PDA

View Full Version : We can save America within a generation.




GunnyFreedom
09-29-2010, 07:26 PM
and preserve her safe for years to come. Do you got the guts?

The one thing we've got to do in order to get free and to stay free, is to install a civic virtue. That means that we have to become elected to school boards. School boards are more important to long term success than Presidents.

For instance, if you put enough constitutionalists onto a school board, then you can require that your High Schools teach one full semester of the US Constitution, and one full semester of the State Constitution.

The simple fix for America is this: 1) every man woman and child learn and understand the Constitution and 2) promote that the highest civic duty in America is to fire any politician who disrespects it.

#1 is handled best at the school boards.

#2 is the job for the rest of us:

- voting is to fire someone not to hire them.
- our top civic duty is to fire people who avoid the Constitution.
- the more critical we are at the voting booth, the healthier our nation will stay.

nobody seems to want to promote civic duty anymore, so I am guessing there will be a thirsty audience. If we jump now we can stay out in front of the message...

georgiaboy
09-29-2010, 07:30 PM
A+ bump

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-29-2010, 07:38 PM
I disagree. If you want to ensure liberty is kept for some time, you want to eliminate compulsory education, not try take the reigns of power, because you will never be able to keep that power in perpituity. Even if you could, I would still say it is morally repugnant.

You are usually pretty good in most areas Gunny, but in this one you are just dead wrong.

My suggestion is for those who want to teach liberty, try and open up private schools, whether that be through homeschool associations, small scale localities, etc., do something that doesn't infringe on the liberties of another when trying to spread liberty.

Southron
09-29-2010, 07:43 PM
I disagree. If you want to ensure liberty is kept for some time, you want to eliminate compulsory education, not try take the reigns of power, because you will never be able to keep that power in perpituity. Even if you could, I would still say it is morally repugnant.

You are usually pretty good in most areas Gunny, but in this one you are just dead wrong.

The problem is getting from where we are now to ending compulsory education.

I think taking over school boards is a good first step. Children are much more malleable than adults.

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-29-2010, 07:48 PM
The problem is getting from where we are now to ending compulsory education.

I think taking over school boards is a good first step. Children are much more malleable than adults.

Like I said earlier, you would have to believe that you could control the school board long enough to believe you would get a significant amount of students to be taught to eliminate compulsory public education (& Public Education altogether). I think that position is extremely untenable. I also don't believe in ends justifying the means.

GunnyFreedom
09-29-2010, 09:00 PM
The only way to end compulsory public education is to change the way people think. The only way to end compulsory public education safely, is to fundamentally shift the change-agent towards popular will. That way, the free market will be able to compensate as more students come into the market. The only way to have a durable effect on popular will is to affect education. That is how the corporatists and collectivists have achieved their takeover.

If I am getting shot at, I don't go get a knife and talk about how much I hate shooting people. I pick up my weapon and defend myself. The American people are under assault, several assaults in fact, and all of which would be impossible if the American people would just vote the Constitution.

The idea is for the practice to obsolete itself once the paradigm shifts away from public schooling. A "self-obsoleting law" if you will that works to remove several orders of government control, and then vanishes once it's no longer needed.

If my enemy lobs a hand grenade at me, I'll send a JDAM at him! :D

TCE
09-29-2010, 09:04 PM
It is using another weapon in our arsenal. There is no conceivable way that anytime soon we will be able to end compulsory education. However, if nothing else, we can take control of a School Board and at least have some influence to the good. Obviously, a city council member is much better, because then you can nullify laws, etc, but if one is without funds and wishes to do something productive for the cause of liberty, then school board is fine.

GunnyFreedom
09-29-2010, 09:08 PM
It is using another weapon in our arsenal. There is no conceivable way that anytime soon we will be able to end compulsory education. However, if nothing else, we can take control of a School Board and at least have some influence to the good. Obviously, a city council member is much better, because then you can nullify laws, etc, but if one is without funds and wishes to do something productive for the cause of liberty, then school board is fine.

well, the way I see it is that State Houses are the most critical post for the 5 year plan, the US Congress is the most critical for the 10 year plan, and the State and County school boards are the most critical for the 25 year plan. We should really be doing all three.

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-29-2010, 09:14 PM
The only way to end compulsory public education is to change the way people think. The only way to end compulsory public education safely, is to fundamentally shift the change-agent towards popular will. That way, the free market will be able to compensate as more students come into the market. The only way to have a durable effect on popular will is to affect education. That is how the corporatists and collectivists have achieved their takeover.

If I am getting shot at, I don't go get a knife and talk about how much I hate shooting people. I pick up my weapon and defend myself. The American people are under assault, several assaults in fact, and all of which would be impossible if the American people would just vote the Constitution.

The idea is for the practice to obsolete itself once the paradigm shifts away from public schooling. A "self-obsoleting law" if you will that works to remove several orders of government control, and then vanishes once it's no longer needed.
If my enemy lobs a hand grenade at me, I'll send a JDAM at him! :D

I am sorry Gunny, but I will never believe that. It is the same creed of the Communists who say the State will wither away once the workers paradise is formed. You don't make laws go away by obeying and increasing their influence.

Besides, it is a self-defeating idea to teach liberty, but yet at the very same moment be restricting liberty. Students, young children, and most people are very astute at seeing this illogical fallacy. Once they realize this, they will begin to question more. I don't see how teaching liberty, but doing it violently and coercively promotes liberty.

The way to change peoples attitudes is not to shove a gun in their face through CPS, and other means if their children does not show up to public school. Sorry, I just cannot agree with this methodology.

Now..., if the School Boards had the power to abolish and eliminate the school system then I would say there is a worthy goal to being elected, but if it does not, and it is merely the broker of power on what to forcefully teach the youth of this country, then that is no different than any other ideology being rammed through the throats of the youth behind the power of aggressive violence and the gun.

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-29-2010, 09:16 PM
well, the way I see it is that State Houses are the most critical post for the 5 year plan, the US Congress is the most critical for the 10 year plan, and the State and County school boards are the most critical for the 25 year plan. We should really be doing all three.

What happened to eternal vigilance? :D

GunnyFreedom
09-29-2010, 09:47 PM
What happened to eternal vigilance? :D

I have a very long horizon, and a pretty damn radical azimuth to navigate.

I have no problems moving public schools to the establishment of a contract between the state and the people, then privatizing that contract as the ability of a re-found free market accomidates demand such that quality education becomes general, without the help of the state.

The only way to ever permanently get rid of a government organ is to obsolete it. is extinction eternal enough? :D

GunnyFreedom
09-29-2010, 09:59 PM
I am sorry Gunny, but I will never believe that. It is the same creed of the Communists who say the State will wither away once the workers paradise is formed. You don't make laws go away by obeying and increasing their influence.

Besides, it is a self-defeating idea to teach liberty, but yet at the very same moment be restricting liberty. Students, young children, and most people are very astute at seeing this illogical fallacy. Once they realize this, they will begin to question more. I don't see how teaching liberty, but doing it violently and coercively promotes liberty.

The way to change peoples attitudes is not to shove a gun in their face through CPS, and other means if their children does not show up to public school. Sorry, I just cannot agree with this methodology.

Now..., if the School Boards had the power to abolish and eliminate the school system then I would say there is a worthy goal to being elected, but if it does not, and it is merely the broker of power on what to forcefully teach the youth of this country, then that is no different than any other ideology being rammed through the throats of the youth behind the power of aggressive violence and the gun.

So your position is that my considering the treatment of a cancer is "selling out" because a real man would remove the cancer with a SWORD dammit! :D

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-29-2010, 10:12 PM
So your position is that my considering the treatment of a cancer is "selling out" because a real man would remove the cancer with a SWORD dammit! :D

I would say it is hypocritical to try and advance liberty through the point of a gun. Removing the gun is one thing (Via elimination of government programs, departments, regulations, etc. etc.), but a total other thing to grab ahold of that power and to use it for your own use. It isn't going to work. You are not only going to contradict your supposed beliefs, but in doing so, you won't even achieve the vaunted goal you want. It is a dangerous, and tyrannous road. The Founders didn't seek to establish compulsory schooling to force others to learn liberty.

Besides, if you know anything about how the human mind works, you would see that this won't ever work. John Holt has some amazing work. You want to teach liberty by living liberty.

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-29-2010, 10:15 PM
I have a very long horizon, and a pretty damn radical azimuth to navigate.

I have no problems moving public schools to the establishment of a contract between the state and the people, then privatizing that contract as the ability of a re-found free market accomidates demand such that quality education becomes general, without the help of the state.

The only way to ever permanently get rid of a government organ is to obsolete it. is extinction eternal enough? :D

Using the example of Somalia, there is now a vast array of private educational centers. Moreso, than before the State-regime fell. Where there is demand the market will answer. It requires no coaxing or subtle manipulations.

GunnyFreedom
09-29-2010, 10:22 PM
I would say it is hypocritical to try and advance liberty through the point of a gun. Removing the gun is one thing (Via elimination of government programs, departments, regulations, etc. etc.), but a total other thing to grab ahold of that power and to use it for your own use. It isn't going to work. You are not only going to contradict your supposed beliefs, but in doing so, you won't even achieve the vaunted goal you want. It is a dangerous, and tyrannous road. The Founders didn't seek to establish compulsory schooling to force others to learn liberty.

Besides, if you know anything about how the human mind works, you would see that this won't ever work. John Holt has some amazing work. You want to teach liberty by living liberty.

A representative government demands that a legislator represent his constituents. It's like if you elected me to Mayor to lower taxes and so I went off and bought a lake - I didn't do what you hired me to do. That's wrong, and it's breech of contract.

As a representative, I can only go as far as I can bring the people of my district. Something I may honor where others do not. You advocate calcification of the state in place until it is so brittle that it collapses with age. how long will that be, a thousand years?

I advocate cutting out the cancer. To cut you have to use a knife. The only alternative is no treatment and the patient dies - and so begins our hellish descent into the ovens. That's not my future, man, and I won't fight for it.

GunnyFreedom
09-29-2010, 10:25 PM
I would say it is hypocritical to try and advance liberty through the point of a gun. Removing the gun is one thing (Via elimination of government programs, departments, regulations, etc. etc.), but a total other thing to grab ahold of that power and to use it for your own use. It isn't going to work. You are not only going to contradict your supposed beliefs, but in doing so, you won't even achieve the vaunted goal you want. It is a dangerous, and tyrannous road. The Founders didn't seek to establish compulsory schooling to force others to learn liberty.

Besides, if you know anything about how the human mind works, you would see that this won't ever work. John Holt has some amazing work. You want to teach liberty by living liberty.

and hypocritical for who? for me or for you?

I have never made secret that fact that I am a Constitutionalist, have I? can you point out the post for me, I seem to be having a little trouble locating it.... :D

So I am trying to advocate the constitution, by advocating the constitution. how is that hypocritical again?

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-29-2010, 10:28 PM
A representative government demands that a legislator represent his constituents. It's like if you elected me to Mayor to lower taxes and so I went off and bought a lake - I didn't do what you hired me to do. That's wrong, and it's breech of contract.

As a representative, I can only go as far as I can bring the people of my district. Something I may honor where others do not. You advocate calcification of the state in place until it is so brittle that it collapses with age. how long will that be, a thousand years?

I advocate cutting out the cancer. To cut you have to use a knife. The only alternative is no treatment and the patient dies - and so begins our hellish descent into the ovens. That's not my future, man, and I won't fight for it.

Actually, I argue that we should stop obeying fiat edicts. You argue to grab power and use it for your own ends. As long as you don't call yourself a liberty lover, then you are not being hypocritical. I like Isabel Paterson believe that compulsory education is the model of the totalitarian state. As long as you don't lie and deceive your views then it is a little less egregious in my mind, though still egregious. You are better than this Gunny.

Also, I didn't hire you to do anything. What about those that refused to vote? What about those that didn't vote? What about those whose views are not represented? Representative Government is a farce. The only true representative means is the market. Your money, your vote. You choose the winner and loser. You choose who is to represent your demands. Not others.

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-29-2010, 10:34 PM
and hypocritical for who? for me or for you?

I have never made secret that fact that I am a Constitutionalist, have I? can you point out the post for me, I seem to be having a little trouble locating it.... :D

So I am trying to advocate the constitution, by advocating the constitution. how is that hypocritical again?

Well, you don't advocate the totality of the Constitution. You are against a few of the amendments aren't you? When you say advocate the Constitution it is an all or nothing proposition. If you wish to be more specific you should say you advocate parts of the Constitution you agree with. Constitutionalist is a bogus political term to me. It is not a political philosophy. As you know, the Constitution can be changed at any time for any reason, to anything. It is malleable to the people (E.g. majority).

In any event, your idea won't work.

GunnyFreedom
09-29-2010, 10:44 PM
Well, you don't advocate the totality of the Constitution. You are against a few of the amendments aren't you? When you say advocate the Constitution it is an all or nothing proposition. If you wish to be more specific you should say you advocate parts of the Constitution you agree with. Constitutionalist is a bogus political term to me. It is not a political philosophy. As you know, the Constitution can be changed at any time for any reason, to anything. It is malleable to the people (E.g. majority).

In any event, your idea won't work.

How could one call themselves a Constitutionalist if they rejected the amendment process? :D The amendment process installed the 17th, and the amendment process can remove it. That is a fundamentally Constitutionalist idea from the start. You are straining to see hypocrisy in every unlit corner, just because I won't bow to anarchy? really?

Oh, and of course it will work. :D

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-29-2010, 10:47 PM
How could one call themselves a Constitutionalist if they rejected the amendment process? :D The amendment process installed the 17th, and the amendment process can remove it. That is a fundamentally Constitutionalist idea from the start. You are straining to see hypocrisy in every unlit corner, just because I won't bow to anarchy? really?

Oh, and of course it will work. :D

If it works, then the same principle should work in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it doesn't. In any event, like I said, Constitutionalist is not a political philosophy. Anything and everything is possible to be included in the Constitution. We had alcohol prohibition, we had 3/5th and slavery laws, we have postal roads, we have Standing Armies, we have lots of contradictory things.

Since when is no compulsory State-education anarchy?

GunnyFreedom
09-29-2010, 10:50 PM
If it works, then the same principle should work in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it doesn't. In any event, like I said, Constitutionalist is not a political philosophy. Anything and everything is possible to be included in the Constitution. We had alcohol prohibition, we had 3/5th and slavery laws, we have postal roads, we have Standing Armies, we have lots of contradictory things.

Since when is no compulsory State-education anarchy?

what principle am I advocating that has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-29-2010, 10:52 PM
what principle am I advocating that has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Using the gun to change the ideas and philosophy of individuals.

GunnyFreedom
09-29-2010, 11:08 PM
Using the gun to change the ideas and philosophy of individuals.

They already have a gun pointed at our parent's and our childrens' heads -- ignoring it doesn't make it go away -- and our society tolerates it because the state teaches us that we should tolerate it if not embrace it! As long as the electorate demands public education, then I have no problems making a law that says those public schools have to teach the Constitution. It is in fact the only thing that will eventually remove the demand for public state-sponsored schools.

and you don't abolish something by stopping the supply, you abolish something by removing the demand. When you talk about abolishing government, you are talking supply-side. I am talking demand side. How has war on supply side economics worked in the past? has it? It can't. If you ever want to reduce big government, then first you have to reduce the demand for big government. Going after the supply never works...

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-29-2010, 11:10 PM
They already have a gun pointed at our parent's and our childrens' heads -- ignoring it doesn't make it go away -- and our society tolerates it because the state teaches us that we should tolerate it if not embrace it! As long as the electorate demands public education, then I have no problems making a law that says those public schools have to teach the Constitution. It is in fact the only thing that will eventually remove the demand for public state-sponsored schools.

and you don't abolish something by stopping the supply, you abolish something by removing the demand. When you talk about abolishing government, you are talking supply-side. I am talking demand side. How has war on supply side economics worked in the past? has it? It can't. If you ever want to reduce big government, then first you have to reduce the demand for big government. Going after the supply never works...

Gunny you are a pretty bright guy, but you are using circular logic. If the Constitution allows for public education, how will you end public education by teaching the Constitution?

Just because a majority demands something doesn't make it beneficial, or moral. Gunny you are disappoint tonight. :(

PS: Ignoring it (Aka Civil Disobedience) does make edicts go away. Otherwise, the USSR would still be in Czechoslovakia. :p

GunnyFreedom
09-29-2010, 11:26 PM
Gunny you are pretty bright guy, but you are using circular logic. If the Constitution allows for public education, how will you end public education by teaching the Constitution?

by removing the demand for it through the superior prowess of the free market to offer solutions that the marketplace wants?

Let me try this again.

teaching every man woman and child in America the Constitution, and convincing them to fire anybody who disrespects it, will lead towards free markets as the leviathan recedes. This free market will produce a superior education product that will attract users out of the public system (encouraged by an electorate-enforced Constitutionalist legislature that will attach public education funding to individual children to make them easier for their parents to move). Voila, no more public education, and not a single child suffers.

The UK freed their slaves by buying them all and setting them free. Would you have prevented that from happening because buying a human is an immoral act?


Just because a majority demands something doesn't make it beneficial, or moral. Gunny you are disappoint tonight. :(You really don't think that an American citizen should be required to understand the Constitution before they vote? :)


PS: Ignoring it (Aka Civil Disobedience) does make edicts go away. Otherwise, the USSR would still be in Czechoslovakia. :p

And yet for all their ignorance, turmoil still reigns. does it mater whether that turmoil wears one badge or another? I have no desire to see our society lurch from one extreme to the other over cycles of years decades and centuries.

One corruption decays and another one takes it's place. that's why you stop it at the source.
"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson to Littleton Waller Tazewell, 1805.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789. ME 7:253

"It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that, too, of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786. ME 19:24Thomas Jefferson said that it was the business of the state to develop an informed electorate through education.

I tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson here, AED, sorry. :) Teaching the Constitution should be listed in the Constitution as a duty of the state in any representative government.

Promontorium
09-29-2010, 11:34 PM
I'm an Atheist. No one will ever care how just or rational I would act. I will never be elected to any office. Ever. It's a lost cause. I don't feel like a human in this country. I just like the idea that we can scoop enough water out of the sinking ship, that it won't go all the way down until I'm outta here.

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-29-2010, 11:41 PM
by removing the demand for it through the superior prowess of the free market to offer solutions that the marketplace wants?

Let me try this again.

teaching every man woman and child in America the Constitution, and convincing them to fire anybody who disrespects it, will lead towards free markets as the leviathan recedes. This free market will produce a superior education product that will attract users out of the public system (encouraged by an electorate-enforced Constitutionalist legislature that will attach public education funding to individual children to make them easier for their parents to move). Voila, no more public education, and not a single child suffers.

The UK freed their slaves by buying them all and setting them free. Would you have prevented that from happening because buying a human is an immoral act?

You really don't think that an American citizen should be required to understand the Constitution before they vote? :)



And yet for all their ignorance, turmoil still reigns. does it mater whether that turmoil wears one badge or another? I have no desire to see our society lurch from one extreme to the other over cycles of years decades and centuries.

One corruption decays and another one takes it's place. that's why you stop it at the source.
"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson to Littleton Waller Tazewell, 1805.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789. ME 7:253

"It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that, too, of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786. ME 19:24Thomas Jefferson said that it was the business of the state to develop an informed electorate through education.

I tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson here, AED, sorry. :) Teaching the Constitution should be listed in the Constitution as a duty of the state in any representative government.

You assume we would be in our current quandry without State-education. I proffer a different hypothesis. State-education is exactly why we are where we are. To think you will overcome the forces of coercion and those who believe it fundamentally, is...unreasonable. Those who want to be left alone, cherish liberty, etc. aren't ones to engage in telling others how to live, or forcefully compelling them to engage in preferred activities. Whatever control and power you may wrestle to do good, will be short-lived. Not to mention the very power is the very reason we have so many tyrannous institutions today.

The State-education system was never meant to teach our children. Literacy rates were all ready over 95% prior to the establishment, vocabulary skills were greater then, than now, and general logic and reason were more acute then also. The very purpose of the system you wish to gain control of was indoctrination. Like I said, this plan of yours is foolhardy at best, and destructive at worst.

I also wouldn't say the Czechs are in turmoil. I would take Vaclav Klaus over Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. any day.

GunnyFreedom
09-29-2010, 11:53 PM
You assume we would be in our current quandry without State-education.

do I? :) that's news to me.


I proffer a different hypothesis. State-education is exactly why we are where we are.[/qoute]

How is that any different from what I already believe? Because I don't see it.

[quote=Austrian Econ Disciple;2910122]To think you will overcome the forces of coercion and those who believe it fundamentally, is...unreasonable. Those who want to be left alone, cherish liberty, etc. aren't ones to engage in telling others how to live, or forcefully compelling them to engage in preferred activities. Whatever control and power you may wrestle to do good, will be short-lived. Not to mention the very power is the very reason we have so many tyrannous institutions today.

we a l r e a d y legislate the curriculum. I am not talking about some new power of government. the States legislated curriculum when Thomas Jefferson was President, and he encouraged it.


The State-education system was never meant to teach our children. Literacy rates were all ready over 95% prior to the establishment, vocabulary skills were greater then, than now, and general logic and reason were more acute then also. The very purpose of the system you wish to gain control of was indoctrination. Like I said, this plan of yours is foolhardy at best, and destructive at worst.

Strawman. I have never argued in favor of public schooling, or that private schools were inferior to public. In fact I have been talking this whole time about the only workable way to actually abolish it. :)

KCIndy
09-29-2010, 11:55 PM
The problem is getting from where we are now to ending compulsory education.



This.

Let's face it. Ending compulsory education is going to be simply and flatly impossible in the face of today's political climate. There's simply no way this is going to happen. Even if the Department of Education was eliminated on a Federal level, I can't think of a single state in the nation where the suggestion of eliminating compulsory education would be met with favor.

Community school boards are basic government at the simplest level. Gaining enough influence within these boards to enact basic measures such as teaching the Constitution shouldn't be that difficult. It simply depends on whether enough Constitutional conservatives have the willpower to make it happen.

GunnyFreedom
09-30-2010, 12:32 AM
This.

Let's face it. Ending compulsory education is going to be simply and flatly impossible in the face of today's political climate. There's simply no way this is going to happen. Even if the Department of Education was eliminated on a Federal level, I can't think of a single state in the nation where the suggestion of eliminating compulsory education would be met with favor.

Community school boards are basic government at the simplest level. Gaining enough influence within these boards to enact basic measures such as teaching the Constitution shouldn't be that difficult. It simply depends on whether enough Constitutional conservatives have the willpower to make it happen.

The wacky liberals had enough willpower when they did the same thing. Now look where we are!

The education part is really a distraction anyway. If not in schools, then we'll teach it elsehow. It will just take ten times longer. The heart of the plan is in the civic duty.

Learning the constitution just gives you a data record, the civic duty part is the one that saves the nation.

That's the one that the grassroots would have to do - promote the civic duty that the primary reason for voting, is to remove people who get away from the constitution. Thus, whenever a majority thinks their lawmaker has gone away from the constitution they learned in school, then they vote for the other guy.

After a while, the lawmakers will learn to obey the constitution or lose their jobs. that's when the progress of our movement will leap into break-necks. :D

GunnyFreedom
09-30-2010, 12:46 AM
This.

Let's face it. Ending compulsory education is going to be simply and flatly impossible in the face of today's political climate. There's simply no way this is going to happen. Even if the Department of Education was eliminated on a Federal level, I can't think of a single state in the nation where the suggestion of eliminating compulsory education would be met with favor.

Community school boards are basic government at the simplest level. Gaining enough influence within these boards to enact basic measures such as teaching the Constitution shouldn't be that difficult. It simply depends on whether enough Constitutional conservatives have the willpower to make it happen.

So we need a list of ten constitutionalists from every county in the US, contact them, and let them know what we would like to do. Find out if they would like to help, or of they don't have the time can refer someone else who might want to help.

Make their primary purpose to run for and/or locate and recruit people to run for school board, and inter-network with a nationwide Constitutionalist Caucus.

If we can get a list of roughly 10 constitutionalists from every county in the US, we can start the engine running.

devil21
09-30-2010, 02:41 AM
A generation is....what....20 years? I really don't think we have that long to reverse this course. In 20 years I shudder to think what things will be like. This next presidential election will be the last real chance imho. After that, the final nails will be hammered into the coffin and the only options become acceptance or forceful revolution.

Liberty minded folks should definitely be running for office in the next few years if it's feasible and throwing everything we have behind Ron Paul in the next pres election.

GunnyFreedom
09-30-2010, 10:20 AM
A generation is....what....20 years? I really don't think we have that long to reverse this course. In 20 years I shudder to think what things will be like. This next presidential election will be the last real chance imho. After that, the final nails will be hammered into the coffin and the only options become acceptance or forceful revolution.

Liberty minded folks should definitely be running for office in the next few years if it's feasible and throwing everything we have behind Ron Paul in the next pres election.

And if we do elect RP in 2012, then will everything just get fixed, or will we still have lots and lots of work to do to make sure it never happens again?

Travlyr
09-30-2010, 10:56 AM
So we need a list of ten constitutionalists from every county in the US, contact them, and let them know what we would like to do. Find out if they would like to help, or of they don't have the time can refer someone else who might want to help.

Make their primary purpose to run for and/or locate and recruit people to run for school board, and inter-network with a nationwide Constitutionalist Caucus.

If we can get a list of roughly 10 constitutionalists from every county in the US, we can start the engine running.

I think you are on to something here Gunny ... getting involved at the local level is the key. :cool:

"Town meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it within the people's reach, they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it." - Alexis de Tocqueville

GunnyFreedom
09-30-2010, 11:58 AM
"all politics is local."

imagine just two local activists in every county, and a nationwide localnet constitutional caucus online for them to lean on.

can even do a Marine Corps League type thing and set up a "Constitutional League" as the promotional network promoting the civic duty...

phill4paul
09-30-2010, 03:22 PM
To add to this idea Gunny I'd also like to throw out that the individuals state constitution be studied along with the U.S. Constitution.

Most individuals don't even realize that their state has its own constitution.

With that revealed then the first question comes naturally "Why would we have a state constitution when we already have a national one."

A comparison of the two would also be beneficial.

GunnyFreedom
09-30-2010, 04:14 PM
To add to this idea Gunny I'd also like to throw out that the individuals state constitution be studied along with the U.S. Constitution.

Most individuals don't even realize that their state has its own constitution.

With that revealed then the first question comes naturally "Why would we have a state constitution when we already have a national one."

A comparison of the two would also be beneficial.

I agree. If we taught in public schools one semester US Constitution and one semester NC Constitution; and then used the grassroots to promote the civic duty of firing, it would have a radical and profound effect on our future.