PDA

View Full Version : Wanted! Libertarians as teachers.




YumYum
09-28-2009, 05:12 PM
Many Libertarians complain about public schools brainwashing children to become Socialists. Many on this forum promote homeschooling, and some children do better learning at home, while some do not. I think Libertarians are missing a great opportunity to help young people have a better future. Instead of getting rid of public education, Libertarians need to become teachers in the public schools and colleges and could then teach kids how to think for themselves. I worked as a math tutor at the University and found opportunities to tell fellow students about Ron Paul during his campaign. We could “brainwash” all the youth about liberty and freedom. How do you think Hitler got all those young Germans to die so willingly? It was because his “Hitler Youth Group” brainwashed them in the 1930’s. By the time WWII began they were young adults, and they were so messed up from the Nazi indoctrination they blindly followed him. We could put brainwashing to good use, teaching young people to be independent, self reliant and to respect our Constitution.

tremendoustie
09-28-2009, 05:13 PM
Many Libertarians complain about public schools brainwashing children to become Socialists. Many on this forum promote homeschooling, and some children do better learning at home, while some do not. I think Libertarians are missing a great opportunity to help young people have a better future. Instead of getting rid of public education, Libertarians need to become teachers in the public schools and colleges and could then teach kids how to think for themselves. I worked as a math tutor at the University and found opportunities to tell fellow students about Ron Paul during his campaign. We could “brainwash” all the youth about liberty and freedom. How do you think Hitler got all those young Germans to die so willingly? It was because his “Hitler Youth Group” brainwashed them in the 1930’s. By the time WWII began they were young adults, and they were so messed up from the Nazi indoctrination they blindly followed him. We could put brainwashing to good use, teaching young people to be independent, self reliant and to respect our Constitution.

Nice thought, but schools and curricula are controlled with an iron fist these days. There is little creative freedom left.

silverhandorder
09-28-2009, 05:14 PM
So you think libertarians should go back on their principles twice? First to support government schooling and then to support libertarian version of indoctrination? Yeah that will give us credibility in intelectual discourse. We will become neocons 2.0

davesxj
09-28-2009, 05:24 PM
The licensure. :eek:

Carole
09-28-2009, 05:26 PM
There is a disturbing trend among judges now to "order" children into public school.

I have heard/read somewhere that eventually the intent is to outlaw homeschooling.

Judge orders Christian girl into public school
http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/judge_orders_christian_girl_into_public_school_200 90906/


Wake judge orders home schoolers into public classrooms
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4727161/

YumYum
09-28-2009, 05:31 PM
So you think libertarians should go back on their principles twice? First to support government schooling and then to support libertarian version of indoctrination? Yeah that will give us credibility in intelectual discourse. We will become neocons 2.0

Isn't this whole movement about education? What better way is there to educate other people's kids about freedom and liberty, than to teach them in a class room? As far as going back on "principles", many I have debated with have said Dr. Paul went back on his principles when he switched from the Libertarian Party to the Republican Party to get a bigger audience. He is an old traditional Republican, which doesn't exist, except in the form of Libertarianism. So he is a "Republican" in name only. Not every supporter of Ron Paul is against public education. I know I'm not!

Edit: Another example of Ron Paul going back on his "principles" is his support of earmarks for his district. Where is "earmarks" in the Constitution? This goes against his principles. So why does he do it?

Epic
09-28-2009, 05:32 PM
The system itself is designed to subvert people's nature desire for autonomy. Also, just the fact that kids go to socialized schools shows them the benefits but not the costs of schooling at a young age.

I wouldn't want to prop up this harmful system, that is designed from the start to produce non-libertarians.

silverhandorder
09-28-2009, 05:36 PM
Isn't this whole movement about education? What better way is there to educate other people's kids about freedom and liberty, than to teach them in a class room? As far as going back on "principles", many I have debated with have said Dr. Paul went back on his principles when he switched from the Libertarian Party to the Republican Party to get a bigger audience. He is an old traditional Republican, which doesn't exist, except in the form of Libertarianism. So he is a "Republican" in name only. Not every supporter of Ron Paul is against public education. I know I'm not!

"See kids and this is why we must respect other people's liberty and not force them to do things against their will"

"So why are you teaching me against my will?"

Bman
09-28-2009, 05:40 PM
Many Libertarians complain about public schools brainwashing children to become Socialists. Many on this forum promote homeschooling, and some children do better learning at home, while some do not. I think Libertarians are missing a great opportunity to help young people have a better future. Instead of getting rid of public education, Libertarians need to become teachers in the public schools and colleges and could then teach kids how to think for themselves. I worked as a math tutor at the University and found opportunities to tell fellow students about Ron Paul during his campaign. We could “brainwash” all the youth about liberty and freedom. How do you think Hitler got all those young Germans to die so willingly? It was because his “Hitler Youth Group” brainwashed them in the 1930’s. By the time WWII began they were young adults, and they were so messed up from the Nazi indoctrination they blindly followed him. We could put brainwashing to good use, teaching young people to be independent, self reliant and to respect our Constitution.

Part of what I do in a given week is teach. But I do it libertarian style. PRIVATE!

YumYum
09-28-2009, 05:49 PM
"See kids and this is why we must respect other people's liberty and not force them to do things against their will"

"So why are you teaching me against my will?"

That's the parent's choice. Just as a parent can indoctrinate their children with religious mysticism, they can send them to school.

silverhandorder
09-28-2009, 05:52 PM
That's the parent's choice. Just as a parent can indoctrinate their children with religious mysticism, they can send them to school.

Does a parent have an option not to send the portion of his tax burden that is responsible for public education? Does a parent have an option not to send his kid to school period?

YumYum
09-28-2009, 05:52 PM
The system itself is designed to subvert people's nature desire for autonomy. Also, just the fact that kids go to socialized schools shows them the benefits but not the costs of schooling at a young age.

I wouldn't want to prop up this harmful system, that is designed from the start to produce non-libertarians.

I support Ron Paul and I went to public school. So what gives?

dannno
09-28-2009, 06:03 PM
Isn't this whole movement about education? What better way is there to educate other people's kids about freedom and liberty, than to teach them in a class room? As far as going back on "principles", many I have debated with have said Dr. Paul went back on his principles when he switched from the Libertarian Party to the Republican Party to get a bigger audience. He is an old traditional Republican, which doesn't exist, except in the form of Libertarianism. So he is a "Republican" in name only. Not every supporter of Ron Paul is against public education. I know I'm not!


Joining a particular political party has nothing to do with "principles", look at his voting record.







Edit: Another example of Ron Paul going back on his "principles" is his support of earmarks for his district. Where is "earmarks" in the Constitution? This goes against his principles. So why does he do it?

Wow, no, please, stop the misinformation!!!

Ron Paul did not support the earmarks, he voted against them!! All he did was forward the earmarks to the committee, and the committee approved them.. that is his JOB!! But then he voted against them.. so no, he did not go against his principles..

A secondary argument is that the money on earmarks was going to be in the budget anyway, it did not increase the budget in any way and any amount that doesn't get spent on earmarks goes to the Executive Branch, so the President would just get to spend it on whatever he wants!! Ron Paul would rather have the citizens of his district decide where this money goes, so he does his JOB and forwards the requests...


OK.. so the lesson is, Ron Paul does not go back on his principles, and if someone says so, do some more research!

YumYum
09-28-2009, 06:07 PM
Does a parent have an option not to send the portion of his tax burden that is responsible for public education?

No, he doesn't according to the laws of the state or county he or she lives in. That isn't my issue. My issue is that until the system is done away with or changed, it should be utilized to educate children about liberty and freedom.


Does a parent have an option not to send his kid to school period?

Sure, why not? I have nothing against home schooling or public schooling. What ever floats your boat.

silverhandorder
09-28-2009, 06:23 PM
No, he doesn't according to the laws of the state or county he or she lives in. That isn't my issue. My issue is that until the system is done away with or changed, it should be utilized to educate children about liberty and freedom.
So then he is forced to pay for schooling whether he uses it or not.


Sure, why not? I have nothing against home schooling or public schooling. What ever floats your boat.

What about not sending at all?

edit: I meant as no education at all if parent wishes so. Not that I am anti education, I am trying to prove a point here.

YumYum
09-28-2009, 06:26 PM
Joining a particular political party has nothing to do with "principles", look at his voting record.







Wow, no, please, stop the misinformation!!!

Ron Paul did not support the earmarks, he voted against them!! All he did was forward the earmarks to the committee, and the committee approved them.. that is his JOB!! But then he voted against them.. so no, he did not go against his principles..

A secondary argument is that the money on earmarks was going to be in the budget anyway, it did not increase the budget in any way and any amount that doesn't get spent on earmarks goes to the Executive Branch, so the President would just get to spend it on whatever he wants!! Ron Paul would rather have the citizens of his district decide where this money goes, so he does his JOB and forwards the requests...


OK.. so the lesson is, Ron Paul does not go back on his principles, and if someone says so, do some more research!

"Earmarks" is taking taxpayer's money and paying for programs. The majority of these programs are not mentioned in the Constitution. Ron Paul is against any spending of taxpayer's money that is not covered in the Constitution. By forwarding his citizens' request to earmark money for programs in his district, he is requesting that taxpayers pay for programs that are not authorized in the Constitution, which in principle, he is against. He voted "no" on a bill to present a medal to Rosa Parks, who fought for liberty and freedom, but requested taxpayer's money to be given to a Shrimp company in his district. Please don't play a semantic's game with the word "request".

silverhandorder
09-28-2009, 06:30 PM
"Earmarks" is taking taxpayer's money and paying for programs. The majority of these programs are not mentioned in the Constitution. Ron Paul is against any spending of taxpayer's money that is not covered in the Constitution. By forwarding his citizens' request to earmark money for programs in his district, he is requesting that taxpayers pay for programs that are not authorized in the Constitution, which in principle, he is against. He voted "no" on a bill to present a medal to Rosa Parks, who fought for liberty and freedom, but requested taxpayer's money to be given to a Shrimp company in his district. Please don't play a semantic's game with the word "request".

No you are wrong. He is against taxing his constituency. However if the taxes are going to pass anyways he rather decide where the portion his district contributes goes to. Mainly he is for making the money go back into the district.

edit: Btw Yum Yum half way through our argument you changed your position. You went from supporting public education to simply using it if we must have it. Maybe we had a misunderstanding.

eOs
09-28-2009, 06:34 PM
Nice thought, but schools and curricula are controlled with an iron fist these days. There is little creative freedom left.

What? I see too many defeatists on these boards.

YouTube - Indoctrination Video [V. 2]: (No Background Music, HQ): NJ School Kids Worship Barack Hussein Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpbxHe5zyrU)

YumYum
09-28-2009, 06:44 PM
No you are wrong. He is against taxing his constituency. However if the taxes are going to pass anyways he rather decide where the portion his district contributes goes to. Mainly he is for making the money go back into the district..

Exactly, and that same argument can be used by those that favor public education: if we take federal money to catch shrimp, we can also take money that is earmarked for education and pump it into Ron Paul's district.


edit: Btw Yum Yum half way through our argument you changed your position. You went from supporting public education to simply using it if we must have it. Maybe we had a misunderstanding.

I am not against public education, but I think that improvements need to be made. I am not against homeschooling as long as a child is being educated. If a child is pulled out of school against his will, like my cousin was at 11 years old, and not given any education, this I am against.

YumYum
09-28-2009, 06:51 PM
So then he is forced to pay for schooling whether he uses it or not.



What about not sending at all?

edit: I meant as no education at all if parent wishes so. Not that I am anti education, I am trying to prove a point here.

If a child is pulled out of school against his or her will, and the parents do not educate this child, this is a violation of this child's liberty and freedoms. This is where the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution comes in.

Brett
09-28-2009, 07:16 PM
It's just as indoctrinating when you tell them to agree with your views.

Both sides need to be presented without bias. Kids aren't dumb, they will pick the good side.

squarepusher
09-28-2009, 07:20 PM
Does a parent have an option not to send the portion of his tax burden that is responsible for public education? Does a parent have an option not to send his kid to school period?

no, and yes, they can homeschool, or send to a private school

Reason
09-28-2009, 08:35 PM
I had to go to a special high school for advanced learning before I encountered my first libertarian teacher.

I credit him as one of the main forces that brought me into political science.

Even though now I realize just how much of a left wing slant he has.

silverhandorder
09-28-2009, 08:37 PM
I had to go to a special high school for advanced learning before I encountered my first libertarian teacher.

I credit him as one of the main forces that brought me into political science.

Even though now I realize just how much of a left wing slant he has.


Same with me but mine was of a more right then left bent.

I still think that we have to oppose any public schooling on principal.