Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
And Don't Let Us Catch You Being Neighborly Again
State bureaucrats threaten to fine, jail a Michigan woman for watching her neighbors' kids.
Lisa Snyder of Middleville says her neighborhood school bus stop is right in front of her home. It arrives after her neighbors need to be at work, so she watches three of their children for 15-40 minutes until the bus comes.
The Department of Human Services received a complaint that Snyder was operating an illegal child care home. DHS contacted Snyder and told her to get licensed, stop watching her neighbors' kids, or face the consequences.
"It's ridiculous." says Snyder. "We are friends helping friends!" She added that she accepts no money for babysitting...
A DHS spokesperson would not comment on the specifics of the case but says they have no choice but to comply with state law, which is designed...
...wait for it...
...to protect Michigan children.
|9.26.09 @ 1:31PM|#
The MI-DHS idiots are not redeemable...but would Snyder be blamed if the twisted knickers snitch's house fell to say, a natural gas leak and explosion?
|9.26.09 @ 1:33PM|#
And the fact that a law's effects aren't consistent with its
design would make a reasonable person question whether the law
should be changed or repealed or something.
I'll leave it to the gentle reader to draw any conclusions about
the reasonableness of Michigan DHS officials.
|9.26.09 @ 1:36PM|#
Having RTFAed, Reason's doom and gloom patrol left out the part of the story where a state legislator is drafting legislation to exempt those who don't get paid from child-care rules.
DJF|9.26.09 @ 1:47PM|#
That is one of the big problems with government, we want a "rule of law" to stop government officials being arbitrary but laws are blunt instruments and often don't fit the situation.
|9.26.09 @ 1:47PM|#
Tulpa,
Why should it be necessary for law-makers to give people permission
to do this?
Roger Koppl|9.26.09 @ 1:51PM|#
Man! This is the very definition of tyranny: subject to the arbitrary power of specific persons vested with athority. Thankfully, it is not tyranny on a grand scale, but 1) it is full-on tyranny and 2) it creates a genuine hardship for the mother.
|9.26.09 @ 2:03PM|#
I know it's cliche, but the polity has a compelling interest in protecting minors from unethical adults. In a case like this it's obvious that this woman isn't harming the children in any way, but it's different when you're talking about one of these day care factories where scores of children are herded like so many cattle for hours at a time.
|9.26.09 @ 2:05PM|#
Right on Moon. Years ago, our house was the after school asylum. I never charged anything. It turned out that there wasn't a home repair the girls' father couldn't do. So I guess since I recieved some compensation, I should have had to ask government for a license.
Paul|9.26.09 @ 2:06PM|#
Y'see, here we go again. Yeah, the government pencil neck pricks should go fuck themselves. However, the question I'm always left with is, who's the fuckwad busy body who reported this? This was a civilian. A neighbor. And once again, all the onerous regulations are merely call-buttons to be pushed by nosy neighbors. We're empowering our neighbors to make our lives difficult.
ben tej|9.26.09 @ 2:31PM|#
...a state legislator is drafting legislation to exempt
those who don't get paid from child-care rules.
I'm guessing it's the same in Michigan, but in IL people who
provide daycare services in their home are unionized through SEIU.
It's within these people's interest to make sure that no one is
exempt from licensing requirements.
The connection being, while a legislator may be drafting
legislation, it must pass through the advocate/lobbyist gauntlet
before it can be enacted. An unorganized body of informal day care
providers (motivated by altruism--per the provision of free
daycare) does not stand a chance against the likes of the SEIU and
other child care coalitions (motivated by personal economic
interest) once the legislation hits the floor.
|9.26.09 @ 2:37PM|#
These are the types of minds who want to expand their ruling power. I think we need to have everyone in government pass a sanity test periodicaly.
|9.26.09 @ 2:38PM|#
Paul, you're right, it does empower the neighbors... but your neighbors have always had that power. The blame still rests with the state though. The person who took the complaint should have used some common sense and accidentally misfiled the report.
Rich|9.26.09 @ 2:48PM|#
... drafting legislation that would exempt people who agree
to care for non-dependent children from daycare rules as long as
they're not engaged in a business.
"Not engaged in a business." Could the notion of bartering come
back to haunt this? You watch my kids, I'll watch yours; or, here's
a batch of cookies for your trouble. Next thing you know you're
clobbered for tax evasion or worse. Gotta see how the legislation
is worded.
|9.26.09 @ 3:03PM|#
Riddle me this -
Child abuse was illegal long before the Michigan Department of
Human Services was created, right?
The $20,000,000 (SWAG) question is
Q. Are children any safer with sitters/day care than they were
before this onslaight of legislation and bureaucracy?
A. We have no friggin' idea but it makes us feel good and gives
some sociology majors a place at the public trough.
|9.26.09 @ 3:16PM|#
J sub D,
Needless to say, our society was very different before the child
welfare bureaucracy was around, so a direct comparison with those
times doesn't mean much. An anonymous society is a far more
dangerous place for children.
|9.26.09 @ 3:35PM|#
Needless to say, our society was very different before the
child welfare bureaucracy was around, so a direct comparison with
those times doesn't mean much. An anonymous society is a far more
dangerous place for children.
IOW, you have no friggin' idea if this legislation and bureacracy
has any effect whatsoever. Have you ANY studies that indicate this
overreaching of government FOR THE CHILDREN is anything more than
expensive legislative masturbation?
I submit it is an irrational response to
pedophileophobia .
|9.26.09 @ 3:35PM|#
The Department of Human Services received a complaint that
Snyder was operating an illegal child care home.
I wonder who made the complaint.
Probably an "anonymous" tipster. Maybe an ex-boyfriend, or a
personal enemy. Maybe a daycare center that wants the
business.
As usual, the more rules there are, the easier it is for people to
engage in legal harassment.
|9.26.09 @ 4:08PM|#
...day care factories where scores of children are herded
like so many cattle for hours at a time.
Like the school these kids were waiting for the bus to go to?
Zing!
</|9.26.09 @ 4:18PM|#
J sub D's link goes to a site owned by a Mr DickPants.
His troublesome students would oftentimes tease him about his
thick glasses and paunch, that eventually evolved into calling him
names with sexual overtones, such as: gay, pervert, and dick pants
(because Defendant occasional wore "Dickies" brand name pants to
class. (RT 1:25, 38, 2:32, 58, 64, 107, 3:34, 6:56.)
Zoology Saturday|9.26.09 @ 4:47PM|#
The Komodo dragon's diet is wide-ranging, and includes
invertebrates, other reptiles (including smaller Komodo dragons),
birds, bird eggs, small mammals, monkeys, wild boar, goats, deer,
horses, and water buffalo.[22] Young Komodos will eat insects,
eggs, geckos, and small mammals.[4] Occasionally they consume
humans and human corpses, digging up bodies from shallow
graves.[16] This habit of raiding graves caused the villagers of
Komodo to move their graves from sandy to clay ground and pile
rocks on top of them to deter the lizards.[20] The Komodo dragon
may have evolved to feed on the extinct dwarf elephant Stegodon
that once lived on Flores, according to evolutionary biologist
Jared Diamond.[23] The Komodo dragon has also been observed
intentionally startling a pregnant deer in the hopes of a
miscarriage whose remains they can eat, a technique that has also
been observed in large African predators.[23]
Although attacks are very rare, Komodo dragons have been known to
attack humans; on June 4, 2007 a Komodo dragon attacked an
eight-year-old boy on Komodo Island. The boy later died of massive
bleeding from his wounds. It was the first recorded fatal attack in
33 years.[48] Natives blamed the attack on environmentalists
outside the island prohibiting goat sacrifices. This denied the
Komodo dragons their expected food source, causing them to wander
into human civilization in search of food. A belief held by many
natives of Komodo Island is that Komodo dragons are actually the
reincarnation of fellow kinspeople and should thus be treated with
reverence.[49][50]
Research with captive Komodo dragons has also provided evidence
that they engage in play. One study concerned an individual who
would push a shovel left by its keeper, apparently attracted to the
sound of it scraping across the rocky surface. A young female
dragon at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. would grab and shake
various objects including statues, beverage cans, plastic rings and
blankets. She would also insert her head into boxes, shoes, and
other objects. She did not confuse these objects with food, as she
would only swallow them if they were covered in rat blood. This
social play has led to a striking comparison with mammalian
play.[6]
Rich|9.26.09 @ 5:06PM|#
And, aside from occasionally attacking and consuming humans, they make pretty good babysitters.
Mad Min|9.26.09 @ 5:34PM|#
The Komodo dragon has also been observed intentionally
startling a pregnant deer in the hopes of a miscarriage whose
remains they can eat, a technique that has also been observed in
large African predators.
Sounds like the kind of animal pro-choicers would like. Speaking of
abortion...
Art-P.O.G.|9.26.09 @ 5:52PM|#
The Komodo dragon has also been observed intentionally startling a pregnant deer in the hopes of a miscarriage whose remains they can eat, a technique that has also been observed in large African predators.
I do say, that's the grossest thing I've heard all week.
Hugh Akston|9.26.09 @ 6:13PM|#
Sounds like the kind of animal pro-choicers would
like.
It's genuine class like that that makes new anti-abortion converts
every day.
Anyway the Komodo Dragon's preferred method of hunting is to bite
its prey and let the wound become infected with bacteria that the
dragon cultivates in its saliva. It will then follow the animal
around for days or weeks until it dies from the infection.
Friendly Neighborhood Dope Ped|9.26.09 @ 6:19PM|#
Ok, so the kids should stand out in the cold at the bus stop
unsupervised for 40 minutes?
Thanks, bureaucrats!
|9.26.09 @ 6:21PM|#
Reason's doom and gloom patrol left out the part of the
story where a state legislator is drafting legislation to exempt
those who don't get paid from child-care rules.
How sweet. Of course, leaving the choice of child-care providers up
to the parents is not even under consideration, is it?
-jcr
Art-P.O.G.|9.26.09 @ 6:48PM|#
Anyway the Komodo Dragon's preferred method of hunting is to bite its prey and let the wound become infected with bacteria that the dragon cultivates in its saliva. It will then follow the animal around for days or weeks until it dies from the infection.
Lovely creatures! I must have one as a pet!
|9.26.09 @ 8:37PM|#
Supposedly the Kokomo dragons also have venom in their bite, particularly anti-clotting agents. The bacteria are probably just there by accident, due to the dragons' diet heavy in carrion. Dragons in zoos don't have bacteria in their mouths cause their diet is "cleaner".
Sumatra Boys|9.26.09 @ 8:44PM|#
Aruba, jamaica ooo I wanna take you
Bermuda, bahama come on pretty mama
Key largo, montego baby why dont we go
Off the Seychelles
Theres a place called Komodo
Thats where you wanna go to get away from it all
Dragons in the sand
Inject E.coli in your hand
Well be falling asleep
To the rhythm of an arterial band
Down in Komodo
Aruba, jamaica ooo I wanna take you
To bermuda, bahama come on pretty mama
Key largo, montego baby why dont we go
Ooo I wanna take you down to Komodo
Well get there fast
And then well take it slow
Thats where we wanna go
Way down to Komodo
Fred|9.26.09 @ 8:51PM|#
This same thing happened to our family in the early 90s in
Massachusetts. Our neighbor and baby sitter was being threatened
with jail time for babysitting without a license and ended up
submitting all sorts of paperwork and getting her house inspected
by the babysitting gestapo etc.
I called the state senator and state rep to complain. One told me
what a great important job the bureaucrats were doing. The other,
like me was outraged that my wife and I weren't allowed to choose
our own babysitter and started working on it. About six months
later, his staff called to tell me that in the economic downturn
with the state short of funds, the whole babysitter gestapo
department had been eliminated.
Judging from the pictures one sees of Detroit and the news of
Michigan economics, I guess there is hope for babysitter freedom
there also - as the state increasingly goes broke from all their
insanity.
anarch|9.26.09 @ 8:55PM|#
the whole babysitter gestapo department had been eliminated
All office-holders at all levels of government have abdicated?
|9.26.09 @ 9:10PM|#
"I guess there is hope for ... freedom there also - as the state
increasingly goes broke from all their insanity."
Michigan, California, Massachusetts, etc.: One by one, the fallen
dominoes are picking themselves up and putting themselves in order.
Entropy is reversed in the miracle of our times.
|9.26.09 @ 9:13PM|#
The connection being, while a legislator may be drafting legislation, it must pass through the advocate/lobbyist gauntlet before it can be enacted. An unorganized body of informal day care providers (motivated by altruism--per the provision of free daycare) does not stand a chance against the likes of the SEIU and other child care coalitions (motivated by personal economic interest) once the legislation hits the floor.
And the legislator drafting it is a Republican. (Article doesn't
say, but a quick search reveals his website, www.briancalley.com
)
I realize that in Illinois party labels are not as important as
whether you're part of the machine or not, but I still have to
think being on the 35-40% side in the state legislature doesn't
help your drafted legislation get passed.
So making a stink about it is perfectly reasonable, since that's
the way to ensure that at least a minor remedy gets passed.
|9.26.09 @ 10:08PM|#
Saw this on CNN this morning. The thing that really pissed me
off was when the state bureaucrathole said they had no choice but
"to comply with state law". Um, excuse me? How about this neat
little thing called "enforcement discretion"? The agency charged
with enforcing the law has the power to intepret the law in its
application.
What a bunch of dicks.
|9.26.09 @ 11:33PM|#
J sub D,
Most legislation is passed with very little clue as to whether it
will do anything to bring about the public policy issue, etc. it is
meant to tackle.
|9.26.09 @ 11:34PM|#
The Hopey One continues with his tortured metaphors:
President Barack Obama on Saturday resumed his push to overhaul the health care system, telling a Congressional Black Caucus conference that there comes a time when "the cup of endurance runs over."
"We have been waiting for health reform since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. We've been waiting since the days of Harry Truman," he said in remarks at the caucus foundation's annual dinner. "We've been waiting since Johnson and Nixon and Clinton."
"We cannot wait any longer," Obama said.
Methinks he does not understand the meaning of the expression "my
cup runneth over", which expresses that something is plentiful, not
that something is running out. Or at least his teleprompter clowns
don't understand it.
|9.26.09 @ 11:50PM|#
Further research reveals that it's a quote from a Martin Luther
King letter. King wrote those words from jail in Birmingham, in
response to a bunch of white Birmingham clergymen who said blacks
were seeking too much equality too fast.
To see a half-black president, with a 60-vote majority in the
Senate, trying to play Martin Luther King in his prison cell is
absolutely sickening. There is no other word for it. And that's
before we even get to the turpitude of comparing the struggle
against Jim Crow laws to the push for health care "reform".
|9.27.09 @ 12:06AM|#
"We have been waiting for health reform since the days of Teddy
Roosevelt....."
Since 1905ish? What was there to even reform? And how long could
anyone at the time have been waiting for said change? 10-15minutes,
tops?
Maybe i misunderstood the meaning of "we have been waiting".
Perhaps he's grouping himself in with our nations
centegenarians.
If you're 110, i guess you've been waiting for quite some time. Or
not since to get to 110 you either got the care you needed, or
didn't need any.
The more i read the speech-writer's words, the less meaning i can
get out of it. Is anything really being communicated there? Aside
from "we have to do something now, cause...these other presidents
didnt fix it"?
|9.27.09 @ 2:25AM|#
I think -- though I may be mistaken -- that Obama's TR reference
was in acknowledgment of the passage of the food and drug act in
1906. This was not "health care reform," but merely an act that
prohibited commerce in "misbranded" or "adulterated" food and
drugs. Still, it was a key milestone and foundational step in
government's takeover of medicine and health care.
The history of the Food & Drug Act, and the FDA that grew up
around it, should serve as a cautionary tale for centrist
independents and moderate, "pragmatist," libertarians. Even I don't
have a problem, in theory, with a law that simply says "foods and
drugs should be labeled honestly." Or even with a law that requires
labels for foods and drugs that are traded in interstate commerce
to provide uniform information. Markets work best when all parties
to the transaction are as fully-informed as possible, and the
government certainly has a role in preventing or redressing fraud.
I might have cheered the original Food and Drug Act back in 1906.
But I would have been naive. Look at how the government's
assumed/asserted authority has grown -- metastasized! -- since
then. An agency that was founded on a simple and laudable idea, of
ensuring that suppliers and providers delivered what they
advertised and promised, now acts as the gatekeeper, telling
suppliers and providers what they have permission to deliver and
when. Could this possibly have been a legitimate function of our
government, as envisioned by those who founded it?
Anonymous|9.27.09 @ 2:32AM|#
merely an act that prohibited commerce in "misbranded" or
"adulterated" food and drugs
Once upon a time that was simply called "fraud".
But a system, even then, which does not enforce any of the right
and simple laws is doomed to construct bad and complex ones in
order to fix that. It doesn't take 103 years of hindsight to
predict how poorly would go writing new laws to fix a lack of will
to enforce old laws.
|9.27.09 @ 7:53AM|#
I realize that in Illinois party labels are not as important
as whether you're part of the machine or not, but I still have to
think being on the 35-40% side in the state legislature doesn't
help your drafted legislation get passed.
Actually, Michigan is a more closely divided state than seems to be
assumed here. One of the two houses the state legislature has a
Republican majority, and both the Secretary of State and Attorney
General (statewide elected offices) are Republicans. And it's the
Democratic leader of the Michigan House who's currently taking on
the public employee unions over the cost of their benefits
packages:
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/house_speaker_andy_dillon_taki.html
So it's really not Massachusetts. Or Illinois for that matter.
Michigan has a a lot of problems, obviously, but those don't
include a statewide political machine and endemic corruption.
Corruption has been an ongoing problem in the City of Detroit, but
not statewide (and the City of Detroit is now less that 1M of 10M
in the state).
|9.27.09 @ 12:05PM|#
Sounds like the DHS needs to investigate the school district for
endangerment. What kind of incompetent school bus logistics are
involved when children are waiting 15-40 minutes for their
transportation? (A wait so long that parents make, apparently
formal, arrangements for their children to be supervised by another
adult.)
Old fogey rant: In my day, you could set your watch by the arrival
of the school bus.
|9.27.09 @ 12:07PM|#
The parents may have a job they have to be at at 6:30 AM or something. No way the school bus is going to come that early.
|9.27.09 @ 12:59PM|#
A guess on who filed the complaint:
A school bus driver who had to wait for those children to come out
of the house.
|9.27.09 @ 1:01PM|#
OCCAM'S RAZOR: FIRE, IMPEACH, & RE-CALL---otherwise continue to suffer fools running your life (or what's left of it)
Francis Turner|9.27.09 @ 1:14PM|#
It happens in the UK too - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216220/Mothers-banned-looking-children.html
|9.27.09 @ 1:19PM|#
I gotta thank Obama. If it wasn't for him, I never would have paid attention to the damage that big government intervention does to society. Now there is NO WAY IN HELL I will ever send my kids to a public school. So, thanks Obummer! You have saved my kids from the liberal indoctrination camps.
|9.27.09 @ 1:20PM|#
# Anonymous | September 27, 2009, 2:32am | #
## merely an act that prohibited commerce in
## "misbranded" or "adulterated" food and drugs
# Once upon a time that was simply called
# "fraud".
# But a system, even then, which does not
# enforce any of the right and simple laws is
# doomed to construct bad and complex ones in
# order to fix that. It doesn't take 103 years
# of hindsight to predict how poorly would go
# writing new laws to fix a lack of will to
# enforce old laws.
You touch on an additional point that I wanted to make in my
earlier posting: We have to be vigilant in encouraging people to
use and enforce the laws they already have before passing new ones.
When someone proposes new laws to "extend" already-existing
protections (such as against fraud) into specific areas of
activity, this should be our clue that the end-point is government
domination of those areas of activity. The people won't be any
better protected than they were with the old laws in place. Only
now, the government will claim authority and primacy in the areas
it has annexed.
|9.27.09 @ 1:25PM|#
I call BS on the MI-DHS' excuse. There is such a thing as "prosecutorial" discretion. The more plausible explanation is the agency is full of lazy, thoughtless dimwits.
Gullyborg|9.27.09 @ 1:41PM|#
My guess is that the informant was an SEIU day care
provider.
Seriously, who else would even KNOW about a stupid assed regulation
(notice I didn't call it a LAW, even though it is one) like this to
inform on?
Can we feed all involved in making and enforcing this abomination
of a regulation to the komodo dragon?
|9.27.09 @ 1:42PM|#
It's time -- past time -- to start organizing direct action
against this sort of intrusion. At the very least the families
involved, and any supporters they can muster, need to picket the
DHS office until somebody feels compelled to either make the case
or withdraw their objection to the situation.
There might be even better ways to make the buggers' eyes water.
I'm talking legal ways, of course. Legal for now, until the
administration gets around to criminalizing them...
|9.27.09 @ 1:45PM|#
When you're talking about matters of life and death rather than
just property being lost due to fraud, the state is justified in
illegalizing the acts that take place before the fraud.
It's the same reason that drunk driving laws are justified in
addition to a more general reckless driving law. Lives and health
can't be restituted after the fact.
|9.27.09 @ 1:47PM|#
For safety's sake the children should remain unsupervised in their own home and make there own way to the bus stop. That way they can't be harmed in an unlicensed daycare.
|9.27.09 @ 1:48PM|#
"but laws are blunt instruments and often don't fit the
situation."
It's what I call "the spikey mace of the Law" - The law isn't just
a blunt instrument, but something that's both blunt and
able to tear deep wounds that splatters blood everywhere.
And point of information: I RTFA, but it didn't even mention if the
woman let the kids in her house (rather than just coming out to
keep an eye on them while they waited outside). My impression was
that the kids stayed outside, which makes the MI-DHS look even
worse.
Fluffy|9.27.09 @ 1:49PM|#
I know it's cliche, but the polity has a compelling interest
in protecting minors from unethical adults.
A licensing law doesn't protect minors from unethical adults.
It "protects" minors from any and all adults without the
license.
The question of whether those adults are ethical or not is utterly
and completely irrelevant to the law.
Mary Fucking Poppins could watch children and the law will come
down on her if she does not have a license. Charles Fucking Mansion
could watch kids and the law will leave him completely alone if he
has a license.
So please, fucking spare me with the "protection of children"
nonsense you're spewing. Whether you're the world's best child care
provider or the world's worst child care provider, the law will
punish you equally if you take care of children without a license.
This is why all licensing regimes, of all types, are automatically
unjust and tyrannical. You don't have to discuss the law itself or
even read it. If the law requires a license to conduct any activity
whatsoever, it's automatically unjust.
|9.27.09 @ 1:54PM|#
Article doesn't say if money is paid for services so call it a play-date and tell the state to get lost....
Fluffy|9.27.09 @ 1:56PM|#
When you're talking about matters of life and death rather
than just property being lost due to fraud, the state is justified
in illegalizing the acts that take place before the
fraud.
Sure, fine.
I concede that the state can make it illegal to sell a drug that
kills someone.
I also concede that the state can make it illegal to provide paid
child care [or unpaid child care, for that matter] in a violent,
overcrowded, unsafe, or unsanitary manner.
But the laws we're talking about aren't those laws.
The FDA enabling legislation does not say, "It is illegal to sell a
drug that kills someone." It says, "It is illegal to sell a drug
that we don't approve." That means it is illegal to sell a drug
that benefits someone if the FDA hasn't already said they
approve. And a law that makes it a crime to sell a drug that
benefits one is unjust and tyrannical. There's really nothing else
to discuss. "Well, it's more efficient if we do it this way, rather
than chase people who actually hurt someone." Too bad. Fuck you and
your efficiency.
Similarly, no one has asserted that these children have in any way
been harmed or placed in jeopardy. All that's asserted is that the
woman has no license. "Well, we make people get licenses so we can
be sure they'll do a good job." Fuck you again. Even if she's doing
a good job and the children are perfectly safe, the law will punish
her. That means I don't have to listen to any argument that
proceeds on the basis of the claim that the law is designed to
punish people who harm or endanger children. It's not.
|9.27.09 @ 2:09PM|#
" but it's different when you're talking about one of these day
care factories"
Evidently not to mindless bureaucrats, eh?
If it was different, they'd have reacted differently. That's the
entire problem.
|9.27.09 @ 2:11PM|#
1. Well throw me in jail.
A couple decades ago (;-) ) a friend was in nurse anesthesist
school. A single mom, she had to be in the OR at some gosh awful
hour for her clinical semester. Her 2 boys played with my kids. She
would bring them by the house somewhere around 5 a.m. and put them
down on the couch asleep (we were still in bed). When our kids got
up, I got them up, we had breakfast and I sent them off to the bus.
(She may have paid for the Cheerios? I have no recall.)
I loved my friend.
Her kids were safe. She had no worries. She got her degree and
moved on in life.
2. So. Do the "play groups" some mom networks create fall under
this law?
3. Bus times -- maybe the older kid took a different, earlier bus?
But yes -- I have a family full of part time bus drivers, and 40
years ago their routes where timed to the minute.
4. Preaching to the choir -- but when are We the People going to
tell the regulators where to go? 2010, I hope. Even local people
need to run on these kinds of intrusive super regulatory privacy
invasion issues.
5. Agree with the fraud / false labeling on drugs and food. Problem
is, without studies for the new drugs, you can't know what claims
are true or false.
If the FDA wants to be consistent, it could start by making
homeopathic remedy labels accurate. ("This product contains no
active ingredient and has never been proven to do anything.")
|9.27.09 @ 2:11PM|#
Mary Fucking Poppins could watch children and the law will come down on her if she does not have a license. Charles Fucking Mansion could watch kids and the law will leave him completely alone if he has a license.
By that logic, you must oppose drivers licenses too. You could have
a person with no license who is the world's best driver. The point
is that no one who does not know how to drive is going to have a
license, since they must pass several tests to get one and can have
it taken away if they commit egregious violations of the traffic
laws.
Assuming that the licensing process is not just a rubber stamp, but
includes background checks and testing to make sure the person
knows how to avoid harming children, the licensing process for
daycare serves a similar purpose.
|9.27.09 @ 2:14PM|#
Also, technical quibble: Charles Manson was a sex offender, so he would be breaking a shitload of laws if he ran a daycare center even with a license. But that incidental point isn't why your argument is wrong.
Federal Dog|9.27.09 @ 2:49PM|#
A word to Fred from the heart of Boston:
You magnificent bastard, you are my hero! Who told you they
dismantled the babysitter gestapo?
|9.27.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Just watched an Arizona (or Nevada?) court case in which a woman
was charged with kidnapping. The woman was driving home with her
three young kids, on her way she saw a seven year old walking
alone. The town was bordering a desert. The woman picked up the
kid, called the school which was nearby. The school didn't know a
kid was missing and demanded the kid back right away. The woman was
mad and wanted to bring the kid to the school district
headquarters. In other words, the woman wanted to teach the
careless school a lesson. Well, what a lesson! The state
bureaucrats, including the DA charged the woman with
kidnapping.
Question: What will you do when you see a little kid walking alone?
Would you pick him up and risk being charged with kidnapping, or
would you leave him alone and keep watching TV every night hoping
his little face does not show up on the 6 o'clock news?
|9.27.09 @ 2:59PM|#
Tulpa:
" And the fact that a law's effects aren't consistent with its
design would make a reasonable person question whether the law
should be changed or repealed or something. "
But is it really true that the 'effect isn't consistent with it's
design'? Seems to me that this is exactly the type of effect that
bureaucrats want.
|9.27.09 @ 3:01PM|#
I'm guilty of exactly the same neighborly behavior, watching the
neighbors kids for 15 minutes till the bus arrives.
Screw them. These kinds of idiots need to be fired from their jobs
and never allowed to hold a government job again. They are
obviously not competent to wield state power.
Robert|9.27.09 @ 3:04PM|#
Hylkema had a cartoon strip on this in Reason maybe 30 yrs. ago.
I don't know whether it was a real story or hypothetic. Welfare
mother neighbors agreed to alternate sitting each other's children
so they could take jobs in the remaining time and get off welfare.
Only they couldn't -- no licensed facilities.
In the present case, couldn't the watcher watch the bus stop thru
her window? Or does she have no window facing the bus stop? Or
would even that violate some anti-pedophile or anti-voyeur
edict?
Couldn't she and their parents say she was kidnapping them rather
then caring for them, and then avail herself of all the benefits of
criminal law? Then, rather than being a regulatory issue, it would
be a police matter, and the police have better things to do than
investigate a kidnapping. She could then even do it for money, as
kidnappers are allowed to extract ransom.
|9.27.09 @ 3:22PM|#
The difference between an unlicensed day care and this is that
the woman was *personally known* to the parents. It's not like they
were dropping them off with an anonymous stranger.
In the old days however, people used to get these things called
"references" from strangers when they needed someone to take care
of kids.
What the heck happened to that?
|9.27.09 @ 3:32PM|#
Allow a jury to be called to nullify any law,by a majority vote.Allow also the impoundment of public funds back to the treasury. That would be real democracy,not the joke whereby we get to pick our rapists.
|9.27.09 @ 3:42PM|#
ic,
I thought you were supposed to call the police when you see an
obviously lost kid, and let them know where you're taking them etc,
to protect yourself from kidnapping charges. Calling the school and
not the police was a huge mistake.
Anonymous|9.27.09 @ 3:45PM|#
And these are the kind of folk that Democrats want running your healthcare for you.
zoltan|9.27.09 @ 3:53PM|#
In the old days however, people used to get these things
called "references" from strangers when they needed someone to take
care of kids.
What the heck happened to that?
Still happens, at least it did 5 years ago back when I was a
babysitter. I actually lived in a large housing community that had
a website where the babysitter could advertise and even show their
references' information. But the government must think that needs
to be regulated.
Fluffy|9.27.09 @ 3:59PM|#
By that logic, you must oppose drivers licenses too. You
could have a person with no license who is the world's best
driver.
The only reason - and I mean the only reason - the state
has the power to require a driver's license is for the operation of
vehicles on roads owned and operated by the state.
I actually do not believe that state possesses any authority
whatsoever to require a license for the operation of a vehicle on
public property.
So please, don't try to analogize to driver's licenses, because the
analogy is not apt. It doesn't matter what the state's logic is for
requiring driver's licenses, because all that matters to me is that
the state owns the roads.
This is one more way in which the gigantic state investment in
roads and the automobile culture has hurt our country: the
ubiquitous nature of driver's licenses has conditioned natural
bootlicking, ass-offering slaves like you to think that because the
state licenses the operation of vehicles on its roads, it should be
entitled to license everything everywhere, whether those
activities take place entirely on private property or not.
Fluffy|9.27.09 @ 4:00PM|#
I actually do not believe that state possesses any authority
whatsoever to require a license for the operation of a vehicle on
public property.
Sorry, that of course should say "...on private
property."
|9.27.09 @ 4:32PM|#
I live on a cul-de-sac street where about 95% of the homes have families with kids, and they all watch each others' kids from time to time. Also true for all of us boomers who were watched by neighbors a lot while we were growing up. This is simply unbelievable. Yet another reason for a government as small as possible. Got offa my lawn!
|9.27.09 @ 4:53PM|#
Yessir, the good ol' village where no good deed will go unpunished. Not that many years ago, in our neck of the woods, a little girl was drug off, raped and murdered while waiting for a bus. I'm thinking HER mom would have been glad to have a good neighbor to watch the child get on the bus.
|9.27.09 @ 4:57PM|#
So please, don't try to analogize to driver's licenses,
because the analogy is not apt. It doesn't matter what the state's
logic is for requiring driver's licenses, because all that matters
to me is that the state owns the roads.
So you wouldn't have a problem with the state requiring a license
to ride a bike on the street, or walk on the sidewalk? Both
activities take place on state-owned property.
The justification for licensing an activity, to my mind, is when
the activity presents a high level of danger to the life or health
of innocent, uninvolved people if it is practiced improperly.
Post-facto remedies like fraud protection or reckless driving
tickets aren't sufficient to recover what was lost in such cases.
Whether it occurs on state property is irrelevant.
|9.27.09 @ 5:46PM|#
Actually, I have a huge problem with driver's licensing.
That policy was a HUGE opening for government control and
intrusion. Seriously, look at all the shit the government can
revolk your license for.
The very fact that the poilice are constantly monitering all the
roads for traffic violations, in which your right to drive a
vehicle is under threat from any infringement, and they can stop
for any number of excuses, creates a constant, menacing, police
presence.
You literally can't travel without being watched by the police.
Think about it. It is intensely repressive.
And the notion that driving is a "priviledge", is one of the most
insidious concepts to have been invented by the state. A driver's
license is little different from an internal passport.
|9.27.09 @ 6:28PM|#
Who are they, the mafia? Hey, you gotta pay us a fee if you wanna keep this up. Our gov't operates like a legal mafia now. They wanna tax people for everything. It's disgusting.
robc|9.27.09 @ 6:31PM|#
Tulpa,
Im more complex than you - I require multiple rationales, not
single tests.
For me, a licensing requires both prereqs (and maybe more that Im
not thinking of), high level of danger to others and public
property. Walking on the sidewalk fails the first, private property
day cares fails the 2nd.
Doctors fail the 2nd, lawyers, in many cases, dont, some may need
to be licensed to appear in court. However, much of their practice
doesnt require that, so it wouldnt be necessary for ALL lawyers.
Just like having passed the bar in one state doesnt allow you to
argue before the Supreme Court. You have to be a specific member of
the SCOTUS bar.
Lord Jubjub|9.27.09 @ 6:44PM|#
Doesn't this case violate the assembly clause in the first
amendment?
Since the children agree to assemble with this adult and the
guardians for the children agree to such an assembly and there is
no commerce involved, what power does the state claim to rule this
assembly illegal?
|9.27.09 @ 6:47PM|#
The Judge that hears this case should throw it so far out the window,,, charge DHS with Stupidity, and fine them!
|9.27.09 @ 6:57PM|#
it's different when you're talking about one of these day
care factories where scores of children are herded like so many
cattle for hours at a time.
Sounds like you're talking about our public school system.
-jcr
Federal Dog|9.27.09 @ 7:02PM|#
"Thanks for the daily dose of paranoia, Hazel."
You might want to read up on search and seizure case law in which
traffic stops are used pretextually to effect otherwise
unconstitutional investigations.
|9.27.09 @ 7:04PM|#
Ok, so the kids should stand out in the cold at the bus stop
unsupervised for 40 minutes?
That's what we did when we were kids. But today that would be
prosecuted as child abuse and neglect. The parents (or the nanny,
who I'll bet doesn't violate the Michigan regulation--rich folks'
child care arrangements rarely do) have to stand in the cold with
the kids.
|9.27.09 @ 7:56PM|#
You might want to read up on search and seizure case law in
which traffic stops are used pretextually to effect otherwise
unconstitutional investigations.
That would happen even if there weren't a driver's license regime.
The lack of licensing for home ownership doesn't prevent no-knock
SWAT raids, for instance.
|9.27.09 @ 8:55PM|#
That would happen even if there weren't a driver's license
regime. The lack of licensing for home ownership doesn't prevent
no-knock SWAT raids, for instance.
Yeah, but they can't revolk your right to own a house if you're
(say) a "sex offender".
Which it's entirely plausible they might do for sex offenders and
driver's licenses, if there was enough paranoia about sex offenders
snatching children off the street and driving off with them.
|9.27.09 @ 9:34PM|#
Which it's entirely plausible they might do for sex
offenders and driver's licenses,
Let me know when that actually happens, OK? This is the paranoia
I'm talking about.
And actually, sex offenders are denied the right to live in a house
in most areas of a lot of cities, even though there are no
residence licenses. So whether an activity is formally licensed or
not has jack to do with whether the govt can prevent you from doing
it for dubious reasons.
alan|9.27.09 @ 10:43PM|#
If anything, these two episodes in two different nations prove that the social experiment we refer to as government has failed miserably. Time to crumble that paper up and throw it in the waste basket, or do you really need something as humongous as nuclear annihilation to prove the point when these examples will serve that purpose just fine.
|9.27.09 @ 10:52PM|#
That would happen even if there weren't a driver's license
regime. The lack of licensing for home ownership doesn't prevent
no-knock SWAT raids, for instance
No-Knocks still require a warrant which means the police had to
prove/show a certain level of suspicion to a judge.
Traffic stops on the whim of a cop just so they can attempt to
perform an illegal search are not the same.
BakedPenguin|9.27.09 @ 11:46PM|#
I've only skimmed the comments, so forgive me if I'm
repeating.
Let me preface this my saying that I don't agree with the law, and
don't think it should exist.
"Discretion" is exactly what is not needed here. Bad laws
need to be repealed. They do not need to be ignored on a subjective
basis when the authority in charge feels like it. I can think of
little else more destructive to the rule of law than selective
enforcement of questionable statutes. If there is anything that
will lead us to a "government of men, not of laws" it is that kind
of enforcement.
|9.28.09 @ 1:52AM|#
If this woman gets a license, she'll have to make changes to her house to comply with federal law on handicap acces, inside and outside. Fight the pencil necks!
Anonymous|9.28.09 @ 2:42AM|#
Gullyborg @ September 27, 2009, 1:41pm:
Seriously, who else would even KNOW about a stupid assed
regulation (notice I didn't call it a LAW, even though it is one)
like this to inform on?
That hadn't occurred to me. That is a very good
question.
Federal Dog|9.28.09 @ 7:26AM|#
Reports of the Massachusetts gestapo's demise are
premature:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1200513&srvc=news&position=0
|9.28.09 @ 8:12AM|#
Reports of the Massachusetts gestapo's demise are premature:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1200513&srvc=news&position=0
The Michigan case was a one-off -- stupid, but so obviously stupid,
that I doubt it'll happen again. But those changes scheduled to
take place in Massachusetts could have a much, much bigger
effect.
The goal, it appears, it to put such a regulatory burden on in-home
child-care that far fewer people taking care of children in their
homes will be able or willing to continue (and if the first batch
of new regs doesn't do the trick, adding some teacher-certification
style requirements for daycare operators and workers would finish
them off).
It's not as colorful, but in the annals of the aggressively
expanding nanny state, the the MA story is a much bigger deal than
the MI one.
|9.28.09 @ 2:27PM|#
We cannot wait any longer," Obama said.
I'm a little confused, myself, about why we have to pass a bill by
Thanksgiving that won't go fully into effect until 2013.
Federal Dog|9.28.09 @ 2:37PM|#
"I'm a little confused, myself, about why we have to pass a bill
by Thanksgiving that won't go fully into effect until 2013."
They're counting on -- at least -- a bare majority of the
electorate being so amnesiac and obediant that they will forget
outrageous and sustained deception and corruption, and mindlessly
vote the offenders back into office roughly one year from now.
|10.6.09 @ 6:41AM|#
It is not a law but a government statute. I do not consent to be governed by the State Corporation as listed in Dunn and Bradstreet.
You must ask corporate officers under what authority are they acting under.
if they do not distinquish between lawful and legal they are committing fraud
Licenses are: a) a form of tax. b) a way of controlling our lives. Everything you can do legally with a permit or license you can do lawfully without a permit or license. You can feed your family (a natural lawful act) without a permit / business license. why? Because it is one of your basic human inalienable rights (the right to property, or as Americans term it the Pursuit of Happiness) the right to work, and enjoy the fruits of your labour /labor.
There are only three basic LAWS we could or should be accountable
for
1) Injury to person (covers murder, assault, rape, slander, libel
defaming ones name etc. etc)
2) Injury to property (includes physical property, intellectual
property, income, loss of revenue etc. etc.)
3) Mischief (fraud) in our contracts verbal or otherwise: (Speaks
for itself) ck out Menard's video "The Magnificent Deception"
|10.6.09 @ 6:44AM|#
Just tell them you are not a child of the state and you do not ask permission to execute a lawful act and you will not contract with their legal society for you are a soveeign being. Period.
|10.6.09 @ 6:50AM|#
Sorry about the spelling. Just tell them you are not a child of the state and you do not ask permission to execute a lawful act and you will not contract with their legal society for you are a sovereign being. Period.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245