The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart

[Regular_P]

"Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die."

- Rothbard

Libertarians are idiots

 

[David_TheMan]

Its funny how little logic some of you are used to using, that you neg me for saying the logic is applied to abortion, when that is literally the context he uses it as.

Full quote

Children and Rights

There remains, however, the difficult case of children. The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. On the other hand, it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner.1 But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?...

Even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a "trustee" or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child's rights for a parent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc. On the other hand, the very concept of "rights" is a "negative" one, demarcating the areas of a person's action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a "right" to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a "right" to a "living wage," for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights.

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.)

Our theory also enables us to examine the question of Dr. Kenneth Edelin, of Boston City Hospital, who was convicted in 1975 of manslaughter for allowing a fetus to die (at the wish, of course, of the mother) after performing an abortion. If parents have the legal right to allow a baby to die, then a fortiori they have the same right for extra-uterine fetuses. Similarly, in a future world where babies may be born in extra-uterine devices ("test tubes"), again the parents would have the legal right to "pull the plug" on the fetuses or, rather, to refuse to pay to continue the plug in place.​

 

[Camile.Bidan]

you fail to take into account variables like size of the US compared to places like Singapore and the fact the US only spends 2% of federal money into education

I recall this being dollars per student.

But regardless of what any country spends, most of the countries in the top ten have rigorous schooling regimens that are 7 days a week. They go to school from like 7am to 6pm and then they go to private tutors after school. Sure, they get good scores on a standardized test, but where are their contributions to the arts, to music, and even to science itself?

Also, Europe and East Asia have different school systems. People identified as Trade workers, through test scores, go to a different high school than college bound students. I am pretty sure only the college bound students are subject to these test.

 

[David_TheMan]

I recall this being dollars per student.

But regardless of what any country spends, most of the countries in the top ten have rigorous schooling regimens that are 7 days a week. They go to school from like 7am to 6pm and then they go to private tutors after school. Sure, they get good scores on a standardized test, but where are their contributions to the arts, to music, and even to science itself?

Also, Europe and East Asia have different school systems. People identified as Trade workers, through test scores, go to a different high school than college bound students. I am pretty sure only the college bound students are subject to these test.

Yeah in japan they don't include all the youth just those prepped for the next level of education, unlike the US.

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

"Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die."

- Rothbard

Libertarians are idiots

Stop it....you built a strawman big enough to feed several horses

Theres a difference between moral / ethical /legal ...rothbards treatise there focuses specifically on the legal since its an abstract examination of someone elses work...you really should have posted the context or at least the prelude

There remains, however, the difficult case of children. The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. On the other hand, it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner.1 But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?...

Even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a "trustee" or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child's rights for a parent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc. On the other hand, the very concept of "rights" is a "negative" one, demarcating the areas of a person's action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a "right" to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a "right" to a "living wage," for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights.

 

[BocaRear]

Stop it....you built a strawman big enough to feed several horses

Theres a difference between moral / ethical /legal ...rothbards treatise there focuses specifically on the legal since its an abstract examination of someone elses work...you really should have posted the context or at least the prelude

Where's the strawman, this is literally rothbard's argument.

I have to laugh whenever I hear Libertarians talk about context because their dogmatic belief doesn't take anything into context, their subscription to complete unregulated and unprohibited Individualism would lead to a hellscape

 

[David_TheMan]

Where's the strawman, this is literally rothbard's argument.

I have to laugh whenever I hear Libertarians talk about context because their dogmatic belief doesn't take anything into context, their subscription to complete unregulated and unprohibited Individualism would lead to a hellscape

You never addressed what I asked you, why is that?

 

[BocaRear]

You never addressed what I asked you, why is that?

Pure sophistry, taking the moral element out of it is ridiculous

It is a human child, just unborn.
That said I find it funny, because I bet you will say it isn't a human because it can't survive on its own and needs its mother. I would say how is that any different from a born infant and how does that actually logically change the application of what Rothbard said?

No, a fetus isn't a human being in the sense that a newborn isn't a human because of it being UNBORN

It's the same reason as why murdering a pregnant woman doesn't count as double homicide

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

Where's the strawman, this is literally rothbard's argument.

No its not..that was a small snippet of an explanation for a larger argument about the rights of children..where they start and end

I have to laugh whenever I hear Libertarians talk about context because their dogmatic belief doesn't take anything into context, their subscription to complete unregulated and unprohibited Individualism would lead to a hellscape

This in itself is a distorted image of libertarianism..Every Thinking person knows the nature of man is a social animal..people need other people and like living with other people by and large...save for a few hermits..its proven fact that extended isolation is actually harmful to most human beings.
what libertarians want is the coercion of government out of the picture..people will naturally coalesce into voluntary groups on their own and figure out how to live.

LMAO @ "hellscape" This kind of disingenuous distortion is taught to people so they can cling to statism..its really a scare tactic refined by the ruling classes and diffused through their prussian school systems for you to regurgitate as fact

 

[David_TheMan]

Pure sophistry, taking the moral element out of it is ridiculous



No, a fetus isn't a human being in the sense that a newborn isn't a human because of it being UNBORN

It's the same reason as why murdering a pregnant woman doesn't count as double homicide

The full statement or idea presented by the pic you post.

Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.10 This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous "shortage" of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.11

In the libertarian society, then, the mother would have the absolute right to her own body and therefore to perform an abortion; and would have the trustee-ownership of her children, an ownership limited only by the illegality of aggressing against their persons and by their absolute right to run away or to leave home at any time. Parents would be able to sell their trustee-rights in children to anyone who wished to buy them at any mutually agreed price.

The present state of juvenile law in the United States, it might be pointed out, is in many ways nearly the reverse of our desired libertarian model. In the current situation, both the rights of parents and children are systematically violated by the State.12

Yeah, talk about trying to make an argument nd failing outright, due to an ignorance of what you are talking about.

Unborn chld at 9 months is just as much a human as a born child 1 second later, that you try to classify unborn as the qualification for not being human is absurd. The funny thing is in trying to be clever, you transparently run away from having to make a logical determination as to why unborn makes a difference, so again I'll ask you, what difference is there in the unborn child and born child, that makes the unborn child able to be terminated?

Murdering a pregnant woman actually usually does count as double murder in the majority of states in the US, that you don't know this speaks to your general ignorance of the subject.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia;and>Wisconsin>. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

 

[Wear My Dawg's Hat]

No, a fetus isn't a human being in the sense that a newborn isn't a human because of it being UNBORN

It's the same reason as why murdering a pregnant woman doesn't count as double homicide

This individual would probably beg to differ.

 

[You Win Perfect]

Pure sophistry, taking the moral element out of it is ridiculous



No, a fetus isn't a human being in the sense that a newborn isn't a human because of it being UNBORN

It's the same reason as why murdering a pregnant woman doesn't count as double homicide

yes it does count. i'm not taking anybody's side here but judging by your posts in here; you really need to educate yourself before you attempt an argument.

 

[Street Knowledge]

I think one of the main problems is our grading system. Passing should be mastery of a subject. 65% is not mastery of a subject, that's I knew half the material and through luck and guessing I scraped my way to "passing".


I think the minimum should be 80%, the problem is that would never happen because our graduation rates would plummet and no school is taking the time to get every single student up to mastery because that would take too long and frankly a large chunk of students would never get there no matter how much you tried.

John barely passed 9th grade Math and were shocked that he's bombing 10th grade math

 

[BocaRear]

The full statement or idea presented by the pic you post.



Yeah, talk about trying to make an argument nd failing outright, due to an ignorance of what you are talking about.

Unborn chld at 9 months is just as much a human as a born child 1 second later, that you try to classify unborn as the qualification for not being human is absurd. The funny thing is in trying to be clever, you transparently run away from having to make a logical determination as to why unborn makes a difference, so again I'll ask you, what difference is there in the unborn child and born child, that makes the unborn child able to be terminated?

Murdering a pregnant woman actually usually does count as double murder in the majority of states in the US, that you don't know this speaks to your general ignorance of the subject.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

1) who said I was American? in the U.K. Murdering a pregnant woman isn't double murder it's Child Destruction, a completely different law. And that's because foetus aren't considered children.

2) In the U.K. It's illegal to abort past 24 weeks because they can live independently from their mothers.

I assumed you would understand that a 9 month old fetus and having an abortion before 24 weeks is not the same thing simply in terms of development.

After a certain point, you can't kill a fetus because it has the capability to live independently from its mother womb.

BUT EVEN THEN it isn't considered murder.

Perhaps the unborn argument, is too simplistic but in UK law UNBORN aren't considered human

The differences between a newborn and a infant are in that a newborn begins to develop an awareness of its mother/environment in contrast to a foetus.

And funnily, enough, your attempt to condense rothbards argument to newborns and not children as a whole is again misrepresentation of what he is saying.

Rothbard is arguing that you are ALLOWED not to feed a child (of any age) because no law has the power to force men to do Positive actions.

This is an example of the Natural Law vs Legal Postitivism argument and Rothbard is assuming that the Law has to operate within his definition of morality

"but we cannot say that anyone has a "right" to a "living wage," for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights"

This is just dogmatic morality "NO man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another"

according to who? It's funny how you speak of logical determinism when that is literally what Libertarianism is In terms of the law. The fact that we have TAXATION is centred upon owing a civic duty towards your society.

The Law is the Law because it is the Law and it gains its validity from people subscribing to it, under Hitler's regime the Anti-sedation laws were considered Law and we know this doesn't fit our confines of morality

 

[David_TheMan]

1) who said I was American? in the U.K. Murdering a pregnant woman isn't double murder it's Child Destruction, a completely different law. And that's because foetus aren't considered children.

2) In the U.K. It's illegal to abort past 24 weeks because they can live independently from their mothers.

I assumed you would understand that a 9 month old fetus and having an abortion before 24 weeks is not the same thing simply in terms of development.

After a certain point, you can't kill a fetus because it has the capability to live independently from its mother womb.

BUT EVEN THEN it isn't considered murder.

Perhaps the unborn argument, is too simplistic but in UK law UNBORN aren't considered human

The differences between a newborn and a infant are in that a newborn begins to develop an awareness of its mother/environment in contrast to a foetus.

And funnily, enough, your attempt to condense rothbards argument to newborns and not children as a whole is again misrepresentation of what he is saying.

Rothbard is arguing that you are ALLOWED not to feed a child (of any age) because no law has the power to force men to do Positive actions.

This is an example of the Natural Law vs Legal Postitivism argument and Rothbard is assuming that the Law has to operate within his definition of morality

"but we cannot say that anyone has a "right" to a "living wage," for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights"

This is just dogmatic morality "NO man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another"

according to who? It's funny how you speak of logical determinism when that is literally what Libertarianism is In terms of the law. The fact that we have TAXATION is centred upon owing a civic duty towards your society.

The Law is the Law because it is the Law and it gains its validity from people subscribing to it, under Hitler's regime the Anti-sedation laws were considered Law and we know this doesn't fit our confines of morality

Never said you were american, again try to actually address what was presented to you instead of arguing strawmen. That said its funny you come on a majority black american board, in a thread that talks specifically about the US spending, and you talk about things in ignorance, then want to cop pleas when you walk into something that exposes your ignorance regarding the nation you desperately want to discuss. take your L on that one and move on, but the attempt to save face is worse than just saying you were wrong.

2) I don't care what the abortion law is the UK, the discussion isn't about law, its about the THOUGHT and IDEAS behind abortion and the justification for that and applying it consistantly. You in a poor effort to discredit Rothbard, have yet to actually document and reply on idea and thought why he is wrong, here you refuse to do that, you try to hide behind legalese in a matter where the law is irrelevant. I don't care what the UK law considers unborn, again speak to the ideology as to why you feel its perfectly acceptable to kill a living being that is dependent on its mother in the womb, but its immoral and wrong for same parent to remove consent to continue to support the child after 24 weeks or after birth?

I posted the whole context of the argument Rothbard was presented, he was in no way shape or form arguing that its right or preferable for parents to starve their kids, and since everyone can see the quote in full context and scope of the argument he was presenting, I will no longer reply, its easy to see the lack of intellectual honesty you are employing.

If you read Rothbard you would see the main source of his statement isn't legal obligation its force, its called the non-aggression axiom or principle. This is based on his principal of self ownership, you own yourself first and foremost so you are the one in control of your own person and no one has a right to take ownershp of your body or person without your consent. Now I want to see you explain to me why this rationale is flawed, why is it that others can make a claim on your person stronger than the person themselves? To deny this contention is to effectly embrace and argue that slavery is acceptable, is that where you stand logically?

Now I really find it funny you claim we have to justify liberty and freedom, yet you don't offer any rationale for your stance that people owe society (which is merely a label, not a single body with a single will or presence) You claim those in society owe a duty to pay taxes, in the US a nation that terrorizes blacks, browns, and natives are can you argue that we owe this government anything?

The law is the law because it is the law? this has to be the worst case of circular reasoning i've ever seen typed. The law is the law because the people in power with a monopoly of force say its the law. Your aside about hitler makes no sense, it doesn't support your point nor provide any rationale behind why anyone should support your stance.