Posted on 06/23/2010 6:27:30 AM PDT by shortstop
Government schools **are** socialism. They are the very essence of socialism.
When children attend government school they learn ( simply by being there) that the government has enormous power to take money from their neighbor to pay for a “single-payer” education service their parents want tuition-free.
Is a “duh” needed here? If government can use police threat to fund single payer government schooling, why not a thousand other socialist wants and needs?
Government schools teach children to be socialists simply by existing, regardless of the curriculum or school policies and whether or not the federal government is involved. Government schools would still teach socialism even if school districts were the size of a suburban housing subdivision and had no state, county, or federal involvement whatsoever.
If children can be made to feel comfortable with accepting single-payer government schooling ( paid for by money collected under police threat) it is a very short step to being comfortable with single-payer Obamacare. If Obamacare is implemented, in one or two generations our nation will be filled with citizens who simply can never imagine getting along without government single-payer health care.
Yes, and they'll use the exact same justifications as those who currently can't imagine any alternative to government education. It's as if part of the brain is blocked, so that apparently normal people type, with a straight face, "But what would we do?!?"
Duh, folks: write a check to the education-provider of your choice.
And...Like Bob Lonsberry, there will be so-called “conservatives” claiming that true conservatives are not against single payer health care. Hey! They loved their Obamacare nurses and doctors, and warm and fuzzy clinics when they were kids, and their now adult children did just fine using single-payer Obamacare!
And just as people ignore the statistics on declining test scores, increased crime, and ever-increasing cost, they can also ignore the statistics on death rates from cancer, waiting times for diagnostic tests and surgeries, and so on.
It should be a no-brainer putting government in charge of something is a bad idea. The desire to stick someone else with the costs of your life is obviously very powerful.
Matthew 5:39 The other side of my face is available to you.
I said expose to different ideas, not VALUES.
There are two possible (only possible) dangers to not doing this. In the first place there is a danger that the parent attempts to turn their child into a carbon copy of themselves, maybe even subconsciously living their lives and aspirations through their children. More subtlely, adherence to strong and moral values is stronger if someone is allowed to think it through themselves. If you believe that homosexuality, for example, is wrong, but the basis of that belief is that “my dad told me so”, that really isnt good enough, not least because it will not be able to stand up to any counter-argument. Alas, we cannot wrap children in cotton wool. Eventually they have to be exposed to the evil in this world, if only because otherwise they will not be able to recognise it in the future. Not easy.
Who is this clown.
Of course we want to abolish public education
We teach our children about other religions and cultures so they are exposed to other ideas. We don’t need someone else to do that for us. You don’t teach values to your children by allowing them to “think it through” for themselves. They can’t think something through logically and come to the truth if you haven’t taught them logic and truth. First teach them logic and truth and when they are confronted with error they will know it. You also don’t teach children about evil by exposing them to it. You protect them from it while teaching them about it. When they are ready to confront it then you send them out into the world and they will be equipped.
What I was saying was that children cannot be shielded from the world forever. Sooner or later theory has to be put into practice, as you say.
If “we” means you and me, definitely. But not you, me, and the author. Oh, well.
I think we agree on all but one point. I do think children can be shielded from the world while they are still children. After they have been raised, protected and taught well, then they are ready to go out into the world.
Alot of people think that homeschooled kids will not be able to cope in the real world but the evidence is contrary to that opinion (not saying you hold that opinion).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.