How narrow a perspective
Baron Max said:
The real issue, of course, is that there are tens of thousands of kids, all ages, that are simply abandoned on the streets of some of our major cities in the USA. Yet, no one seems to give a shit about them ...because they're "hidden", and the issue is "hidden", and no one wants to bring it up.
There are many people who do care. In some debates, though, the consideration of the over 110,000 kids "in the system"—to speak nothing, as such, of those to whom you refer, who aren't recognized at all—gets pushed aside because it's about God's will, or a microscopic mass of cells, or sexual orientation, or whatever.
In this case, though, there is a specific issue pertaining to a certain law.
You note—
But we make a big, big deal about a few kids in Nebraska who are, to say it like it is, turned over to the state. .....INSTEAD of dumping them onto the streets.
—and there are a couple of points to be made in response. One of which is that you are correct. But what this issue suggests is not entirely independent of the kids on the street.
I quoted last month, and again today, a social worker who talked about how many of these families are unaware of the services and agencies available to them. Between dropping them off at the hospital and dumping them on the street is a middle road that is not being taken. And that is where people are shocked and outraged. Yes, it's better to drop the kids at a hospital than dump them on the street, but this is, in many cases, about the parent's convenience. Better than dumping them on the streets, and better than abandoning them at a local hospital, what about using the resources available to troubled families for reconciliation and cohesion?
On the one hand, not every one of these kids is so troubled beyond repair. To the other, if they are, what does that say about what's going on in this country? Still, though, what are we saying about "family values"—on
any scale—that this is what it comes to? Once again we return to the proposition that parenthood is about the parents. This is problematic in many ways. After all, is it really the kids who are properly cared for and attended by their parents who are stealing your bike?
And worse, we want the stupid, fuckin' government to pass some more fuckin' laws that people won't follow anyway!
This point, more often than not when I encounter it, seems to be more about one person's disdain for government than anything else. After all,
any law can be broken. Murder, rape, speed limits, jaywalking. Why bother making
any laws?
And the question is not as much hyperbole as you might think. There are reasons for making laws, and whether a particular law is made according to those justifications is certainly a valid point. But if every time a law is brought into discussion, we must go all the way back to square zero in order to establish that human beings are social creatures that operate best in groups, that these groups tend to develop rules and customs for the benefit of both the individual and the collective, and that we have become philosophically advanced enough to recognize certain principles which seem very nearly immutable about how humans relate to one another, then we never will get around to considering the immediate point at hand.
We might look at one of your points to Asguard:
It's not the governments' place to do charity work!
That's nothing more than stealing money from some people to GIVE to a select few. That just ain't nice, no matter how you slice it.
Perhaps this point is functionally valid by your own perspective. (It is argumentatively valid in a broader context.) But this is the United States of America, Max, and the purpose of the government is established in the Constitution. Poverty relief can be said to pertain to the constitutional justifications of insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare, thereby establishing justice and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. The
form of how the government involves itself in certain affairs is obviously subject to question, but our government is ordained with certain ends in mind, and if one can justify a notion accordingly, without contradicting any other part of the constitutional framework, the principle is valid.
Unfortunately, such standards do not make governance, justice, or society easy.
As an example: Many fiscal conservatives who resent social welfare simultaneously advocate institutional—e.g. corporate—welfare. The argument here is that the charity benefits the community by protecting jobs and helping maintain a consistent standard of living. Likewise, though, social welfare does have measurable effects on community stability and quality of life.
The underlying question, of course, is whether any particular law or program achieves progress toward those ends. But that argument often gets set aside that we might bicker ceaselessly about how guv'mint is evil.
In the end, people find certain issues important because they are significant of greater considerations than the circumstance at hand. By gross numbers, I agree that thirty-four juveniles is, compared to the larger ills facing society, a fairly insignificant statistic. But such situations also hint after a spiritual—or, if you prefer, psychological—malaise affecting the present and future of our society.
And that is what causes people to take an interest in the issue.
