speaking of regulations

archer wrote: Im not sure where I sit on this issue. I have always been against the nanny state regarding regulating adults....anti smoking regs, seat belts etc. Treat adults as adults and let them assess the risks and make their decisions. With children....it gets murky. Where do we draw the line between parental responsibility and abuse or endangerment of a child? If we say OK..spank your child if you feel that is appropriate, what about parents who lock their kid in a dog cage or closet as punishment? What about parents who leave little kids alone all day or night? Or parents who withhold food or water as punishment? Is that any worse than allowing a little kid to operate dangerous machinery? I don't know...where DO we draw the line....should there even be a line, or do we stand by and let parents do whatever they want with their own kids? I think we need laws to protect children who cannot protect themselves against adults in a position of authority be they parents, teachers, priests, coaches or whoever. It's determining where that line should be that is hard.

We can always find exceptions can't we. Do we regulate for exceptions or responsible parenting? Obviously the intent is regulate extreme cases of misguided parenting. Unfortunately, like the lemonade stand thread, well intended regulation is the inappropriately applied. Best not to have regulations than to have them. Using the example you cite about children being left home all day. How old, up to 18???? What about the single parent who has to work to support his family, barely makes enough to do that and can't afford a service to take care of his youngsters? Do you chastise him or her, perhaps fine them or send them to jail or worse yet, take their kids away because they obviously are not parenting up to our standards, when in fact they may be far better parents than any of us are because once their workday is done they care about their kids in ways we admire. Yet, laws are laws aren't they. Where in the hell is common sense and reserving judgement and with it regulations until one has the whole picture? No, if we focus on the negative exceptions we all want to do something about it. But why is it that we need to have the government involved? Why not us, the community????? Likely because we'd rather shunt that burden and dehumanize the problem since it makes it easier to regulate. After all the law is the law. BS Even in extreme case of child abuse, a community can be just as effective and perhaps more so than any bureaucracy. But that's been taken away from us already. I just can't help wonder how all those kids of the past ever made it to become adults? You might just begin to acknowledge that kids in general are a lot more talented, responsible, and able than many adults provided they are allowed to become that way. Taking away things will never give them an opportunity to learn, even those things that are very dangerous.

OK I think I'm done here. lol

Rockdoc.....no need to rant at me, I am simply asking the question. Obviously this is a subject you feel passionately about, but I made no claims one way or the other, just asked the question. I admitted I have mixed feelings about this whole regulation of activity issue, please don't place me on one side or the other. The only laws I agree with are those that protect children from physical abuse, and sexual abuse, and pun ish those who do obvious harm to children.

Oh.....I was talking about people who go out and party at night leaving a 3 or 4 year old alone at night in hopes he/she sleeps and doesn't have a problem, or a baby......not a preteen or teenager.

I wish that the abuse of children were actually an exception not the rule, but what I see and read puts the lie to that hope.....too many parents have kids without a clue how to care for them or provide them a nurturing environment. I'd like to think that society would set it right, but too often we ignore the problem, even if it is right next door. Are laws the answer? probably for actual abuse, but that again brings up what is abuse and what is not. What a hornets nest to figure out what is right and what is not.

archer wrote: I wish that the abuse of children were actually an exception not the rule, but what I see and read puts the lie to that hope.....too many parents have kids without a clue how to care for them or provide them a nurturing environment. I'd like to think that society would set it right, but too often we ignore the problem, even if it is right next door. Are laws the answer? probably for actual abuse, but that again brings up what is abuse and what is not. What a hornets nest to figure out what is right and what is not.

There is a simple answer. Make pregnancy illegal until a licence has been issued by the state. It would prevent a lot of tragedies, but at what price.


[youtube:3gbzzsdv][/youtube:3gbzzsdv]

Archer, I am passionate about this issue and it is not my intent to single you or anyone in particular out. My intent is to speak my mind on the subject. It is a hornet's nest as you put it. All the more reason to seek alternatives to government regulations to my way of thinking. There are no easy answers, not even for a parent. The one point I do wish to make is that my introduction to heavy equipment operation came in response to my eagerness as a kid to learn and demonstration to my father's satisfaction that I was capable of handling the responsibility. Play games or do something stupid and you were off the equipment in a heartbeat. He nor most farmers today can afford broken equipment much less personal accidents.

Situations you cite as examples of child abuse are that for sure. Selfish and irresponsible parents that likely exhibit the same lack of responsibility out in the working world. Still they are the exception rather than the rule on a percentage basis. We can't have prohibitive laws that potentially threaten everyone with a broad brush based on exceptions. I feel that the whole matter of farm equipment operation falls under the same kind of argument. There is a fine line that a parent walks in raising kids but if a parent occasionally missteps one way or another is not grounds for others to impose their will because they see it as abuse. Their approach is not necessarily the best or most appropriate approach for a child, even if they think so because they have the child's well being at heart. A farmer who hits his kid after they tipped over and broke the hay wagon because of foolishness does so in part our of anger and frustration and to a large degree because they know a stupid thing like that could have led to an accident and he was fearful for his kid's well being. His discipline left a painful temporary as well as lasting impression. Sometimes pain is the best teacher. There are lots of people out there who parent a certain way that make me think this is going to lead to disaster. You know what? Those kids still grow up to be great kids despite of what I thought or their parents did. There is far more to this matter than protectionism and a approved set of parenting skills. Somehow each parent shapes a child through their interaction from an early age and that child generally responds best to a consistent set of parental guidance whatever that may be. Our persistent readiness to impose our own methods, limits, etc. are simply not warranted nor wanted. Neither is more government and well-intentioned beings in our personal life. Lend a hand when asked for or offer it, but do not insist on it being accepted.

This entire thread has been about regulating to prevent young children from driving farm machinery. I wonder how many actually read the article linked in the first post. It only mentions children as an aside. More troubling to me is the premise behind the proposed regulation:

Concerned with the amount of farm equipment making short hops between fields and down public roadways, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is considering whether or not to classify agricultural machines like tractors as "commercial vehicles," requiring a CDL to operate.

The requirements would subject farmers to the same rules governing truck drivers, requiring them to keep logs and limit their hours.

Commercial Drivers Licenses are required for driving commercial busses or semi trucks. The rules and regulations for those activities do not seem to be appropriate for a farmer on his own property, or even for a short time on public roads between fields.

This proposal is MUCH MORE than simply preventing 'children' from driving farm equipment.

OK ... you may now go back to debating appropriate child rearing issues....

That's half the fun of 285Bound...discussions morph all the time and no one raps our knuckles over it. (Would that be poster abuse? )

ShilohLady wrote: This entire thread has been about regulating to prevent young children from driving farm machinery. I wonder how many actually read the article linked in the first post. It only mentions children as an aside. More troubling to me is the premise behind the proposed regulation:

Concerned with the amount of farm equipment making short hops between fields and down public roadways, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is considering whether or not to classify agricultural machines like tractors as "commercial vehicles," requiring a CDL to operate.

The requirements would subject farmers to the same rules governing truck drivers, requiring them to keep logs and limit their hours.

Commercial Drivers Licenses are required for driving commercial busses or semi trucks. The rules and regulations for those activities do not seem to be appropriate for a farmer on his own property, or even for a short time on public roads between fields.

This proposal is MUCH MORE than simply preventing 'children' from driving farm equipment.

OK ... you may now go back to debating appropriate child rearing issues....

I totally agree with you. And thank you for getting this back on topic. And you know you can't get a CDL in any state until you are 18. So we don't need to talk about 8 and 12 year olds. We are also talking about 16 and 17 year olds who have grown up on their family farm their whole lives and can drive a car but can't get on a tractor to help out the family in the field.

ShilohLady wrote: This entire thread has been about regulating to prevent young children from driving farm machinery. I wonder how many actually read the article linked in the first post. It only mentions children as an aside. More troubling to me is the premise behind the proposed regulation:

Concerned with the amount of farm equipment making short hops between fields and down public roadways, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is considering whether or not to classify agricultural machines like tractors as "commercial vehicles," requiring a CDL to operate.

The requirements would subject farmers to the same rules governing truck drivers, requiring them to keep logs and limit their hours.

Commercial Drivers Licenses are required for driving commercial busses or semi trucks. The rules and regulations for those activities do not seem to be appropriate for a farmer on his own property, or even for a short time on public roads between fields.

This proposal is MUCH MORE than simply preventing 'children' from driving farm equipment.

OK ... you may now go back to debating appropriate child rearing issues....

WINNER


adding to the expenses for farmers.