Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

forecg · Feb 26, 2004, 02:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
How about this voter stat: 100% of ALL voters never had, don't have, and never will have the right to appoint somone to enforce their will upon others.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Is the fact that they don't have this right supposed to make us feel better when they do it anyway?

Most of us on this thread seem to share contempt for authoritarian "education", so I think the problem isn't convincing each other so much as figuring out a way to convince everyone else.

Edge · Feb 26, 2004, 08:13 pm

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

The entire thrust of your argument rests on the assertion that vouchers will lead to inevitable and rapid subjugation of all private schools. While it's true that many private schools will be willing to jump through "small" hoops to get voucher funding, some of them will not. As long as independent private schools haven't died out completely, parents will still have the option of sending their kids to schools that are free of government control. Everyone who realizes they can afford private school now without vouchers will still realize that they can afford to ignore vouchers when we have them.

I agree that this is a concern, which is why we need to scream bloody murder every time anyone so much as hints at the idea that the state needs to regulate the few remaining schools that aren't already completely under its control.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You are right about the entire thrust of my argument.

Churches *were* exempt from taxation by nature of their existance. Now they have to apply for an exemption. Churches once played vital role in american politics, the very purpose of the 1st amendment. Now they are forbidden to say anything political, or risk being fined and loss of their tax exempt status.

California voters by an overwhelming margin outlawed state recognition of any marriage exclusive of one man, one woman. Less than three years later the elected officials of San Francisco openly and proudly flout the law and perform same sex wedding ceremonies.

The NJ state legislature set the procedure for electing public officials. A few years ago, the state democratic party decided to change its party nominee in defiance of state law. (They didn't like their candidate) In agreement with this, the state court decided that the poor little piece of papaer that the law was written on was not as important as having a good candidate for the democrats.

The state of NY passed a law mandating registration of weapons, for the public good. Also written was the explicite language that forbade the state from EVER using the registration as a list for confiscation. Only a few years later, those lists were used, in defiance of the law, to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was chartered with the SOLE purpose of "disposing of federal land" and managing it's use until such time as it can be sold. It now buys land. The forest service was chartered to manage the renewable resouces of the national forests. It now acquires land by closing roads and forbiding owners of adjacent property, whose only access if via FS property, to use FS property for such access. When the owner gives up, the FS buys the land at bargain basement prices.

I wish I could be more optomistic. But government has shown a marked penchant for ignoring the law whenever it thought it could expand it's power base, the people be d*mned, regardless how loud they yelled.

forecg · Feb 27, 2004, 11:50 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)

You are right about the entire thrust of my argument . . .

I wish I could be more optomistic. But government has shown a marked penchant for ignoring the law whenever it thought it could expand it's power base, the people be d*mned, regardless how loud they yelled.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I share your awareness of government's tendency to expand its power base whereever it can, but these examples don't explain why vouchers would lead to the subjugation of private schools:

"Churches . . ."
When churches ask for tax exempt status at all they are willingly jumping through hoops for the politicians. If churches truly respected the first amendment they would realize that "no law regarding the establishment of religion" includes tax breaks for religious organizations, and they wouldn't seek special treatment. They DO weaken the law by asking for them, but this still doesn't stop the people who want to form churches and not bother asking for tax exemption.

"California voters . . . "
California voters (gay and straight alike) only have this problem because they look to the government to tell them whether or not they're married and what that means. The people who don't care whether or not the government tells them they're married are still going to live together and sign contracts that recognize joint ownership.

"The NJ state legislature . . . "
This is an excellent example of government ignoring the barriers that were intended to limit it, but I don't see the connection between elected officials and private schools. Elected "officials" can't exist without official recognition but schools can.

"The state of NY . . . "
Firearms registration laws affect the "legality" of ALL guns, not just the guns that are government subsidized (if there were any /:| ). A voucher law would only affect the schools that take money, not the ones that remain independent.

"The Bureau of Land Management . . . " offers a better example of an agency that has betrayed its originally stated intentions. The important questions here, though, are how forcefully were these intentions worded, and how long did it take to subvert it?

Government _does_ subvert the laws, but they can't do it overnight. Even after 70 years of determined subversion of the constitution, lawmakers still have to at least pay lip service to the inter-state commerce clause in Article 1, section 8. I realize that a state law would be much easier to subvert than the federal constitution, but there is no limit to how explicit we can be when we place limits on the authority of the state aproval clause in the voucher law:

"1. Rebates can only be issued for institutions that have been approved by the state accredidation committee. The purpose of the committee is strictly to prevent people from claiming rebates for activities that are obviously not related to education. Recognizing the dangerous potential for this committee to overreach its authority and attempt to regulate schools, the committee will be set up in the following manner:
a) The committee consists of eight members appointed to 8 year terms.
b) The first 8 members will be agreed upon and appointed by the lower house of the state legislature, while all subsequent members will be appointed by the governor.
c) The terms are staggered so that one member's term expires each year.
d) When an individual has served once on the committee, he/she is ineligible for any more terms on the committee.
e) A minimum of a 7/8 vote is required to determine an instutition ineligible for rebates.
f) The voiding of any subclause within this clause voids the entire clause."

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?

Edge · Feb 28, 2004, 01:15 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.

<blockquote>Quote:<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>
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.

forecg · Mar 1, 2004, 02:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Essentially, yes, except the NJ one. Officials can't exist without rules, but education can (explained in another paragraph below).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)

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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

My point is only moot if the people who switch to voucher-funded private schools remain unchanged by the move. If these people take advantage of the program but still think that schools can't function without government oversight, then yes, the entire thing will blow up in our faces. If they DO realize the benefits of reducing the involvement of government in education however, they'll ask for a greater reduction of involvement when they go to the poles. The essential question here isn't "will government officials try their darndest to strangle voucher schools with regulations?" but rather, "will a majority of voters wake up to the fact that regulations are the source of the problems in education?"

If you believe that people won't change their views and I believe they will, no amount of arguing we do will prove which of us is right. If we really wanted to know then we'd have to try both systems (in different states, obviously) and see which one worked better.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
With regard to the detrimental effects of regulation not effecting those who opt out of the system, I disagree. . .

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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
They're no friends of mine, but I'm sure you didn't mean that

I agree that judicial activism is an unequivocably bad thing (if they don't like the laws then they can use the amendment process to change what they say - that's what it's there for), but it's not as though it is so bad that every law we pass is doomed to be circumvented.

I'm convinced that if we write a strong enough clause then we can guarantee that we'll be able to appeal illegal rulings from activist judges. I'm guessing you are not. Again, how can we know for sure until we test it somewhere?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)

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.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The point I was trying to make is that you can't have a "government official" without some kind of official, government recognition. It would be an oxymoron. The act of teaching, however, doesn't need any special recognition because it happens with or without government recognition. Even parents living under communist oppression in Cold War era eastern Europe taught their kids what they really thought about the communists and we've still got a long way to go before it ever gets that bad.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)

<blockquote>Quote:<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>
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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I think we may have reached the heart of our dissagreement - please correct me if I don't quite have it right:

You think that vouchers will open the door to government regulation of all private schools. Government officials will try to get their claws into private schools, and they will succeed. People will not take advantage of vouchers to move to a less government-regulated academic environment, or if they do, they won't realize the importance of it being less government-regulated, or if they do, they won't realize it fast enough to use their votes to prevent government officials from succeeding. Or, even if they do that, rogue judges will inevitably twist the law and use it against us. The risk to private schools is far too great, we are better off avoiding vouchers altogether and concentrating our efforts on getting more people to realize the essential fallacy of government education by sucking it up and paying for private education on top of the taxes they already pay for government schools.

I think that vouchers are a potentially dangerous tool that we can use for limited time to get enough people out of government schools that they will recognize the consequences of government control of education and vote for less of it. The tendency for government officials to expand their control is very real, and we must take great care to minimize their control of voucher-funded schools and absolutely ensure that they can't be allowed to extend their control to the purely private ones. We can write an explicit enough law that will guarantee that it will survive attacks by activist judges. Getting a significant fraction of a state's kids out of government schools will go a long way toward garnering support for the complete separation of school and state. Vouchers can be used to do this, and we should give them a try.

You and I don't agree on how voucher parents will be able to affect the balance of power between statist schoolers and free-schoolers. If we do understand each other's arguments correctly then at some point we should probably agree to disagree, but I do have one last question: if you had the power to implement each of our approaches in separate states so that you could prove that you were right, would you do it?

eburchelli · Mar 1, 2004, 02:18 pm

I agree with school choice. Every student should be allowed to attend the school their parent(s) agree to if the school has openings. I think a form of tax credits should be used. But the main problem is basing the school tax on a reasonable set of rules and I don't know the answer to that.

Edge · Mar 2, 2004, 06:39 pm

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

They're no friends of mine, but I'm sure you didn't mean that
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (EDGE)
Exactly <hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I think we may have reached the heart of our dissagreement - please correct me if I don't quite have it right:

You think that vouchers will open the door to government regulation of all private schools. Government officials will try to get their claws into private schools, and they will succeed. <blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (EDGE)
Yes. Although there will always be, as there always have been, those who will privately school their children in spite of any law to the contrary. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>The risk to private schools is far too great, we are better off avoiding vouchers altogether and concentrating our efforts on getting more people to realize the essential fallacy of government education by sucking it up and paying for private education on top of the taxes they already pay for government schools.

I think that vouchers are a potentially dangerous tool that we can use for limited time to get enough people out of government schools that they will recognize the consequences of government control of education and vote for less of it. The tendency for government officials to expand their control is very real, and we must take great care to minimize their control of voucher-funded schools and absolutely ensure that they can't be allowed to extend their control to the purely private ones. We can write an explicit enough law that will guarantee that it will survive attacks by activist judges. Getting a significant fraction of a state's kids out of government schools will go a long way toward garnering support for the complete separation of school and state. Vouchers can be used to do this, and we should give them a try.

You and I don't agree on how voucher parents will be able to affect the balance of power between statist schoolers and free-schoolers. If we do understand each other's arguments correctly then at some point we should probably agree to disagree, but I do have one last question: if you had the power to implement each of our approaches in separate states so that you could prove that you were right, would you do it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I think you grasp the essense of my argument if not the details. And let me say that I'd much rather be arguing prefered ways to get rid of the grasp of government over schools, than arguing whether or not private education is legal. :)
I also agree that we're close to where we could agree to disagree.. I think pilot programs for vouchers are wonderful, and have supported most of them. I do agree with you that voucher parents will be able to affect the balance of power. I tend to think that it would take less than 15 years to fundementally change the way schools function.
What I don't agree with is that we would have anywhere near those 15 years to accomlish the change.

Good Topic.

forecg · Mar 2, 2004, 11:07 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)

I think you grasp the essense of my argument if not the details. And let me say that I'd much rather be arguing prefered ways to get rid of the grasp of government over schools, than arguing whether or not private education is legal. :) <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Me too. I was rather hoping though that the statists actually would join this thread so I could better understand the weaknesses in their arguments. Know thine true enemies.

commonsense · Mar 3, 2004, 10:36 am

Its worse than you think

A pervasive irrelevant concept pushed on society/schoolchildren by elitist self-serving totalitarians:

"The Founding Fathers were infallible, so therefore.......(add socialist lie here)"

Their philosophy isn't infallible. This is where education is necessary. Their truth is being systematically hidden and obscured ever since the socialist "Deweyites" the founders of "progressive" education.

I'm a student teacher and I have to restrain myself when all of academia tries to brainwash young future teachers by blaming the Bush administration (not that I'm a fan of them, although they are the lesser of evils) for the present condition of American education, which has been entirely the province of leftists since the thirties!!!

They are so transparently self serving (teachers) when they cry for more and more "funding" for computers, etc, when they should simply raise their standards and their proficiency and dedicate themselves to teahing basic skills instead of brainwashing leftist causes all day to our youth..

There really is a "dumbing-down" of America and funding won't change it.

Architecture and aqueducts built by the Romans are still standing today, their plans having been etched into the ground with a stick...and without the mathematical benefit of a concept of zero!!!

The most beautiful, abstract and hopeful ideas of man heve been shared with no more than a book, blackboard and sincere, dedicated teacher.

I want to be paid decently, but "education spending" is a lie for divisive socialist propaganda. I can give examples. I am surrounded by it here in college and it permeates everything. "Core Curriculum standards" ensure it. These are "interdisciplinary" requirements that amount to inserting propaganda into every subject, no matter how far a stretch!

You don't have to believe me, but trust me, its been so long an ideological part of our educatal system, that by now, the "lunatics" are truly in charge of the asylum and even they don't realize it

PatrickHenry · Oct 4, 2005, 11:35 pm

I don't think any of the participants in this thread are active members anymore, except for tman. But I like school choice. Here's a recent article CRITICISIZING it, but what the author sees as negative could be viewed as an improvement by others. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/100405O.shtml

Quote:

The long-term problem with choice is that it leads down the slippery slope to the demise of public education itself. (After all, the Bush administration's initial plan was to support NCLB with school vouchers.) Nor can choice be divorced from the larger funding crisis facing public education. This year alone, the Portland district lost $35 million in local tax revenue and federal funding, leading to a loss of 250 teaching and classroom aide positions. As funding declines, parental shopping for special programs increases, fueling a spiral of decline.

In Portland, the irony is especially bitter. A city that is nationally recognized for its emphasis on community building and sustainability houses an educational system where schools are disengaged from neighborhood, where more kids have to be driven to school and where students are increasingly sorted by race, social class, interest and ability.

If that kind of custom education sounds familiar, it should. It's called private school.

Notice that she thinks that choice could lead to the demise of public education. I say: BRAVO! Then another more functional system will arise to take its place.

Osborn F Enready · Oct 5, 2005, 12:01 am

Patrick Henry said:
Notice that she thinks that choice could lead to the demise of public education. I say: BRAVO! Then another more functional system will arise to take its place.

I say:
I concur.

mr.perfecto · Oct 5, 2005, 12:12 am

If the government can't operate public schools correctly, why do you expect it to operate a school choice program any better?

SteveA · Oct 5, 2005, 12:19 am

Though vouchers aren't ideal, I think they'd be a big improvement.

The issue I see with the typical proposal is that if private schools are required to be certified to qualify for these funds, then there's the concern that this could be used to make private schools comply with something similar to the public schools now.

I think simply requiring a student to meet some minimum standards in a few general areas should be enough to assure tax payers that alternate educational forms are serving the intended purpose.

(I'd prefer to see education a private issue entirely but allowing greater educational freedom would be a good step)

zynner · Oct 5, 2005, 01:12 am

I'm in favor of as complete a separation of education and state as is possible. Not sure that the voucher system won't wind up as more statist control of private schools, though.

How about instead of adding a new layer, we peel away a layer of government?

Less than 10% of all money spent on education comes from the federal government -- the rest is state and local. Yet, 90% of all rules, regulations and mandates come from the feds. Those are some expensive strings attached to those puny funds. And because all that extra red tape costs money to deal with, it might be less than 5% net of education funds are actually being contributed by the feds.

As long as a campaign to pass a law is taking place, why not pass a state law to eliminate all federal involvement in education within that state? The feds only have the ability to issue rules because they attach them to the money they send. But if a state refuses the money, then they don't have to abide by the rules. And it also takes the federal courts out of the picture.

Wouldn't peeling back a layer of government be better than adding a new one?

~ zynner

Osborn F Enready · Oct 5, 2005, 09:39 am

Zynner said:
As long as a campaign to pass a law is taking place, why not pass a state law to eliminate all federal involvement in education within that state? The feds only have the ability to issue rules because they attach them to the money they send. But if a state refuses the money, then they don't have to abide by the rules. And it also takes the federal courts out of the picture.

I say:
Excellent explanation that I think MANY don't understand.

Any Federal Fund that a state accepts, is tied with loads of strings attached.
For instance, Federal Highway funding, translates to your State Police being forced to enforce National Law on your states highways, such as seatbelt laws, drug search and seizure laws, among a myriad of other things.

The reason New Hampshire still doesn't have and enforce seat belt laws is because the state voluntarily REJECTS federal funding. A state that actually has some backbone left, as opposed to all the states that attempted to legalize medical marijuana for their states, and ALLOWED the federal government to veto their states rights, without even a Constitutional Amendment to cite as the reason to sanction prohibition of marijuana.

Zynner said:
Wouldn't peeling back a layer of government be better than adding a new one?

I say:
In just about every level, any level you could speak of, yes.

Feb 26, 2004, 02:11 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
forecg Molten Ash Posts: 36	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by How about this voter stat: 100% of ALL voters never had, don't have, and never will have the right to appoint somone to enforce their will upon others.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Is the fact that they don't have this right supposed to make us feel better when they do it anyway? Most of us on this thread seem to share contempt for authoritarian "education", so I think the problem isn't convincing each other so much as figuring out a way to convince everyone else.

Feb 26, 2004, 08:13 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,) The entire thrust of your argument rests on the assertion that vouchers will lead to inevitable and rapid subjugation of all private schools. While it's true that many private schools will be willing to jump through "small" hoops to get voucher funding, some of them will not. As long as independent private schools haven't died out completely, parents will still have the option of sending their kids to schools that are free of government control. Everyone who realizes they can afford private school now without vouchers will still realize that they can afford to ignore vouchers when we have them. I agree that this is a concern, which is why we need to scream bloody murder every time anyone so much as hints at the idea that the state needs to regulate the few remaining schools that aren't already completely under its control. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You are right about the entire thrust of my argument. Churches were exempt from taxation by nature of their existance. Now they have to apply for an exemption. Churches once played vital role in american politics, the very purpose of the 1st amendment. Now they are forbidden to say anything political, or risk being fined and loss of their tax exempt status. California voters by an overwhelming margin outlawed state recognition of any marriage exclusive of one man, one woman. Less than three years later the elected officials of San Francisco openly and proudly flout the law and perform same sex wedding ceremonies. The NJ state legislature set the procedure for electing public officials. A few years ago, the state democratic party decided to change its party nominee in defiance of state law. (They didn't like their candidate) In agreement with this, the state court decided that the poor little piece of papaer that the law was written on was not as important as having a good candidate for the democrats. The state of NY passed a law mandating registration of weapons, for the public good. Also written was the explicite language that forbade the state from EVER using the registration as a list for confiscation. Only a few years later, those lists were used, in defiance of the law, to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was chartered with the SOLE purpose of "disposing of federal land" and managing it's use until such time as it can be sold. It now buys land. The forest service was chartered to manage the renewable resouces of the national forests. It now acquires land by closing roads and forbiding owners of adjacent property, whose only access if via FS property, to use FS property for such access. When the owner gives up, the FS buys the land at bargain basement prices. I wish I could be more optomistic. But government has shown a marked penchant for ignoring the law whenever it thought it could expand it's power base, the people be d*mned, regardless how loud they yelled.

Feb 27, 2004, 11:50 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
forecg Molten Ash Posts: 36	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) You are right about the entire thrust of my argument . . . I wish I could be more optomistic. But government has shown a marked penchant for ignoring the law whenever it thought it could expand it's power base, the people be dmned, regardless how loud they yelled.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I share your awareness of government's tendency to expand its power base whereever it can, but these examples don't explain why vouchers would lead to the subjugation of private schools: "Churches . . ." When churches ask for tax exempt status at all they are willingly jumping through hoops for the politicians. If churches truly respected the first amendment they would realize that "no law regarding the establishment of religion" includes tax breaks for religious organizations, and they wouldn't seek special treatment. They DO weaken the law by asking for them, but this still doesn't stop the people who want to form churches and not bother asking for tax exemption. "California voters . . . " California voters (gay and straight alike) only have this problem because they look to the government to tell them whether or not they're married and what that means. The people who don't care whether or not the government tells them they're married are still going to live together and sign contracts that recognize joint ownership. "The NJ state legislature . . . " This is an excellent example of government ignoring the barriers that were intended to limit it, but I don't see the connection between elected officials and private schools. Elected "officials" can't exist without official recognition but schools can. "The state of NY . . . " Firearms registration laws affect the "legality" of ALL guns, not just the guns that are government subsidized (if there were any /:\| ). A voucher law would only affect the schools that take money, not the ones that remain independent. "The Bureau of Land Management . . . " offers a better example of an agency that has betrayed its originally stated intentions. The important questions here, though, are how forcefully were these intentions worded, and how long did it take to subvert it? Government _does_ subvert the laws, but they can't do it overnight. Even after 70 years of determined subversion of the constitution, lawmakers still* have to at least pay lip service to the inter-state commerce clause in Article 1, section 8. I realize that a state law would be much easier to subvert than the federal constitution, but there is no limit to how explicit we can be when we place limits on the authority of the state aproval clause in the voucher law: "1. Rebates can only be issued for institutions that have been approved by the state accredidation committee. The purpose of the committee is strictly to prevent people from claiming rebates for activities that are obviously not related to education. Recognizing the dangerous potential for this committee to overreach its authority and attempt to regulate schools, the committee will be set up in the following manner: a) The committee consists of eight members appointed to 8 year terms. b) The first 8 members will be agreed upon and appointed by the lower house of the state legislature, while all subsequent members will be appointed by the governor. c) The terms are staggered so that one member's term expires each year. d) When an individual has served once on the committee, he/she is ineligible for any more terms on the committee. e) A minimum of a 7/8 vote is required to determine an instutition ineligible for rebates. f) The voiding of any subclause within this clause voids the entire clause." 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?

Feb 28, 2004, 01:15 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.

Mar 1, 2004, 02:11 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
forecg Molten Ash Posts: 36	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) 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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Essentially, yes, except the NJ one. Officials can't exist without rules, but education can (explained in another paragraph below). </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) 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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> My point is only moot if the people who switch to voucher-funded private schools remain unchanged by the move. If these people take advantage of the program but still think that schools can't function without government oversight, then yes, the entire thing will blow up in our faces. If they DO realize the benefits of reducing the involvement of government in education however, they'll ask for a greater reduction of involvement when they go to the poles. The essential question here isn't "will government officials try their darndest to strangle voucher schools with regulations?" but rather, "will a majority of voters wake up to the fact that regulations are the source of the problems in education?" If you believe that people won't change their views and I believe they will, no amount of arguing we do will prove which of us is right. If we really wanted to know then we'd have to try both systems (in different states, obviously) and see which one worked better. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) With regard to the detrimental effects of regulation not effecting those who opt out of the system, I disagree. . . 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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> They're no friends of mine, but I'm sure you didn't mean that I agree that judicial activism is an unequivocably bad thing (if they don't like the laws then they can use the amendment process to change what they say - that's what it's there for), but it's not as though it is so bad that every law we pass is doomed to be circumvented. I'm convinced that if we write a strong enough clause then we can guarantee that we'll be able to appeal illegal rulings from activist judges. I'm guessing you are not. Again, how can we know for sure until we test it somewhere? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) 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. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The point I was trying to make is that you can't have a "government official" without some kind of official, government recognition. It would be an oxymoron. The act of teaching, however, doesn't need any special recognition because it happens with or without government recognition. Even parents living under communist oppression in Cold War era eastern Europe taught their kids what they really thought about the communists and we've still got a long way to go before it ever gets that bad. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) </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.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think we may have reached the heart of our dissagreement - please correct me if I don't quite have it right: You think that vouchers will open the door to government regulation of all private schools. Government officials will try to get their claws into private schools, and they will succeed. People will not take advantage of vouchers to move to a less government-regulated academic environment, or if they do, they won't realize the importance of it being less government-regulated, or if they do, they won't realize it fast enough to use their votes to prevent government officials from succeeding. Or, even if they do that, rogue judges will inevitably twist the law and use it against us. The risk to private schools is far too great, we are better off avoiding vouchers altogether and concentrating our efforts on getting more people to realize the essential fallacy of government education by sucking it up and paying for private education on top of the taxes they already pay for government schools. I think that vouchers are a potentially dangerous tool that we can use for limited time to get enough people out of government schools that they will recognize the consequences of government control of education and vote for less of it. The tendency for government officials to expand their control is very real, and we must take great care to minimize their control of voucher-funded schools and absolutely ensure that they can't be allowed to extend their control to the purely private ones. We can write an explicit enough law that will guarantee that it will survive attacks by activist judges. Getting a significant fraction of a state's kids out of government schools will go a long way toward garnering support for the complete separation of school and state. Vouchers can be used to do this, and we should give them a try. You and I don't agree on how voucher parents will be able to affect the balance of power between statist schoolers and free-schoolers. If we do understand each other's arguments correctly then at some point we should probably agree to disagree, but I do have one last question: if you had the power to implement each of our approaches in separate states so that you could prove that you were right, would you do it?

Mar 1, 2004, 02:18 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
eburchelli Molten Ash Posts: 106	I agree with school choice. Every student should be allowed to attend the school their parent(s) agree to if the school has openings. I think a form of tax credits should be used. But the main problem is basing the school tax on a reasonable set of rules and I don't know the answer to that.

Mar 2, 2004, 06:39 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,) They're no friends of mine, but I'm sure you didn't mean that </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (EDGE) Exactly <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think we may have reached the heart of our dissagreement - please correct me if I don't quite have it right: You think that vouchers will open the door to government regulation of all private schools. Government officials will try to get their claws into private schools, and they will succeed. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (EDGE) Yes. Although there will always be, as there always have been, those who will privately school their children in spite of any law to the contrary. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>The risk to private schools is far too great, we are better off avoiding vouchers altogether and concentrating our efforts on getting more people to realize the essential fallacy of government education by sucking it up and paying for private education on top of the taxes they already pay for government schools. I think that vouchers are a potentially dangerous tool that we can use for limited time to get enough people out of government schools that they will recognize the consequences of government control of education and vote for less of it. The tendency for government officials to expand their control is very real, and we must take great care to minimize their control of voucher-funded schools and absolutely ensure that they can't be allowed to extend their control to the purely private ones. We can write an explicit enough law that will guarantee that it will survive attacks by activist judges. Getting a significant fraction of a state's kids out of government schools will go a long way toward garnering support for the complete separation of school and state. Vouchers can be used to do this, and we should give them a try. You and I don't agree on how voucher parents will be able to affect the balance of power between statist schoolers and free-schoolers. If we do understand each other's arguments correctly then at some point we should probably agree to disagree, but I do have one last question: if you had the power to implement each of our approaches in separate states so that you could prove that you were right, would you do it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think you grasp the essense of my argument if not the details. And let me say that I'd much rather be arguing prefered ways to get rid of the grasp of government over schools, than arguing whether or not private education is legal. :) I also agree that we're close to where we could agree to disagree.. I think pilot programs for vouchers are wonderful, and have supported most of them. I do agree with you that voucher parents will be able to affect the balance of power. I tend to think that it would take less than 15 years to fundementally change the way schools function. What I don't agree with is that we would have anywhere near those 15 years to accomlish the change. Good Topic.

Mar 2, 2004, 11:07 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
forecg Molten Ash Posts: 36	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) I think you grasp the essense of my argument if not the details. And let me say that I'd much rather be arguing prefered ways to get rid of the grasp of government over schools, than arguing whether or not private education is legal. :) <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Me too. I was rather hoping though that the statists actually would join this thread so I could better understand the weaknesses in their arguments. Know thine true enemies.

Mar 3, 2004, 10:36 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
commonsense Igneous Magma Posts: 335	Its worse than you think A pervasive irrelevant concept pushed on society/schoolchildren by elitist self-serving totalitarians: "The Founding Fathers were infallible, so therefore.......(add socialist lie here)" Their philosophy isn't infallible. This is where education is necessary. Their truth is being systematically hidden and obscured ever since the socialist "Deweyites" the founders of "progressive" education. I'm a student teacher and I have to restrain myself when all of academia tries to brainwash young future teachers by blaming the Bush administration (not that I'm a fan of them, although they are the lesser of evils) for the present condition of American education, which has been entirely the province of leftists since the thirties!!! They are so transparently self serving (teachers) when they cry for more and more "funding" for computers, etc, when they should simply raise their standards and their proficiency and dedicate themselves to teahing basic skills instead of brainwashing leftist causes all day to our youth.. There really is a "dumbing-down" of America and funding won't change it. Architecture and aqueducts built by the Romans are still standing today, their plans having been etched into the ground with a stick...and without the mathematical benefit of a concept of zero!!! The most beautiful, abstract and hopeful ideas of man heve been shared with no more than a book, blackboard and sincere, dedicated teacher. I want to be paid decently, but "education spending" is a lie for divisive socialist propaganda. I can give examples. I am surrounded by it here in college and it permeates everything. "Core Curriculum standards" ensure it. These are "interdisciplinary" requirements that amount to inserting propaganda into every subject, no matter how far a stretch! You don't have to believe me, but trust me, its been so long an ideological part of our educatal system, that by now, the "lunatics" are truly in charge of the asylum and even they don't realize it The Porcupine is a great symbol. READ THOMAS PAINE, "RIGHTS OF MAN" TO A KID

Oct 5, 2005, 12:01 am	#31 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Patrick Henry said: Notice that she thinks that choice could lead to the demise of public education. I say: BRAVO! Then another more functional system will arise to take its place. I say: I concur. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Oct 5, 2005, 12:12 am	#32 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	If the government can't operate public schools correctly, why do you expect it to operate a school choice program any better? The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. Prov 1:7

Oct 5, 2005, 12:19 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
SteveA Anarcho-capitalist Posts: 1,972	Though vouchers aren't ideal, I think they'd be a big improvement. The issue I see with the typical proposal is that if private schools are required to be certified to qualify for these funds, then there's the concern that this could be used to make private schools comply with something similar to the public schools now. I think simply requiring a student to meet some minimum standards in a few general areas should be enough to assure tax payers that alternate educational forms are serving the intended purpose. (I'd prefer to see education a private issue entirely but allowing greater educational freedom would be a good step) Freedom - are you man enough to handle it? If so, join us in New Hampshire! The Free State Project ("Liberty in our lifetime!") www.freestateproject.com

Oct 5, 2005, 01:12 am	#34 (permalink) (top)
zynner Hot Lava Posts: 817	I'm in favor of as complete a separation of education and state as is possible. Not sure that the voucher system won't wind up as more statist control of private schools, though. How about instead of adding a new layer, we peel away a layer of government? Less than 10% of all money spent on education comes from the federal government -- the rest is state and local. Yet, 90% of all rules, regulations and mandates come from the feds. Those are some expensive strings attached to those puny funds. And because all that extra red tape costs money to deal with, it might be less than 5% net of education funds are actually being contributed by the feds. As long as a campaign to pass a law is taking place, why not pass a state law to eliminate all federal involvement in education within that state? The feds only have the ability to issue rules because they attach them to the money they send. But if a state refuses the money, then they don't have to abide by the rules. And it also takes the federal courts out of the picture. Wouldn't peeling back a layer of government be better than adding a new one? ~ zynner

Oct 5, 2005, 09:39 am	#35 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Zynner said: As long as a campaign to pass a law is taking place, why not pass a state law to eliminate all federal involvement in education within that state? The feds only have the ability to issue rules because they attach them to the money they send. But if a state refuses the money, then they don't have to abide by the rules. And it also takes the federal courts out of the picture. I say: Excellent explanation that I think MANY don't understand. Any Federal Fund that a state accepts, is tied with loads of strings attached. For instance, Federal Highway funding, translates to your State Police being forced to enforce National Law on your states highways, such as seatbelt laws, drug search and seizure laws, among a myriad of other things. The reason New Hampshire still doesn't have and enforce seat belt laws is because the state voluntarily REJECTS federal funding. A state that actually has some backbone left, as opposed to all the states that attempted to legalize medical marijuana for their states, and ALLOWED the federal government to veto their states rights, without even a Constitutional Amendment to cite as the reason to sanction prohibition of marijuana. Zynner said: Wouldn't peeling back a layer of government be better than adding a new one? I say: In just about every level, any level you could speak of, yes. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready