Reaction to Ron Paul's homeschooling comment

[Slartibartfast]

Ok, really, I need to go to bed.

 

I read both websites. Slowly. They are pretty similar. I'm not seeing the difference between the tea party and the libertarians except that the focus is slightly different, but I don't see opposite views at all. Anyone else? Second opinion?

 

Tiny islands? Not from my perspective. Are we so selfish a society that we can only be trusted to care for the poor if our money is forced from our hand? Here is my perspective: My number one duty as a Christian is to care for the poor and needy, and I guarantee I could do it better than a national department ever could. Doesn't local welfare make more sense?

Take a drive through government housing and see what a mess it is making of our poor and needy. "Free stuff" is making them poorer and needier. What about teaching a man to fish? What if government got their hands out of talented people's pockets so those talented people can make more rivers for fishing?

And what of giving voluntarily? When people give freely and serve freely, doesn't that improve both the giver and the recipient?

 

I don't want to get too side-tracked on this vein. I just want to point out that the libertarian's platform is little government. That does not mean the poor are neglected at all. I will admit that little government only works for good people who DO care and do feel an obligation to society to be charitable. If we are a selfish people, then yes, libertarian would lead to tiny islands and neglected poor. So MAYBE, Mrs. Mungo, our difference lies in how we see each other.

 

I don't believe she said that about Libertarians but Objectivists, which she did say was a subset of Libertarians.

 

Ayn Rand disagreed strongly with religion, particularly Christianity. Mrs Mungo was not saying that about Libertarians, or you but Objectivists. Most people do not believe the two are compatible.

 

The Tea Party would not support any of the things I listed in post #101. So...they are different.

[Mrs Mungo]

Tiny islands? Not from my perspective. Are we so selfish a society that we can only be trusted to care for the poor if our money is forced from our hand?

 

Out of your hand to help...who? I have worked at church food banks and they only helped if you were a member of the church. I am not saying all of them work that way, but most do. How does a small church widen that net? How does a church avoid fraud?

 

Here is my perspective: My number one duty as a Christian is to care for the poor and needy, and I guarantee I could do it better than a national department ever could. Doesn't local welfare make more sense?

 

Are you implying that there is a federal welfare system? There are federal monies that help support local systems, but that is not the same as having a federal system, IMO. Bill Clinton is the one who got rid of the federal system, by the way, not a Republican.

 

Take a drive through government housing and see what a mess it is making of our poor and needy. "Free stuff" is making them poorer and needier. What about teaching a man to fish? What if government got their hands out of talented people's pockets so those talented people can make more rivers for fishing?

Have you read Savage Inequalities? How about Nickle and Dimed? How do you break those cycles of poverty that result in a lack of education? Progressives mostly agree that there are very big problems with the current systems. We disagree about how to fix it.

 

And what of giving voluntarily? When people give freely and serve freely, doesn't that improve both the giver and the recipient?

 

I don't want to get too side-tracked on this vein. I just want to point out that the libertarian's platform is little government. That does not mean the poor are neglected at all. I will admit that little government only works for good people who DO care and do feel an obligation to society to be charitable. If we are a selfish people, then yes, libertarian would lead to tiny islands and neglected poor. So MAYBE, Mrs. Mungo, our difference lies in how we see each other.

 

If everyone always did the right thing, then we wouldn't need any government at all, would we? The Tea Party wants to abolish the EPA, do you think the people who lived through Love Canal would agree that no government oversight is better? That companies will do the right thing? As a Christian, I agree that giving to the needy is a big deal. But, people like Ayn Rand not only was virulently anti-Christian, but anti-charity of any kind, in general. Go to youtube, search Ayn Rand interviews. I am not suggesting all Libertarians believe that at all, but some *definitely* and quote her all the time.

 

 

 

I'm treading on dangerous ground here disagreeing with Mrs. Mungo :scared:

 

But, I would disagree. When I said "position" I meant "ideology." The Democratic Party speaks no more for liberalism than the Republican Party for conservatism. Marx and John Stewart Mill would not recognize the Democratic Party as in line with their liberal views and Edmund Burke and Russel Kirk would not recognize the Republican Party as conservative.

 

I am not sure what you are disagreeing with? I don't disagree with your statements. But, I think the question that was being asked was, what do they currently stand for? That is what I was attempting to answer.

[Mrs Mungo]

I guess I'm saying that distinctions need to be made between the political party and the beliefs of the person.

 

I agree. Few of us fit in neat boxes.

 

I know libertarians who don't support the LP, I know liberals who don't support the DP and I know conservatives who don't support the RP. If the previous poster was trying to find a political party, putting up a party platform would be useful. I understood her as asking where she fit on the political spectrum.

 

I guess that is the problem. Is it currently set up as a spectrum? Seems more like sets of beliefs. People have to figure out which issues are most important to them and go from there.

 

So, my point was that the terms liberal/conservative don't actually stand for anything these days and knowing a person's party is almost as useless as knowing what they actually believe politically.

 

 

I totally agree.

[Slartibartfast]

I guess I'm saying that distinctions need to be made between the political party and the beliefs of the person. I know libertarians who don't support the LP, I know liberals who don't support the DP and I know conservatives who don't support the RP. If the previous poster was trying to find a political party, putting up a party platform would be useful. I understood her as asking where she fit on the political spectrum. So, my point was that the terms liberal/conservative don't actually stand for anything these days and knowing a person's party is almost as useless as knowing what they actually believe politically. I live in an area where pretty much everybody identifies themselves as Democrat and votes Republican :confused1:

 

 

Haha I am from that state. :D

 

I agree pretty much. A lot of people tend to decide their vote over just a handful of issues.

[Embracing Grace]

Addressing the specific quote in question:

 

I don't think Ron Paul is saying that the main reason people homeschool is political (he's not saying he knows why people homeschool)- the point of his statement appears to be different. The point I'm getting is this: Government run schools do not/will not produce free thinking individuals (that's the general trend, anyway). The current Homeschooling (and probably other alternative schooling) movement is a lot more likely to produce adults able to think outside of the box. The influx of clear thinking, uninstitutionalized adults might end the era of brainwashing/propaganda, etc. According to RP, it will help the libertarian/constitutional movement. It's irrelevant why you chose to homeschool- your adult child will automatically have an advantage over the public schooled child, and, according to RP, will be more likely to engage politically. Yes, Ron Paul's point is indeed very broad, but I think not far from the truth.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

Well . . . unfortunately, it seems you've received lots personal thoughts on the political views of Ron Paul. However, I will answer your question!

 

I view Ron Paul's comment in a positive light. Without a doubt, the number of homeschoolers is growing year after year, many of whom (certainly not all) are deeply interested in a truly free society with constitutional protections. Remember: just a few short decades ago, homeschooling was not a legal option in most states. These laws, of course, restricted freedoms. Many homeschoolers are not interested in government restrictions on how they homeschool. I appreciate the fact that he recognizes that homeschoolers (certainly not all) are interested in limited government rather than a rapidly expanding government - specifically in the area of educaton. He implied this when he said, " We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties."

:iagree: very much so.

[CatholicMom]

I very much disagree that services such as healthcare and education should be commercialized, and I very strongly believe it is in the societal best interest to provide a free, decent education to all children living in that country. I find the idea that we are just separate people whose lives have no impact on each other, to be frightening, inaccurate, and incredibly sad. Helping others, and educating other people's children, is what makes a society great.

 

You aren't responding to what I actually said, but leaping to conclusions. I didn't say anything close to "we are all separate people whose lives have no impact on each other." :confused1: That is simply a giant logical leap. (I forgive you. :laugh: ) Of course I think helping others is a good thing. I even think there is even a place for public schools on a welfare type of level, for people who can't afford private schools and can't or choose not to homeschool. We are not owed free education for our children. PS should be a safety net for those who need it, not the default. Just like we are in charge of providing food for our families. It's not the government's primary job to provide food for my family. It's mine and my husband's. But if we are unable, there are appropriate programs to help us fulfill that duty. If private schools were the norm and not the exception, there would be WAY more competition and tuition prices would go way down. Schools would be more successful since parents would be shopping around and schools would be competing for students. Hello free market capitalism. Good-bye socialism. Welcome to the U.S. of A. :patriot: lol - That's how it should be, IMO. Government schools are a huge part of the Big Government problem and are not consistent with America's roots & values.

 

This doesn't stop teachers from teaching. It doesn't stop people from helping each other. But it does keep the government's influence and control over our children's lives & educations to a minimum. If parents are unhappy with a school and they are not able to homeschool, they would have a lot more choices of affordable private schools who are pining for their business. Teachers would keep on teaching, but they wouldn't be government employees, paid with tax-dollars, & kept in their positions when they aren't doing a good job. Bad teachers would be gone en mass. Good teachers would be sought after and rewarded. Did I mention competition?

[Slartibartfast]

You aren't responding to what I actually said, but leaping to conclusions. I didn't say anything close to "we are all separate people whose lives have no impact on each other." :confused1: That is simply a giant logical leap. (I forgive you. :laugh: ) Of course I think helping others is a good thing. I even think there is even a place for public schools on a welfare type of level, for people who can't afford private schools and can't or choose not to homeschool. We are not owed free education for our children. PS should be a safety net for those who need it, not the default. Just like we are in charge of providing food for our families. It's not the government's primary job to provide food for my family. It's mine and my husband's. But if we are unable, there are appropriate programs to help us fulfill that duty. If private schools were the norm and not the exception, there would be WAY more competition and tuition prices would go way down. Schools would be more successful since parents would be shopping around and schools would be competing for students. Hello free market capitalism. Good-bye socialism. Welcome to the U.S. of A. :patriot: lol - That's how it should be, IMO. Government schools are a huge part of the Big Government problem and are not consistent with America's roots & values.

 

This doesn't stop teachers from teaching. It doesn't stop people from helping each other. But it does keep the government's influence and control over our children's lives & educations to a minimum. If parents are unhappy with a school and they are not able to homeschool, they would have a lot more choices of affordable private schools who are pining for their business. Teachers would keep on teaching, but they wouldn't be government employees, paid with tax-dollars, & kept in their positions when they aren't doing a good job. Bad teachers would be gone en mass. Good teachers would be sought after and rewarded. Did I mention competition?

 

I disagree that it is socialism or un-American to have public schools. Thomas Jefferson *founded* a public school, it is now the University of Virginia.

 

George Washington was Chancelor of a public school.

 

""Information is the currency of democracies." ~Thomas Jefferson.

 

Jefferson put forth the first attempt at creating public schools in Virginia.

 

http://www.monticell...otnote1_z2hyhm0

 

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/images/vc64.jpg

 

Public schools are a part of our roots, history proves this.

[tntgoodwin]

1. I am amazed at this topic still being up. I am also very happy with the civility displayed here.

 

2. As a libertarian who is not a Libertarian, I would say that the defining characteristic of a libertarian is someone who holds to the Non-Aggression Principle. Of course, there are libertarian people who don't agree with the NAP, but they are the exception.

 

3. I don't think Dr. Paul was trying to paint the entire community of homeschooling families with an ideological paintbrush. Imagine instead he had said that baby boomers will contribute greatly to the computer revolution. Obviously he isn't saying that ALL, or even most, baby boomers will be technology innovators. But the people who are, such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, etc... tend to be from the same era. That's what he is saying regarding the liberty movement and homeschooling.

 

 

[Wheres Toto]

I think free market public schools would be a disaster from a practical standpoint.

 

Family pays for private school for their kids. Dad or mom loses their job and they can no longer afford private school. They have to send the kids to the government "welfare schools" (anyone believe the education quality will be the same?) until they get back on their feet. Back on their feet again, the kids return to private school but maybe they can't get in the same one. So they are in another school. No consistency with their education, they fall behind.

 

Or family starts out having to send their kids to the welfare schools. Mom finishes her degree and is able to get a better paying job. She sends the kids to private school but they are way behind after years attending the non-competitive welfare schools.

 

The worst of the inequalities between school districts based on local economic situations would be magnified 1000 times.

[justasque]

If parents are unhappy with a school and they are not able to homeschool, they would have a lot more choices of affordable private schools who are pining for their business.

 

Only if their geographic area can support multiple private schools, and only if the local population desires and can support several different types of schools. A bricks-and-mortar school is a viable choice only if your dc can actually get there. And there is only a true choice if the schools in your area truly have differences. (If you live in hippie-central, you may be surrounded by Sudbury-style unschool-y schools, which doesn't help you if you are seeking a classical education for your child. If you live in a very Jewish area, you might not find an evangelical Christian school.) And if your child has special needs, this approach only works if there is enough of a demand for the kind of special services they need, and if those services can be sold to you at a profit for the provider, and if you can actually afford the school that provides them.

 

I am a big fan of homeschooling (obviously), and a big fan of private schools, and I *love* the market-power that public charter schools (cyber and brick-and-mortar) have given parents, but I have not seen any practical, viable proposals as to how the libertarian position of minimizing or eliminating public schools would actually work.

[Slartibartfast]

"Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."

 

~George Washington's farewell address 1792

 

"No error is more certain than the one proceeding from a nasty and superficial view of the subject: that the people at large have no interest in the establishment of Academies, Colleges, and Universities, where only a few only, and those not of the poorer classes can obtain for their sons the advantages of superior education. It is thought to be unjust that all should be taxed for the benefit of a part, and that too the part least needing it. If provision were not made at the same time for every part, the objection would be a natural one. But, besides the consideration when the higher Seminaries belong to a plan of general education, that it is better for the poorer classes to have the aid of the richer by a general tax on property, than that every parent should provide at his own expence (sic) for the education of his children, it is certain that every Class is interested in establishments which give to the human mind its highest improvements, and to every Country its truest and most durable celebrity.â€

 

~~ James Madison

 

Writings by Benjamin Rush on public schools.

 

http://edweb.sdsu.ed...ew_655/rush.htm

[stripe]

As a die-hard conservative, this is not what I believe. I don't know of anyone that believes this. I think you misunderstand conservatism, just like I misunderstand liberalism (or whatever you are). "Helping others, and educating other people's children, is what makes a society great." Who doesn't believe that?? I think we disagree on HOW to help others and educate others, but implying that conservatives don't want this is not true at all. I've been thinking a lot about this stuff lately, trying to understand it all.

 

Given that conservatives appear to have contradictory idealogies and/or a variety of different views that have changed over time (from the support of Billy Graham of Roe v Wade to the opposition of a raped woman's right to end a pregnancy that will kill her and the fetus, to the idea of limited government in all things...except in the bedroom) I was not attempting to define what a conservative is. I was thinking of various well-known conservatives who have opposed things such as the Department of Education (such as Michele Bachman on why she believes the Dept of Ed should be eliminated: "Because the Constitution does not specifically enumerate nor does it give to the federal government the role and duty to superintend over education that historically has been held by the parents and by local communities and by state governments") as well as various lesser-known folk who do think the government should have nothing to do with healthcare or education or saving American citizens from natural disasters like hurricanes and floods. I've read several such things on the blogs written by or linked to members of this very board. So I take their statements at face value; I am not trying to misinterpret them.

[Rivka]

I even think there is even a place for public schools on a welfare type of level, for people who can't afford private schools and can't or choose not to homeschool. We are not owed free education for our children. PS should be a safety net for those who need it, not the default. Just like we are in charge of providing food for our families. It's not the government's primary job to provide food for my family. It's mine and my husband's. But if we are unable, there are appropriate programs to help us fulfill that duty. If private schools were the norm and not the exception, there would be WAY more competition and tuition prices would go way down. Schools would be more successful since parents would be shopping around and schools would be competing for students. Hello free market capitalism. Good-bye socialism. Welcome to the U.S. of A. :patriot: lol - That's how it should be, IMO. Government schools are a huge part of the Big Government problem and are not consistent with America's roots & values.

 

Compulsory public education in America dates back to 1642. All of the New England states had public education systems by the time of the American Revolution, although it's true that the Southern colonies relied on private tutors and homeschooling - resulting in much lower levels of literacy in the South, except among the elites. By shortly after the Civil War, all states had free public elementary school. According to Wikipedia, John Adams, second President of the United States, wrote in 1785: "The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves."

 

From the very founding of America, public education was seen as critical to an informed electorate and a thriving national economy. Your historical vision of early America as a libertarian paradise is inaccurate in the extreme.

 

Additionally, your hypothesis about what education would be like in the absence of free public schools is easily tested. Look at countries where there is no universal public education. Do they have cheap and highly successful private schools, an educated population, and a thriving economy? Or do they have high rates of illiteracy and child labor, extremes of poverty, limited technological development, and a small educated class? You cannot point to a single example, current or historical, of a nation which has successfully educated the whole of its population through private means.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Jefferson put forth the first attempt at creating public schools in Virginia.

 

http://www.monticell...otnote1_z2hyhm0

 

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/images/vc64.jpg

 

Public schools are a part of our roots, history proves this.

 

Thanks for the links. I had no idea about this. I know a few people that are practically anarchists, including one who wants all public schools abolished. I doubt he knows his heroes, the Founding Fathers, supported public schools.

[Mrs Mungo]

Addressing the specific quote in question:

 

I don't think Ron Paul is saying that the main reason people homeschool is political (he's not saying he knows why people homeschool)- the point of his statement appears to be different. The point I'm getting is this: Government run schools do not/will not produce free thinking individuals (that's the general trend, anyway).

 

I don't think Ron Paul is saying that either. I'm rejecting the assumptions that he is making. Bill Gates? Attended private schools. Michael Dell? Public school. Tim O'Reilly? Traditional schools. Most of the parents here? Schooled in traditional schools. Most of the current movers and shakers were brought up in traditional schools. So, I reject the assumption that government-run and/or traditional schools do can/can not/will not produce free thinking individuals.

 

The current Homeschooling (and probably other alternative schooling) movement is a lot more likely to produce adults able to think outside of the box.

 

Disagree. Many, many, many more homeschooling parents use Abeka or ACE than a classical model, unschooling model or anything like that. Do you think Abeka drives people to think outside the box more than traditionally schooled students?

 

The influx of clear thinking, uninstitutionalized adults might end the era of brainwashing/propaganda, etc.

 

Disagree. Look at what goes on in some homeschooling circles. You think they aren't susceptible to brainwashing? Really?

 

According to RP, it will help the libertarian/constitutional movement.

 

Disagree because I disagree with all of the assumptions that the statement is predicated upon.

 

It's irrelevant why you chose to homeschool-

 

Disagree. People who keep their children in bubbles, not reading Shakespeare because it has magic, not learning about evolution, girls not being allowed to go to high school, THOSE people's reasons are extremely relevant and there are more of them than you probably think.

 

your adult child will automatically have an advantage over the public schooled child, and, according to RP, will be more likely to engage politically.

 

Again, I agree that this is his claim and I disagree with it for all of the reasons I have given in this and other posts.

[Mrs Mungo]

Compulsory public education in America dates back to 1642. All of the New England states had public education systems by the time of the American Revolution, although it's true that the Southern colonies relied on private tutors and homeschooling - resulting in much lower levels of literacy in the South, except among the elites. By shortly after the Civil War, all states had free public elementary school. According to Wikipedia, John Adams, second President of the United States, wrote in 1785: "The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves."

 

From the very founding of America, public education was seen as critical to an informed electorate and a thriving national economy. Your historical vision of early America as a libertarian paradise is inaccurate in the extreme.

 

Additionally, your hypothesis about what education would be like in the absence of free public schools is easily tested. Look at countries where there is no universal public education. Do they have cheap and highly successful private schools, an educated population, and a thriving economy? Or do they have high rates of illiteracy and child labor, extremes of poverty, limited technological development, and a small educated class? You cannot point to a single example, current or historical, of a nation which has successfully educated the whole of its population through private means.

 

Agreed. Even the ancient Greeks offered public school to the entire population of their cities up to a certain standard of learning. Public education is a hallmark of most (what we think of as) great societies.

 

Thanks for the links. I had no idea about this. I know a few people that are practically anarchists, including one who wants all public schools abolished. I doubt he knows his heroes, the Founding Fathers, supported public schools.

 

In my experience most of those movements depend upon the fact that their adherents do *not* know much about history. I *really, REALLY* do not get the no-government people. There are countries like that *now*. If you want no government-go move to Somalia or any other failed government around the globe.

[TranquilMind]

 

I think this is what he is talking about...

 

I made my daughter watch this, to be sure she could answer all the questions!

[TranquilMind]

In my experience most of those movements depend upon the fact that their adherents do *not* know much about history. I *really, REALLY* do not get the no-government people. There are countries like that *now*. If you want no government-go move to Somalia or any other failed government around the globe.

 

never mind.

[Lisbeth]

I disagree that it is socialism or un-American to have public schools. Thomas Jefferson *founded* a public school, it is now the University of Virginia.

 

George Washington was Chancelor of a public school.

 

""Information is the currency of democracies." ~Thomas Jefferson.

 

Jefferson put forth the first attempt at creating public schools in Virginia.

 

http://www.monticell...otnote1_z2hyhm0

 

http://www.loc.gov/e...images/vc64.jpg

 

Public schools are a part of our roots, history proves this.

 

Re: the Jefferson quote: Whose information? The problem is the schools have been drifting left for a long time. So therein lies the major problem. Read some John Taylor Gatto and information about the Prussian model to get some more info about how and why schools were formed.

[Lisbeth]

I love the quoting of the Founding Fathers - but I think if we were honest with ourselves we would admit that they would be horrified with what we have done to squash the Constitution. I also think they would be horrifed by what goes on in public schools. Just my opinion!

[Slartibartfast]

Re: the Jefferson quote: Whose information? The problem is the schools have been drifting left for a long time. So therein lies the major problem. Read some John Taylor Gatto and information about the Prussian model to get some more info about how and why schools were formed.

 

 

Comparing the opinions of our FF who were mostly classically trained 18th century, society minded, revolutionaries to John Gatto, a modern, Libertarian academic, who promotes unschooling is like apples and oranges.

 

I was responding to someone who said that public schools were not line with our capitalists roots and were unAmerican. Most of our FF were in favor of public schools. Alexander Hamilton was not but he was kind of a butt who was in favor of a "ruling class."

 

There is no doubt that schools have issues, I am a homeschooler, I homeschool for a reason. But we were discussing history. :)

[Mrs Mungo]

I love the quoting of the Founding Fathers - but I think if we were honest with ourselves we would admit that they would be horrified with what we have done to squash the Constitution. I also think they would be horrifed by what goes on in public schools. Just my opinion!

 

 

*Never mind with the first question, I'm sure it's too far on the political side.*

 

Hard to say what they'd think of the public schools, modern society is so different than colonial society. Hm.

[Slartibartfast]

I love the quoting of the Founding Fathers - but I think if we were honest with ourselves we would admit that they would be horrified with what we have done to squash the Constitution. I also think they would be horrifed by what goes on in public schools. Just my opinion!

 

.

 

 

IMO Thomas Jefferson would still be revolutionary by today's standards. I think people would be shocked if they actually spent a lot of time reading his letters and papers that are available and saw what he really thought.

[Rivka]

IMO Thomas Jefferson would still be revolutionary by today's standards. I think people would be shocked if they actually spent a lot of time reading his letters and papers that are available and saw what he really thought.

 

Yeah, we're talking about a man who edited the Bible so it made more sense. :lol: There's an old joke about a notice in a Unitarian-Universalist church program: "UU Bible Study next week after church. Bring your own Bible and a pair of scissors." Ha ha, right, except that the third president of the United States actually DID that.

[Tullia]

"Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties." Ron Paul Nov. 15, 2012

 

I didn't interpret this as commentary on the political beliefs of individual home school families--more of an observation that, in the aggregate, as home schooling grows families who choose to home school make it easier for society to think about educational alternatives. For a libertarian like Ron Paul that means more people being willing to consider alternatives to government funded education. My guess--speculation on my part but based somewhat on the quote above--is that the hope of libertarians is that this will eventually translate into being more willing to look at smaller government in other areas too. Don't think he's concerned with any particular family's intent--more about the effects on a large scale.

 

When we first started homeschooling, it was still kind of unusual in our area--we heard lots of questions and concerns about possible bad outcomes, or how our withdrawl from the system hurt funding of local schools. By the time ds graduated from high school it was no longer a big deal--most people we met in later years asked, "Oh, you homeschool. Do you know the ___ or ____ family?" Then we moved on to another topic.

 

IME, there's a great range of opinions about the ideal size and role of government among libertarians. Not all of them are anti-government, but some are. One common thread I have observed, though, is a wariness about potential for coercive behavior getting out of hand--and many libertarians think both parties should be watched on that score. I haven't seen a lot of overlap between Tea Party and Libertarians in my part of NM--one local group (we have several) campaigned against Gary Johnson and for Romney.

 

Just comments based mostly on my own experience. YMMV. :cheers2:

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah, we're talking about a man who edited the Bible so it made more sense. :lol: There's an old joke about a notice in a Unitarian-Universalist church program: "UU Bible Study next week after church. Bring your own Bible and a pair of scissors." Ha ha, right, except that the third president of the United States actually DID that.

 

heh

 

There was an interesting article about that in Smithsonian

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/How-Thomas-Jefferson-Created-His-Own-Bible.html

[stripe]

I said

I very much disagree that services such as healthcare and education should be commercialized, and I very strongly believe it is in the societal best interest to provide a free, decent education to all children living in that country. I find the idea that we are just separate people whose lives have no impact on each other, to be frightening, inaccurate, and incredibly sad. Helping others, and educating other people's children, is what makes a society great.

 

And you said

As a die-hard conservative, this is not what I believe. I don't know of anyone that believes this. I think you misunderstand conservatism, just like I misunderstand liberalism (or whatever you are).

It is my understanding that this is a fundamental tenet of Ayn Rand, who was a real person, so I do know of at least one person who believe(s) this, and her beliefs are in accord with what some libertarians believe.

 

She said. "The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance." This idea that one person has no claim on another is essentially what I was speaking of.

 

I would just like to clarify with a few specific examples of why I am under the impression that some people -- whatever their political persuasion is -- have said that they believe healthcare and education (and as I said later, emergency assistance after a disaster) are not the government's problem but the individual's:

 

Schools

Rick Santorum: public school system is anachronistic http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/us/politics/santorum-criticizes-education-system-and-obama.html?_r=0

Glenn Beck: "darn right, we should abolish public schools" http://mediamatters.org/video/2010/06/22/beck-we-are-being-indoctrinated-from-dawn-until/166564

David Harmer, CA tea party adherant : Government should exit the business of funding and running schools.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Teach-Our-Children-Well-Parents-are-united-2708240.php

 

Healthcare

During Republican primary debates, Wolf Blitzer asked a hypothetical about an uninsured man in a coma. Some members of the audience screamed "Yeah!" to the proposal that he should be allowed to die, untreated. Ron Paul, who is a doctor, did not say this.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=14509997

Nicholas Kristof wrote an article about an uninsured friend's death. He wrote a followup on the reaction: "I was taken aback by how many readers were savagely unsympathetic." He goes on to say "Pew Research Center polling has found that the proportion of Republicans who agree that “it is the responsibility of the government to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves†has slipped from 58 percent in 2007 to just 40 percent."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/opinion/kristof-scotts-story-and-the-election.html?ref=sunday

 

The idea of abolishing free government education or leaving the needy without government assistance seems to be a different beast ENTIRELY than saying schools are ineffective at x, y, z and let's do this, or some program doesn't reach who it should. This is about defunding them because of a belief that it's "not my problem" and that those who feel the urge can donate to charity.

 

Happy Thanksgiving.

[LaxMom]

It definitely irks me that he assumes that because I choose not to send my dd to a public school, I must be a Libertarian. I get stereotyped enough as it is when I tell people that we homeschool. I'm not going to automatically be a good little soldier for the Paul family in their ongoing fight against all things governmental based on my educational philosophy, you know?

Yep. That was my reaction.

 

I have grown weary of being usurped for someone else's ideological quest simply because I make some of the same choices about my daily life that they might.

[Durriyyah]

Okay, I'm coming late to the party, so I haven't read everything (wow, each page has a bajillion posts instead of a meager 10). I think that without spending 2 hours talking about homeschoolers, you can't help but live with some gross generalizations in the speech. Still, I think that the idea that schools are pumping out tons of kids that think one way is generally true. Yes, there are many that will think for themselves in some aspects, but I have seen far too many in my years supervising that expect you to hand them the answer to whatever issue or question they face. Do I think this is intentional? Well, I don't like to jump to conspiracies, so I assume not.

 

Really, I feel for the public school system. They are trying to make everyone happy, and educate an increasing diverse population in both the cultural aspect, and behavioral level because of the increasing prevalence of ADHD and autism. They have a really tough job, and I think my kids are better served at home where my resources aren't as stretched.

 

While I don't necessarily welcome extra attention to the homeschool community as I feel like we are doing pretty darn well, I hope that somehow we will because an accepted minority and lose the stigma that society has on us. I would think 20 years after the major struggle to legitimize homeschooling, we'd have made some progress, but it doesn't really seem like the general view of homeschoolers has improved (though my capacity to know what it was like 20 years ago is quite limited given my age. :) )

 

ETA: I should say, I think the education forming to handing out the answers has increased recently, and it isn't something we saw as much as kids. I think as kids we had more time and opportunity to explore and find answers for ourselves. Again, is this true for all? No. But I definitely see a trend in people as they get younger when I'm supervising where they won't make their own conclusions as fast as asking for the answer in comparison to someone a generation older than them.

[CatholicMom]

I honestly don't know much about how public schools came to be, what the founding fathers thought about them, etc. However, I'm quite certain that what public schools have become today is a very different animal than what they were proposing. In the beginning, the states were a lot more autonomous and in control of their public programs. Government schools as they are today are very much controlled on a federal level and local governments have much less freedom.

 

I am a conservative republican and am for small government, not "no government." Also, I'm not saying that a socialist, or even communist nation can't have good academic schools. China is an example. But the schools are communist, religious freedom is restricted, kids are taught what the state wants them to believe regardless of their parents' wishes. But, yeah, they are good at math. Point being, government schools can be "bad" and way over the line in terms of indoctrination, limiting freedoms, etc, even if they are successful academically. That is not acceptable and I doubt this is what Thomas Jefferson had in mind. Public schools could be great *in theory*... but so could communism *in theory.* In reality, it is a very slippery slope and easily cross the line toward usurping parental rights, just like American schools are doing by having Planned Parenthood teach "sex ed," sometimes without even notifying parents, giving kids physical exams against parent's wishes, giving 14 yr old girls hormonal birth control at *school* without parental consent, and telling your kids how much they can eat for lunch whether they are hungry or not.

[Mrs Mungo]

I honestly don't know much about how public schools came to be, what the founding fathers thought about them, etc. However, I'm quite certain that what public schools have become today is a very different animal than what they were proposing. In the beginning, the states were a lot more autonomous and in control of their public programs. Government schools as they are today are very much controlled on a federal level and local governments have much less freedom.

 

I am a conservative republican and am for small government, not "no government."

 

But, who passed NCLB, the instrument through which the federal government gained more control over schools? There is a dissonance between how people label themselves, what policies they say they want implemented, how they vote and what their party actually votes for. If the "no government" label doesn't fit you, then nobody was referring to you. I know "no government" people on both ends of the spectrum. I was not trying label republicans as "no government" people.

[Heidi]

I said

I very much disagree that services such as healthcare and education should be commercialized, and I very strongly believe it is in the societal best interest to provide a free, decent education to all children living in that country. I find the idea that we are just separate people whose lives have no impact on each other, to be frightening, inaccurate, and incredibly sad. Helping others, and educating other people's children, is what makes a society great.

 

And you said

 

It is my understanding that this is a fundamental tenet of Ayn Rand, who was a real person, so I do know of at least one person who believe(s) this, and her beliefs are in accord with what some libertarians believe.

 

She said. "The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance." This idea that one person has no claim on another is essentially what I was speaking of.

 

I would just like to clarify with a few specific examples of why I am under the impression that some people -- whatever their political persuasion is -- have said that they believe healthcare and education (and as I said later, emergency assistance after a disaster) are not the government's problem but the individual's:

 

Schools

Rick Santorum: public school system is anachronistic http://www.nytimes.c...obama.html?_r=0

Glenn Beck: "darn right, we should abolish public schools" http://mediamatters....wn-until/166564

David Harmer, CA tea party adherant : Government should exit the business of funding and running schools.

http://www.sfgate.co...ted-2708240.php

 

Healthcare

During Republican primary debates, Wolf Blitzer asked a hypothetical about an uninsured man in a coma. Some members of the audience screamed "Yeah!" to the proposal that he should be allowed to die, untreated. Ron Paul, who is a doctor, did not say this.

http://abcnews.go.co...try?id=14509997

Nicholas Kristof wrote an article about an uninsured friend's death. He wrote a followup on the reaction: "I was taken aback by how many readers were savagely unsympathetic." He goes on to say "Pew Research Center polling has found that the proportion of Republicans who agree that “it is the responsibility of the government to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves†has slipped from 58 percent in 2007 to just 40 percent."

http://www.nytimes.c...html?ref=sunday

 

The idea of abolishing free government education or leaving the needy without government assistance seems to be a different beast ENTIRELY than saying schools are ineffective at x, y, z and let's do this, or some program doesn't reach who it should. This is about defunding them because of a belief that it's "not my problem" and that those who feel the urge can donate to charity.

 

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

I also do not believe that the government should be involved in education and healthcare, but it is not because I believe that it's not my problem, or that I don't believe in helping other people, or that I believe our lives have no impact on each other. Glenn Beck, Santorum, David Harmar, nor Ron Paul said this either. Do you know why they are so adamant against government involvement? Have you actually sought to understand their reasons or do you simply believe what your favorite news source tells you? ( and I don't mean you, Stripe. I mean everyone, including myself.)

 

That is my beef. Those of us that believe govenment should not be involved in those issues are being labeled something that isn't true; extreme views that very very few people actually believe. Someone always speaks up and says, "well, I sure like DOT and the post office" as if those of us who think the government is out of control must also resent everything about the government. What do you call that? Straw man? It happens on both sides. That is why I'm asking questions, because I want to understand what you believe and I want to hear it from the horse's mouth.

 

I believe that the majority of Americans care about each other, unlike Ayn Rand, we just have different opinions on HOW to care for each other and how to solve our social ills. Our country, however, is divided because we keep talking past each other. We don't listen, we label, we get offended. Why is it that we can talk about religion with respect for each other's beliefs on this board, being careful not to assume what one actually believes, but we don't apply that to politics?

 

That's all. I don't really want to debate specific social ills. I just want to have open and honest conversations about political beliefs without the straw man, without resorting to which candidate did what, and with an assumption that we all desire to care for the poor and the needy, and that we all desire freedom.

[Slartibartfast]

I also do not believe that the government should be involved in education and healthcare, but it is not because I believe that it's not my problem, or that I don't believe in helping other people, or that I believe our lives have no impact on each other. Glenn Beck, Santorum, David Harmar, nor Ron Paul said this either. Do you know why they are so adamant against government involvement? Have you actually sought to understand their reasons or do you simply believe what your favorite news source tells you? ( and I don't mean you, Stripe. I mean everyone, including myself.)

 

Have you sought the reasons for the other side believing the way they do? People can be informed and disagree.

 

Ron Paul has said that Charities and churches should bear the cost. Are they doing that now? They may try to help but Churches and charities are being stretched to their very limit and many are struggling. I disagree with him.

 

That is my beef. Those of us that believe govenment should not be involved in those issues are being labeled something that isn't true; extreme views that very very few people actually believe. Someone always speaks up and says, "well, I sure like DOT and the post office" as if those of us who think the government is out of control must also resent everything about the government. What do you call that? Straw man? It happens on both sides. That is why I'm asking questions, because I want to understand what you believe and I want to hear it from the horse's mouth.

 

Something is not a straw man if it is true. There are people here who have made those arguments, I have seen it.

 

I believe that the majority of Americans care about each other, unlike Ayn Rand, we just have different opinions on HOW to care for each other and how to solve our social ills. Our country, however, is divided because we keep talking past each other. We don't listen, we label, we get offended. Why is it that we can talk about religion with respect for each other's beliefs on this board, being careful not to assume what one actually believes, but we don't apply that to politics?

 

That's all. I don't really want to debate specific social ills. I just want to have open and honest conversations about political beliefs without the straw man, without resorting to which candidate did what, and with an assumption that we all desire to care for the poor and the needy, and that we all desire freedom.

 

I think most people want to have an honest discussion.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Sis

[HS Mom in NC]

That you all for your input and civility. I was particularly interested in non-Libertarian perspectives because as a registered, card-carrying Libertarian, I already knew the Libertarian point of view. I wanted to hear other views.

 

I reacted negatively to his homeschooling quote for several reasons:

 

1. He used the word "Expect." I thought that was going way too far. I'm tired of the long list of unrealistic expectations people have of homeschoolers. It seems like there are so many on both ends of the spectrum that I think I could start a new topic just on that alone. Hmm, maybe I will.

 

From religious conservatives (I am one, by the way) it seems like many who don't homeschool assume just because we homeschool all our kids will win academic contests, score unusually high on standardized tests in K-12 and college readiness and placement tests, never misbehave, dress conservatively, never have sex outside of marriage, become successful business people, give birth to a dozen perfect children, vote conservatively etc. etc. etc.

 

From the subset of the liberal wing who propose highly regulated, mandatory, government education it seems like they expect homeschoolers to be inbred, illiterate, socially awkward, gun hoarding, barefoot and pregnant and married by 18, anti-science, rubes.

 

Homeschooling mothers already have the pressure of meeting the social, academic, and life skills needs of their children while running a household, managing the family dynamic (you notice no one expects dad to constantly manage that) help with dependent elderly relatives, deal with special needs children, fight government regulation that threatens homeschooling freedoms, help and encourage new homeschoolers who feel unsure of themselves, be wizards with the limitations of resources of time, money, and energy, help out at a place of worship or charity, keep the flame of love burning in their marriages, deal with criticism (sometimes crazy off the wall criticism) gracefully, all through pregnancy, miscarriage, postpartum recovery, the adoption process, menopause, illness, financial crisis, marital challenges, relocation, running a business and the list goes on. I don't want "Rescue to Republic from big government policies and take it back to strict constitutionalism" added to the list. He should have used "Hopefully" instead of "Expect."

 

Do some people homeschool with that goal in mind? Yes, but not everyone is trying to change the world through education. As far as my experience with homeschoolers goes, most are just trying to meet their children's needs as specifically as possible while enjoying being with the children before they leave the nest. Do we hope it might make society better? Sure. But please keep your expectations to yourself, Mr. Paul. People expected you to change things while you served and you didn't succeed in making the government smaller. Quite the contrary, I'm truly sorry to say.

 

 

I've homeschooled for 12 years now. I have homeschooling friends all over the political, religious, lifestyle, educational philosophy spectrum. I'm honestly and truly not trying to be mean or snarky when I write that while I'm impressed favorably overall with a lot of homeschoolers, I'm not so impressed that I think those kids have revolution written all over them. I think there's a dangerous arrogance in the assumptions some homeschoolers have that their kids are all that and then some just because they are homeschooled. It's always a bad idea to believe your own PR wholeheartedly instead of just working diligently and conscientiously and hoping for the best. God hates pride. We need to be careful.

 

2. With the economy moving to decreases in full time work and increases in part time work and unemployment, what makes anyone think homeschooling will keep growing at a steady rate? As a whole, I think people are going to be more motivated to be a two income families which usually means decreasing the changes they will choose or continue to homeschool. That means fewer homeschooled children in America. They certainly won't be sending those kids to private schools. They'll be sending their kids to public schools. Is anyone seeing the trend otherwise? Could you link it if you do? I could use some good news. When about 85% of the population is already public schooled, what makes him think the very small percentage of homeschooled kids can counter government schooling?

 

3. Very, very few homeschoolers are Libertarians. I only know a few. Conservative homeschoolers are not usually on board with keeping government out of lots of social issues and Liberal homeschoolers are not usually on board with fiscal conservatism and privatization, so why does Ron Paul expect their children to go as small government as he and other Libertarians would like? Am I missing something here?

[HS Mom in NC]

Double post. Sorry.

[Tullia]

....3. Very, very few homeschoolers are Libertarians. I only know a few. Conservative homeschoolers are not usually on board with keeping government out of lots of social issues and Liberal homeschoolers are not usually on board with fiscal conservatism and privatization, so why does Ron Paul expect their children to go as small government as he and other Libertarians would like? Am I missing something here?

 

As an "unofficial" libertarian, I think you've made excellent points and agree with much of what you wrote, but I interpreted his remarks somewhat differently. His use of the word "expect" may have been too strong, though. However, I don't get the sense that he was trying to make a statement about motivations, goals or specific outcomes--whether you consider individuals or home schoolers as a group.

 

I think the point he was trying to make is that significant numbers of home schoolers change the education dynamic simply by virtue of having made the the choice to do so. (Alternatives to standard-issue publicly funded education become something people are more willing to accept as the alternative becomes more visible.) Whether that might eventually translate into more support for libertarian principles isn't clear. It might--given the proper conditions and a LOT of work, but not necessarily. Maybe Ron Paul was looking for some indications that he hasn't wasted his time all these years? I've read columns and blogs saying there's a growing undercurrent of libertarianism in the U.S. but that hasn't been my experience.

[Χά�ων]

2. With the economy moving to decreases in full time work and increases in part time work and unemployment, what makes anyone think homeschooling will keep growing at a steady rate? As a whole, I think people are going to be more motivated to be a two income families which usually means decreasing the changes they will choose or continue to homeschool. That means fewer homeschooled children in America. They certainly won't be sending those kids to private schools. They'll be sending their kids to public schools. Is anyone seeing the trend otherwise? Could you link it if you do? I could use some good news. When about 85% of the population is already public schooled, what makes him think the very small percentage of homeschooled kids can counter government schooling?

 

Actually, I am seeing lots and lots of homeschool "schools" or co-ops forming. They are run by parents and rely heavily on parental involvement. Classes can be all day or half day, 1 day a week or up to 4 days a week, have drop off options, cover the core subjects and electives, are secular or religious. Some are graded, some are not. Often grandparents or extended families and even neighbors are involved in bringing children from different families to allow the others to work full or part time. I am seeing a lot more work from home while homeschooling parents. I am seeing spouses who rarely see each other during the week in order to make homeschooling work. I see families pulling their resources to hire a retired teacher to tutor 2-3 families of children. I see day time child care for school aged children being offered in the homeschool community for families who have both parents working out of the home during the day. The dedication and creativity of the families is amazing.

 

 

Edited because I posted at 3:38 in the morning and it needed to be clearified :)