Loyalty to the State by canttakesky

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I thought the primary purpose of the educational system was... something else.

Good point. It's also for churning out obedient little consumers. The silly judge forgot that part.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 7, 2008 9:24 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Quote:
...the suppression of individualism within collective societies causes counterrevolutions" - Dipak Gupta Path to Collective Madness: A Study in Social Order and Political Pathology

teach your children well... Steven Stills

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 7, 2008 9:26 AM

ESTEAD

It is interesting that the authors of the article chose to include that quote as it has absolutely nothing to do with the court's decision.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 7, 2008 9:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

In this whole argument on either side, I've heard about the rights of parents and the needs of the state but not a whit about the needs of the children. I think BOTH sides are treating children as property. The only fight is whether they "belong" to the parents or the state. It's a pissing match about authority, and I find the parents are being just as authoritarian as the state.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 7, 2008 11:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Anyone else creeped out by the "loyalty to the state" thing?

No. I actually don’t think loyalty to the state is a bad thing. In fact, I’m actually puzzled by why you chose to highlight this phrase, which has nothing to do with the issue and then treat the really troubling stuff as an afterthought:

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Anyway, parents in CA now face possible criminal charges if they teach without proper credentials, which means homeschoolers there face possible criminal charges.

This is what creeps me out.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 7, 2008 11:46 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

I thought the primary purpose of the educational system was... something else.

To teach the half of the truth that's not hidden.

Quote:

Anyone else creeped out by the "loyalty to the state" thing?

Nah, I was creeped out by Bush Sr.'s "New World Order"- since then it's more like uhhh-yep.

Quote:

Anyway, parents in CA now face possible criminal charges if they teach without proper credentials, which means homeschoolers there face possible criminal charges.

An economic thing, certainly. Follow the money.

Chrisisall

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 7, 2008 1:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The only fight is whether they "belong" to the parents or the state.

Yup, and I win. My kids don't belong to the state, they "belong" to me. If you want to characterize that as inhumane or callous feel free. But if you come to take my kids from me, you'd better be well armed. :)

edit to clarify:

I believe you are inappropriately framing this issue was one of property rights. The real issue is that children, by their very nature, are dependent and incapable of making decisions for themselves. The 'fight' is over who has the right to make decisions on their behalf. I believe that decision should be heavily weighted in favor of the biological parents, to the point that, unless outright abuse can be proven, there is no decision to be made. The parents win.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 7, 2008 4:17 PM

Actually I concur with Siggy - no one bothered to ask the kid, did they ?

Not sayin that the kid should have the final decision, but you know, might be a good idea to treat them like a human being and have their input on the process.

Unless there is some drastically compelling reason however, the primary part of the decision should fall on the parents as a family is a naturally occuring environment proven beneficial to those involved for the most part, and those bonds are more important to the mental health of a child than ones created by an organisation that is not beneficial to the mental health of anyone involved (Government) for it's own use and purposes irrespective of what those at the other end think of them.

All that said, I *did* ask the niece about it - to which her reply was that she knew her teachers were mostly full of it, but the convenience of educational materials all under one roof for her use was a lot simpler than trying to build a library at home, and if she didn't learn to get along with people and deal with them on a daily basis she'd wind up as antisocial and crabby as her dear old uncle.

She could leave, any time she wanted to, and I would fully support it, but she means to use THEIR educational system for HER purposes.

I guess the apple never does fall too far from the tree, does it ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 7, 2008 4:38 PM

ERIC

Reminds me of a funny story I heard on the radio a few days ago:

http://infowars.net/articles/march2008/060308Pennies.htm

Quote:
Kids Shut Down School Lunch By Paying With Pennies

Ann Shibler
JBS
Thursday, March 6, 2008

In an effort to draw attention to their dislike of a shortened lunch period, some seventh- and eighth-grade New Jersey students paid for their lunch in pennies, causing school officials to overreact.

Last week in Readington Township, New Jersey, 29 middle school students decided to pay for their $2 lunchwith 200 pennies, as a way to attract attention to a policy they disagree with — a shortened 30-minute "lunch hour." In what can only be described as sketchy details, the Associated Press relates that it started out as a "prank," but that it turned into a "protest." It did slow the lunch line to a slow crawl.

School "do-as-you-are-told-or-else" officials decided that it was neither funny nor a protest, and that the students "disrespected" lunch aides and therefore needed to be put on detention for two days.

There has been more than a little fallout since the story went public, with one headline shouting "Free the Readington 29." The school has since rescinded its orders for detention for those students whose parents’ don’t wish it, as many parents deemed the punishment too harsh. Superintendent Jorden Schiff commented that he was "concerned" about all the national media attention, hence the reason for the reprieve.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 7, 2008 5:45 PM

Detention ?!

Shit, they deserve MEDALS.

I think it's funny that we *say* to them that peaceful protest and student government and civil disobedience work - but when they dare actually use them against us, we adults respond with authoritarian scorched earth tactics.

Just like dissolving student governments when they successfully block your draconian dress code regulations - such a wonderful way to accidently teach the TRUTH, that such constructs are pure fiction and the true face of The State is raw, naked force.

But that only works when you can make them more afraid of you, then they are angry at you.

Especially when they know what krazy-glue is.
(use your imagination, WE certainly did!)

And if you really want a frightening thought, ponder the fact that our younger generation has made their own contacts within this one - thus making them able to draw on far more knowledge and resources than our generations did.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 3:50 AM

I gotta say, I'm more and more impressed with some of the kids coming out of this latest generation. I don't know whether it's the influence of the internet, or just the way the pendulum swings, but they really seem to 'get' it.

My experience with the Ron Paul campaign was a real eye opener on that front. I'd heard a lot of younger people were involved (ironically, a lot of older people too - not as much in the middle), though I fully expected the enthusiasm from the kids to be faddish in nature. But they really got it, maybe even more than the older folks who were more interested in practical issues, taxes and the like. The younger people saw the hypocrisy we're up against and were ready to go toe-to-toe with it.

I came away feeling like those of us in the old guard have a real responsibility to respond to their call-to-action and keep the movement alive.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 6:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Yup, and I win. My kids don't belong to the state, they "belong" to me. If you want to characterize that as inhumane or callous feel free. But if you come to take my kids from me, you'd better be well armed. :) edit to clarify: I believe you are inappropriately framing this issue was one of property rights.

Am I? Your post reeks of "my and mine property rights". At the heart of almost every anarchist (Frem and HK excepted) is a person who reveres "property rights" because they equate "property rights" with "freedom". In your case, you'd shitcan a kid's freedom, holding them hostage by armed force (in essence) to maintain your property rights over them.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 6:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I think it's funny that we *say* to them that peaceful protest and student government and civil disobedience work - but when they dare actually use them against us, we adults respond with authoritarian scorched earth tactics.

Just like dissolving student governments when they successfully block your draconian dress code regulations - such a wonderful way to accidently teach the TRUTH, that such constructs are pure fiction and the true face of The State is raw, naked force.

But that only works when you can make them more afraid of you, then they are angry at you.

Especially when they know what krazy-glue is.
(use your imagination, WE certainly did!)

Frem, you ARE a devil!

I love the way your mind works.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 7:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Yup, and I win. My kids don't belong to the state, they "belong" to me. If you want to characterize that as inhumane or callous feel free. But if you come to take my kids from me, you'd better be well armed. :) edit to clarify: I believe you are inappropriately framing this issue was one of property rights.
Am I? Your post reeks of "my and mine property rights". At the heart of almost every anarchist (Frem and HK excepted) is a person who reveres "property rights" because they equate "property rights" with "freedom". In your case, you'd shitcan a kid's freedom, holding them hostage by armed force (in essence) to maintain your property rights over them.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

I think Serg is right. You are inappropriately framing the argument as “property rights.” That a father seeks to protect his children by providing them with the direction and shelter he understands they need for a safe and happy future does not mean he is securing his “property“ through “armed force.”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 7:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I think Serg is right. You are inappropriately framing the argument as “property rights.” That a father seeks to protect his children by providing them with the direction and shelter he understands they need for a safe and happy future does not mean he is securing his “property“ through “armed force.”

Obviously, I think I'm framing the debate in an insightful way.

So, in your vision of all this Finn, where does the "mom" fit into all this? And "the kids"? Don't we have enough examples of fathers whose "understanding" of "shelter" and "direction" turn them petty tyrants who- without actually starving or physically damaging their kids - demean and strip the whole family of a sense of worth and freedom, turning women into baby-factories and kids into slaves?

Strangely, I find that the flip side to many anarchists is authoritarianism as well as corporatism. It's not so much they they want to do away with authority as much as they want to BE the authority.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I think Serg is right. You are inappropriately framing the argument as “property rights.” That a father seeks to protect his children by providing them with the direction and shelter he understands they need for a safe and happy future does not mean he is securing his “property“ through “armed force.”
Obviously, I think I'm framing the debate in an insightful way.

Nothing insightful about it. It’s just dishonest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 7:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Nothing insightful about it. It’s just dishonest.

well, unless you show me HOW I'm wrong, (yanno, actually engage in a discussion instead of making insulting and unsupported assertions) then I have no reason at all to pay attention to anything you just said.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 8:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Nothing insightful about it. It’s just dishonest.
well, unless you show me HOW I'm wrong, (yanno, actually engage in a discussion instead of making insulting and unsupported assertions) then I have no reason at all to pay attention to anything you just said.

Insulting and unsupported statements? Wow! This from the person whose entire argument is to claim that because a father loves their children it means they are “petty tyrants” who want to “demean and strip the whole family of a sense of worth and freedom.” So if you don’t want to pay attention to anything I say, be my guest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 8:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn- the problems I'm having with Sarge's statement are several:

1) SARGE framed it in a "me and mine" way. I didn't put that in there, he did, and it seems to reflect a bias towards viewing family as "property".

2) I find no assurances that Sarge would tolerate any interference from "the outside" except in cases of outright physical abuse or neglect. And yet, as Frem well knows, there are myriad ways that a family can be abused besides being beaten, starved, or sexually assaulted.

3) I find no allowance for the view of OTHER members of the family. It seems that only Sarge and his weapon of choice really matter. It would seem quite natural that a family member with a shotgun (or whatever) could be viewed BY THE FAMILY not only as "protection" but also as a threat. Sarge seems to propose a strongly imbalanced family power structure.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 8:48 AM

Actually Serg quite clearly addressed these issues, though you chose to ignore it.

“I believe you are inappropriately framing this issue was one of property rights. The real issue is that children, by their very nature, are dependent and incapable of making decisions for themselves. The 'fight' is over who has the right to make decisions on their behalf. I believe that decision should be heavily weighted in favor of the biological parents, to the point that, unless outright abuse can be proven, there is no decision to be made. The parents win.”

Serg is right. You are inappropriately framing the issue as property rights. It has nothing to do with property, but with who will provide better care for the children. And I agree with Serge that a loving parent is far more likely to provide that care then a state that by necessity views these children as numbers to a bureaucratic mess. If you had questions about Serg’s point of view, you could have asked him to further clarify, instead you chose to generalize all fathers with demeaning and insulting stereotypes, which suggest to me that you come into the discussion with misunderstandings that have nothing to do with what Serg said.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 9:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SARGE: I believe that decision should be heavily weighted in favor of the biological parents, to the point that, unless outright abuse can be proven there is no decision to be made. The parents win.
SIGNY: I find no assurances that Sarge would tolerate any interference from "the outside" except in cases of outright physical abuse or neglect. And yet, as Frem well knows, there are myriad ways that a family can be abused besides being beaten, starved, or sexually assaulted.

How did I neglect Sarge's statement on this issue? AFA looking at family as property, I took my cues straight from Sarge's writing:

SARGE: Yup, and I win. My kids don't belong to the state, they "belong" to me. If you want to characterize that as inhumane or callous feel free. But if you come to take my kids from me, you'd better be well armed.
SIGNY: Sarge framed it in a "me and mine" way. I didn't put that in there, he did, and it seems to reflect a bias towards viewing family as "property".

The only place I mischaracterized Sarge's statement was that he DOES grant "mom" a say in the childs' future: He says I believe that decision should be heavily weighted in favor of the biological parents (plural).

However, what about adoptive parents?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 9:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SARGE: I believe that decision should be heavily weighted in favor of the biological parents, to the point that, unless outright abuse can be proven there is no decision to be made. The parents win.

SIGNY: I find no assurances that Sarge would tolerate any interference from "the outside" except in cases of outright physical abuse or neglect. And yet, as Frem well knows, there are myriad ways that a family can be abused besides being beaten, starved, or sexually assaulted.

How did I neglect Sarge's statement on this issue?

Do I really need to point this out? I don’t know who you think you’re fooling, but YOU limited abuse to physical, not Serg.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 9:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, that's my interpretation. It's very very hard to "prove" abuse that's non-physical. Emotional abuse is gray area, and while I don't think Sarge would defend emotional abuse, he posits a system in which emotional abuse could be defended by the business end of a gun.

But maybe Sarge would like to explain his statements himself?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 12:13 PM

Wow... don't think I've ever been quoted this much before.

Signy, you're doing quite a lot of "interpreting" here. You seem more intent on validating your own prejudices than in making a point. I used the language I did in part to poke a little fun at those very prejudices. And I don't so much mind the "property" argument as I do the stealth assumption that the very concept of property is evil.

Apparently, to you, it's a package deal. Anyone preferring a preference for parental rights over state interest is by nature a right wing Neanderthal. You've somehow jumped from an obviously tongue-in-cheek reference to being armed and decided I'm now a gun nut who believes that 'a man should rule his family with an iron fist'. Both of which are entirely laughable to anyone who knows me.

All I'm saying that I think it would be a mistake to shift the primary responsibility for the welfare of our children from the parents to the state. And if you give the state the ultimate say in what's good for the child by default, that's exactly what you're doing. In my opinion, strengthening a parents role in the equation is far more practical and more likely to promote the welfare of children on the whole.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 12:39 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

But I think you're caught in a false dilemma of states versus parents. There are other options and other actors to be considered like neighbors, extended family, and the children themselves. FWIW, if it came down to it, parents on most cases would do better for their children than "the state". But I think that families SHOULD be open to "outside interference".

AFA property being an evil concept... it can be. If property rights trump everything else that's an evil paradigm.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 1:28 PM

It's not a false dilemma. It is the issue in the thread. The question in this thread is parental rights vs the right of the state.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
AFA property being an evil concept... it can be. If property rights trump everything else that's an evil paradigm.

Now that’s a false dilemma. No one here has argued that property rights necessarily trumps everything else. In fact, you’re the only one here really arguing property rights at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 2:28 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Umm... Finn, you DO know the meaning of false dilemma, right? It is a dilemma posed as if the two options are the only ones possible.

Now, I realize that "states rights v parents rights" is the heart of the original post. But I think that question is improperly framed.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But I think you're caught in a false dilemma of states versus parents. There are other options and other actors to be considered like neighbors, extended family, and the children themselves...

Not so much. Because mostly I agree with you. I'm just saying that first priority should be the judgment of the parents, backed up by family, friends and community in that order. I'm not saying that there is no point where community interest overrides parental rights. Just that we'd be doing children a great disservice to dilute the role of parents in the equation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 8, 2008 7:02 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Sarge, that's what I thought you meant but I did not wanna assume.

What it boils down to is who gets the benefit of the doubt, who's decision it should default to, and since the family, barring an abusive environment, is a positive force and beneficial to a childs mental health - versus the State, which is ruinous to it...

Without some damned compelling evidence, I do believe that ought to be a parental decision, and the State can go to hell, it's not really any of their business, whatsoever - because it is a social, rather than legal issue at the heart of it, somewhere the State has utterly no business interfering to begin with.

Now I do believe any child old enough to comprehend what they are being asked, SHOULD be asked, at least get their input on the process - but while parents individually may or may not see children as less than "people", the State ALWAYS does, it's one of my pet peeves, as you well know.

Thing is, anyone.. anyone at all, who can read, write, and do simple math can teach another to do so, and from THAT point, education... or at least good education, is just offering a gently guiding hand in using those initial skills to obtain and process more information.

The idea of credentials for this is moronic, once those basics are taught, the person doing 95% of the work is the kid in question, and they'll either do it or they won't, you cannot force-feed info into someones head, no matter how much DARPA would love that to be true - the true gift of an educator is to make them WANT to, and it's something no set of offically-approved credentials can measure, all that measures is your ability to confine your own thinking to what the State thinks it should be, how well you obey, jump through the hoops, and how much shit you'll take in begging the States approval to do something.

Those credentials mean jack shit to me, whether a teacher truly has the gift or not does - and it's a rare few who do that this process does not weed out, as it is obviously designed to do.

In all honesty what we have in the public school systems today, folks, it ain't education, it's indoctrination.

Consider this - the teacher picks some book and foists it on a child to read, or offers a set of equally repulsive and boring works to "choose" from like a magicians force.

Ok, look, my niece is fifteen, the suggested books would bore a ten year old and were intended for a readership of 8-11, and this is a girl who just polished off Harry Harrisons Stainless Steel Rat series with glee... I cannot see them holding her interest, can you ?

So, having foisted the book, which must be read under threat of a bad grade... and yes, I am well aware that some schools deliberately select works of outright political propaganda at BOTH ends of the political spectrum as a method of manipulation, considering it wasn't "liberal" lies that lead me to self-educate about history.

And then, the child isn't allowed to offer their OWN perception of the work, nope, they have to then cram whatever their own perception is into a narrow "accepted" window and swallow however the school thinks they SHOULD percieve the work, or suffer the consequences of a bad grade.

I can think of no better way to discourage a child from reading, then to force them to read something and then demand that they percieve it as the school desires.

The core of education is to question, to imagine, and to understand, that is NOT what public schools are offering in this day and age.

Nope, it's sit down, shut up and OBEY.

Imagination and individuality are discouraged, if not outright punished, and the social model offered by schools as part of the learning experience exists in only one other place in our country... the penal system.

Pecking orders, social cliques, single-figure authoritarianism, uniform policy, zero-tolerance, constant searches and suspicion, snitches, and now even obnoxious gaurds and metal detectors.

I really would prefer not to subject any child to that environment by choice, to be honest.

As far as the "effectiveness" of the State-run compulsory education system, I give you this for thought... most of Fremgirls co-workers automatically consider me more or less a dunce because I do not possess a college degree, mainly because almost all of my education has been DIY and I don't see the point in spending years and putting myself in debt for a State seal of approval...

And yet when I look at them, I see folks who have a lot of information they have NO idea how to use, because it will never occur to them to question what they "know", they're just too well trained to do so.

And the longer I look at it, the more convinced I am that State-run compulsory education, and State approved "higher" education is naught but a scam, just a means of securing a docile population of corpo-drones who'd never dream of questioning the very authority they prostrated themselves to for twenty years to get that measly bit of sheepskin.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 9, 2008 6:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I wanted to clarify my thought about the original dilemma being framed improperly (was busy, had to rush away): When I think of kids, I rarely think of my "rights" or the state's "rights"... or indeed any adult's "rights" at all. What comes first to mind is responsibility.

Now, I'm a BIG believer in balancing rights and responsibilities. IMHO, if you're given the responsibility to do something you should automatically have the right to decide how that gets done.

Raising children, for some reason that I can't fathom, is one of the areas where that equation doesn't hold for me. There are NO rights for parents, or for the state, or for anyone else. In my book, the only person with "rights" is the kid. And IMHO the rights (needs) of children are as follows: The right to food, water, and shelter. The right to move freely in their environment. The right to be unafraid of the people they routinely encounter. The right to learn from experience (as opposed to the bullshit that both parents AND "the state" foist on young children) and the right to be inquisitive. The right to feel loved.

Whatever system best meets those needs is the system I want. Parents rights? State's rights? All bullshit.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 9, 2008 7:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I wanted to add: I know there are people who will think that my system would create a generation of wusses. That children are toughened by adversity.

That is simply not the case. There are too many studies to ignore that children raised in fear, hostility and danger wind up suffering from permanently-wired PTSD. They are more prone to anxiety, anger, and depression; less able to judge people's true motivations; more gullible and and less able to protect themselves from predators etc. When children DO emerge less scathed from a hellhole life, it's because of someone who believed in them: an aunt or uncle, teacher, neighbor etc. Their love (that unquantifiable) helped those children believe in themselves.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 9, 2008 10:25 AM

Clarification ?

Since the parents obviously took upon themselves the responsibility of raising a child, doesn't it stand to reason that so long as they do it in a fashion that meets the childs basic needs, they logically have the right to make decisions regarding the care and welfare of the child, within reason ?

I think you're misunderstanding Sarge's point just a little bit, or you two are somehow miscommunicating here...

And that's prettymuch true - children are not made stronger by adversity, but rather emotional depth, breadth of life experiences, and proper coping mechanisms that nature evolves at certain stages of development barring interference by outside influences.

What does much of the damage in those situations is children running up against certain trauma, or certain kinds of it, before developing coping mechanisms relative to it - that can be devastating, with lifelong consequence, even if the incident in question is quite small.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 9, 2008 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
... And IMHO the rights (needs) of children are as follows: The right to food, water, and shelter.

But these sorts of things aren't rights in any meaningful sense. They are responsibilities, responsibilities imposed on someone else. I think you're conflating the rights of children with the responsibilities of their caretakers. And as you've acknowledged, you can't impose a responsibility on someone without the rights that go along with it. That's why parents rights are absolutely central to the issue.

I hope you at least appreciate by now that I'm not making this argument out of concern for the unfettered freedom of parents to do whatever they please. I'm making it because I've seen, personally and repeatedly, parents neglecting their responsibilities as a direct result of their rights being interfered with. I've heard parents eagerly seizing on excuses for not disciplining their children, or even not attending to their material needs, because they've bought into the assumption that ultimately, it's not up to them. They even turn this around and end up assuming that the schools should be raising their kids for them. And I've never really seen kids benefit from that attitude.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 9, 2008 12:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That children are toughened by adversity.

I agree with you whole-heartedly here. That attitude is asinine. Adversity is adversity. It sucks. For children or adults. I suppose it's possible to find positive 'takeaways' from bad experiences and overcoming adversity can strengthen self-confidence, but in my experience, people who avoid adversity are almost always better off than those who are stuck with an abundance of it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 9, 2008 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
What it boils down to is who gets the benefit of the doubt, who's decision it should default to, and since the family, barring an abusive environment, is a positive force and beneficial to a childs mental health - versus the State, which is ruinous to it...

Without some damned compelling evidence, I do believe that ought to be a parental decision, and the State can go to hell, it's not really any of their business, whatsoever - because it is a social, rather than legal issue at the heart of it, somewhere the State has utterly no business interfering to begin with.

Yeah... that pretty much sums up my p.o.v.

Quote:
Now I do believe any child old enough to comprehend what they are being asked, SHOULD be asked, at least get their input on the process ...

That hits on something I haven't addressed here, and probably should. I see children's rights as a progressive sort of thing. From birth to grade school age, kids can't really be said to have anything more than very basic rights (the right to be free of abuse essentially), because they don't yet have the capacity to make reasonably informed decisions for themselves. But as they develop that capacity, they assume the rights that go along with it. To the point that a relatively mature 14 year old (for example), especially one capable and willing to take care of themselves, should have nearly all the rights of an independent adult.

Quote:
In all honesty what we have in the public school systems today, folks, it ain't education, it's indoctrination.

That's been my line since my kids were in grade school. And while I suppose it's fair to point out that indoctrination isn't necessarily bad, I do think we should recognize it for what it is, and not try to pretend it's something more noble.

Quote:
Consider this - the teacher picks some book and foists it on a child to read, or offers a set of equally repulsive and boring works to "choose" from ...

LOL... my youngest son went through something exactly like that. I got a call from his teacher when he was in fifth grade. She was concerned about him because he was only barely participating in her semester reading "game". It was some pathetic 'incentive' plan to reward the kids with pointless 'prizes' for reading a certain number of books from the supplied reading list. She'd called to express her concern that Noah wasn't developing his reading skills. I had to laugh because he read at least a couple of novel sized books a week and had just finished "The Fellowship of the Ring". I explained to her that he really didn't have time to read the books on her list because he was far too busy reading books that actually mattered to him. Further that the incentives she offered weren't nearly as compelling as following his own interests. I thought that was a pretty good thing.

To her credit she agreed with me and her concerns were assuaged. But the default attitude seems demeaning. Maybe that kind of things works for some kids, so I won't say it's complete bullshit, but I do know that all too often the so-called 'underchievers' are anything but. They're just too busy doing they're own thing to be bothered with school work.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 9, 2008 3:53 PM

AVENGINGWATCHER

Well I see that I came into a very interesting debate. Now without further ado I shall put in my two sense and I own everything that I am about to say.

We keep talking about rights as though rights are inherent, really all that rights are are a set of rules we collectively agree that everyone should follow. In a strictly natural sense there are none, and even when we say rights we don't mean them to include everyone. All rights are exclusive to a specific group, therefore they exclude another group.

As far as humans go we are pack oriented creatures, and by nature protect our genetic and familial relatives. So by rights any creature that would hurt or mistreat it's offspring is harming or killing off it's own chances of genetic survival and those traits would be weeded out.

I firmly believe that some adversity most certainly strengthens an individual. A parents role is then to guide and protect a child against obstacles that would causes undue harm or suffering, without causing the child to turn out to be unable to learn on it's own. A parent teaches a child to analyze and learn.

So, that being said currently schools teach children memorization and homogenization. This actually limits a child or an adult for that matter. However it is the parent's lack of involvement that has caused this depredation of our school system, which in turn is caused by the rampant consumerist attitude of our lifestyles.

So here's my opinion on a parent's choice to home school over an entity's decision to limit a parent's choices. The government can piss off when it comes to how I choose to raise and educate my offspring. I choose the best way to teach my child until my child is able to learn on it's own because I want to preserve my genetic line. And speaking as a liberal here, try t tell my children what to think without my approval and you will be facing me from the barrel of a gun, because "violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived"

Let the flame war begin!!

When there are no heroes where will we turn?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 9, 2008 4:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But these sorts of things aren't rights in any meaningful sense. They are responsibilities, responsibilities imposed on someone else. I think you're conflating the rights of children with the responsibilities of their caretakers.

It's all in how you think about it. Saying that parents have "rights" creates the category (parents' rights) that people fill up will all sorts of ideas. In Southeast Asia, parents have the "right" to sell their girls into prostitution so that dad can continue his opium habit. It's not considered unusual, in fact, the girls consider it their duty to help support the family.

Quote:
And as you've acknowledged, you can't impose a responsibility on someone without the rights that go along with it.

That's exactly the opposite of what I said.

Quote:
I hope you at least appreciate by now that I'm not making this argument out of concern for the unfettered freedom of parents to do whatever they please.

I never thought you were. Perhaps its to your credit that you can't imagine how adults could twist the idea of parents' rights into something horrific... but I'm sure we all know of terrible abusive families, and the first thing that dysfunctional families do is prevent outside interference. Keeping the victims isolated. It's amazing how invested even the victims become in "keeping the family secret". The image of a parent standing at the door with a gun, preventing "interference" could either be heroic or predatory- depending. The discussion needs to be opened up, I think, to include that scenario.

Quote:
I'm making it because I've seen, personally and repeatedly, parents neglecting their responsibilities as a direct result of their rights being interfered with.

This statement doesn't make much sense to me. What responsibilities? What rights? I'd need more details to understand what you're saying.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 9, 2008 4:35 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
As far as humans go we are pack oriented creatures, and by nature protect our genetic and familial relatives. So by rights any creature that would hurt or mistreat it's offspring is harming or killing off it's own chances of genetic survival and those traits would be weeded out.

That statement is too broad to have any meaning. People exist on a continuum; SOME people are extremely devoted to their children, but... honestly? If you look over the historical record children in general are not treated very well.

Quote:
I firmly believe that some adversity most certainly strengthens an individual.

If the caregivers are the source of the adversity that's not a good thing.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 9, 2008 5:33 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

So obviously, no one involved in this discussion has actually read the entire article and related court decision.

The whole thing started when one of the minor children reported emotional and physical abuse by the father. The Family and Children's Services attorney representing the children asked that the two youngest be sent to public school so they could have an outside source checking for continued abuse. As part of the trial court ruling (unfortunately no link available) the judge, while deploring the quality of the children's homeschooling, assumed the parent's constitutional right to homeschool. The appeal of this judgement is what generated the decision that most homeschooling is not legal under current California law.

So we do have the children, or at least one of them, acting in their own behalf to complain of abuse (good for them). We have the State requesting that the children be sent to public school as a method (one option among several) of checking for continued abuse. And we have the Appelate Court finding that laws passed 50 or more years ago on who can teach children have been pretty much ignored (pretty sloppy, I'd say). Looks like it's time for the State legislature to review the laws on the books and see if changes are needed.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 9, 2008 6:02 PM

It's not the schools responsibility to do that, nor is it properly or meaningfully within their authority to do so.

If the The Family and Children's Services believes there is a problem and has sufficient probable cause to believe so - then the responsibility falls entirely to them, not shoving it off on a public school to save them the bother of doing their own job.

It smells to me like they are using this case with an ulterior motive behind it, as homeschooling vs public schooling is not whatever a part of the problem nor it's legal resolution, this is an investigator with an agenda, who decided to process it outside the bounds of his authority and his agencies - I am myself NOT unfamilar with this process, nor collusion of the public school system with the state.

All too many times a child winds up yanked from a decent family for the horrible "crime" of self defense, and shunted off to those hellhole teen bootcamps, via an intentional and willing collusion of that sort - the school wants rid of a boat rocker, and uses social services as the hammer to get it done.

Abuse or no, that is a SEPERATE investigation, having nothing whatever to do with the public school system, and to have involved them in any respect at all positively smacks of someone in the process having an agenda.

And the fact that the school system in question did not reject it out of hand, means there is likely collusion on both ends.

The investigator and their agency needs to do their job, the school needs to butt the hell out, and the State needs to keep it's grimy paws off and LET the investigator do their job.

Neither of the latter have any interest that is anything less than ulterior, or they'd not be involved in the first fekkin place.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 9, 2008 6:05 PM

AVENGINGWATCHER

No, I haven't read the decision, so In all real senses I can't say I disagree or agree with the decision. I was really just arguing semantics to be a thorn in the side of others who argue semantics

When there are no heroes where will we turn?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 9, 2008 8:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So obviously, no one involved in this discussion has actually read the entire article and related court decision.

The whole thing started when one of the minor children reported emotional and physical abuse by the father. The Family and Children's Services attorney representing the children asked that the two youngest be sent to public school so they could have an outside source checking for continued abuse. As part of the trial court ruling (unfortunately no link available) the judge, while deploring the quality of the children's homeschooling, assumed the parent's constitutional right to homeschool. The appeal of this judgement is what generated the decision that most homeschooling is not legal under current California law.

So we do have the children, or at least one of them, acting in their own behalf to complain of abuse (good for them). We have the State requesting that the children be sent to public school as a method (one option among several) of checking for continued abuse. And we have the Appelate Court finding that laws passed 50 or more years ago on who can teach children have been pretty much ignored (pretty sloppy, I'd say). Looks like it's time for the State legislature to review the laws on the books and see if changes are needed.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I did read the article, but the Ninth Circuit has a history of controversial rulings that are often politically motivated. In fact, this court that has driven the concern for judicial legislation. So I have my doubts that this ruling was made with the interest of the people of California and probably more in line with the interests of a political agenda. That being said, I agree that the real issue hear is the failure of the legislation to properly define the law.

Although, I'm not entirely sure that I don't agree with Court in this case. I'd need to understand what the Court describes as poor education, but if some parents are abusing homeschooling, then maybe attention needs to be drawn to this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 10, 2008 2:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
If the The Family and Children's Services believes there is a problem and has sufficient probable cause to believe so - then the responsibility falls entirely to them, not shoving it off on a public school to save them the bother of doing their own job.

It smells to me like they are using this case with an ulterior motive behind it, as homeschooling vs public schooling is not whatever a part of the problem nor it's legal resolution, this is an investigator with an agenda, who decided to process it outside the bounds of his authority and his agencies - I am myself NOT unfamilar with this process, nor collusion of the public school system with the state.

I don't disagree with this, but I suspect that it's more a function of money than dogma. Providing the number of social workers needed to monitor all possible child abuse, absent the admittedly less than perfect substitutes of school counseling and teacher observation, would bust any social services budget. I suspect that the system sees getting the child away from continuous observation by a parent, where they would at least have the chance to report abuse, as the best of a bad lot of choices which could be covered by their budget.

I was more interested in the fact that California has had, since the '50s, laws on the books effectively outlawing most home schooling, but has failed to either enforce or change them. No doubt one motive behind these laws, passed during the Cold War, was to educate the kids to be good little freedom-loving Americans and resist the Socialist menace (as noted in the 1961 quote). Wonder how the authors of these laws would feel about the use California is putting them to now. Be interesting to see the legislatures reaction to all this.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 10, 2008 5:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm making it because I've seen, personally and repeatedly, parents neglecting their responsibilities as a direct result of their rights being interfered with.

Sarge, I wish you'd follow up on this. I've repeatedly seen parent neglecting their responsibilities: leaving kids out unattended in the yard in T-shirts in cold weather while "mom" does drugs, yanking the kids from apartment to car to street because mom AND dad do drugs; being entirely uninvolved in their children's lives for years because mom or dad is passed out on the couch; abusing and intimidating the kids because of childhood abuse; being unable to participate because of medical problems.

I could go on because I lived it and I've seen it directly. But really, I don't know how this fits into your mold of parents not having the "rights" that would help them fulfill their responsibilities. When it comes to abuse or neglect, it all seems to be about drugs, alcohol, a chain of abuse and (rarely) health problems.

So what did you mean?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 10, 2008 6:03 AM

Drug abuse is an adequate reason as far as I’m concerned for the state to become involved.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 10, 2008 7:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge, I wish you'd follow up on this. I've repeatedly seen parent neglecting their responsibilities...

I think what you're describing is more properly described as abuse. I'm talking about something different. What I've seen is a general attitude of powerlessness that seems to be the accepted norm. Parents don't see themselves as guardians. Having bought into the notion that "it takes a village", they've happily outsourced their responsibilities to others (teachers, police, psychologists, etc...).

As a case in point, I was talking with a friend of my girlfriend about the ADD thing. I was talking about my own decision to ignore the advice of teachers and avoid the temptation to treat my sons' boredom in class as a disease. That's a different debate, but the relevant point was in her reaction. It was inconceivable to her that a parent had the right to "just say no" in such an instance. Of course it really blew her mind when she found out that I'd pulled my kids out of junior high and set things up so they could learn on their own. Again, it wasn't the particulars of my decisions as much as the fact that I'd made them that was so surprising to her. She actually uttered the phrase "didn't you get in trouble!?", two or three times during the conversation. That attitude, and the fact that so many parents adopt it, is just heartbreaking to me.

This is why I'm turned off by your condemnation of parental authority as an issue of property rights. I think that, for many parents, seeing their kids as property, albeit an ultimately precious kind of property, would be a vast improvement in the situation.

Several years ago, I was talking with a co-worker about a grade-school shooting that had occurred in Chicago, I proposed the apparently outrageous notion that the child's parents should be held accountable, even to the point of criminal culpability. Of course he disagreed and, after some discussion, he settled on his principal objection to the idea: he didn't think parents could be held responsible because "you just can't control your kids". His view was, essentially, that "the village" was the responsible party. He cited the influence of the schools, the child's peers, even the television, as contributing factors outside his control. It didn't even dawn on him that he could, in fact, control these influences.

So, all this informs my main point, which is that the diminished authority of parents is ultimately more dangerous than the abuse that can result when they are "allowed" to be in charge. And really, on the whole, I don't think the bulk of abuse comes from parents who jealously guard their authority over their kids. Even when those folks are religious nuts who believe in corporal punishment and won't let their kids be immunized, they at least take their role as guardians seriously. Kids in such a situation might not be raised the way you'd prefer, but they aren't unloved and ignored.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 10, 2008 2:31 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
.. but if some parents are abusing homeschooling, then maybe attention needs to be drawn to this.

Oh c'mon. First of all, the judge didn't just say, "Let's pay more attention to this." If that is what he had said, it wouldn't be in the news.

People abuse everything in the world. You can't penalize millions of legitimate homeschoolers because some people abuse homeschooling. Hell, more teachers abuse schooling than parents abuse homeschooling, and despite "attention drawn" to it, it keeps happening. Yet no one is calling for the end of public and private schools. Because the fact is, MOST schools do an adequate job despite the abusers.

Sig, children are not parental property. I find that concept offensive. Children are sovereign individuals who do not have the experience and maturity to exercise their sovereignty. They need to be nurtured and protected until such time that they can make independent choices. The question is, WHO should be the default nurturer and protector? The obvious answer is the parents. IF the parents fail, THEN the state may step in to protect their sovereignty (rights). IF...THEN. Not before.

Of course, the next question is, what constitutes parental failure? How much neglect and abuse has to occur before the state steps in, and to what extent does the state step in? Well, that's a judgment call our legislators and judges make--and a different debate.

The issue at hand is, it's ALL about the children. It can ONLY be about the children.

Hell, if you can convince me that another set of parents can love, nurture, protect, educate and understand my kids BETTER than I can, I will give them up. I'll miss them, but if they can have a better life without me, so be it. It's about THEM, you see? However, as my daughter says, "All parents have flaws, Mom. Other parents may be better than you in some areas, but they aren't better than you in ALL areas."

And that is imagining amazing, loving parents out there. A lot of the time, what foster kids get are adults who don't mind an extra kid in the house for the extra money they get paid. So if you have the best interests of the child in mind, you have to always ask, "Yeah, what the kids have is not ideal. But can the state do better?" If the answer is no, leave the kids alone. Don't mess with the kids on the principle of the thing.

--------------------------
The chance is high that the truth lies in the fashionable direction. But, on the off chance that it is in another direction--a direction obvious from an unfashionable view of field theory--who will find it? Only someone who has sacrificed himself by teaching himself quantum electrodynamics from a peculiar and unfashionable point of view; one that he may have to invent for himself.
--Richard Feynman, Nobel Lecture, (11 December 1965)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 10, 2008 2:56 PM