If writers want to convince their readers of the validity or solvency of their views, the best bet usually is to provide statistical information or numerous factual references in support of an argument. Sometimes, however, there's just nothing like a good ol' shocking anecdote to get the point across. So here's my story:
The other day I picked up my son from daycare – my wife and I use a stay-at-home mom who runs a small service from an immaculately clean house – and his caregiver (we'll call her Laura*) told me that a county “child care” supervisor had informed her that she’d been written up for a supposed regulatory violation that took place a couple weeks prior, and that she would have to meet with a child services director to discuss disciplinary action that could potentially threaten her licensure.
What was this horrendous incident for which our daycare provider was reprimanded? The day the government inspector made a surprise home visit, Laura left a two-and-a-half-year-old boy to play by himself in a secured area while she answered the door. Apparently this child was “neglected” for the entire half-minute it took Laura to indulge this twit, and she maintains the boy was in her line of sight the entire time.
Let’s just say I think this entire fiasco is B.S., and that's putting it diplomatically. I know some people reflexively believe the government is responsible for monitoring these types of businesses because parents aren’t in other people’s homes or daycare facilities to keep an eye on their own kids – you'll no doubt be told about that one child in the news who was killed or abused by a home daycare provider (despite government regulations, no doubt) – but not only do I think these regulatory bodies are unnecessary, I don’t for a minute believe a government agency can protect kids in the first place.
For starters, most teachers and social workers will tell you it’s almost impossible to remove legitimate child abuse victims from their home environment. Because child protective service agencies usually have to announce visits and follow many other bureaucratic twists and turns (thankfully, I would argue, when it comes to the state), the kids who are in the most dire situations often are the ones who never get support anyway. In short, I believe there are kids who need help; I just don’t think it’s the government’s job to provide it.
So what generally happens instead? The government spends the balance of its time harassing and terrorizing perfectly normal, caring parents and daycare providers and their children. Just witness the 7-year-old boy who was abducted by the state recently and thrown into foster care for two days because his father mistakenly bought him alcoholic lemonade at a Detroit Tigers baseball game.
If the government wants to nitpick daycare services, perhaps it could pay a visit to the commercial center my wife and I used for a few months previously, only to exercise our free market right to withdraw our business because it often violated Maryland's law requiring at least one caregiver for every three infants. (For the record, I don’t agree with this law because parents are perfectly capable of determining the types of service they prefer/can afford, but this benefit happens to be one I demand regardless.)
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if these tax-funded home-checkers don’t even have kids of their own, but if they do, they know that babies put up all sorts of flags when they’re not happy. Without belaboring this point too much, my son rarely ate during the day at his former daycare and would cry all the way home after we picked him up. Whatever the reasons, he wasn’t happy. Thankfully, Laura's quality of care is like night and day compared to those other guys.
In fact, these days I can’t remember picking up my son after work and seeing boogers in his nose, dirt on his face, poop in his diaper, or a rash on his crotch – problems all at various points when it came to the last place we used. But apparently this matters not; it only matters that some government parasite can show up unannounced and make a chump case out of nothing at all.
For her troubles, Laura now gets to worry that her license will be yanked and that she’ll be thrown out of work; notwithstanding the fact that parents who pay for her services will have no daycare for their kids when she has to take the day off to fight these inane accusations, and they could potentially be robbed of Laura's care altogether at the hands of the state – all because of something that amounts to little more than a power trip. Moreover, it bears asking, how well is the state “protecting” children if it throws kids out of the hands of a loving caregiver?
Obviously, I hope everything works out here and that my son doesn't lose the best daycare option my wife and I have found to date. In reality, this charade is most likely all just part of the state’s quest to collect yet more revenue from the sheeple, this time in the form of a nice little fine, which will undoubtedly (and rightly) be passed on to customers.
There is much more we could discuss than this immediate issue alone – for instance, I could explain why licenses, certifications, and the like are largely worthless – but you get the idea. However, to take just this one example, what does it matter if daycare providers are “licensed” anyhow? Licensure is nothing more than a way for private companies to use the state to artificially limit competition, or in this case, for the government to fund busybodies to harass us under the pretense that it's providing some “service.”
If but one bona fide child abuse victim is whisked from an abuser as a result of government regulations, it’s hailed as an amazing success and used as fodder that simply justifies rounding up the rest of us under the state’s umbrella of tyranny on the off-chance it'll “save” someone else. But here’s the kicker: Any daycare provider who harms a child via negligence or violence can be sued, either civilly or criminally, regardless of whether she’s licensed by the state or not. So what’s next? State-sponsored spying on grandmothers who watch their grandchildren voluntarily during the day? Legislation allowing government thugs to peer through our windows to ensure kids are in their parents' midst 24/7?
Like anything else, the market will do a better job of protecting children than any government agency ever could. Parents free to make decisions about their children’s welfare on a daily basis are much more qualified to pass judgment than some government hack who comes around twice a year.
As it stands, we’re apparently left to watch as the state continually proves that all it’s really good at is destroying anything that makes our lives convenient, pleasurable, and, yes, safe.
*Laura is a pseudonym used to protect the identity of my son's daycare provider, who is being raked over the coals by the state for no apparent reason understood by rational human beings. The meaning of the name Laura is the laurel or sweet bay tree, symbolic of honor and victory.
May 3, 2008
