Child services and Sartrean existentialism: the state’s accursed role
Child services exist to protect children from unruly parents but are they a neutral actor?
Parents generally have say about their children’s lives. The government cannot intervene into the household. Private property isolates the citizen from the government’s clutches. This privacy protects liberty but those in the household may not be protected. If the state protects its citizens then citizens who are harming their children must be removed. The government is a protector. Its job is not to invest in people’s privacy. The entire purpose of the state is to allow people to live in their own harmonious orchards. Taxes for protection. One’s home is their own is their safe space. The government has no right to intervene in their lives. The way a parent wishes to raise their children is their right. The way a husband wishes to treat his wife is his duty. The state can only recommend methods or at most demand public appearances. The privacy of home is dedicated to the privacy of the individual. The state can control the norms of the street but cannot of the private sector.
On ethical grounds, the state’s intervention is an abuse of power. The state acts as a defender against foreign threats not familial drama. Attempting to exert its control is tyrannical. There are rights to that family to do as they wish. Their model is their own. The state cannot go any further than the public street. Legislating that certain models must be upheld publicly is acceptable but up until the lawn. No further can the government trek. While government is known for its misuse of authority does not abrogate the line dividing man and the state. The state acts independently of the people. The people are entitled to their own way of life inside the home. A haven away from the public sphere. The state still had reservations. There were always persecuting offences. Jews could not practice their Judaism and persecuted for belief yet at home it was dangerous but possible. Hiding away in one’s house fends off the governmental oversight. Avoiding governmental surveillance.
The onset of human rights guaranteed freedom from institutional harassment. Less state interventionism and more freedom for people to live as they pleased. The democratic hope promised an end to tyranny. No longer would the state involve itself in other people’s lives. That was the curse of medieval religiosity. Forcing people to convert or die. Forcing families to live by a certain doctrine. With a new model, freedom was provided in the privacy of homes. The state is in charge but only so far. It has its role and that ends at the curb. The hierarchical family failed to change. Men ruled the house and women were and children were his dependents. What happened in the confines of the home were in the vested interest of the husband. Not much else could be done. Yet it was a husband’s duty and prerogative. The government had no say into how a husband wished to run his household. It was his right and he did as he desired. Only with female empowerment did laws begin to change.
Laws began to change for women but not so for children. While progress has reduced the punishments of sacrifice to murder to slavery to whipping, the parental control of a child is still attached at the hip. Children are dependent on their parents and thus are deserving of punishment if they act out of line. Children owe their lives to their parents’ intimacy. Governmental intervention praised for female aid. Not perfect but a big swing in the past centuries (though heavily biased against males over female perpetrators). Children unlike their mothers do not possess the same intelligence to do anything about it. They are young and ignorant. Powerless and fearful. Unable to transcend the threshold to get authorities involved. Uncertain of the consequences that may follow. Intervention is at times unavailable or unwilling. It was only in the late nineteenth century that child abuse was even brought up as a possibility. Parents have authority insofar as they do it correctly. Maltreatment is grounds for dismissal if courted and guilty.
While there are legal and social avenues out there, it does not mean that they are tenable nor effective. It comes down to children speaking up. Children need to speak up about the issue or no one knows about it. Bruises can be hidden and stories concocted to sway away from abuse. Privatised groups obviously entered the fray first. Capitalising on the lack of federal assistance. The government didn’t want to intervene and public outrage would’ve been inevitable. In time organisations popped up and attempted to overturn the long standing norm. One evolving from persecuting death to persecuting wounds. Technology and advanced medicine have been able to deduce whether a wound was accidental or deliberate. Doctors in good conscience could analyse and bring it to the appropriate authorities. Yet if the child never went to the doctor then little assistance can be done. If the problem never reaches the street the child cannot be helped. Many cases are from onlookers either guessing or suggesting a potential problem. A big offence but one with tragic consequences. Without intervention, the children are doomed to suffer.
These organisations emerging have benefited children greatly. Protecting them from abuse and giving them a home away from the cruelty. While imperfect as any other institutional program there is a betterment to the child’s life. Non-profits have jumped on the bandwagon to do what they can to help children in dire situations. There is a lot of legal handiwork but the goal is that they deserve to be treated correctly. The government stepping in is writing a wrong. Parental authority only goes so far. There is a limit to one’s ability to educate a child. Buckling up on permissibility heightens the child’s personification. They are not solely someone’s daughter but a citizen of the state. The state must protect them. Parental consent is a closer eye but protection must be domestic all the same. Abuse is overpowering the weak. The government seeks to protect the weak. Thus using a battering ram to dislodge a child from a dangerous parent. Hellbent on ensuring the child’s safety as a citizen of the state, a deserving member of society.
A child belongs to the state as much as they belong to the parent. Yet potentially even more so. Un-ironically reverting to an age old custom of the state’s enforcement of the family. Though with better intentions here. The state’s goal is to overtake the parental’s neglect for concern. The state has the power and the obligation to preserve the liberty of that child. If the child’s liberty is at stake due to parental nuisance then it must be removed from the house. A unilateral investment in a child’s future. Clawing the child away from the gnawing parental shark teeth. The state’s interest to protect its citizens. Thus even in the case of an illegal child, born on American soil is privy to the privileges of the citizen life. Every child deserves to be protected and no parental extremism will halt such progress. The state has a moral obligator but also a possibility to derail parental authority for state salvation. The state is the ultimate protector not the parental enclosed cubits. The medieval harassment is a prayer of hope for the child’s future.
The first step is gracious. Yet what about communist children taken from their homes. Don't worry. They are parents spilling fascism into their children’s ears. They are corrupting them and need to be removed. What is considered dangerous may evolve from physical assault to ideological damage. The state’s power rests in a physical stimulation. Yet this solely is the first step. The individuality of the child is to be preserved. A strong Sartrean idea. Yet in society there is no being. Being is always linked to something. Whether that be a family or the state. No one is truly ever free. The man of the forest or living on an island is technically absolutely free though he belongs to those locations. It’s a tautology in this instance. For the child of a democratic society just as in the medieval institutionalism, the child is a product of the state. While family law separates there is a line. If the family opposes federal intent then the authority may grasp at ideological diversity. Only those with the same ideology can stay. Only Christian children and only capitalist children.
Is teaching religion or creationism abusive? To what degree does the government intervene. It’s only an ideology. It isn’t hurting the children but it is creating a monolithic culture. What about racist and sexist ideas. The lack of physical torture seems to undermine the protective services capability. That is for now. Though public school curriculums are endowed with certain models. The next step is outlawing certain parenting educational forums. Whether they be nasty or beneficial. It doesn’t matter. The state is not a natural exerciser but an agenda-seeking phoney. To what extent will legislation seek to separate children from their parents. They belong to the state and the state wishes them to be this way. The Sartrean ethos may be shouted but it is a lie. Their being is directly linked to their belonging to the state. The state does not wish to liberate them so they are free to roam around as they please. Instead they are freed to follow the state’s advice. Quite nefarious in this mark. Capitalising in the institutional power lost in the past few centuries. A frightening but plausible near future with quasi-police state rhetoric to ensure model citizens under the auspices of federal desires.
The state is no one’s friend. Services at the start are always well-intentioned. Children must be protected but always be weary of how this may open pandora’s box. It may seem great at the beginning but it may evolve into a dangerous foe. Unable to do anything other than secretly teach children their heritage in the basement. Away from the police chattering. The inquisition may emerge once again just this time against the former perpetrators. It is too soon to tell but there are periodic cases popping up everywhere. Just be aware of the possibility. The honourable state is a lot more selfish than it lets on. Liberty is curbed to their wishes. Stay alert.
No comments:
Post a Comment