Breeding dependency

A post about child abuse over at onehandclapping got me thinking about the morality of government breeding dependency and then holding it's citizens accountable when they fail to be independent.

Governments often have systems of aid designed to provide food, housing, health care, education, and more for people who cannot afford them, and sometimes for all. The rub comes when those same governments are charged with holding individuals accountable for not valuing the same. For instance the US government (actually these are often State programs federally subsidized) has several systems of food distribution to the poor and the young (WIC, food stamps, free breakfast and lunch at schools). The state also has authority to remove children from homes where food is not provided. It can also criminally punish parents for not providing food.

Is it possible that the very act of food distribution has resulted in a de-prioritizing of the value of providing food for one's child. It becomes an unwise use of resources to provide redundantly, so a wise steward will always use their resources to provide what is lacking. Perhaps the US will see a corresponding decline in the value their citizens place on other items they choose to subsidize. I wonder if there are other examples of this inverse proportion trend of subsidy to value.

The moral question here is can a government morally accept responsibility for providing the basic needs of children and at the same time hold parents accountable for fulfilling this responsibility? If not, which role (if either) is proper for government to hold, provider or enforcer?

Targeting children for paradigm shift

Outrage has never come more quickly than on the day when someone pointed at something that was not my god and told my two year old son that it was god. That experience made me rethink much of what is done in the name of "children's ministry".

I've seen this most often with Christian groups targeting their programming to children, included of course is some sort of evangelical element and the zinger is that these kids will bring home the message of Jesus to their very "hard to reach" families. But Christians are not the only offenders here. It is conventional wisdom that you have to teach something very early to get true change in the next generation. That same son was also told by his kindergarten teacher that salt is a bad thing to eat.

So, while this method, of "educating" children is perhaps the most efficient way of creating paradigm shift in a community, my question is whether it is moral to do so. I think consent of the parents is certainly in order. But I also want to explore the morality of obtaining that consent by dangling free/reduced services such as food and education as incentives for the parents. Especially when those services are very hard to come by otherwise. Is the phrase "coerced conversion" to strong in this situation?