Posted on 01/31/2002 8:34:56 AM PST by OWK
In a discussion in THIS thread, a Freerepublic poster identifying himself as a conservative made the following comments concerning public education:
Public schools are not much in dispute except among the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe and their haters generally are not enlightened spiritually or otherwise.
Thus, spiritually inclined people understand that the establishment of school systems to train the citizens of the future is very important and cannot be entirely done by private endeavors.
Most of the attackers of public schools simply don't know what they are talking about.
Millions of children are educated every year successfully by them.
As a matter of curiosity, I’d like to know whether the majority of conservatives on FR, generally agree or disagree with the poster’s position on the issue.
Good point. I was just speaking with a coworker, who was telling me about his son. Him and his wife spend 3 hours every night on homework (admittedly, the child has learning disabilities, but even so...)! That leaves no time for social activities or just plain being a kid. He's in 5th grade.
Parents play a significant role in education whether it be private or public. If you are not aware of that, it's time to begin.
I left the private school because of the last tuition increase, 20% or $2,000 per child. Cost per year suddenly became $13,000 plus expenses and giving per child, after taxes. Considering the fact that I live in what is considered to be one of the finest public districts in the state, maybe the best, and paying property taxes which exceed most people's income taxes, we decided to make the change.
Back to parental participation, my children are intelligent and indoctrinated into good study habits. It was our responsibility to see that those were maintained. The system offered higher levels of education for those willing to work, and we enrolled in those programs. As well, we insisted on extra-curriculars which the school offers in abundance.
The atmosphere is one of personal independence, very much unlike the private system. Here one must make his own decisions and be responsible for the same, there isn't anyone leading the class along step by step throughout the day. I understand why people who graduate from these systems are more likely to become independent authoritative figures later in life.
The system is also everything that you want to make it. It's easy to get by and most students do, but that's no different than real life. When considering the overall perspective, it really is more like real life.
And the point of school vouchers is to improve public schools through the coercive force of a more vigorous and all encompassing competition. The idea is that as the classrooms begin to empty in dysfunctional public schools, the system will reform, and the drain will be plugged. The biggest winners will be the kids at the bottom of the socio economic heap. Heck, newly empowered, some of them might just become Republicans in time. :)
Hmmmmmm......
So in order for capitalism to be moral.... it must be anti-capitalistic?
What's wrong with that picture?
Serfs lived in small communities called manors that were ruled by a local lord or vassal. Most peasants were serfs. They were bound to the manor and could not leave it or marry without the manor lord's permission.http://www.byu.edu/ipt/projects/middleages/LifeTimes/People.html
OOOOOOOPPSS! Sorry I thought that said Public Executions.
Example: You own property taxed at 1%.
A majority raises the tax to 10%.
Confiscatory rate. You can't sell, you can't leave.
You lose.
From someone who used to sleep in high school classes because the curriculum moved so slowly, I know what you're saying. The learning pace always moves toward the least common denominator at the expense of the faster learners.
As far as eliminating taxpayer funding, it only makes sense that if people feel they're paying directly for their child's education they'll take a more active role. Direct payment of schooling certainly seems like an important step.
If you are not too busy sometime today, please explain simply WHY it is immoral... is it taxation you think is immoral, is it that education is not spelled out in the constitution, or does your STRICT libertarian construct demand that you make no allowances for people who believe that being BORN here are by default BORN into a contract with government, they may not agree with.
Am I missing the why's and wherefores of your "immoral" classification of my idea. Asking a general question, and then your first response of "immoral" with no explanation as to WHY it is immoral seems a little less than I have come to expect of OWK.
A priori concepts can blind one to the pragmatic reality we all KNOW is there. You point that out to others on occassion. Perhaps your ideology, is driving your conclusion, instead of informing it.
NOT an accusation. Just when you point "immoral" in my direction, even loosely, I am interested why you think so. But then, as one who knows, you were probably hoping I would ask...
So consider yourself... asked.
That the current system is immoral is easy. That the one I proposed in response to YOUR request for input is immoral, out of hand without a little explanation is MORE than a little confusing.
Did I offend you on another thread or something? I don't get it.
It is immoral for ten men to take the property of another without his consent.
It is immoral for one thousand men to take the property of another without his consent.
It is immoral for the majority to take the property of another without his consent.
Morality does not benefit from economies of scale. It matters not whether the property is taken by one thief, or by millions of thieves claiming the mantle of "the majority". They are not entitled to take property against the will of the property owner.
And to then use the property so taken, to promote and advance ideas contrary and antithetical to the ideas held by the individual from whom the money is stolen, is doubly immoral.
Hence public schools which by definition are funded by money taken by force, and most certainly promote and advance ideas objected to by those from whom the money was taken by force, are objectively and demonstrably immoral.
What part of this do you not agree with?
We all decide to form a more perfect union. One governed by laws WE write or are written by a representative government. So, we, as a democratic republic follow a constitution that allows for "democratic" rule within certain boundaries. Some things are not up for debate, vote or legislative fiat by virtue of the a priori foundations of the constitution IE... life liberty and the pursuit of happiness may not collide with say, the first amendment.
Example, your pursuit of agnostic understanding and thought forms may NOT interfere with MY pursuit of a relationship with a living God.
It's ok. the atheism is not the point here. UNTIL the day you want to make it illegal to believe in God. That is where YOUR happiness runs into the first amendment (and vice versa by the way). It might make some happy to make it illegal to believe in God, but the Constitution and founding documents of our nation as a republic demand your pursuit of happiness, liberty or whatever ends when it runs into mine, according to the first amendment.
Well, the general welfare clause, the common defense clause as well as other constitutional strictures form the foundation for forced public education funding as a matter of national and public security and general well being.
Your happiness or my pursuit of liberty is trumped by the strictures of our republic. We can only debate as to HOW an education is to be provided, not whether it fits in with YOUR very strong libertarian bent or mine.
We do not have the option of rejecting the Constitutional priority of general welfare or common defense, only rejecting it withing the bounds of our democratic preferences. We get to vote HOW MUCH but NOT IF,we are going to fund public education. We get to vote perhaps about WHO qualifies for it and who may NOT (income limitations), but not about whether it is really necessary for the general welfare. The founders writings and all legal precedent all affirm it is.
Until it is proven that every person will get the opportunity to learn how to read, add, subtract, or gain a job skill, education by some means IS necessary.
For the most part, the educational hegemony we have today IS evil. The massive funding it receives is evil as well. I cannot imagine a child who would not be better off being trained by parents, even if the SUV was at stake, by mom or dad quitting their job to stay home and train the kids. But for those who do NOT have means, I believe the general welfare clause and the common defense, and more perfect union have to take priority over my desire to "end it, not mend it."
I think you can be right on principle but wrong in application. Just consider it.
If there were a way for private charity or industry to perform the function in a way that met certain minimum uniform standards, without taxpayer expense, I would conside that. WHO did you have in mind?
Even if you want it, or even need it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.