The End Justifies the means?

In the case of family values the state, the issue of separations is very much a hot topic that had raised more than a few eyebrows over the years. Despite the back and forth accusations and justifications for actions, very little by way of revolutionary changes have happened in the US or indeed the large part of the developed World.

State powers over family affairs are simply expanding and have reached a level where the need for checks and balances arise. However these checks and balances have been met with stiff resistance from the proponents of state affairs (department of health and human services) and the likes.

The main argument is that children need protection from abusive and irresponsible parents, and they do. In the worse case scenarios kids have actually been physically abused to the extent of fatal consequences by their parents or guardians. This simple but very important reason has indeed justified many related and unrelated actions by agencies and agents on behalf of state including some really bizarre ones like the decision to interfere with kids having health challenges even when there is little interest in their actual welfare.

But in hindsight just how much of silence stretch is it to say that the end justifies the means in this case. You see, the results show quite clearly that I'll advised interference is a net negative on the child's development. For every positive reason child protection is needed, the current system protends, there is a negative consequences that isn't all that hidden but is rarely brought to limelight.

Worrying is that the more the current system is allowed to foster, the less chances of a revolution. The next generation (or the one after that) may just find themselves in a World where the family is no longer the focal point of a child's development, but is relegated to obeying the whims and caprices of state.