Luz Shosie and Ned Vare

on 8/24/02 9:31 PM, [email protected] at
[email protected] wrote:

Tia wrote:
>Mind you, I don't agree with fining parents *or* kids for truancy because I
>don't agree with compulsory schooling. But your logic just doesn't work, Ned.
> I also agree that the state doesn't own our children, but do we
> parents? Really? Is it really about ownership?

Dear Tia,

You might not want it to be about "ownership," but that is what the
government has turned it into.

When a state can make you pay a fine for not sending your child to a school,
then the assumption that the state makes is that IT owns your child, and it
can force you to pay a fine for keeping possession of him/her. In other
words, to repeat, by paying such a fine, you are renting your child from the
child's true owner -- the school/state.

I hope you understand how outrageous that situation is.....

States have been known to take this idea to its extreme, by forcibly
removing children from their parents for refusing to send them to its
school. In Utah, a father was shot by police for that "crime."

Tell us, Tia, if that is not an "ownership" issue. What part of that logic
doesn't "work" for you?

Parents usually don't consider themselves "owners" of their children, but
until the children reach a certain maturity, parents acknowledge their
responsibilities regarding those children, and the responsibilities resemble
those of "ownership." Not long ago in this country, and still in some
cultures, men were/are considered the owners of their wives, and rulers were
considered the owners of all the people.

It starts with the concept of self-ownership. Who owns me? Does anyone
(other than myself) have a right to my life? Personally, I don't think so.
Does anyone, or any institution, have a right to my child's life? Same
answer. Can anyone or any institution make it a crime for me not to give my
child to them?

Speeding puts other people at risk. Shop lifting (stealing) violates the
rights of other people. They are considered crimes. For the state to
consider it a crime to keep a child at home is the outrage I'm talking
about. and keep your "mind you's" to yourself.

Ned Vare
do we have children so that we can give them to the government to raise for
us, badly?

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/25/02 11:58:35 AM, nedvare@... writes:

-=- Tell us, Tia, if that is not an "ownership" issue. What part of that logic
doesn't "work" for you? -=-

Ned, this isn't courteous, productive or kind.

-=-In Utah, a father was shot by police for that "crime."-=-

Ned, I no longer have faith in your reporting. Please withdraw this claim or
give us documentation from an objective source, if possible, and not a
libertarian scare-sermon.

I doubt that police went up to a man and shot him because his children were
out of school.

Sandra

Tia Leschke

>
>
>You might not want it to be about "ownership," but that is what the
>government has turned it into.

I'm aware that you see it that way.


>When a state can make you pay a fine for not sending your child to a school,
>then the assumption that the state makes is that IT owns your child, and it
>can force you to pay a fine for keeping possession of him/her.

That's one assumption you could make. It isn't the one I would make. The
majority of the population truly believes that 1. What the schools do is
education. And 2. That the public at large has a strong interest in
making sure that the populace is educated. I personally disagree
completely with number 1, and I disagree with the way the government goes
about number 2. What I don't believe is that the government makes the
assumption (if a government *can* make an assumption) that it owns my child.



>I hope you understand how outrageous that situation is.....

Or would be if it were true.


>States have been known to take this idea to its extreme, by forcibly
>removing children from their parents for refusing to send them to its
>school. In Utah, a father was shot by police for that "crime."

What Sandra said.


>Tell us, Tia, if that is not an "ownership" issue. What part of that logic
>doesn't "work" for you?

Seeing only one possibility among many.


>Parents usually don't consider themselves "owners" of their children, but
>until the children reach a certain maturity, parents acknowledge their
>responsibilities regarding those children, and the responsibilities resemble
>those of "ownership."

I don't think so.

>Not long ago in this country, and still in some
>cultures, men were/are considered the owners of their wives, and rulers were
>considered the owners of all the people.

And your point is? Do you think we're headed back in that direction
because of compulsory schooling?


>It starts with the concept of self-ownership. Who owns me? Does anyone
>(other than myself) have a right to my life? Personally, I don't think so.
>Does anyone, or any institution, have a right to my child's life? Same
>answer. Can anyone or any institution make it a crime for me not to give my
>child to them?

No. And no government in the US or Canada does so. True, some stated and
provinces put a lot of hurdles out there for homeschoolers, but none are
making homeschooling illegal like it is in many European countries.

> and keep your "mind you's" to yourself.

What the heck is *that* supposed to mean? Is that an expression you've
never heard before, or something?
(Tia wrote:
>Mind you, I don't agree with fining parents *or* kids for truancy because I
>don't agree with compulsory schooling.)
Tia

What you think of me is none of my business.
*********************************************************
Tia Leschke leschke@...
On Vancouver Island

zenmomma *

>-=-In Utah, a father was shot by police for that "crime."-=-
>
>Ned, I no longer have faith in your reporting. Please withdraw this claim
>or give us documentation from an objective source, if possible, and not a
>libertarian scare-sermon.>>

Okay I have tried Googling this to get you better information, but I
couldn't find any of what I was looking for. Here's what I do know though.
Some of my details may be way off.

There *was* a standoff and shootout at a Utah home in the 1970's. It
happened in a town called Kamas, which is very close to my home. I do not
remember for sure if the Dad was killed or not. The children *were* being
homeschooled, but that alone was not the issue. It was a polygamist family
and there were charges of child abuse. The kids were not in school, but they
were sent off to work in the family construction business at age 10, or
married off (if a female) at about 13 or 14. The family thought the state
should have no right to say how they raised their children and armed
themselves to fight home visits. The issues were much more about the
problems with polygamist lifestyles, than homeschooling itself. I've been
told though, that Utah now has it's liberal homeschooling policy because of
this incident.

>>I doubt that police went up to a man and shot him because his children
>>were out of school.>>

I do believe it was much more involved than this.

Life is good.
~Mary


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com