why children should have mandatory shock collars - a treatise on public decorum

i propose that children should have to wear mandatory shock collars when sharing public space with the rest of us.

now before getting all upset about this idea, i would ask that one clears the mind of prejudice and preconceived notions.  then finish the full post before coming to a decision.

Edward Abbey is perhaps one of the most publicized and ostracizing writers on the environment that we have had.  Arches NP was his home for two seasons as a park ranger before the road getting to the top of the plateau was even paved.  he was opposed to its expansion.  a key argument against expanding Arches, and all National Parks, was that with such increased accessibility it would lead to "industrialized tourism".  i have been to many NPs but this is the first one i've spent time in with no tree cover or anything else to hide the multitudes of people.  i also have not been in a NP with that term, "industrialized tourism", in mind.  i can now say that i see, if not necessarily agree, with the man's fears.

one of the things that i've definitely noticed during my time here is just how common the "family vacation" is.  this is not a bad thing.  hell, i think if going to a National Park is taking the place of going to Disneyland then it's simply called responsible parenting.  so while reading please keep in mind that what i propose is a system born of necessity not cruelty.

anyone under the age of 18 should be issued a shock collar upon entering any space that is publicly owned.

i would propose placing them on anyone under 23 but i believe that would be illegal.

now i'm not talking about a taser sized volt of ions.  just a simple, quick, jolt.  like touching an electric fence.  happened to me all the time as a kid, i turned out fine and i learned to be wary of solitary wires floating in fields.

the system would work as thus:  each adult has a wireless control of sorts.  this control is primarily inactive, though it does put out a small signal just to show that it is acknowledged in "the count".  let's say a child is, hypothetically, some smug little bastard named matthew from california who appears to be about 16 and he is climbing a big fucking arch that people have hiked out to see and is doing so against all express signs and common sense.  this child's parents should ask this child to stop, but they do not.  they do not because they're on a family vacation and they are sick of trying to stop their child from being a complete dick.  as of right now, the parents are taking a vacation from their spawn because they have been trapped in a car for hours.  this is where the shock collar comes in.  actually, shock collar sounds menacing... how about "behavioral rectification necklace" or BRN for short.

the child is wearing his or her BRN that was issued alongside the park map.  for safety reasons, a ranger has checked the collar to ensure it is properly attached and in working order.  the misbehaving child in question is clearly doing something that is detrimental to the enjoyment of all around yet the parents do not act because of weariness.  as an annoyed member of the general populace, i activate my remote and move it to the "+" symbol.  nothing happens.  nothing happens because we are not fascists.  it will take 70% of the surrounding adults to do the same, showing an overwhelming consensus that electrocuting this child is in the interest of society.

if 70% seems like a low figure, please remember that in the US Senate 60% is referred to as a "super-majority".  clearly this means that 70% is a "super-duper-majority".

now, some children will no doubt have a tolerance to the introductory levels of "encouragement" and will not heed the initial suggestions.  so, as the percentage rises of adults in agreement rises above 70%, so does the amount of "encouragement" administered by the BRN.

back to that inconsiderate teenager who kept calling me "brah".  70% of the consenting adults in the area agree:  yes, matthew is a dick.  the BRN administers a low voltage amount of encouragement.  matthew is undeterred.  as frustrations of the group rise so does the voltage until matthew thinks "hmm, almost everyone who can see me wants to electrocute me in the neck.  i should adjust my behavior."  success.

now, is it the responsibility of the parent to maintain that their child's behavior does not go from "kids being kids" to "being a dick"?  absolutely.  if they didn't want kids they should have used a prophylactic or decided to be a homosexual like the rest of us responsible citizens.  they did not.  therefore they have this child in their charge and are ultimately responsible for its assimilation into general societal norms.  these norms are not stringent.  they allow for an incredible variety of expression.  even if that expression is so very counter-intuitive to the progress of humanity.  what i'm saying is that Glenn Beck had a television show.  it's not like we're trying to cull the herd or anything.

the problem arises, i believe, from the idea of a family vacation.  parents are exhausted by being locked in a metal box with their children.  this exhaustion is compounded by the fact that They Did This To Themselves.  this self defeating remorse is understandable and inevitable and its inevitability is why the rest of society should help this weary parent.

remember that to allow, encourage, or reinforce negative behavior means that it will persist into adulthood.  this negative behavior will make these adults terrible parents, which is why this program is so desperately needed.  to protect the children.