Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Danoff]

More or less the conclusion I reached. But, playing devil's advocate for a second..

Here is Ryanair's policy on passengers with nut allergys:

If the man signed a contract (even just by accepting the boarding pass or whatever) to not eat nuts on the flight if requested, then he violated the contract and, in doing so, endangered another. If the man was told "so and so in row 5 has a nut allergy, do not eat the nuts or she will have a reaction" and he did so anyway, then he intentionally harmed another. If the man was told "we're not serving nuts on this flight because someone might react" and the passengers were told "we can't guarantee that nuts aren't on the flight", then there was no wrongdoing.

Totally depends on the scenario (I have not gone to any of the links).

 

[KSaiyu]

If the man signed a contract (even just by accepting the boarding pass or whatever) to not eat nuts on the flight if requested, then he violated the contract and, in doing so, endangered another. If the man was told "so and so in row 5 has a nut allergy, do not eat the nuts or she will have a reaction" and he did so anyway, then he intentionally harmed another. If the man was told "we're not serving nuts on this flight because someone might react" and the passengers were told "we can't guarantee that nuts aren't on the flight", then there was no wrongdoing.

Totally depends on the scenario (I have not gone to any of the links).

But if the man can't understand the language of the cabin crew? If the seriousness isn't adequetly conveyed to him?

 

[niky]

Note... I said "can", not "will"... and "possibly." In other words, this will be pending investigation. It's not unreasonable, however, to expect a traveller from Zimbabwe to understand English well, since, like most of the Southern African countries, it used to be an English Colony.

Even if it comes out that it was an innocent misunderstanding, the airline will still be perfectly within its rights to refuse to carry the man again, even if no criminal charges stick.

A lot of passengers take flying for granted. Airlines try to convey the seriousness of every instruction and warning given during the flight, but many people don't listen. In this case, you ignore orders at your own risk and must be ready to face the consequences.

As for the parents, the sudden onset possibly caused the child's breathing to stop before they could administer the epi-pen. Not unusual for parents to panic or seek medical assistance in this case. We also do not know whether they waited or if help was offered to them when it became obvious the child was distressed.

 

[Famine]

Parents can groom their children to be neo-nazis. That's their right. Is it wrong, yes. Should I be able to do anything about it, no.
Employing someone to teach according to their extremist agenda is entirely acceptable too. This is what the private sector is for. I never argued that. I did say those educators would have to abide by their profession's ethical standands and the Equality Act.

... which is the same thing as not allowing them to teach what the parents want if it is something deemed to be unacceptable, robbing parents who want their children taught something deemed unacceptable of the ability to employ teachers to teach them.

Of course there's still home-schooling.

Or are we saying the Equality Act would be amended in this libertarian future....

I'm a little confused. The question was why parents shouldn't be allowed to employ teachers to teach what is deemed unacceptable, not why they couldn't under current legislation. I don't really know why the Equality Act comes into it.

As for discrimination, "affirmitive action" is the worst of them all. I'm not sure where you got the zero tolerance for discrimination from?

In teaching. You said you were against teachers teaching any form of discrimination.

But I suppose it's the right of the parents of the majority of the towns population to turn these schools to teach such values as acceptable. And that trumps everything.

I'm not sure how that trumps anything - and in fact it's in direct contradiction to your own argument and the entire concept of public schooling... Watch:

But I suppose it's the right of the parents of the majority of the country's population to turn these schools to teach such values as acceptable. And that trumps everything.

The very definition of public schooling.

I thought the ill-defined problem was obvious enough when I used the term 'Broken homes'. To be exact, let's now call it Single parent families.

How are "single parent families" 'broken' exactly? Why is a home 'broken' automatically when there is only one parent living in it?

Families can function much better with only one parent, especially where the second is unfit (or unwilling) to be a parent. Some families lose a parent through no conscious act - is a home in which one parent has died 'broken'? If a wife dies and the husband is left to bring up the children, are his efforts in vain because they're 'broken'?

I wish I were in high school today instead of back in my day.

Yeah, but it said "Percent Of Adolescents Who Have Had Sex, Before The Age Of Sixteen", not "Percent Of Adolescents Who Have Willing Had Sex With A Sexual Partner of their Choice, Before The Age Of Sixteen"...

It might be that there's more promiscuous, predatory gym teachers now...

 

[KSaiyu]

... which is the same thing as not allowing them to teach what the parents want if it is something deemed to be unacceptable, robbing parents who want their children taught something deemed unacceptable of the ability to employ teachers to teach them.

Yep.

I'm a little confused. The question was why parents shouldn't be allowed to employ teachers to teach what is deemed unacceptable, not why they couldn't under current legislation. I don't really know why the Equality Act comes into it.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/85 You're asking why they should be able to employ teachers to teach discrimination in contravention of the Equality Act? My answer would be educators are part of a profession and should adhere to the ethical principles of that profession. I suppose doctors should disregard the Hippocratic oath while we're at it.

In teaching. You said you were against teachers teaching any form of discrimination.

The closest I can get to such a quote is here:
"negative discrimination must not be tolerated."
with the negative being later qualified.

I'm not sure how that trumps anything - and in fact it's in direct contradiction to your own argument and the entire concept of public schooling...

It trumps everyone else who is involved, i.e the child and potentially the mother. That's not contradicting public schooling, because that argument doesn't give any weight to the different values being taught. We arrived at the Equality Act because, as a nation we thought women shouldn't be harrassed in the workplace. As a nation we decided black people didn't have to drink from different water fountains. We progressed as a nation, and we passed laws to stamp out medieval thinking. We let people worship one god, ten gods or no gods without the ability to force our way of thinking on other people, especially the most vulnerable.

Watch:The very definition of public schooling.

That's not the definition of public schooling. Every school, public or private shouldn't have to teach those views as acceptable. Every school, however should have the responsibility to teach certain views as unacceptable.

 

[Famine]

Yep.

Great. Means you still haven't answered the question why people should not be allowed to employ people to teach their children as they wish to have them taught if what they wish to have them taught is something deemed unacceptable.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/85 You're asking why they should be able to employ teachers to teach discrimination in contravention of the Equality Act?

No. I never brought law into it - you did.

My answer would be educators are part of a profession and should adhere to the ethical principles of that profession.

What are the ethical principles of teaching that prevent people from teaching what the people who employ them to teach want taught?

I suppose doctors should disregard the Hippocratic oath while we're at it.

If you like. It's not particularly relevant, though there are a number of occasions where doctors must cause harm in order to assist.

The closest I can get to such a quote is here:
"negative discrimination must not be tolerated."
with the negative being later qualified.

"Negative" wasn't really qualified - you just agreed that it wasn't really needed as a word. Which leaves us back at the point of you having zero tolerance for teachers to teach discrimination, itself being an extremist view despite you also having zero tolerance for extremist views being taught...

It trumps everyone else who is involved, i.e the child and potentially the mother. That's not contradicting public schooling, because that argument doesn't give any weight to the different values being taught.

Public schooling teaches children precisely according to state-derived principles (in the UK we call it the National Curriculum) and the state is subject to majority (or plurality) vote.

Public schooling is thus what the majority (or plurality) of people want teaching to their children and to the children of others at the expense of what the minority want.

Latterly you were against that sort of thing - or at least tried to use it as a negative point against narrow-focus schools.

We arrived at the Equality Act because, as a nation we thought women shouldn't be harrassed in the workplace. As a nation we decided black people didn't have to drink from different water fountains. We progressed as a nation, and we passed laws to stamp out medieval thinking. We let people worship one god, ten gods or no gods without the ability to force our way of thinking on other people, especially the most vulnerable.

Nice, but not relevant.

That's not the definition of public schooling.

See above.

Every school, public or private shouldn't have to teach those views as acceptable.

Why? You still haven't explained why a private school has to be more mindful of what parents and non-parents that do not contribute it want than it is of what parents who do contribute to it want.

Every school, however should have the responsibility to teach certain views as unacceptable.

Why?

And I wasn't restricting it to schools. I was including private tutors.

We're still at this question you haven't answered. Why should parents be allowed to teach their children things you don't agree with, but not be allowed to employ people to teach their children things you don't agree with?

 

[KSaiyu]

Great. Means you still haven't answered the question why people should not be allowed to employ people to teach their children as they wish to have them taught if what they wish to have them taught is something deemed unacceptable.

Because that should be the maximum intervention of the state. Because everyone has the right to be treated equally outside of their home, and no-one should be allowed to employ someone to treat their child against those principles. Those are my beliefs, they are the beliefs of the UK and presumably many other sovereign states.

No. I never brought law into it - you did.What are the ethical principles of teaching that prevent people from teaching what the people who employ them to teach want taught?

You did bring the law into it when you said why shouldn't parents be able to do that. The law safeguards against that, therefore you are arguing against the law. Kinda how I asked why I should give up my seat to a pregnant lady in the abortion thread. It's against company policy, but how and why was the policy created? My ethical principles are that I don't discriminate between a lady with-child because she wants to be and a lady with-child because she doesn't.

If you like. It's not particularly relevant, though there are a number of occasions where doctors must cause harm in order to assist.

Of course it's relevant. They are both professions. There is no "teachers oath" as far as I'm aware but I'm sure they must have certain ethical boundaries.

"Negative" wasn't really qualified - you just agreed that it wasn't really needed as a word. Which leaves us back at the point of you having zero tolerance for teachers to teach discrimination, itself being an extremist view despite you also having zero tolerance for extremist views being taught...

Limiting it to just racism and sexism for simplicity then yes, it should not be taught. There's a difference between not being taught and allowing to be taught. For example I can't remember my Catholic school ever mentioning homosexuality, but if they taught us to hate and berate homosexuals then yes, there is a problem.

Public schooling teaches children precisely according to state-derived principles (in the UK we call it the National Curriculum) and the state is subject to majority (or plurality) vote.

Public schooling is thus what the majority (or plurality) of people want teaching to their children and to the children of others at the expense of what the minority want.

Latterly you were against that sort of thing - or at least tried to use it as a negative point against narrow-focus schools.

Yeah.....and I also said that argument disregards values so is similar, but not the same. The difference is the values, which may be moot to some but is relevant.

Nice, but not relevant.

I think it's relevant. When thinking about a political philosophy you generally think of your nation's interests.

Why? You still haven't explained why a private school has to be more mindful of what parents and non-parents that do not contribute it want than it is of what parents who do contribute to it want.

This comes down to recognising rights I think. Health and education are a major factor in peoples lives and we should enact laws to provide the best possible to those not possessing the full quota of "rights". Why do we not allow 10 year olds to get smashed on alcohol? Why do we not allow parents to allow it.

Why?

And I wasn't restricting it to schools. I was including private tutors.

We're still at this question you haven't answered. Why should parents be allowed to teach their children things you don't agree with, but not be allowed to employ people to teach their children things you don't agree with?

Because that's where we've reached as a society. We have a minimum standard, and should expect citizens to abide by it. We can't force people to, but we should have significant countermeasures to prohibit those ideas from spreading without infringing on the individual (not the parents/guardians) rights.

 

[Danoff]

This comes down to recognising rights I think. Health and education are a major factor in peoples lives and we should enact laws to provide the best possible

Let me stop you right there.

The best possible education costs $1trillion per child. The best possible education also involves teaching christian values, if you're a christian, and muslim values, if you're a muslim, and buddhist values if you're a buddhist. It involves teaching evolution, if you think evolution is something your kids should learn. It involves teaching young earth creationism, if that's what you believe in. It involves teaching your child how to play the violin if you want your child to learn how to play the violin.

You're starting to see the problem with the situation as you've described it. There is no best possible education for everyone, and if there were, it would be impossible to provide because it would cost too much. Someone has to decide what education their child is going to get, and that someone has to decide what is cost effective. That someone should know the child well, preferably live with them, understand their development and interests. That someone is the child's guardian. Not you, not the public, the guardian.

 

[Famine]

Because that should be the maximum intervention of the state. Because everyone has the right to be treated equally outside of their home, and no-one should be allowed to employ someone to treat their child against those principles.

What if they're being taught in the home?

You did bring the law into it when you said why shouldn't parents be able to do that. The law safeguards against that, therefore you are arguing against the law.

No.

Citing the law as a reason why something should not be done is not helpful - immoral laws have always existed and, with the help of folk who treat their beliefs as sacrosanct, always will. In fact citing the law as a reason why children should not be taught certain things is a fabulous path to fascism - this is the law, kids, and the law cannot be wrong.

I can argue against the Equality Act if you wish - this is after all the Libertarian Party thread and the existence of a law restricting behaviour and criminalising thought is a great place to do it - but I don't really care about it in this context.

The question is why parents should be allowed to teach their children unspeakably bad things (whether they are objectively bad or whether you believe they are) but not allowed to employ other people to do it for them.

Of course it's relevant. They are both professions.

So is refuse collection. It's not relevant - the question is about teaching.

There is no "teachers oath" as far as I'm aware but I'm sure they must have certain ethical boundaries.

What are they then? Only you're assuming an ethical position on their behalf.

It doesn't advance your argument about what should and shouldn't be taught any though - the fact that parents can take over the role of teacher and you're happy for them to teach hatred undermines you.

Limiting it to just racism and sexism for simplicity then yes, it should not be taught.

Why not?

It's also not the point. Why should parents be allowed to teach it if you say it shouldn't be taught, but not allowed to employ people to teach it? Why do parents acting as teachers have fewer restrictions on what they teach than actual teachers do?

I think it's relevant. When thinking about a political philosophy you generally think of your nation's interests.

Not really. My nation once upon a time considered that it was in their interests to kidnap people from West Africa and sell them to North America. They're currently signatory to the Human Rights Act and the UN Declaration on Human Rights, both of which also guarantee slavery in much the same manner.

I'm not interested in what my nation thinks - it's not even slightly relevant to what is morally correct. Whatever restrictions the Equality Act places on what teachers can and can't teach is not relevant to what they should and should not teach.

This comes down to recognising rights I think. Health and education are a major factor in peoples lives and we should enact laws to provide the best possible to those not possessing the full quota of "rights". Why do we not allow 10 year olds to get smashed on alcohol? Why do we not allow parents to allow it.

Because that's where we've reached as a society. We have a minimum standard, and should expect citizens to abide by it. We can't force people to, but we should have significant countermeasures to prohibit those ideas from spreading without infringing on the individual (not the parents/guardians) rights.

So why are you condoning allowing parents to teach their kids to hate homosexuals and women, but not condoning allowing them to employ people to do it for them, even in their own home?

This is the question you've not yet answered.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Let me stop you right there.

The best possible education costs $1trillion per child. The best possible education also involves teaching christian values, if you're a christian, and muslim values, if you're a muslim, and buddhist values if you're a buddhist. It involves teaching evolution, if you think evolution is something your kids should learn. It involves teaching young earth creationism, if that's what you believe in. It involves teaching your child how to play the violin if you want your child to learn how to play the violin.

Do you seriously think that teaching kids any nonsense that the parents happen to believe is the best possible education? Sounds like awful education to me. I mean a good education would at least have to involve teaching things that are truthful, useful and/or enjoyable for the kid to learn, with the third one being subjective, it's not essential as you can't cater for everyone. And the parents, or anyone else for that matter, shouldn't be allowed to teach kids misinformation, unfortunately there isn't any realistic way of regulating them that I can think of, best we can do is regulate the teachers and make sure that at least no one is hired to teach nonsense.

 

[Famine]

Do you seriously think that teaching kids any nonsense that the parents happen to believe is the best possible education? Sounds like awful education to me.

No, he means that's what parents would class as the best education. Parents who believe in YEC would think that an education that involved YEC and excluded evolution is better than one the other way about.

The "best education" depends on what the parent wants from it.

 

[Danoff]

Do you seriously think that teaching kids any nonsense that the parents happen to believe is the best possible education?

Not me personally no. But from the parents' perspective yes. If you believe that nonsense, you want your kids to learn it.

Sounds like awful education to me. I mean a good education would at least have to involve teaching things that are truthful, useful and/or enjoyable for the kid to learn, with the third one being subjective, it's not essential as you can't cater for everyone. And the parents, or anyone else for that matter, shouldn't be allowed to teach kids misinformation, unfortunately there isn't any realistic way of regulating them that I can think of, best we can do is regulate the teachers and make sure that at least no one is hired to teach nonsense.

In the US, it used to be nonsense to teach that blacks should have the same rights as whites, and should be free, and were not property. I'm sure teachers would have been prevented from teaching that in public schools.

Edit:

As @Famine points out, if you're a YEC, what your kids are taught against your will in public schools is absolutely 100% unacceptable and goes against everything you believe in. I don't think our government should be doing that to peoples' children. Private schools on the otherhand get selected by the parents.

 

[Carbonox]

Just my 2 cents, but looking at all the religious fanatism going on, I think it's possible to reach an agreement that teaching every kid to think critically is objectively the best possible education.

 

[Famine]

In the US, it used to be nonsense to teach that blacks should have the same rights as whites, and should be free, and were not property. I'm sure teachers would have been prevented from teaching against that in public schools.

On that point also, if teachers are bound by laws preventing them from teaching certain things, who's to teach our children to question laws that unjustly bind people?

I've been teaching my eldest that her whole life. Of course, since she's a member here now, you can ask her how successful I've been

 

[Danoff]

I've been teaching my eldest that her whole life. Of course, since she's a member here now, you can ask her how successful I've been

To you have a teaching certificate? Because if not, I think the UK might need to step in and make sure you're not teaching extremist law-breaking behavior without certification.

 

[Spurgy 777]

On that point also, if teachers are bound by laws preventing them from teaching certain things, who's to teach our children to question laws that unjustly bind people?

The laws wouldn't prevent them from teaching certain things as such, more teaching things as facts that aren't.

There would also be measures put in place that allow parents to challenge what's taught/not taught by teachers, and disprove/prove it. So the YEC would be fully in his rights to attempt to prove that he's right, and disprove our current theories, but until he does, his kids should be taught our best theory based on all available evidence.

 

[Danoff]

The laws wouldn't prevent them from teaching certain things as such, more teaching things as facts that aren't.

There would also be measures put in place that allow parents to challenge what's taught/not taught by teachers, and disprove/prove it. So the YEC would be fully in his rights to attempt to prove that he's right, and disprove our current theories, but until he does, his kids should be taught our best theory based on all available evidence.

In otherwords, you want to ban kids from learning religion.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

In otherwords, you want to ban kids from learning religion.

From his comments on religion yes, especially the Islamic religion. Also I have a question for those once again that wasn't answered, so if the Gov't is to step in to do this regulating of teaching kids since parents aren't able to, who decides what should be taught and not taught? Surely it can't be the people because too many of them have kids and that would counter act having the Gov't somehow step in on their lonesome.

Also what would the parents do? Just not talk to their kids or what? I mean kids will naturally be curious and ask Dad why he prays at certain times of the day and faces toward an area called "Mecca" or why mom believes in some guy named Jesus.

 

[Spurgy 777]

In otherwords, you want to ban kids from learning religion.

I fine with them learning about religion and then making up their own mind whether to believe it or not. I'm not fine with them being indoctrinated and effectively forced to believe it without too much say in the matter.

 

[Famine]

The laws wouldn't prevent them from teaching certain things as such, more teaching things as facts that aren't.

That's the thing - if teachers are bound by law on what they can and can't teach, it'd take a mere change in law to ban them from teaching something. Or (possibly worse) requiring them to teach something. Changes in law are at majority fiat, so if the majority of people think YEC should be taught - and evolution not - then that's what has to be taught.

Imagine if the law said teachers couldn't teach anything against the law, including that the law could be wrong...


It'd be bad enough if this was in the National Curriculum - which, for our non-UK members, is a basic framework of things that must be taught by teachers in the public school system and forms the basis for the exams for school qualifications - but if it was law it'd affect private schools too.

There would also be measures put in place that allow parents to challenge what's taught/not taught by teachers, and disprove/prove it. So the YEC would be fully in his rights to attempt to prove that he's right, and disprove our current theories, but until he does, his kids should be taught our best theory based on all available evidence.

What measure can you have in place to prevent this parent withdrawing his child from school and home-schooling them instead?

 

[Keef]

As an American, reading all this libertarian stuff coming from a Brit is making me uncomfortable. I feel like you're trying to trick me and weasel your way back in after all these years. I'm keeping my eyes on you, @Famine

 

[mirial]

Response reposted.

 

[KSaiyu]

Let me stop you right there.

The best possible education costs $1trillion per child. The best possible education also involves teaching christian values, if you're a christian, and muslim values, if you're a muslim, and buddhist values if you're a buddhist. It involves teaching evolution, if you think evolution is something your kids should learn. It involves teaching young earth creationism, if that's what you believe in. It involves teaching your child how to play the violin if you want your child to learn how to play the violin.

You're starting to see the problem with the situation as you've described it. There is no best possible education for everyone, and if there were, it would be impossible to provide because it would cost too much. Someone has to decide what education their child is going to get, and that someone has to decide what is cost effective. That someone should know the child well, preferably live with them, understand their development and interests. That someone is the child's guardian. Not you, not the public, the guardian.

We use "best possible" because there are many who have a vocation to literally give the best care/education/support that is possible given the situation. This can be a person's mission in life, and is a very big motivational factor. We don't say we know best in anything but the most exceptional circumstances (treating a student worse in their class purely because of their sex is something our society should say we know best in), and it's generally agreed "best possible" is aimed at a set of outcomes (e.g. the best amount of compassionate care per time per patient) and it's this context which doesn't include subjective beliefs (e.g. religion).

This is why I love gtplanet. "Best possible" is a by-product of political correctness so allow me to rephrase if you will. We set standards to ensure that the worst allowed is acceptable to society. You yourself admitted a child's education would be contaminated if it did not teach basic communication and math skills. Who decides what these are? Why do they have to meet this minimum?

All we disagree on is where we set the minimum, or rather what is involved.

What if they're being taught in the home?

Private tutors don't have to be teachers, so they wouldn't be under the same professional obligations.

No.

Citing the law as a reason why something should not be done is not helpful - immoral laws have always existed and, with the help of folk who treat their beliefs as sacrosanct, always will. In fact citing the law as a reason why children should not be taught certain things is a fabulous path to fascism - this is the law, kids, and the law cannot be wrong.

I can argue against the Equality Act if you wish - this is after all the Libertarian Party thread and the existence of a law restricting behaviour and criminalising thought is a great place to do it - but I don't really care about it in this context.

The question is why parents should be allowed to teach their children unspeakably bad things (whether they are objectively bad or whether you believe they are) but not allowed to employ other people to do it for them.

The profession's ethics should preclude that leading to....

So is refuse collection. It's not relevant - the question is about teaching.

No. A profession, in the traditional sense.

What are they then? Only you're assuming an ethical position on their behalf.

This is a list of the National Union of Teacher's ethical guidelines.

http://www.teachers.org.uk/files/active/0/NUT-Code-of-Professional-Ethics.pdf

As far as I'm aware teachers aren't bound to these as stringently as the professions I'm familiar with, nursing and medicine as there is no regulatory body equivalent to the NMC (Nursing and Midwifery Council) or GMC (General Medical Council).

It doesn't advance your argument about what should and shouldn't be taught any though - the fact that parents can take over the role of teacher and you're happy for them to teach hatred undermines you.Why not?

Because it would infringe on the rights of the parents. Look back at all my posts and each is saying teachers as a profession. This would exclude private tutors.

It's also not the point. Why should parents be allowed to teach it if you say it shouldn't be taught, but not allowed to employ people to teach it? Why do parents acting as teachers have fewer restrictions on what they teach than actual teachers do?

Again this is coming back to professional conduct, which is hopefully finally answered.

Not really. My nation once upon a time considered that it was in their interests to kidnap people from West Africa and sell them to North America. They're currently signatory to the Human Rights Act and the UN Declaration on Human Rights, both of which also guarantee slavery in much the same manner.

Progressive is different from regressive. Not sure what you mean about "guaranteeing slavery"

I'm not interested in what my nation thinks - it's not even slightly relevant to what is morally correct. Whatever restrictions the Equality Act places on what teachers can and can't teach is not relevant to what they should and should not teach.

Where did those morals come from? Are you saying they exist in a vacuum away from national consciousness?

This is the question you've not yet answered.

Professional ethics are the bedrock of their respective professions. Remove them and we would have doctors refusing to treat patients on the basis of race; nurses only spending time with males. Actually, we already have a small minority who do that, the difference being that in this country it is grounds for your licence being revoked if you're caught. What would we have in a libertarian society?

 

[Famine]

Private tutors don't have to be teachers, so they wouldn't be under the same professional obligations.

Okay, so you're happy for parents to employ someone to teach their children hateful things with which you disagree but that the parents want taught if they aren't a teacher?

That's an interesting distinction. Why does it matter what the training of the person doing the teaching is?

What would you say if it was a group of parents - or tutors employed by parents - teaching children the hateful things with which you disagree in a common location to a set schedule (call it a timetable) on a daily basis during working hours?

The profession's ethics should preclude that leading to....

No. A profession, in the traditional sense

Interesting use of the word "profession" there. And "traditional", given the weirdly all-encompassing definition at the top of the page and the disclaimer that it's not uniform or recognised internationally...

This is a list of the National Union of Teacher's ethical guidelines.

That's an opt-in teaching union. Teachers belonging to other unions have no requirement to follow their code of ethics. Nor do teachers belonging to no unions. So I'll ask again what the ethics of the teaching profession are supposed to be.

Because it would infringe on the rights of the parents.

What? Teaching their own children voluntarily infringes on their rights? How?

Again this is coming back to professional conduct, which is hopefully finally answered.

Nope. You've given no reason why a parent may not employ someone to teach their child the hateful things you disagree with that they want taught to their child.

Progressive is different from regressive. Not sure what you mean about "guaranteeing slavery"

Then read the document. It asserts humanity's rights to several services that can only be provided by third parties. When you are legally entitled to a third party's efforts - and they are not legally entitled to refuse - you have slavery.

Where did those morals come from?

Logic. Read the Human Rights thread.

Are you saying they exist in a vacuum away from national consciousness?

No, but I can if you like.

Professional ethics are the bedrock of their respective professions. Remove them and we would have doctors refusing to treat patients on the basis of race; nurses only spending time with males. Actually, we already have a small minority who do that, the difference being that in this country it is grounds for your licence being revoked if you're caught. What would we have in a libertarian society?

Contracts.

 

[KSaiyu]

Okay, so you're happy for parents to employ someone to teach their children hateful things with which you disagree but that the parents want taught if they aren't a teacher?

That's an interesting distinction. Why does it matter what the training of the person doing the teaching is?

What would you say if it was a group of parents - or tutors employed by parents - teaching children the hateful things with which you disagree in a common location to a set schedule (call it a timetable) on a daily basis during working hours?

I regard education on a par with healthcare provision, so the training does matter.

If such a situation arose I'd hope the authorities would try to classify such a place as a school to get it shut down. People would have the freedom to create it, but it would be Government's responsibility to investigate and act within their powers.

Interesting use of the word "profession" there. And "traditional", given the weirdly all-encompassing definition at the top of the page and the disclaimer that it's not uniform or recognised internationally...

I would have thought the three I've been using as examples, namely doctor, nurse, teacher, were universally recognised as "professions", at least in the UK.

That's an opt-in teaching union. Teachers belonging to other unions have no requirement to follow their code of ethics. Nor do teachers belonging to no unions. So I'll ask again what the ethics of the teaching profession are supposed to be.

There are none, but I would expect if such a body existed (the closest to the GMC/NMC was abolished in 2012) to contain clauses against the teaching of sexism/racism.

What? Teaching their own children voluntarily infringes on their rights? How?

Preventing them from teaching their own children would infringe on their rights.

Nope. You've given no reason why a parent may not employ someone to teach their child the hateful things you disagree with that they want taught to their child.

Where did I say that? I've always maintained that this was possible as long as it didn't go against professional obligations. You even specifically asked about private tutors, whom I said would be exempt...

Then read the document. It asserts humanity's rights to several services that can only be provided by third parties. When you are legally entitled to a third party's efforts - and they are not legally entitled to refuse - you have slavery.

I like that. Would an "if available" at the end of each sentence fix it?

Logic. Read the Human Rights thread.

And isn't it logical to want to preserve them, especially when passing them on to the next generation. If those morals are lost, how are they regained?

No, but I can if you like.

I'd say there's some relation there.

Contracts.

Why should a company be forced to write such terms in their contracts? What happens to the hospitals who don't? What about the doctors and nurses. There presumably won't be a GMC or NMC so they'll be free to re-invent themselves at another facility. No regulatory body, no licence to be afraid of losing.

 

[Spurgy 777]

That's the thing - if teachers are bound by law on what they can and can't teach, it'd take a mere change in law to ban them from teaching something. Or (possibly worse) requiring them to teach something.

I fail to see how you reach that conclusion, what I'm proposing in principle says don't teach facts as non facts or non facts as facts. That has no link to specifically banning anything, so long as you can prove that what you're teaching is objectively true, then you can teach whatever you want.

Changes in law are at majority fiat, so if the majority of people think YEC should be taught - and evolution not - then that's what has to be taught.

Imagine if the law said teachers couldn't teach anything against the law, including that the law could be wrong...

It'd be bad enough if this was in the National Curriculum - which, for our non-UK members, is a basic framework of things that must be taught by teachers in the public school system and forms the basis for the exams for school qualifications - but if it was law it'd affect private schools too.

These points are now pretty much irrelevant, what I'm suggesting doesn't really allow for it to be twisted into making teachers teach specific things unless the entire countries freedom of speech is violated. Also, education shouldn't be a case of what the majority want to teach, it should be a case of teaching what's true, otherwise it's not really education, and I'm suggesting measures should be put in place to make sure kids are taught what is true to the best of our knowledge.

What measure can you have in place to prevent this parent withdrawing his child from school and home-schooling them instead?

Well, just make sure that home-schooling has the same standards as all other schooling with regards to teaching things how they actually are.[/quote]

 

[Famine]

I regard education on a par with healthcare provision, so the training does matter.

But you'd rather untrained people were teaching things you think are hateful than trained ones.

How odd.

If such a situation arose I'd hope the authorities would try to classify such a place as a school to get it shut down.

What if it was a private home?

Would you hope the same thing occurred if it was exactly the same group offering absolutely peerless education in something you agree with?

I would have thought the three I've been using as examples, namely doctor, nurse, teacher, were universally recognised as "professions", at least in the UK.

Maybe - but since refuse collection is now "waste management" and a manicurist is now a "nail technician", who can tell any more?

There are none, but I would expect if such a body existed (the closest to the GMC/NMC was abolished in 2012) to contain clauses against the teaching of sexism/racism.

Okay, so now we're at the point where the profession of teaching has no compulsory ethical code.

What's preventing teachers from teaching hateful things you don't agree with? Why can parents not employ teachers to do this is, as you agree, there is no ethical code preventing it?

Preventing them from teaching their own children would infringe on their rights.

Ah, okay, you answered one thing but quoted two smooshed together.

I agree, preventing them from teaching their own children would infringe their rights. Preventing them from employing someone to teach their children would too...

Where did I say that?

Well... that's the question I've been asking you for days now.

You agree that parents can teach their children hateful stuff that you don't agree with.
You now agree that parents can employ tutors (not qualified as teachers) to teach their children hateful stuff that you don't agree with.
You now also agree that there is no ethical code for teachers to prevent them from teaching hateful stuff that you don't agree with and so you now also agree that parents can employ teachers to teach their children hateful stuff that you don't agree with.

Now we can zip to the end point and skip the human rights discussion (which belongs in the human rights thread)...

Why should a company be forced to write such terms in their contracts? What happens to the hospitals who don't? What about the doctors and nurses. There presumably won't be a GMC or NMC so they'll be free to re-invent themselves at another facility. No regulatory body, no licence to be afraid of losing.

There is no compulsion to write any terms into a contract - contracts are voluntary - but if you want a service and pay for it a contract is necessary to ensure that the people providing the service do so. I want my child taught YEC*, so I pay someone to do it. We draw a contract that says I pay them so much and they teach my child YEC. If they don't, I sue them for breach of contract and if I don't pay them they sue me.

Say lots of us want our children taught YEC and pay someone to do it. We draw a contract that says we pay them so much and they teach our children YEC. Congratulations, we just made a private class. Say lots of us want our children taught lots of things the same. We draw a contract that says we pay them so much and they teach our children the things we want. Congratulations, we just made a private school.

And this is where your professional bodies and unions come in. Membership is a contractual agreement between the member and the body. The body guarantees certain conduct from their members - like not doing harm or not teaching that black people are two fifths of a person - and so membership is guarantee of conduct. If my kids go to a We Won't Teach Anyone Racist Things Union School, I know they won't be taught racist things. If We Won't Teach Anyone Racist Things Union schools become popular, there'll be lots of them - lots more than non-We Won't Teach Anyone Racist Things Union schools. More teachers become members of the WWTART Union to get jobs, more WWTART Union schools open - while fewer teachers remain to teach racist things...

If I go to a We Practice Modern Medicine Hospital, I know I won't get an exorcism for epilepsy. As above, so below.

I fail to see how you reach that conclusion, what I'm proposing in principle says don't teach facts as non facts or non facts as facts. That has no link to specifically banning anything, so long as you can prove that what you're teaching is objectively true, then you can teach whatever you want.

Like free press - and as you suggest free speech - when you start limiting what can be taught (or reported, or said) you start down a path that can end... anywhere.

You don't have to look very far on our planet to see where what a "fact" is and isn't is defined quite differently by the state. There's also been a pretty high-profile case in a slightly less deluded country where the state has determined that something not demonstrably true is at least as factually valid as something that is demonstrably true and must be taught with equal weighting - which neatly rolls us back to YEC

This is the danger with legislation on teaching - and public schooling in general. I'm sure you know I've been the other side of the fence and the conjecture spun as fact and presented as borderline brainwashing to secondary school kids in science is amazing even in our country. But it's on the National Curriculum, so it's taught as fact even if it's not necessarily the case that it is (or is yet).


Now... there is a way to do what you suggest. You'd need a mechanism for legally divorcing the state from the process of determining what is factual and a professional oversight body for ethics such as KSaiyu is talking about for teaching - but which also doesn't get to determine what is factual or what is taught. There'd also need to be no public schools, for the same reason.

Well, just make sure that home-schooling has the same standards as all other schooling with regards to teaching things how they actually are.

If someone wants to teach their kids their belief of a geocentric cosmological model pushed by the hand of Xenu himself, who are we to prevent them from doing so?

Or, at a far more basic level, why do we get to punish parents who tell their kids about Santa Claus? You see, parenting, at its most fundamental, is teaching.


*I actually want my children taught YEC... so they recognise absolute bunk when they see it. I do it myself. Parenting!

 

[KSaiyu]

But you'd rather untrained people were teaching things you think are hateful than trained ones.

How odd.

I've reduced it to that, whereas a libertarian would see no issue of schools full of teachers.
Lesser of two evils.

What if it was a private home?
Would you hope the same thing occurred if it was exactly the same group offering absolutely peerless education in something you agree with?

No, because your invading someone's private residence. And let's not forget that the "something you agree with" is not believing in forced segragation in the class and institutional racism.. To children..

Maybe - but since refuse collection is now "waste management" and a manicurist is now a "nail technician", who can tell any more?

I hardly think refuse collectors are concerned with a few bad eggs bringing the reputation of their profession into disrepute.

Okay, so now we're at the point where the profession of teaching has no compulsory ethical code.

What's preventing teachers from teaching hateful things you don't agree with? Why can parents not employ teachers to do this is, as you agree, there is no ethical code preventing it?

At a school, the law. In the home, currently nothing because of the lack of a universal body regulating mandatory licensure on condition of abiding by ethical principles. This says more for teaching currently as a profession in the UK than much else (or the strength of the unions, who I'm sure would love a libertarian future).

Ah, okay, you answered one thing but quoted two smooshed together.

I agree, preventing them from teaching their own children would infringe their rights. Preventing them from employing someone to teach their children would too...

It's not preventing (see my stance on private tutors). It's hindering as much as possible.

You agree that parents can teach their children hateful stuff that you don't agree with.
You now agree that parents can employ tutors (not qualified as teachers) to teach their children hateful stuff that you don't agree with.
You now also agree that there is no ethical code for teachers to prevent them from teaching hateful stuff that you don't agree with and so you now also agree that parents can employ teachers to teach their children hateful stuff that you don't agree with.

Apart from the underlined. As of this moment a parent would be limited to employing the teacher only in their home (the law covers institutions other than just public schools). I don't agree with that and think there should be a universal code of ethics all teachers sign up to.

Now we can zip to the end point and skip the human rights discussion (which belongs in the human rights thread)...There is no compulsion to write any terms into a contract - contracts are voluntary - but if you want a service and pay for it a contract is necessary to ensure that the people providing the service do so. I want my child taught YEC*, so I pay someone to do it. We draw a contract that says I pay them so much and they teach my child YEC. If they don't, I sue them for breach of contract and if I don't pay them they sue me.

Say lots of us want our children taught YEC and pay someone to do it. We draw a contract that says we pay them so much and they teach our children YEC. Congratulations, we just made a private class. Say lots of us want our children taught lots of things the same. We draw a contract that says we pay them so much and they teach our children the things we want. Congratulations, we just made a private school.

And this is where your professional bodies and unions come in. Membership is a contractual agreement between the member and the body. The body guarantees certain conduct from their members - like not doing harm or not teaching that black people are two fifths of a person - and so membership is guarantee of conduct. If my kids go to a We Won't Teach Anyone Racist Things Union School, I know they won't be taught racist things. If We Won't Teach Anyone Racist Things Union schools become popular, there'll be lots of them - lots more than non-We Won't Teach Anyone Racist Things Union schools. More teachers become members of the WWTART Union to get jobs, more WWTART Union schools open - while fewer teachers remain to teach racist things...

If I go to a We Practice Modern Medicine Hospital, I know I won't get an exorcism for epilepsy.

And the few remaining? Their classes are full - what happens to their pupils, the girls forced to the side of the classroom. Society has lost the right to stand up for those children, where for some of whom school may be the only place they can be treated equally with their brothers. You think market pressure is going to force these schools to close?

----

It's a surprise to a lot of people that nurses don't actually help with a lot of the basic hygiene and assistance with activities of daily living with patients anymore. These jobs are usually delegated to Health Care Assistants (HCAs). With lower wages and less prestige it's not surprising to find disillusionment with workers, particularly amongst the more jaded HCAs who have years of previous experience as carers in care homes. Under such stresses it's equally not surprising to witness abuse, both mental and physical of patients on an almost shift by shift basis - depending on the hospital and the ward. Unlike nurses however, HCAs aren't regulated by the NMC. If you want to escalate any concerns with care you are restricted to their employer. With nurses you are able to ask for their NMC number.

Probably goes without saying which workers have a higher tendency for abuse. Whilst there are many more variables to account for this, having the threat of licence revocation is undeniably a factor.

 

[FoolKiller]

@KSaiyu

In the US it is illegal to practice medicine without a license. I cannot be the medical equivalent to a private tutor or homeschooling parent. Is it the same for your country?

If so, why do you have no problem with private tutors and homeschooling while claiming teacher is a profession on par with doctors or nurses, and arguing that teaching of negative ideas should be illegal? In your mind, how would a private tutor teaching racism be different than a guy with a knife letting me pay him to do minor surgery?

 

[KSaiyu]

@KSaiyu

In the US it is illegal to practice medicine without a license. I cannot be the medical equivalent to a private tutor or homeschooling parent. Is it the same for your country?

If so, why do you have no problem with private tutors and homeschooling while claiming teacher is a profession on par with doctors or nurses, and arguing that teaching of negative ideas should be illegal? In your mind, how would a private tutor teaching racism be different than a guy with a knife letting me pay him to do minor surgery?

Glad you bring that up. It's exactly the same - you can't be that equivalent. Well you could, but you would be breaking the law.

Medics and nurses have a duty of care to the patient, and such a duty should be enshrined within the teaching profession. Being sexist towards the child should be recognised by the profession as unacceptable. Imagine all teachers had to have a licence, and had to uphold their profession's ethical code of conduct. This would exist independently of the state, much like the GMC. Taking the GMC as an example, recently there have been cases of doctors blank-signing abortion forms which is in direct contravention of the UK's abortion law. The GMC themselves decided that "fitness to practice" hearings weren't necessary in these cases (these hearings can result in being struck off the medical register). If, however there were a group of doctors denying medical care to women, and didn't provide an alternate method of access to abortion then it is highly likely the GMC would review those doctors' fitness to practice.

Both are against the law, but one will be seen as progressive for society, the other a step back. This is similar to how I'd imagine teachers would be judged should they be found to be discriminating against pupils in their care on the basis of race/sex/religion. Now, you ask how a private tutor teaching racism would be different to a hack undertaking minor surgery. It wouldn't, and society should judge both individuals based on the laws they are contravening, or in the absence of any, lobby to amend laws most suitable to society at the time. Laws are always in a state of flux, and as Famine said immoral ones have been treated as beyond contestation for centuries. That's no reason however to shy away from creating new, more relevant ones.