🚀 go-pugleaf

morphis@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:

>Greg Shubert <*gshubert@non-hp.fc.hp.com*> writes:
>>Bradley Richards wrote:

>Just to provide some context:

>>>Rick wrote:
>>>>Morphis wrote:
>>>>> I am not arguing that homeschooling should be banned or that severe
>>>>> barriers (spelling flames to alt.null) should be erected, merely that
>>>>> some basic standards be set.

>>>>By whom, and for what purpose? I think our basic point of contention is
>>>>this: you, like most folks, seem to believe in the good intentions of
>>>>the school system. I do not. AFAIAC, the SS is concerned only with
>>>>holding and expanding it's power over human lives.

>>> In that sense, when people go off and home-school their children, it 
>>> is unquestionably a prerogative of society to ensure that those
>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> children will receive an education which will ensure that they will
>>> be productive members of said society.
> 
>> [ snip...]

>>> Anyone who wants to live totally without constraints on something like
>>                           ^^^^^^^
>>> educational standards, which are fundamental to the health of a
>>> society, should go off and live alone on a desert island. Living with
>>> people, one by definition has a society, and living in a society
>>> imposes certain restrictions on absolute freedom.

>>I think this overstates society's interest in the education of its
>>members.  I don't think society has an 'unquestioned' prerogative in
>>this area.  And I don't think home-schoolers want to 'totally' eliminate
>>constraints.

>Standing by itself Bradley's statement is rather strong.  In the context
>of Rick's apparent unwillingness to discuss any constraints on 
>home-schooling I think it is rather reasonable.

>>Does society exist to help people attain their goals?  Or do people
>>exist for the sake of society?  Bradley Richards' statements can be seen
>>as the latter.  Many people support the former.  I would cite the
>>preamble of the US Constitution, "We the People ... in order to form a
>>more perfect Union ..." 

>The rest of the quote can be paraphrased as stating that we have set
>up some rules that everybody must abide by.  And the reason we did so
>was to solve the chaos that existed during the first 8? years of
>our nation's existance.


>Morphis@physics.niu.edu

>Real Men change diapers

I think the poster has missed the point about the Constitution, and
pretty much about societies.

The best way to look at the Constitution is as a contract between
willing parties.   All the parties got together, through
representatives, and decided that, since the old contract wasn't
working, they would create a new contract that might do a little
better job.  That contract set forth the terms of the agreement:  we
wanted certain things, and we were going to organize in a certain way
to get them.  A few 'disclaimers' were added to protect the rights of
the individuals from preadation by government, and the whole thing was
HASHED OUT IN THE PAPERS OF THE DAY FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS!  The
final document was a good one, and it's stood the test of time for
over 200 years.  If it WASN'T a good contract, or if it failed to
satisfy the majority of the people, it probably would have been
scrapped, and we'd have tried something else.  

Societies and cultures come into being the same way:  a group of
people decide to do things a certain way, and establish a non-verbal
contract among them.  Cultures and societies do the same thing
governments do, only informally.  

Mike Weatherford