| | Luke,
The article goes on to say, "...only people in certain professions--including most medical professionals, school officials, social workers, day care workers, and some others--have a legal obligation to report child abuse."
I suspect that every state in the union has laws that make "mandated reporters" out of certain people. For example, doctors, hospitals and clinics are required to report gun shot wounds in most, if not all states.
Because many of the mandated reporters are actually employees, to some degree, of the government (schools, hospitals, children's protective agencies, etc.) it becomes confusing as to whether they should be required to make reports. Under Objectivism one does not have a duty to do anything that they have not contracted to do. In today's state, if you go into social work or teaching you end up having to accept that duty whether you want to or not, but it is as much a function of the state ownership of schools and other organizations as it is anything else.
Some professions like doctors, lawyers, priests, and psychologists are required NOT to report crimes (excluding child abuse and threats of violent future crimes) under the concept of privileged communications.
----------------------
In the article the argument goes from the need to pay for services that a government should provide instead of expecting to recieve them for free - e.g., paying a reasonable salary to those who serve in the military - to a claim that people must report crimes. "The need for us to report crimes and to take other reasonable actions is a necessary prerequisite of the police and others doing their jobs." Well, that is fine as long as we are talking about a voluntary, moral obligation. But to go futher and say that it should be legally mandated is another story. For example, if we are to be a free nation, then shouldn't we have a universal draft? Isn't that the same thing? Couldn't someone claim that if people don't man up and join when they are needed that we won't be able to defend ourselves? The truth is that if a nation is made of people, most of whom are opposed to crime, and the government is one that defends liberty, there will never be a lack of those to report crime.
In his article, Ted went on to propose that those who do not report crimes be denied government protection. He proposes that those who don't report crimes "...be treated as they wish, as outlaws."
It certainly has a ring of justice to it, but it isn't the answer to the problem and the problem isn't the one that should be dealt with. "Outlaws" is a term for those that violate the law - which with objective law, should only be those who violate individual rights.
Moral failings that don't involve the initiation of force should not be addressed by government in any way, shape or form. The heavy hand of government should be reserved for going after crooks, thugs, and threatening armies. Let private individuals privately sanction bad moral behavior that doesn't rise to the level of violating rights. There are many things that can NOT be solved with a law. Some things just require that society be made of people that know better.
|
|
