The State’s Role in Child Care and Development

To begin, the overarching objective of any political system in the US should be to maximize opportunity. This is derived from not only numerous moral standpoints, but quite easily from the sentiments of this nation’s founding fathers, as well as the popular sentiment of American’s today; among progressives and conservatives there is little disagreement that the opportunity of individual citizens should not be limited.

Jefferson redefined of the social contract so that the government has the responsibility of protecting “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Note, this language does not imply happiness itself, but rather the means by which to obtain happiness. Happiness within itself is an abstract ideal, and definitions are often disputed. Most modern political debate characterizes happiness under the utilitarian definition, and politicians would be pressed to disagree that people would not be happier if pleasure was increased, and pain, decreased. Modern utilitarianism is founded by Bentham, who defines a modern, secular happiness through as one that is obtained from maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain.

In today’s society, there are innumerable components that can provide both pleasure and pain. Most can not, and indeed should not, be influenced by the state, such as private bias or transactions. However, the state can (and has) mandated even in such cases, factors such as age, gender, color, etc. be ignored in order to pursue the goal of equalizing opportunity. In a true equal opportunity society, individuals would be judged only upon the basis of their individual merits, eliminating nepotism, sexism, racism, etc. Although such a society does not necessarily have to be democratic, such systems are usually much more effective because they are dependent on the judgement of multiple individuals, and therefore less inclined to failure. In the same way, a truly free market society is also more aligned with equal opportunity because it is not beneficial for businesses to be racist/sexist/etc.; a business that employs individuals on the basis of their merits will likely be more successful. Indeed, most disagreements with modern capitalism stem from the viewpoint of predetermination. Since at any given time, some individuals are predisposed to become more meritful, they perform better under a capitalistic system, and therefore go on to lead this system, creating two stark classes: one containing those not predisposed to benefit from capitalism, and another containing those who are. As one would expect, as time goes on the economic distance between these classes increases giving rise perhaps the most important political issues of our time.

Therefore, the primary problem with the status quo in America arises when individuals, due to predetermined factors, are not given the ability to attain the same merits as their peers. Most merit-building is completed during the childhood years. With the exception of the public school system, parents are almost solely responsible for verifying that their children are prepared to enter the working world. (The public school system of a community is almost entirely shaped by its parents as well, both through property taxes and individual involvement. What is unjust is that the actions of one individual or group of individuals (i.e. the parents) can make it impossible for another individual (i.e. the child) to have the ability to become meritful and therefore attain opportunities. In order for a society of equal opportunity, some of this responsibility must shift to the government. Indeed, there is precedence for this with the public education system, which creates a set of standards that the state generally agrees are necessary for success and then places upon the government, not parents, the responsibility of ensuring these standards are met. In addition to the previously mentioned practical issues with its implementation, the primary theoretical issue here is that the ability to attain merits is not dependent only on intellectual education. Rather, it requires all of the following factors: intellectual and moral education, physical comfort, and emotional stability, to be valued and developed from a young age.

So I would argue, it is the responsibility of the state to secure all four of these components until a certain age when it is deemed an individual is capable of working to secure them his or herself. This is the only way to ensure that individuals are capable are constructing the merit that is necessary to ensure equal opportunities in a free market society.

I would propose that the most definite way to systematically implement this responsibility is by focusing strongly on age, since age is directly related to human development, marking not only the point of maturity, but also when additional responsibilities and freedoms are granted to an individual. The state should define multiple divisions of age: 0–16, 16–20, 20–22, 22–24, 24–65, and 65-Death, each receiving a different set of benefits.

Individuals aged 0–16 should receive a full set of benefits, free, from the state. This would include (1) access to nutritious food, (2) access to healthcare, (3) access to standard education, (4) Shelter, either in the form of a foster home or a community housing arrangement for multiple children, if necessary, (4) An agent that would play the role of a sort of counselor: essentially the child would make contact with the counselor once every month, from birth, to the age of 16, to discuss issues at home or in their life. The individual would play the role of a government mandated parent of sorts. He or she would be responsible and caring, and the goal of meeting often would be to earn the child’s trust, so if there is any situation that causes emotional instability, it is exposed and a solution can be developed. Situations would only be escalated in cases of extreme and extended cases of emotional abuse or negligence, there would be limited interference in the parenting itself. (This is perhaps the most controversial element of this whole thing.

From 16–20 the child should be responsible for earning money if necessary and providing for their own food. At age 18 the counselor would be dismissed. All other benefits would be present. The goal of transitioning away from benefits would be to slowly increase independence. The added two years of education to the typical 12 would act much like the first 2 years of college or 2 years of a trade school

At the age of 20 the individual has a choice to either continue college or enter the working world. At this point, education is no longer paid for. The individual can either take out a federal loan for the final 2 years of college or enter the workforce. There may be a subsidy offered to pursue higher education depending on the current market situation.

Assuming that the student completes their education at age 22, they have one year to get a job, start a business, or pursue another source of income. At age 23, all remaining benefits: shelter and healthcare, are eliminated. I’d suggest that the government should offer a “risk-taking” subsidy if the student elects to begin a small business or pursue an otherwise risky career, such as one involving arts. However, at age 23, the individual attains full responsibility and enters the workforce. Age 24 is when the individual must begin paying taxes.

Of course, opportunities for Masters and PHD degrees would still be made available, and in these special cases there may very well be federal funding available to pay for education. However, an admissions process not unlike the one instituted today should be required in order to ensure funding is only distributed to the top applicants for these programs.

And how would all these programs be paid for? This is perhaps my most controversial argument. To begin with, current welfare programs that serve adults, such as food stamps, would be eliminated. The premise for this is that the government has done as much as possible to provide you with a platform for success, and now you as an individual are responsible for attaining that success. If you are unable to support yourself, that is your fault, and not the system’s. In addition, there would be a flat rate tax applied to ‘payback’ for these programs starting from age 24. This tax would not be dependent on your income. The premise for this is that an individual earning a higher income is doing so because they were able to maximize their merit, and since the system is already set up to ensure equal opportunity, they should not be penalized for doing so. If someone is unable to pay the flat rate, they would be mandated to perform community work. This would ‘payback flat tax’ would be in addition to a minimized income tax that would be dependent on income, as well as additional state taxes much unlike today. At age 65, the payback and income taxes would cease due to retirement, and social security should kick in.

If the state’s goal is to truly maximize opportunity, then it must focus strongly on childhood development, where the merit our society is based upon is constructed. A failure to do so only reinforces predisposed inequalities, and is without doubt unjust. This sentiment is not a new one; indeed our own public education system was somewhat inspired by a book written in 1762, Emile, by Jean Jacques Rousseau, which was publically burned before laying the foundation of the French education system after the French revolution. It’s clear ideas like those I suggest have always been controversial, but history has shown them to be progressive, and I only argue we continue to go a little further.