Although the article was extremely biased and was very clear about its bias, I think it made some good points that I agree with. I had no idea about the parents being arrested for “negligence” and even losing custody of children. What I want to know is where that line is drawn - do you escort your 13 year-old and her friends to a movie in the theatre, or refuse to let your 9 year-old walk two blocks home after school? Is there a specific age or distance from parents or time period unattended where they draw the line between negligence and responsibility? At what point is it legally appropriate to let your child drive around by themselves or spend a night home alone? However, coming from a recent project in statistics regarding the presentation of facts in articles, I have to point out that this author used all the same facts (parents arrested for negligence) but was using this information to cover a variety of difficult and very different issues regarding government involvement. The opening sentence talked about invading our privacy regarding the 4th amendment but it never mentioned facts that would back that claim up or make me believe the government was too involved in my private life.
I do agree that the government has become too involved with citizens and has invaded too many of our rights, but I also believe they have provided security and safety for us through invading some of these privacies. If they didn’t overstep some boundaries then millions of infants/children/pets would die from heat exhaustion in cars each year. Citizens would develop health disorders such as diabetes on a much more frequent rate if there were no food regulations. There’s a possibility we could have twice as many gun incidents if every state were allowed to distribute guns at it’s leisure. I think arresting parents for letting kids ride scooters in the neighborhood is overstepping a boundary, and I think listening to phone conversations without permission violates my privacy rights. I believe the government has overstepped many boundaries, and will continue to overstep many more without intervention, but I don’t think denying the government access to all rights and privacies is in our best interest either. Buying an inefficient toilet might be a right you have, but some rights affect people/things other than yourself. There is no clear definition on where to draw this line and no way to decide what was overstepping boundaries except on a case by case basis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/the-tyranny-of-the-nanny-_b_5669433.html
I do agree that the government has become too involved with citizens and has invaded too many of our rights, but I also believe they have provided security and safety for us through invading some of these privacies. If they didn’t overstep some boundaries then millions of infants/children/pets would die from heat exhaustion in cars each year. Citizens would develop health disorders such as diabetes on a much more frequent rate if there were no food regulations. There’s a possibility we could have twice as many gun incidents if every state were allowed to distribute guns at it’s leisure. I think arresting parents for letting kids ride scooters in the neighborhood is overstepping a boundary, and I think listening to phone conversations without permission violates my privacy rights. I believe the government has overstepped many boundaries, and will continue to overstep many more without intervention, but I don’t think denying the government access to all rights and privacies is in our best interest either. Buying an inefficient toilet might be a right you have, but some rights affect people/things other than yourself. There is no clear definition on where to draw this line and no way to decide what was overstepping boundaries except on a case by case basis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/the-tyranny-of-the-nanny-_b_5669433.html