Another reason to Home School...

[Vort]

Furthermore, I'll be more fervent about homeschooling when the current prophet says to do so. Because it has yet to be a commandment and the brethren don't seem to be really pushing it yet.

 

I fear the day when this might come -- not because I think the counsel would be wrong, but because it would mark an important point where the Brethren themselves think children would be better off outside of public schools than within them. At least some already think so, but if they all agreed to it enough to state it, that bodes ill for our society. Like a death knell.

[estradling75]

I could take offense at every message in this kind of topic, but I don't. Being offended is a choice, as Brother Brigham reminded us.

But because I do not take offense very often, I do not have a filter that might alert me to something that would offend others.

Lehi

 

Again.. when lots of people are telling you that you have a problem.. wisdom would dictate perhaps a but of introspection is in order... Rather then dismissing it and saying everyone else has a the problem.

 

Also if you continually meet resistance to your ideas, perhaps you should consider that it is not the ideas being resisted so much as your presentation of the ideas.  Doubly so when you see other who like your ideas but dislike the way you presented them

[LeSellers]

Again.. when lots of people are telling you that you have a problem.. wisdom would dictate perhaps a but of introspection is in order... Rather then dismissing it and saying everyone else has a the problem.

 

Also if you continually meet resistance to your ideas, perhaps you should consider that it is not the ideas being resisted so much as your presentation of the ideas.  Doubly so when you see other who like your ideas but dislike the way you presented them

I appreciate your input, but, as I said, I do not have a filter that helps sort out what others find offensive. It doesn't help that our culture is now one where so many people get offended at the drop of a hat, hat optional.

So, again, I ask, and I am most sincere, what would you do?

Lehi

[The Folk Prophet]

This is my standard approach. Seems to generally work pretty well.

 

[LeSellers]

This is my standard approach. Seems to generally work pretty well.

Even I recognize that wouldn't work very well.

Lehi

[beefche]

TFP, your standard approach includes smoking a cigar? Dude, that doesn't work very well with Mormon doctrine.  

[Guest]

I disagree vehemently that government need be involved in any way to foster education. But, at least we can accept that grtf-welfare schools are superfluous.

I'd go a lot further, but there are feelings to consider.

Lehi

 

You just said this:

 

Yes, I agree, education is critical to maintaining a system of freedom — a government of laws, not men.

 

 

 

So, I think we have here another potential source of our disagreement - when you say Government, you mean something other than the people.  Whereas when I say Government, I mean a government OF the people.

 

Let's explore this further:

If the President of the USA was Thomas S. Monson, the Supreme Court made up of Apostles and Congress of Quorums of 70's, would you still believe that government can't be involved in Education that is critical to maintaining this system of freedom?

[LeSellers]

If the President of the USA was Thomas S. Monson, the Supreme Court made up of Apostles and Congress of Quorums of 70's, would you still believe that government can't be involved in Education that is critical to maintaining this system of freedom?

Yes, I would.

It has nothing to do with who's in charge, it's the fact that they're in charge that makes it wrong, immoral, for the state to control education in any way.

You see, while I would like the curricula they'd choose, I know a few atheists and some Baptists, and several Muslims who might object.

"Government," according to George Washington, "is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. And, like fire, is a fearsome master and a dangerous servant." Government, in terms we libertarians are wont to use, is the threat of and a monopoly on lethal force, and every law is based on that fact.

So, when government gets involved in schooling, and because it is a winner-take-all situation, those who object have no voice at the table, and must submit to the winners. Thomas Jefferson said (although speaking of established churches, it applies equally here), "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." I abhor tyranny, even a benign tyrant is a tyrant.

Even President Monson has no business telling an atheist family how to educate their children. And to force a Baptist to pay for a school that teaches what we Saints believe where that atheist sends his children is wrong at a fundamental level.

Lehi

Edited January 27, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

I think we have here another potential source of our disagreement - when you say Government, you mean something other than the people.  Whereas when I say Government, I mean a government OF the people.

In theory, that's what we have. In practice, it's not even remotely the case.

We could look to O'bamaDon'tCare for an example. It has far less support from than half of USmerican citizens. It never had half, and Nancy Pelosi told us that they'd have to pass it so the Representatives wold know what was in it, much less we who would end up suffering under it and paying for it. That is not "government of the people, it's tyranny. The list of examples could go on for a very, very long time.

We don't live in a fairy tale where the government actually represents what we want. Realville, where we do live is quite different.

But, if we had a fully representative republican democracy, I'd still object to most governmental actions (even those that would potentially benefit me) because it is wrong to force a minority, even a small minority, to live their lives in accord with the wishes of the majority, even a huge, massive majority. That's why government must be as small as possible, and even smaller. Because the bigger governement is, the more laws there are, the more intrusive it becomes, and the more it becomes important to be the ones in control. That's the gist of Joseph's statement, "I teach them correct principles and they government themselves."

Lehi

Edited January 27, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

Yes, I would.

It has nothing to do with who's in charge, it's the fact that they're in charge that makes it wrong, immoral, for the state to control education in any way.

You see, while I would like the curricula they'd choose, I know a few atheists and some Baptists, and several Muslims who might object.

"Government," according to George Washington, "is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. And, like fire, is a fearsome master and a dangerous servant." Government, in terms we libertarians are wont to use, is the threat of and a monopoly on lethal force, and every law is based on that fact.

So, when government gets involved in schooling, and because it is a winner-take-all situation, those who object have no voice at the table, and must submit to the winners. Thomas Jefferson said (although speaking of established churches, it applies equally here), "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." I abhor tyranny, even a benign tyrant is a tyrant.

Even President Monson has no business telling an atheist family how to educate their children. And to force a Baptist to pay for a school that teaches what we Saints believe where that atheist sends his children is wrong at a fundamental level.

Lehi

 

And here we have another difference in understanding and word usage.  Education.

 

For you Education means teaching religious morality and every other subject known to man.  For me Education means LITERACY - Reading Writing, Arithmetic and Civics.  It does not matter at all if you're Mormon, Atheist, Jamaican, Asian, white, black, blue.  Any subject outside of these 4 fall in the category of - not required for the Rule of Law.  I've stated this several times - Education for governance is not welfare.  Education to find a job (or be a  charitable, Godly fella) is welfare.

 

Now, that said... How is the US Military different when it comes to government involvement?  Why must the government provide for National Defense but not provide for Literacy?  Doesn't it provide the same exact pitfalls of unrighteous dominion?

Edited January 27, 2016 by anatess

[Guest]

In theory, that's what we have. In practice, it's not even remotely the case.

 

 

All that I'm debating about - Education being Welfare - is all Theory.  I've only addressed Principles of Governance and not "as practiced in the USA".

 

That said, it is also a pessimistic view to think that today's American political climate is not "of the people".  Yes, Obamacare was rammed down people's throats.  But We The People elected Obama and he's been quite vocal and clear about the transformation he wants to do including Universal Healthcare.  Romney was also clear in his promise to repeal Obamacare, the people didn't want him.  In any case, the people objected and elected Republicans to Congress to correct the infraction.  They didn't do their jobs.  The people responded again which gave rise to the insurgent candidates in this election cycle.

 

 

 

But, if we had a fully representative republican democracy, I'd still object to most governmental actions (even those that would potentially benefit me) because it is wrong to force a minority, even a small minority, to live their lives in accord with the wishes of the majority, even a huge, massive majority. That's why government must be as small as possible, and even smaller. Because the bigger governement is, the more laws there are, the more intrusive it becomes, and the more it becomes important to be the ones in control. That's the gist of Joseph's statement, "I teach them correct principles and they government themselves."

Lehi

 

"I TEACH correct principles".  EDUCATION.  Illiterate people cannot govern themselves.

 

So... same question... What is different about the US Military that makes it "not welfare" when provided for by government?  After all, we have no shortages of "Jane Fondas" in the US - that would be a prime example of the massive majority squashing the wishes of the minority.

Edited January 27, 2016 by anatess

[LeSellers]

All that I'm debating about - Education being Welfare - is all Theory. I've only addressed Principles of Governance and not "as practiced in the USA".

No, education's being welfare is a fact on the ground. Whatever theory is behind it, the reality is that government-provided schooling (and here we should point out that Mark Twain was right: "Never let school get in the way of your education.") is a gift with strings, just as SNAP or TANF. Government decides who gets it, and everyone is forced to pay for it whether he agrees with the goal or the outcomes.

 

That said, it is also a pessimistic view to think that today's American political climate is not "of the people". Yes, Obamacare was rammed down people's throats. But We The People elected Obama and he's been quite vocal and clear about the transformation he wants to do including Universal Healthcare. Romney was also clear in his promise to repeal Obamacare, the people didn't want him. In any case, the people objected and elected Republicans to Congress to correct the infraction. They didn't do their jobs. The people responded again which gave rise to the insurgent candidates in this election cycle.

You're assuming the 2012 election was not as corrupt as O'bama himself. There are powerful indicators that both that one and the one in 2008 were stolen.

Pessimism is not always wrong. In fact, and especially with regard to government, it is a rational and reasonable view. With the rare exception of some very small countries, who have, necessarily, small governments, there are no examples of righteous government in the world. And even many of the smaller countries are corrupt.

 

… it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

It applies at least as much in the halls of power as in a bishop's office, nay mille fois de plus.

 

"I TEACH correct principles". EDUCATION. Illiterate people cannot govern themselves.

Please show me where I said that people should not educate themselves. 'Cuz, if I did, I apologize.

My point is that government is, at best, the worst means to education, and, in my view, a totally evil administrator of education. Just as there is no legitimacy in the state supporting preachers, there is no reason for government to support schools.

This seems to be a common refrain heard whenever anyone addresses the grtf-welfare school systems: since we oppose government schools, we must, ipso facto, oppose education altogether. Whether you believe that, I can't really say, but your arguments keep returning to something very similar.

 

What is different about the US Military that makes it "not welfare" when provided for by government?

That's a far more complicated question than it appears.

In general the difference is that governments have one, and only one legitimate function: to protect individual rights.

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

It requires money to support an army and a police force, so some minimal taxation is a burden we should be prepared to accept as long as the wars are "just" and reasonable laws are enforced equitably.

As you recall, I spent 21+ years in the military. I did it because I didn't want my children to have to fight, and because I loved my yet-to-be-born grandchildren. Whatever sacrifice I made was for them, and nearly all of the soldiers I know had similar motivations.

But, and this is the proverbial big "but", not all wars are just. Not all laws are reasonable (most, in fact, are not), and not all laws are enforced equitably. Further, "judgement" is not always just, either. (We could look at family law courts and see that fathers are nailed to the wall in most cases, and that "the best interests of the child" are almost always ignored in favor of the ex-wife/mother's demands.)

So, while unfortunate, yes, military forces are welfare most of the time, and like SNAP and TANF, do more harm to those who "benefit" from them than good, and cost dozens of times more than they should.

The further difference is that, as I showed earlier, defense is one of a very few legitimate reasons to have a government at all.

 

That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

God didn't want Israel to have a king (except Himself), but the people insisted, so He relented and gave them the curse they demanded. Notice, however, that their rationale was that they needed a warrior to fight their battles, and a judge. There was nothing about schools, and there was nothing about the income gap: however ill-conceived, it was about protecting rights.

 

After all, we have no shortages of "Jane Fondas" in the US - that would be a prime example of the massive majority squashing the wishes of the minority.

Indeed, I agree. If we compare Viet Nam to Germany/Italy/Japan seven decades ago, we saw hundreds of thousands of men, many at the urging of their wives, sweethearts and mothers, volunteering to fight the latter (widely accepted as a "just" war), but very few, relatively doing so for the unjust war in French Indochina. And that may be the difference.

Lehi

Edited January 27, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

And here we have another difference in understanding and word usage.  Education.

 

For you Education means teaching religious morality and every other subject known to man.  For me Education means LITERACY - Reading Writing, Arithmetic and Civics.  It does not matter at all if you're Mormon, Atheist, Jamaican, Asian, white, black, blue.  Any subject outside of these 4 fall in the category of - not required for the Rule of Law.  I've stated this several times - Education for governance is not welfare.  Education to find a job (or be a  charitable, Godly fella) is welfare.

There is no way to teach any of the things you note without it's being a lesson in morality or lack of it.

Is there a "right" answer? If so, why is it true in arithmetic, but not in sex education?

Is it right to object to a new law?

The very existence of a grtf-welfare school suggests that Mom'n'Dad are incapable of providing and education. Does that mean they are incapable of providing other necessary things?

The fact that compulsory attendance laws make children be where the law requires, rather than where they would like to be, at the time the law requires their presence, studying what the law requires, to the satisfaction of the bureaucracy is proof that personal liberty is a myth.

GRTF-Welfare schools were established to undermine parents, and there is nothing they can do that could change that, even if the politicians and bureaucrats weren't self-interested parties.

Which brings us to that self interest. Schools used to teach the four principles you ennumerate. But they grew, and grew, and grew and grew, and grew until we have the monstrosities we face today. It was not because the people demanded they grow, it was because the bureaucracy insisted on more and more power. Doc&Cov 121;39 is an eternal truth. We cannot trust government to stay inside the bounds of the law. It is against the very nature of mankind.

Lehi