! Bob, you could have daycare on-site so that life would be easier for the single parents you employ.”
Well, Bob and Sue made a deal they were both happy with. If Sue wanted on-site daycare, she could have negotiated for it. If Bob provides it, he’s in all likelihood going to lower his worker’s salaries and benefits somehow, so even sven’s idea is to essentially force people to buy something that they apparently didn’t want to buy.
Though perhaps Sue wants it and doesn’t feel empowered to ask for it. And perhaps Sven says “Bob, you could have an onsite daycare. The parents will take care of the costs after its established, even paying you something for the space (though we’d like space rental at less than market) - which you have unused. You’d gain a competitive advantage when hiring people with kids and my non-profit can help set it up and provide first stage funding, plus help subsidize the cost going forward.” Bob is being given an opportunity he can choose to take advantage of or not, and the parents involved get professional expertise and start up funds. And tax dollars aren’t hit.
That model is a very different one where Congress passes a bill that says “Bob, you have greater than 500 employees at this site and 50% of them make less than 30% over minimum wage. You need to provide space for an onsite daycare and need to subsidies for that daycare to your lowest paid employees.”
What’s stopping them from doing it now? You think the idea of on-site daycare is so crazy and radical that they just haven’t thought of it?
Also, to bring the hypo back to the real world, even sven is not approaching Bob and Sue. She’s just starting a thread on a messageboard. And the theme of the thread is “let’s tell all these single parents how to run their lives.” I find that attitude gross and offensive.
Yep, that’s sort of been my point. These options are there now, not everyone chooses to take advantage of them. To extend them would mean pushing from above, which I think isn’t a great idea. And not just for the poor put upon business owner. I think that in many cases, Sue doesn’t want government to tell her how to raise her kids any more than Bob wants them to tell him how to run his business.
As to gross and offensive, I find there are a LOT more things to be offended about in life than behavior on the internet.
Perhaps when Sue started working for Bob she didn’t have a kid, and so didn’t care about daycare.
Perhaps Jack up the street put it in, so Sue and the other single parents who are good enough to Jack to want will be ready to jump ship if Bob says that there was no daycare when they started, so tough.
Maybe the subsidies Bob provides will be more than made up by Sue not leaving work early to pick up the kid at daycare. Maybe it goes as an option on the cafeteria benefits plan. Maybe some of it comes from the money saved from not having the disruption of people walking out the door.
I think you’re mistaking Rand for someone who subscribes to some coherent morally defensible philosophy. That’s not the impression I get. He does what he does and he operates in the situation he finds himself to get the most of whatever he values and the rest of us are free to do the same.
Yeah, well that depends on what you want to achieve. If the single parent is not really able to earn enough in the labor force, it might not make sense to subsidize their child care, it might be chaeper for us to just pay them welfare and let them raise their own children
What the fuck do I care if they’re happy? Unless I think there’s some sort of moral imperative to try to maximize happiness, what sort of hogwash is your appeal to their happiness? Why do you think it’s remotely relevant to the discussion?
Naturally, I do care if they’re happy. That’s because I don’t have a blind spot approximately one moral high.
Bob and Sue probably know that some places have onsite daycare, yes. They also probably think it’s only the rich folks who work downtown or in the suburbs, and that they don’t have the resources (time, money, willpower, pull with the building inspector, etc.) to install it at *their *workplace - and they’re probably right. Worse, they may feel that as poor working schlubs, they’re not *worthy *of onsite daycare. Don’t laugh - I’m *not *speaking from without, I’m totally speaking from within here.
The grass roots idea is to provide them with the startup finances and know-how, as well as the sense of their own worth, that really *are *lacking in many places. It’s not going in and saying, “Hey, what you really need is a daycare here!”, it’s going in and saying, “Have you given any thought to putting in a daycare? Would you like to know how other business like yours have benefited from onsite daycare? Would you like our assistance in implementing it?” A good grass-roots nonprofit is exceedingly conscious of the pitfalls of authoritarianism, and works hard to stay respectful and involve people at all levels in decision making and implementation.
Extreme Makeover is what happens when it’s NOT grass-roots.
If Sue doesn’t want to use the daycare, then Bob doesn’t have to provide it. You even said ‘you* could* have on-site daycare.’ Could, not must.
I can’t see anyone here advocating that all employers must provide on-site daycare whether their employees want it or not and the parents have to use even if they don’t want to. That would be utterly ridiculous.
The closest analogy is maternity leave. I’m not sure what the laws are re maternity leave in the US, and I suspect that a lot of it is down to the individual’s contract rather than laws, but all of them I’ve seen here say that the employee must be allowed to, not forced to, take maternity leave.
(Except for those very rare situations where pregnancy or recent childbirth fall into the same bracket as medical conditions which would make them unable to do their job. Just in case anyone says 'so should a deep-sea diver be allowed to work two days after a c-section?)
The reason govt mandates about maternity leave and childcare are better than just leaving it up to the employees and employers is this: it puts people who are in a weak position when it comes to negotiation into a strong position.
Oh boy. Single parent bashing. Isn’t that the ever tired meme.
I neither condone it nor find the need to criticize it, but I get exasperated hearing people lump the single-parent childhood experience in one large homogenous lump. I was technically raised by a single parent because my father was not a part of my life ever since my parents divorced, but yeah. Welfare queen? Economically, my single mother did extremely well during the dot com boom and is far more well off than most two-parent households in America. Dropout kids headed for jail and poverty? My sister and I were the biggest squares growing up; never touched drugs or alcohol, got good grades, spent hours every day at our extra curriculars, never broke curfew, and went off to graduate from top universities. Yes yes, I have heard the statistics and know we probably aren’t the majority, but it is disingenuous to say that single parenthood in and of itself is problematic, and it is not at all constructive to bash single parents.
I don’t have any explicit policies or ideas to offer, but I think it is helpful to have more of an extended network of support not limited to a nuclear family. I don’t see that happening in America unless some fundamental idea about family is changed, but my mother is from a culture that emphasizes more ties with the extended family. When I was in middle school, she went over to Singapore to manage a subsidiary of her company for a two-year stint. The first year, my sister and I stayed with her in Singapore, but the second year, we were sent to live with our relatives in Taiwan. Several of my friends and family friends have had similar arrangements, though at varous stages of their childhood, btw. I think most Americans would not think highly of that arrangement, but we had always been very close with our relatives and looked out for each other; I had my grandparents, my aunts, my uncles, my great aunts and uncles all taking care of me. IMO, in America, there is too much emphasis on a two-parent (and only two parents - no more, no less) nuclear family as the be-all of family structures and source of support.
Yes, I think people sometimes overemphasize the need for the parent to always be with the child. When the parent works long hours, there is a tendency to think that the child is being neglected and not having his or her needs met when that may not be the case at all. There were definitely times when my mom was more than busy - the period when she was prepping her company to go IPO, she was working 100 hour weeks for sure. But no matter what, she made sure there were people looking after us if she wasn’t, did her research about quality extracurricular activities and programs for us, made sure we were doing ok, monitored our schoolwork and everything. I don’t see anything wrong with that. I had a very, very lovely childhood, and my mother and I always have and continue to have a great relationship.
Yeah, my siblings and I were also raised by a single mother, and one thing we’re all kind of touchy about even as adults is this persistent notion that children without a father at home are basically doomed and that their lazy dumb slut mothers are to blame. That’s a really encouraging message for the many, many kids out there who are already being raised by single mothers. :rolleyes:
In our case our mother was a widow, but it was cold comfort to know that people would grant an exception to the “lazy dumb slut mother” rule if they knew our father was dead.