A Goal For 2009

I have decided that I will go an learn a few trade skills - partly for fun and partly because when I retire to my new gentleman's farm I want to be able to do a lot of things for myself. There are several things I have toyed with over the years that I am not particularly good at. My father always seemed to be good and most everything - perhaps this resolution for next year will be dedicated to his memory and they way he always impressed me with "stuff".

What do I plan to learn you might ask?

Well for starters I want to take a course in small engine repair, and one in welding also - I can do a little of both but it has been a long time since I put those skills to work. I also would like to become more proficient at gunsmithing and perhaps even learn to reload my own ammunition - my cousins are good at that. I know guys that can replace and even fabricate broken springs - I would like to be able to do that.

Of course there are many things I need to learn about solar power systems - I do not plan to live off the grid but being a little self-sufficient is in my plans and I would like not to have to pay someone to install it all.

I just subscribed again to Mother Earth News and I am very excited about that. I will probably determine that there are many more things I must add to my list to learn and relearn.

My experience with farming has been limited all these years in the military - consisting of tomato plants in the back yard in the years I was home enough to tend to them. My childhood and teen years were spent under the demanding eye of my father making me work his fields like a slave but I have probably forgotten much of what I once knew. My reading list has slowly gravitated toward the subject and I expect over the coming months that will increase.

It is odd that I always envisioned that I would likely teach after I retired from the military but as the time approaches my desires lean more toward learning traditional tradeskills for my own benefit and hobby. I have been wise and thrifty so needing to work was never in my plans but wanting to be useful is a human requirement.

On a related note, I read a article a few days ago that suggested that young people are duped by the notion that they must go to a four year institution to be successful and perhaps we have a "university bubble". I have always thought as much, standards it seems must diminish with more people accepted and colleges acting essentially like businesses filling up seats.

The article suggested the best thing most young people could do out of high school is learn a trade skill. If the economy tanks more the trend will be to repair instead of replace.

This suggestion makes a great deal of practical sense. I do not believe most college students learn very much anyway - they are not mature enough for higher learning at 18-20. Now if that same kid learned a tradeskill, learned the value of hard work and then later went to a four year college - I suspect they would actually learn something.

Oh yeah - one more goal for 2009 is to mail off for one of those Dr. Div. degrees from the "One Big Church of the Immaculate Prefecture" so y'all have to call me Dr. before I have to call IKANTSPEL "Doctor" (his will be real BTW but it will not matter because mine will arrive in the mail first and as Nathan Bedford Forrest said "firstest with the mostest" is what counts)

Stumble It!

Homeschooling, Pluralism, and Germany

I have recently read a speech given to a German home educators group on pluralism and the homeschooling situation in Germany. In case you are unaware, Germany seems to be completely determined to eradicate homeschooling completely.

I want to critique a few points of this speech because I believe that many points made therein articulate beliefs or partial beliefs of some who belong to the HSLDA. The author of the essay/speech is attempting to demonstrate that homeschooling is consistent with democratic pluralism. The goal, I believe, is to mitigate the German state by arguing that homeschoolers really are not trying to create "parallel societies" and that homeschooling is consistent with the pluralism that German education ministers are so eager to bring up. I tend to disagree with both points.

The author essentially defines pluralism within the context of a democratic republic as a group of individuals co-existing in what he calls a common society. A common society, then, is nothing more than a society formed by common belief and implemented democratically through the apparatus of the state. The author believes that this is good and articulates that the benefits of a pluralistic society in abstract notions about working together for the "common good" to protect "human rights" under the auspice of "equality."

Geez, this guy almost sounds like a leftist (the sad part is that he probably considers himself conservative indicating that the conservative movement is impotent). The problem is that a common society can only be sustained democratically by mob rule. One group of people may have their beliefs seriously compromised if that said group is a small minority. The majority, then, has the ability to impose foreign cultural beliefs on a minority population by using the state to enforce it's edicts. This is precisely the same reason why empires, for example, extinguish culture - because they conquer and impose a foreign culture on the native population. Moreover, I surmise that even the notions of "common good" and "human rights" are to be determined by the majority.

Moving on, the author then contrasts this idea of "pluralism" with the idea of "parallel societies." He notes:

[P]arallel societ[ies] ... [consist of] a group of people who live inside or within another society but do not share in these minimum common characteristics [characteristics needed to sustain common society for pluralism to survive (this is the author's view)]. These societies within a society seek not to interact but to remain isolated. Such a "parallel society" limits its contact with the larger society and seeks to operate its own civic institutions, legal functions, and would likely reject learning a common language.

I agree that this is what the German officials desire to prevent but the author's use of language seems to imply that this is bad. Alas, I predicted this even before reading the next few paragraphs:

If we accept the idea that government exists to maintain order by establishing a rule of law that applies equally to all within its jurisdiction—then indeed parallel societies are dangerous.

In such parallel societies the rights that should be protected and enjoyed by all citizens of the society could be repressed in the name of some other philosophy, legal system or religion, perhaps. If this were true, it would mean that that not all citizens would be receiving equal protection under the law. Because it is the duty of the state to protect the rights and equal application of the law to all people living within its jurisdiction—this cannot be allowed.

The question here is dangerous to whom? More often than not, parallel societies are dangerous to the state itself. Many groups of people simply desire to be left alone to govern themselves but he speaks of this almost as if it is a heinous crime. Of course, the reasoning here is couched in protecting "human rights" but remember that in a democratic society, such things can be arbitrarily determined by a majority. And what of "repression?" Law itself might be unjust and immoral. In fact, this is the problem that homeschoolers in Germany face but he doesn't see it.

Ludwig von Mises believed that in order to prevent international wars, genocide, and physical oppression of one group against another, democracy had to be voluntary. It seems to me that the author glorifies what he calls "order." But even this idea itself can also be subjective in the context of democratic government.

He then inquires whether or not homeschoolers seek to create "parallel societies" and then unequivocally answers NO. Perhaps some homeschoolers are not trying to do this but the point I am trying to make is that this is not necessarily a bad thing. I am a believer in homeschooling not because I believe that the public schools simply do not teach what I desire them to teach. I am a believer in homeschooling because I find the mere existence of public schools repulsive and I believe that education is a lifelong process that begins at home, not in some impersonal institution. Indeed if one is honest, one will admit that homeschooling is a separate institution from public schools so this argument cannot even survive the most mild criticism from the German officials.

To give a more specific example, why do you think that Hedge Schools came about in colonial Ireland? The elders were trying to teach their children things which were inconsistent with the current ruling body because these cultural things were being extinguished. Would the author here oppose Hedge Schools? The author might argue that this is different because at the time, monarchical government was common. But would it really matter if the Irish were a minority in a democratic government? Of course not.

The author then notes

Parallel societies may indeed be the enemy of a democratic state. But dogmatic and coerced uniformity is the enemy of a pluralistic society.

The question is not whether a free society can or must be either democratic or pluralistic—it can and should be both. All civilized nations profess a commitment to both democracy and pluralism. I would suggest that no responsible homeschool leader or homeschooler would advocate for the creation of what I have defined as parallel societies.

He gets one thing right: parallel societies are the enemy of a democratic state but I believe that his argument about "dogmatic and coerced uniformity" is wrong. Why? Well, it might be true in theory but it cannot be true in practice because I don't believe that pluralistic societies can genuinely exist in nature. That is, they don't naturally exist without the presence of an artificial entity like the state to sustain them and force various groups to remain united to it. So, pluralistic societies do exist within the confines of compulsory democratic states but are unnatural because they are sustained by gunpoint and not by free association. Therein lies the hypocrisy of remaining committed to "democratic pluralism" while seeking to eradicate "parallel societies."

Moreover, the virtue of the modern democratic state is that is is ok to plunder and coerce your neighbor so long as one appeals to the democratic process. More often than not, the reason that one group oppresses another is because the latter group is forced to endure such oppression by the nature of the democratic process. Besides this, one must accept the proposition that forcing group A to remain united with group B when group A does not want to be united with group B does not ameliorate the situation. If group A ever becomes a majority, then they now have the ability to oppress group B.

Because all "civilized" nations profess commitment to democracy and pluralism, I would suggest that all "civilized" nations are actually barbaric. Has it occurred to the speaker that moral decay is rampant in all "civilized nations" (seethis)? The nature of the democratic state itself breeds and sustains the whole idea of what he calls "moral relativism." To the author's credit, he admits that "human rights must rest on an objective standard." Yet, this can never be guaranteed within a democratic state. And whose standard should be applied? I believe that a Christian standard should be applied but a Muslim or an atheist would beg to differ. Naturally, if the atheist standard was applied, there would exist conflict from the Christian and possibly some Muslim communities. Hence the situation in Germany.

The author continues:

[I]n seeking this goal or protecting the rights of all, Germany may not use this argument to justify repression of educational freedom and the right of parents to determine the best form of education for their children. The undisputed empirical reality is that homeschooling by itself does not create parallel societies—and if German authority structures and those who influence them (such as the media and academics) would care to look beyond its own borders, this would be obvious.

This argument is self-defeating and am forced to ask him "why not?" To the speaker, educational freedom is a human right but to Germany, the EU, and the U.N. forced compulsory education is a human right. Pragmatically, the latter is true simply because the state has all of the guns and the power of coercion at it's disposal.

I don't want to go through every point made by the author because he articulates similar ideas and thoughts. He does claim that "the democratic state should not exist to form or mold or shape society" but this is a statement that I believe is always fundamentally false. The problem with democracy is that it sounds good unless you fall within the minority.

Stumble It!

The Huckster and Education

After crying wolf multiple times, I have decided to resume blogging more regularly (school has been keeping me away).

Those who know me know that I am unequivocally opposed to public education and any kind of state control of education and children. With that being said, I would like to discuss implications pertaining to the 2008 election, particularly with regard to the alleged candidate chosen by God Himself, Mike Huckabee.

A few months ago, I discovered that the evangelical based Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) has made an early endorsement of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary. I am not entirely surprised at this move as they have become more of an organ of the religious right, especially since the conception of their PAC in 2003. Despite the connection to the religious right, I nonetheless believe that the HSLDA is a beneficial resource for homeschoolers, especially Christian homeschoolers. They provide valuable legal help/resources and information pertaining to homeschooling that the mainstream press often conveniently ignores.

I think that it is reasonably obvious why the religious right lends support to Huckabee on numerous other issues (i.e. he is a statist and a warmonger who believes that Israel is really the 51st state). What fueled my curiosity is why the HSLDA and other religious conservatives might support Huckabee based solely on his education platform.

Here is a portion of what the HSLDA PAC endorsement reads:

Mike Huckabee, as governor, was the first to appoint a homeschooler to the Arkansas State Board of Education, and to our knowledge the first to do so in any state. He is adamantly opposed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and is committed to stopping the erosion of parental rights.

I'm sure that to many parents, these words might offer a bit of encouragement especially to those who have been harassed by the pesky state. When Mike Huckabee launched an exploratory committee, I visited his website and had a look at his education platform. Here is the very first item that appeared (notice the tense of the verb) on a pithy enumerated list when I made my visit many months ago:

I believe that every child in America has the right to a quality public education that teaches the fundamental skills needed to compete in a global economy.

As soon as I read this, I forthwith became skeptical about his entire education platform. To the Huckster's credit, he does mention homeschooling but I was nevertheless mystified concerning the way in which the he might reconcile his position on homeschooling with a seemingly obvious declaration or allusion to a universal right to public education (for those who do not see why there is room for concern, I am currently blogging on this issue at my personal blog). My skepticism has since then multiplied when I recently took a proverbial stroll back to the holy one's campaign site to find the following, in place of what was written previously:

I believe that every child should have the opportunity for a quality education that teaches the fundamental skills needed to compete in a global economy.

Why, one might reasonably inquire, did he mollify his original statement by changing his use of language? Some folks might believe that this is just an honest revision and perhaps it really is. But I am slightly more skeptical. Firstly, the remainder of the text in his platform appears to be relatively unaltered from the original. Secondly, he did not make the changes due to grammatical or otherwise syntactical ambiguities. He only changed and removed a few key words. If one considers the changes that were made, it seems reasonable for one to deduce that he is trying to keep himself from sounding too much like a socialist or a Democrat.

There are those who might be apt to believe that I am extrapolating too much from all of this and making a nuisance of myself. Yet in response, I am forced to again inquire how one may genuinely be interested in protecting parental rights while at the same time deliver multiple promises, as Huckabee does, to remedy the very same system that facilitates their violation.

To elaborate, lets consider some of the more fine points on the Huckster's platform.

Firstly, he seems to suggest that all children have a universal right to education and I see no further need to comment on that (actually, I am copiously commenting on this in general on my blog).

Next, there are only two occurrences of the word “homeschooling” on the Huckster's education platform. The first occurs on his bulleted list at the top of his platform on education (nothing has been altered here from it's original appearance like the previous statement was):

I have been a strong, consistent supporter of the rights of parents to home school their children, of creating more charter schools, and of public school choice.

The next occurrence appears to be the point that was summarized at the top:

As Governor, I fought hard for more charter schools, with their strong parental involvement and their unique ability to serve as laboratories for education reform, and for the rights of parents to home school their children. I am a strong supporter of public school choice. I am proud that my three children attended public schools from K through twelve, as did my wife and I.

Thus, while Huckabee does mention homeschooling, he couples it with either public school choice or charter schools. He says nothing about genuine private solutions and nothing about the issue of homeschool regulation. The overall emphasis of his platform is focused on what the state can do to supposedly improve education. To put two and two together seems to reveal a paradox. How does homeschooling fit within his idea that all children ought to receive a public education (or all children should receive an education, as the revision goes)? If one is to receive a "quality" education there must be some way of making such a judgment. Incidentally, I am amused at the way he puts the purpose of charter schools: laboratories for education reform. Are children these days nothing more than little lab rats to be experimented on by a plethora of self-righteous educrats?

Furthermore, would he compel parents to send their children to public schools if all of the problems he perceives to exist have been resolved? That is, does Huckabee believe that homeschooling is merely a temporary solution justified by what he perceives to be problems with the public schools or is it something more?

He goes on to note that:

In addition, I want to provide our children what I call the "Weapons of Mass Instruction" - art and music - the secret, effective weapons that will help us to be competitive and creative. It is crucial that children flex both the left and right sides of the brain. We all know the cliché of thinking outside the box: I want our children to be so creative that they think outside the cardboard factory. Art and music are as important as math and science because the dreamers and visionaries among us take the rough straw of an idea and spin it into the gold of new businesses and jobs. It is as important to identify and encourage children with artistic talent as it is those with athletic ability. Our future economy depends on a creative generation.

I again find his use of language rather interesting: he wants our children to be creative. It's important to him that our children can do this or that or that our children can play the hurdy gurdy better than the Islamo-Fascists. I also like the way he thinks it's his duty to inoculate our children with his WMI's. If you want creative solutions, then here is a suggestion: I dare you to get on camera and discuss a workable plan to eventually abolish all government involvement in education. But alas, I surmise that only certain kinds of creative solutions are permissible. Also, I think that his allusion to WMD's is rather morbid. Perhaps we can simultaneously drop them on children who live in the countries we invade and occupy (I wouldn't put it past this guy).

He continues by enumerating the usual list of actions with which we may occupy ourselves to 'improve' the government schools. Each U.S. State ought to set benchmarks, he writes. We need to hire competent teachers, he writes. We need to expose children to more art and music, he writes. We need to hold teachers and administrators accountable, he writes. Blah blah blah, I passed this law and did that, blah blah blah, pay teachers more, focus on real education, set benchmarks, blah blah blah. The same rhetoric that politicians have been using for decades concerning education is therein mentioned but decades of spewing lofty goals has not managed to ameliorate poor academic performance. Yet why should this be surprising? I would contend that the schools are operating within the parameters under which they were conceived.

Most importantly, in the midst all of this discussion about education policy, it seems that we have failed to consider the fact that the Federal Constitution has little to say on this matter (i.e. efforts to abolish compulsory education should be directed at the states). While Huckabee does mention states' rights, he does so very superficially. However, this will be of little consequence if the Democrats get their way (I wonder if this amendment would be illegally ratified like the many that will precede it if so).

Finally, here is a video of the Huckster himself speaking at the NEA Annual Convention this past summer. Anyone who knows anything about the NEA knows that they are most certainly not friendly to those who homeschool nor to anyone desiring educational freedom (they essentially view everyone's children as job insurance for their members).

Stumble It!