Again, I’m not sure this is what we’re really seeing but I’m hopeful about it. Like a lot of you, some of Trump’s rhetoric during the election offended my affinity for freedom of religion and freedom of the press (among other things), but I’ve been really pretty impressed to see him largely pull back from that kind of crazy talk.
Off the topic a bit, but we’re talking about liberty here. I’m not a one issue voter, but I’d just be so please to see more school choice. Of course, a majority of Dems also support it, which is really hopeful. Yeah. Speaking of cognitive dissonance, this one is so confusing to me to have someone argue for freedom of choice regarding abortion, but be against letting parents in poor urban schools choose a private school option.[quote=“NickViar, post:440, topic:224248”]
But people ARE good enough for either a single person or a majority of people in a geographic area (no matter the size and diversity within that area) to be trusted with governing all?
Criticisms of libertarianism always apply to all other political theories.
[/quote]
I think there’s a lot of truth in this. Since we don’t have a wise and righteous king, we’re left with a lot of imperfect options. We try to limit the damage, and look to keeping power and control to a minimum since humans are so prone to corruption or just ineptitude.
I agree with you Puff; however, I do not see, where I’m at, the majority of Dems support it (heavy blue state). I’m surrounded by Dems and the ones with whom I interact are largely opposed to more school choice so much so a provision was voted down this past cycle to allow more charter schools in the state (Massachusetts). The line of reason is it’s at odds with teacher’s unions. These people would rather protect the public teachers’ jobs than allow competition expand.
I know what I’m seeing could simply be availability bias so do you have any hard data that supports what you’re asserting (contradicts what I’m seeing up here in the Deep Blue Sea?)
Polo, I’m remembering several really fantastic articles from Huffington Post in support of school choice, like this one.
Also some articles taking Hillary to task for flipping on the issue. The 70% of Americans support school choice number gets used a lot, but here’s a poll. I can’t vouch for the scientific quality of this one, but here it is.
Key findings from poll:
70 percent fully support the concept of school choice, including 42 percent who strongly support it, while 24 percent oppose it.
65 percent support private school choice (32 percent oppose), when those surveyed were asked if they support, “opportunity scholarships, also known as school vouchers.”
Support among Democrats has increased from 60% in 2015 to 65% in 2016 while Independents’ (66%) and Republicans’ (80%) preference for choice remains steady.
53 percent of voters support “school vouchers” (without using the term “opportunity scholarship”).
65 percent support Education Savings Accounts with only 29 percent opposed.
75 percent support public charter schools with only 21 percent opposing it.
The poll, conducted January 19-24, 2016 surveyed 1,100 likely voters, including an 800 person national sample, on questions related to educational choice, vouchers and charter schools.
School choice is one of those issues a lot of dems agree with until they here a couple arguments against it, or at least conflicting interests like teachers unions. Its like the universal gun control thing where they say 90% of americans support it then when you get to the details you can’t get a majority support anywhere.
Thanks Puff - there seem to be some limitations to the survey … namely the sample size and I’m not sure from where the data were collected - but both articles paint a different picture than what I’ve seen re: the Dems attitudes towards school liberalization (in the classical sense)
Yeah, I might be too hopeful. I was so discouraged when the NAACP came out with an anti-school choice statement in October, before the election. I thought, they felt the pressure to not contradict the Dem candidate, even though she’d championed charter schools in the past. It’s been a huge deal playing out in urban school districts like Chicago. I spent several years working in some very poor urban schools here, up near Compton. I had about 90% of the kids in one school with the same street name. I couldn’t figure it out until I realized it was the housing project.
Anyway, even if people are less motivated by freedom and choice, and more motivated by care for those kids, I’d love to see it. Interestingly, I have several friends who have home schooled, all women with graduate school educational levels, one who went to Harvard, and one to Cal Tech. No poor, working-class single mom, or poor low-income family has that option. Here in CA you can take some of the per pupil spending and use it toward books, and some private resources, but I believe it’s a fairly small amount.
I heart Jason Riley.
That may be. I don’t know about the polls, but I see some really marked regional differences. In the Dem majority rural county of my youth, you’ve got ranchers and people who take their kids hunting as a big part of the culture. Where I am now, you have a lot Dems who have never touched a firearm.
I mean that’s ultimately what SHOULD be the driving force - but most of the opposition here came in the form of teachers unions and not much, from what I saw, from education quality.
Matter of fact, the proponents focused on improved education while the opponents talked about teachers’ wages. I can’t recall seeing any opponents with any education quality issues with expanded school choice. Boggled my mind, really, considering, ultimately, it gives more choices to families in struggling districts and THAT’S really who needs improvements in education. But, their needs were ignored in lieu of the teachers’ unions.
Sorry for the school choice threadjack, @dchris. I want it noted that if this thing goes off on a Second Amendment tangent, that’s ALL suiandy’s fault.
I’ll be out and about through the holidays. Wishing all of you a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year!
No worries. I’ve been around long enough to know that 400 posts on topic is a good thread.
I’m in the Midwest with my in-laws this year, so between eggshells and drinking, currently toasty, I’ll be away as well. I’m sure I’ll check in and see over 100 posts in here.
Nothing meaningful to add to the discussions other than I’m enjoying the arguments as I’m catching up, and like all threads a near death derail into abortion.
Typically and based on the evidence of human history? No, not at all.
Yes. They/we tend to spend more time arguing over who’s more libertarian than the other, and anyone willing to talk about working within the current system is considered a LINO.
This really isn’t all that different than R & D circles though, just more pig headed, like R’s.
Hence the significant and powerful role of Judeo-Christian belief systems in the formation of modern Western Civ.
This isn’t true, though. Almost no libertarians consider Ron Paul, for example, a non-libertarian. There are just certain things that are absolutely incompatible with libertarianism. Many libertine/utopian ideas that have been forced upon citizens/localities/states by the federal government are examples of such.
As a bit of a bump. Mr. Avocado wants to pass a gross receipts tax to make up the state’s spending. I wonder what all the hipsters will do when their Nature’s grocery closes and a Wal-Mart replaces it.
Then disallow federal tax credits into the calculation of your state net income. People act like these federal tax credits don’t apply to states but many high level ones have been passed such that they carry over to state taxes. Lobbyists stand tall on that one.
