Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post - Soliciting Criticism for a School Choice System

Edge · Feb 28, 2004, 02:15 pm

I'm trying to clean up the post so it's more readable, so let me know if there are any corrections.

As I understand your points: (let me know if I have mis-represented your agrument, I'll retract and fix immediately)
*Groups who williningly comply to obtain government benefits should not be suprised when the State exercizes control. [California, Churches]
*People who chose not to willingly comply should be exempt from both the benefits and the control. [California, Churches, NY guns]
*In the case of the NJ Legislature, officials changed the rules, since there are no officials, then the rules can't be changed.
*We should take advantage of the delay between when the benefit is established and the control comes into force.

I think to a certain extent, you're making my own argument. If private and home schoolers willingly jumped through hoops for politicians, then they deserve what they get.
Your point about forming churches and not getting tax exemption is not lost on me. But if the governmental regulations follow the money, then your point is moot, as those who take the money will obtain no benefit.

With regard to the detrimental effects of regulation not effecting those who opt out of the system, I disagree. Groups who benefit indirectly from a governmental program often become subject to the same rules that apply to the direct recipients. In this case, all it takes is one judge to decide that non-participatory members benefit from the program and that will make them subject to the same rules, etc. The BIG issue here is curriculum review and "academic" testing.

Officials and rules? I don't see your point, and disagree with your point about schools ability to exist witout official recognition. There are currently 9 states that require approval from a governmental authority to legally exist. While the tide is currently tending towards freedom, that could change at any time.
My point is that judicial acitivsm has accelerated the rate at which the courts routinely ignore and overthrow laws written explicitely to limit government. Thank your "living, breathing constitution" friends for that.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,)

Maybe we'd never get a clause this strong passed into law, but if we could, do you think that it could be subverted (with advocates of private education fighting it at every step of the way) faster than we could get the majority of kids out of the big-government-voter factories?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Yes I do. Wish I didn't. And along with that, we will have placed those who currently opt out of the system at a higher risk.

Feb 28, 2004, 02:15 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	I'm trying to clean up the post so it's more readable, so let me know if there are any corrections. As I understand your points: (let me know if I have mis-represented your agrument, I'll retract and fix immediately) Groups who williningly comply to obtain government benefits should not be suprised when the State exercizes control. [California, Churches] People who chose not to willingly comply should be exempt from both the benefits and the control. [California, Churches, NY guns] In the case of the NJ Legislature, officials changed the rules, since there are no officials, then the rules can't be changed. We should take advantage of the delay between when the benefit is established and the control comes into force. I think to a certain extent, you're making my own argument. If private and home schoolers willingly jumped through hoops for politicians, then they deserve what they get. Your point about forming churches and not getting tax exemption is not lost on me. But if the governmental regulations follow the money, then your point is moot, as those who take the money will obtain no benefit. With regard to the detrimental effects of regulation not effecting those who opt out of the system, I disagree. Groups who benefit indirectly from a governmental program often become subject to the same rules that apply to the direct recipients. In this case, all it takes is one judge to decide that non-participatory members benefit from the program and that will make them subject to the same rules, etc. The BIG issue here is curriculum review and "academic" testing. Officials and rules? I don't see your point, and disagree with your point about schools ability to exist witout official recognition. There are currently 9 states that require approval from a governmental authority to legally exist. While the tide is currently tending towards freedom, that could change at any time. My point is that judicial acitivsm has accelerated the rate at which the courts routinely ignore and overthrow laws written explicitely to limit government. Thank your "living, breathing constitution" friends for that. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,) Maybe we'd never get a clause this strong passed into law, but if we could, do you think that it could be subverted (with advocates of private education fighting it at every step of the way) faster than we could get the majority of kids out of the big-government-voter factories?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes I do. Wish I didn't. And along with that, we will have placed those who currently opt out of the system at a higher risk.