"I can't breathe....Breathe Easy"

[CathyInBlue]

The responsibilities of agents of the state to remain current on what the laws and regulations actually require you to do, allow you do to, and forbid you from doing.

But no one actually takes seriously any requirements on the agents of the state knowing such trivialities, least of all the agents of the state, whether police who hold policies in contravention of IC 35-47-11.1-3, or public school teachers actively coercing their students to, or not to, practice Christianity.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This is absurd. Do you think there are less restrictions on what you can do in indiana in 2014 than there were in 1814?

It's absurd that you think people had more freedoms in 1814 than 2014, anywhere in the United States; not just Indiana.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Heck, school itself has become an onslaught on the rights of both parent and child.

...and yet you have the freedom to teach your children yourself.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Not an unbegrudging freedom to teach our children ourselves, but freedom nevertheless.

 

[smokingman]

Well, tell me what you CAN'T do, cite the era you COULD do it, and I bet you'll that in that era a lot of people were less free.

You can not be serious?
Name a single activity I can do that is not regulated or taxed.
I can not even have an earned income without it being taxed(prior to 1913 no income was ever taxed).How is that for an example?

 

[chipbennett]

...and yet you have the freedom to teach your children yourself.

Until - what, the mid-1800s? - parents teaching their children themselves wasn't a "freedom", it was the *norm*. That you would even use such phrasing demonstrates the pervasiveness of the State in every aspect of our lives - and the pervasiveness of the State in the life of the individual is diametrically opposed to the concept of individual liberty.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Until - what, the mid-1800s? - parents teaching their children themselves wasn't a "freedom", it was the *norm*. That you would even use such phrasing demonstrates the pervasiveness of the State in every aspect of our lives - and the pervasiveness of the State in the life of the individual is diametrically opposed to the concept of individual liberty.

Are you saying people can not educate their children at home?

 

[Kutnupe14]

You can not be serious?
Name a single activity I can do that is not regulated or taxed.
I can not even have an earned income without it being taxed(prior to 1913 no income was ever taxed).How is that for an example?

So the acts of taxation and regulation are restriction on freedom?

 

[Ryno300]

This is fun....IBTL.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

So the acts of taxation and regulation are restriction on freedom?

Yes and yes. Income taxes were minimal, even when we were a nation engaged in a worldwide total war. We financed that war largely through bonds, not taxes. And yes, the act of "regulation" on the part of the federal government - and at some local levels - are an increasing imposition on the traditional personal freedoms of American citizens - often to the favor of non-citizens or criminals among us.

If you want to talk about regulations such as those which were designed to eliminate discrimination of various types among American citizens - even those regulations which were well-intended have, for the most part, either outlived their usefulness or have begun to institute reverse-discrimination which feels an awful lot like "retribution" instead of "fairness."

For the most part, our governments have reached the point where they seem to do more harm to individual freedom than they do to preserve it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes and yes. Income taxes were minimal, even when we were a nation engaged in a worldwide total war. We financed that war largely through bonds, not taxes. And yes, the act of "regulation" on the part of the federal government - and at some local levels - are an increasing imposition on the traditional personal freedoms of American citizens - often to the favor of non-citizens or criminals among us.

If you want to talk about regulations such as those which were designed to eliminate discrimination of various types among American citizens - even those regulations which were well-intended have, for the most part, either outlived their usefulness or have begun to institute reverse-discrimination which feels an awful lot like "retribution" instead of "fairness."

For the most part, our governments have reached the point where they seem to do more harm to individual freedom than they do to preserve it.

Well our statist founding fathers believed in both, regulation and taxation. Their only gripe was if representation wasn't included.

 

[chipbennett]

Are you saying people can not educate their children at home?

Not everywhere. Some states require no notification. Some states require notification. Some states require notification, documentation of curriculum, and submission of test scores. Some states require all of that *plus* state approval of the curriculum.

 

[Bunnykid68]

One didnt use to need a license to carry a firearm or even own one in some states and one did not need a license to travel using their car either. The licensing of firearms was terrible in so many ways and was very discriminatory

 

[smokingman]

Well our statist founding fathers believed in both, regulation and taxation. Their only gripe was if representation wasn't included.

In 1776 no nation on earth had an income tax.
A few had property taxes,but most taxes where on businesses or sin taxes.In 1799 Great Britain became the first nation to formalize an income tax to pay for the French revolutionary war and it only lasted 3 years(the tax).

As far as regulation it was not until 1995 United States vs Lopez that everything fell under the commerce clause.Prior to that states regulated manufacturing,mining,water,and crops(based on Gibbons vs Ogden ruling by the Supreme Court).Electricity was even regulated by the states until Swift vs United States.
1942 and the Supreme court finally gave in and accepted most of the new deal and ushered in the commerce clause regulation of all aspects of life as we know it today.The switch in time that saved nine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you are correct they believed in taxation and regulation,but NOTHING like what we have today was envisioned by them.

 

[88GT]

Until - what, the mid-1800s? - parents teaching their children themselves wasn't a "freedom", it was the *norm*. That you would even use such phrasing demonstrates the pervasiveness of the State in every aspect of our lives - and the pervasiveness of the State in the life of the individual is diametrically opposed to the concept of individual liberty.

There were government schools and compulsory attendance laws as far back as the mid-1700s. But they were restricted to small hamlets with largely Puritan-based populations. They were homogeneous in make-up and shared a commonality of purpose and ideals. However, you are correct in that the vast majority of children were educated privately. Even the local schools were voluntary in attendance and funded by the users, not the entire population. Kut, as with most of his examples, seems to be forgetting a large chunk of history. Im not sure what purpose he chases with this line of argument though. Point of fact though: Kut doesn't think educating one's children is a fundamental right of parents. Or more precisely, he believes it is within the acceptable purview of the state to prohibit parents from providing an education for their children.

Not everywhere. Some states require no notification. Some states require notification. Some states require notification, documentation of curriculum, and submission of test scores. Some states require all of that *plus* state approval of the curriculum.

All 50 states allow (that I would use such a word sickens me) home education. The size and number of hoops parents must jump through varies by state. Indiana ranks among the least restrictive.

 

[88GT]

In 1776 no nation on earth had an income tax.
A few had property taxes,but most taxes where on businesses or sin taxes.In 1799 Great Britain became the first nation to formalize an income tax to pay for the French revolutionary war and it only lasted 3 years(the tax).

As far as regulation it was not until 1995 United States vs Lopez that everything fell under the commerce clause.Prior to that states regulated manufacturing,mining,water,and crops(based on Gibbons vs Ogden ruling by the Supreme Court).Electricity was even regulated by the states until Swift vs United States.
1942 and the Supreme court finally gave in and accepted most of the new deal and ushered in the commerce clause regulation of all aspects of life as we know it today.The switch in time that saved nine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you are correct they believed in taxation and regulation,but NOTHING like what we have today was envisioned by them.

It's also interesting to note that tariffs were the largest part of federal revenue for quite some time. In the infancy of our nation, tariffs accounted for nearly 95% of federal revenue. Someone somewhere got the bright idea that we should tax our people instead of the goods of nations.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Kutnupe14]

There were government schools and compulsory attendance laws as far back as the mid-1700s. But they were restricted to small hamlets with largely Puritan-based populations. They were homogeneous in make-up and shared a commonality of purpose and ideals. However, you are correct in that the vast majority of children were educated privately. Even the local schools were voluntary in attendance and funded by the users, not the entire population. Kut, as with most of his examples, seems to be forgetting a large chunk of history. Im not sure what purpose he chases with this line of argument though. Point of fact though: Kut doesn't think educating one's children is a fundamental right of parents. Or more precisely, he believes it is within the acceptable purview of the state to prohibit parents from providing an education for their children.


All 50 states allow (that I would use such a word sickens me) home education. The size and number of hoops parents must jump through varies by state. Indiana ranks among the least restrictive.

That's entirely false. I wholeheartedly support the legal right of a parent to homeschool their children. I simply don't like the practice. I also don't like the practice of OC'ing, but do not believed it should be abolished by force of law.

I think you may have read too much into my comment in the "German Homeschoolers" thread. They left Germany and sought asylum because they didn't have the right to homeschool their children. I was of the opinion that they should be deported back to Germany because compared to other asylum seekers, from places MUCH worse than Germany, their situation was trivial.

 

[smokingman]

That's entirely false. I wholeheartedly support the legal right of a parent to homeschool their children. I simply don't like the practice. I also don't like the practice of OC'ing, but do not believed it should be abolished by force of law.

I think you may have read too much into my comment in the "German Homeschoolers" thread. They left Germany and sought asylum because they didn't have the right to homeschool their children. I was of the opinion that they should be deported back to Germany because compared to other asylum seekers, from places MUCH worse than Germany, their situation was trivial.

Trivial to whom?
Who has the right to decide what a child should learn the state or the parent?
As a parent I would not consider it trivial.

 

[hornadylnl]

While there may have been far fewer laws and regulations printed on paper or parchment at every level at the founding of our country, I still can see an argument that we are freer today than at our founding.

It's a constant theme here on INGO that society should enforce a standard on the people. Just the other day, we had and INGOer longing for the wild west where a woman would be killed for saying "f the police". Was there a law on paper against in the west? How many times has it been said that there should be ass kickings for such terrible crimes against humanity as wearing your pants below your ass? How many INGOers have said they long for the days of challenging others to duels over a slight?

Whether those who seek to control my actions are wearing a uniform or not makes little difference to me.