# A 'nanny' state



## maxiogee

From the BBC News - 
*'Super nannies' to help parents*
More than 70 "super nannies" are to try to improve
parenting in areas with high levels of anti-social behaviour,
Tony Blair is expected to announce. 
The child psychologists will be funded by the prime minister's
Respect Task Force to work in deprived areas.


Is this likely to do any good? Or is the cynic inside me right when he screams "It's just another 'initiative' which will end up hampered by red tape and floundering under a welter of paperwork and 'goals', customers and 'charters' and all the paraphernalia which the modern state brings to anything it touches nowadays.


----------



## Etcetera

On the Russian TV, there is currently a show in which a nanny comes to a family where parents are experiencing troubles with their kids and stays with them for several days. I don't like the idea of this show - in my opinion, it just can't do any good. 
I'm afraid that "super nannies" won't be able to solve the problem of anti-social behaviour. The roots of this problem are simply much deeper - and the cure of it should begin not with children who behave badly, but with their parents.


----------



## Neever

Etcetera said:


> I'm afraid that "super nannies" won't be able to solve the problem of anti-social behaviour. The roots of this problem are simply much deeper - and the cure of it should begin not with children who behave badly, but with their parents.


 
Hi Etcetera,

Isn´t that the whole point of this initiative, that the "super nannies" will help the _parents_ to become more effceint in their parenting, thereby allowing them to better control their anti-social children?

Although I think that there are many parents out there who _do_ need help to do their job properly (By and large to rear happy, thoughtful human beings who respect the world around them), I'm with Maxi's inner cynic on this one....but I'll also admit that I'm at a total loss when it comes to offering an alternative.


----------



## Etcetera

But such a "super nanny" wouldn't stay in the family for a long time, would she? And if she would simply give the parents lots of advice - however useful they might be, we all know how difficult it is to follow advice. 



> Isn´t that the whole point of this initiative, that the "super nannies" will help the _parents_ to become more effceint in their parenting, thereby allowing them to better control their anti-social children?


Children don't become anti-social suddenly. If a child behaves badly in the street, in most cases it signals that the child has some problems with their parents. Problems at home. Children who are loved and understood by their parents almost never behave badly.


----------



## la reine victoria

We are not amused.  






Queen Victoria


----------



## natasha2000

Etcetera said:


> Children who are loved and understood by their parents almost never behave badly.


 
I am afraid I have to disagree.
Most of the times, children who are too much loved by their parents are also a very spoilt ones, and don't know how to behave in the street. The main problem however, stays in parents. The children are spoilt because someone spoilt them, they couldn't have possibly become spoilt by themselves. How come that some 10-15 years ago, there was no need for such personalities as "super nannies"? Children were more controled by their parents, they respected adults, they knew they couldn't be always the center of attention. Nowadays, we have little children who talk back to their teachers in a bad way, and adolescents who bully their school companions and their teachers. We also have teenagers who go to school armed, start shooting and killing around. This never happened before. 

I think that the whole modern society should give a good and a very loooong thought about what we are doing to our children. It is sure that by overprotecting them, we create little monsters who later will grow in big monsters. And it is not a good job at all, we do not do the favor to nobody, expecially not to those children. Giving them all they want (not need), and not asking anyting in return is not exactly a good education.


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> From the BBC News -
> *'Super nannies' to help parents*
> More than 70 "super nannies" are to try to improve
> parenting in areas with high levels of anti-social behaviour,
> Tony Blair is expected to announce.
> The child psychologists will be funded by the prime minister's
> Respect Task Force to work in deprived areas.
> 
> 
> Is this likely to do any good? Or is the cynic inside me right when he screams "It's just another 'initiative' which will end up hampered by red tape and floundering under a welter of paperwork and 'goals', customers and 'charters' and all the paraphernalia which the modern state brings to anything it touches nowadays.



From the same report:



> A single mother called Natalie said that introducing a sticker chart with rewards for good behaviour, as she had been advised at parenting classes, had not been successful for one of her sons.
> She told BBC Radio Five Live: "He wouldn't even participate, and then if he actually did something wrong he would rip the whole chart up.
> "The reward he wanted was £20, instead of what I wanted - we were told to suggest a pound - *and it's very difficult the older the children get to actually rein them back in."*



Over here, we deal with the older children who behave atrociously by sending them to Washington, D.C. for a few years.  At least it keeps them off the local streets for a while.

They direct their rebelious and aggressive instincts to inventing burrrocratic programs. _(That don't work.)
_


----------



## natasha2000

Sometimes I think it should be some personality test before someone has a child... Not all people are capable of having children.. Well, yes, of HAVING them, yes, but growing them and educating them, no.


----------



## Etcetera

natasha2000 said:


> I am afraid I have to disagree.
> Most of the times, children who are too much loved by their parents are also a very spoilt ones, and don't know how to behave in the street. The main problem however, stays in parents. The children are spoilt because someone spoilt them, they couldn't have possibly become spoilt by themselves.


You're right here, I agree with you. I missed this point.


----------



## Fernando

natasha2000 said:


> Sometimes I think it should be some personality test before someone has a child... Not all people are capable of having children.. Well, yes, of HAVING them, yes, but growing them and educating them, no.



It would be a bit radical to perform massive gonads removals. Do not count me to vote you.

I would rather say that there are children that are unable to have parents.


----------



## natasha2000

Fernando said:


> It would be a bit radical to perform massive gonads removals. Do not count me to vote you.
> 
> I would rather say that there are children that are unable to have parents.


 
It was just a little joke. Of course, I am not advocating some kind of Orvel's ´84 society.

On the other hand, I really do think that children, when they are born, they are if not completely, then 90% "tabula rasa". What will be written on it, depends on various factors during their lives, but at the beginning, parents are those who have the exclussive right to the pencil of life... What's written until the age of 5 influences a lot what comes later...


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Children's bad behaviour is a major issue in many countries, not just in UK, but how could parents, who often are still teenagers, be able to give a good education to their kids if they haven't reached adulthood yet? if they can't even find their arse although they are sitting on it??
It's hard to expect them to do a good job with their children because they haven't learnt how to be parents yet.


----------



## elpoderoso

maxiogee said:


> From the BBC News -
> *'Super nannies' to help parents*
> More than 70 "super nannies" are to try to improve
> parenting in areas with high levels of anti-social behaviour,
> Tony Blair is expected to announce.
> The child psychologists will be funded by the prime minister's
> Respect Task Force to work in deprived areas.
> 
> 
> Is this likely to do any good? Or is the cynic inside me right when he screams "It's just another 'initiative' which will end up hampered by red tape and floundering under a welter of paperwork and 'goals', customers and 'charters' and all the paraphernalia which the modern state brings to anything it touches nowadays.


 
Clearly Blair shouldn't be allowed to watch Mary Poppins again if he thinks that a nanny is going to solve everyones' problems. This initiative seems to me just another attempt by Blair and Co to grab some headlines so real issues can be ignored. If people in these areas of 'high anti-social behaviour' don't respect the police or their neighbours,why would they respect and listen to these 'supernannies'?


----------



## natasha2000

Paulfromitaly said:


> Children's bad behaviour is a major issue in many countries, not just in UK, but how could parents, who often are still teenagers, be able to give a good education to their kids if they haven't reached adulthood yet? if they can't even find their arse although they are sitting on it??
> It's hard to expect them to do a good job with their children because they haven't learnt how to be parents yet.


 
Paul, I see your point, but then, if parents of those parents had done their job well, those kids wouldn't have become parents so early...
And in this modern era when sex is not a tabu any more, and young people have a much more easy access to information than for example the generation of my parents (or even mine!) when there are so many different contraceptives, begining with condom, I think that having an unplanned (I wanted to say undesired, but it sound too ugly) child is almost an unresponsable act.


----------



## la reine victoria

elpoderoso said:


> Clearly Blair shouldn't be allowed to watch Mary Poppins again if he thinks that a nanny is going to solve everyones' problems. This initiative seems to me just another attempt by Blair and Co to grab some headlines so real issues can be ignored. If people in these areas of 'high anti-social behaviour' don't respect the police or their neighbours,why would they respect and listen to these 'supernannies'?


 


Well said, Elpoderoso!  

Standards of acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour should be taught to children as soon as they are able to understand. As should good manners. How often do you hear children saying "please" and "thank you" these days? In most supermarkets you will hear, "I want . . . . " Then comes a screaming session and a tantrum if the "want" is denied. To keep the peace the mother usually gives in. The child learns that such behaviour will be rewarded.  

As children grow older and start displaying anti-social behaviour, disrespecting their parents, their teachers, the police, old people, then it's useless to think that these habits can be reversed. 

Can you picture a "reformed" yob sitting at home every evening sorting out his stamp collection so that Muvver will give him a nice sticker for his chart?

We need more stick and less carrot. Those people who cannot control their children
should have child benefit and tax credit payments withdrawn.

Dream on Blair.  




LRV


----------



## Paulfromitaly

natasha2000 said:


> Paul, I see your point, but then, if parents of those parents had done their job well, those kids wouldn't have become parents so early...
> And in this modern era when sex is not a tabu any more, and young people have a much more easy access to information than for example the generation of my parents (or even mine!) when there are so many different contraceptives, begining with condom, I think that having an unplanned (I wanted to say undesired, but it sound too ugly) child is almost an unresponsable act.



You're more than right, of course, but have you got an idea of how many chances teenagers get to have an irresponsible behaviour when they spend the whole weekend being so pissed they can't even remember where they live? Aren't the teenagers' parents to blame as well?



la reine victoria said:


> We need more stick and less carrot. Those people who cannot control their children should have child benefit and tax credit payments withdrawn.
> 
> 
> LRV



I'm with you.


----------



## fenixpollo

elpoderoso said:


> This initiative seems to me just another attempt by Blair and Co to grab some headlines so real issues can be ignored.


 What is the real issue, then? 





			
				LRV said:
			
		

> Standards of acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour should be taught to children as soon as they are able to understand.


 I agree totally. 





			
				Paul said:
			
		

> but how could parents, who often are still teenagers, be able to give a good education to their kids if they haven't reached adulthood yet? if they can't even find their arse although they are sitting on it??


 So, what's the solution? How do we, as a society, teach those adults about their arses and their children? 

Here's my suggestion: for the government to establish an education program that would involve parenting classes. Perhaps the government could pay for teachers/counselors/social workers to visit the homes of "problem parents" and give them specific instructions. 

Oh... I see that my solution has already been proposed.  How wise!


----------



## elpoderoso

> What is the real issue, then?


I didn't say The real issue, i said real issues.


----------



## natasha2000

I think the problem is a little bit complicated than that. A lot of you are parents, so you must know how difficult is to be with your child all the time and dedicate them time they need, yet to be also a working person who also earns money that will buy food and clothes and education for your children. Some of the parents manage somehow to find the way to be a full time workers as well as to be always there when their child needs them (I personally admire such people, since I can hardly manage to take care of my dog, let alone fo a kid), but some of them don't. In the society what we have today, a lot of parents try to make up their presence with money and doing favors to a child no matter if it deserved or not, and usually this does not work. The result is a spoilt monster who brings nothing but troubles. The thing is that everyone has it's part of blame, both parents and society.
In Spain, working hours are simply terrible. When I think about that a parent goes to work at abour 8 in the morning and finishes at the earliest at 6, but in most of the cases they are at home at 7-8, I think that children are still ok, considering how rarely they see their parents...


----------



## fenixpollo

elpoderoso said:


> I didn't say The real issue, i said real issues.


 Oh, I understand now.  You're saying that the fact that people don't respect the police or their neighbors is not a real issue in society. 

I haven't seen the press release, but I doubt that any politician believes that their work can solve everybody's problems. They just want to work for the greater good and to help as many people as they can.  If Blair's "supernannies" can help a few dysfunctional families start functioning, that's a worthwhile cause.  A wall is built one stone at a time, after all.


----------



## cuchuflete

Reading this forum, I get the impression that many residents of the UK believe that their local and national government officials do a less than superlative job of--

-running a public transportation system
-choosing an appropriate foreign policy
-educating children in the schools

Given that as background, what leads anyone to believe that a government agency will be any good at teaching parenting skills to people who seem to need them?

Over on this side of the puddle, government was not competent to count the votes in a presidential election. Counting is less difficult than child-rearing isn't it?

My government has made some serious policy blunders as well.  Is this demonstrated proof of child behavior expertise?

Why turn to government to fix all the problems, when government is the source of so many problems? Is it just easier to hand responsability over to a faceless "they/them"?

Pssstt!  It doesn't work.


----------



## emma42

It simply isn't true that the anti-social behaviour exhibited by some minors is always the fault of the parents.  Many parents are at their wits' end regarding their offspring's behaviour.  Often, such behaviour is a result of wider environment.  Poverty-stricken estates are full of well-intentioned parents who do not know what to do to prevent their children associating with anti-social gangs.

As usual, this government is attempting to deal with a situation which is, in part, a result of long-term problems of alienation and deprivation in certain areas, by employing short-termism.  An Elastoplast will not protect or heal a gaping wound.

Also, I very much doubt that the initiative has been planned properly, or properly thought out.  Most activity will, no doubt, be farmed out to the private sector, thus placing the profit-motive where there should be no profit-motive.  And, no, I do not think the alternative is that it should be administered by a unwieldy and unaccountable government bureaucratic machine.


----------



## Redisca

cuchuflete said:


> Why turn to government to fix all the problems, when government is the source of so many problems? Is it just easier to hand responsability over to a faceless "they/them"?
> 
> Pssstt!  It doesn't work.


 Especially since, a government's efficiency and ability to do its job is inversely related to the size of its bureaucracy and the range of functions it performs.

Apropos, there is a program in the US of nurses visiting poor mothers and educating them about childcare.  The focus, however, is on basic newborn and infant care.  There was an interesting article about it in _The New Yorker_ a few months ago.


----------



## fenixpollo

cuchuflete said:


> Why turn to government to fix all the problems, when government is the source of so many problems? Is it just easier to hand responsability over to a faceless "they/them"?  Pssstt! It doesn't work.


 More and more people are breeding who are less effective at child-rearing than they are at using cell phones. The people who should be teaching them are not doing the teaching (or the message is not being received).  They should be taught better parenting skills.  Who should teach them?  





emma42 said:


> Also, I very much doubt that the initiative has been planned properly, or properly thought out. Most activity will, no doubt, be farmed out to the private sector, thus placing the profit-motive where there should be no profit-motive.


 I agree with emma; and I have even less faith in the amorality of the capitalist "private sector" than cuchu does in the ineptitude of the government.


----------



## la reine victoria

emma42 said:


> It simply isn't true that the anti-social behaviour exhibited by some minors is always the fault of the parents. Many parents are at their wits' end regarding their offspring's behaviour. Often, such behaviour is a result of wider environment. Poverty-stricken estates are full of well-intentioned parents who do not know what to do to prevent their children associating with anti-social gangs.


 

They could try spending more time with their children in the evenings and not allow them to go roaming around late at night.  Growing children need their sleep.  There are lots of things that parents and children can do together, even on a low budget.  If children know that they are loved, and have a happy home environment then they wouldn't feel the need to go aimlessly wandering the streets.  

Too many parents nowadays just tell their children to, "Buzz off and give me/us some peace."

There is no need to be "poverty-stricken".  There are plenty of jobs available for those who are willing to work.  The trouble is that too many are happy to sit on their backsides and accept hand-outs from tax payers' money.




LRV


----------



## natasha2000

la reine victoria said:


> They could try spending more time with their children in the evenings and not allow them to go roaming around late at night. Growing children need their sleep. There are lots of things that parents and children can do together, even on a low budget. If children know that they are loved, and have a happy home environment then they wouldn't feel the need to go aimlessly wandering the streets.
> 
> Too many parents nowadays just tell their children to, "Buzz off and give me/us some peace."
> 
> There is no need to be "poverty-stricken". There are plenty of jobs available for those who are willing to work. The trouble is that too many are happy to sit on their backsides and accept hand-outs from tax payers' money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LRV


 
I completely agree, Your Majesty!

Not all poor people have problematic children. As a matter of fact, I know a lot of rich people's children who are real, but real problem, and only because of what you say - they don't feel loved because their momies and daddies are too busy making money (or enjoying in it, what's even worse). On the other hand, I also know many very modest families whose children are example for well behaved children whose parents can only be proud of them.


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:


> Many parents are at their wits' end regarding their offspring's behaviour.



Sometimes the distance from wits' beginning to wits' end is a very short journey.
I think they need assistance in their parenting skills - and I think that part of this would have to involve incentives to limit family size to their ability to cope/provide/cater for themselves as a family. Should the notion, prevalent here in Ireland, in the U.K. and elsewhere, that the state will provide welfare benefits for multiple offspring be whacked on the head (by the way, what's the logic behind scrapping the CSA? Wasn't that supposed to be a form of deterrent to irresponsible parenting?) and possibly contraverted - could those requiring financial assistance to clothe, feed and house one child be financially deterred from thinking of having more by the threat of loss of benefits, or reductions thereof?

I honestly don't know the answers. But I agree with the sentiment that those who most need the advice of these supernannies are most likely to be the ones least likely to listen to it.

The consumer society breeds the notion that possessions will fulfil one. We know this isn't true and yet we base our societies on it - "because I'm worth it!" Why are the shops open later and later? So that you won't even have to wait until tomorrow to get your fix of *shopahol*. Stop thinking that we are what we have, and stop teaching this to the next generations.


----------



## emma42

Natasha, I did not say that all poor people have problem children, nor, for what it's worth, did I say that no rich people have problem children.  I gave an example, that is all.

Nor did I say that children's behaviour is never the fault of parents or carers.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

la reine victoria said:


> Too many parents nowadays just tell their children to, "Buzz off and give me/us some peace."



Or they simply buy them DVDs and a playstation just to keep them busy..


----------



## la reine victoria

And I agree with what you have to say, *Natasha*.  

The most vital thing to a child is to know that he is loved and wanted and that his parents care about where he is in the evenings.

Too many children are growing up in homes where they don't feel loved. Many are physically and mentally abused. If they weren't we would have no need for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

And it's true, many parents of modest means manage to raise children of whom they can be truly proud.




LRV


----------



## natasha2000

Emma, I was agreeing with LRV, but this does not mean I meant what you're saying. 

I have to admit that this problem is more complexed than we may think, that there is no absolute victims and absoulte guilty parties. There are parents that are to blame, but not all, there is also a great part of guilt on our society, as Maxi pointed out, andI liked very much his last sentence:


> Stop thinking that we are what we have, and stop teaching this to the next generations.


Even though a parent is not a cosumer type, a society makes them to be one. If I don't want to buy to my girl Barbie  (because I think Barbie doll teaches our daughters to be beautiful and stupid and to have as upmost aim to marry Ken), there are many parents who would buy it, because they simply cannot explain to their children why everyone can have Barbie, except her. As children grow up, we have to explain why we cannot buy them sports shoes that everuone wears but that cost 200 euros, etc, etc. I remember times when my mother said; No, I cannot buy you that, and I had to shut up and take it as granted, without any explanations. But today, it is different.
I also remember once, a 15 year old boy whom I was givin classes for some time, came once to class with new sports shoes he bought wit the money saved from his pocket money (it cost him many montsh of savings). He said: I go to the party tonight. Now I will strach my foot first into the house, and if no girl takes the bait, I will not even try to go in." It made me VERY sad...


----------



## elpoderoso

fenixpollo said:


> Oh, I understand now. You're saying that the fact that people don't respect the police or their neighbors is not a real issue in society.
> 
> I haven't seen the press release, but I doubt that any politician believes that their work can solve everybody's problems. They just want to work for the greater good and to help as many people as they can. If Blair's "supernannies" can help a few dysfunctional families start functioning, that's a worthwhile cause. A wall is built one stone at a time, after all.


No, what i meant, was that this proposal of using supernannies is stupid and pointless and seems to be an attempt to only scratch the surface of the problem. 
Of course I don't think antisocial behaviour is an irrelevant issue, it's just that this 'initiative' seems more aimed at making a good headline than solving the problem on a deeper level. If you read my post you might realize i was criticising the initiative not the importance of the issue.


----------



## fenixpollo

Thanks for the clarification, e.p.

So what's your solution for addressing the deeper, societal issue?


----------



## emma42

Mine is full, properly paid, secure employment, decent housing, top-class education for all, properly funded and run social services and NHS, more funding for the arts and sport, and free chocolate and strawberries for all!


----------



## cuchuflete

emma42 said:


> Mine is full, properly paid, secure employment, decent housing, top-class education for all, properly funded and run social services and NHS, more funding for the arts and sport, and free chocolate and strawberries for all!



All paid for by tax revenues, of course.  Oh, those bloody amoral capitalists...at least they are good for something!

We should, I presume, all work for "the government" in order to have a sinecure, with absolute job security regardless of how badly we bungle our missions.

Would you really trust your government to provide you with decent strawberries and chocolate?  Around here, that would likely result in those wooden Californian things that look great, taste like cardboard, and that atrocity called milk chocolate.
Thanks to amoral businesses, some of us are allowed to work to earn real dark chocolate, and strawberries with more flavor than insecticide.


----------



## emma42

Well, you are making some huge assumptions, cuchuflete.  No, I do not think these things should be paid for with taxes (heaven forfend that "those bloody amoral capitalists" should be in any way out of pocket). I think _you _should pay for them.


----------



## fenixpollo

I do not subscribe to the communist model in which everyone works for the government. In addition, I never said that capitalism shouldn't be trusted _at all_ -- it's good for providing goods and commercial services. It should not be trusted, however, for providing *social services*. By that I mean the services that should be available to members of society: health care, education, a military, the police, and some infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc.) are examples of this.


----------



## cuchuflete

Since we are trading generalities, and should thus be taken with a grain of proper municipal salt, why can't we agree that government should set social policies and objectives?  Once that is done, there is no particularly good reason not to contract out the implementation.  If a private sector vendor doesn't meet the government-set objectives, it wouldn't earn a profit or have its contract renewed.  If the state contracts with its own bureaucracy, there is less incentive to perform, and burrrocrats are famous for not punishing themselves in any way for not meeting their own objectives.

Education is open to both the state and the private sector, which while generally not profit seeking, is still fairly free to attempt to follow common sense some of the time.  In the US, some of the best research and teaching institutions are not state run.  A few of the best universities are state institutions.  All generalizations fail on this one.   However, at the elementary and high school level, parents who can afford private schools for their children frequently choose those, often at some considerable hardship, over state schools. Does the free market know something?


----------



## Redisca

"Private" is not the same as "for-profit", at least in the United States.  Private universities, hospitals, and primary schools are some of the not-for-profit organizations which provide services -- frequently (though not always) better than the government.

Similarly, "universal" is not the same as "free".  _Universal_ healthcare is not _free_ healthcare -- it is healthcare funded by the taxpayers, i.e. everyone who earns a living.  And, "bloody amoral capitalists" are neither the only taxpayers, nor do they constitute the lion's share of the taxbase.  The only way to make universal services free is not to work.

Therefore, those "free strawberries and chocolate" aren't free at all, at least to working people.  They may be cheap, but like chuchuflete, I personally don't want some bureaucrat to decide which strawberries and chocolate I should have.  I'd rather have the cash and buy my own goodies, thank you very much.



> No, I do not think these things should be paid for with taxes (heaven forfend that "those bloody amoral capitalists" should be in any way out of pocket). I think you should pay for them.


  Now I am confused.  Who is "you"?  Chuchuflete?


----------



## emma42

Yes, cuchuflete, the free market knows how to provide things for those who can afford them.

You are right that government bureaucrats are often unaccountable, but why use this as an argument to place unsuitable matters in the hands of profit-makers?  Why not argue for more government accountability?

Yes, redisca, I did mean cuchuflete.


----------



## cuchuflete

Government accountability is one of my favorite oxymorons.
It's right up there with military justice.


----------



## Redisca

Emma, sorry to butt in, but what about private organizations that aren't "profit-makers"?


----------



## emma42

cuchuflete said:


> Government accountability is one of my favorite oxymorons.
> It's right up there with military justice.



Cop out.

Redisca, are you talking about the "voluntary sector"?  If so, who will pay to run those organisations?


----------



## Redisca

emma42 said:


> Redisca, are you talking about the "voluntary sector"?  If so, who will pay to run those organisations?


  I am talking about the not-for-profit sector.  Those organizations are funded partially by their own earnings (i.e. 100% of what they earn is dedicated to future operating costs) and partially by private charitable endowments.  Seems to work very well here.


----------



## fenixpollo

cuchuflete said:


> Since we are trading generalities, and should thus be taken with a grain of proper municipal salt, why can't we agree that government should set social policies and objectives? Once that is done, there is no particularly good reason not to contract out the implementation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cuchu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, at the elementary and high school level, parents who can afford private schools for their children frequently choose those, often at some considerable hardship, over state schools. Does the free market know something?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes -- it knows that the government is not doing a good job at providing an universally high level of quality in its educational services.
Click to expand...


----------



## cuchuflete

fenixpollo said:


> cuchuflete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we are trading generalities, and should thus be taken with a grain of proper municipal salt, why can't we agree that government should set social policies and objectives? Once that is done, there is no particularly good reason not to contract out the implementation.  Yes -- it knows that the government is not doing a good job at providing an universally high level of quality in its educational services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are in full agreement.
> 
> My point was not to entrust profit-seeking enterprises with setting social policies.  Their self-interst would be in conflict with those to be served.  Let government set policy, and then
> at least consider whether implementation is apt to be done better by internal or outside agents.  Philadelphia outsourced its trash collection quite a while ago.  Results included better rubbish pick-up and lower costs.  The consumers/generators benefited, government stayed in full control of policy, and the job got done.  What's wrong with that? Even taxpayers came out ahead, with their contributions producing the outcome intended, with money left over for education and other government priorities.
Click to expand...


----------



## sundreez

Child rearing methods are mostly influence by culture. What is acceptable in one country may not be acceptable in another. Forms of discilpline for example, what is encouraged in one culture may have you arrested in another. As the saying goes, children do not come with an instruction book, so we make up the rules as we go. One interesting article outlines some of the differences.


----------

