This is the real role of a parent, to deny things to their kids they will inevitably get anyway...
We seem to disagree about the role of a parent...
You act as a mini-state, where the subjects must learn ways around the official rules to get what they want.
And a government.
But...let's not overrate maturity too much...
If you mean that false maturity that is simply cowardice or despondancy in disguise, I agree... but really, in what area of Western culture are we in danger of overrating maturity too much or in holding up stodginess as too high and noble of an idea to aspire too? It may be well and true that there is a false maturity which is too much, but really, is being too much mature minded really the danger that most of us find ourselves in? Are we really more in danger of being too serious minded and too adult, or are we culturally really more likely to not put off childish things?
You sound like the bunny saying, "Don't throw me in the briar patch." I see no evidence that stodgy sobriety is overly admired in our culture, or that we as a society too much admire stiff collars, decorum and propriety.
in the borrowed robes of puritanism
Good sir, what makes you think that they are borrowed or that the charge that I wear them is one that I must be ashamed of? That you would frankly inform me that I might possibly sound like a prig for speaking disparagingly of pornography and the like I think sufficiently proves my point that our current culture is in no danger of being overly stuffy and puritanical.
Sure, deny your kids stuff, but don't live under the illusion that they will not be susceptible to those base desires...they will, and so will everyone.
I'm under no such illusion about their temptations or mine. But you are quite wrong if you think that the best way to control temptation is to yield to it, and in that the lastest research on the subject supports me. (Though I don't have the journal articles in hand.)
However, it's only necessary to do a simple thought experiment to undermine that sort of logic. You think that overindulging in food is the best way to remove the temptation to gluttony, or that overindulging in alchohol is the best way to remove the temptation to drunkenness? Well, how about moderate indulgence in heroine? Do you think that sexual relations in one relationship make it more or less likely that your next romantic relationship will also be sexual? Perhaps you believe that losing your temper and engaging in the occasional moderate violence, makes it easier for you to avoid the tempation to violence? Perhaps you believe moderate indulgence in murder makes it easier for you to resist killing someone? I think you will find that it is only the temptations you don't mind yielding to which conveniently fit into this frame work where less discipline breeds more self-discipline and training yourself to self-discipline somehow leads to its opposite.
Blowing steam doesn't lead to being easy going. It leads to a quick temper, because blowing steam feels good and encourages you to do it more. The same is true of dessert. What might be good every once in a while is not controlled by eating more of it until you 'get bored'. Somethings which are not good for you you will not 'get bored' of, even as you are killing yourself and know it, you'll still keep doing it. If you want to learn to eat dessert in moderation, cultivate a taste for vegetables not dessert. I don't try to teach my children how to eat by giving them junk food and hoping they'll get bored of it.
Too much prudence is not something I think is the greater risk compared to too little because prudence is not a virtue highly esteemed just at this time. Perhaps if the economy goes a little more sour that will change, but for now shouting about the dangers of prudence doesn't strike me as particularly self-aware. For example, someone who says:
Prudence is a rich ugly old maid courted by Incapacity.
Probably doesn't come from a culture where people are much in danger of too much prudence in their choices.
Kids who are too prudent lose out on something quite valuable : a childhood.
Which seems to me to require quite a bit of reverse logic. Imprudence doesn't lead to acquisition, but to ruination and loss. All work and no play may well make Jack a dull boy, and there is a time for work and a time for rest, but imprudence in either work or play gains you nothing but scars and the wreckage of a life. Scars are sometimes valuable, but you wouldn't want too many of them and while learning to deal with failure is important, some mistakes are harder to recover from than others. I'm not proud of the fact I've never been drunk (it's no fault of mine), but I am glad of it. I'm not proud of the fact I've only been with one person (the obvious joke is that it is a fault of mine), but I am glad of it. I'm glad of these things because I've seen far far more childhood's lost to imprudence than to prudence. Would that I had more of the latter than I often show.
But really, now we are straying from the topic at hand. I was only trying to clarify Mr. Hickman's meaning for someone who seemed confused.
