Saturday, March 24, 2012

Why Should We Raise a Generation of Dangerous Children?

Several correspondents are under the misapprehension that the Dangerous Child movement is intended to somehow save our modern dysfunctional societies from themselves. Perhaps we have given the impression that dangerous children are meant to find their way into leadership positions, and to somehow steer society into more productive directions.

Such a thing might have been possible had it been undertaken a number of decades ago. Unfortunately, the die has been cast -- at least for most of Europe and for the US. Skyrocketing debt and a declining demographic are combining with a widespread popular sentiment of entitlement and a loss of vital skills and skilled occupations.

In other words, even if truly wise and truly dangerous children were to find their way into important leadership positions of societies, they could do very little to correct the downward trajectories or to avert disaster.

The Dangerous Child movement is more about providing foci for building new societies out of societies-in-decline that inevitably find themselves suffering hard times. Construction, not destruction, is the intent of the movement. But construction that occurs in the context of a surrounding society that has caused its own inexorable decline.

Being a dangerous child is partially a state of mind -- sceptical of authority without being cynical or nihilistic. But it is also a state of preparation and a particular ordering of assets and skills. It is the most important quiet trend that we can conceive of at this time, for western societies that are in decline.

Some US cable networks are beginning to focus on "prepper" groups, families, and individuals. It is an interesting sociological trend, which has been around at least since the Jimmy Carter presidency. But the prepper movement doesn't hold a candle to the dangerous child movement, in terms of importance to the future.

US political movements which are intended to push back government bloat, excessive spending, and excessive regulatory and tax burden on US business and freedom, are very important. Groups such as the Tea Party movement, the libertarian movement, and other groups who attempt to hold back government tyranny, should do their utmost to achieve their goals. Optimism is clearly better than pessimism, in terms of a successful outcome.

Still, at least a few must make provision against a catastrophic outcome. In such a case, we will need as many dangerous children as we can get.

No comments: