I went to Horace Mann Elementary school, which makes me naming it such was incredibly bold - this is what we're going to do here and no one is going to challenge it. Quite disgusting in hindsight.
Tucker Carlson interviewed Jack Posobiec a month ago and in it Jack stated "the point of a system is what it does". When applied to public education it makes things abundantly clear, for what does the school actually do - it's not educate, but isolate. The one thing a public school guarantees with absolute certainty is that the parents will be physically separated from their child for ~8 hours a day, and during that time the child immersed within their world. The parents get the other 8 hours, but in modern times that is lost to sports or screens - tipping the scales in the schools favor for influence.
The 2nd Amendment to the federal constitution says that having citizens who are armed is necessary to the security of a free state. Article 83 of our state constitution says that having citizens who are educated is essential to the preservation of a free government.
In other words, being armed and educated are two of the primary defenses against the loss of freedom, in particular against losing freedom to one's own government. That being the case, how much sense does it make to let the government have ANY say over EITHER of them?
The absence of a substantive social contract underpinning a consent-based society justifies granting a government that serves any state any say over anything. Given a body of people of varying preferences, beliefs, and abilities who have freely chosen to be ruled by a constitutionally constrained representative government, as opposed to an explicit agreement that covers foundational ethics and cultural norms, e.g., the Hoppeville region of Ancapistan, it is necessary to grant government sway over issues in the realm of cultural norms.
Isn't the Declaration of Independence an explicit social contract? In it, we agree that we will protect each other's rights, and otherwise leave each other the hell alone (i.e., require consent before taking action that would affect someone). What's a more 'foundational ethic' than that?
To paraphrase Lysander Spooner, what do you mean we paleface? ;-)
While it may have been binding on the signatories, it certainly isn't binding on living people. A substantive social contract would have to be explicitly accepted by all community members. Tribal societies accomplish this with coming of age or rights of passage ceremonies.
I went to Horace Mann Elementary school, which makes me naming it such was incredibly bold - this is what we're going to do here and no one is going to challenge it. Quite disgusting in hindsight.
Tucker Carlson interviewed Jack Posobiec a month ago and in it Jack stated "the point of a system is what it does". When applied to public education it makes things abundantly clear, for what does the school actually do - it's not educate, but isolate. The one thing a public school guarantees with absolute certainty is that the parents will be physically separated from their child for ~8 hours a day, and during that time the child immersed within their world. The parents get the other 8 hours, but in modern times that is lost to sports or screens - tipping the scales in the schools favor for influence.
The 2nd Amendment to the federal constitution says that having citizens who are armed is necessary to the security of a free state. Article 83 of our state constitution says that having citizens who are educated is essential to the preservation of a free government.
In other words, being armed and educated are two of the primary defenses against the loss of freedom, in particular against losing freedom to one's own government. That being the case, how much sense does it make to let the government have ANY say over EITHER of them?
The absence of a substantive social contract underpinning a consent-based society justifies granting a government that serves any state any say over anything. Given a body of people of varying preferences, beliefs, and abilities who have freely chosen to be ruled by a constitutionally constrained representative government, as opposed to an explicit agreement that covers foundational ethics and cultural norms, e.g., the Hoppeville region of Ancapistan, it is necessary to grant government sway over issues in the realm of cultural norms.
Isn't the Declaration of Independence an explicit social contract? In it, we agree that we will protect each other's rights, and otherwise leave each other the hell alone (i.e., require consent before taking action that would affect someone). What's a more 'foundational ethic' than that?
To paraphrase Lysander Spooner, what do you mean we paleface? ;-)
While it may have been binding on the signatories, it certainly isn't binding on living people. A substantive social contract would have to be explicitly accepted by all community members. Tribal societies accomplish this with coming of age or rights of passage ceremonies.