Let the States Decide!!! (?)

[Lothario]

Many libertarians argue that certain things decided by the federal government should in fact be decisions relegated to the states. My question is, how is this any better? How is state mandated public education any better than federally mandated public education (or any other issue)? Is it simply that the states are smaller beasts to tackle?

[Southron]

Many libertarians argue that certain things decided by the federal government should in fact be decisions relegated to the states. My question is, how is this any better? How is state mandated public education any better than federally mandated public education (or any other issue)? Is it simply that the states are smaller beasts to tackle?

I know where my state representatives live and can walk up to their doors?

[acptulsa]

As I like to say, if your sewer system is run out of Washington, and there's a problem with it, you have to convince some twenty million voters that your sewers are more important than abortion, gay marriage and their own sewers combined. Otherwise, nothing will get done about it.

It goes far beyond that, of course. Federal gas taxes were enacted to help shove through the Interstate System; now that it is essentially complete the tax remains. This allows the government to make states jump through hoops just to get our own money back, and we wind up with regionally unpopular and counterproductive things like the national speed limit of 55 mph. That's a mild example, but still tyranny.

[pcosmar]

Why should anyone "mandate" education?
Why not leave it to parents to educate their children, Or to start and maintain a school at a local level?

That is how it was once done when we had a much higher level of education.

[BrendenR]

It's simply a question of whether or not you believe in the republican form of government and the constitution. If you do, then these matters are decided by the representatives of the states, and as long as they do not violate the constitution, there is nothing wrong with it (ie voluntary public education through taxation).

If you do not want to participate in the constitutional republic, then you're an anarchist I suppose, and you have a lot larger battle on your hands.

[pcosmar]

Let the Parents decide. keep the State out of it. Entirely.

[fisharmor]

Every year on MLK weekend, the Virginia Citizens Defense League organizes "lobby day".
During this event, pro-gun freedoms activists descend on Richmond in droves.
Many of them are openly carrying pistols.
Part of the event involves these activists personally visiting their state reps and explaining that they would like their gun freedoms protected.
They walk into their representatives' offices while carrying firearms to make their case.

Washington, DC is a mere 90 miles away from this spectacle.
Can you guess what would happen to you if you tried this with your national representative, in his DC office?
Best case scenario: prison rape.

[jt8025]

Because if you have a problem with your state laws it is easier to move to another state than it is to move to another country.

[ChaosControl]

Many libertarians argue that certain things decided by the federal government should in fact be decisions relegated to the states. My question is, how is this any better? How is state mandated public education any better than federally mandated public education (or any other issue)? Is it simply that the states are smaller beasts to tackle?

It allows for diversity of ideology. If some people want government intervention, they should be able to have it in one state just as those who don't want it should be able to live without it in another.

[acptulsa]

It allows for diversity of ideology. If some people want government intervention, they should be able to have it in one state just as those who don't want it should be able to live without it in another.

Then we learn from each other, and our friendly internal competition makes us stronger for the more serious international competition.

[Soca Taliban]

It's simply a question of whether or not you believe in the republican form of government and the constitution. If you do, then these matters are decided by the representatives of the states, and as long as they do not violate the constitution, there is nothing wrong with it (ie voluntary public education through taxation).

If you do not want to participate in the constitutional republic, then you're an anarchist I suppose, and you have a lot larger battle on your hands. That seems oxymoronic

[jmdrake]

Every year on MLK weekend, the Virginia Citizens Defense League organizes "lobby day".
During this event, pro-gun freedoms activists descend on Richmond in droves.
Many of them are openly carrying pistols.
Part of the event involves these activists personally visiting their state reps and explaining that they would like their gun freedoms protected.
They walk into their representatives' offices while carrying firearms to make their case.


Cool! In honor of MLK day they should pass out this DVD too. ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckgyfGbdnU

[jmdrake]

That seems oxymoronic

LOL I was thinking that. He should have said "voluntary education paid for by donations". Of course that already exists. Still, since we're being taxed I think we should at least be given a direct say in how it's spent. As in being able to write on our tax forms "I want 20% to go to school vouchers, 40% to go to lobbying for the legalization of hemp.....etc".

[LibertyMage]

Its not about government regulation vs. non government regulation. Its about local representation, the ability to influence elections locally and the ability to influence legislation locally.

[Lothario]

So I suppose the bigger question is - you can argue against federal laws on the basis of constitutionality. How can you argue against state laws - purely on moral grounds?

[acptulsa]

You can argue your state's laws in your state's supreme court on the basis of whether or not they violate the state constitution. For example.

[pcosmar]

So I suppose the bigger question is - you can argue against federal laws on the basis of constitutionality. How can you argue against state laws - purely on moral grounds?

States also have constitutions and Accepted the Constitution of The United States upon becoming a state.
It is the Supreme Law of the land.

The Constitution does NOT mandate forced payment for education. (i have no children)
The Constitution does NOT mandate any educational requirements at all.

The responsibility for educating children is the parents.
I can oppose theft on moral grounds. I can oppose the misuse of funds (taxes) on moral grounds.

[BrendenR]

That seems oxymoronic

It's not. It's how our government works. If the people want a public school system, the representatives of those people can implement one and tax it's citizens to fund it. As long as it does not violate the rights of anyone, there is nothing wrong with that (legally, or in our constitution).

Of course you can argue that all taxation is a form of force, but then you are arguing against our current form of government, which is not the scope of this topic...:).

[low preference guy]

Of course you can argue that all taxation is a form of force, but then you are arguing against our current form of government, which is not the scope of this topic...:).

The fact that our current government is funded by force doesn't mean that calling it voluntary isn't a lie.

You lie when you talk about the existence of "voluntary education funded by taxes". It's the same as saying voluntary education funded by involuntary payments.

I'm not even saying that you should advocate eliminating taxes. I just say that you shouldn't call things what they are not.

[jmdrake]

It's not. It's how our government works. If the people want a public school system, the representatives of those people can implement one and tax it's citizens to fund it. As long as it does not violate the rights of anyone, there is nothing wrong with that (legally, or in our constitution).

Of course you can argue that all taxation is a form of force, but then you are arguing against our current form of government, which is not the scope of this topic...:).

Well technically our current form of government allows states to mandate children be educated.

[BrendenR]

The fact that our current government is funded by force doesn't mean that calling it voluntary isn't a lie.

I was referring to the voluntary participation in the public school system, not of the taxation.

You are totally correct that the tax, of course, is not.

[acptulsa]

It's not.

He did say seems. And it does seem oxymoronic.

Now, riddle me this. If communities are so free to set up local school systems or not, and citizens are so free to fund them as they see fit, how does No Child Left Behind come to pollute the system?

Figure that one out and you'll understand what we're trying to say.

[low preference guy]

I was referring to the voluntary participation in the public school system, not of the taxation.

You are totally correct that the tax, of course, is not.

Participation actually is not voluntary either. You can easily find parents who used to home-school their kids and were forced to put them in public schools

[pcosmar]

I was referring to the voluntary participation in the public school system, not of the taxation.

You are totally correct that the tax, of course, is not.
:confused:
Excuse me.
But I remember people being arrested for not going to school.
And parents being prosecuted for keeping their children out of school.

What part of that is voluntary?

[BrendenR]

Participation actually is not voluntary either.

Some people just love to argue huh? I'm was not referring to any existing public education system.

I'm saying that a theoretical, public school, that had voluntary participation is perfectly legitimate under our constitution if it is implemented by the States.

Is that clear enough?

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OUR EXISTING FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM.

[nobody's_hero]

For me, it has more to do with isolation of damage.

If I fuck up a state, so what? I fuck up a state.

If I fuck up a Federal government, I just fucked up 50 states.

A republic is truly a wonderful system.

Even better when it goes to the state-county level.

If I fuck up a county, so what? . . .

[Soca Taliban]

It's not. It's how our government works. If the people want a public school system, the representatives of those people can implement one and tax it's citizens to fund it. As long as it does not violate the rights of anyone, there is nothing wrong with that (legally, or in our constitution).

Of course you can argue that all taxation is a form of force, but then you are arguing against our current form of government, which is not the scope of this topic...:).First of all voluntary and taxes are oxymoronic.....last time I checked, donations + force = taxation. Secondly it does violates individual's right to property. Who are these "people" that you say want a public school system? Show me a government that only taxes "these people" when it comes time to implementing its welfare schemes. On the contrary, it seems like everyone gets shafted for "these people". Stop using these BS collective grouping ideology.

[pcosmar]

Some people just love to argue huh? I'm was not referring to any existing public education system.

I'm saying that a theoretical, public school, that had voluntary participation is perfectly legitimate under our constitution if it is implemented by the States.

Is that clear enough?

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OUR EXISTING FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM.

Oh, a fantasy.
I have some too.
;)

[BrendenR]

First of all voluntary and taxes are oxymoronic.....last time I checked, donations + force = taxation. Secondly it does violates individual's right to property. Who are these "people" that you say want a public school system? Show me a government that only taxes "these people" when it comes time to implementing its welfare schemes. On the contrary, it seems like everyone gets shafted for "these people". Stop using these BS collective grouping ideology.

My god, I'm a RP libertarian to the core. I'm pointing out what is legal under our current form of government. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

[low preference guy]

I'm saying that a theoretical, public school, that had voluntary participation is perfectly legitimate under our constitution if it is implemented by the States.

Sure, it is legal.


Is that clear enough?

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OUR EXISTING FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM.

There is no need to get angry. When people talk about education, they usually refer to the currently existing educational system.

[acptulsa]

My god, I'm a RP libertarian to the core. I'm pointing out what is legal under our current form of government. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

What you propose, and more, is legal under the U.S. Constitution. And?

[BrendenR]

What you propose, and more, is legal under the U.S. Constitution. And?

That is all I intended to say with my original comment. Simply trying to prevent the thread from going off topic a tear against our current education system in respect to the OP.

[pcosmar]

I grew up on a small island "Lime Island" in the St.Mary's river. It was a refueling dock for Lake Freighters.
My mother taught school there for several years. It was a one room school house, and was paid for by the company my Dad worked for and by the parents of the kids that attended.
My older brothers and sisters went there till the state ordered them to attend a (state sanctioned) school in Detour. That meant an early ferry ride, a bus ride about thirty miles away. And the return trip at the end of the day.
In what world does that make sense?
We moved our primary residence off the Island before I started school, but my mom had taught me to read and count before I started school.
I was 2 years ahead of the other kids.

[Grubb556]

A bit off topic but does the USA Constitution have an "enforcement" ammendment ? Something like, if one feels theirs rights are infringed, they can apply to the courts for a remedy (such as declaring said law unconstitutional) ?

[acptulsa]

No need for an amendment, Grubb. That's part of what the Supreme Court was created to do.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I never was a fan of the whole "let the states decide" sentiment.

Tyranny is tyranny, I don't care if its the city, state, federal, or world government.

[Soca Taliban]

My god, I'm a RP libertarian to the core. I'm pointing out what is legal under our current form of government. If I'm wrong, please correct me. No one is questioning your ideology leaning, just pointing out what I though was a contradictory statement. If I'm wrong concerning your statement, then correct me.

[Soca Taliban]

I grew up on a small island "Lime Island" in the St.Mary's river. It was a refueling dock for Lake Freighters.
My mother taught school there for several years. It was a one room school house, and was paid for by the company my Dad worked for and by the parents of the kids that attended.
My older brothers and sisters went there till the state ordered them to attend a (state sanctioned) school in Detour. That meant an early ferry ride, a bus ride about thirty miles away. And the return trip at the end of the day.
In what world does that make sense?
We moved our primary residence off the Island before I started school, but my mom had taught me to read and count before I started school.
I was 2 years ahead of the other kids. lolol


I never was a fan of the whole "let the states decide" sentiment.

Tyranny is tyranny, I don't care if its the city, state, federal, or world government.+1
I understand the "it's a state's issue" argument in terms of keeping the feds in check, but the principle of tyranny applies to the state as well.

[acptulsa]

I never was a fan of the whole "let the states decide" sentiment.

Tyranny is tyranny, I don't care if its the city, state, federal, or world government.

The Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, first paragraph: The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

So, if only one state goes smooth nuts (like Louisiana did during the depression), I can leave it behind and forget about it. Don't even need a passport.