Betsy DeVos: I'd be 'fine' if we could ditch the Education Department

Well, gotta start somewhere. I am libertarian that wants the lowest level of government possible. Can't just call for neighborhood government overnight, it wont happen. But I like how you ignored my facts and just tried to attack me on a personal level. Shows that you know I am right and cant refute what I said.

 

This is your metric? Spelling bees? Also, religious and genius don't belong together.

 

Of course they do. Copernicus was a priest. George Lemaître, one of the key figures in the Big Bang Theory, was a Catholic priest as well. Religiousity and genius have no correlation, either positive or negative, except to bigots.

 

At least you acknowledge religious nonsense is fairy tales. I'd rather have children learning science, math and computers. You know, real world applications. Leave the bronze age nonsense to the scam artists and pedophiles of organized religion.

 

Once again you nothing of home schooling.

 

With that grammar you must have been home schooled.

 

No, I am a product of the liberal public schools.

 

Wow. So Harvard was around 25 years before Columbus was born? And it was Roman Catholic? And was a Jesuit institution a full century before the Jesuits were even founded? Amazing.

Lemme' guess...alternative history?

 

I would agree except for one point. The federal government isn't collecting enough tax revenue now to fund the authorized expenditures so really the states need to increase their state taxation to fully fund education and then refuse the money from the US Department of Education so that money can be used to fund other spending necessities by the federal government.

The first rule of fiscal conservatism is "pay the bills" and then reduce the necessity for the spending to lower the annual costs.

For example a person might have a home mortgage with a 5% interest rate and a $1,500 monthly payment. First they make the mortgage payment and then they explore the possibility of a mortgage refinance for a lower interest rate to reduce the future monthly payments. They don't just refuse to make the payment in the hopes that they can reduce the interest in the future.

The Republican agenda has been: Don't pay the bills, cut taxes, and then cut spending without regard for whether the spending is necessary.

As applied in the example above they'd soon find themselves losing their home in foreclosure for not paying their monthly mortgage payment of $1,500/mo.

So the answer is easy on this. Betsy DeVos needs to convince the states to start fully funding their own education 100%, turn down the federal funding assistance, and when all of the states have done that then the US Department of Education automatically "goes out of business" because it can't even give the money away that Congress provides to it.

Republicans should do this with their other big compliant - federal welfare. To reduce federal welfare spending all the Republicans need to do is to reduce working poverty. It's the poverty that drives the necessity for welfare assistance. Employers under-compensate their employees and that creates the necessity for the federal welfare assistance.

The identical problem exists for the schools. The states are under-funding their school systems and that creates the necessity for the federal (welfare) assistance to the states provided for by the US Department of Education.

There's a fundamental rule in capitalism that also applies to government, The "Price" (amount spent) on a necessary product or service cannot be less than the "cost" of that product or service. This is based upon the simple rule that "nothing is free" that Republicans often ignore.

When the "price" paid by employer to the worker in wages and benefits is less than the "cost of living" for the employee then employee requires an outside subsidy to make up the difference between the price and the cost.

When the state's "price" for education is less than the "cost" of providing the education then it needs a subsidy from the federal government to make up the difference.

It's not like this is rocket science. It's simple math where the "price" must always be equal to or greater than the "cost" for the product or service.

 

Well now, the country's school systems performed much better before we had a Department of Edumacation.........so I don't think anyone would miss it. Not to mention, leftist, gay Afghani refugees could find something to do other than block DeVos from entering schools.

 

I'm interested in this statement because it actually relates to why I left the Libertarian Party last year. It hinges upon which of the two quotations of philosophy below that's supported.

The first quotation is:

"That government is best which governs least...", Henry David Thoreau Civil Disobedience

This is the philosophy of "minimal government" that is widely supported under the Republican political ideology and that has been fundamentally adopted by the Libertarian Party.

The second quotation is:

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine Common Sense

This is the philosophy of "necessary government" that was incorporated into the First Principle of "limited government" when the United States was founded.

A minimalistic government is incapable of protecting the unalienable (inalienable) natural rights of the person and as such it becomes the "intolerable" government that Thomas Paine refers to in the full context of his often cited quotation:

A minimalistic government, failing to provide for the protection of our rights, is a "calamity" because we created that government that allows the violations of our rights.

The size and power of government is dictated by the necessity for the protection of our rights but one of our rights is addressed in another First Principle:

The "Right of Consent" is a natural (unalienable/inalienable) right that our government must protect. By "consent" under the social contract the "people/person" can demand services/benefits from government based upon "consent" and in demanding those services/benefits they're also consenting to funding of those services/benefits.

Because the "limited government" must protect and respect this "right of the People" the government must provide the service/benefit and tax the people to fund the expenditure.

Of note Thomas Paine and the First Principles of government originated from John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government.

So are you a "minimal" or a "necessary" government advocate is the key question.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/americas-first-principles.php
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

 

lololololololol

 

There are so many ways you can look at where the "minimal" amount of government is needed. The bolded line is something that was interesting to me. Since you are taking things to the extreme when you talk about "minimal/no" government, I will do it in kind. When the people "demand" services and the government "must" provide, that is making one person, or group of people, do something usually against their will. This is slavery. No amount of want or need of the population justifies having the government force someone to do the bidding of others.

But you also are talking very vague, like what is a "natural right"? Is it different for you than it would be for me? Who chooses these rights, the people?

 

Well, yes . I acknowledge the envirowackos religion is fairy tales.

Kind of like the component of SJWS who promote both envirowackoism and fairy tales that a man can become a woman.

 

Good catch. I noticed the Jesuit mistake, but not the date mistake.

 

For a self-proclaimed "libertarian" to ask this question introduces a contradiction. The root of the word "libertarian" is "liberty" and the "libertarian" by definition is the advocate for the Natural Right of Liberty. Natural Rights are determined by the Natural Laws for Survival of the Species and are a logical deduction that apply to all. They are not chosen but instead are identified. They are not inviolable but they are inalienable/unalienable. Every "libertarian" by necessity must be a student of John Locke that established the definitive arguments establishing that "natural rights" are a "truth" that, in spite of Locke's challenge, has not been rebutted since 1690 when he published the Second Treatise of Civil Government.

The statement, "When the people "demand" services and the government "must" provide, that is making one person, or group of people, do something usually against their will. This is slavery." is false. Mankind evolved as a social being and the Laws of Nature for Survival of the Species provide both benefits (i.e. mutual survival) and well as responsibilities (i.e. what the members must do to provide for their mutual survival) for society. Those that claim they're being obligated to do what they would otherwise choose not to do are simply demanding the "benefits" of society while refusing to be "responsible" for their contribution to the society.

The Right of Liberty and the Obligation of Responsibility are interactive. No person has a Right of Liberty to act irresponsibly. As Locke points out in Chapter II, Of the State of Nature, "though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license."

The person's Natural Right of Liberty is constrained and the person only has the Freedom (Liberty) to Exercise their Natural (inalienable/unalienable) Rights that are limited by the Laws of Nature (for survival of the species). This is not the "License" to do whatever the person damn well pleases so long as it doesn't "violate the law" (reflective of the Republican Party ideology) or "result in a direct act of aggression against a specific person" (reflective of the Libertarian Party ideology) because many actions violate the "Laws of Nature" and are reflective of a violation of the Rights of the Common (i.e. all people).

Returning to "public education" that is the fundamental subject of this discussion. Our society, that Natural Law dictates must communally provide for the survival (support and comfort) of all members, is highly dependent upon the members being educated. The establishment of "public education" (created by the consent of the governed) that imposes the obligation upon society to fund the education. The "benefit" is the educated population and the "responsibility" is for those to fund the education which takes us back to taxation and Locke addresses this as well.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr11.txt

The "libertarian's" problem isn't really with public education that was created by necessity for society based upon the "consent of the governed" but instead that we're not funding the education proportionate to the estate of the individuals in society. By definition the "estate" is the person's "assets minus liabilities" and for (annual funding) tax purposes that is income in excess of the annual minimum-mandatory expenditures of the person/household for their survival (support and comfort). Taxation must be based upon the "profits" (income above the minimum-mandatory costs of the household) of the person/household and the rate must be identical for all on the "profits" for it to be proportional. Our tax structure is not based upon taxation that is "proportionate to the estate" predominately because of Republican favoritism for wealthy individuals and corporations. The "Capital Gains" tax loophole, for example, is a direct violation of the Natural Rights of Property of the People because it taxes the "estate" of investors at roughly 1/2 the rate of the earned income tax rates. Itemized deductions for discretionary spending, such as the mortgage deduction up to $1 million when no one needs to live in a million dollar home, also represent a violation of the Natural Right of Property of the People in our society.

If our tax codes imposed "proportionate taxation on the estate" then all of the authorized expenditures of our government, including fully funding our public education system that is a necessity for our society, would be fully funded without a violation of the Natural Right of Property of any person.

The underlying problem is that Sect of Education Betsy DeVos has no academic knowledge of education, no personal experience with education, and ignores the fact that public education is mandatory necessity for society. She's unqualified for her position which will negatively impact education throughout the United States. If she knew what she was doing she'd be making proposals to increase the "proficiency" of the students but when question in her Senate hearings she didn't even know the difference between "proficiency" and "growth" in measuring school performance. How does a person increase student proficiency when they don't even know what it means as a metric for our school systems?

 

I know what I consider natural rights, I was looking at what you claim to believe are natural rights. BTW, as you should fully know, Libertarians are the furthest from a homogenized group in ideology. There is no "one best way" to be a libertarian.

Socialism.

You like to quote Locke a lot. I don't care for him much and never bowed down to the teachings of a man to influence my ideology.

So homosexuality is a crime against nature cause there is no survival of the species through same sex partners? Remind me again what political leaning are you again?

 

Hmmmm it was Republicans and Republican policies that balanced the budget and produced the surplus in tjenlate 1990's and Republicans and republican policies that produced the measly $161B deficit in 2007 after which Democrats and Demkcrafs policies took that and iin just two years gafe us $1,400B deficits and kept it over $1,000B for he next 4.

So your premise is entirely flawed.

 

Silly me, looking to debate a person who denies proven science and then says prayers to a mystical sky god.

 

Because spending inherently increases with each successive administration the most accurate means for comparison between administrations is the percentage increase in the national debt during the presidential administration.

The national debt grew by 68% in 8 years under Barack Obama.
The national debt grew by 101% in 8 years under George W. Bush.
The national debt grew by 32% in 8 years under Bill Clinton.
The national debt grew by 54% in 4 years under George H.W. Bush.
The national debt grew by 186% in 8 years under Ronald Reagan.
The national debt grew by 43% in 4 years under Jimmy Carter.

We could keep going back but except for Ronald Reagan and George W Bush no other president since WW II had hit the "triple-digit" mark although FDR hit $1,048% but that included WW II spending and then Woodrow Wilson at 727%.

I'm not quite sure that this has to do with Republican tax policies that are still "Don't pay the bills, cut taxes, and then cut spending without regard for whether the spending is necessary."

The "deficits" are always known in advance so perhaps an example can be provided where the Republicans changed the tax codes so enough revenue would be received to fund the authorized expenditures. George HW Bush broke a campaign promise and raised taxes but not enough to fund the expenditures. I can't think of any other time when Republicans increased the tax rates.

 

I'd be 'fine' if we could ditch the Education Department

I'm with her on that one.

 

There's a best way for a self-professed libertarian to demonstrate they're not a libertarian - hypocrisy.

For claiming to be self-educated without a dependency upon anyone else's knowledge you seem to be having great difficulty by erroneously referring to the obligations of members of society to fund the government that they create for their mutual benefit and apparently being clueless when it comes to natural law. There is much to be said for actually learning from those that preceded us as opposed to repeating their same mistakes.

Unfortunately if you lack the academic knowledge for the conversation then unfortunately you're on your own and will probably remain confused or form misconceptions about many things including the natural rights of the people/person including the Natural Right of Liberty that's the foundation for the "libertarian" ideology. Normally when I encounter people that don't seen to understand natural law and natural rights they're generally just a Republican wearing a mask.

I'll simply return to the original point that "minimalist" government cannot protect the Right of the People/Person which is why the founders of America never proposed "minimal" government but instead adopted "necessary" government that had the power to protect the unalienable/inalienable rights of the person.

 

Right. "Proven science". You can prove anything with faked and manipulated data and calling your fairy tale "science".

Get back to us when the hoaxers predict something correctly. You know, when the Arctic is free of ice like hoaxer in chief Al Gore predicted by 2014 back in 2007. Or when the polar bears are extinct or when the Himalaya glaciers have melted or any of the other calamities predicted by the climate fraudsters for the last 25 or 30 years come true.

How about the hoaxers who claimed California was in permanent drought thanks to ..."climate change"? Uhhhhh....not so much. Whatever the disaster it's always in the near future and all we have to do is give them all our money and control over our lives. THEN we'll be safe.

Man has always needed something larger than himself to believe in. For some it is envirowackoism. They have convinced themselves their religion is the only real religion, no matter that their religion is built on science as fake as alchemy.

 

you mean let Christians use government money to proselyte to other peoples children again right?

only "indoctrination" allowed today is the morning pledge and republican only force that cause it was modified by republicans to include the word "God"

.

 

you mean let the alt-left use government money to indoctrinate people's children again right?