First Amendment no big deal, students say.

POSTED BY: sgtgump
UPDATED: Monday, February 14, 2005 22:27
VIEWED: 8613
PAGE 4 of 5

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

AX

Thursday, February 3, 2005 12:03 AM

Quote:
I also have never seen or heard the Pledge of Allegiance in a highschool. I've been out of school for 17 years and have to tell you..I don't buy this, they weren't doing it when I was in highschool (Pretty much stopped when we hit Middle school) and I doubt they've started again. But hey..could be wrong. I suppose in the South they may push this.

Went to school in Boise, Idaho--trust me, the pledge is still recited in many schools. I think however that it differs from school district to school district--this is probably why you're under the impression schools don't have students do it.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, February 3, 2005 1:35 AM

The last time I said the pledge was third grade, I think. We lived in Wyoming at that time. After my family moved to Detroit, I don’t think the pledge was said. I suspect that if I had remained in Wyoming, I probably would have said the pledge much more frequently.

I’m not entirely sure that I would categorize the public school system as Marxist, but wildbill’s comparisons are interesting nonetheless. The way wildbill has presented it, it certainly appears that Liberals fall quite close to the line of Marxism. But I think there is an error due to discrete quantification here. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Liberals, being largely Left-wing/socialist types, would identify to some degree with several of the axioms of Marxism, but there can be a large difference between agreeing with something and agreeing to some degree with something. Also I’m not sure that most high school teachers could be considered Liberals. I don’t really know. Certainly much of the political leadership of the public education system in the US is extremely Liberal, to the detriment of education sometimes I think, but I’m not sure that translates necessarily to teachers in general. I could be wrong.

CONNORFLYNN

Thursday, February 3, 2005 1:21 PM

Well..I dunno. If you don't pay your property taxes on time or are delinquent too long..say goodbye to your property (Regardless of value).

Taxes are rent..if you don't pay em, you don't get to keep your property.

XENOCIDE

Thursday, February 3, 2005 2:48 PM

But is that the same as the end of titled property? Communism prohibits ownership, prohibits individual profit from wealth and labour. That is quantitatively different than fee for ownership. One might argue that the state establishes and secures private property. With property taxes being the fee for securing that property. Statists of any stripe, even minimalists, make this arguement. No state, no property.

-Eli

If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.

CONNORFLYNN

Thursday, February 3, 2005 3:32 PM

Well..I dunno. In its simplist form I could agree with you. But there are many other issues in which the state has control over your property even if you do pay taxes. I.e. "Right of Way" or declaration of "Imminent Domain"..of which most Property owners have no recourse. Essentially it is my belief that noone truly owns property. The government does.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, February 3, 2005 4:57 PM

I certainly can see how property taxes could be construed as rent. A landlord has the right to reject use of the property to a renter for the use of the landlord. Likewise Eminent domain gives the government right to evict a person from his or her own property for government use. The landlord has the right to restrict use of the property, such as preventing certain modifications by the renter. Likewise the government restricts how you can use your private property such as in the case of environmental regulations. The reason why Landlords have the right to the property they rent is because they “own it.” What excuse does the government have? I think strong case can be made that property taxes look an awful lot like property rent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, February 3, 2005 5:50 PM

Finn, if you ever studied Marx you wouldn't say that liberals fall close to the line. Apparently neither of you has a clue as to what Marx actually said, and what liberals say! I suppose you can FORCE the two together by blurring critical distinctions, but look at it this way... if schools were truly Marxist, they would be preaching against corporations and instructing kids on how to resist advertising. Instead, they sell advertising space to the corps to fund their school programs.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, February 3, 2005 5:57 PM

Okay. Maybe you should re-read my post.

HERO

Thursday, February 3, 2005 5:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, if you ever studied Marx you wouldn't say that liberals fall close to the line. Apparently neither of you has a clue as to what Marx actually said, and what liberals say! I suppose you can FORCE the two together by blurring critical distinctions, but look at it this way... if schools were truly Marxist, they would be preaching against corporations and instructing kids on how to resist advertising. Instead, they sell advertising space to the corps to fund their school programs.

I agree. Schools generally are not teaching Marxism, real socialist Marxists teach at the college level.

I think schools are teaching a different aspect of liberalism. They teach victimology and dependence. Thats why every Highschool student knows how to complain about sexual harassment or racial discrimination, but don't necessarily understand the finer aspects of reading, speaking, and math.

H

XENOCIDE

Thursday, February 3, 2005 6:51 PM

Hero,
Can you clarify for us what you mean by "liberalism." When I see liberalism with a small 'l' I think about john locke, adam smith and our founding fathers, you know classical liberalism. Whereas when I see Liberalism I think of Democrats. I am not sure that victim as virtue applies at all to the first, and only as a result (not an intent) of the policy of the second.

SigNym,

I agree with you that liberals are not Communists, or even Marxists, but perhaps it would be helpful if you would illustrate some of the distinctions. Normally I would dig out my own Marx Reader from my comparative political philosophy class (okay, not so much digging as dusting, Marx sits right with Weber, Freud and some other less used philosophers) but I am in the middle of a semester and my reading time is devoted elsewhere.

Would anyone here mind a little self labeling to help with the conversation. For instance I generally consider myself a libertarian (minarchist really) with anarchist and conservationist tendencies. A little self labeling is a technique that I find helps people understand one another's frameworks.

-Eli

If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.
http://www.bcpl.net/~wilsonr/farpoint.html

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE