Discussion:
Refusing service
(too old to reply)
Kevrob
2017-01-04 18:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 9:49:55 AM UTC-5, Alex W. wrote:
> On 04/01/2017 00:48, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > On 1/3/2017 5:34 AM, Alex W. wrote:
> >> On 03/01/2017 09:48, Just Wondering wrote:
> >>
>
> >>>> "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
> >>>> Imposts
> >>>> and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
> >>>> general Welfare of the United States"
> >>>>
> >>> That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to collect
> >>> money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give the federal
> >>> government power to regulate local education.
> >>
> >> As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
> >> individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in education
> >> would certainly fall into the category of "general welfare".
> >
> > No, absolutely *not*.
> >
> > With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always
> > regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with
> > them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a
> > metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a
> > host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
> >
> > James Madison, 1831
> >
> >
> > This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of
> > Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general
> > legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special
> > powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was
> > intended.
> >
> > Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #83
>
> Those are the private views of some of the founding fathers. They are
> of interest, and illuminating, and may even offer some guidance, but
> they are not gospel. Nor are they law. It would be unwise in the
> extreme to insist on the personal interpretation of some 18th century
> politicians, however worthy, to arrange the affairs of a 21st century
> nation.

They are the views of

a.) Madison, the main architect of the Constitution and of

b.) Hamilton, the main theorist of the Federalist faction. While
Madison was a protege of Jefferson, and wound up in the nascent
Democratic-Republicans, the Federalists rivals in the "First
Party System."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Party_System

Hamilton was wont to support an expansive reading of the powers
of the Federal government, so if he and Madison, who wanted a
stronger central government than the US had under the Articles
of Confederation, but nothing as strong as Hamilton did, could
agree about the meaning, that view was non-controversial.

I would agree that using the "original meaning" interpretation:
what did those words mean at the time they were written, commonly,
or as is the case with legal terms, according to the accepted
meaning as used by courts and legislatures of the time. "Original
intent" is a step away from what was actually voted on.

Imposing contemporary meanings on decades or centuries old documents
is just silly, but people do it. (The "Living Constitution" crowd.)

Kevin R
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-04 19:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 01/04/2017 07:52 AM, kensi wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:44:34 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and
> Vendettas wrote:
>
>> "Alex W." <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:ecvhv0Fiv99U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> I follow your argument.
>>>
>>> Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are imprecise, open
>>> to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
>>> "necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not need a
>>> Department of Education and should abolish it altogether, and the other
>>> side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be expanded.
>>> Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that their proposal
>>> fits the demands of necessity. So who is right? What is really
>>> necessary? And who decides what risks should be taken and which risks
>>> the citizens may legitimately decide to avoid?
>>
>> Considering the education level in this country I would say the the
>> DoE was a
>> detriment.
>
> My Doctor says I have multiple personality disorder, but we don't
> agree with that.
>
Don't get into a fight, you might shoot the others...

--
That's Karma
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-04 19:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 01/04/2017 07:49 AM, kensi wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 14:53:37 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and
> Vendettas wrote:
>
>> Josh Rosenbluth <***@nowhere.com wrote in news:o4cld6$mhm$***@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>>> On 1/1/2017 8:25 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 19:38:23 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/1/2017 7:17 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 18:34:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <***@nowhere.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there is no general right of association,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How not? You own yourself; you make your own choices. Unless you
>>>>>> think people should be forced to associate with others. But
>>>>>> that's an initiation of force. And YOU have to justify that.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not the way constitutional law works in the USA.
>>>>
>>>> The constitution has no authority. Rights are precedent to any
>>>> piece of paper. You have to justify your initiation of force.
>>>
>>> How does the government justify forcing you to pass health
>>> inspections to keep your business open?
>>
>> Because good health practices apply equally to EVERYBODY.
>>
>
> Тэе фаулт цан бе цаусед бы а брокен струцтурал пластицосмиц асператинг
> торпедоес, а малфунцтионинг пэасе варианце страточуарк руммагинг
> цондуит, ор евен ан амбиент поларитранспортер сцрибблинг сцаннер. Дид
> ыоу тилт тэе енцапсулатед стреам анд эалт тэе дефлецторорганиц беам?
> Ыоу маы неед а неь процедурал фречуенцы. Цэецк тэе сериес оф тэе
> турбоцламп пласма. Алсо сцреь тэе пэысиоварианце дефоцусинг
> трансмиссион иф нецессары.
>
It's all Greek to me...

--
That's Karma
Kevrob
2017-01-04 23:01:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 2:03:15 PM UTC-5, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> On 01/04/2017 07:49 AM, kensi wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 14:53:37 -0000 (UTC), Ministry of Vengeance and
> > Vendettas wrote:
> >
> >> Josh Rosenbluth <***@nowhere.com wrote in news:o4cld6$mhm$***@dont-
> >> email.me:
> >>
> >>> On 1/1/2017 8:25 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 19:38:23 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 1/1/2017 7:17 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 18:34:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>>>>> <***@nowhere.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> {snip}
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If there is no general right of association,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How so?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How not? You own yourself; you make your own choices. Unless you
> >>>>>> think people should be forced to associate with others. But
> >>>>>> that's an initiation of force. And YOU have to justify that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's not the way constitutional law works in the USA.
> >>>>
> >>>> The constitution has no authority. Rights are precedent to any
> >>>> piece of paper. You have to justify your initiation of force.
> >>>
> >>> How does the government justify forcing you to pass health
> >>> inspections to keep your business open?
> >>
> >> Because good health practices apply equally to EVERYBODY.
> >>
> >
> > Тэе фаулт цан бе цаусед бы а брокен струцтурал пластицосмиц асператинг
> > торпедоес, а малфунцтионинг пэасе варианце страточуарк руммагинг
> > цондуит, ор евен ан амбиент поларитранспортер сцрибблинг сцаннер. Дид
> > ыоу тилт тэе енцапсулатед стреам анд эалт тэе дефлецторорганиц беам?
> > Ыоу маы неед а неь процедурал фречуенцы. Цэецк тэе сериес оф тэе
> > турбоцламп пласма. Алсо сцреь тэе пэысиоварианце дефоцусинг
> > трансмиссион иф нецессары.
> >
> It's all Greek to me...

I think you were Russian to judgement. :)

...OK, google translate thinks i
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-04 20:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/4/2017 12:19 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Steve <***@yahooooo.com> wrote in
>> news:***@4ax.com:
>> ss
>>
>>> All of his efforts involving
>>> public education focused on schools run at the local level.
>>
>>
>> State government, federal government - they
>> both taxing the people to pay for public education.
>>
>> What is your beef with public education?
>
> I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.

My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.

Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should
be no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
instruction from private schools.

The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
massive government in everything.
Alex W.
2017-01-04 23:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 04/01/2017 21:25, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 1/4/2017 12:19 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> Steve <***@yahooooo.com> wrote in
>>> news:***@4ax.com:
>>> ss
>>>
>>>> All of his efforts involving
>>>> public education focused on schools run at the local level.
>>>
>>>
>>> State government, federal government - they
>>> both taxing the people to pay for public education.
>>>
>>> What is your beef with public education?
>>
>> I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.
>
> My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
> for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.

The national average private school tuition is approximately $9,582 per
year.

The private elementary school average is $8,522 per year and the private
high school average is $12,953 per year.

Religious private schools aren't any cheaper: a year in Catholic
elementary school typically runs to $5,330 (although it jumps to $9,790,
on average, by the time kids hit middle and high school). Other types of
religious schools, say, a Christian or Jewish school, on average, cost
$7,960 a year for an elementary student and $16,520 for a secondary student.

In 2015, the median household income for the United States was $55,775
before tax.

If I were an average American, having to pay close to 20% of my pre-tax
income on schooling would very much be a valid reason.


>
> Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
> people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
> groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
> give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
> lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
> Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
> force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should
> be no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
> instruction from private schools.

Then you support government funding of education, but you do not want
any strings attached. So who keeps an eye on how this money is spent,
whether the kids are getting a decent education, whether parents and the
tax payers are getting bang for their buck? And please do not tell me
"the parents".

Secondly, this would also mean that taxes raised from the public at
large would be spent at least partly on religious schools. Try getting
that one past the Supreme Court.
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-04 23:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/4/2017 3:16 PM, Alex W. wrote:
> On 04/01/2017 21:25, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/4/2017 12:19 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Mitchell Holman
>>> wrote:
>>>> Steve <***@yahooooo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:***@4ax.com:
>>>> ss
>>>>
>>>>> All of his efforts involving
>>>>> public education focused on schools run at the local level.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> State government, federal government - they
>>>> both taxing the people to pay for public education.
>>>>
>>>> What is your beef with public education?
>>>
>>> I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.
>>
>> My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
>> for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
>
> The national average private school tuition is approximately $9,582 per
> year.
>
> The private elementary school average is $8,522 per year and the private
> high school average is $12,953 per year.
>
> Religious private schools aren't any cheaper: a year in Catholic
> elementary school typically runs to $5,330 (although it jumps to $9,790,
> on average, by the time kids hit middle and high school). Other types of
> religious schools, say, a Christian or Jewish school, on average, cost
> $7,960 a year for an elementary student and $16,520 for a secondary
> student.
>
> In 2015, the median household income for the United States was $55,775
> before tax.
>
> If I were an average American, having to pay close to 20% of my pre-tax
> income on schooling would very much be a valid reason.

You're making an argument in favor of (partial) public *funding* of
education, not public provision.
Kevrob
2017-01-04 23:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 6:16:59 PM UTC-5, Alex W. wrote:
> On 04/01/2017 21:25, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > On 1/4/2017 12:19 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>> Steve <***@yahooooo.com> wrote in
> >>> news:***@4ax.com:
> >>> ss
> >>>
> >>>> All of his efforts involving
> >>>> public education focused on schools run at the local level.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> State government, federal government - they
> >>> both taxing the people to pay for public education.
> >>>
> >>> What is your beef with public education?
> >>
> >> I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.
> >
> > My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
> > for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
>
> The national average private school tuition is approximately $9,582 per
> year.
>
> The private elementary school average is $8,522 per year and the private
> high school average is $12,953 per year.
>
> Religious private schools aren't any cheaper: a year in Catholic
> elementary school typically runs to $5,330 (although it jumps to $9,790,
> on average, by the time kids hit middle and high school). Other types of
> religious schools, say, a Christian or Jewish school, on average, cost
> $7,960 a year for an elementary student and $16,520 for a secondary student.
>
> In 2015, the median household income for the United States was $55,775
> before tax.
>
> If I were an average American, having to pay close to 20% of my pre-tax
> income on schooling would very much be a valid reason.
>
>
> >
> > Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
> > people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
> > groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
> > give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
> > lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
> > Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
> > force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should
> > be no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
> > instruction from private schools.
>
> Then you support government funding of education, but you do not want
> any strings attached. So who keeps an eye on how this money is spent,
> whether the kids are getting a decent education, whether parents and the
> tax payers are getting bang for their buck? And please do not tell me
> "the parents".
>
> Secondly, this would also mean that taxes raised from the public at
> large would be spent at least partly on religious schools. Try getting
> that one past the Supreme Court.

The best system would be: parents pay what they can, from 0 to the full
boat. A foundation or series of foundations would raise donations to fund
privately arranged scholarships. Alternate forms of learning would be
allowed and encouraged: home schooling by individual families or groups
of families, distance learning course by course or entire schools that
exist only online. There are already versions of the latter, some of
which are officially public schools. They are a boon to kids who live in
the sticks, where their local schools may not have a wide selection of
courses, especially advanced ones.

Certification by testing and/or portfolio evaluation could stand in for
school "years." Once you've proved you know level 1, move on to level 2.
Nobody would care how old you are, or whether you are a "sophomore" or
a senior.

The social aspects of schools, including any extracurricular activities
and sports would have to be off-loaded to specialized clubs or community
centers. So you play football or basketball for a "Boys and Girls Club"
team or the local youth soccer program starts an AAU squad or several
for the high-school age jocks. Participation may go up, because those
sorts of organizations can scale. Have enough players for a "B" squad?
No need for them to sit on a bench waiting for someone to get hurt.
You schedule some games for them. (kind of like Junior Varsity, but as
many teams as you can fund.)

The modern American school in the Mann-Dewey tradition is perhaps not
the best fit for the 21st century, anyway.

Kevin R
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-04 23:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/4/2017 3:16 PM, Alex W. wrote:
> On 04/01/2017 21:25, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/4/2017 12:19 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Mitchell Holman
>>> wrote:
>>>> Steve <***@yahooooo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:***@4ax.com:
>>>> ss
>>>>
>>>>> All of his efforts involving
>>>>> public education focused on schools run at the local level.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> State government, federal government - they
>>>> both taxing the people to pay for public education.
>>>>
>>>> What is your beef with public education?
>>>
>>> I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.
>>
>> My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
>> for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
>
> The national average private school tuition is approximately $9,582 per
> year.
>
> The private elementary school average is $8,522 per year and the private
> high school average is $12,953 per year.
>
> Religious private schools aren't any cheaper: a year in Catholic
> elementary school typically runs to $5,330 (although it jumps to $9,790,
> on average, by the time kids hit middle and high school). Other types of
> religious schools, say, a Christian or Jewish school, on average, cost
> $7,960 a year for an elementary student and $16,520 for a secondary
> student.
>
> In 2015, the median household income for the United States was $55,775
> before tax.
>
> If I were an average American, having to pay close to 20% of my pre-tax
> income on schooling would very much be a valid reason.
>
>
>>
>> Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
>> people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
>> groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
>> give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
>> lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
>> Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
>> force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should
>> be no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
>> instruction from private schools.
>
> Then you support government funding of education, but you do not want
> any strings attached.

I'm not sure if I do support it entirely, as I don't like the idea that
the state can tell people what goods and services to buy in the first
place. But to the extent I might support it, I want to make clear that
government funding does not have to take the form of government
provision, and government provision almost always results in a shitty
product.

> So who keeps an eye on how this money is spent,
> whether the kids are getting a decent education, whether parents and the
> tax payers are getting bang for their buck? And please do not tell me
> "the parents".

Who keeps an eye on how public assistance for food, housing and medical
care are spent?

The market works. Reputation matters; consumers talk among themselves.
Bad operators are weeded out.

> Secondly, this would also mean that taxes raised from the public at
> large would be spent at least partly on religious schools. Try getting
> that one past the Supreme Court.

Shouldn't be too hard. Advocates would just have to go that the schools
aren't spending the money on religious indoctrination. People who don't
want it can opt out.
Kevrob
2017-01-04 23:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 3:25:29 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 1/4/2017 12:19 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >> Steve <***@yahooooo.com> wrote in
> >> news:***@4ax.com:
> >> ss
> >>
> >>> All of his efforts involving
> >>> public education focused on schools run at the local level.
> >>
> >>
> >> State government, federal government - they
> >> both taxing the people to pay for public education.
> >>
> >> What is your beef with public education?
> >
> > I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.
>
> My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
> for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
>
> Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
> people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
> groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
> give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
> lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
> Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
> force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should
> be no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
> instruction from private schools.
>
> The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
> public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
> massive government in everything.

I've often said that the First Amendment's great lack is separation
of school and state. At the time of the founding, some states had
tax supported schools, usually under the control of local school
boards and/or churches. The last state to disestablish a state
church was Massachusetts, and not until 1833! Consequent to state
disestablishment was the development of the tax-paid common, non-sectarian
school. I won't say secular school, as there was religious content
in the texts, in a generally Protestant practice of praying and/or
scripture reading until the Supreme Court pitched that out in the mid-20th
century.

The various state constitutions usually contain some guarantee of a
"free (in the meaning of, some other sucker pays for it) public (by that
they mean the government) education (some minimum time in school, with
no guarantee of actually learning anything.)" That was ever a huge
mistake.

Some states tried, under the influence of the KKK, to outlaw
competing schools. The Supreme Court shot that down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters

Kevin R
Ted
2017-01-04 23:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Rudy Canoza <***@philhendrie.con> wrote:
> On 1/4/2017 12:19 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> Steve <***@yahooooo.com> wrote in
>>> news:***@4ax.com:
>>> ss
>>>
>>>> All of his efforts involving
>>>> public education focused on schools run at the local level.
>>>
>>>
>>> State government, federal government - they
>>> both taxing the people to pay for public education.
>>>
>>> What is your beef with public education?
>>
>> I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.
>
> My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
> for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
>
> Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
> people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
> groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
> give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
> lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
> Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
> force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should be
> no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
> instruction from private schools.
>
> The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
> public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
> massive government in everything.

They tried to brainwash us 50 years ago too, although the content of their
bullshit has since been drastically altered.

--
http://kingofwallpapers.com/ted/ted-005.jpg "This troll is one of the
dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and also the most arrogant septic
idiots one can come across."
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-04 23:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/4/2017 3:41 PM, Ted wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <***@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> On 1/4/2017 12:19 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> Steve <***@yahooooo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:***@4ax.com:
>>>> ss
>>>>
>>>>> All of his efforts involving
>>>>> public education focused on schools run at the local level.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> State government, federal government - they
>>>> both taxing the people to pay for public education.
>>>>
>>>> What is your beef with public education?
>>>
>>> I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.
>>
>> My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
>> for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
>>
>> Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
>> people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
>> groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
>> give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
>> lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
>> Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
>> force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should be
>> no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
>> instruction from private schools.
>>
>> The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
>> public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
>> massive government in everything.
>
> They tried to brainwash us 50 years ago too, although the content of their
> bullshit has since been drastically altered.

I'm old enough to remember when the brainwashing was mostly
conservative, and when it shifted 180 degrees to being left-wing.
Ted
2017-01-05 00:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Rudy Canoza <***@philhendrie.con> wrote:
> On 1/4/2017 3:41 PM, Ted wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza <***@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2017 12:19 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> Steve <***@yahooooo.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:***@4ax.com:
>>>>> ss
>>>>>
>>>>>> All of his efforts involving
>>>>>> public education focused on schools run at the local level.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> State government, federal government - they
>>>>> both taxing the people to pay for public education.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your beef with public education?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.
>>>
>>> My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
>>> for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
>>>
>>> Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
>>> people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
>>> groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
>>> give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
>>> lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
>>> Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
>>> force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should be
>>> no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
>>> instruction from private schools.
>>>
>>> The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
>>> public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
>>> massive government in everything.
>>
>> They tried to brainwash us 50 years ago too, although the content of their
>> bullshit has since been drastically altered.
>
> I'm old enough to remember when the brainwashing was mostly conservative,
> and when it shifted 180 degrees to being left-wing.

Yes, it was conservative back then, but when did it shift?

--
http://kingofwallpapers.com/ted/ted-005.jpg "This troll is one of the
dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and also the most arrogant septic
idiots one can come across."
Rudy Canoza
2017-01-05 00:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1/4/2017 4:19 PM, Ted wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <***@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>> On 1/4/2017 3:41 PM, Ted wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <***@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2017 12:19 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> Steve <***@yahooooo.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:***@4ax.com:
>>>>>> ss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of his efforts involving
>>>>>>> public education focused on schools run at the local level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> State government, federal government - they
>>>>>> both taxing the people to pay for public education.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is your beef with public education?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know about Steve, but my beef is that it is run so poorly.
>>>>
>>>> My beef is that it exists *at all*. There is no valid reason whatever
>>>> for the state (govt) to own and operate schools.
>>>>
>>>> Consider other forms of publicly financed consumption. We give poor
>>>> people food stamps they can use in privately owned and operated
>>>> groceries; we don't force them to shop in government commissaries. We
>>>> give them housing vouchers which they can use to pay for privately owned
>>>> lodging; we don't force them into government barracks. We give them
>>>> Medicaid which they can use with private health care providers; we don't
>>>> force them to get health care at government clinics. Education should be
>>>> no different. Give them vouchers, which they can use to buy schools
>>>> instruction from private schools.
>>>>
>>>> The big problem with state schools is the statist indoctrination. The
>>>> public schools are constantly pounding into students' heads the need for
>>>> massive government in everything.
>>>
>>> They tried to brainwash us 50 years ago too, although the content of their
>>> bullshit has since been drastically altered.
>>
>> I'm old enough to remember when the brainwashing was mostly conservative,
>> and when it shifted 180 degrees to being left-wing.
>
> Yes, it was conservative back then, but when did it shift?

Late 1960s. It was happening while I was in high school.
Alex W.
2017-01-04 22:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 04/01/2017 16:33, RD Sandman wrote:
> Just Wondering <***@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:RYQaA.334148$***@fx41.iad:
>
>> On 1/3/2017 6:34 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>>> On 03/01/2017 09:48, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 1/2/2017 10:32 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2017 12:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2017 10:46 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
>>>>>>> imprecise, open
>>>>>>> to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
>>>>>>> "necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
>>>>>>> need a Department of Education and should abolish it altogether,
>>>>>>> and the other
>>>>>>> side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
>>>>>>> expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that
>>>>>>> their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is right?
>>>>>>> What is really necessary? And who decides what risks should be
>>>>>>> taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately decide to
>>>>>>> avoid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
>>>>>> Where does it give Congress power over local education?
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
>>>>> Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
>>>>> Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
>>>>>
>>>> That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
>>>> collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give
>>>> the federal government power to regulate local education.
>>>
>>> As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
>>> individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
>>> education would certainly fall into the category of "general
>>> welfare".
>>>
>> That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
>> education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund education.
>>
>>
>
> Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic education,
> but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over that standard would
> be up to the state.
>
> You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated $79B
> (2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the smallest
> department in the federal government.
>

4,400 employees works out to 86 employees per state, and 12,730 kids per
employee.

These 4,400 government workers deal with more than 14,000 school
districts, more than 130,000 K-12 schools and 7,000 institutions of
higher education and its 21 million students (of whom about 12 million
are in hock to the government to the tune of approximately $1.4 trillion.

That's a fair amount of work for every employee, considering that the
DoED does not even set national curricula, does not establish or run
schools, and does not set or control educational standards (that's a job
for the states).

So how many people do you feel would be suitable to do this job?
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-04 22:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> On 04/01/2017 16:33, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Just Wondering <***@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:RYQaA.334148$***@fx41.iad:
>>
>>> On 1/3/2017 6:34 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>>>> On 03/01/2017 09:48, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2017 10:32 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2017 12:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/2017 10:46 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
>>>>>>>> imprecise, open
>>>>>>>> to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
>>>>>>>> "necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
>>>>>>>> need a Department of Education and should abolish it altogether,
>>>>>>>> and the other
>>>>>>>> side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
>>>>>>>> expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that
>>>>>>>> their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is right?
>>>>>>>> What is really necessary? And who decides what risks should be
>>>>>>>> taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately decide to
>>>>>>>> avoid?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
>>>>>>> Where does it give Congress power over local education?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
>>>>>> Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
>>>>>> Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
>>>>> collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give
>>>>> the federal government power to regulate local education.
>>>>
>>>> As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
>>>> individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
>>>> education would certainly fall into the category of "general
>>>> welfare".
>>>>
>>> That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
>>> education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund education.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic education,
>> but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over that standard would
>> be up to the state.
>>
>> You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated $79B
>> (2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the smallest
>> department in the federal government.

And all you need to do for that Federal mandated education standard to
be set is pass an amendment to the constitution that delegates the power
to congress to make laws about education.



--
That's Karma
Alex W.
2017-01-04 23:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 04/01/2017 23:55, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>> On 04/01/2017 16:33, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Just Wondering <***@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> news:RYQaA.334148$***@fx41.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 1/3/2017 6:34 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>>>>> On 03/01/2017 09:48, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2017 10:32 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/2017 12:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/2/2017 10:46 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
>>>>>>>>> imprecise, open
>>>>>>>>> to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
>>>>>>>>> "necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
>>>>>>>>> need a Department of Education and should abolish it altogether,
>>>>>>>>> and the other
>>>>>>>>> side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
>>>>>>>>> expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that
>>>>>>>>> their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is right?
>>>>>>>>> What is really necessary? And who decides what risks should be
>>>>>>>>> taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately decide to
>>>>>>>>> avoid?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
>>>>>>>> Where does it give Congress power over local education?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
>>>>>>> Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
>>>>>>> Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
>>>>>> collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give
>>>>>> the federal government power to regulate local education.
>>>>>
>>>>> As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
>>>>> individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
>>>>> education would certainly fall into the category of "general
>>>>> welfare".
>>>>>
>>>> That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
>>>> education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund education.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic education,
>>> but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over that standard would
>>> be up to the state.
>>>
>>> You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated $79B
>>> (2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the smallest
>>> department in the federal government.
>
> And all you need to do for that Federal mandated education standard to
> be set is pass an amendment to the constitution that delegates the power
> to congress to make laws about education.
>

Given that Congress is so deeply entrenched in partisan trench warfare
they couldn't even agree on a law let alone a constitutional amendment
that water is wet, such legislation would pass probably a few years
after snowballs finally stopped melting in hell.
David Hartung
2017-01-04 22:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 01/04/2017 04:39 PM, Alex W. wrote:
> On 04/01/2017 16:33, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Just Wondering <***@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:RYQaA.334148$***@fx41.iad:
>>
>>> On 1/3/2017 6:34 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>>>> On 03/01/2017 09:48, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2017 10:32 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2017 12:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/2017 10:46 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
>>>>>>>> imprecise, open
>>>>>>>> to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
>>>>>>>> "necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
>>>>>>>> need a Department of Education and should abolish it altogether,
>>>>>>>> and the other
>>>>>>>> side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
>>>>>>>> expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that
>>>>>>>> their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is right?
>>>>>>>> What is really necessary? And who decides what risks should be
>>>>>>>> taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately decide to
>>>>>>>> avoid?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
>>>>>>> Where does it give Congress power over local education?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
>>>>>> Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
>>>>>> Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
>>>>> collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give
>>>>> the federal government power to regulate local education.
>>>>
>>>> As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
>>>> individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
>>>> education would certainly fall into the category of "general
>>>> welfare".
>>>>
>>> That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
>>> education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund education.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic education,
>> but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over that standard would
>> be up to the state.
>>
>> You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated $79B
>> (2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the smallest
>> department in the federal government.
>>
>
> 4,400 employees works out to 86 employees per state, and 12,730 kids per
> employee.
>
> These 4,400 government workers deal with more than 14,000 school
> districts, more than 130,000 K-12 schools and 7,000 institutions of
> higher education and its 21 million students (of whom about 12 million
> are in hock to the government to the tune of approximately $1.4 trillion.
>
> That's a fair amount of work for every employee, considering that the
> DoED does not even set national curricula, does not establish or run
> schools, and does not set or control educational standards (that's a job
> for the states).
>
> So how many people do you feel would be suitable to do this job?

The entire department should be eliminated.
Beam Me Up Scotty
2017-01-04 23:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> On 04/01/2017 16:33, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Just Wondering <***@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:RYQaA.334148$***@fx41.iad:
>>
>>> On 1/3/2017 6:34 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>>>> On 03/01/2017 09:48, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 1/2/2017 10:32 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/2/2017 12:08 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/2/2017 10:46 AM, Alex W. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where I stop to quibble and argue is with words that are
>>>>>>>> imprecise, open
>>>>>>>> to interpretation. One such word was "possible". Another is
>>>>>>>> "necessary". For instance, one side may argue that we do not
>>>>>>>> need a Department of Education and should abolish it altogether,
>>>>>>>> and the other
>>>>>>>> side may argue that it is not only necessary but should be
>>>>>>>> expanded. Both sides use the same words. Both sides argue that
>>>>>>>> their proposal fits the demands of necessity. So who is right?
>>>>>>>> What is really necessary? And who decides what risks should be
>>>>>>>> taken and which risks the citizens may legitimately decide to
>>>>>>>> avoid?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about starting with the plain text of the Constitution?
>>>>>>> Where does it give Congress power over local education?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
>>>>>> Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
>>>>>> Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is the taxing and spending clause. It allows Congress to
>>>>> collect money and spend it for limited purposes. It does NOT give
>>>>> the federal government power to regulate local education.
>>>>
>>>> As with so much of the constitution, there is plenty of room for
>>>> individual interpretation, but IMHO taking a keen interest in
>>>> education would certainly fall into the category of "general
>>>> welfare".
>>>>
>>> That does not mean the federal government can REGULATE local
>>> education, as distinguished from collecting taxes to fund education.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Personally, I feel that the feds can set standards for basic education,
>> but it is up to the states to perform. Anything over that standard would
>> be up to the state.
>>
>> You certainly don't need to 4,400 employees (2016) and an estimated $79B
>> (2016) to perform that role, although it is probably the smallest
>> department in the federal government.

And all you need to do for that Federal mandated education standard to
be set is pass an amendment to the constitution that delegates the power
to congress to make laws about education.

But the instant you do that they will spend upwards of 100 Billion
dollars a year....

You do know that the student loan program may default and when it does
there is over $1 TRILLION DOLLARS that will default. And that's before
they have any constitutional power to make any laws on education.

Most people in the Federal Government should be doing time in a Federal
Prison for conspiracy to defraud the Federal Government and the
Constitution.

--
That's Karma
Ted
2017-01-04 23:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Rudy Canoza <***@philhendrie.con> wrote:
> On 1/2/2017 6:03 AM, Ted wrote:
>> Don Kresch <***@spam.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 20:38:24 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <***@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/1/2017 8:25 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 19:38:23 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <***@nowhere.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/1/2017 7:17 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 18:34:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <***@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If there is no general right of association,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course there is; it logically follows from self-ownership.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How so?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How not? You own yourself; you make your own choices. Unless
>>>>>>> you think people should be forced to associate with others. But that's
>>>>>>> an initiation of force. And YOU have to justify that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not the way constitutional law works in the USA.
>>>>>
>>>>> The constitution has no authority. Rights are precedent to any
>>>>> piece of paper. You have to justify your initiation of force.
>>>>
>>>> How does the government justify forcing you to pass health inspections
>>>> to keep your business open?
>>>
>>> Initiation of force. Same as how governments do ANYTHING.
>>> Governments are coercive expropriating territorial monopolies based
>>> upon the initiation of force in order to maintain the monopoly.
>>
>> But they're a necessary and unavoidable product of our evolution.
>
> Don't listen to Crachat. He's a burrito roller in Chicago and believes
> in a silly caricature of anarchism. He doesn't *live* as an anarchist,
> or anything close to it - not even remotely close to it.

Of course not.

>
> Now, as to what you wrote about the necessity of government...
>
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
> unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
> pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are
> instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
> the governed
>
> The key point is that government does not exist as an independent organic
> entity to which we are subordinate. *We* create the government; it doesn't create us.

Thanks for pointing that out, Rudy.

--
http://kingofwallpapers.com/ted/ted-005.jpg "This troll is one of the
dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and also the most arrogant septic
idiots one can come across."
Loading...