If people do not trust a teacher with a gun then why do they trust their children to said teachers? If it is assumed that everyone is mentally ill, which is one of the big arguements from the left, then who do you trust?
A complex society such as ours is dependent on trust. We trust that food will be delivered, that fuel will come. We trust that lots of things get done so that we do not have to do these things. If no one is worth our trust then society breaks apart.
Ever notice that often many young mothers have huge trust issues? Every man is looked at as a possible predator. Can a society survive if there is no trust? What happens if we no longer trust the system to count votes? BTW, most of these trust issues are on the left.
As for libertarians, most that I have met tend to avoid all people. They hate G-D, they hate their fathers, and could not live peacefully with another person (often divorced). They value being an individual over faith or family. They want to answer to no one. I have met very few self labeled libertarians who do not act like this.
Those libertarians who are simply wanting less government often tend to be better educated. But they are in the minority.
Daddy issues? Trooper always delivers. This whole thread delivers. Close all public schools say the homeschoolers after a rousing lecture about people only acting in self-interest. Prisons! Indoctrination!!!! Feminists!!!!
Daddy issues? Trooper always delivers. This whole thread delivers. Close all public schools say the homeschoolers after a rousing lecture about people only acting in self-interest. Prisons! Indoctrination!!!! Feminists!!!!
Fine, but it's a wag the dog issue. It's missing the entire point to argue against a government-paid security team if you're still going to subordinate your rights as a parent to the school. I guess my point is why do some people think there's a line between them? Why is one bad and the other not? I don't see a line. The courts have ruled consistently for the last 20 years that the parents' authority about school matters is extremely limited. So why all of a sudden are people up in arms, pardon the pun, about how those schools are considering addressing security issues?Now I see what you're saying about the 'real' issue that should be discussed, and I agree completely. Public schools should not exist. I can think of 3 or 4 threads where I've made the same argument. In lieu of abolishing government schools, however, I can still make an argument for or against something that I think is dangerous for our liberty.
I didn't say it was okay. I said it was a natural consequence of people cherry-picking when and where they DO want government in their lives. And I don't feel the least bit sorry for those that refuse to side with liberty on the school issue and are forced to face the evil side of that little perq.When I say 'people like you' I mean good-intentioned people who point to the status quo as evidence that it is a-ok to continue putting government enforcers in our daily lives.
I won't hold my breath. It's not a trait of the passive aggressive.We'll have to wait for him to comment, then.
Like you, I don't want either. I want the system abolished.
In lieu of that, however, I think there are a lot of viable solutions that don't involve a military presence. Once we open that door, it doesn't close.
Accepted. That point was not clear in your post.I was inserting my own moral code, not as a part of my libertarian beliefs, but in addition to my libertarian beliefs. The purpose of inserting this was to point out that the two are not mutually exclusive, and in fact have no bearing on one another.
He's not right. Libertarianism is bound by politics, nothing more. It is not a complete moral code and should not be compared as such.
You cannot create a solution that doesn't involve the government in a government school.
I didn't say it was okay. I said it was a natural consequence of people cherry-picking when and where they DO want government in their lives. And I don't feel the least bit sorry for those that refuse to side with liberty on the school issue and are forced to face the evil side of that little perq.
If people don't want government in their lives, then they should stop sending their kids to government schools. I see a lot of *****ing on INGO about LE or military used as security, but nobody seems to be acknowledging the fact that for 180+ days a year, about 3/4 of the parents (probably higher but I'm playing it conservative) on INGO INVITE the government into their lives. And I'm supposed to believe that they really have this major concern about how who administers those schools and how?
What's the difference between government control of your children by a teacher who still answers to the government and government security of the building your children are in by a soldier/LEO who still answers to the government? Degree is about the only thing I can see.
Accepted. That point was not clear in your post.
What I said has nothing to do with a moral code. As a political philosophy, libertarianism is premised on the sovereignty of the individual. The group does not exist. The collective does not exist. Government exists, as you as stated, for one purpose, but it is not separate nor above the individual. The only political entity of import in libertarianism is the individual. He may not have put a precise spin on it, but he was absolutely correct in that libertarianism values the the individual and nothing more.
88gt, I agree with you that in a perfect utopia we wouldn't have compulsory government-run schools. In the meantime, I think government jurisdiction should be as restricted and localized as possible. A locally-run school regulating itself is far better than a federally-regulated school policed by soldiers.I can see I'm being made to be the crazy homeschooler, but I'll be damned if I can understand the "I wanna screw the whore but can't figure out why I got the clap" mentality. Who in his right mind thought a GOVERNMENT school (honestly, just think about that for a minute, is there anything else administered/performed by the government that has approval in these parts?) was a good idea that didn't come with the BS and tyranny known to be associated with the government?
Why not use the military to guard school.
I went to John Marshall HS in the early 70's armed cops were nothing in school after a race riot. Why not use the military to guard school. Most military would love to have duty station protecting kids. Saves money because they are already being paid. And most kids would think it is really cool.
What is wrong with using soldiers? What training does a police have that is any more professional?
I don't think so. Trooper likes centralized European governments that use the military on their own people, and force citizens into involuntary servitude to the state.You are missing the point.
You are missing the point. It's not about training. It's not about the individual soldier. I think if the school wanted to hire a couple of ex-marines or something to guard the place, none of us would have an issue with it.
ATOMonkey nailed it. The real issue is the precedent of having uniformed members of the military participating in civilian life in authoritative positions. It is a bad precedent to set. It's already happening too much and we need to reign it in as much as possible.
After 8 pages I didn't notice anyone post this about the article - "At S.C. Lee Junior High School, members of its adopted unit, the 62nd Signal Battalion, have been on hand to help staff and students."
Just saying. I wouldn't be shaking in my boots when the Microsoft help desk soldiers started patrolling schools. They're great guys and gals. Helped us a ton overseas with IT and comms....but these are John Rambos mixed with Kent State.
Until there is actual infantry/cavalry/tanker/arty/mp/ranger/Rambo/MaGruber patrolling more than 1 college campus, I wouldn't lose a minute of sleep.