4th Grade "Science" Quiz - Were you there?

[FA_Q2]

Sorry. Have it bookmarked but things are a little hectic at the moment to spare the time to read through it entirely before posting.

Your ideal world assumes that everyone is 100% responsible and accountable AND has the financial opportunities to meet all of those obligations. No one is denying anyone the freedom to be stupid either. The point here is that everything has a price and are your neighbors willing to foot the bill for your personal indulgences when it comes to your child's education?

The difference between you and me is that I see my neighbors as obligated neither to educate my child or be responsible for the consequences of his/her education. My ideal world assumes nothing other than liberty requires the choice to be wrong as well as right, stupid as well as smart, ignorant as well as educated. I would hope most will choose rightly, be intelligent, and educate themselves, but you cannot have an ideal world by handing that responsibility to the government to do and thereby give it power to do anything it pleases.

Most especially when the government has produced a growing legacy of increasing wrong choices, ignorance, and poorly educated demographics across the land.

A moral society takes care of the truly helpless; however, that should not be the duty of the federal government. And liberty requires that government neither reward inadequacy, failure, and/or wrong choices nor punish competence, success, and better choices.

In a world in which liberty is valued, the parent, in cooperation with the local government/school board, teachers, and the people in the community should agree on a social contract that determines a) whether there should be a public school and b) what the curriculum in that school should be. The federal government should have no say in that whatsoever.

This is not and never will be an ideal world. Rather than philosophizing about an ideal world, might it be better to discuss making things just a bit better in a very real world where most people are not willing to take responsibility for their acts, don't involve themselves in their children's education, aren't willing to help the truly needy, and total failures in life are never going to be successful.

That is a false assumption though. What happened in the thousand years before government came along? Were people completely unable to live in the past? Of course not. What you are noting is not the natural state of things but exactly what happens after government comes in and takes care of things for you.

Certainly there needs to be some BASIC safety nets for people to fall back on. There needs to be some help in those areas BUT what we have done is place them totally in governmental hands. Of course people don’t care about education anymore, they don’t have to. The government takes that over for them so why bother. They don’t care for the family anymore; the government is there to take care of that.

That is a symptom of taking responsibility away from the people; you end up with people that are no longer responsible. What a surprise.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thomas Jefferson provided plenty of relevant arguments;

But none of the quotations you cited, all taken out of context, speaks to the issue of whether government should dictate what a Fourth Grader can and cannot be taught, however.

I will agree that Jefferson was a powerful advocate for education including public education, and saw that as one function of society that should be provided and paid for from the common purse. He was so much under the conviction that the Constitution would work only for a religious, moral, and EDUCATED people, that at one point, he deviated from his anti-federalist convictions to propose federal funding of education, but the concept was argued down and was never brought to a vote. He also supported a concept that only those who could read and write should be able to vote because he was so convinced that the Constitution had to have an informed electorate in order to survive. That never gained any legs either.

Jefferson then rightfully turned his attentions to education in the states--where it belonged in the first place--and was instrumental in the founding of the University of Virginia in 1819 and considered that his greatest achievement. He knew, however, that education begins with the elementary age student and was a passionate advocate for the local schools.

A nicely written oversimplification.

"the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid are foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of Federal powers. By these operations new channels of communications will be opened between the States, the lines of separation will disappear, their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 6th State of the Union Address (Dec. 2, 1806)

Oversimplification? You did pick up on his phrase from your carefully 'proof texted' excerpt from that address that he was referring to the desires of the super rich? But certainly concern for shared resources that promote the general welfare, as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution, are absolutely a concern of the federal government. Federalists and anti-federalists alike never quarreled about that.

The rest of the excised paragraph you quoted, however is this:

"Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal, but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which though rarely called for are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country and some of them to its preservation"

and followed with:
"The subject is now proposed for the consideration of Congress, because if approved by the time the State legislatures shall have deliberated on this extension of the Federal trusts, and the laws shall be passed and other arrangements made for their execution, the necessary funds will be on hand and without employment.

I suppose an amendment to the Constitution, by consent of the States, necessary, because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the Constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied."

And going back to my previous post, when Jefferson could not persuade Congress that public education should be a federal matter, and because, as he stated, he realized the federal government had no jurisdiction in that without a Constitutional amendment, he served out his term as President and then focused his attentions on improving education, as a private citizen, in Virginia.

And there is still no constitutional amendment authorizing the federal goverment to involve itself in education.

 

[Foxfyre]

The difference between you and me is that I see my neighbors as obligated neither to educate my child or be responsible for the consequences of his/her education. My ideal world assumes nothing other than liberty requires the choice to be wrong as well as right, stupid as well as smart, ignorant as well as educated. I would hope most will choose rightly, be intelligent, and educate themselves, but you cannot have an ideal world by handing that responsibility to the government to do and thereby give it power to do anything it pleases.

Most especially when the government has produced a growing legacy of increasing wrong choices, ignorance, and poorly educated demographics across the land.

A moral society takes care of the truly helpless; however, that should not be the duty of the federal government. And liberty requires that government neither reward inadequacy, failure, and/or wrong choices nor punish competence, success, and better choices.

In a world in which liberty is valued, the parent, in cooperation with the local government/school board, teachers, and the people in the community should agree on a social contract that determines a) whether there should be a public school and b) what the curriculum in that school should be. The federal government should have no say in that whatsoever.

This is not and never will be an ideal world. Rather than philosophizing about an ideal world, might it be better to discuss making things just a bit better in a very real world where most people are not willing to take responsibility for their acts, don't involve themselves in their children's education, aren't willing to help the truly needy, and total failures in life are never going to be successful.

That is a false assumption though. What happened in the thousand years before government came along? Were people completely unable to live in the past? Of course not. What you are noting is not the natural state of things but exactly what happens after government comes in and takes care of things for you.

Certainly there needs to be some BASIC safety nets for people to fall back on. There needs to be some help in those areas BUT what we have done is place them totally in governmental hands. Of course people don’t care about education anymore, they don’t have to. The government takes that over for them so why bother. They don’t care for the family anymore; the government is there to take care of that.

That is a symptom of taking responsibility away from the people; you end up with people that are no longer responsible. What a surprise.

Well said. I have always said that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless, whether permanently helpless or temporarily helpless. But the dangers of giving the federal government authority to provide any form of benevolence is so dangerous to the freedoms and foundations of the republic--this has been proved in spades to date--such safety nets should always be at the state and local levels, if provided by government at all, and better yet, private relief organizations do the best job at all.

There is something basicly sinister and corrupting in government when it can say that Citizen A won't support himself or his children, so we will force Citizen B to do that for him. If anybody can explain to me how this is not a constitutional violation of property rights and other unalienable rights, I have been waiting for that explanation for a very long time now.

 

[longknife]

I was going to post a 4th grade grammar quiz but thought this was it.

One of the things I noted was the statement that English really has no firmly established rules. The language changes so often, it's hard to keep up with what is right and wrong.


Oops! Here's the test:

10 questions on grammar

Can you punctuate better than a 4th grader? I also note it says “(Of course, there are no official rules for English. Everything that follows is debatable.)”

Test @ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22512744

 

[numan]

One of the things I noted was the statement that English really has no firmly established rules.

That is a statement up with which I will not put !!

John owned cat killed rat eaten cheese was rotten.

[perfectly proper Japanese grammar!!]

rat-eaten cheese

the cat-killed rat

the John-owned cat

The cheese that was eaten by the rat that was killed by the cat that John owns was rotten.

or,

The cheese was rotten, which was eaten by the rat which was killed by the cat which John owns.
.

 

[numan]

The trite phrase "he who pays the piper calls the tune" sprang to mind....You objected to the government deciding on what size of unhealthy dose of sugar water you should be allowed to purchase. Since the government is footing the bill for the treatment of expensive obesity related diseases it makes economic sense to promote healthier choices in order to reduce long term tax increases. The same concept applied to smoking because it was the government who was footing the long term bill for the expensive cancer treatments. So ultimately it is a cost/benefit equation.

But in my more perfect world the government neither pays to treat my obesity or the consequences of my smoking, therefore it has no power to regular how much sugar water I drink or how many cigarettes I smoke.

And the manufacturers of harmful tobacco and sugar water products have the freedom to take control of your mind with fiendishly clever brainwashing techniques in order to make you buy their disease-causing products!!

Congratulations on your ever more perfectly imbecilic Cloud-Cuckooland !!
.

 

[Foxfyre]

The trite phrase "he who pays the piper calls the tune" sprang to mind....You objected to the government deciding on what size of unhealthy dose of sugar water you should be allowed to purchase. Since the government is footing the bill for the treatment of expensive obesity related diseases it makes economic sense to promote healthier choices in order to reduce long term tax increases. The same concept applied to smoking because it was the government who was footing the long term bill for the expensive cancer treatments. So ultimately it is a cost/benefit equation.

But in my more perfect world the government neither pays to treat my obesity or the consequences of my smoking, therefore it has no power to regular how much sugar water I drink or how many cigarettes I smoke.

And the manufacturers of harmful tobacco and sugar water products have the freedom to take control of your mind with fiendishly clever brainwashing techniques in order to make you buy their disease-causing products!!

Congratulations on your ever more perfectly imbecilic Cloud-Cuckooland !!
.

And speaking of cuckooland, I bet you think the strawmen/red herrings you threw out there had anything at all to do with my post. But the point generally does often seem to fly right over the heads of those in cuckooland, doesn't it.

 

[peach174]

With your indulgence a small side track might make this a little clearer. You objected to the government deciding on what size of unhealthy dose of sugar water you should be allowed to purchase. Since the government is footing the bill for the treatment of expensive obesity related diseases it makes economic sense to promote healthier choices in order to reduce long term tax increases. The same concept applied to smoking because it was the government who was footing the long term bill for the expensive cancer treatments. So ultimately it is a cost/benefit equation. If you insist upon wasting valuable taxpayer resources to teach children unfounded religious fairy tales the long term cost will be a nation that it far less economically competitive because the populace is ill educated. Jefferson would be on the side of those who want to ensure that 4th graders learn real science.

What Jefferson said about religion in schools.
Source: Thomas Jefferson, Note to Elementary School Act, 1817.
"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination."
He thought it was fine to have religion in schools as long as it did not violate any other types of religions.

That is exactly why the Federal Government should not be in any of these things.
They should not be in health care or education.
This is exactly why we are losing our freedoms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What Jefferson said about religion in schools.
Source: Thomas Jefferson, Note to Elementary School Act, 1817.
"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination."
He thought it was fine to have religion in schools as long as it did not violate any other types of religions.

That is exactly why the Federal Government should not be in any of these things.
They should not be in health care or education.
This is exactly why we are losing our freedoms.

Nonsense.

No one is ‘losing’ his ‘freedoms.’

It’s perfectly appropriate for the Federal government to establish standards by which all the states must adhere, ensuring that consistent and quality education is provided to all Americans. That a child might live in a poor state or other jurisdiction that elects to make education a low priority is not justification for that child to have less of an educational opportunity as opposed to a child living in a state or jurisdiction that gives education a high priority.

As with most other issues, the states are given the initial opportunity to afford their residents a quality education, and failing in that regard, it is incumbent upon the Federal government to intercede, just as if the states were failing to provide clean water or safe food to residents, of if the states were violating the civil liberties of their residents.

As for Jefferson and religion in schools, because the Framers were not of one mind nor spoke with one voice on the many issues, they wisely acknowledged the authority of the courts to determine such matters dating back to the Magna Carta and Assizes of Henry II. Consequently the statements of a single Framer are examined only in the context of other sources, documents, case law, and precedent to make an appropriate determine concerning a controversy under review.

With regard to Establishment Clause jurisprudence, it is not merely a matter of ‘violating other types of religion’ but the fact that the First Amendment clearly forbids government endorsement of religion, where whether religion in schools violates or offends other religions is irrelevant.

Religion when legislated in the public sector must have a secular purpose, it must not promote, endorse, or prohibit religious dogma, and it must not manifest an excessive entanglement between church and state.

This fundamental Constitutional tenet is designed to protect religion from the excess of the state and to protect citizens from the tyranny and intolerance inherent in all religion.

 

[idb]

Nonsense.

No one is ‘losing’ his ‘freedoms.’

It’s perfectly appropriate for the Federal government to establish standards by which all the states must adhere, ensuring that consistent and quality education is provided to all Americans. That a child might live in a poor state or other jurisdiction that elects to make education a low priority is not justification for that child to have less of an educational opportunity as opposed to a child living in a state or jurisdiction that gives education a high priority.

As with most other issues, the states are given the initial opportunity to afford their residents a quality education, and failing in that regard, it is incumbent upon the Federal government to intercede, just as if the states were failing to provide clean water or safe food to residents, of if the states were violating the civil liberties of their residents.

As for Jefferson and religion in schools, because the Framers were not of one mind nor spoke with one voice on the many issues, they wisely acknowledged the authority of the courts to determine such matters dating back to the Magna Carta and Assizes of Henry II. Consequently the statements of a single Framer are examined only in the context of other sources, documents, case law, and precedent to make an appropriate determine concerning a controversy under review.

With regard to Establishment Clause jurisprudence, it is not merely a matter of ‘violating other types of religion’ but the fact that the First Amendment clearly forbids government endorsement of religion, where whether religion in schools violates or offends other religions is irrelevant.

Religion when legislated in the public sector must have a secular purpose, it must not promote, endorse, or prohibit religious dogma, and it must not manifest an excessive entanglement between church and state.

This fundamental Constitutional tenet is designed to protect religion from the excess of the state and to protect citizens from the tyranny and intolerance inherent in all religion.

As for Jefferson and religion in schools, because the Framers were not of one mind nor spoke with one voice on the many issues, they wisely acknowledged the authority of the courts to determine such matters dating back to the Magna Carta and Assizes of Henry II. Consequently the statements of a single Framer are examined only in the context of other sources, documents, case law, and precedent to make an appropriate determine concerning a controversy under review.

What an excellent point generally overlooked!
None of the framers would have agreed on everything.
Presumably the Constitution is basically a recording of things that they did agree on.

It's easy to cherry pick comments from different framers that agree with your own interpretation/agenda.

 

[Oldguy]

I was going to post a 4th grade grammar quiz but thought this was it.

One of the things I noted was the statement that English really has no firmly established rules. The language changes so often, it's hard to keep up with what is right and wrong.


Oops! Here's the test:

10 questions on grammar

Can you punctuate better than a 4th grader? I also note it says “(Of course, there are no official rules for English. Everything that follows is debatable.)”

Test @ BBC News - 10 questions on grammar

AAAARRGGGGGHHH! I only got 3 of 10...and I've been told I'm a pretty good writer!

 

[Foxfyre]

I was going to post a 4th grade grammar quiz but thought this was it.

One of the things I noted was the statement that English really has no firmly established rules. The language changes so often, it's hard to keep up with what is right and wrong.


Oops! Here's the test:

10 questions on grammar

Can you punctuate better than a 4th grader? I also note it says “(Of course, there are no official rules for English. Everything that follows is debatable.)”

Test @ BBC News - 10 questions on grammar

AAAARRGGGGGHHH! I only got 3 of 10...and I've been told I'm a pretty good writer!

I missed two which is really embarrassing since I tutor kids on this stuff.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nonsense.

No one is ‘losing’ his ‘freedoms.’

It’s perfectly appropriate for the Federal government to establish standards by which all the states must adhere, ensuring that consistent and quality education is provided to all Americans. That a child might live in a poor state or other jurisdiction that elects to make education a low priority is not justification for that child to have less of an educational opportunity as opposed to a child living in a state or jurisdiction that gives education a high priority.

As with most other issues, the states are given the initial opportunity to afford their residents a quality education, and failing in that regard, it is incumbent upon the Federal government to intercede, just as if the states were failing to provide clean water or safe food to residents, of if the states were violating the civil liberties of their residents.

As for Jefferson and religion in schools, because the Framers were not of one mind nor spoke with one voice on the many issues, they wisely acknowledged the authority of the courts to determine such matters dating back to the Magna Carta and Assizes of Henry II. Consequently the statements of a single Framer are examined only in the context of other sources, documents, case law, and precedent to make an appropriate determine concerning a controversy under review.

With regard to Establishment Clause jurisprudence, it is not merely a matter of ‘violating other types of religion’ but the fact that the First Amendment clearly forbids government endorsement of religion, where whether religion in schools violates or offends other religions is irrelevant.

Religion when legislated in the public sector must have a secular purpose, it must not promote, endorse, or prohibit religious dogma, and it must not manifest an excessive entanglement between church and state.

This fundamental Constitutional tenet is designed to protect religion from the excess of the state and to protect citizens from the tyranny and intolerance inherent in all religion.

Your post attributed to me a post that Peach actually made. But I disagree with your interpretation of what the First Amendment intended, and support Jefferson's interpretation that she accurately presented. The government of course should not require any child to read the Bible except as a very narrowily and limited literary exercise. Nor should the government deny any child the right to read the Bible as he/she chooses as long as the context and timing is appropriate. The same is true of all tenets of religion as the Founders understood the First Amendment.

Again, unless there is the right to teach Creationism in the schools, and also the right to not teach Creationism in the schools, the people have no rights at all.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is not and never will be an ideal world. Rather than philosophizing about an ideal world, might it be better to discuss making things just a bit better in a very real world where most people are not willing to take responsibility for their acts, don't involve themselves in their children's education, aren't willing to help the truly needy, and total failures in life are never going to be successful.

That is a false assumption though. What happened in the thousand years before government came along? Were people completely unable to live in the past? Of course not. What you are noting is not the natural state of things but exactly what happens after government comes in and takes care of things for you.

Certainly there needs to be some BASIC safety nets for people to fall back on. There needs to be some help in those areas BUT what we have done is place them totally in governmental hands. Of course people don’t care about education anymore, they don’t have to. The government takes that over for them so why bother. They don’t care for the family anymore; the government is there to take care of that.

That is a symptom of taking responsibility away from the people; you end up with people that are no longer responsible. What a surprise.

Well said. I have always said that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless, whether permanently helpless or temporarily helpless. But the dangers of giving the federal government authority to provide any form of benevolence is so dangerous to the freedoms and foundations of the republic--this has been proved in spades to date--such safety nets should always be at the state and local levels, if provided by government at all, and better yet, private relief organizations do the best job at all.

There is something basicly sinister and corrupting in government when it can say that Citizen A won't support himself or his children, so we will force Citizen B to do that for him. If anybody can explain to me how this is not a constitutional violation of property rights and other unalienable rights, I have been waiting for that explanation for a very long time now.

Since you are throwing down the challenge gauntlet let's attempt to address it in as evenhanded manner as possible. Begin by explaining why the innocent children of Citizen A must be quite literally punished for the "sins of their parent"? Must they beg and starve in the streets because Citizen A has fallen sick and can no longer work and provide them with food and shelter? Now your response is that this is the responsibility of a "moral society" but you attribute "sinister" motives to the government of "We the people" when it attempts to do what is "morally" right and care for those unfortunate children. You see it as "sinister" for the government to use taxpayer funds to provide for the less fortunate amongst us. What is your realistic alternative for this "moral society"? How else should these children be cared for? Are you proposing child labor workhouses so that they can earn their keep? You are demanding an "explanation" while having no viable alternative solution.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is a false assumption though. What happened in the thousand years before government came along? Were people completely unable to live in the past? Of course not. What you are noting is not the natural state of things but exactly what happens after government comes in and takes care of things for you.

Certainly there needs to be some BASIC safety nets for people to fall back on. There needs to be some help in those areas BUT what we have done is place them totally in governmental hands. Of course people don’t care about education anymore, they don’t have to. The government takes that over for them so why bother. They don’t care for the family anymore; the government is there to take care of that.

That is a symptom of taking responsibility away from the people; you end up with people that are no longer responsible. What a surprise.

Well said. I have always said that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless, whether permanently helpless or temporarily helpless. But the dangers of giving the federal government authority to provide any form of benevolence is so dangerous to the freedoms and foundations of the republic--this has been proved in spades to date--such safety nets should always be at the state and local levels, if provided by government at all, and better yet, private relief organizations do the best job at all.

There is something basicly sinister and corrupting in government when it can say that Citizen A won't support himself or his children, so we will force Citizen B to do that for him. If anybody can explain to me how this is not a constitutional violation of property rights and other unalienable rights, I have been waiting for that explanation for a very long time now.

Since you are throwing down the challenge gauntlet let's attempt to address it in as evenhanded manner as possible. Begin by explaining why the innocent children of Citizen A must be quite literally punished for the "sins of their parent"? Must they beg and starve in the streets because Citizen A has fallen sick and can no longer work and provide them with food and shelter? Now your response is that this is the responsibility of a "moral society" but you attribute "sinister" motives to the government of "We the people" when it attempts to do what is "morally" right and care for those unfortunate children. You see it as "sinister" for the government to use taxpayer funds to provide for the less fortunate amongst us. What is your realistic alternative for this "moral society"? How else should these children be cared for? Are you proposing child labor workhouses so that they can earn their keep? You are demanding an "explanation" while having no viable alternative solution.

Who is to decide what power the federal government shall have for Citizen A's children? The same government granted power to require Citizen B to care for Citizen A's children when Citizen A won't or can't can just as easy command Citizen B to destroy unwanted children either inside or outside the womb. Can just as easily restrict all women to one child to prevent a drag on social services. Can just as easily assign an occupation to each citizen in the interest of 'the common good' and can just as easily imprison or destroy such citizens that don't or won't conform to what government decides will be 'moral' and 'right'. Can even forbid us from leaving the country.

And can dictate that children will attend government schools and can dictate what those children will be taught.

The fact that it has not yet done all these things does not give us any assurance that an all powerful government big enough to give us whatever we want or demand, is also powerful and big enough to take from us whatever it wants.

To assume that the federal government will be more virtuous or moral or honorable or righteous or will produce better results than will the states, counties, local communities, or the private sector is naive beyond all belief. And there is no way we citizens can escape the dictates of the federal government while no state or more local jurisdiction has any power to prevent people from leaving a jurisdiction and moving to one with a less oppressove or demanding government.

 

[idb]

Well said. I have always said that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless, whether permanently helpless or temporarily helpless. But the dangers of giving the federal government authority to provide any form of benevolence is so dangerous to the freedoms and foundations of the republic--this has been proved in spades to date--such safety nets should always be at the state and local levels, if provided by government at all, and better yet, private relief organizations do the best job at all.

There is something basicly sinister and corrupting in government when it can say that Citizen A won't support himself or his children, so we will force Citizen B to do that for him. If anybody can explain to me how this is not a constitutional violation of property rights and other unalienable rights, I have been waiting for that explanation for a very long time now.

Since you are throwing down the challenge gauntlet let's attempt to address it in as evenhanded manner as possible. Begin by explaining why the innocent children of Citizen A must be quite literally punished for the "sins of their parent"? Must they beg and starve in the streets because Citizen A has fallen sick and can no longer work and provide them with food and shelter? Now your response is that this is the responsibility of a "moral society" but you attribute "sinister" motives to the government of "We the people" when it attempts to do what is "morally" right and care for those unfortunate children. You see it as "sinister" for the government to use taxpayer funds to provide for the less fortunate amongst us. What is your realistic alternative for this "moral society"? How else should these children be cared for? Are you proposing child labor workhouses so that they can earn their keep? You are demanding an "explanation" while having no viable alternative solution.

Who is to decide what power the federal government shall have for Citizen A's children? The same government granted power to require Citizen B to care for Citizen A's children when Citizen A won't or can't can just as easy command Citizen B to destroy unwanted children either inside or outside the womb. Can just as easily restrict all women to one child to prevent a drag on social services. Can just as easily assign an occupation to each citizen in the interest of 'the common good' and can just as easily imprison or destroy such citizens that don't or won't conform to what government decides will be 'moral' and 'right'. Can even forbid us from leaving the country.

And can dictate that children will attend government schools and can dictate what those children will be taught.

The fact that it has not yet done all these things does not give us any assurance that an all powerful government big enough to give us whatever we want or demand, is also powerful and big enough to take from us whatever it wants.

To assume that the federal government will be more virtuous or moral or honorable or righteous or will produce better results than will the states, counties, local communities, or the private sector is naive beyond all belief. And there is no way we citizens can escape the dictates of the federal government while no state or more local jurisdiction has any power to prevent people from leaving a jurisdiction and moving to one with a less oppressove or demanding government.

The short version of your argument is that "It's a slippery slope".

 

[Foxfyre]

Since you are throwing down the challenge gauntlet let's attempt to address it in as evenhanded manner as possible. Begin by explaining why the innocent children of Citizen A must be quite literally punished for the "sins of their parent"? Must they beg and starve in the streets because Citizen A has fallen sick and can no longer work and provide them with food and shelter? Now your response is that this is the responsibility of a "moral society" but you attribute "sinister" motives to the government of "We the people" when it attempts to do what is "morally" right and care for those unfortunate children. You see it as "sinister" for the government to use taxpayer funds to provide for the less fortunate amongst us. What is your realistic alternative for this "moral society"? How else should these children be cared for? Are you proposing child labor workhouses so that they can earn their keep? You are demanding an "explanation" while having no viable alternative solution.

Who is to decide what power the federal government shall have for Citizen A's children? The same government granted power to require Citizen B to care for Citizen A's children when Citizen A won't or can't can just as easy command Citizen B to destroy unwanted children either inside or outside the womb. Can just as easily restrict all women to one child to prevent a drag on social services. Can just as easily assign an occupation to each citizen in the interest of 'the common good' and can just as easily imprison or destroy such citizens that don't or won't conform to what government decides will be 'moral' and 'right'. Can even forbid us from leaving the country.

And can dictate that children will attend government schools and can dictate what those children will be taught.

The fact that it has not yet done all these things does not give us any assurance that an all powerful government big enough to give us whatever we want or demand, is also powerful and big enough to take from us whatever it wants.

To assume that the federal government will be more virtuous or moral or honorable or righteous or will produce better results than will the states, counties, local communities, or the private sector is naive beyond all belief. And there is no way we citizens can escape the dictates of the federal government while no state or more local jurisdiction has any power to prevent people from leaving a jurisdiction and moving to one with a less oppressove or demanding government.

The short version of your argument is that "It's a slippery slope".

Only in the sense of the 'open door' metaphor. As an old debater, I have long been careful not to use the 'slippery slope' argument except within very narrow perimeters. But if a people are to govern themselves, which is what freedom is, they give government only enough rope to allow it to recognize and secure their rights, and then no more. To give government the right to dictate what Citizen B must do for Citizen A's children is to the open the door for all manner of graft, corruption, authoritarianism, and self-serving government that the Constitution was intended to protect us from. And it is to remove the rigthts from the people that the Constitution was meant to grant.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well said. I have always said that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless, whether permanently helpless or temporarily helpless. But the dangers of giving the federal government authority to provide any form of benevolence is so dangerous to the freedoms and foundations of the republic--this has been proved in spades to date--such safety nets should always be at the state and local levels, if provided by government at all, and better yet, private relief organizations do the best job at all.

There is something basicly sinister and corrupting in government when it can say that Citizen A won't support himself or his children, so we will force Citizen B to do that for him. If anybody can explain to me how this is not a constitutional violation of property rights and other unalienable rights, I have been waiting for that explanation for a very long time now.

Since you are throwing down the challenge gauntlet let's attempt to address it in as evenhanded manner as possible. Begin by explaining why the innocent children of Citizen A must be quite literally punished for the "sins of their parent"? Must they beg and starve in the streets because Citizen A has fallen sick and can no longer work and provide them with food and shelter? Now your response is that this is the responsibility of a "moral society" but you attribute "sinister" motives to the government of "We the people" when it attempts to do what is "morally" right and care for those unfortunate children. You see it as "sinister" for the government to use taxpayer funds to provide for the less fortunate amongst us. What is your realistic alternative for this "moral society"? How else should these children be cared for? Are you proposing child labor workhouses so that they can earn their keep? You are demanding an "explanation" while having no viable alternative solution.

Who is to decide what power the federal government shall have for Citizen A's children? The same government granted power to require Citizen B to care for Citizen A's children when Citizen A won't or can't can just as easy command Citizen B to destroy unwanted children either inside or outside the womb. Can just as easily restrict all women to one child to prevent a drag on social services. Can just as easily assign an occupation to each citizen in the interest of 'the common good' and can just as easily imprison or destroy such citizens that don't or won't conform to what government decides will be 'moral' and 'right'. Can even forbid us from leaving the country.

And can dictate that children will attend government schools and can dictate what those children will be taught.

The fact that it has not yet done all these things does not give us any assurance that an all powerful government big enough to give us whatever we want or demand, is also powerful and big enough to take from us whatever it wants.

To assume that the federal government will be more virtuous or moral or honorable or righteous or will produce better results than will the states, counties, local communities, or the private sector is naive beyond all belief. And there is no way we citizens can escape the dictates of the federal government while no state or more local jurisdiction has any power to prevent people from leaving a jurisdiction and moving to one with a less oppressove or demanding government.

No offense, Foxy, but that sounds paranoid. Have you every heard of the term "checks and balances"? Right now on the news those very same "checks and balances" are at work. Benghazi, the IRS and the AP scandals are all because of the "checks and balances". The trial and conviction of Gosnell is yet another. (FYI the biblical God ordered the destruction of "unwanted children either inside or outside the womb".) There is no perfect system of government. We have a duty to remain vigilant but it is just fearmongering to claim that all of those paranoid outcomes are happening just because the government uses taxpayer dollars to care for the less fortunate amongst us.

 

[idb]

Who is to decide what power the federal government shall have for Citizen A's children? The same government granted power to require Citizen B to care for Citizen A's children when Citizen A won't or can't can just as easy command Citizen B to destroy unwanted children either inside or outside the womb. Can just as easily restrict all women to one child to prevent a drag on social services. Can just as easily assign an occupation to each citizen in the interest of 'the common good' and can just as easily imprison or destroy such citizens that don't or won't conform to what government decides will be 'moral' and 'right'. Can even forbid us from leaving the country.

And can dictate that children will attend government schools and can dictate what those children will be taught.

The fact that it has not yet done all these things does not give us any assurance that an all powerful government big enough to give us whatever we want or demand, is also powerful and big enough to take from us whatever it wants.

To assume that the federal government will be more virtuous or moral or honorable or righteous or will produce better results than will the states, counties, local communities, or the private sector is naive beyond all belief. And there is no way we citizens can escape the dictates of the federal government while no state or more local jurisdiction has any power to prevent people from leaving a jurisdiction and moving to one with a less oppressove or demanding government.

The short version of your argument is that "It's a slippery slope".

Only in the sense of the 'open door' metaphor. As an old debater, I have long been careful not to use the 'slippery slope' argument except within very narrow perimeters. But if a people are to govern themselves, which is what freedom is, they give government only enough rope to allow it to recognize and secure their rights, and then no more. To give government the right to dictate what Citizen B must do for Citizen A's children is to the open the door for all manner of graft, corruption, authoritarianism, and self-serving government that the Constitution was intended to protect us from. And it is to remove the rigthts from the people that the Constitution was meant to grant.

For a people to govern themselves, they need a form of government.
The government isn't an entirely separate entity from the people - it is the people.
Treating it as a malevolent enemy is wrong.
Remember that the form of the government was set up by the Constitution with the attendant means of regulating said government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is not and never will be an ideal world. Rather than philosophizing about an ideal world, might it be better to discuss making things just a bit better in a very real world where most people are not willing to take responsibility for their acts, don't involve themselves in their children's education, aren't willing to help the truly needy, and total failures in life are never going to be successful.

That is a false assumption though. What happened in the thousand years before government came along? Were people completely unable to live in the past? Of course not. What you are noting is not the natural state of things but exactly what happens after government comes in and takes care of things for you.

Certainly there needs to be some BASIC safety nets for people to fall back on. There needs to be some help in those areas BUT what we have done is place them totally in governmental hands. Of course people don’t care about education anymore, they don’t have to. The government takes that over for them so why bother. They don’t care for the family anymore; the government is there to take care of that.

That is a symptom of taking responsibility away from the people; you end up with people that are no longer responsible. What a surprise.

Well said. I have always said that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless, whether permanently helpless or temporarily helpless. But the dangers of giving the federal government authority to provide any form of benevolence is so dangerous to the freedoms and foundations of the republic--this has been proved in spades to date--such safety nets should always be at the state and local levels, if provided by government at all, and better yet, private relief organizations do the best job at all.

There is something basicly sinister and corrupting in government when it can say that Citizen A won't support himself or his children, so we will force Citizen B to do that for him. If anybody can explain to me how this is not a constitutional violation of property rights and other unalienable rights, I have been waiting for that explanation for a very long time now.

And you’ll likely wait forever for such an explanation, as what you describe occurring is indeed not.

No one is being forced to do anything against his will, neither property nor individual rights are being violated.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to enact measures determined necessary and proper when exercising its powers, both expressed and implied. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

It is necessary and proper for the Federal government to ensure that all children receive at least a basic education; indeed, in many cases the Constitution mandates it. See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

This is particularly true with regard to public education, where schools are responsible for the education of all the children, and the community as a whole has a stake in that responsibility through the taxes members of the community pay.

So nothing is being ‘taken,’ forcibly or otherwise.