Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: A debate people need. The right to homeschool.... the right to keep slaves?  (Read 9226 times)

TJames

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 622

I think many libertarians are fighting for the right to own children! ??? >:(
My talking points; homeschooling is narcissistic, liberty education exist within and around statist education, teachers do have merit, specialization is a fact of life, children should be allowed by their parents to reach their full potential. Also, homeschooling is expensive and we should takeover existing systems that actually do work.

If I went to public school I would have been educated by the other students even if the teachers were useless. The teachers are paid by the state but they are qualified to teach!  FUCK, the state even recognizes that specialization and division of labor is necessary! SHOULDN'T YOU FOCUS ALL YOUR ENERGY ON MAKING THE EXISTING SYSTEM PRIVATELY FUNDED INSTEAD OF WASTING AWAY IN YOUR OWN OVER PRICED DECAYING SYSTEMS?
I know that I could have become so much more but I was controlled so much by a woman who couldn't even take care of herself. Now I'm useless and impoverished unless someone needs company. My dreams come 10 to 15 years late compared to my peers.

I've heard libertarians complain about the rubber rooms in New York's education system. Something about them being over priced and useless. OMG haven't you guys heard of the concept of spontaneous order. Yes, the teachers unions made sure no one can be fired. But the union argument has some merit. Bad teachers are not useless to psychologist or even the entire educational system. I mean dosn't the system know the entire educational history of each bad teacher?

I also might be willing to pay to prevent these teachers from homeschooling.

Some homeschooled kids will reply saying they are all right... they may say.

Okey debate on.
Logged

jaywalkaway

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30

Personally, I call it caring for children, not owning them.  While you feel that your mother was left you ill-prepared, I feel the same way in regards to  my 12 years of public education.  At least you've learned to read and write, you can take control of your own education.  The information I learn now, through my own free will is far more valuable to me. 

My kids are not currently home-schooled, however we've strongly been considering it.  It's kind of funny, I feel more selfish NOT home-schooling.  It is so easy to ship my kids off to school, I almost feel too selfish to give up the few hours of reprieve.  Besides that, the planning and time investment is an undertaking. I've been feeling out other parents who might also be interested in home-schooling so we can operate as more of a team, given we all have different strengths and weaknesses. 

Home-schooling is appealing foremost so my kids get a more accurate education.  How many people when asked will say the Civil War was fought to free the slaves?  Just to clarify, I don't see kids as slaves.  So much time is wasted in public schools as well.  You have no idea how many movies those kids watch or how their number one concern usually has to do with how they look rather than what they are learning.  Even if the teachers are phenomenal, they are still in one room with about 20 other kids.  Are these 20 some clones or do they have different educational need and interests?  Plus, the things you learn from other kids are not always useful. There are private school and I'm sure they are far superior (most of the time).  Why do you suppose we don't all end up in private schools?   

Logged

IamMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25

TJames, you raise many important points, but your main conclusions are not valid.  You are right about at least one though, you were unacceptably wronged by a parent.  That injury has caused you to fall into the trap every demagogue dreams of occurring, you want to subject others to your fear.

Your experience with homeschooling was so bad, you are willing (even as a self identified libertarian) to defend the statist schools.  Schools which make possible the indoctrination that allows American wars and have resulted in the deaths and mutilation of millions.  The demagogues rely on this strategy for every statist ploy.  Fear the terrorist, let the NSA do what it wants.  Fear the diseases, force everyone to have vaccinations.  Fear your own incompetence, let the state have your children.  It is your fear and you want to SUBJECT us to it.

You do not explicitly endorse the use of force against the consent of others.  You say that you would be willing pay to prevent inadequate homeschooling, not that you want me to have pay it.  Except that you want “take over” the statist schools.  So until the statist schools are no longer funded by tax dollars (the only valid way to do it), you do want to force me(or some other person) to pay for it, at least for little while.

The second biggest mistake, after giving into your fear, is assuming that parents don't own their children.  Persons as property is inflamatory because of slavery, but it never really went away.  Ownership implies to right to use.  Whoever can tell a child what to do owns that child.  Can you tell a child to eat their vegetables.  Can a teacher in school order a child to stand up in front of class and read from text?  Changing the words won't change the meaning.  Someone owns children.

If  a parent doesn't own their child, then someone else must.  The only other real option is the state.  In a free society power is delegated to government from the people.  If the people can't own their children how can they delegate that power to the state (By the way this argument works almost any property rights issues: guns,which have I used successfully on an Obama supporter; drugs; nuclear weapons; etc...).

Ownership in this case is not absolute.  Because the ownership of a child passes from the parent to the child at the age of majority (or during an emancipation or manumission proceeding), the ownership resembles a trust.  The parent is the lawful owner (trustee) and the child is the equitable owner (beneficiary).  The parent is required to make sure that when the ownership of a person passes from parent to self, that person has a fully functional self.  As long as the person comes into their self with a reasonable amount of opportunities fulfilled (proper education, proper nutrition, enough wealth to start a life, etc...) the responsibilities of the trustee (parent) are met.

The proper role of the organized use of force (also called government) is not to tell people what to do, but to let people know what they can't do because those actions cause harm.  It not my job, or governments job, to tell anyone what a child must do or learn.  It is legitimate to identify what is harmful.  A child coming into adulthood without work skills is certainly harmful.  Whether a child is trained as cashier or a doctor is not really relevant.  How to measure what is harmful to child and how to codify those harms in way that can be enforced in free society is daunting task (maybe age appropriate standardized testing).  It's also not my responsibility.  It is the responsibility of anyone who tries to use force to protect a child to get it right, or face prosecution for unreasonable search and seizure of property.

TJames, if this is your passion, we could use more libertarian social workers.  (Teaching them to fish and all that!)
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native

If a parent doesn't own their child than someone else must?
So who owns you?

Because I was borne free and independent with a natural right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
And the 'age of majority' that you rely on is a State definition - which would mean the State owns them until they deem otherwise.


Logged

TJames

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 622
Who owns me?
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2013, 04:29:08 pm »

I belong to whoever can win my respect. From a very early age children should be taught negotiation and debate. This is hard to teach when they are the only children in their community.
Likewise you don't want them thrown in a box of animals with only one adult.

jaywalkaway, friends have shallow conversations with each other... and that's okay.... I'm an INTP so I'm one of the lest materialistic MBTIs, but if I had friends I'd let my hair down and talk about Star Trek like it was real. I'm reminded of Nick Gillespie pointing out that sports and play fighting actually help children learn to be peaceful.
What I care about is making sure children can choose friends and teachers.

Iamman, humans evolved in small tribes, usually with a polygamous alpha male splitting paternal prerogative with other younger males. Okay I over made the point that humans raise children in groups. The mothers of our closest living relatives must be in physical contact for the first six months, and look at them...
A parent is incapable of owning a child but a small family can guide a child. The state is just a counterfeit tribe or dysfunctional family. This is not the same argument you had with the antigun, even if your intentions are not like the state's you might still be doing the same kind of harm.
You can teach a child to do whatever he wants and let him suffer in safety before adulthood. I'm making mistakes in the real world, and I'm sorry your teachers weren't adults. Libertarian parents need to learn how to teach children to make choices.
You make a very good point about fear. Fear is destructive. The state is afraid. My parents are afraid of the apocalypse. Many libertarians I've met are afraid. I have fear of my own inadequacy but I think your fear of teachers is irrational because the state is dying due to its own cannibalism.
Do I really think we should be forced to pay for teachers? That is where voluntaryist bring up reputation point systems. I don't think we should bother with state politics and general elections, but education systems are one of the systems we can work in one where reputation actually matters and where fear is unpopular.

So do liberty villages have social workers?
Logged

escapist_reborn

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 321
  • Liberating the world one graphic at a time!
    • Graphical Liberation Front

Full disclosure: I was homeschooled up until college and think very highly of the practice. I was also controlled and bent to the will of my parents in ways most people aren't, and suffered because of it.

Giving parents "ownership" over their kids might not rule out all kinds of abuse, but it's a hell of a lot better than anyone else having said ownership. In the future, we may reach a stage where the magical 18 number is either altered or repealed/disregarded altogether, and children may be recognized as sovereign beings at a younger age, which would lessen the ownership problem. But still... having a kid incapable of taking care of itself "owned" by parents is far better than any other option.
Logged
Joël Valenzuela<br />Chief Contrabandist, Graphical Liberation Front

TJames

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 622
One Suggestion.
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2013, 09:55:09 am »

My mother still talks like she has a birth right to my respect. Reborn, I am starting to learn about her history of being kicked out of one education system after another.

Picture a natural system of polygamy and polyandry, extended relatives living in a villages of several large family uh longhouses. Teachers could be built in. How intelligent and nurtured might children become? How good might these nearly homeschooled kids be at understanding multiple points of view by the time they are ready for relationships.
Why should anyone own the children in this system? Whoever has the best child rearing skills would be in charge of education, but they wouldn't own the kids.
I understand how this could seem radical and potentially abusive. Gender bias polygamy is very abusive. Faith based polygamy is also very abusive. Homeschooling as we know it is very very abusive. On the other hand a home of intelligent adults who grew up this way and have reputations wealth and relationships at stake are going to going to make a lot of hoops to jump through to join their system, even if they aren't joining their personal relationships. I can see how abuse within the system would be discovered sooner and the perpetrator may end up alone for a very long time.
This is only a theoretical based on primate evolution, one I personally like and jumps out of education and into personal relationships and the general economy. I think it will give children a lot more safety and freedom than just about any education or family system.

Reborn, children who live in the world among peers can take care of themselves but they don't really need to. The mind is able to pick out the ones better at seeing the theoretical or the practical worlds or whatnot without the peers forcing you to see things their way. Parents telling their children what to know and believe instead of letting them learn with peers.... Kids who were kids will be smarter than they otherwise would be.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native

Full disclosure: I was homeschooled up until college and think very highly of the practice. I was also controlled and bent to the will of my parents in ways most people aren't, and suffered because of it.

Giving parents "ownership" over their kids might not rule out all kinds of abuse, but it's a hell of a lot better than anyone else having said ownership. In the future, we may reach a stage where the magical 18 number is either altered or repealed/disregarded altogether, and children may be recognized as sovereign beings at a younger age, which would lessen the ownership problem. But still... having a kid incapable of taking care of itself "owned" by parents is far better than any other option.
No one 'owns' a person. Even a government, which is nothing more than a collective of people, owns a person. And the 'age of majority' is not the same in every State, each collective of people has defined it - some very differently. Eighteen being popular due to the 26th Amendment.
Logged

Bazil

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • not the spice and not the country
Re: One Suggestion.
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2013, 05:19:58 pm »

My mother still talks like she has a birth right to my respect. Reborn, I am starting to learn about her history of being kicked out of one education system after another.

Your mother sounds like my mother-in-law.  My wife was highly sheltered until I met her (including being home schooled).  There is a ton of stuff my wife was never taught and much of the stuff she did get taught was actually indoctrination.  She still constantly tries to manipulate her way deeper into my wife's life.  I was home schooled as well, but I wasn't sheltered.  If it wasn't for the internet (and my mother-in-law's lack of understanding what kind of tool it was) my wife would still live with her and would never of met me.
Logged
"If it ain't broke, fix it till it is!"- The government | "Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reasons!" -  a friend

Jacobus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193

TJames, I'm trying to pick out a common theme in your posts above as your basis for criticizing home-schooling, and I think it has to do with your idea that home-schooling shuts a child off from the larger community.  You seem to be saying that public school is better because it at least allows the child to integrate with peers, and you advocate an ideal where there is an open community that children get raised in without any particular person serving as a parent.

I am also saddened when an abusive parent uses home-schooling to dominate every aspect of a child's existence.  It surely happens.  But (despite its name) home-schooling also offers an opportunity for parents to open the child to greater aspects of the community; much more so than schools.  In schools, children are segregated into large groups by age and their time and tasks are utterly controlled.  Home-schooling, on the other hand, can occur outside of the home and presents opportunities for children to meaningfully participate in the community and interact with family, friends, and peers of varying ages.  Inside the home, home-schooling offers the opportunity for children to have greater authority to direct their own time and energy into purposes that are meaningful for them. 



Logged

TJames

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 622

TJames, I'm trying to pick out a common theme in your posts above as your basis for criticizing home-schooling, and I think it has to do with your idea that home-schooling shuts a child off from the larger community.  You seem to be saying that public school is better because it at least allows the child to integrate with peers, and you advocate an ideal where there is an open community that children get raised in without any particular person serving as a parent.

I am also saddened when an abusive parent uses home-schooling to dominate every aspect of a child's existence.  It surely happens.  But (despite its name) home-schooling also offers an opportunity for parents to open the child to greater aspects of the community; much more so than schools.  In schools, children are segregated into large groups by age and their time and tasks are utterly controlled.  Home-schooling, on the other hand, can occur outside of the home and presents opportunities for children to meaningfully participate in the community and interact with family, friends, and peers of varying ages.  Inside the home, home-schooling offers the opportunity for children to have greater authority to direct their own time and energy into purposes that are meaningful for them. 

Hmm you bring up interesting thoughts. In some cultures a family member or nanny (oldest brother in Indian culture) is there to help oversee a group of children.
I wouldn't agree that homeschooling offers greater opportunity. Homeschooling is over priced. Agorism is greater.
But yeah, have both worlds.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native

'In schools, children are segregated into large groups by age and their time and tasks are utterly controlled.' - except for age, it sounds like your making an argument that schools are training youngsters to get a job.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

anything