Suppose you believe in a basic conservative tenet that governments are limited and that responsibility should devolve to the smallest unit of government practicable.
What do you do with those who are not competent to regulate their own behavior?
For the Left, this isn’t really a problem, because they aren’t hampered by a belief that government should be smaller. Indeed, for them, it’s a question of the best tool available, which always happens to be a bigger government that can demand more resources and have the best people in charge of it.
When it comes to personal behavior, the Left wants government to have no role whatever in regulating it if that role smacks of judgment - marriage, sex, obscenity, all are to be let alone. (This non-judgmentalism reverses with evangelical fervor if the conduct is something the Left judges inappropriate - Left-condemned speech, organized sexual restraint, campaign finance, health care finance, campaign finance, weaponry, cigarettes, property use and ownership.)
Of course, unrestricted individual behavior is also a prime goal of the Right, at least the libertarian side of it.
So what do you do when cities start passing laws that criminalize or otherwise punish parents for failing to supervise their children? Maple Heights passed such a law, and a judge threw it out as unconstitutional . Bedford has a similar law, and Cleveland is looking at it.
It’s not an easy question. Society is already well down the road to regulating without limit individual behavior. No smoking laws anyone? How about low-fat diet laws? How about mandatory health care finance? On the one hand, it makes a great deal of sense to consider parents neglectful and responsible for raising little monsters. But what a nightmare, putting government in charge of fixing it.