Archives for posts with tag: compulsion is evil

My local state representative, Andy, shared an article by John, a former teacher turned legislator (by statute, not choice, a statute I’m not sure I support). Andy and John are in the minority party in Oklahoma. I seldom agree with the minority party, but I find myself supporting them almost as often as the majority party. I’m registered independent. I can’t even aline with the Libertarian Party. I think I’m about as Libertarian as anyone might be, but I can’t get into the Party aspects of it and some of the policies.

Anyway, in the article that John wrote, he said, “As teachers, we need to realize that teaching is a political act. It affects everyone, and therefore we need to advocate for good policies that invest public resources wisely in the common good.”

I absolutely oppose such a course of action. It is abuse of power. It is abuse of children. Teaching is not a political act, at least not by honest people who only care about children learning and gaining mastery of tools to meet the challenges of life.

I replied with several comments on Andy’s Facebook page. I’m listing some.

Andy, it truly saddens me that you and Mr. Waldron advocate politicizing our government run classrooms. He decries partisan politics but advocates for indoctrinating our children in the policies of the Democratic Party. How do either of you justify that?

Andy promptly replied that he does not advocate that, but he didn’t explain why he shared the article. Perhaps I’ll ask specifically.

I also commented:

“As teachers, we need to realize that teaching is a political act. It affects everyone, and therefore we need to advocate for good policies that invest public resources wisely in the common good.” There are no public resources. The only money government has was taken under threat of force from supposedly free individuals who earned their wages by the honest sweat of their own brows.

Why are my policies bad and yours good?

John replied:

I really don’t know where to begin. You apparently believe there should be no taxes for schools, or I suppose roads, national security or public health. I don’t think we can bridge that gap over facebook. Perhaps you would like to meet face to face? I promise to read up on Bastiat to prepare for our discussion.

His reference to Bastiat might stem from the fact I’ve posted a few items about Bastiat recently, and I invited Andy and my local senator, Rob, to comment. So, a couple of my Facebook shares about Bastiat showed on Andy’s page just below Andy’s shared article.

I replied to John that he assumes too much.

I appreciate Andy’s comment:

I absolutely do *not* advocate for politicizing classrooms. Teachers should teach students how to think for themselves — not *what* to think.

Not all parents are like you. There are tens of thousands of kids in this state who don’t even live with their parents. They are institutionalized, shuffled in foster care, living with distant relatives, etc. 

What of them?

To which I replied:

Them, I won’t forget. I do not advocate for no government school, just no government coercion. I want less government because I see the net result of more government as causing more harm than good. Less government might find us a sweet spot where we seldom complain of it, or the other political party. Less is often more.

I don’t believe government schools will be driven out by school choice. I don’t like vouchers, and Epic is a rotten taste in my mouth at the moment. I’ve never supported the schemes and plans for choice. The plans all seem to have too many flaws. Government money invariably leads to waste, fraud, and abuse, and giving government money to private parties has the most likelihood of graft and selfish ambition ensuring waste, fraud, and abuse, and good intentions too often have bad side effects.

End truancy laws, and let parents be in charge of their own children with full responsibility. Most parents will step up. It is government as fallback that is the root of most of the deficiencies that lead to so many parents being in tough circumstances. It isn’t a perfect world. Life really is suffering, and government cannot fix that. Democratic Party policies cannot fix it. GOP policies cannot fix it. Advocacy groups of whatever stripe cannot fix it. Only personal responsibility can fix it. Be the change you want to see in the world. DON’T write a law pretending the State can fix it. Don’t assume sending the guys with guns will set all to rights.

How long will we keep screaming that more money will fix the schools or the police? It doesn’t work. It cannot work. It isn’t a matter of policy. It is a matter of misplaced responsibility and accountability. The State is not accountable. The State cannot be held accountable. The State can only be limited. When the power of the State is too limited for power-seekers to abuse it, government will stop being abusive. Then out-of-balance party politics won’t be so corrupting. Government is the problem, not balance. We have to have some authority, but we have gone much too far, especially in government enforcement of schooling.

If government schooling is so good, why can’t it be given the chance to fend for itself? I believe enough people will demand it for it to continue. I think there is ample justification for our current system until we have something clearly better. (I don’t see anything clearly better taking over in our lifetimes.) I don’t want rid of government-funded public schools. I want rid of coercive laws that make mothers feel powerless to fight for their children. I want Momma to be able to stand up for her child for herself, not dependent upon support from government and teachers’ unions.

Do you not understand that parents with children who have problems in the schools feel powerless? It is not because of lack of programs. It is because the parents have no alternatives. That is the fault of truancy laws and current government policies, policies mostly advocated by both major parties. (I again emphasize it is NOT a party problem.)

Literacy rates [in North America] were highest before government schools and truancy laws. Government schools have not helped. How many copies of Common Sense sold? How many were pirated and copied by anyone with the wherewithal? It seems to me too many had (and have) motive to exaggerate the numbers, but the pamphlet was not light reading, and it was widely read, and widely read aloud. There is no doubt the written word and civic responsibility were strong in our land long before any of our modern conventions. “Knowledge is power.” What parent doesn’t know that? What parent conscientiously deprives offspring of any and all tools that might equip them for the trials of life?

The point isn’t schooling. The point isn’t even education. The point is learning and mastering tools for living meaningful lives. The goal of every parent is helping children achieve their potential, or at least to do better. Each generation wants the next generation to do better. Our government-enforced schools are thwarting that now. Our government at all levels works at cross purposes to all that free citizens try to accomplish, and it applies to citizens of all ages.

We err when we consider children as less than citizens. Every individual at every stage of life is self-sovereign. We are all partners. Yes, children are childish, and we parents have extra responsibilities, but it is a partnership. It is not a dictatorship where the parent rules. It is a gradual turning over of responsibility to the child at each stage of maturity.

Obviously, I’ve grown too verbose. I hope there is something in this that gives you a bit of insight into my perspective.

I support school choice, but I haven’t found any programs or laws for choice that I can back. Such programs still depend on government authority and threat of force no matter how it is set up. I want freedom of choice, not programs for choice. Children learn if we let them. A gentle guiding hand can accomplish wonders in a child’s own learning.

Constitutionally outlaw truancy laws.

I added:

The key challenge to choice is leaving the choice to the individual. When an authority dictates, or simply endorses, the authority is responsible. No bureaucrat can satisfactorily be held accountable under all but the most extreme situations of criminality. We have the wherewithal now in our digital age to hold everyone individually accountable by reputation. The systems are immature and flawed, but I doubt most individual-based review systems are more error-prone than our bureaucracies.

Leave choices to the individuals. Don’t rule by law. Law is power. Power corrupts. There are no exceptions. Knowledge is the only power I’m eager to leave unfettered.

Andy and John haven’t had time to reply more.

John’s article listed significant credentials for him. I suggest John Taylor Gatto had more credentials and a more fascinating story.

https://www.johntaylorgatto.com/

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

https://fee.org/articles/john-taylor-gatto-1935-2018-remembering-americas-most-courageous-teacher/

https://www.naturalchild.org/articles/guest/john_gatto.html

For those who hold to authoritarian views and formal organization and lesson planning by “experts” I suggest looking into the work of Sugata Mitra.

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

http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com/

His TED talks are easy to find, and here is a recent article:

https://universe.byu.edu/2019/03/26/physicist-encourages-change-in-the-use-of-technology-in-education/

Personally, I advocate for homeschooling without rigid standards. Reading aloud to a child from the earliest age, and routinely, is the most effective thing we can do for children. There really aren’t any hard and fast rules for what a person needs to know now. We need to know how to read, but living the example as adults is far better than a schoolroom. There isn’t much else we need to know to get along in the world because of the ease of use of technology.

Decry tech and screens all you want, but that is our world now. We are not going back. I have access to anything I want to study, anything. A screen and internet access extends my reach to anything I might need. Children will learn all they need if we just guide a little and let them learn. They will learn to love the classics because that is why they are classics, because we love them. The same goes for anything they need. They will want it, and if we don’t hinder them, they will learn it. They will master the tools they need to reach their potential and to be assets to partners, families, communities, and society at large.

For further reading, go to FEE.org , and I especially recommend Kerry McDonald, https://fee.org/people/kerry-mcdonald/

A Forbes article, http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/12/31/obama-to-americans-you-dont-deserve-to-be-free/, got me thinking. Harry Binswanger writes an article titled “Obama To Americans: You Don’t Deserve To Be Free”. He makes his case well. He also points out that the Republican Party establishment is essentially of the same mindset, but with a few limits.

It got me thinking about government’s role.

First, historically, what does a government do well? Mainly, it kills people and takes things away from people, especially citizens. (Noncitizens it mostly just kills.)

Accordingly, our founders tried to limit the Federal Government’s power with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We require, at least nominally, due process before the government can take anything away from anyone.

Of course, I can’t find any due process in what most regulations take from us. No one can find due process in what the government extracts in taxes, but that is a bit of a different area.

Back to the point. Governments are good at taking things from people and killing people. War is obviously one way for governments to kill people, but police functions and prisons, including executions, are also things governments are good at, well, effective at. Good often does not apply to police efforts, prisons, executions, especially when oversight systems breakdown or when examining efficiency.

What else are governments good at?

Correct, nothing.

The only reasonable role of government is to enforce the rights of free people. Our founders seem clearly to have thought so. We will best secure our rights when we have our government responsible for very little.

Governments take things, including freedoms, unless the governments are restrained by law and the people.

Governments also consolidate their own power; it is just the nature of the beast. Once a means of compulsion is established, the government will increase its ability to force that compulsion and expand that compulsion.

Our schools and truancy are the easy example. We need to free ourselves from government compulsion in our public schools, in all means of schooling, for that matter.

Another is the notions of civil rights.

There is no right for anyone under any circumstance to demand of a vendor a product. The vendor always has the right to refuse to sell for any and all reasons. It is the proprietor’s choice and freedom. It is the proprietor’s right.

So, when a couple of fellas go to a baker and ask for a wedding cake, it is the right of the baker to refuse.

It is the role of the government to ensure that the two fellas cannot compel the baker against his will. It is also the right of the fellas to take their business elsewhere, and it is the right of all the baker’s customers to take their business elsewhere or to continue to trade with him, regardless of whether they consider the incident or not. It is also each person’s right whether (and how) to consider the incident. In short, it ain’t nobody’s business. Further, no one else should get involved unless the fellas try to compel the baker. Then the police should come and hinder the fellas. If the lawyers come, well, that is sad.

Regardless, the role of government is to ensure no one compels anyone else to do anything!

This is most clear in cases of murder and rape. Both are easy justifications of capital punishment. “It’s a hell of a thing killin’ a man. You take away all he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have.” If that doesn’t justify the power of the state to execute in that given instance, after due process, then nothing would. Further, rape is the same, only worse. The rape victim must live with the horror of that fact.

Back to the two fellas and the baker. I’m not here addressing at all right vs. wrong with regard to the situation. The moral aspects of such a situation are an absolutely unrelated set of considerations. The fact is, the baker voluntarily offers her baked goods. She can choose to unvolunteer at anytime, with or to anyone, for any reason. It is her right to bake and sell. It is her right to stop baking or stop selling, or to do so selectively, even to do so capriciously. The Soup Nazi may have been despicable, but he was always within his rights, “No soup for you!”

It is government’s role to ensure the Soup Nazi can be as strict and capricious as he cares to be. It is government’s role to enforce freedom, to maintain the basis of free trade and free association. Of course, in real life, such a soup vendor would have few customers. It would also be government’s role to ensure the rights of those who do not wish to trade with the Soup Nazi, and ensure that proprietor cannot force locals to trade with him. Freedom, preference, choice. It is easy. Morals don’t matter to that. No matter how immoral the choice, if it does not compel another, nor deprives another of freedom, life, property, then the choice must be honored and protected, by application of state force if necessary.

Mr. Binswanger is correct in asserting that Capitalism and true freedom in the traditional sense were abandoned in our government and politics a century or so ago.

Our current system is going to collapse, and “The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

As the Archbishop of Chicago has indicated, approximately, “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. What is omitted from the reports is a final phrase I added about the bishop who follows a possibly martyred bishop: ‘His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.

For good measure, from the same reference, “The Cardinal’s entire column is well worth reading. The end, in particular is quite poignant.

Analogies can easily be multiplied, if one wants to push a thesis; but the point is that the greatest threat to world peace and international justice is the nation state gone bad, claiming an absolute power, deciding questions and making “laws” beyond its competence. Few there are, however, who would venture to ask if there might be a better way for humanity to organize itself for the sake of the common good. Few, that is, beyond a prophetic voice like that of Dorothy Day, speaking acerbically about “Holy Mother the State,” or the ecclesiastical voice that calls the world, from generation to generation, to live at peace in the kingdom of God.

God sustains the world, in good times and in bad. Catholics, along with many others, believe that only one person has overcome and rescued history: Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of the Virgin Mary, savior of the world and head of his body, the church. Those who gather at his cross and by his empty tomb, no matter their nationality, are on the right side of history. Those who lie about him and persecute or harass his followers in any age might imagine they are bringing something new to history, but they inevitably end up ringing the changes on the old human story of sin and oppression. There is nothing “progressive” about sin, even when it is promoted as “enlightened.” 

The world divorced from the God who created and redeemed it inevitably comes to a bad end.

From my perspective, it seems things will continue to improve in some ways, but overall, it will get worse, much worse, before it truly gets better. I pray that our fall and climb back up will be short, in relative historical terms, and lacking in the worst extremes of historic societal falls.

First Things blog published this: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2013/11/04/group-lie/

Group Lie
Monday, November 4, 2013, 10:15 PM

Mr. Scott asks if it is now the standard mode of the Democratic Party to lie and condone lying. I ask too.

If you lean liberal, in the progressive sense, or are simply a registered Democrat, do you condone lying?

This strikes at the heart of my being. Truth first!

When Bush “lied” about Iraq’s WMDs, the whole world was agreeing. While the facts were proven errant, there was ample evidence found to show why everyone thought otherwise. It wasn’t a lie so much as an illusion, even intentional deceptions on the part of Iraqis. Our current President simply operates in narrative mode, fact free. There is never a consideration for truth and facts from the current administration. Never.

The current administration from top to bottom sticks to the narrative no matter what. Enough people will follow, they seem to believe, to keep things moving in the intended direction. So far, the strategy seems to be working for them. They are playing us for fools, and we continue in shame. (Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Shame on all of us.)

%d bloggers like this: