Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Which is to say, it's not coercion if you don't want it to be.
Rep. Stephen Fincher: If the Poor Want Their Children to Eat Sell them as Slaves.
- Thread starter FriendlyFire
- Start date
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
File them under "Life" and "liberty".
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
The the Declaration of Independence has no legal weight. Would've thought somebody with a flag in their avatar would know that. 
The Constitution also makes property rights legitimate.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
True enough. My issue is more with the unhelpful poetics.
Sorry, I meant that "The Constitution also doesn't make property rights legitimate."
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Oh, also true enough. "Legitimate" is an ambiguous word like that!
Ah, but that comes at a cost of taxes. And in today's US political climate, Republicans are essentially playing a 'no tax is ever good' strategy.
Taxes are a greater evil than a minimally educated workforce, beyond a certain point.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Honestly, yes public education does cost money, but I am much more afraid of government indoctrination at this point. If you can abolish the wars, entitlements programs, and other expensive things, I'm not so much worried about the little bit of tax that would be left. But I don't want the government deciding what people are taught... at all... That's a huge can of worms at the very least.
If you really can't live with privatizing education entirely, just go with the NIT instead. However high a sum makes you happy. I still don't love that solution, but I'd rather the government just flat out redistribute money than I would to have them both redistribute money AND have a massive degree of control over what we do and ESPECIALLY what ideas kids are allowed to learn.
As for the "No-tax ever", Ron Paul didn't even quite go that far. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz (The most economically conservative in the senate) aren't even close. Heck, Justin Amash actually said he might consider going back to the Clinton-era tax rates in exchange for sufficient tax cuts, and he's pretty libertarian (IMO wrong in this particular case, but oh well.) The thing is, taxes are actually pretty darn high right now. When you take a selective view of history and ignore everything before Wilson, they look low, but these taxes are way higher than anything that could ever be imagined before or during the Civil War era, or the Gilded Age era. Wanting taxes to control less than 20+% of GDP (I think all governments put together actually control something closer to 40%, while the Federal Government alone is at like 23% or something, although its tricky since they spend more than they take in. I'm willing to accept any more accurate numbers over these estimates) is not the same as saying "No taxes EVER."
You're right that many Republicans, although not all, are unwilling to consider NEW taxes, but that's not the same thing as trying to actually get the tax rate down to 0%.
kramerfan86
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,572
Yea religious or corporate indoctrination would be so much healthier for society.
That's just one of GhostWriter's beliefs I've never understood. He focuses so single-mindedly on abuses of government power that he ignores abuses of power by things that aren't governments.
Indoctrination is bad, no matter who does it, but why are things done by the federal government somehow a million times worse than similar things other organizations do?
Indoctrination is bad, no matter who does it, but why are things done by the federal government somehow a million times worse than similar things other organizations do?
kramerfan86
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,572
I dont even buy this indoctrination thing by the government school system in the first place, I never felt like my teachers were really wildly swinging one way or the other, Im sure it happens some places but hardly enough to justify destroying a whole system. Seems to be a battle cry of sour grapes from the religious right because the public school system is trying to remain secular.
Now in college you start to see professors leak in their bias more, but I really only felt that occurring in the history, sociology, and psych classes. I never felt much of it from the hard sciences. It certainly wasnt organized government indoctrination though.
Now in college you start to see professors leak in their bias more, but I really only felt that occurring in the history, sociology, and psych classes. I never felt much of it from the hard sciences. It certainly wasnt organized government indoctrination though.
Farm Boy
they're all reactions
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 27,824
I believe the roots of this, not the somewhat batty extremes it can be taken to, lie in the relative "badness" depending on who is doing the indoctrination. The Amish indoctrinate their kids to a degree? Well, them holding somebody against their will on their property is illegal. There is theoretically recourse from the state and there are theoretically other places to go. The gubbermint does it and makes it mandatory? House arrest for truancy. Continued truancy? Parental criminal liability. Don't like it? Murica #1 take it or gtfo.
I completely agree with the fear of indoctrination - I'd like to see all American Flags removed, US history would be taught from the perspective of people, not presidents, art classes would not be limited to predominanly western European artists, 'english' literature classes would be expanded to 'literature classes - literary works from around the world, etc.
The indoctrination that currently happens is bizarrely pro-USA#1!1! and I think that should change - kids need to learn the good with the bad.
1. I have no idea what the NIT is.
2. Kids can learn anything their parents want them to - the current guidelines are all about the minimums that our society feels all kids should be exposed to upon graduation.
There's a world of difference between bare minimums and 'control over what ideas kids are allowed to learn'.
This is idiotic. Time marches on, the world changes, and new industries and activities rise up from nothing. Right now the local sales taxes in many places puts local businesses at a competitive disadvantage compared to internet vendors. Either all local sales taxes should be restricted, or a national sales tax should be implemented.
And how to you go back to Clinton-era rates while pursuing tax cuts?? You know what, don't answer that - I think I already know
GhostWriter16
Deity
OK, we aren't totally in disagreement here. I completely agree with everything that you've said here
My fear with State education is that they'll teach kids to treat government as God. Which they have an incentive to do, however subtle the manner in which they do so.
Its the Negative Income Tax that Milton Friedman supported. I don't love it because its still a redistribution of wealth, but if your issue is people not being able to afford things I'd rather give them money and let them decide for themselves than to use it as an excuse for more control.
There's truth to that. I get that religious education and other things can indoctrinate as well, but there's a difference because at least the type of indoctrination is somewhat under the control of parents, and the indoctrination isn't paid for by tax dollars (Or if you use the NIT, I guess indirectly ANY SORT could be, but either way the state isn't deciding what sorts.)
I wasn't trying to say that government is actually saying "If you teach your kids such and such you'll go to jail", but by controlling children for six hours a day, they do have a high degree of control over what kids do learn.
I don't support this for a couple different reasons but I understand the thinking behind it.
And how to you go back to Clinton-era rates while pursuing tax cuts?? You know what, don't answer that - I think I already know
Justin Amash is a small government guy and he'd prefer to just cut taxes but he said that he'd be willing to compromise and go back to Clinton era taxation if spending was cut to a certain degree (Don't know exactly how much he said, or even if he said since it was a hypothetical) and it still wasn't enough to balance the budget. I actually wouldn't do that if I was a rep. but I'm just saying that there are definitely Republicans who will.
I don't think that happens too much in public schools - at least, if it happens at all, that would be far less than it does in religious schools. It's not as if a school will teach kids that there's something to worship without a bunch of the teachers crying foul. On the other hand, religious schools can fire at will teachers who don't toe their indoctrination line.OK, we aren't totally in disagreement here. I completely agree with everything that you've said here
My fear with State education is that they'll teach kids to treat government as God. Which they have an incentive to do, however subtle the manner in which they do so.
I think, in this case, a little more of a broad perspective on 'state' education would be helpful for you. Just because it's provided by the the pooled resources of all the taxpayers doesn't automatically mean that it's a 'state indoctrination' program. Except when it does silly things like encourage kids to say an oath to a bit of fabric in the morning
And don't forget that every school is overseen by a local board of local citizens. There are indeed regional, state, and federal guidelines that differ from place to place, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Downtown knows a hell of a lot more than I do about all of this, as he's worked both within and without the system. And he's passionate about it. Check one of his education policy threads for more.
Oh, Ok. That sounds on the face of it like a Basic Guaranteed Income sort of thing.
My issue is not necessarily people not being able to afford certain things, but more basic than that: Why should some things cost money at all?
Personal example: My daughter was born with a bilateral neuropathic auditory deficit. She is hard of hearing in both ears, on the nerve level. This sort of thing doesn't change as she matures or ages. She will be hard of hearing for life. If she doesn't get hearing aids her verbal and language ability (spoken, heard, and written) will suffer. She will not have the same opportunities as kids born without this condition.
Why do I have to pay $8,000 for her hearing aids - which are expected to be replaced when she's 4 or 5 years old, and then every 4 or 5 years old for the rest of her life? That's an automatic 'deaf tax' off of her lifetime wages of nearly $100,000. Why are we putting a dollar amount on a biological condition?
By reducing every transaction, every need, every surplus, to a profit/property/money metric, we dehumanize the essence of the purpose of an economy.
What do you think the purpose of an economy is, if it's not to redistribute resources from where there's a surplus to where they're needed?
Berzerker
Deity
by having a morally superior claim
murder and slavery are illegitimate for the same reason, the victim's have the morally superior claim to their "property"
Because the government is so more efficient at it . . . oh, wait . . .
Indoctrination is not okay, regardless of whether the parents approve or what's paying for it.
