AZ has another bill.Follow

The government could open up a gallery with the collection of finger prints they have of mine, so at least I don't need to worry about that.

but what if someone cuts off your thumb and attaches it to their own body!!!

It'd be like that movie Face Off, only with thumbs. Thumb Off.

I just don't get how on the one hand people can agitate for smaller government and on the other hand demand that certain scholastic curricula be outlawed.

When classes are outlawed only outlaws will have class!

This is why the fringe of either side of an issue or party can get politicians to pass laws that will create far more problems then fix a something that the fringe feel is the problem.

sitting here thinking your voice doesn't matter is a power that is often used to get laws and policies pass that take away ones Rights and Liberties.

No, no, I can't. It isn't as though these classes were going to be canceled. Instead, the curriculum of the class itself will be controlled by our friends, the government.

No it's not. It's actually governing where these funds can be spent.

If I gave you $200 and said, "You can spend that on anything but tacos," who's being limited here, me or you?

What should they be arguing for? Anything that makes "eliminate it" an option.

So: anything that makes public schools worse, in order to gain popular support for ending them.

It's a state law numnuts. It places restrictions on curriculum in that state. It also presumably affects some classes which qualify for grant funding from the federal level.

Small government advocates do not support the idea of any local recipient of funding to spend it however they want. I'm not sure why you'd think so since it makes no darn sense at all.

I was trying for cute, actually... ;)



Sure. But that's mirrored with local money spent locally. No amount of me passing local laws setting class curriculum changes the fact that the bulk of the federal money is being spent elsewhere and thus is not under my control. Same deal applies (to a larger degree actually) at the state level. By far the largest source of funds for public schools are state taxes. So that's the level that most people think they should have the most say in terms of how those dollars are spent.




Sure. But there's a directionality issue here as well. There's a difference between mandating what *must* be taught in a given class, and placing restrictions on what *may* be taught. There are two aspects of the small government argument, and it seems like you're trying to ignore one of them. The component which says "I don't want the government telling me what to do" is half of it, but "I don't want the government taking my money and using it on things I think are useless or counterproductive" is the other half.

Placing restrictions on what kinds of curriculum will be paid for with tax dollars absolutely is a small government position.

Ok. Either I didn't write that example clearly, or you're not understanding me, or some combination of the two.

In the analogy I wrote *I* am the government (I'm taking money from you and providing a service in return, analogous to taxes and benefits). You are both the taxpayer and the recipient. And you are correct, you have more power if you can limit what I can spend your $200 on than if you don't. If I just take the money from you and provide the service I think you want, then you have the least amount of power and control and I have the most. The degree to which you can place limits on what I may do with the money I took from you determines the degree to which you have more power and control.


Obviously, if there's an option to not have the money taken from you in the first place, that's the ideal small government position. But if we assume that I'm paying for something either way (public education for example), then anything which limits the way in which that money may be spent limits the government. I guess what's so surprising to me is that there's even a tiny bit of disagreement about this.




It's about minimizing the degree to which government can force people to conform to some standard, yes. I think you're losing sight of the status-quo position here though...



And here's where you do it. The very existence of state or federal guidelines for curriculum "interferes" with the curriculum. Those classes would not exist if not for various grant programs. Groups of people do indeed sit around and decide that schools need more "diversity education", and dangle funding in front of public school administrators if they meet some set of criteria. That's how much of education funding is done.

The idea that one status of control is ok, but another is wrong kinda falls apart here. Limiting the scope of something which is already a control mechanism at worst has no effect in terms of small government, and at best may indeed be in keeping with that ideal. And in the case of this specific AZ law, it is the later result.




Except there does seem to be a problem here. The law only restricts classes which promote racial solidarity or that are designed primarily for students of a particular race or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group. Any class which doesn't do that isn't affected by the law, and I assume you agree that classes which do are a problem and shouldn't be being taught, right?


Small government advocates tend to agree that education which goes beyond the basics is always going to be problematic and this is an example of that happening. How do you teach increased cultural studies without leaving someone out or advocating one "side" or another? It's best not to get into that, and certainly our public schools can do without. As I stated earlier, it's not like this makes it illegal for private organizations to teach whatever they want. It's just that when parents and their children have little or no choice about where they go to school, we really do need to keep the curriculum down to the necessities.


I'll restate my original position as well: This is why I support school vouchers. Make all schools private schools and let parents choose where their kids go. If you want to send your kid to the school that teaches nothing but alternative ethnic history, then you can. If you want to send your kids to a religious school, then you can. If you want to send your kid to a school that teaches basket weaving and folk singing, then you can do that. And your choice doesn't affect the parents who don't want their kids indoctrinated with those things.

As long as the bulk of public money for education is funneled into public schools with set curriculum and with minimal choices for parents and children, we shouldn't be doing that stuff. And I don't think a measure designed purely to prevent the worst examples of that sort of education from being taught is a bad thing, much less some violation of the principles of small government.

Gbaji would be the first person I'd call if I were looking for someone to entertain a bunch of kids at a birthday party.

There's secular private schools although they tend to be of the "prestige" category or special purpose. Various academies, private military/boarding schools, Montessori schools, etc.

I know there are some, but I'm not aware of any. Particularly where I live in Tennessee.



I'm not Samira, but I take that as a compliment.