Push for ‘Personhood’ Amendment Represents New Tack in Abortion Fight

[CitizenCain]

My point was that anti-pimping laws have no place in a civilized society, and I quoted you to make that point because the j00s holding my daughter prisoner threatened to kill her unless I quoted you and made that point about anti-pimping laws.

[GGT]

My point was that anti-pimping laws have no place in a civilized society, and I quoted you to make that point because the j00s holding my daughter prisoner threatened to kill her unless I quoted you and made that point about anti-pimping laws.

Then fuck off, troll.

[CitizenCain]

You can't tell me to fuck off. I'm not a new member who hasn't done anything to deserve it.

[Enoch the Red]

Politically, it's hypocritical for Republican/small gov't/non-intrusive ideologues to even take this "new tack" in the abortion debate. These are the same politicians who were decrying "gummint interference between patients and their doctors" and Death Panels. Also the same folks who want to defund Planned Parenthood and sex-ed in public schools.

Why is it hypocritical for people who support minimal government to also support the removal of governmental funding for Planned Parenthood, or sex education in public schools? Aren't those simply by definition government interference?

[Nessus]

Why is it hypocritical for people who support minimal government to also support the removal of governmental funding for Planned Parenthood, or sex education in public schools? Aren't those simply by definition government interference?

I'm confused as to why they'd object to a specific action of public schools rather than the institution of public schools in and of themselves.

[Enoch the Red]

I'm confused as to why they'd object to a specific action of public schools rather than the institution of public schools in and of themselves.

Many do reject the idea that education is best handled by the federal government. Local and state governments have a long history of being the ones in charge of education, and it is only relatively recently (the last forty years or so) that the federal government has played much of any role at all.

If you are speaking more broadly, especially regarding the concept of removing government from education entirely, I'd actually be interested in weighing that further.

[Khendraja'aro]

Removing government from education entirely? Go ahead. Have fun reverting back to 3rd world status.

[Aimless]

That you're even asking this only further demonstrates that you were, in fact, talking past me.

I'm trying to figure out if you realise you were on a different topic from the OP, the OP I (and, it seems, Ziggy) focused on. A simple yes or no will suffice

[Nessus]

Many do reject the idea that education is best handled by the federal government. Local and state governments have a long history of being the ones in charge of education, and it is only relatively recently (the last forty years or so) that the federal government has played much of any role at all.

If you are speaking more broadly, especially regarding the concept of removing government from education entirely, I'd actually be interested in weighing that further.

You'll have to forgive me if I bow out of the federal v. state level handling, as I've no real parallel to look at in my personal experience. I guess a pretty bad analogy would be subjugating all EU teaching to the whims of Berlin? But that's not anywhere near the historical precedent you're referencing, and one of which I am mostly ignorant.

I think I'd be interested in that, too, given that (in my mostly ignorant/biased view) libertarians ought to be against state-mandated (I don't necessarily mean state as in US state here, but government in general) education goals, means and so forth. To agree on such means and goals and so forth, you'd have to tax people to investigate these, implement them, pay the teachers, some portions thereof. Ostensibly the best schooling would be given by the schools that attract the most customers (parents)? Competing in a free market of education, without external subsidies or enforced by externals standards. Right?

I would also assume/guess that this level of education would not be available to the majority, but solely to the higher echelons of society capable of paying the high fees in exchange for the best service on the market, but that need not factor into the larger argument, and we can always postulate enough charities etc. to fund the lower "classes" educating their kids.

[Loki]

Is all or even most commerce geared toward the rich?

[Nessus]

Is all or even most commerce geared toward the rich?

I won't play 20 questions with you.

[Nessus]

What I mean by that is; I am trying to help Enoch understand what I (maybe foolishly) presume, so he can better explain to me what he actually thinks, so as we won't speak past one another and certainly I hope he can see I mean no disrespect, I just do not always really comprehend what he specifically or the larger ideologies I associate with him truly think of things. If you have a point to make or some statistics to pass along, Loki, you're free to do so, but I think your faux-Socrates approach here is underhanded and malicious.

[Loki]

I was attacking your assertion that the private sector is only attempting to serve the rich. The rich are a minority, and there's only so much room to serve a minority. You could reasonably claim that the quality of education would be different for different classes, but not that there wouldn't be an education system for most.

[Nessus]

I was attacking your assertion that the private sector is only attempting to serve the rich. The rich are a minority, and there's only so much room to serve a minority. You could reasonably claim that the quality of education would be different for different classes, but not that there wouldn't be an education system for most.

Oh, for sure. After all, the Nazis wanted most Poles to be capable of comprehending road signs...

As I said, we can postulate all sorts of charities to subsidize education instead of the government doing it, but that's not really what we were trying to discuss.

[CitizenCain]

You'll have to forgive me if I bow out of the federal v. state level handling, as I've no real parallel to look at in my personal experience. I guess a pretty bad analogy would be subjugating all EU teaching to the whims of Berlin?

Except for the language differences, that might be a reasonable analogy to subjecting all of America to whims of DC...

I think I'd be interested in that, too, given that (in my mostly ignorant/biased view) libertarians ought to be against state-mandated (I don't necessarily mean state as in US state here, but government in general) education goals, means and so forth. To agree on such means and goals and so forth, you'd have to tax people to investigate these, implement them, pay the teachers, some portions thereof. Ostensibly the best schooling would be given by the schools that attract the most customers (parents)? Competing in a free market of education, without external subsidies or enforced by externals standards. Right?

I would also assume/guess that this level of education would not be available to the majority, but solely to the higher echelons of society capable of paying the high fees in exchange for the best service on the market, but that need not factor into the larger argument, and we can always postulate enough charities etc. to fund the lower "classes" educating their kids.

I went to a very elite preparatory school up in Canada, despite having lower-middle class parents in a one income-family. (And I was far from the only one.) Seems to run contrary to your assertion that market solutions only cater to the well-to-do, as does the actual experience of most elite schools on this continent. They need to attract academically gifted students (who may not be able to willing to pay exorbitant amounts) to maintain a reputation for academic excellence, and they need to attract wealthy students, to pay for quality facilities and faculty, and of course, to subsidize the education of the gifted students who aren't paying full-fare.

Or, of course, you can go to public school, which appeals to neither group and has a rather abysmal record... wonder if there's a correlation there. The market may result in an unequal sharing of wealth and opportunity, but it seems pretty plain from where I sit that this is preferable to equal sharing of poverty and misery offered by socialist-mandated solutions.

[Loki]

Oh, for sure. After all, the Nazis wanted most Poles to be capable of comprehending road signs...

As I said, we can postulate all sorts of charities to subsidize education instead of the government doing it, but that's not really what we were trying to discuss.

Don't think you'd need charities. One could provide a decent education for $5-7k a year. And what would stop banks from creating loans that have to be repaid after a person obtains their education?

[Dreadnaught]

I'm trying to figure out if you realise you were on a different topic from the OP, the OP I (and, it seems, Ziggy) focused on. A simple yes or no will suffice

When did you stop beating your wife?

We were all talking about the same thing. Your inability to grasp that is ancient history by now in a thread that's gotten all the juicier.

[Crowheart]

Sweeeeet, another thread with a Dread is evil tangent..fun fun fun!

[LittleFuzzy]

I was attacking your assertion that the private sector is only attempting to serve the rich. The rich are a minority, and there's only so much room to serve a minority. You could reasonably claim that the quality of education would be different for different classes, but not that there wouldn't be an education system for most.

I think Nessie's on fairly decent ground if she wishes to assert that there wouldn't be an education system for most. If education weren't mandatory I don't think more than 30% or so of the population would be getting any kind of systemic education after more than three or four generations. And while a multiplicity of different competing *and conflicting* private options may theoretically be possible, I don't see any likelihood that it would be as easy or even as effective, long-term, as a means of enabling a mandatory education for the general population as a public system is.

[Loki]

I think Nessie's on fairly decent ground if she wishes to assert that there wouldn't be an education system for most. If education weren't mandatory I don't think more than 30% or so of the population would be getting any kind of systemic education after more than three or four generations. And while a multiplicity of different competing *and conflicting* private options may theoretically be possible, I don't see any likelihood that it would be as easy or even as effective, long-term, as a means of enabling a mandatory education for the general population as a public system is.

That's different to the argument I was making. You're saying that people wouldn't make use of the opportunity to educate their children (for a cost), not that the opportunity would be lacking (which was my point). I think a private education can be provided at a sufficiently low cost to be affordable to most Americans, and that could be reinforced by private loans. Whether parents are willing to pay that cost is an altogether different issue.

[Enoch the Red]

I think I'd be interested in that, too, given that (in my mostly ignorant/biased view) libertarians ought to be against state-mandated (I don't necessarily mean state as in US state here, but government in general) education goals, means and so forth. To agree on such means and goals and so forth, you'd have to tax people to investigate these, implement them, pay the teachers, some portions thereof. Ostensibly the best schooling would be given by the schools that attract the most customers (parents)? Competing in a free market of education, without external subsidies or enforced by externals standards. Right?

There are a couple points you raised that I'd like to address, but I'd like to start with the funding/taxation angle. It's commonly assumed that libertarians are opposed to taxation, and that would probably generally be true. A smaller, less intrusive government would require less revenue, which directly equates to lower taxes. It would not be fair to say libertarians don't support any taxes. What is disagreeable to many libertarians is not the very idea that government requires revenue, but the manner in which the tax is levied and collected, as well as the programs that the revenue goes to support. Income taxes, in particular, are troubling to libertarians, as it supports the conceit that the state owns the industry of the individual, and that we are allowed to keep is subject to the whims of the state. If the government owns your labor, and it alone decides what you do or don't deserve to take home, that flies in the face of personal liberty. In fact, it can be argued that it is tantamount to slavery.

As far as a libertarian approach to determining standards, I imagine that would be decided locally, and is probably best outlined by parents in the local school board.

Is that a system that could be prone to abuse? Absolutely. A local school board could determine standards that are wildly out of step with the accepted norms, mores, and culture of the wider world, and indeed reality itself. These are also systems have in the past drawn the worst, the most inane and petty tyrants that society has to offer, but it’s also why it pays to have a usage based tuition system. Instead of being locked into a bad school, with bad teachers, bad leadership, and a bad curriculum, parents could choose to go to, or start, a new school.

I would also assume/guess that this level of education would not be available to the majority, but solely to the higher echelons of society capable of paying the high fees in exchange for the best service on the market, but that need not factor into the larger argument, and we can always postulate enough charities etc. to fund the lower "classes" educating their kids.

I would argue that the objections against free market education could also apply to the current educational standards. Those that can afford it already do choose to send their students to elite private institutions, with incredible opportunities and curriculums. The quality of the education provided, the level of student/teacher interaction, and the sheer number of choices available to the students at these schools gives them an immediate advantage. Public education is likewise stratified, with good schools in more wealthy areas, decent schools in middle/working class suburbs, and below average schools in poor urban/rural regions.

Frankly, the best schools would be those that selected students based on merit, allowing in students that would contribute the most to their environment, not just those who can afford it.

That is not to say that there couldn’t be an educational system that made equity it’s goal, rather that the current system is not immune to the selfsame criticisms you have made of the libertarian ideal.

[Dreadnaught]

Frankly, the best schools would be those that selected students based on merit, allowing in students that would contribute the most to their environment, not just those who can afford it.

I would argue the best schools would be those that attracted students based on merit (and convenience, no doubt).

After all, most private schools won't let in a completely unpromising student, even if their parents can afford the tuition.

[Ominous Gamer]

That's different to the argument I was making. You're saying that people wouldn't make use of the opportunity to educate their children (for a cost), not that the opportunity would be lacking (which was my point). I think a private education can be provided at a sufficiently low cost to be affordable to most Americans, and that could be reinforced by private loans. Whether parents are willing to pay that cost is an altogether different issue.

With your line of reasoning, everything is theoretically open and possible for everyone. People simply need to be willing to sign away any and everything.

and that is stupid.

[Loki]

If you learned to read, you'd see I said the cost would be affordable to most.

[Ominous Gamer]

yes, and most is left undefined, as usual. You're still missing the problem. Your argument is setup in a way that you can only be wrong via external factors, when something makes the "most" not be what you wanted it to be. Yet even then you wouldn't be technically be wrong, because it was up to the "most" to commit to your no matter what standard.

and that is stupid.

[Enoch the Red]

I would argue the best schools would be those that attracted students based on merit (and convenience, no doubt).

After all, most private schools won't let in a completely unpromising student, even if their parents can afford the tuition.

I think that's a much better way to phrase it. Thank you.

[Loki]

yes, and most is left undefined, as usual. You're still missing the problem. Your argument is setup in a way that you can only be wrong via external factors, when something makes the "most" not be what you wanted it to be. Yet even then you wouldn't be technically be wrong, because it was up to the "most" to commit to your no matter what standard.

and that is stupid.

Actually, I said $5-7k.

[Ominous Gamer]

Thats the wrong most. and a sole monetary value means little in the aspect of affordable mass education.

[Loki]

Make up your mind: either I left the cost undefined or it's a poor estimate.

[Ominous Gamer]

As I already said, thats the wrong part to be addressing. The most you left undefined is who would sign away anything simply because its possible.

Look at this way. How many of us here could have kids? Now how many of us would qualify for a 7k per year loan, for 12+ years, for something so non-physical, a loan that the children would have no legal obligation to payback; and thats per child. Sure, 7k may be enough for a years worth of education. But thats not something that "most" americans are going to afford. That 7k figure doesn't truely exist, its going to quickly come down up to how many people are willing to go beyond that because they don't have 7k a year ready to go.

You're wanting to create a cycle thats more damaging and harder to escape than what already exists.

and that is stupid.