Another reason to Home School...

[prisonchaplain]

Taking things from one person, who earned or created, is immoral on its face. It breaks the VIII commandment. Wanting to make me pay for your child's education also breaks the X. You may do so without hesitation, but your hope for no reprimand is less sturdy.

 

 

In all seriousness, I am familiar with the arguments about taxation for social programs being a form of theft.  A group forms, and all but one vote to take that one person's money.  Hey, it's a super-majority!  And yet, I look at Jesus' commands to take care of the widow and the orphan.  I look at his example of paying taxes to a cruel totalitarian government.  I consider also that Old Testament Israel was a theocratic state that blended religious contributions with taxes.  Then I look at a world that is largely influenced by Judeo-Christian tradition, and see that nearly every society has some form of public education.  In light of all that, raising your property tax and sales tax to support public education strikes me as a legitimate democratic function--not a violation of Commands 8 & 10.

And the recidivism rate? [For coercion]

 

At the federal level it's been about 40%. 

 

As I said, the student who's coerced remembers only until the test is over.

 

If the student is motivated s/he will learn and retain more.  However, most students allow some of that knowledge to seep in.  Only the most rebellious and resistant will actually forget all they have been taught.  It's surprising what we remember.

 

that would work provided the market were allowed to work. Subsidies to the grtf-welfare schools would surely keep them propped up a long time. But if they were required to charge tuition, like the other schools to stay open, they would shut down in a half a heartbeat.

 

No need to charge tuition.  Choose a public school and you get no tax credit.  Since public schools must take all-comers, and since they face greater public accountability (i.e. higher administrative and bureaucratic costs), we should not further weight the market against them.

Lehi

[Guest]

And about Public Education and Taxes.

 

I disagree with LeSellers on this as well.

 

The reason is because America is supposed to be a Representative Republic based on Democratic principles and you are in a Capitalist Free-Market Economy.  A basic requirement that makes these systems work is an Educated Populace.  A Representative Republic can easily be fooled by their Representatives if the populace are ignorant.  A Capitalistic Free-Market Economist easily becomes a victim of fraud if he is ignorant.  An educated populace keeps these systems balanced.

 

The Right to Vote therefore comes with Education... so you will cast an intelligent vote.  A free-market transaction therefore, comes with education... so you will make intelligent decisions.

 

It is, therefore, SOCIETY'S REPONSIBILITY to make sure each and every participating member of society can cast an intelligent vote and make intelligent market decisions to keep the system in balance.

 

How to execute that responsibility can be argued.  I have no problem with education being funded by the state to execute this responsibility.  I do have a problem with education being funded by the state to guarantee a vote for a specific political agenda.  I have a problem with education being funded by the state so people can qualify for jobs... that's not the State's responsibility to get people to qualify for jobs.

Edited January 14, 2016 by anatess

[LeSellers]

But, the school is not the sole source of instruction for my children.  It is simply a part of my entire education system - in the lemonade example, I hire out the squeezer to the public school... I still cover the rest and I still manage the entire thing.

You are a rarity.

 

I don't care if there are objectionable presentations or errors in teaching (happened in Civics).  My child knows what he is in school for.  He is not in school for sex education.  He is not in school for religious education or morality adjustment.  He is not in school for martial arts education.  Therefore, watching a presentation on something that doesn't agree with what he learns at home is not a problem for us.  He can watch it, critique it, and we'll have a lovely discussion about it when he gets home.  We're not isolationists.  Recognizing teachings that are incompatible with God's teachings and identifying the source of the error is just as much a part of my children's education as arithmetic.  Revisionist history is overridden at home.  School culture is superceded by my children's confidence in their Self Identity.  If the school culture and teacher authority start to supercede my authority, he's out of there.  Hasn't happened yet.

I'm sorry you don't care about the horrific downsides to grtf-welfare school presentations, curricula and textbooks, not to mention (which you didn't) teachers who do not share your views. Because they do have an effect on your children.

Some will say that a child needs to learn to stand up to this kind of conflict, and I say, yea, verily. The point of difference is that at eight or even eighteen, he's not prepared enough to do it when confronted with a trained adversary, like a teacher, and especially when surrounded by other students who've swallowed the part line, hook, and sinker. Peer pressure is also part of the grtf-welfare school environment.

In Protestant circles, there is a concept of "salt and light", i.e., the believing child is in school to bring others to the light of Christ, to be the salt of the earth among his cohort. But people who make a career out of this have done the studies to show that for every convert, there are three or four lost children, children who failed to be the light and who ended up losing their savor. Why? It's not hard to imagine, but for those who can't (or won't) guess, it's because the pressures on a child facing those enemies are greater than the child can bear.

One example's conclusion:

Conclusion: It is the rare child who is well-equipped and effective as salt and light at school—the exception rather than the rule. Even in the best of these cases the parents are trading off the opportunity for their child’s Christian worldview development when they cut them off from the godly influence of Christian teachers who are eager to unfold to them the exquisite beauty and coherence of God’s creation. Add to this multiple opportunities to pray, worship, and connect with other believing students in the Christian school community. Removing Christian education from the child is a precarious and risky ploy that leaves the child’s spiritual and moral development hanging in the balance. Sometimes it is hard not to be cynical about the real motivation of parents who make the “salt and light” trade-off with their children, particularly when one senses that materialistic or selfish reasons are prompting them to spend money on themselves rather than on tuition. Our North American culture can be seductive that way. While the “salt and light” argument may be well intended, it is a deficient and marginally effective model. At best, a decision by parents for their child to be salt and light diminishes the child’s opportunity for biblical training; at worst it’s a lie that parents tell themselves to rationalize shortsighted, consumeristic desires.

I feel pretty strongly that, with a few minor changes to the wording, this applies just as well to LDS children.

All the effort you put into unteaching and prepping your children to face the onslaught of evil in the grtf-welfare school could be better spent teaching correct principles in the first place. It save you, it saves your energy, and it will verly likely save your child.

Now, you have every right to send your child any place you please. You can spend your time unteaching, prepping, and adding new material, that's your right as his parents. But when we did the cost/benefit analysis, it just didn't pan out. Family-Centered Education was far more an effective use of time and other resources than grtf-welfare schooling.

Edited January 14, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

You are a rarity.

 

 

If this is true, it's not the fault of the School System.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry you don't care about the horrific downsides to grtf-welfare school presentations, curricula and textbooks, not to mention (which you didn't) teachers who do not share your views. Because they do have an effect on your children.

 

Some will say that a child needs to learn to stand up to this kind of conflict, and I say, yea, verily. The point of difference is that at eight or even eighteen, he's not prepared enough to do it when confronted with a trained adversary, like a teacher, and especially when surrounded by other students who've swallowed the part line, hook, and sinker. Peer pressure is also part of the grtf-welfare school environment.

 

 

I chose to live in this county, in this zipcode for a reason.  I didn't have to.  You make it sound like the school is horrible.  If it is, find another school!  Our school is not horrible.  Teachers do not share our views - there are no Mormon teachers in the school.  I know what effect they have on my children.  Like I said, we're not isolationists, so part of my teaching is Who You Are within a planet of Not Yous.  This is where having a Filipino-size family becomes useful.  Your identity defaults to family tradition.  "We are Anatess" is the basic foundation of their identity.  "You are a Priest" is added when they turned 12.  When my child is campaigning for a Presidential candidate and getting traction against his teachers and classmates, we're still okay.  When my other child distributed 10 Books of Mormon to his peers who wanted a copy and pointed out the School Handbook when his teacher confronted him about it and got his way, we're still okay.  When it becomes worrisome, then that school is not working out for my child and he needs to go somewhere else.

 

If my child was so impressionable and insecure that a teacher's authority supercedes mine, he'll be homeschooled.  It's whatever fits the child. 

 

So, one more time... if your child is not learning well, it is not the school's fault regardless of erroneous textbooks and bully teachers... IT'S THE PARENTS'.

 

 

In Protestant circles, there is a concept of "salt and light", i.e., the believing child is in school to bring others to the light of Christ, to be the salt of the earth among his cohort. But people who make a career out of this have done the studies to show that for every convert, there are three or four lost children, children who failed to be the light and who ended up losing their savor. Why? It's not hard to imagine, but for those who can't (or won't) guess, it's because the pressures on a child facing those enemies are greater than the child can bear.

One example's conclusion:

I feel pretty strongly that, with a few minor changes to the wording, this applies just as well to LDS children.

All the effort you put into unteaching and prepping your children to face the onslaught of evil in the grtf-welfare school could be better spent teaching correct principles in the first place. It save you, it saves your energy, and it will verly likely save your child.

 

 

Sure - if we go by your premise that the Public Schools my children attended are branches of School of Satan, Inc who are out to get my children.  They are not.  They're simply schools doing their best to teach my kids reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic.  I can't vouch for any other Public School.

 

Peer pressure only overcomes your child if he is facing pressure alone.  He is not.  That's what his family is for.  To help him make sense of the world and solve problems.

 

One last time... when a product of the Salt Lake City Public School qualifies to be a Prophet of God...  it is not the school's fault if your kid is not learning the right things in school.  It is the PARENTS'!

Edited January 14, 2016 by anatess

[LeSellers]

I have no problem with education being funded by the state to execute this responsibility. I do have a problem with education being funded by the state to guarantee a vote for a specific political agenda. I have a problem with education being funded by the state so people can qualify for jobs... that's not the State's responsibility to get people to qualify for jobs.

This 'graf, your last, rebuts the whole rest of your post.

GRTF-Welfare schools may not guarantee a vote for a specific agenda, but it does tilt the field in favor of one PoV. They are, by design and necessity, political. Every employee, from the supe to the janitor, has an economic incentive to make the system bigger and permanent.

Most people would disagree. They'd say that the very raison d'être for grtf-welfare schools is to fit people for jobs. But here, again, we agree. An education is not about a Job — it's about thinking, or, rather, about learning how to think. GRTF-Welfare schools are ill-prepared to teach how to think, but they are highly effective at teaching a child what to think (or when to think which is what job-education is all about).

The reason [i disagree about taxation to fund schools] is because America is supposed to be a Representative Republic based on Democratic principles and you are in a Capitalist Free-Market Economy. A basic requirement that makes these systems work is an Educated Populace. A Representative Republic can easily be fooled by their Representatives if the populace are ignorant. A Capitalistic Free-Market Economist easily becomes a victim of fraud if he is ignorant. An educated populace keeps these systems balanced.

But you might agree that government need not provide the resources (buildings, teacher's books, etc.) directly. Only money is necessary.

I'd say that even if the state were to provide the funding, it should do so only for the poor. That would leave better off parents able to choose for their children the best education available.

That said, there is no need even for that because there are already scholarships for K~12, and if there were fewer taxes, we'd be able to fund even more of them. And parents (and grandparents) would be able to finance their own offsprings' education.

Thomas Jefferson said that the state should provide three years of schooling for all children (as long as the parents did not object). I believe he was wrong because it is immoral for the state to supersede the parents in providing an education. 'Course, he was talking only about readin', 'ritin', an 'rithmetic, enough for a man to take care of his own affairs. The schools we have now fail miserably in all three of these.

The Right to Vote therefore comes with Education... so you will cast an intelligent vote.

Unfortuantely, you are wrong. The right to vote comes from passing your 18^th birthday. There is no requirement that you know anything.

A free-market transaction therefore, comes with education... so you will make intelligent decisions.

A free market transaction comes about when one person desires what another person has, and is willing to give the second party something he wants more than he wants the thing in question.

It is, therefore, SOCIETY'S REPONSIBILITY to make sure each and every participating member of society can cast an intelligent vote and make intelligent market decisions to keep the system in balance.

Your point does not follow from your premises.

It is each person's responsibility to fit himself to cast a ballot or buy what he wants.

How to execute that responsibility can be argued.

Even if we accept your premise (which I emphatically do not), we can argue that, just as the government does not open grocery stores to provide food for the poor, it need not open schools to provide education.

There are hundreds of options beside the grtf-welfare schools we have. It is this reality that throws light onto the reason for grtf-welfare schools: it's not about education, it's about control.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

If my child was so impressionable and insecure that a teacher's authority supercedes mine, he'll be homeschooled.  It's whatever fits the child. 

 

So, one more time... if your child is not learning well, it is not the school's fault regardless of erroneous textbooks and bully teachers... IT'S THE PARENTS'.

 

While it may very well be the parents' fault, the schools I have seen personally and have read about from across this land are working feverishly to undermine those parents.

 

Sure - if we go by your premise that the Public Schools my children attended are branches of School of Satan, Inc who are out to get my children.  They are not.  They're simply schools doing their best to teach my kids reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic.  I can't vouch for any other Public School.

Why lay that on me? It was Horace Mann who said that his schools would divorce children from their parents, their mores and their religions.

That's about as satanic as I can imagine.

 

Peer pressure only overcomes your child if he is facing pressure alone.  He is not.  That's what his family is for.  To help him make sense of the world and solve problems.

Well, unless you are standing there, beside him while he's presenting his project in front of the class, he is very much alone.

 

One last time... when a product of the Salt Lake City Public School qualifies to be a Prophet of God...  it is not the school's fault if your kid is not learning the right things in school.  It is the PARENTS'!

It is to our advantage that the schools are inept even at their stated goal of weakening the Family and indoctrinating children completely.

But it all comes with very high prices, economic, spiritual, and mental.

Lehi

Edited January 14, 2016 by LeSellers

[David13]

Anatess

You are a rarity.

 

There is an understatement. 

Anatess you impress me as extremely intelligent and well educated, and with a great power of discernment.  So the job you do with your children is as I see it, going to be far and above what the average American parent is going to do.

So one way or another your children are going to come out on top. 

I agree where the parents have far lesser talents, public school is probably the better idea.

But I also agree with Lehi that public school is indoctrination and not much else.

And I disagree with Prison Chaplain that prison has been successful in any way other than to educate the criminals on how to better commit crimes.  A school for crime if you will.

dc

[LeSellers]

Taking things from one person, who earned or created them, is immoral on its face. It breaks the VIII commandment. Wanting to make me pay for your child's education also breaks the X. You may do so without hesitation, but your hope for no reprimand is less sturdy.

In all seriousness, I am familiar with the arguments about taxation for social programs being a form of theft. A group forms, and all but one vote to take that one person's money. Hey, it's a super-majority! And yet, I look at Jesus' commands to take care of the widow and the orphan. I look at his example of paying taxes to a cruel totalitarian government. I consider also that Old Testament Israel was a theocratic state that blended religious contributions with taxes. Then I look at a world that is largely influenced by Judeo-Christian tradition, and see that nearly every society has some form of public education. In light of all that, raising your property tax and sales tax to support public education strikes me as a legitimate democratic function--not a violation of Commands 8 & 10.

I don't doubt that you understand the argument. But your bringing up Jesus' command that we care for the poor is inappropriate. He was not talking about taxation, coercing the reluctant to pay up: His was a command to the individual believer. As for Rome, there are many ways we could discuss where Rome was a less "totalitarian" government than what we endure today.

Politicians and bureaucrats are greedy for power. They love welfare in all its forms, including schools, to keep people in line and giving them even more power. No one is prone to cut off the supply when his livelihood is on the line, nor his child's “only” source of education, or his food, or his … . Power is like a narcotic. Those who are addicted to it are unlikely to give it up willingly.

 

And the recidivism rate [for all crimes]?

At the federal level it's been about 40%.

So in at least 40% of the cases, coerced learning is ineffective. I say "at least" because the fact that they are not in jail does not mean they are not repeating.

 

As I said, the student who's coerced remembers only until the test is over.

If the student is motivated s/he will learn and retain more. However, most students allow some of that knowledge to seep in. Only the most rebellious and resistant will actually forget all they have been taught. It's surprising what we remember.

This damning with faint praise, fer shure.

 

That would work provided the market were allowed to work. Subsidies to the grtf-welfare schools would surely keep them propped up a long time. But if they were required to charge tuition, like the other schools to stay open, they would shut down in a half a heartbeat.

No need to charge tuition. Choose a public school and you get no tax credit. Since public schools must take all-comers, and since they face greater public accountability (i.e. higher administrative and bureaucratic costs), we should not further weight the market against them.

This assumes that the terrain would be level. Government terrain is never level.

Lehi

Edited January 15, 2016 by LeSellers

[prisonchaplain]

Jesus command to help the poor certainly can apply.  We are a society--a people.  We take Jesus command to help the poor (which was not directed to individual effort, but to his followers in general) and apply it communally.  Christ-honoring societies will help the poor.  How that should play out is another discussion.  I'm not insisting that  Jesus supports Welfare Bill #5.  However, I would suggest that if taxes help the poor then on some level we Christ-followers should take satisfaction that our ethics are being embraced by the larger community.  At minimum, we give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

 

As for the 40% recidivism rate, I'll not defend it.  The agency's not proud of it.  There are strong efforts to drive that rate down.  And yes, if coercion is the primary motivator then 40% is stellar performance.  Other incentives that aim towards the higher internal drives are needed.  Keep in mind though that prisons typically are dealing with adults.  It still strikes me as odd that making school mandatory through high school (or even until 16/10th grade completion, as I suggested) is something that has to be defended. 

[LeSellers]

It still strikes me as odd that making school mandatory through high school (or even until 16/10th grade completion, as I suggested) is something that has to be defended.

Why?

Freedom (in this case for parents, not the children) is a very, very important thing. Your proposal denies people freedom. Freedom is the most important political good. Without freedom, we are slaves.

Agency is one of the most important of all of God's gifts to us. To deny it by requiring that children attend school because it makes us feel good about it, is to denigrate it.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

We are a society--a people.  We take Jesus command to help the poor (which was not directed to individual effort, but to his followers in general) and apply it communally.

There is no commandment to pay taxes for welfare programs. like SNAP and grtf-welfare schools.

The "rich young ruler" was commanded to go and sell all the he had and give it to the poor. He was not commanded to go and sell all his neighbors had.

Welfare is not charity. Welfare destroys, undermines, and weakens the human spirit, the spirit of all who are connected to it, even the bureaucrats'. Charity ennobles, lifts up and strengthens all who participate — giver, receiver and administrator.

Lehi

Edited January 15, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

I would suggest that if taxes help the poor then on some level we Christ-followers should take satisfaction that our ethics are being embraced by the larger community.

The welfare that you imagine we should be grateful for does not help the poor at all. It makes them dependent on the government, and, specifically, on those who administer the dole. It makes them slaves, and slaves of the lowest sort: slaves who willingly give up their humanity for a mess of potage.

Only those who are part of the power structure truly benefit from welfare. It makes them even and ever more powerful with every check they write (using other people's money, and they get the glory and the honor for doing it).

Welfare is not God's plan, and it does not make anyone more Christ like. Imagine somone standing before the pleasing bar of Christ, pleading the he was a good Christian because he paid taxes. Somehow, that doesn't sound like a valid response to His command to serve the poor and the needy.

Lehi

Edited January 15, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

This 'graf, your last, rebuts the whole rest of your post.

 

It doesn't.  There's a big difference between what the state SHOULD do and what the state actually does.  The first one is a matter that should make you stop classifying Education as Welfare.  The 2nd is a matter that should make you pepper your state representatives to execute education properly.

 

 

I'd say that even if the state were to provide the funding, it should do so only for the poor.

 

That's what you call Welfare.  And I disagree with that.  Education is NOT welfare.  I believe the state should provide for education to preserve freedom in the same manner that it provides the armed forces.  Nobody would dare posit that the military is welfare because your taxes pay for it.

 

 

<snip>

Lehi

 

All the rest of your statements has no bearing on my point.

 

My point is - Education in the USA is not Welfare.  It is the state's responsibility to guarantee that the populace is educated.

 

How the state's responsibility to educate is executed is outside the bounds of this point.  All your negativity towards Public School stems from its poor execution that is a direct result of a combination of poor government decision-making and the breakdown of the American family.  The plain fact is - Family-Centered Education only works when there's a Family to center on.

 

The Philippine Public Education System is patterned after the American one (the Americans set it up back in the 50's).  Filipino kids only go to the public school as a last resort because in most areas, it is poorly executed.  The family bands together to pay for quality education at excellent private schools.  It does have great execution in the remote areas.  In these areas, teachers and children would walk 10 kilometers climbing up vertical cliffs and crossing swift rivers just to get to school.  Some areas they have to wait for low-tide to walk to school in the next island over and the next low-tide to get home.  These people will not just sit there and accept sub-standard education without a fight.

 

If I was the totality of both Executive and Legislative branches, I would adopt the Voucher program with a Public School as a safety-net.  The public school is not a regional school... rather, it competes for students in the same manner that the post office competes with UPS.  You still pay for Public School - the cost is equal to the amount of the voucher.  The Public School is then run as individual institutions (each school is responsible for its own curriculum and set-up and has complete autonomy) but each Public School has to meet specific state-mandated quality standards.

Edited January 15, 2016 by anatess

[Guest]

Why?

Freedom (in this case for parents, not the children) is a very, very important thing. Your proposal denies people freedom. Freedom is the most important political good. Without freedom, we are slaves.

Agency is one of the most important of all of God's gifts to us. To deny it by requiring that children attend school because it makes us feel good about it, is to denigrate it.

Lehi

 

One's freedom ends where another's freedom begins.  A person's decision to be illiterate in the United States of America robs another of his freedom.  This is perfectly displayed in a person casting an ignorant vote.

 

This is why the United States of America is not purely democratic.  The USA is run by the rule of law to check one's freedom where another's begins.

Edited January 15, 2016 by anatess

[yjacket]

This is perfectly displayed in a person casting an ignorant vote.

Being illiterate and casting an ignorant vote have nothing to do with each other. One can be very learned and yet cast an ignorant vote.  Case in point, how many of you actually study the race for your local county commissioner? Do you study the candidates out on every vote?

 

Having been involved a bit in politics, the vast majority of people simply vote according to the party they most affiliate with R or D. Elections occur every year, yet very few people are actually educated on the individuals they are voting for.  Even the presidential election is more about who looks the best or sounds the best, who has the best digs.

 

Voting is more about philosophy rather than education.  One might be educated in the best science and art, but if they are taught socialist principles in school, guess who on average they will vote for later in life.

 

A person might be illiterate or uneducated yet through experiences recognize you can't get something for nothing and then vote against socialist candidates.  In fact, I'd rather have farm boys voting rather than Harvard boys.

[yjacket]

A person's decision to be illiterate in the United States of America robs another of his freedom. 

Completely false; this same line of thinking is why everyone must have health care.

 

"A person's decision to not have health care insurance in the United States of America robs another of his freedom. This is perfectly displayed in people going to the ER without insurance"

 

Welcome to socialist america with that line of thinking.

[LeSellers]

That's what you call Welfare.  And I disagree with that.  Education is NOT welfare.  I believe the state should provide for education to preserve freedom in the same manner that it provides the armed forces.  Nobody would dare posit that the military is welfare because your taxes pay for it.

The comparison is nonsense. Defense is a collective good/service (although there are ways to make it both better and cheaper that do not involve the government). Education is a personal good.

You keep asserting that education is a responsibility of government, but you offer no evidence for it except your opinion (share, to be sure, by many, but a majority does not the truth define).

My point is - Education in the USA is not Welfare.

What is welfare then?

GRTF-Welfare schools are tax funded and give their "service" to a select group (in this case defined by age), and one-size-fits-all: ever child between 6 and 7 years old is categorized by his age and is in second grade, irrespective of his abilities, needs, desires or talents. Quite the opposite: the best children in a given subject are ignored, and the resources of the school get focused on the poorer students. In the end, while each child gets varying levels of resources throw at him, the outcomes are both identical and individual: Identical because everyone gets a diploma, but no one achieves to the same level (although that is the goal); everyone sat through the same classes, but real learning ranges from non-existent to marginally proficient.

GRTF-Welfare schools are explicitly welfare because no parent pays the full freight of his child's indoctrination: one's neighbors pick up the balance.

The mere fact of paying taxes does not change the underlying fact that grtf-welfare schools are welfare. The fact that, over time, one may possibly pay as much in property taxes as his children took in "services" from the school system does not change their being welfare. A person may receive welfare "benefits" in one part of his life, and pay much more in taxes during other phases, but those "benefits" were and will always be welfare.

What any one person considers welfare is often dependent on whether he is the beneficiary. When he is the recipient, it's not welfare, it's his right. But truth is not fickle: getting something you do not pay for, that you have not earned is welfare when those paying have no choice in the matter.

Lehi

Edited January 20, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

The comparison is nonsense. Defense is a collective good/service (although there are ways to make it both better and cheaper that do not involve the government). Education is a personal good.

You keep asserting that education is a responsibility of government, but you offer no evidence for it except your opinion (share, to be sure, by many, but a majority does not the truth define).

 

 

It's not opinion.  It is what it is.

 

America is a nation BECAUSE of the rule of law.  This is Constitutional Law - not Natural Law or Religious Law or any other law.  Without this law, America ceases to exist.

 

An American Citizen, therefore, is OBLIGATED to be educated, at least literate, to be able to be ruled by law and be an American.  Ignorance is not an exemption from the rule of law.

 

American economy runs on Free Market Capitalism.  This is an economic system that ONLY WORKS through an educated populace.  Greed can only be checked when the participants of capitalism are educated.  Ignorance is not an exemption from market losses.

 

An American Citizen is also OBLIGATED to defend the nation's sovereignty.  A defenseless population will make America cease to be a nation.

 

Now, America can always decide that National Security is now going to be administered without government.  Each individual is going to be responsible for defense of the nation through their own resources and methods - they can band together as a militia using their own self-bought weaponry, etc.

 

In the same token, America can always decide Education is now going to be administered without government.  Each individual is going to be responsible to pay for their own literacy to cast a knowledgeable vote and to live their lives in accordance to their knowledge and understanding of the law through their own resources and methods - they can band together as FCE organizations, etc.

 

The fact remains that having the government administer these national requirements via taxation is not welfare.

 

On the other hand -

A sick population doesn't make America cease to be a nation.

A hungry population doesn't make America cease to be a nation.

A homeless population doesn't make America cease to be a nation.

A population without a Bachelor's degree doesn't make America cease to be a nation.

A jobless population doesn't make America cease to be a nation.

Any tax monies levied for these safety-nets are going to be welfare.

Edited January 19, 2016 by anatess

[LeSellers]

It's not opinion.  It is what it is.

Were that the case, there would have been grtf-welfare schools from the beginning. There weren't. GRTF-Welfare schools did not arrive onto USmerican soil until the 1850s, specifically, in 1852 when Horace Mann imported them from Prussia to Massachusetts.

The truly public schools prior to that were not grtf-welfare schools, complete with the compulsory attendance laws that put l'il butts in the seats to assure transferring power from parents to the government. These schools were required by law, fer shure, but no one was forced to send his child to those schools, and they charged tuition. Recall it was because Oliver Cowdery was one of these quasi-itinerant teachers that he met the Joseph Smith, Sen., family in 1829. The families paid tuition fees and also put the teacher up with room and board as part of the cost of teaching their children. The families also built the school house, usually, but not always, at their own expense.

 

America is a nation BECAUSE of the rule of law.  This is Constitutional Law - not Natural Law or Religious Law or any other law.  Without this law, America ceases to exist.

And where did I, or anyone else, reject this notion?

 

An American Citizen, therefore, is OBLIGATED to be educated, at least literate, to be able to be ruled by law and be an American.  Ignorance is not an exemption from the rule of law.

If that were true, there would be no illiteracy in USmerica. Unfortunately, the functional (not complete, but merely marginal) literacy rate in USmerica barely clears half the population.

There is what I call the "Iron Rule of Humanity" that states that we can determine what anyone, any group, or any organization truly wants to achieve but looking at the results over time.

When, in 1852, Mann's grtf-welfare school forced the parents of Massachusetts to turn their children over to the state, the true literacy rate was about 98%. This was true in all 31 states if we exclude slaves who could not vote.

In contrast, the literacy rate in Massachusetts today is less than 40% (the higher functional literacy rate is not comparable: apples to apples). The state has controlled the schools for 169 years or longer, so that drop is the direct result of their efforts. A century and a hal is more than enough time to determine the goal of the institution of grtf-welfare schools, and it is no surpirse that with unlimited resources, the people cannot read. Why? Because being unable to read is a key indicator of whether someone is likely to be able to think independently. So, we agree 100% that literacy is paramount to a free people's existence.

That being so, why have schools failed to teach people to read? There is but one reasonable conclusion, and it has everything to do with governmental power.

Lehi

Edited January 19, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

Completely false; this same line of thinking is why everyone must have health care.

 

"A person's decision to not have health care insurance in the United States of America robs another of his freedom. This is perfectly displayed in people going to the ER without insurance"

 

Welcome to socialist america with that line of thinking.

 

Incorrect.  America is not America because it has healthcare insurance.  America is America because of the Rule of Law.  Rule of Law - unless it's Natural Law (like the Native Americans practiced) - requires Literacy.  Without the Rule of Law, there is no America.  Without Healthy People, America is STILL America.

[LeSellers]

America is not America because it has healthcare insurance.

One could argue that USmerica ceased to be USmerica when we got "health insurance". But that would ignore that other idiocies of socialism that were just as destructive as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (which is a lie in every word — except "the" and "and").

 

America is America because of the Rule of Law. … Without the Rule of Law, there is no America.

Again, there is no argument against this position.

 

Rule of Law - unless it's Natural Law (like the Native Americans practiced) - requires Literacy.

You have asserted this several times, but you have provided no evidence of it. Or, at least, that it is the government's duty to assure that individuals are literate (a function at which it fails miserably, btw).

If we (falsely) assume that USmerica was illiterate before Horace Mann imported his Prussian schools in 1852, how did this country come into being and continue to exist prior to that point?

But, because that assumption is erroneous, we can see that government-run, tax-funded welfare schools are not the best means to achieve this end. And, coupled with the abject failure of government to assure literacy, it becomes apparent that grtf-welfare schools are likely the worst means to get there.

That being the case, we are left to ponder why the government insists on running schools at all. A parallel case exists for governments running churches: many people said that without established churches, people would not be religious just as people now claim that without grtf-welfare schools people would be illiterate. Yet both claims are demonstrably false.

It would be far better, both for individuals and for our country, were parents to reclaim the rights and their duty to educate their children without any governmental influence or power or money or requirements.

Lehi

Edited January 20, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

One could argue that USmerica ceased to be USmerica when we got "health insurance". But that would ignore that other idiocies of socialism that were just as destructive as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (which is a lie in every word — except "the" and "and").

 

Again, there is no argument against this position.

 

You have asserted this several times, but you have provided no evidence of it. Or, at least, that it is the government's duty to assure that individuals are literate (a function at which it fails miserably, btw).

If we (falsely) assume that USmerica was illiterate before Horace Mann imported his Prussian schools in 1852, how did this country come into being and continue to exist prior to that point?

But, because that assumption is erroneous, we can see that government-run, tax-funded welfare schools are not the best means to achieve this end. And, coupled with the abject failure of government to assure literacy, it becomes apparent that grtf-welfare schools are likely the worst means to get there.

That being the case, we are left to ponder why the government insists on running schools at all. A parallel case exists for governments running churches: many people said that without established churches, people would not be religious just as people now claim that without grtf-welfare schools people would be illiterate. Yet both claims are demonstrably false.

It would be far better, both for individuals and for our country, were parents to reclaim the rights and their duty to educate their children without any governmental influence or power or money or requirements.

Lehi

 

Again, one more time... I am not arguing about HOW literacy is achieved.  I am simply pointing out that literacy is REQUIRED in a country ruled by law which ceases to be welfare when it is meted out by government.

 

How did the country remain a country before literacy was mandated?  It remained a country because of literate people.

[LeSellers]

I am simply pointing out that literacy is REQUIRED in a country ruled by law

No argument.

 

 

which ceases to be welfare when it is meted out by government.

How does the meting out by the state change the nature of grtf-welfare schools from welfare to something else?

GRTF-Welfare schools are no less welfare than SNAP, which is also meted out by the state. The necessity of education is no greater (perhaps less) than food, so that cannot be the criterion. The fact that an illiterate populace would make this a different country does not change the fact that a government school is welfare. Especially when those schools are, on their face, immoral, both in concept and implementation.

 

How did the country remain a country before literacy was mandated?  It remained a country because of literate people.

Exactly.

GRTF-Welfare schools are not needed, they are counterproductive to the goal (a literate citizenry), and they are immoral.

How can anyone defend them?

Lehi

Edited January 20, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

No argument.

 

 

How does the meting out by the state change the nature of grtf-welfare schools from welfare to something else?

 

When you start calling USAF grtf-USAF then we'll have no argument (regardless of the level of stupidity that institution is currently run by said government).  After all - it is government-run and tax-funded.  So it should be welfare too - by your definition.

Edited January 20, 2016 by anatess

[LeSellers]

When you start calling USAF grtf-USAF then we'll have no argument (regardless of the level of stupidity that institution is currently run by said government).  After all - it is government-run and tax-funded.  So it should be welfare too - by your definition.

No problem.

However, "USAF" includes "United States [of America]" as part of its name. "GRTF-USAF" is redundant.

The misleading name (chosen, btw, for its deceptiveness) "public" schools needs to be unmasked so the people understand that they are not "our schools" (as so many think), but the government's schools.

Lehi