Lifestyle > Train of Thought
They Want To Get Rid Of US Public Schools
M Dogg™:
I disagree, because in the 80's, Ronald Reagan ran and won on getting rid of the Dept. of Ed. and basically taking money out of our failing system, and Deukmejian took millions out. Also, 100 years ago, California was not 36million, so it was easier to have priviate schooling. The proplem with Libertarian thought is it's for smaller rural countries and places that people are involved with each other. In a place like California, there is so much diversity, and so much distrust and so many problems that these problems wouldn't work itself out. Too many kids will die or have babies before it works it's self out and that we cannot have.
TraceOneInfinite:
--- Quote from: M Dogg for Obama on March 12, 2008, 10:32:38 PM ---
I disagree, because in the 80's, Ronald Reagan ran and won on getting rid of the Dept. of Ed. and basically taking money out of our failing system, and Deukmejian took millions out.
--- End quote ---
Just because Reagan ran as a Libertarian in the 80's does not mean that he lived up to any of his promises once in office. Government grew more under Reagen than it did under Clinton. His education cuts were little to none.
--- Quote from: M Dogg for Obama on March 12, 2008, 10:32:38 PM ---
Also, 100 years ago, California was not 36million, so it was easier to have priviate schooling. The proplem with Libertarian thought is it's for smaller rural countries and places that people are involved with each other.
--- End quote ---
That's the whole thing, the constitution states that any duties not granted to the Federal government within the constitution were to be handled by the states. So the states were supposed to compete against each other. Then you break everything down to a local, county, level, and so on. The government isn't supposed to be ruling all the land.
--- Quote from: M Dogg for Obama on March 12, 2008, 10:32:38 PM ---
In a place like California, there is so much diversity, and so much distrust and so many problems that these problems wouldn't work itself out. Too many kids will die or have babies before it works it's self out and that we cannot have.
--- End quote ---
That's the point, you say that there is distrust, well, if you distrust your school then start your own school in a Mexican community or you can have a Latino ran school where everyone trusts each other. Whatever you want, it's your choice in a Libertarian country, you won't be forced by people like Bush and Gingrinch.
M Dogg™:
--- Quote from: Abd. Inf. presents... RIP Lucky Dube on March 12, 2008, 10:55:36 PM ---
--- Quote from: M Dogg for Obama on March 12, 2008, 10:32:38 PM ---
I disagree, because in the 80's, Ronald Reagan ran and won on getting rid of the Dept. of Ed. and basically taking money out of our failing system, and Deukmejian took millions out.
--- End quote ---
Just because Reagan ran as a Libertarian in the 80's does not mean that he lived up to any of his promises once in office. Government grew more under Reagen than it did under Clinton. His education cuts were little to none.
--- Quote from: M Dogg for Obama on March 12, 2008, 10:32:38 PM ---
Also, 100 years ago, California was not 36million, so it was easier to have priviate schooling. The proplem with Libertarian thought is it's for smaller rural countries and places that people are involved with each other.
--- End quote ---
That's the whole thing, the constitution states that any duties not granted to the Federal government within the constitution were to be handled by the states. So the states were supposed to compete against each other. Then you break everything down to a local, county, level, and so on. The government isn't supposed to be ruling all the land.
--- Quote from: M Dogg for Obama on March 12, 2008, 10:32:38 PM ---
In a place like California, there is so much diversity, and so much distrust and so many problems that these problems wouldn't work itself out. Too many kids will die or have babies before it works it's self out and that we cannot have.
--- End quote ---
That's the point, you say that there is distrust, well, if you distrust your school then start your own school in a Mexican community or you can have a Latino ran school where everyone trusts each other. Whatever you want, it's your choice in a Libertarian country, you won't be forced by people like Bush and Gingrinch.
--- End quote ---
that's the issue, we fought to intergrate schools, and then have a system were people could put themselves into segration. That's not a way to teach kids who will be in the most diverse state in the union.
TraceOneInfinite:
--- Quote from: M Dogg for Obama on March 12, 2008, 10:58:55 PM ---
that's the issue, we fought to intergrate schools, and then have a system were people could put themselves into segration. That's not a way to teach kids who will be in the most diverse state in the union.
--- End quote ---
Well.. I'm a Malcolm X guy, not a Martin Luther King guy. While Martin was beggin to have black kids taught in the white man's schools. Malcolm and Elijah Muhammad were biulding Nation of Islam schools and teaching the children African and Asian history, Arabic, and so on..., the white man didn't like that so he was always giving them trouble and shutting down their schools.
Anyway, what you are advocating is FORCED integration. Check this MDogg, if you love integration so much, then in a Libertarian society you can get your Latino homies and get with Martin Luther Kings followers and find a white Liberal school and everyone will be happy.
See, it's your choice in a Libertarian society. Why do you want to force others to want the same things you want? Why should Elijah Muhammad want integration just because you do? Why can't you both have what you want?
Machiavelli:
libertarianism = freedom
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version