Upcoming attempts at over-regulation in South Dakota

An article by Russ Keen printed in today's Aberdeen American News notes how the Executive Director of South Dakota Voices for Children, Susan Randall, is going to try to force licensing on those day care providers who care for fewer than 13 children this next legislative session:

The state requires licensing only for those who care for 13 or more children a day. That could change. The 2007 South Dakota Legislature likely will be presented with another bill to require licensing for those who care for fewer than 13 or at least for those who care for seven or more, said Susan Randall, executive director of South Dakota Voices for Children based in Sioux Falls.

Cities can have their own rules. Aberdeen has no ordinances on child care, but building codes address it, with regulations that apply regardless of how many kids are cared for.

and..

"Often a parent's relationship with the child-care provider is such that the parent would be seen as a busybody if (she or he) went around the house and checked for safety features," Randall said.

So why not let the state do the checking, Randall asked.

Why not let the State do the checking? And at the same time, why don't we let the State wipe our bottoms while we're at it? For another point of view, let's look at what (likely opponent to the measure) Cindy Flakoll has to say:

The most important thing is making sure parents continue to control how their children are raised, said Cindy Flakoll of rural Leola. That's why she opposes more state child-care regulations, particularly on on smaller, home-based providers in rural areas.

Flakoll said she sees growing belief among professional educators that public-school systems and state education departments should oversee children's development and education from birth. That's disturbing because parents should be the overseers, Flakoll said.

Read all of this article here.

This one hits particularly close to home for me, since over the course of my child rearing years (which still continue) I'm a conspicuous consumer of day care services. I've had my kids with licensed providers and unlicensed providers, and I've had good experiences and bad experiences. In one instance, over the course of several years, I've had a good experience which went to bad as the provider became seemingly (at least to us) disinterested and only did it because she always had.

In each and every case, if you can't tell from the bottom wiping comment above, I've found that the best arbiter of what is good and what is bad has been... well, my wife and I. Yes, "us parents" as consumers of child care services managed to figure out what was best for our children at a given point. And believe it or not, we didn't need the State's intervention to tell us. We used personal references and observation, and somehow managed to do it without a governnmental registry.

For most of my life, I guess I've had a lot of trouble with government continually encroaching in the realm of what should be personal decisions and responsibility. And this is no different.

Don't get me wrong. I strongly believe in the purpose of government. I believe in supporting it. (I must, I even claim the stuff I've sold on eBay as income). In all of history, I think no scholar would deny that the American system of government is the most successful form of government that has ever sprung forth on this planet.

But consider this - As we ask government to make more and more decisions for us, we're giving up more and more in the realm of personal responsibility. And moreso, the more we're giving up in the free authority that we allow ourselves to exercise.

In many places around the world and throughout history, freedom and rights are taken away by war, and dictators overthrowing free governments. In this day and age, we seem to be giving up our right to chart our own course through disinterest and attrition.

And generally, it's not taken away in big bites. It's a nibble of newfound illegality here, a crumb of regulation there. But over the course of years it adds up. Can anyone say that the American system is a freer system today, in comparison to 50 years ago?

So, back to the issue of allowing people to care for children - as they have for years - for 12 children or fewer without a license. I'd ask - would this measure increase our personal or our society's freedom or liberty? And if not, is the corresponding surrender of minor personal rights (or in this case, our personal decision making) to the government worth what we get in return?

In this case, I'd say that it fails both tests.

Comments

Bob Newland said…
"For most of my life, I guess I've had a lot of trouble with government continually encroaching in the realm of what should be personal decisions and responsibility." --PP

Is that a fact? Maybe you should reread your comments in the Medical Cannabis topic post immediately below this topic.
Anonymous said…
He's got you there, PP.
Anonymous said…
So this means you're voting no on 6 as well, correct?
Anonymous said…
We should send Susan R. to one of the coasts, or maybe Europe, as soon as possible. She and this bill are BAD news. PS- to make it easy, I'm voting "YES" on everything!
PP said…
Bob -

At least for my life's duration, Marijuana has been illegal.

You want to legalize it as an almost totally unregulated pharmaceutical produced in "some dude's basement" as opposed to a phamecuetical produced in a laboratory under strict quality controls, and strongly monitored and regulated because of the potential for abuse.

I like beer myself, but I do recognize the government's interest in regulating it's combination with driving.

In both cases, it serves a legitimate public interest of safety, and in both, studies bear that out.

In this instance, I'd err on the side of public safety.

And anon 11:40, while I prefer the rape and incest exceptions personally, I'm sure the subject of the procedure would disagree with you.
Bob Newland said…
No, PP, I want the gummint to allow people to have the benefits of the most versatile plant on earth at least for its recognized benefits in alleviating the symptoms (and sometimes the cause) of debilitating medical conditions.

I also want the gummint to stop subsidizing illegal drug dealers by eliminating their competition and artificially supporting the prices, which are 905 driven by the fact of illegality.

You, on the other hand, seem perfectly satisfied to support a system that provides unfettered access to potentially-harmful drugs by children.
Bob Newland said…
"905" in my last post should have been "90%".
Bob Newland said…
"I like beer myself, but I do recognize the government's interest in regulating it's combination with driving."--PP

Yeah, so? What does that have to do with the question at hand?



"In both cases, it serves a legitimate public interest of safety, and in both, studies bear that out."

What study can you cite that demonstrates a "public interest" aspect to prohibiting sick, disabled and dying people from access to medicine that works for them?
Anonymous said…
Newland, get a job.
Bob Newland said…
I have a job; saving the state from morons like you.
Bob Newland said…
"It's not taken away in big bites. It's a nibble of newfound illegality here, a crumb of regulation there. But over the course of years it adds up. Can anyone say that the American system is a freer system today, in comparison to 50 years ago?"--PP

Of course not, and people like you are the problem. Prostituting themselves for money and pats on the back while promoting people who agree with you on a few issues you deem important enough to impose on everyone. Al the while exhibiting no consistent political or moral principle.

You can't tell us, for instance, why it is of an over-riding public interest to try to prohibit adults from ingesting anything they want to ingest in the privacy of their own homes. Private property and individual sovereignty are Republican sacrosancts -- unless the behavior performed on private property and by individuals happens to annoy a Republican legislator.
Bob Newland said…
"I'd ask - would this measure increase our personal or our society's freedom or liberty? And if not, is the corresponding surrender of minor personal rights (or in this case, our personal decision making) to the government worth what we get in return? In this case, I'd say that it fails both tests."--PP

As with most folks with no consistent moral compass--especially those who promenade themselves as pundits, PP hoists himself on his own petard. Pretend the answer above is to the question, "Should marijuana be prohibited to adults?"
K said…
You want to legalize it as an almost totally unregulated pharmaceutical produced in "some dude's basement" as opposed to a phamecuetical produced in a laboratory under strict quality controls, and strongly monitored and regulated because of the potential for abuse.

I would disagree that this is the view of most supporters of medical marijuana. I'm all for regulating the hell out of it, just like beer and aspirin. Hey, tax it, too! Under those circumstances, would you be in favor of legalizing it, PP?
Anonymous said…
Bob, from whom do you draw your paycheck?
Bob Newland said…
You tell me first.
Anonymous said…
OK, I believe you are a parasite without a job who eats out of the public trough and uses his welfare check to buy dope, all the while claiming to have some sort of debilitating affliction that prevents you from working & requires that you toke up.

There. I told you. Now, am I right?
Bob Newland said…
You're exactly right. I'm just like the rest of the employees of the Republican Party.
Anonymous said…
Wow, Newland must have switched to something stronger
Anonymous said…
Wait. The reason for making pot illegal is that it is illegal? Good reasoning.
Bob's nice twin said…
it never stopped being illegal, despite Doobie Brother Bob's attempts.
Anonymous said…
Check it out! Billion's brother doesn't back him, and Bob brother doesn't back him.
Anonymous said…
*Bob's
Anonymous said…
Hey, Newland. Quit hijacking threads on an entirely different subject!
Anonymous said…
AMEN to 6:08. I'm not a fan of fanatics of any sort. Newland needs to get a life (or a job?).
Susan R. is also against Shared Parenting. Where many other neignboring states have passed or are in the process of passing Shared Parenting laws, Susan is fighting the one in South Dakota.

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over