To "spoil" a child does not refer to treating the child well. To spoil someone means to create a sense of entitlement where none exists. To spoil a child means to create and maintain the impression in a child that he/she is entitled to whatever he or she wants, whenever he or she needs it, right up to young adulthood and even beyond. If you treat a young person well, and this young person understands that the treatment is rationally deserved, and why -- well, then, you're not spoiling anyone. Treating someone well, by the way, ought to be done in the spirit of the attitude, "This person deserves it and I like doing it." Anything less than that is a red flag for trouble, because it means you're doing it out of a sense of rewarding unearned entitlement. I know that this flies in the face of conventional wisdom which posits, "Unconditional love is the only way to raise a child." All I can say in reply is that the philosophy of unconditional love was the dominant attitude of American parents for decades after WW II, up through and including the present. And look at what happened to America.

Much More on Raising Children (And Adults) Rationally in Dr. Hurd's GROW UP AMERICA! Click Here for details. 

"Madame, you could go outside and get run over by a bus and just think what you would have missed!"

-- Graham Kerr, TVs "Galloping Gourmet" in response to criticism that he cooked with butter and enjoyed wine.

Nearly everyone says, about anything they deem unpleasant, "There ought to be a law!" For example: "There ought to be a law requiring people not to use their cell phones while driving." Will the law be enforced? Does it punish people who use their cell phones and still manage to drive safely? Shouldn't unsafe driving be punished, rather than something which some people blame on unsafe driving? No matter. There ought to be a law. "There ought to be a law against trans fats." Don't people have a right to put into their body what they want? Do fats cause everyone to get fat -- or only people who eat too much of them? No matter. There ought to be a law.

These may seem like innocent or, at worst, silly things human beings have invented to make them feel better about themselves. I say: Not so much. Giving the government the power of dictatorship in some areas is to concede the point that government has the moral right to dictatorship in all areas -- or any area. You can better believe that someday government, given the lack of restraint we have put on it, will have control over everything. That's what governments do. Don’t want a dictatorship in America, of either the right-wing, left-wing or even religious kind? The only way to prevent a dictatorship is to restrict a government from doing anything, except for the bare minimum required to preserve property rights and protect individuals from physical force. I call that a "bare minimum," but it's a profoundly important bare minimum that we must have a government to accomplish. With government involved in everything else, it's not possible for it to do well in those areas. In fact, dictatorial governments play favorites. They protect those they like, and fail to protect -- or even harm -- those they dislike. Government allowed to go beyond its proper limits becomes a mafia (only much more dangerous than the mafia). That's what happened to American government, or is happening in slow motion as we speak.

So the next time you choose to utter the words, or even think the thought, "There ought to be a law..." keep in mind what you're saying. Are you saying, "There ought to be a law to protect individuals from force, fraud and even from government itself"? I would vote for that law. But I’d vote for few, if any, others.

Check Out Dr. Hurd's Conversation with a Liberal College Student...CLICK HERE!