Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[KSaiyu]

People are free to believe that if they wish.

I mean apparently we used to teach discrimination against and segregation of homosexuals - as a religious state - and life was better back then. Or... something.

They are free to believe it. To be taught it and subjected to it in school?

Like, as in an all-boys school? Wanna guess the type of school ranked highest in achievement in Kentucky? The best education in the state isn't accessible by girls. Of course, the all-girls schools aren't too shabby either, having honors students graduate high school with a year of college credits already on their transcript.

There's a bit of a difference between selective sex schools and forcing girls to sit at the back of the classroom.

I don't remember the original example. Yes it's ok for a school to only teach boys or girls. Yes it's ok for a school to teach certain values when it comes to girls or boys. No none of should be mandatory from a legal standpoint.

Operation Trojan Horse

 

[Famine]

They are free to believe it. To be taught it and subjected to it in school?

Are the teachers free to believe it? Are the parents free to believe it?

In a public school system, are the parents free to move their child to a different public school if they don't believe what the teachers are teaching should be taught?

 

[KSaiyu]

Are the teachers free to believe it? Are the parents free to believe it?

They're both free to believe it. Only one is allowed to teach it however.

In a public school system, are the parents free to move their child to a different public school if they don't believe what the teachers are teaching should be taught?

Of course. It happened to me.

 

[Famine]

They're both free to believe it. Only one is allowed to teach it however.

So which isn't allowed to teach? Teachers or parents?

Or do you mean should be allowed, in which case why is it okay for one group of adults to teach and not the other if it's something you don't agree with?

Of course. It happened to me.

Really?

Best of luck moving a kid between public schools now unless you move house or they get themselves thrown out.

 

[Danoff]

Operation Trojan Horse

It may be harder to get hired into the public school system than private (because nobody ever gets fired), but once you're in, the public school system is far more susceptible to a teacher teaching something that people actively do not want to be taught than private schools. In private schools, teachers teach what the parents of the children want to be taught. The parents are the customers, and the school caters to their collective demands. In public school, there are no customers. Teachers teach their version of the curriculum and if parents don't like it, their only recourse is to sell their house or start paying for private school (which is a lot different than just paying for a different private school).

You seem to think that the market will not respond to something like Operation Trojan Horse. I don't know why you think that.

Edit:

It's almost as though someone came up with Operation Brown Punchbowl, in which people would infiltrate Coca Cola and begin sneaking feces into the soda. What do you think would happen?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

They're both free to believe it. Only one is allowed to teach it however.

Which one is allowed to teach it? The one bound by the public education or private education system or the one bound by their parental duties to instill some form or reason and morality with in their children and other life lessons?

Of course. It happened to me.

So if it happened to you then why is this an issue?

Since you didn't answer my question prior I thought this would be a good place to try again since it's still in the realm

 

[KSaiyu]

So which isn't allowed to teach? Teachers or parents?

Or do you mean should be allowed, in which case why is it okay for one group of adults to teach and not the other if it's something you don't agree with?Really?

I'll plead ignorance and just hope that as a profession, teachers are bound to an obligation that prohibits the peddling of such nonsense. Using an example in a field I'm more comfortable with, I know of GPs who refuse to give out contraception because of their beliefs. They are required however to provide an alternate source (another doctor). Same with abortion. Giving a half hour lecture about their beliefs being the right way and ending with a "next patient please" is not allowed.

Parents shouldn't be teaching their kids such a mentality, but it should be allowed.

It may be harder to get hired into the public school system than private (because nobody ever gets fired), but once you're in, the public school system is far more susceptible to a teacher teaching something that people actively do not want to be taught than private schools. In private schools, teachers teach what the parents of the children want to be taught. The parents are the customers, and the school caters to their collective demands. In public school, there are no customers. Teachers teach their version of the curriculum and if parents don't like it, their only recourse is to sell their house or start paying for private school (which is a lot different than just paying for a different private school).

Which is exactly the problem. Sometimes kids have to be taught in opposition to their parents beliefs. No child should have to live and learn because of the sins of their fathers.

You seem to think that the market will not respond to something like Operation Trojan Horse. I don't know why you think that.

One such example of the market responding exactly as you would expect a market to.[/quote]

It's almost as though someone came up with Operation Brown Punchbowl, in which people would infiltrate Coca Cola and begin sneaking feces into the soda. What do you think would happen?

What do you think would happen if the parents liked feces in their and their childrens soda?

So if it happened to you then why is this an issue?

Because by freeing schools beyond the point of any real control you open it to possible infiltration. Is the answer blanket smothering of every school in Britain? No - it's unlikely governers wanting to peddle substandard nonsense will get anywhere near the front lawn of Harrow or St. Pauls.

Since you didn't answer my question prior I thought this would be a good place to try again since it's still in the realm

Which question?

 

[Danoff]

Which is exactly the problem. Sometimes kids have to be taught in opposition to their parents beliefs. No child should have to live and learn because of the sins of their fathers.

Uh... who do you think is in a better position to teach children their beliefs exactly?

One such example of the market responding exactly as you would expect a market to.

No way... a company that does the wrong thing? Libertarianism is broken! If only we had some way of knowing that certain organizations might look out for their own best interests and take that into account.

What do you think would happen if the parents liked feces in their and their childrens soda?

They'd get feces. This is unrelated to your Trojan horse scare. Don't switch subjects so that you can appear to be responsive when you're not.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Uh... who do you think is in a better position to teach children their beliefs exactly?

Who do you think is?

I infer that you think parent is in the best position. I'd agree with you mostly, for example I don't believe in censorship other than being able to censor what my own children see.

That said, there are parents whose beliefs are clearly abhorrent and bad for the health of the child and the morality of society. Should there be a mechanism for policing that? Who sets its benchmarks?

 

[Danoff]

Who do you think is?

I infer that you think parent is in the best position. I'd agree with you mostly, for example I don't believe in censorship other than being able to censor what my own children see.

That said, there are parents whose beliefs are clearly abhorrent and bad for the health of the child and the morality of society. Should there be a mechanism for policing that? Who sets its benchmarks?

The people whose job it is - their guardians. And there is a mechanism for policing child abuse, the guardians lose guardianship.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The people whose job it is - their guardians. And there is a mechanism for policing child abuse, the guardians lose guardianship.

Fair enough, I was interested in the "absoluteness" of Parental Discretion as you saw it.

Is "The State" (presuming that they form-or-inform the police in this instance) always right in what they say a parent should/shouldn't do? Or their judgement of what is/isn't happening in any given situation? What mechanism should there be to police that?

That's a genuine question with no noise or antagonism intended.

 

[Famine]

I'll plead ignorance and just hope that as a profession, teachers are bound to an obligation that prohibits the peddling of such nonsense. Using an example in a field I'm more comfortable with, I know of GPs who refuse to give out contraception because of their beliefs. They are required however to provide an alternate source (another doctor). Same with abortion. Giving a half hour lecture about their beliefs being the right way and ending with a "next patient please" is not allowed.

Parents shouldn't be teaching their kids such a mentality, but it should be allowed.

Interesting. You have no issue with parents teaching their children utter rubbish, but don't think they should be allowed to pick stand-in educators that teach them the same utter rubbish...

 

[Danoff]

Fair enough, I was interested in the "absoluteness" of Parental Discretion as you saw it.

Is "The State" (presuming that they form-or-inform the police in this instance) always right in what they say a parent should/shouldn't do? Or their judgement of what is/isn't happening in any given situation? What mechanism should there be to police that?

That's a genuine question with no noise or antagonism intended.

Generally speaking, especially in the US, legal guardians have a LOT of leeway when it comes to what they can teach/do with their kids before it is considered abusive and the police get involved. I think that court-appointed guardians, adoptive parents, and foster parents generally are on a tighter leash than, say, the biological parents. There are ways that psychological abuse can get the courts involved. Emotional abuse and neglect are both ways that guardians abuse their children without physically hitting them.

Edit:

I'm getting some hits in the UK for something called "Cinderella Law". Looks like it's aimed specifically at criminalizing psychological abuse.

Edit2:

Every and any state is always going to make mistakes when it comes to this sort of thing. So no they're not "always right".

 

[mirial]

Sounds quite like Victorian England to me.Ah, right. So it's the UK that is the society that was once religious, is now secular and has seen an associated rise in teenage pregnancy, single parenthood and the ill-defined "broken homes"?

Got any citations for any part of that?

I never said there was an increase in teenage pregnancy, I just used as an example that's just a part of the whole problem. Divorce and children born outside of wedlock are considered 'sins' by the church and so are regarded as secular.

Look - those bloody Victorians! There's a sharp decline into the early sixties which ties in with the Sexual Revolution.

This ties in with the Sexual Revolution.


Having said that, if it wasn't that Revolution, it's fairly safe to say none of us would be in existence today talking about it on this forum!

On a personal note, I come from a broken home but overall it just happened to work out better later in life, but I can tell you that temporarily being part of the Blended family thing was 🤬 at the time.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I never said there was an increase in teenage pregnancy, I just used as an example that's just a part of the whole problem. Divorce and children born outside of wedlock are considered 'sins' by the church and so are regarded as secular.

View attachment 203237

Look - those bloody Victorians! There's a sharp decline into the early sixties which ties in with the Sexual Revolution.


View attachment 203244
This ties in with the Sexual Revolution.


Having said that, if it wasn't that Revolution, it's fairly safe to say none of us would be in existence today talking about it on this forum!

On a personal note, I come from a broken home but overall it just happened to work out better later in life, but I can tell you that temporarily being part of the Blended family thing was s**t at the time.

Can I just point out the first graph ends at 1970, and the second one begins in 1971, so you can't exactly compare the two. Secondly, correlation doesn't equal causation, you would have to prove that it was a decrease in religious marriages that causes the increase of babies born out of wedlock. Finally, do you have any studies to show us that proves that kids born out of wedlock end up any worse than kids born in wedlock?

 

[mirial]

@mirial So, are you saying that the country would be a better place if more people believed in an all powerful sky fairy, and lived in fear of eternal torture for not following arbitrary rules made in ignorance of actual facts?

No because not everyone believes that, but at least have a system that is conducive to a stable family unit so that people are free to not believe if they want to. Sowing your wild oats has proven to lead to marriage instability and studies have concluded that families that stay together provide the better outcome for children than those from broken homes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/t...n/2008/09/births_outside_marriage_a_real.html

 

[Famine]

I never said there was an increase in teenage pregnancy, I just used as an example that's just a part of the whole problem.

You've not really defined a problem yet, but you did include "teenage pregnancy" in your list of things that secular society was causing...

Broken families; teenage pregnancies, single parents etc.

Divorce and children born outside of wedlock are considered 'sins' by the church and so are regarded as secular.

Sounds like you're talking about Catholicism, which hasn't been a religion of state in the UK for over four hundred and fifty years. In fact Anglicanism was founded on the principle of divorce, quite famously...

Nevertheless, I'm still wondering when the UK was not secular and when it became secular - you've not provided any dates.

Look - those bloody Victorians! There's a sharp decline into the early sixties which ties in with the Sexual Revolution.

This ties in with the Sexual Revolution.

Okay, you've got two graphs that don't cover "broken families" (no idea what those are), teenage pregnancy or single parenthood (hint: babies born outside of wedlock are not the same thing as babies born to a single parent). So... I'm still waiting to really get to grips on what your point is about secularism in order for your question about Libertarians fixing it to be answered.


Incidentally, my marriage is non-religious and my eldest was born before my wife and I married (she was a bridesmaid). According to the graphs you posted, I'm apparently part of this ill-defined "problem"...

Having said that, if it wasn't that Revolution, it's fairly safe to say none of us would be in existence today talking about it on this forum!

On a personal note, I come from a broken home but overall it just happened to work out better later in life, but I can tell you that temporarily being part of the Blended family thing was 🤬 at the time.

I don't know what a "blended" family is either, and please censor ALL of your expletives rather than just some of them.

 

[Danoff]

No because not everyone believes that, but at least have a system that is conducive to a stable family unit so that people are free to not believe if they want to. Sowing your wild oats has proven to lead to marriage instability and studies have concluded that families that stay together provide the better outcome for children than those from broken homes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/t...n/2008/09/births_outside_marriage_a_real.html

I'll tell you one thing that libertarianism would do that might decrease the number of babies born outside of marriage - reduce/eliminate state handouts for having children. In the US a surprising number of women get pregnant specifically so that they can get a larger welfare check from the state. Sometimes it's also to collect from deadbeat dad. Either way it is seen as a method for obtaining handouts.

 

[KSaiyu]

Uh... who do you think is in a better position to teach children their beliefs exactly?

Again, this is the ideal world mentality. Such a world doesn't produce a three year old who was found to have said in his nursery class that the reason "his family were poor was because all the Jews and Zionists had all the money."

No way... a company that does the wrong thing? Libertarianism is broken! If only we had some way of knowing that certain organizations might look out for their own best interests and take that into account.

They were looking out for their best interests.

They'd get feces. This is unrelated to your Trojan horse scare. Don't switch subjects so that you can appear to be responsive when you're not.

Switch subjects? Coca cola is a large, internationally recognised company and probably the leader in their respective field of business. They'd represent a prestigious school such as Eton. It's impossible someone could execute such an operation as it would hurt their business. This is a world of difference from West London cola (here representing schools in the Trojan Horse plot), where the operation would be much more likely to succeed. The operation would cater to the parents' wishes but that shouldn't be who the schools are exclusively catering to.

Interesting. You have no issue with parents teaching their children utter rubbish, but don't think they should be allowed to pick stand-in educators that teach them the same utter rubbish...

I have an issue with it, but they have a right to raise their child in such a way. Teachers, however should be providing an escape for these children, an environment free from twisted ideology. De facto apartheid is still apartheid, and has no place in public schools.

 

[Danoff]

Again, this is the ideal world mentality. Such a world doesn't produce a three year old who was found to have said in his nursery class that the reason "his family were poor was because all the Jews and Zionists had all the money."

Honestly if that's what parents want their children learning, they're entitled to teach it or have it taught.

They were looking out for their best interests.

That's what I'm saying to you.

Switch subjects? Coca cola is a large, internationally recognised company and probably the leader in their respective field of business. They'd represent a prestigious school such as Eton. It's impossible someone could execute such an operation as it would hurt their business. This is a world of difference from West London cola (here representing schools in the Trojan Horse plot), where the operation would be much more likely to succeed. The operation would cater to the parents' wishes but that shouldn't be who the schools are exclusively catering to.

Parents' wishes are exactly who the school should be exclusively catering to. Who do you think the school should cater to?

I have an issue with it, but they have a right to raise their child in such a way. Teachers, however should be providing an escape for these children, an environment free from twisted ideology.

So you want teachers to teach only the right ideology?

 

[Famine]

I have an issue with it, but they have a right to raise their child in such a way.

And if they don't have time to, why do they not have the right to choose educators who do?

Teachers, however should be providing an escape for these children, an environment free from twisted ideology. De facto apartheid is still apartheid, and has no place in public schools.

Bizarrely, this sounds like you're actually completely against private education...

 

[Exorcet]

Again, this is the ideal world mentality. Such a world doesn't produce a three year old who was found to have said in his nursery class that the reason "his family were poor was because all the Jews and Zionists had all the money."

I have an issue with it, but they have a right to raise their child in such a way. Teachers, however should be providing an escape for these children, an environment free from twisted ideology. De facto apartheid is still apartheid, and has no place in public schools.

Your first example reminds me of Nazi Germany, where the state run schools were teaching similar ideas. You're fine with public schools now because they happen to agree with you. They don't have to. If you enforce public education and remove all other options, then when the public schools go full insane, there is no escape for students who will be exposed to ridiculous ideas.

 

[Danoff]

Your first example reminds me of Nazi Germany, where the state run schools were teaching similar ideas. You're fine with public schools now because they happen to agree with you. They don't have to. If you enforce public education and remove all other options, then when the public schools go full insane, there is no escape for students who will be exposed to ridiculous ideas.

I'm going to go a step beyond and say that it's hard to tell whether one's own ideas aren't the "full insane" ones. Just because lots of people agree with you doesn't mean that you're not crazy. Nazi Germany provided us with the perfect demonstration of that. If we legislate that parents who are in the fringe ideology camp can't put their kids into a fringe ideology school, then when the public goes "full insane", the fringe sane people can't save their kids from it.

 

[KSaiyu]

Honestly if that's what parents want their children learning, they're entitled to teach it or have it taught.

I've seen the results. It's not where I would want Britain to head.

That's what I'm saying to you.

Profits ahead of the mental health of a child. Are we seriously saying that allowing that to go unchecked is a-ok?

Parents' wishes are exactly who the school should be exclusively catering to. Who do you think the school should cater to?

The parents and the child.

So you want teachers to teach only the right ideology?

The right values. Something that should be universally recognised in Britain.

And if they don't have time to, why do they not have the right to choose educators who do?

They do, it's the private sector. But those educators must still be bound by their professional obligations, and while they could provide a less diverse education, negative discrimination must not be tolerated.

Bizarrely, this sounds like you're actually completely against private education...

I'm completely against teaching with extremist agendas, whether Christian, Muslim, Orthodox Jewish or extreme atheism.

Your first example reminds me of Nazi Germany, where the state run schools were teaching similar ideas. You're fine with public schools now because they happen to agree with you. They don't have to. If you enforce public education and remove all other options, then when the public schools go full insane, there is no escape for students who will be exposed to ridiculous ideas.

Weirdly you're proving my point...

"Your first example reminds me of Nazi Germany, where the state run schools were teaching similar ideas. You're fine with private schools now because they happen to agree with you. They don't have to. If you enforce private education and remove all other options, then when the private schools go full insane, there is no escape for students who will be exposed to ridiculous ideas."

One school in Birmingham is taken over. The governor convinces parents from that school to tell parents of another school how much better the classes are, and how it's "just like home". Then that school's governors are replaced as the parents threaten to take their children out. Then another, and another until you have no options in that area of Birmingham and are forced to move out to provide your child with a balanced education.

And don't think this is confined to one city. As in the real world, what's to stop Bradford, or East London?

 

[Famine]

I'm completely against teaching with extremist agendas, whether Christian, Muslim, Orthodox Jewish or extreme atheism.

Unless the extremist agenda matches your own - which seems to be zero tolerance for "negative discrimination" (whatever the hell that is!).

And of course unless it's the parents doing the teaching, in which case you're fine with it. This means you still haven't answered the question why parents should be allowed to teach whatever they want but not be allowed to employ others to teach them as they wish.

 

[Danoff]

I've seen the results. It's not where I would want Britain to head.

Why is it that your wishes are somehow involved in a discussion about what other peoples' kids are taught.

Profits ahead of the mental health of a child. Are we seriously saying that allowing that to go unchecked is a-ok?

No. I said that companies are predictably self-interested. It's also true that companies who do this kind of thing get smeared.

The parents and the child.

So like... half the time the kid learns something and the other half of the time the kid gets to eat glue and pull Margery's hair?

The right values. Something that should be universally recognised in Britain.

Wow! Take a step back for a moment and read that statement to yourself.

I'm completely against teaching with extremist agendas, whether Christian, Muslim, Orthodox Jewish or extreme atheism.

Ok, don't teach them.

Weirdly you're proving my point...

"Your first example reminds me of Nazi Germany, where the state run schools were teaching similar ideas. You're fine with private schools now because they happen to agree with you. They don't have to. If you enforce private education and remove all other options, then when the private schools go full insane, there is no escape for students who will be exposed to ridiculous ideas."

One school in Birmingham is taken over. The governor convinces parents from that school to tell parents of another school how much better the classes are, and how it's "just like home". Then that school's governors are replaced as the parents threaten to take their children out. Then another, and another until you have no options in that area of Birmingham and are forced to move out to provide your child with a balanced education.

And don't think this is confined to one city. As in the real world, what's to stop Bradford, or East London?

If that's what the local parents want, why shouldn't they get it?

 

[Exorcet]

One school in Birmingham is taken over. The governor convinces parents from that school to tell parents of another school how much better the classes are, and how it's "just like home". Then that school's governors are replaced as the parents threaten to take their children out. Then another, and another until you have no options in that area of Birmingham and are forced to move out to provide your child with a balanced education.

You lose the last option when things are outright banned from being taught. You seem to think that some kind of regulation will make it impossible to teach "bad" things. I think that anything government would pass would be based on society's feelings at the time. Is everyone a racist and a sexist? Government bans female and minority education. If the government just steps out of education, then they can't ban anything.

You can also look at less extreme cases. Like Danoff said, your own ideas or the majority's ideas may be crazy. If a society is infatuated with homeopathy out of ignorance and teaching it in schools, you might not want your kids being taught about it. What do you do when it's a mandated course?

 

[KSaiyu]

Unless the extremist agenda matches your own - which seems to be zero tolerance for "negative discrimination" (whatever the hell that is!).

And of course unless it's the parents doing the teaching, in which case you're fine with it. This means you still haven't answered the question why parents should be allowed to teach whatever they want but not be allowed to employ others to teach them as they wish.

I did, right here

They do, it's the private sector. But those educators must still be bound by their professional obligations, and while they could provide a less diverse education, negative discrimination must not be tolerated.

I wouldn't have thought I'd have to give examples of negative discrimination?? It's 99% of the things people mean when they just say "discrimination". The negative was to pre-empt replies asking what's so wrong with discrimination. Guess it failed.

Why is it that your wishes are somehow involved in a discussion about what other peoples' kids are taught.

Thought this was about libertarianism.

No. I said that companies are predictably self-interested. It's also true that companies who do this kind of thing get smeared.

What's that private school's name again?

So like... half the time the kid learns something and the other half of the time the kid gets to eat glue and pull Margery's hair?

It's not in any child's best interests to be forced to the back of the class and teach themselves biology because they are a girl interested in science. This is where, IMO a child's rights trump those of the guardians.

Wow! Take a step back for a moment and read that statement to yourself.

Values are incredibly important for a successful society.

Ok, don't teach them.

Don't teach who?

If that's what the local parents want, why shouldn't they get it?

Because it does children a disservice. You either give up your time and teach your child whilst still meeting curriculum guidelines or find a private school. Abolishing public schools completely would spread bad ideas and ignorance even quicker.

 

[Danoff]

Thought this was about libertarianism.

Yeeeeesss?

What's that private school's name again?

I believe it was called Not-my-kid's-school Elementary.

It's not in any child's best interests to be forced to the back of the class and teach themselves biology because they are a girl interested in science. This is where, IMO a child's rights trump those of the guardians.

Kids don't have a right to learn biology science.

Values are incredibly important for a successful society.

...and you think these are just.... recognized by everyone.

Don't teach who?

Anyone. Don't teach extremist agendas to anyone. You said you're against them being taught, so you shouldn't teach them. Other people can teach them of course, because other people aren't against them.

Because it does children a disservice.

...in your opinion. Not in the opinion of those childrens' parents. So what gives you a reason to claim that you know whats better for those kids than their parents?

 

[Famine]

I did, right here.

Nope. You've answered that they shouldn't be allowed to, not why. I know you think they shouldn't be allowed to - you've said it enough - but you're not saying why.

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?

There's really three questions in one there - why do you think it's okay for parents to instill what you think are harmful values into their children, why do you think it's not okay for them to employ someone else to do it for them and why do you think you get to say what values are taught to anyone's children by anyone else?

I wouldn't have thought I'd have to give examples of negative discrimination?? It's 99% of the things people mean when they just say "discrimination". The negative was to pre-empt replies asking what's so wrong with discrimination. Guess it failed.

Discrimination is discrimination. Qualifying it with "negative" implies there's such a thing as "positive" discrimination - like "affirmative action" - when there is nothing of the sort, only more discrimination.

I'll point out again that zero tolerance for discrimination is an extremist view - one that you think should be taught, despite saying you're against extremism in teaching...