From: Randall Parker 

In , note these
cogitations from alancairns{at}dccnet.com Alan Cairns:
> So do their own workers. A friend of mine faces disciplinary action
> for walking a child in care to the bus stop, after a warning that he
> must only speak to children in the office. I think the intent is to
> ensure the safety of the children,

Most added rules in a bureaucracy have as their justification some sort of
good intention. Some may actually really be motivated by good intentions
(even if the rules are on net harmfule. But most seem to have as their
motive to show that the bureaucracy is trying formally to prevent various
bad/embarassing/etc things that have happened from ever happening again. In
any event the rules are usually added at the expense of what ought to be
the real purpose of the particular institution in question.

But how can these rules ever be repealed? Hence Jefferson's comments about
the value of periodic revolution.

>but the assumption that all staff
> are abusers does little for morale. The same applies to foster
> parents.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5