I want you to know up front that I very much appreciate your informed and substantive reply. You cited a matter that I have not seen metrics for, and wondered if you had any source of data, other than your own experiences.

"I disagree with your humble opinion, no matter how you slice it more children overall will end up dead at the hands of their parents then in any government funded institution."

I've not seen this reflected in the studies I've looked at, or my position would probably be different than it is. Do you have a source you could link?

"We are suppose to take the opinion of a man seriously who believes that communities can form to police themselves. What snitch is going to want to be the first one to get stitches for narking out their neighbor when there's no authorities involved to protect them from harm?"

First, I am not just hoping this would happen. Prior to about 1900 there were few police in America, and far fewer crimes, since many more civilians were armed, and made for hard targets. Those most victimized by crime were often too poor to afford nominal security.

Today the rate at which armed civilians use their personal arms to prevent crime is orders of magnitude greater than crimes committed with firearms, and this has been true as long as I have been alive. I note that snitchery isn't much use in a community that relies on it's own efforts to enforce law, except insofar as turning to neighbors for help could be considered that. Personally, about a year ago a guy I've had some confrontational encounters with pulled knife on me and appeared to be about to use it. The situation was defused by another party - otherwise uninvolved - who used his personal sidearm to convince my assailant to disengage. After the assailant sobered up, he delivered to the park manager a note of apology, and that was the end of that. That's more typical of how crimes are prevented IRL than by recruiting assistance in dealing with an ongoing matter that can be predicted to reoccur IMHO. I have also personally on several occasions prevented crimes by having possession, nominal will, and ability to use personal arms. In all these events no one was physically harmed, and no further incidents occurred. Everyone learned something, and went on with their lives profiting from the experience (hopefully. I can only speak on that matter with direct knowledge of myself and the drunken stabby guy, but the incentive to learn was high, and the lack of subsequent issues evidentiary, I reckon). In none of those events were police involved. No one went to jail. No fines were paid. I find that all those outcomes were preferable for all concerned to what would have resulted from government involvement.

Regarding the Catholic Church, churches in general, schools, babysitters, and all sorts of outfits that often have access to our kids, I don't think it's a good idea for them to have access to our kids. Providing assistance doesn't equate to having unsupervised access to kids. I homeschooled my sons, and never once used a sitter, or even let my mom watch them (she didn't have a gun, and I didn't have confidence she could provide what I considered nominal security), or any other kind of unsupervised kid minding institution. I did let them attend High School, but by then my oldest was more competent to provide security than I am. Getting food, clothes, or other assistance doesn't require any such access, and unless folks are abusive rather than neglectful, I don't see the connection to institutional abuse. I reckon extended family, friends, or concerned neighbors getting together to discuss and resolve such issues would be far preferable than involving any institutions. Other folks differ in their opinions, and like you, prefer institutions involved. I'm not in charge (thank God!) and reckon folks have to live their lives as they see fit.

I don't think Orphanages were any worse in the past than they are today, and I hope that with better economic resources, far less need for such institutions exists today than it has in the past.

I don't think we should just ignore the problems faced by kids in bad homes. I just think that involving government creates a whole additional raft of problems for them that orderly society does not. I'm not claiming that family, friends, and neighbors taking on those roles for kids needing help would be perfect, or even necessarily better at dealing with them. I am saying that adding government to the mix adds problems and negative outcomes in more cases than would otherwise come about, and also adds other problems that impact society in various, even seemingly unrelated ways. Some of those other vectors for societal harm are involving other government agencies, such as health departments and mandatory vaccinations, penal institutions and corruption, precedents at law that elevate the state over sovereign persons and create the authority to surveil folks, harass them, and even kill them for failure to obey. Taxation to support such agencies remains theft, even if you reckon it's for a good cause, and no little harm comes from that alone. I could go on for some length (and I reckon you may feel I've already gone on too long =p) but I suspect our perspectives due to our different experiences will remain divergent.

I did want to explain a little more in hopes of enabling you to grasp I wasn't just hopeful things would all be ok if ebil gubment wasn't involved, but had some reason to expect better outcomes; that I wasn't uncaring or unthoughtful on the matter, and hoped to facilitate closer agreement between us. If you have any study or data you can link regarding the greater harmfulness of abusive parents than CPS after CPS becomes involved in a family, or how being returned to a family doesn't provide better outcomes than not, I'd be very interested, because those are not metrics I've seen.

Thanks!