Is Home-Schooling a Fundamental Right?

[NYcarbineer]

Parents have the right to decide what's best for their children.

What do you care if someone else's kid is home schooled?

No actually they don't.

Hallaluleah.

Please send me the name and address of the responsible authority for my children so I may deliver them ASAP.

Do you have the right to decide that you don't think your children should go to school, or that they shouldn't be homeschooled in accordance with your state law?

Do you have that right?

 

[Samson]

No actually they don't.

Hallaluleah.

Please send me the name and address of the responsible authority for my children so I may deliver them ASAP.

Do you have the right to decide that you don't think your children should go to school, or that they shouldn't be homeschooled in accordance with your state law?

Do you have that right?

I have the right to pick one or the other.

Truancy Law holds me accountable for doing this. A number of other laws exist to ensure that parents take more responsibility for their children than the average turtle.

 

[Samson]

You are shallow, yes. You do not have hard numbers to support your opinion.

Let me see if I can match: I know you are but what am I. It was a stretch to keep up with you, but somehow I managed.

You get the same and you cry. Oh, well.

Yeah, always stimulating to respond to your "posts."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Parents have the right to choose the alternatives provided by the legislation for schooling: public schools, charters schools, private schools, home schooling.

Parents do not have rights to exceed those limitations, such as to choose no schooling.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Samson writes, "Yeah, always stimulating to respond to your 'posts.'"

You'll live.

 

[Samson]

Samson writes, "Yeah, always stimulating to respond to your 'posts.'"

You'll live.

True, no one ever died of boredom, or drivil.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Samson writes, "Yeah, always stimulating to respond to your 'posts.'"

You'll live.

True, no one ever died of boredom, or drivil.

Or your posting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hallaluleah.

Please send me the name and address of the responsible authority for my children so I may deliver them ASAP.

Do you have the right to decide that you don't think your children should go to school, or that they shouldn't be homeschooled in accordance with your state law?

Do you have that right?

I have the right to pick one or the other.

Truancy Law holds me accountable for doing this. A number of other laws exist to ensure that parents take more responsibility for their children than the average turtle.

Which confirms what I said. You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children. You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you.

 

[Samson]

Do you have the right to decide that you don't think your children should go to school, or that they shouldn't be homeschooled in accordance with your state law?

Do you have that right?

I have the right to pick one or the other.

Truancy Law holds me accountable for doing this. A number of other laws exist to ensure that parents take more responsibility for their children than the average turtle.

Which confirms what I said. You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children. You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you.

No, you said, twice, You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children.

This is untrue.

Then you said,

You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you

This is true.

I have noticed you have an interesting habit of mixing hyperbolie into fact, then declaring the entire statement fact. Do you work for FNC or MSNBC?

 

[Luissa]

I have the right to pick one or the other.

Truancy Law holds me accountable for doing this. A number of other laws exist to ensure that parents take more responsibility for their children than the average turtle.

Which confirms what I said. You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children. You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you.

No, you said, twice, You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children.

This is untrue.

Then you said,

You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you

This is true.

I have noticed you have an interesting habit of mixing hyperbolie into fact, then declaring the entire statement fact. Do you work for FNC or MSNBC?

I think a few of you missed his point.

 

[KGB]

when a parent home schools a child to a pack of lies instead of reality that is child abuse.


some parents care MORE about their own ideas than teaching their child how to think for themselves

wow, you truly hate parents instilling values into their kids, don't you....

 

[Foxfyre]

I will admit to s small degree of extreme hyperbolic exaggeration in my post.

Maybe a tad extreme, but only a tad.

The fact is, the ONLY reason for the government to resist allowing a voucher program is to make sure the government institution gets the money instead of some private or parochial school. .

No, I'm afraid I disagree. Not that I'm pleased about it.......


The reason voucher systems may be "harmful" is in areas like, well, Albequerque, NM, and anywhere else there is a large disparity of wealth distribution between races. Essentially this includes every city in America.

It all has to do with HOW kids are TRANSPORTED to school once they are given vouchers.

Remember the voucher allows the parent to pay for all, or part of the school cost (tuition) but what about transportation? A bus cannot arrive at the neighborhood busstop, then leave to deposite kids at 50 different schools.

It is up to the parents to TRANSPORT the kid to school, which costs something. Whatever this cost is, it will represent much less a burden for rich parents than for poor parents. Thus, with vouchers, you have effectively segregated the "rich-kid" school, and horror-of-horrors, segregated them racially.



Hey, I'm only the messenger.

Well you certainly get the award for stretching rationale to the breaking point, but sorry, I'm not buying it.

If the government wants control of education so that those in government can increase their own power, prestige, influence, control, and personal wealth, they certainly can use the argument you just expressed. But the poor parent who is willing to work two or three jobs to keep their kid in a private school, who pays extra for lunches and fees and perhaps uniforms, etc. can also manage any transportation problems. If he cannot, the public school remains an option.

And home schooling requires almost no transportation at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you have the right to decide that you don't think your children should go to school, or that they shouldn't be homeschooled in accordance with your state law?

Do you have that right?

I have the right to pick one or the other.

Truancy Law holds me accountable for doing this. A number of other laws exist to ensure that parents take more responsibility for their children than the average turtle.

Which confirms what I said. You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children. You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you.

The whole point of this discussion is whether the government will be given the ability to dictate what options you will have. There is even room to discuss whether the government can mandate compulsory education at all. But if we allow that to be the national policy, and the social contract seems to be okay with that, how can we embrace both freedom AND a government that will dictate how and what and where our children will be taught and give the parents no say whatsoever in that?

Why should the policy not be that children will have the opportunity to be exposed to X amount of education in X subjects, and leave it to the parents of those children to determine how that will be accomplished?

Would that not better meet the spirit of the Constitution that intended the people to be free and out from under the thumb and dictates of an authoritarian government?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have the right to pick one or the other.

Truancy Law holds me accountable for doing this. A number of other laws exist to ensure that parents take more responsibility for their children than the average turtle.

Which confirms what I said. You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children. You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you.

The whole point of this discussion is whether the government will be given the ability to dictate what options you will have. There is even room to discuss whether the government can mandate compulsory education at all. But if we allow that to be the national policy, and the social contract seems to be okay with that, how can we embrace both freedom AND a government that will dictate how and what and where our children will be taught and give the parents no say whatsoever in that?

Why should the policy not be that children will have the opportunity to be exposed to X amount of education in X subjects, and leave it to the parents of those children to determine how that will be accomplished?

Would that not better meet the spirit of the Constitution that intended the people to be free and out from under the thumb and dictates of an authoritarian government?

Would you like to know what the Supreme Court has said on the matter, or is that irrelevant to you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have the right to pick one or the other.

Truancy Law holds me accountable for doing this. A number of other laws exist to ensure that parents take more responsibility for their children than the average turtle.

Which confirms what I said. You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children. You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you.

No, you said, twice, You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children.

This is untrue.

Then you said,

You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you

This is true.

I have noticed you have an interesting habit of mixing hyperbolie into fact, then declaring the entire statement fact. Do you work for FNC or MSNBC?

I'm not the one who made the original statement. Why don't you ask him what he meant.

 

[Foxfyre]

Which confirms what I said. You don't have the right to decide what's best for your children. You have the right to pick from the options your government has decided will be legally available to you.

The whole point of this discussion is whether the government will be given the ability to dictate what options you will have. There is even room to discuss whether the government can mandate compulsory education at all. But if we allow that to be the national policy, and the social contract seems to be okay with that, how can we embrace both freedom AND a government that will dictate how and what and where our children will be taught and give the parents no say whatsoever in that?

Why should the policy not be that children will have the opportunity to be exposed to X amount of education in X subjects, and leave it to the parents of those children to determine how that will be accomplished?

Would that not better meet the spirit of the Constitution that intended the people to be free and out from under the thumb and dictates of an authoritarian government?

Would you like to know what the Supreme Court has said on the matter, or is that irrelevant to you?

Absolutely irrelevent as far as the subject of individual liberties is concerned. SCOTUS has gotten it wrong many times in the past, and we too often have had justices who didn't understand the Constitutional principles of freedom the Founders intended for this country.

The Founders intended the federal government to secure our unalienable rights and enforce just enough laws and regulation necessary to do that. Then they intended that the federal government would leave us strictly alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wished to have. That was their definition of freedom.

Whether you are an American conservative or liberal all comes down to whether you believe government dictates how you will live your life to better advantage than you would choose for yourself or whether you are capable of making your own choices, spending your own money, and living your own life as you choose; i.e. whether you choose to be governed or you choose to be free.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS is never irrelevant and to suggest so is silly.

We all live in the social compact, are bound by how our We the People legislatures determine that compact, and should try to influence that compact by electing good legislators.

Our moral and ethical duty to our children does not automatically translate into the legal duty prescribed by the law. All we can do is try to influence the law making of public education.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The whole point of this discussion is whether the government will be given the ability to dictate what options you will have. There is even room to discuss whether the government can mandate compulsory education at all. But if we allow that to be the national policy, and the social contract seems to be okay with that, how can we embrace both freedom AND a government that will dictate how and what and where our children will be taught and give the parents no say whatsoever in that?

Why should the policy not be that children will have the opportunity to be exposed to X amount of education in X subjects, and leave it to the parents of those children to determine how that will be accomplished?

Would that not better meet the spirit of the Constitution that intended the people to be free and out from under the thumb and dictates of an authoritarian government?

Would you like to know what the Supreme Court has said on the matter, or is that irrelevant to you?

Absolutely irrelevent as far as the subject of individual liberties is concerned. SCOTUS has gotten it wrong many times in the past, and we too often have had justices who didn't understand the Constitutional principles of freedom the Founders intended for this country.

The Founders intended the federal government to secure our unalienable rights and enforce just enough laws and regulation necessary to do that. Then they intended that the federal government would leave us strictly alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wished to have. That was their definition of freedom.

Whether you are an American conservative or liberal all comes down to whether you believe government dictates how you will live your life to better advantage than you would choose for yourself or whether you are capable of making your own choices, spending your own money, and living your own life as you choose; i.e. whether you choose to be governed or you choose to be free.

To say the SCOTUS is irrelevant is to say the Constitution is irrelevant, because the Supreme Court is the constitutional method by which it is determined what the Constitution means,

at such times as there arises a legal dispute over the Constitution's meaning.

To claim that there is no way to determine the Constitution's meaning is to effectively render the Constitution meaningless.

 

[Foxfyre]

Would you like to know what the Supreme Court has said on the matter, or is that irrelevant to you?

Absolutely irrelevent as far as the subject of individual liberties is concerned. SCOTUS has gotten it wrong many times in the past, and we too often have had justices who didn't understand the Constitutional principles of freedom the Founders intended for this country.

The Founders intended the federal government to secure our unalienable rights and enforce just enough laws and regulation necessary to do that. Then they intended that the federal government would leave us strictly alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wished to have. That was their definition of freedom.

Whether you are an American conservative or liberal all comes down to whether you believe government dictates how you will live your life to better advantage than you would choose for yourself or whether you are capable of making your own choices, spending your own money, and living your own life as you choose; i.e. whether you choose to be governed or you choose to be free.

To say the SCOTUS is irrelevant is to say the Constitution is irrelevant, because the Supreme Court is the constitutional method by which it is determined what the Constitution means,

at such times as there arises a legal dispute over the Constitution's meaning.

To claim that there is no way to determine the Constitution's meaning is to effectively render the Constitution meaningless.

I did not say the SCOTUS was irrelevent. I said the opinion of SCOTUS was irrelevent to know/determine/discern what individual liberty is.

Do you look to SCOTUS or any other government entity to assign you your personal values? If so, you'll fit right in if we continue down this path toward throwing out entirely the Founders' intent that we be a free people. And the alternative is a government that will assign us the rights that we will have.

A government that can assign us the rights we will have is a government that can do anything to us it wants to do.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The more I read threads like this the happier I am that I don't have kids.