speaking of regulations

neptunechimney wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

neptunechimney wrote: [You believe the state should decide where acceptable parenting ends and negligence begins. I know it already does to some extent but where does it end? 1984?

LOL, it is rated R for really happening now.

You have got to be joking. Prohibiting children from operating dangerous machinery equals thought control? Give me a break.

Tell me, do you think it is too much government intrusion to prohibit kids from buying a fifth of whiskey?

No, I am not joking and that is not what I said.

Ok, let me rephrase it, please tell me if I am not understanding you.

You are saying that allowing the government to declare it illegal and negligient to allow a child under a certain age to operate farm machinery would be tantamount to a 1984-scenario?

AspenValley wrote: I've said it before in this thread but I'll say it again. It would be much, MUCH better if the PARENTS of these kids protected their own offspring but apparently they not only don't, but vehemently protest the idea of being expected to, if the responses on this thread are any indication.

Is anyone surprised if the government steps in such a case?

No, not at all. That is what happens when you remove all restraint from government and allow it to wield the unlimited power it has seized for itself in a quest to become a national government. It goes out looking for new ways to get more power still, so no, it doesn't surprise me that it would create a crisis that it needed to solve where no crisis exists to further that agenda.

<Ok, let me rephrase it, please tell me if I am not understanding you.

You are saying that allowing the government to declare it illegal and negligient to allow a child under a certain age to operate farm machinery would be tantamount to a 1984-scenario?>

Children grow and mature at different rates. It is the parents job to determine when their child is ready for different activities. Will they always be right, no. Can they be right and the child still has an accident, yes. Everyone has accidents.
Should big brother be able to legislate an arbitrary age and dictate it to parents? That is a step down a slippery slope.

AspenValley wrote:

neptunechimney wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

neptunechimney wrote: [You believe the state should decide where acceptable parenting ends and negligence begins. I know it already does to some extent but where does it end? 1984?

LOL, it is rated R for really happening now.

You have got to be joking. Prohibiting children from operating dangerous machinery equals thought control? Give me a break.

Tell me, do you think it is too much government intrusion to prohibit kids from buying a fifth of whiskey?

No, I am not joking and that is not what I said.

Ok, let me rephrase it, please tell me if I am not understanding you.

You are saying that allowing the government to declare it illegal and negligient to allow a child under a certain age to operate farm machinery would be tantamount to a 1984-scenario?

This is my take on it. It is not up to the Government to tell me as a parent how to raise my kids, what I allow my kids to do or not do. That is my job not thiers. And if I feel my son or daughter is capable of dealing with a damn fifth of whiskey then that is my problem. It is called parenting. I take full respondsibility for my decisions good or bad. (and no my kids were not allowed to go out drinking, I did now and then when they were in there teens to have a beer now and then). I look at my grown young adults that I raised and I know they are doing a damn good job with thier lives. I sure as hell did not need the government to raise them. The damn government needs to worry about dealing with the budget, unemployment, illegals, etc. Not about how parents are raising their kids.

Should we pass a law telling parents at what age their kids can play?




http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0991.html

I'm sorry, no matter how you all carry on about the "nanny state" and how I'm "worse than a terrorist" for thinking so, I think laws that place reasonable limits on what children should be allowed to do or not do are perfectly legitimate. I don't want to see little kids driving semis whether their parents think they are "mature" enough or not, I don't want to see children allowed to buy liquor whether their parents think it's fine or not, and I don't want to see little kids operating farm equipment whether their parents think it's fine or not.

I don't care if a an ADULT rides a tractor bare ass naked while standing on top of a live leopard, and I don't even think the law should limit an adult from smoking pot or drinking himself silly or whatever other idiotic thing he wants to do, although if he harms someone else in the process he needs to be held responsible, but I do think the law has the right to require that adults don't put children at risk.

Period.

I don't think you are worse than a terrorist for thinking so. Just very, very wrong in your vision of what power the government should have.

neptunechimney wrote: I don't think you are worse than a terrorist for thinking so. Just very, very wrong in your vision of what power the government should have.

Very, very wrong? So you think there shouldn't be minimum ages for kids to get drivers licenses, buy liquor or cigarettes, have consenual sex? There shouldn't be any legal accountability for parents who let their kids run wild, drink alcohol, drive vehicles, harm themselves or others? There shouldn't be any laws about negligence or irresponsible parenting? Ther shouldn't be any legal protection for kids to protect them from dangerous workplaces or parents who decide they need a few extra bucks so send their kids to work in a coal mine or foundry?

That may sound like paradise to some of you but it sounds more like the other place to me.

AspenValley wrote:

neptunechimney wrote: <snip>

Those of you who whine and cry about regulations ought to stop and realize they are often put in place because too many people fail to or don't have the sense to regulate themselves. You may have the right to do any damn fool dangerous thing you want, but you don't have the right to put kids in harm's way. I'd feel exactly the same way about a parent that let their kid die of a treatable disease because they felt it was their "right" not to seek treatment.

No regulations are put in place not by the majority, but by some well intentioned bureaucrat who thinks his way is the best way. That is what is BS and raises my blood pressure. The people who actually do the work or perform the tasks at hand RRELY have a say beforehand. The Waco Tx situation is a good testing ground, I'd think. We shall see. FIrstly, most do not have the time to spare lobbying against the proposed regulation. Secondly, most often the regulation is put through and it takes too much effort for most to oppose it. I think it would be a most interesting exercise to see the response of people on a variety of regulations that affect their work in various disciplines ad see if they want them or not.

What all this reminds me of is a legal case I sat in on while in graduate school. A person sued the company because he lost fingers in a meat grinder. Now mind you, there was a sign up that said, "Do not put hands into grinder while operating" . So what does this person do? He sticks his hand in there and then blames the company demanding compensation. He did not get compensated. It's the same mentality that fuels many regulations. Hell that is dangerous, look he lost his fingers in an accident using a meat grinder. Oh, let's propose a law that requires employers using meat grinders to provide steel gloves and have automatic cut offs. Yep, it is dangerous. A meat grinder grinds meat. Duh. Common sense tells you not to stick your hand in there when its operating. DHU. You do not need a regulation to govern its use. A table saw is a dangerous piece of equipment. I saw my father cut his hand with it, and many woodworkers have lost digits. I suppose we will need people to become certified to use a table saw. Hell every piece of equipment I know off has a certain amount of danger associated with it. Let's get regulations that require licensing for all of them before you are allowed to use them. Stupid examples? Yes. But so is the whole farm issue. You want to cite examples of accidents that did happen. Can you show what percentage those accidents represent out of all the kids that work on farms? No. You throw in some made up number that you hope will impress others to bow to your cause. If you want to play, at least be honest in what you do with your arguments. And the last part was not directed at you AV.

Let me just make something clear....I have NO sympathy for some idiot who misuses something like a meat grinder and then wants someone else to pay for his stupidity.

That kind of example has nothing to do what I am talking about.

What I am talking about is CHILDREN, who by definition do not have the life experience and maturity of an adult. Most parents are going to have common sense and protect their children from situations they are not ready for. But what about those who don't?

Maybe there are older kids who are indeed capable and mature enough to operate machinery like this after some parental instruction. But from this thread, we have heard at least one person who called me every name in the book for suggesting that I would question the judgement of someone who thought an eight year old kid was capable of safely operating farm machinery.

And I stand by that. Eight year olds are nowhere near physically, emotionally or intellectually capable of understanding the dangers and responsibilities of such a task. Yet there are evidently people who would stick an eight year old on a tractor without a second thought. In my opinion, that is out and out negligence and there should be a legal mechanism to protect such children if their own parents don't have the sense to protect them.

And I really don't care if every one of you thinks I am wrong or even throw nasty insults and belittling comments at me.