As you know, we home school. We do this because we are able to, and we think it good for our kids and because we know there are dangers in the public schools.
So tomorrow our school district (or the school district that our kids would be in if they went to school) is having a referendum vote.
I’m just going to put it out there for you. We will be voting ‘Yes’ – for these reasons:
1. Teachers are generally good people and they aren’t paid enough.
2. It is the government’s job to pay for schooling K-12. And our nation is better because it does.
3. There are poor or uneducated people who can’t home-school.
4. Our school systems need to be improved, and not funding them is not going to help.
I must admit, I have one regret about this and it has to do with Home-schooling families that are having difficulty making ends meet. If the referendum passes, I will have helped to make things more difficult for them. My response is, (1) families like this are rare, and (2) they are generally prepared for the challenge.
I have made a goal to always vote ‘Yes’ for these things. Perhaps one day, some school district will say “We want guaranteed free vacations to Disney World for all students! Vote Yes!” But until they are asking for something similarly ridiculous, I’ll be there, willing to have my taxes increased.
* No, not for the Primary Reason I was placed there. BUT I’M NOT BITTER!
The Responsible Puppet 
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 5, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Marie
Oh man, I can’t get behind you there. In our state, there are more administrators than teachers. It is ridiculous. No way I’d vote to tax my neighbors for that business.
November 6, 2007 at 12:33 am
jamsco
I was afraid that you might be on the other side. Administration isn’t as big in MN.
November 10, 2007 at 2:06 am
bethyada
My kids go to a public school (not in the US). Nevertheless, how do you defend your comment: It is the government’s job to pay for schooling K-12. And our nation is better because it does.
Are you saying that it does, or that it should (I read the latter). I see no biblical mandate where it is the state’s responsibility to raise children.
If the government were to pay, would not a voucher system and increased competition do better than giving them more money. I am not aware of any correlation between funding and outcomes. The NHS (UK health) has recently announced that their billion dollar increase in funding has led to no improvement in outcomes.
With regard to you tax comment, aren’t you asking for the tax take to decrease in the long term by that. It is reasonably clear now that wanting a larger piece of the pie leads to a smaller pie. Government should aim to maximise the pie and even a small piece is absolutely (though not relatively) larger. Socialist governments do not increase tax to get money, they increase it to limit wealth and keep citizens dependant on them.
November 12, 2007 at 2:20 pm
jamsco
Do you see a biblical mandate that it is not the state’s responsibility?
I think that if there is a necessary thing that should be done, and no private entity will do it, then the government should do this. No private entity will educate poor kids for free. I am glad that all children have free education. If those who couldn’t afford education didn’t get it, we’d be in trouble.
Could you restate the last paragraph. I’m not really getting it.
November 13, 2007 at 10:19 am
jb
Foolish and naive position.
November 13, 2007 at 2:40 pm
jamsco
JB,
Which part? How so?
November 17, 2007 at 1:56 am
bethyada
jamsco, I elaborated some of my thoughts at Vox’s. I presume you saw them.
With regard to the last paragraph, it was a response to you saying you are willing to have you taxes raised to pay for this.
My answer was that if the government wants money it should lower taxes.
Which is more? 10% of a 100 billion dollar economy or 50% of a 1 billion dollar one?
To get more money the government should be more concerned with increasing the size of the economy because even a slither of a gigantic pie is more than all of a small one. There is good evidence that low tax leads to much wealthier economies.
In terms of socialism, you need to be aware of their ideology. Taxes are far more about limiting the range of incomes of the people (better they all earn the same amount even if poor, than there be a large difference, even if most are well off).
Further, the more that the government can take off you and then give you back in services, the more you perceive they are giving you stuff. Thus you are dependent on them.
I am not saying that the government is forbidden from helping the poor, I am just not convinced that socialism really has that as a primary agenda; social manipulation is higher.
Our socialist government is currently over-taxing and providing family support for many who could survive easily without it. And they do it at a cost that could allow all families to get it, but they prevent the higher income ones getting it even though it would be cheaper to give it to them!
November 17, 2007 at 2:00 am
bethyada
Here are my comments:
Do you see a biblical mandate that it is not the state’s responsibility?
My reading of Scripture suggests that the mandate for raising children is given to the fathers/ parents. This does not necessarily mean they must do it, rather they are responsible for it. Even if it is legitimate to give the task to another or the state, the responsibility that it is done appropriately remains with the father.
Now any government can do a range of things. There are some things a government could do that may be acceptable but as they are not its mandate not doing them may be an acceptable position. So I can see the situation were 2 righteous governments could exist with 1 adopting a policy and 1 not doing so, yet both behaving in an acceptable manner.
Applying this to education, if there were no specific biblical mandate for the government to be involved in schooling then public schooling at the most is an optional activity. In which case not being involved in a permissible option.
(Some here may suggest the God does not want government involved in schooling at all.)
I think that if there is a necessary thing that should be done, and no private entity will do it, then the government should do this. No private entity will educate poor kids for free. I am glad that all children have free education. If those who couldn’t afford education didn’t get it, we’d be in trouble.
Necessary or beneficial. We must be careful to argue something should be done because of the perceived outcome, the thing should be good in and of itself. And frequently the predicted outcome does not occur, worse the intervention may exacerbate the problem.
Even if we concede the government should ensure education we have not arrived at public education. They could just legislate for it. Pass a law that states that parents must educate their children to a certain degree of reading, writing and numeracy by a certain age. The government requires other behaviour of its citizens that it is not involved in providing.
If we argue that the government should also fund this education it could do so by several means, tax breaks/ rebates, vouchers. But funding education is not the same as providing education. The government could tender education to several providers and allow parents to choose schools that best served them. The better schools would grow and the useless ones and inefficient ones would fail.
To summarise: without a biblical mandate to educate the masses, the most one can argue for is education is a possible area the government can choose to be involved in. It can restrict this to legislation, it can further fund it, and it can also be the provider.
You have gone from there is no mandate not to be involved and education is good to the government should run the schools and tax all men to this end.
November 17, 2007 at 10:33 am
jamsco
Re: “In terms of socialism, you need to be aware of their ideology. Taxes are far more about limiting the range of incomes of the people (better they all earn the same amount even if poor, than there be a large difference, even if most are well off).”
It sounds like you are saying that when the school board of my district decided to put up the referendum vote, they weren’t thinking “We need more teachers, or schools or programs,” but instead they were thinking:
“let’s limit the range of incomes of the people (better they all earn the same amount even if poor, than there be a large difference, even if most are well off).”
I disagree. That is rediculous.
November 17, 2007 at 10:35 am
jamsco
Thanks for posting this comment here.
Re: “You have gone from there is no mandate not to be involved and education is good to the government should run the schools and tax all men to this end.”
I haven’t actually said that Government should run the schools, but yes, all men should be taxed for it, because all men benefit.
November 17, 2007 at 2:06 pm
bethyada
jamsco, the school board may not think this, but the fact that you said you are happy to have your taxes raised suggested you were conceding that increased taxes get you more money.
I was disputing your reasoning, showing the fundamental flaw of raising money thru tax hikes.
Whether the advocates of tax increases understand the issues (you, the board, college student, your grocer) is not the issue. The point is the argument is false whoever uses it.
Those who are unaware think it may raise funds (like your board).
And those in the know claim it is about helping the poor but in fact it is not.
I may need to make myself clearer, I address things at a fundamental level frequently, so my response to the tax left the schooling issue and just focused of my perception of the falsity of that statement dissociated from the source issue.
November 17, 2007 at 2:25 pm
jamsco
Can you explain why you think the tax base will go up so dramatically if the people are taxed less. Perhaps you stated this above, but I didn’t find it just now as I skimmed.
November 17, 2007 at 10:42 pm
bethyada
Low tax is an economic stimulant. While there are other issues that affect economies, all other things being the same, the more money left with individuals for investment the stronger the economy will be, ie. wealthier.
This is a big topic, too big.
Read Walter Williams who writes a commentary weekly.
Read Common Sense Economics by Gwartney, intro text at college level.
November 17, 2007 at 10:43 pm
bethyada
Sorry, link doesn’t work but sure you can find it.
November 23, 2007 at 10:00 pm
The connection: Bethlehem Baptist Church and the Cuckold « Bob Dudesky
[…] Living Up To My Placement In Vox Day’s “Target Rich Environments”*, Jamsco tries to portray himself as some kind of adversary of Vox instead of a fan of […]
December 3, 2014 at 7:38 pm
Irresponsible puppetry | Vox Popoli
[…] no doubt that they passed, few Minnesotans have ever seen a tax they didn’t like. Very well, let us consider his justifications: 1. Teachers are generally good people and they aren’t paid […]