Should We Deny Public Schooling to "Risky" Children?

[rambone]

Just thinking out loud: The people of the city/county/states should be free to decide how they wish to run their schools. Same for people that wish to set up their own private schools. I want there to be choices and competition among options. We should be free to decide where we wish to place our kids and we should do our homework before selecting a place to live. I want people to have the freedom, if they so choose, to live in a place more closely aligned with their values. I don't necessarily want to force my preference of vax/no-vax on your school. We should bear the weight of our decisions.

Let's talk about the idea of "people being free to decide how they wish to run their schools." This is actually the opposite of individual freedom. What this actually implies is that the majority should be "free" to run over the rights of the minority. The majority is "free" to demand compulsory education and "free" to dictate personal medical decisions.

So because of this collective "freedom," the individual discovers that his personal, medical, and educational decisions are being dictated by force. This is unjust.

You mentioned private schools. That is the only legitimate place where the owners can impose such rules. Why? Because it is an exclusive, voluntary institution. No one is forced to be there and only the owner decides who is allowed there. People who want to be surrounded by vaccines should embrace private schools as their sanctuary.

Public schools, on the other hand, are owned by everyone and may not be exclusive. Not in a free and just society, anyway.

 

[jamil]

I agree with the sentiment, the problem is that so many people have different values. What happens when someone's value becomes an infringement on someone else's value?

Which value infringes on an actual right? Apart from the silliness that the laws have become, requiring someone to serve you is not an actual right. Property ownership is a right. Where the two conflict, the one with the right wins. However, you can choose how to apply your rights to your values. If you're a business owner (a business is property) you should have the right to refuse to serve someone. But your values may cause you to serve them anyway.

 

[steveh_131]

The failure in logic is the false equivalency. The first set of points is not equivalent to the second set of points such that your conclusion is proven. When you strip enough detail away so that each point sounds equivalent to its counterpart, when the equivalency depends on those missing details, it does not follow: if one, then the other.

The only detail I am stripping away is the exact degree. Are children of gun owners risky to their class mates? Of course. Are they as risky as unvaccinated kids? I'd say more-so based on recent events, but who knows?

What if they are? If the degrees are the same, and the medical community decided as much, would you support the banning of the children of gun owners from public schools?

The equivalency is not in the exact degree, the equivalency is in the flow of logic used to make the decision.

 

[jamil]

Let's talk about the idea of "people being free to decide how they wish to run their schools." This is actually the opposite of individual freedom. What this actually implies is that the majority should be "free" to run over the rights of the minority. The majority is "free" to demand compulsory education and "free" to dictate personal medical decisions.

So because of this collective "freedom," the individual discovers that his personal, medical, and educational decisions are being dictated by force. This is unjust.

You mentioned private schools. That is the only legitimate place where the owners can impose such rules. Why? Because it is an exclusive, voluntary institution. No one is forced to be there and only the owner decides who is allowed there. People who want to be surrounded by vaccines should embrace private schools as their sanctuary.

Public schools, on the other hand, are owned by everyone and may not be exclusive. Not in a free and just society, anyway.

Rambone, while I don't disagree with what you're saying, this reminds me of something I just wanted to point out. In a democracy, whether in a republican form or pure democracy, in every decision a majority of the people will decide something that the minority opposes. Except in the logical conclusion of pure individualism, which is anarchy. So if you don't advocate anarchy you have to draw a line somewhere short of that. And I personally prefer to put the line closer to individualism, but probably Minarchy is as far as I can go. People will put the line in different places. Anywhere short of anarchy is a linear decision and not a binary one.

 

[hoosierdoc]

After a quick glance, I'm guessing that I am closer to 25% of the posts, including my OP, quoting an average of 0.5 posts per reply. You're as bad at statistics as you are at spotting logical fallacies. Not one has been accurately identified yet.

That's because people haven't tired yet. Maybe I was being dramatic, how about 50%

 

[jamil]

The only detail I am stripping away is the exact degree. Are children of gun owners risky to their class mates? Of course. Are they as risky as unvaccinated kids? I'd say more-so based on recent events, but who knows?

What if they are? If the degrees are the same, and the medical community decided as much, would you support the banning of the children of gun owners from public schools?

The equivalency is not in the exact degree, the equivalency is in the flow of logic used to make the decision.

Steve, does the "medical establishment" believe the children of gun owners are risky enough to their classmates to justify banning them from school? Because that's what you based your assertions on. The flow of logic requires at least that much detail to be equivalent.

Would I support the banning of the children of gun owners from public schools all else equal? No. I don't support banning unvaccinated children from school regardless of what anyone says. But I can only complain with my little sliver of say-so.

I think it's probably best to vaccinate children. But beg me to do it. Recognize my right to parent and reason with me. Give me all the undistorted facts. Don't compel me through fear-mongering, threats, insults and ultimatums. But my view is a minority view.

 

[jamil]

That's because people haven't tired yet. Maybe I was being dramatic, how about 50%

Time permitting I'll go post for post. Sorry to skew the stats. I'm really just being a post whore. I'm gettin near 5k.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Let's talk about the idea of "people being free to decide how they wish to run their schools." This is actually the opposite of individual freedom. What this actually implies is that the majority should be "free" to run over the rights of the minority. The majority is "free" to demand compulsory education and "free" to dictate personal medical decisions.

So because of this collective "freedom," the individual discovers that his personal, medical, and educational decisions are being dictated by force. This is unjust.

You mentioned private schools. That is the only legitimate place where the owners can impose such rules. Why? Because it is an exclusive, voluntary institution. No one is forced to be there and only the owner decides who is allowed there. People who want to be surrounded by vaccines should embrace private schools as their sanctuary.

Public schools, on the other hand, are owned by everyone and may not be exclusive. Not in a free and just society, anyway.

Nope. Squelching individual freedom would be that you are not allowed to pursue your own version of happiness by, among other things, establishing a campaign to change the status quo or picking up and moving to some other place that better suits your sensibilities. The way the country was set up was to allow people to establish such things as public schools and compulsory education (withing the parameters set out by the constitution). Where we're going wrong is by impressing a single standard upon all the states; by eliminating the possibility to seek out change; trying new ways of governing ourselves.

 

[jamil]

Nope. Squelching individual freedom would be that you are not allowed to pursue your own version of happiness by, among other things, establishing a campaign to change the status quo or picking up and moving to some other place that better suits your sensibilities. The way the country was set up was to allow people to establish such things as public schools and compulsory education (withing the parameters set out by the constitution). Where we're going wrong is by impressing a single standard upon all the states; by eliminating the possibility to seek out change; trying new ways of governing ourselves.

Virtual rep since the rep mag is empty.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Rambone, while I don't disagree with what you're saying, this reminds me of something I just wanted to point out. In a democracy, whether in a republican form or pure democracy, in every decision a majority of the people will decide something that the minority opposes. Except in the logical conclusion of pure individualism, which is anarchy. So if you don't advocate anarchy you have to draw a line somewhere short of that. And I personally prefer to put the line closer to individualism, but probably Minarchy is as far as I can go. People will put the line in different places. Anywhere short of anarchy is a linear decision and not a binary one.

This is another aspect of freedom that is often dismissed on INGO. Most tend to concentrate on the individual part and envision a country that does not exist nor was ever intended to. Reasonable people will differ on where that line ought be drawn and I share the concern of many, including Rambone's and Steveh's that the line is way too far on the wrong side of the scale.

 

[steveh_131]

Steve, does the "medical establishment" believe the children of gun owners are risky enough to their classmates to justify banning them from school? Because that's what you based your assertions on. The flow of logic requires at least that much detail to be equivalent.

Would I support the banning of the children of gun owners from public schools all else equal? No. I don't support banning unvaccinated children from school regardless of what anyone says. But I can only complain with my little sliver of say-so.

I think it's probably best to vaccinate children. But beg me to do it. Recognize my right to parent and reason with me. Give me all the undistorted facts. Don't compel me through fear-mongering, threats, insults and ultimatums. But my view is a minority view.

They don't openly support that and I wasn't intending to say they did. This is a hypothetical, but a potentially realistic one and one based on the same values and logical flow.

I think we are primarily in agreement.

 

[jamil]

They don't openly support that and I wasn't intending to say they did. This is a hypothetical, but a potentially realistic one and one based on the same values and logical flow.

I think we are primarily in agreement.

Well if "primarily in agreement" means we don't agree on your equivalency argument, then yes, I agree.

 

[steveh_131]

Well if "primarily in agreement" means we don't agree on your equivalency argument, then yes, I agree.

Dude, it's a hypothetical. The equivalence is in the logic, not the degrees. If the degrees matched, so would the reasoning. Isn't that what you meant by "all else being equal"?

I only brought up the degrees because they've made statements that lead me to believe it's a perfectly realistic scenario.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I think I tend to agree with the upthread post which advanced the theory that people should be allowed to take their "school dollars" with them if their child is barred from school for any reason. 1. Puts the responsibility for their children's education squarely on the shoulders of the parents - as it has always been and should be. That some children will not get an education is again the parents' responsibility, and for some parents their children aren't getting a quality education under the present system. 2. Vaccination should be a parental decision because it is a parental responsibility - not the responsibility of The State. 3. As far as I can tell, all the arguments for universal vaccination rely upon the honesty of the medical profession, which, in my experience, is less than infallible while pretending (as a profession) to be otherwise. I have a sister with two autistic children (and two normal children) who believes that the manner of the vaccinations given those two children had something to do with their autism. I have another nephew whose pancreas shut down shortly after receiving between 16 and 22 vaccinations in one day during Army Basic Training, rendering him a Type I diabetic. His twin brother doesn't have diabetes, nor does anyone else in his family. My wife is allergic to something in flu shots and can't take them. So the people who have anecdotal experience to indicate there may be a problem should be excused from being called "crazy" until "medical science" discovers the causes of such aberrations in vaccination.

 

[hornadylnl]

I think I tend to agree with the upthread post which advanced the theory that people should be allowed to take their "school dollars" with them if their child is barred from school for any reason. 1. Puts the responsibility for their children's education squarely on the shoulders of the parents - as it has always been and should be. That some children will not get an education is again the parents' responsibility, and for some parents their children aren't getting a quality education under the present system. 2. Vaccination should be a parental decision because it is a parental responsibility - not the responsibility of The State. 3. As far as I can tell, all the arguments for universal vaccination rely upon the honesty of the medical profession, which, in my experience, is less than infallible while pretending (as a profession) to be otherwise. I have a sister with two autistic children (and two normal children) who believes that the manner of the vaccinations given those two children had something to do with their autism. I have another nephew whose pancreas shut down shortly after receiving between 16 and 22 vaccinations in one day during Army Basic Training, rendering him a Type I diabetic. His twin brother doesn't have diabetes, nor does anyone else in his family. My wife is allergic to something in flu shots and can't take them. So the people who have anecdotal experience to indicate there may be a problem should be excused from being called "crazy" until "medical science" discovers the causes of such aberrations in vaccination.

That's just crazy talk.

 

[MisterChester]

I think I tend to agree with the upthread post which advanced the theory that people should be allowed to take their "school dollars" with them if their child is barred from school for any reason. 1. Puts the responsibility for their children's education squarely on the shoulders of the parents - as it has always been and should be. That some children will not get an education is again the parents' responsibility, and for some parents their children aren't getting a quality education under the present system. 2. Vaccination should be a parental decision because it is a parental responsibility - not the responsibility of The State. 3. As far as I can tell, all the arguments for universal vaccination rely upon the honesty of the medical profession, which, in my experience, is less than infallible while pretending (as a profession) to be otherwise. I have a sister with two autistic children (and two normal children) who believes that the manner of the vaccinations given those two children had something to do with their autism. I have another nephew whose pancreas shut down shortly after receiving between 16 and 22 vaccinations in one day during Army Basic Training, rendering him a Type I diabetic. His twin brother doesn't have diabetes, nor does anyone else in his family. My wife is allergic to something in flu shots and can't take them. So the people who have anecdotal experience to indicate there may be a problem should be excused from being called "crazy" until "medical science" discovers the causes of such aberrations in vaccination.

Couldn't a state theoretically argue that forced vaccinations are constitutional and pass a law for it? If we are going at a strict constitutionalist viewpoint, it's silent on vaccinations, therefore the state could make it its business?

 

[Dosproduction]

Someone explain to me why are parents of vaccinated kids afraid of kids that are not vaccinated. If your kid is vaccinated you have nothing to fear CORRECT??

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I'd like to be in the business of producing a product that the government forced people to buy.

 

[RockofStrength]

Someone explain to me why are parents of vaccinated kids afraid of kids that are not vaccinated. If your kid is vaccinated you have nothing to fear CORRECT??

Viruses mutate, live virus from an immediate host have a far greater chance of overcoming immune defenses, etc. All a vaccine does is give your body the blueprints for antibodies, it doesn't make you 100% immune.

 

[HoughMade]

Couldn't a state theoretically argue that forced vaccinations are constitutional and pass a law for it? If we are going at a strict constitutionalist viewpoint, it's silent on vaccinations, therefore the state could make it its business?

U.S. Supreme Court found that it was within a state's general police powers in 1905, Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

As for "paying for it", check with your county health department.