The Choice To Kill

Discussion
1

Dear Ron,

You've argued--please correct me if I'm mistaken--that since Army recruiters offer a choice, they should be allowed on campus.

Should any group offering a choice be allowed on campus, regardless of the morality of the options involved?

According to Anthony Gregory: "It seems to me with all the troubles facing teenagers, all the pressure, these army recruiters should be the last people allowed on schools. People talk about predatory drug dealers. These recruiters make the latter look like honest paragons of virtue and humanity." www.independent.org/blog/?p=147

Best, Michael

2

Michael,

  It wasn't just Ron -- I believe the plurality of our group of activists at Saturday's meeting were in favor of allowing drug deal -- um, I mean JROTC, on campus. But of course one could argue that the two aren't equivalent, since most dealers sell real drugs while the JROTC isn't actually violent. Presumably anyone making this argument would also argue that high school students getting course credit for a program teaching them how to properly snort powder up their noses or inject substances into their veins would be fine so long as the chemicals involved were not psychoactive, and that there would be no problem with students rehearsing and training for how to be in X-rated films, so long as no actual sex or "indecency" took place.

  Unless -- do you think it's possible that society's curious and irrational bias in favor of violence over hedonism has managed to infect even our generally freethinking group? Nah, couldn't be! As I wrote in a column a while back, it sort of comes down to a question of which "F" we prefer young male energy to be channeled into, and the preferable option seems pretty self-evident to me: http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=1116 .

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

3

Starchild,

I don't think it's a bias of "violence over hedonism," but rather a statist bias for the "legal" functions of the state over the "illegal" informal market.

Best, Michael

4

Interesting post, Starchild, presenting only two choices for youthful
energy consumption, and those mutually exclusive! My opinion is there
are more choices, and they all overlap.

Which leads me to Michael's argument. And again, I think so often
what is "good" or "bad" about some choices overlap. From the point of
view of youth of modest resources (I will dare to add a lot less
resources than the kids in LPSF families) the JROTC (please note we
are not discussing armed forces recruiters, which are a completely
different ball of wax) is a venue to acquire the tools of success,
such as discipline, ability to work as a team, keeping yourself
looking neat. Could there be other venues in our public schools to
teach the same? Sure, but right now, I do not see any.

So, I stand by my vote at the last LPSF meeting.

Marcy

5

If parents wanted those classes in the schools instead of JROTC, I'd say go ahead. Somehow I don't think they'd share your opinion as to which would be better for their children...

Jeremy

6

Yes Jeremy, hence my reference to "society's curious and irrational bias in favor of violence over hedonism." Or maybe I should say "claimed" bias -- what people say they want is frequently at odds with what they themselves actually do. Lots of teens, and parents, are having sex and taking recreational drugs. It's not really discipline they want either, since being proficient at making an X-rated film, or self-injection also require self-discipline, but rather discipline within a certain socially approved context.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

7

Well, whether or not we, as childless people, think it's "rational" or not, it's not our job to tell parents what is best for their kids. I certainly wouldn't want someone with no software engineering experience telling me how to do MY job, after all.

Jeremy

8

Jeremy,

  We're talking public policy here. Public policy regarding children shouldn't be set only by those who have kids, any more than public policy regarding computer software should be set only by software engineers. Anyway, I used to *be* a child, so I can claim direct first-hand knowledge in this field. 8)

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

9

I don't see this as a public policy question unless you consider children as the property of the State. The ideal libertarian goal is to have parents in complete control of their childrens' education, without any interference by government, and any legal act that moves our policy more in that direction is a libertarian act, in my judgment.

As a sidenote, I *do* in fact believe that public policy regarding computer software should largely be set by software experts, or people with some amount of training/knowledge in the area. The current dismal state of affairs, which was created mostly by politicians who likely don't know how to check their own e-mail, proves my point.

Jeremy

10

Obviously I don't see children as the property of the State. But I would disagree with the idea that parents should be "in complete control of their childrens' education." The children *themselves* should, and ultimately do, have final control over what they learn. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, as the saying goes. If the children don't like the education their parents are prescribing, they should also be free to become legally independent and make their own choices. Of course most children would only want to take such a step in extremis, and in practice parents have much say. While this practical authority should not extend to violating the basic human rights of children, neither should it be preempted by the State. So I do agree that the goal in the meantime should be to move policy in the direction of more respect for parental authority, as well as in the direction of more respect for the wishes of the children themselves.

  But I don't think this means preserving government programs just because they are popular with some parents. The fewer the choices offered via government education, the less attractive government education will be compared with other forms of education, and parents will obviously have more control of their childrens' education if they homeschool them, so by the definition you give below, ending JROTC in government schools would clearly be a libertarian act.

  I also suspect that flaws in public policy regarding software have much less to do with a lack of technical expertise by politicians than with the fact that their agenda is not libertarian. I'd much rather have a libertarian politician with no computer skills whatsoever setting software policy (think Ron Paul, perhaps), than by a software expert who believes in a high degree of government intervention in the economy.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

11

  Obviously I don't see children as the property of the State. But I
would disagree with the idea that parents should be "in complete
control of their childrens' education." The children *themselves*
should, and ultimately do, have final control over what they learn.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, as the
saying goes. If the children don't like the education their parents
are prescribing, they should also be free to become legally
independent and make their own choices. Of course most children would
only want to take such a step in extremis, and in practice parents
have much say. While this practical authority should not extend to
violating the basic human rights of children, neither should it be
preempted by the State. So I do agree that the goal in the meantime
should be to move policy in the direction of more respect for
parental authority, as well as in the direction of more respect for
the wishes of the children themselves.

This is a totally different topic, but I think there should be a rather stiff legal burden for children to prove that they should be legally independent of their parents. There are many children who I'm sure *think* they know better than their parents...in fact, I'd assume that this set would include just about every single teenager at some point in their lives.

  But I don't think this means preserving government programs just
because they are popular with some parents. The fewer the choices
offered via government education, the less attractive government
education will be compared with other forms of education, and parents
will obviously have more control of their childrens' education if
they homeschool them, so by the definition you give below, ending
JROTC in government schools would clearly be a libertarian act.

So wait, you are saying we should make public education as awful as possible to make parents want to leave? I'm sorry, but that's pretty twisted logic, at the same moral level as wanting Bob Barr to fail because it would "send the right message" to the LP. This is almost worse because it sacrifices the well being of children for some long term "greater good." Unfortunately, because of our current system, public schools are the only real option for a large percentage of students. (Homeschooling, while good for many parents, is not practical or even necessarily a good idea for most, especially when you consider that most families have both parents working nowadays.) I'd rather try to make public schools function in a better (and more libertarian) way, while we move towards our ultimate goal of privatizing education entirely.

  I also suspect that flaws in public policy regarding software have
much less to do with a lack of technical expertise by politicians
than with the fact that their agenda is not libertarian. I'd much
rather have a libertarian politician with no computer skills
whatsoever setting software policy (think Ron Paul, perhaps), than by
a software expert who believes in a high degree of government
intervention in the economy.

I don't care how libertarian someone's ideology is; if they don't know anything about what they're trying to make policy about, they shouldn't be assigned to that job. There's a reason that most software experts don't want government intervention in the software industry...because they are informed about the issue and know what is actually best. Hiring anyone who doesn't know what they're talking about is always a crap shoot, regardless of their ideological beliefs, because even if their policies end up being correct, they'll be correct for the WRONG reasons! And you'll have no guarantee that their policies in the future will make sense, because they'll have no knowledge from which to base their conclusions on. I trust that people who base their decisions on facts rather than religion (or religion-esque ideologies) will generally come to the correct conclusion, and usually that correct conclusion will also be libertarian in nature.

Jeremy

12

Yes Jeremy, I also want government-run schools to offer as good an education as possible, IF ALL ELSE IS EQUAL. But when the alternatives are having slightly better (or more popular, depending whether you believe the appreciation some parents have for the JROTC program is justified or not) government schools that use more stolen taxpayer dollars, or slightly worse (or less popular) government schools that use slightly fewer stolen dollars, then I believe the libertarian choice is clear.

  I want the most pro-liberty candidates to get elected. But when getting elected appears to be a remote option at best, as is the case with Bob Barr running for president, then other considerations come into play. I would rather see Barr/Root receive slightly fewer votes in 2008, and have a better candidate in 2012, than see them receive slightly more votes in 2008 and have Barr or Root represent the LP again in 2012, because I believe the former scenario will do more for the cause of liberty.

  When it comes to electing people to public office, ideology definitely trumps experience in my book. A libertarian official without experience in a particular field can always turn for advice to those of similar ideology who do have the relevant expertise, while someone lacking in libertarian ideology is neither likely to make the correct decision themselves, nor likely to turn to those experts most likely to give good advice.

  The fact that parents usually know better than children is, I think, adequately compensated for by having parental control be the default legal status. But as human beings, children have the ultimate right to determine their own destinies, whether their choices are right or wrong. Therefore for those few children who wish to pursue legal independence, there should be a clear and simple legal path open to them.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

13

  When it comes to electing people to public office, ideology
definitely trumps experience in my book. A libertarian official
without experience in a particular field can always turn for advice
to those of similar ideology who do have the relevant expertise,
while someone lacking in libertarian ideology is neither likely to
make the correct decision themselves, nor likely to turn to those
experts most likely to give good advice.

You are conflating two different things: holding public office and setting public policy. In general, the ones who actually do most of the work in setting policy are not elected. They are either appointed or they are career bureaucrats. In electing people to political office, I'd prefer people who are not ideologues at all, but who make the decisions based on the facts available. If you are a libertarian, hopefully you believe that the facts justify a libertarian position without having to resort to religious thinking.

  The fact that parents usually know better than children is, I think,
adequately compensated for by having parental control be the default
legal status. But as human beings, children have the ultimate right
to determine their own destinies, whether their choices are right or
wrong. Therefore for those few children who wish to pursue legal
independence, there should be a clear and simple legal path open to
them.

You miss the point. Most teenagers at some point would like to be emancipated from their parents, though most at some point grow out of that phase. There should be a high legal burden (though a simple process) to prove that you are indeed able to make decisions at the same level as an adult, and aren't just deluding yourself that you can.

Jeremy

14

> When it comes to electing people to public office, ideology
> definitely trumps experience in my book. A libertarian official
> without experience in a particular field can always turn for advice
> to those of similar ideology who do have the relevant expertise,
> while someone lacking in libertarian ideology is neither likely to
> make the correct decision themselves, nor likely to turn to those
> experts most likely to give good advice.

You are conflating two different things: holding public office and setting
public policy. In general, the ones who actually do most of the work in
setting policy are not elected. They are either appointed or they are
career bureaucrats. In electing people to political office, I'd prefer
people who are not ideologues at all, but who make the decisions based on
the facts available. If you are a libertarian, hopefully you believe that
the facts justify a libertarian position without having to resort to
religious thinking.

  You seem to be operating under the assumption that experience and intelligence automatically leads to libertarian beliefs. If only! The facts may justify libertarianism, but that does not mean everybody who studies the facts will reach that conclusion. Therefore ideology remains the best way of sorting those who are likely to make correct policy decisions from those who are not.

> The fact that parents usually know better than children is, I think,
> adequately compensated for by having parental control be the default
> legal status. But as human beings, children have the ultimate right
> to determine their own destinies, whether their choices are right or
> wrong. Therefore for those few children who wish to pursue legal
> independence, there should be a clear and simple legal path open to
> them.

You miss the point. Most teenagers at some point would like to be
emancipated from their parents, though most at some point grow out of that
phase. There should be a high legal burden (though a simple process) to
prove that you are indeed able to make decisions at the same level as an
adult, and aren't just deluding yourself that you can.

  Most teenagers would at some point like their parents to exercise less control over them, yes. But that does not mean most teenagers would, if they had the legal opportunity, necessarily seek legal emancipation in order to rectify the situation. That would be the proverbial "nuclear option." This option should exist to keep potential parental abuse in check, but should be extreme enough that it would not be lightly invoked. I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say a "high burden," but I'm pretty sure I disagree. I think it should essentially be simply a matter of making sure the child understands the consequences of what he/she is doing, and doesn't intend to change his/her mind, i.e. it should not be an instantaneous process. Beyond that, I'm very mistrustful of requiring a child to "prove" some particular level of competence. What level would that be, anyway? Your phrase "able to make decisions at the same level as an adult" implicitly assumes that adults all make decisions at the same level, when we know that in fact the reality is about as far from that as could be. In practice, when kids have had enough, they run away. What I'm talking about is basically a way to allow them to do this without becoming criminals.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

15

  You seem to be operating under the assumption that experience and
intelligence automatically leads to libertarian beliefs. If only! The
facts may justify libertarianism, but that does not mean everybody
who studies the facts will reach that conclusion. Therefore ideology
remains the best way of sorting those who are likely to make correct
policy decisions from those who are not.

I think that, all things being equal, experience and intelligence, as well as a empirical mindset and an unbiased view of reality, tends to lead to *correct* beliefs. Those will not necessarily be libertarian beliefs, but obviously, since I am a libertarian, I think in general they will be. If they make their decisions on an ideological, not a rational, basis, they might make the wrong decisions when either libertarianism is *not* the correct public policy or, more likely, when they misapply their ideological beliefs in a silly way, because they can't understand the facts outside the prism of their ideology.

An analogous situation is the reason why we teach students how to think scientifically, rather than teaching them the laws of gravity, evolution, quantum physics, etc., as a religion, not a series of beliefs derived from empirical facts. This type of thinking is extremely brittle and likely to fail if reality ever contradicts their religious beliefs.

  Most teenagers would at some point like their parents to exercise
less control over them, yes. But that does not mean most teenagers
would, if they had the legal opportunity, necessarily seek legal
emancipation in order to rectify the situation. That would be the
proverbial "nuclear option." This option should exist to keep
potential parental abuse in check, but should be extreme enough that
it would not be lightly invoked.

You still don't get it. The reason why children don't have full adult rights is that most don't yet have the ability to make fully informed decisions. This includes the decision about whether or not they are able to make fully informed decisions. This kind of thinking about "nuclear options" is an adult type of thinking...if most children thought that way, then we wouldn't need to distinguish minors from adults in the first place! This is a perfect example of mistaken ideology replacing any type of reality-based thinking.

I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say a "high burden," but I'm pretty sure I disagree. I think it should essentially be simply a matter of making sure the child understands the consequences of what he/she is doing, and doesn't intend to change his/her mind, i.e. it should not be an instantaneous process. Beyond that, I'm very mistrustful of requiring a child to "prove" some particular level of competence. What level would that be, anyway?

I basically think they should have to prove, in front of a judge, an impartial third party, that they can make decisions as well as an adult can, using the "community standards" definition of that term, which is a standard common in many other legal situations. I mean, honestly Starchild, you cannot possibly believe that an 8-year-old, by signing a piece of paper and waiting a week or two, should be able to emancipate themselves from his parents because he's in some kind of temper tantrum that they wouldn't let him sleep over at Tommy's house last night. If you do think this, I beg of you, please never say so in front of any member of the public. People already think libertarians are crazy enough.

Your phrase "able to make decisions at the same level as an adult" implicitly assumes that adults all make decisions at the same level, when we know that in fact the reality is about as far from that as could be. In practice, when kids have had enough, they run away. What I'm talking about is basically a way to allow them to do this without becoming criminals.

In practice, when kids have "had enough," they call their parents names and pout in their room for a few days (or weeks). Even most kids who run away do so because they want attention. I can guarantee you that if what you seem to be proposing had been available to me when I was 13 years old, I would have taken it, as would almost all of my friends at the time. (I ran with a rebellious crowd.) And it would have been incredibly stupid of me to do so, because, like most 13-year-olds, I was not nearly as wise as I thought I was.

Jeremy

16

Dear Starchild,

Are you suggesting that we repeal all child labor laws so that these
newly emancipated children can support themselves?

Marcy

> You seem to be operating under the assumption that experience and
> intelligence automatically leads to libertarian beliefs. If only! The
> facts may justify libertarianism, but that does not mean everybody
> who studies the facts will reach that conclusion. Therefore ideology
> remains the best way of sorting those who are likely to make correct
> policy decisions from those who are not.

I think that, all things being equal, experience and intelligence,

as well

as a empirical mindset and an unbiased view of reality, tends to

lead to

*correct* beliefs. Those will not necessarily be libertarian

beliefs, but

obviously, since I am a libertarian, I think in general they will

be. If

they make their decisions on an ideological, not a rational, basis,

they

might make the wrong decisions when either libertarianism is *not* the
correct public policy or, more likely, when they misapply their
ideological beliefs in a silly way, because they can't understand the
facts outside the prism of their ideology.

An analogous situation is the reason why we teach students how to think
scientifically, rather than teaching them the laws of gravity,

evolution,

quantum physics, etc., as a religion, not a series of beliefs

derived from

empirical facts. This type of thinking is extremely brittle and

likely to

fail if reality ever contradicts their religious beliefs.

> Most teenagers would at some point like their parents to exercise
> less control over them, yes. But that does not mean most teenagers
> would, if they had the legal opportunity, necessarily seek legal
> emancipation in order to rectify the situation. That would be the
> proverbial "nuclear option." This option should exist to keep
> potential parental abuse in check, but should be extreme enough that
> it would not be lightly invoked.

You still don't get it. The reason why children don't have full adult
rights is that most don't yet have the ability to make fully informed
decisions. This includes the decision about whether or not they are

able

to make fully informed decisions. This kind of thinking about "nuclear
options" is an adult type of thinking...if most children thought

that way,

then we wouldn't need to distinguish minors from adults in the first
place! This is a perfect example of mistaken ideology replacing any

type

of reality-based thinking.

> I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say a "high burden,"

but I'm

> pretty sure I disagree. I think it should essentially be simply a

matter

> of making sure the child understands the consequences of what

he/she is

> doing, and doesn't intend to change his/her mind, i.e. it should

not be

> an instantaneous process. Beyond that, I'm very mistrustful of

requiring

> a child to "prove" some particular level of competence. What level

would

> that be, anyway?

I basically think they should have to prove, in front of a judge, an
impartial third party, that they can make decisions as well as an adult
can, using the "community standards" definition of that term, which

is a

standard common in many other legal situations. I mean, honestly
Starchild, you cannot possibly believe that an 8-year-old, by signing a
piece of paper and waiting a week or two, should be able to emancipate
themselves from his parents because he's in some kind of temper tantrum
that they wouldn't let him sleep over at Tommy's house last night.

If you

do think this, I beg of you, please never say so in front of any

member of

the public. People already think libertarians are crazy enough.

> Your phrase "able to make decisions at the same level as an adult"
> implicitly assumes that adults all make decisions at the same level,
> when we know that in fact the reality is about as far from that as

could

> be. In practice, when kids have had enough, they run away. What I'm
> talking about is basically a way to allow them to do this without
> becoming criminals.

In practice, when kids have "had enough," they call their parents names
and pout in their room for a few days (or weeks). Even most kids

who run

away do so because they want attention. I can guarantee you that if

what

you seem to be proposing had been available to me when I was 13

years old,

I would have taken it, as would almost all of my friends at the

time. (I

ran with a rebellious crowd.) And it would have been incredibly

stupid of

me to do so, because, like most 13-year-olds, I was not nearly as

wise as

17

I strongly disagree with that analogy. Creating and selling software
is a productive activity that I, as a taxpayer, am not forced to
subsidize. Conversely, the government schools are at best break-even
on productivity for society as a whole, and I most certainly do have
to subsidize them.

A more apt analogy is that I, as someone who does not receive a
General Assistance welfare check, should lose my vote on welfare reform.

Sounds kind of silly when you put it that way, doesn't it?

Just because I don't have kids of my own doesn't mean that I lose my
vote on how my tax dollars are spent. As a Libertarian, I do not want
to spend my tax dollars on putting representatives of the U.S.
Military in our high schools for any purpose whatsoever. If parents
want their children educated in a paramilitary fashion, they should
send them to a private military school. If they can't afford to do
that, then they should help form in the government school an
extracurricular club that is not funded by the taxpayers.

But parents do not, *Not*, _NOT_ have the right to take my hard earned
money at gunpoint and spend it on military anything in the local
schools, and I am going to use my vote to stop them from doing so. I
hope other Libertarians are willing to do the same, whether or not
they have children of their own.

I still have not gotten a good answer from anyone why the debate team,
or the drama club, or the gay-straight alliance, or the Bible study
group, must be self-funded and outside school hours, while the U.S.
Military's Reserve Officer Training Corp should have for-credit
classes during school hours funded by the local taxpayers. "Because
the parents want it" is no more an acceptable answer to me than when
someone supporting General Assistance payments says, "because the
homeless people want it." As a taxpayer, I demand a more rational
basis for your argument if you want my vote (and my money).

Rob

18

Hi Rob,

I appreciate your strong feelings on this subject, because I also am
anti-military and I also would prefer to see all activities treated
equally in public schools. So, let me clarify a little further what I
meant by "the parents want it so." I personally respect everyone's
vote (unless the proposal voted on clearly is unconstitutional; but
that is another subject, I think). If the parents and the voters
place certain school activities in a different level than other
activities (without engaging in an unconstitutional act), I am OK with
that. From what I have read, parents are in favor of JROTC being at a
higher level then other school activities. Now, with this proposal on
the ballot, let's see if voters in general agree.

Marcy

> Well, whether or not we, as childless people, think it's

"rational" or

> not, it's not our job to tell parents what is best for their kids. I
> certainly wouldn't want someone with no software engineering

experience

19

I strongly disagree with that analogy. Creating and selling software
is a productive activity that I, as a taxpayer, am not forced to
subsidize. Conversely, the government schools are at best break-even
on productivity for society as a whole, and I most certainly do have
to subsidize them.

A more apt analogy is that I, as someone who does not receive a
General Assistance welfare check, should lose my vote on welfare reform.

Sounds kind of silly when you put it that way, doesn't it?

Just because I don't have kids of my own doesn't mean that I lose my
vote on how my tax dollars are spent. As a Libertarian, I do not want
to spend my tax dollars on putting representatives of the U.S.
Military in our high schools for any purpose whatsoever. If parents
want their children educated in a paramilitary fashion, they should
send them to a private military school. If they can't afford to do
that, then they should help form in the government school an
extracurricular club that is not funded by the taxpayers.

What if I didn't want my tax dollars spent on educating students in math in the public schools because I don't like math? Sounds kind of silly when you put it that way, doesn't it?

The point is that yes, this is an imperfect system, since public schools exist and we don't live in Libertopia. However, while we still have public schools, I think we should advocate policies that educate children in the best possible way, without regard to personal political considerations. The reason you don't want the military in the schools is because of your personal political feelings, not something based on whether or not it is good for the CHILDREN. Children cannot be used as pawns in our political games, and while we have public schools, the education and the well-being of the children themselves should be the primary, if not the only, consideration when setting public policy regarding them.

But parents do not, *Not*, _NOT_ have the right to take my hard earned
money at gunpoint and spend it on military anything in the local
schools, and I am going to use my vote to stop them from doing so. I
hope other Libertarians are willing to do the same, whether or not
they have children of their own.

I still have not gotten a good answer from anyone why the debate team,
or the drama club, or the gay-straight alliance, or the Bible study
group, must be self-funded and outside school hours, while the U.S.
Military's Reserve Officer Training Corp should have for-credit
classes during school hours funded by the local taxpayers. "Because
the parents want it" is no more an acceptable answer to me than when
someone supporting General Assistance payments says, "because the
homeless people want it." As a taxpayer, I demand a more rational
basis for your argument if you want my vote (and my money).

First of all, at least in my high school, drama and debate WERE for-credit courses held during school hours. I know, because I took them. The reason we don't have GSAs or Bible studies funded by the schools during school hours is that it would likely be unconstitutional to do so. My "rational basis" is that it appears to improve the ability of certain students to get an education, which is the sole purpose of schools, public or private.

Jeremy

20

It's clear from these comments, Jeremy, that you believe that JROTC is
good for the children. But that is only one opinion, not demonstrable
fact.

Those of us who are of the opinion that having JROTC in the high
schools is bad for the children were told by you and others that we
should set our opinion aside and defer to the opinion of the parents.
My earlier comments were directed solely at that argument, i.e., that
my vote shouldn't count because I merely pay for JROTC but do not
receive the benefits of it. This was the nature of my GA welfare
check analogy. I believe that my point still stands -- we taxpayers
deferring solely to what the parents want is not a valid argument.

So, now we're back to a situation where we Libertarians need to decide
what we believe is the most Libertarian position on this issue, and
even those of us without kids have just as valid an opinion on this as
anyone who does have kids.

With the "let's defer to the parents" argument now cast aside, we can
tackle the question of "Is JROTC actually good for the kids in the
schools?" Or, more appropriately from the taxpayer perspective, "Is
JROTC actually good for society as a whole?" Or, most appropriately
from the Libertarian perspective, "Is having U.S. Military
representatives teaching classes in taxpayer-funded schools a
Libertarian policy?" You seem to be of the opinion that the answer is
Yes, at least for the first, and probably also on the second (based on
your comments about living in the Bayview), though I'm not sure on the
third. Michael Edelstein and I (and others, I believe) are clearly of
the opinion that the answer is No, probably on all three points.

Now, I'd argue that there's already a mechanism in place to deal with
these sorts of judgment calls as to whether X or Y is Good or Bad.
It's representative government in the form of elected Board of
Education members. In the judgment of these elected representatives,
JROTC is Bad at least for the kids, and I'd wager (though I've not
seen any of them make this claim publicly) also for society in
general. (And I'm sure the question of whether the policy of
Libertarian never even came close to entering their minds.) I'd then
suggest that the burden of proof is on those who want to overturn the
decision of the duly elected representatives.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to overturn such decisions (for
instance, our elected representatives think prostitution should be
illegal, and we're working to overrule them on that), but the burden
of proof definitely resides with those of us appealing to override the
judgment of our elected leaders. The sex worker advocates have gone
to great lengths to gather and organize evidence on their behalf, and
the JROTC boosters should really do the same.

So, do we actually have any evidence before us that contradicts the
Board of Education members' judgment that JROTC is Bad? Aside from
that one questionable statistic about two students enlisting straight
out of high school (questionable because it likely does not include
the number who do ROTC in college), I've not seen any such evidence.
So, let's bring that evidence to this discussion and weigh its merits.

Rob

What if I didn't want my tax dollars spent on educating students in

math

in the public schools because I don't like math? Sounds kind of silly
when you put it that way, doesn't it?

...

However, while we still have
public schools, I think we should advocate policies that educate

children

in the best possible way, without regard to personal political
considerations. The reason you don't want the military in the

schools is

because of your personal political feelings, not something based on
whether or not it is good for the CHILDREN. Children cannot be used as
pawns in our political games, and while we have public schools, the
education and the well-being of the children themselves should be the
primary, if not the only, consideration when setting public policy
regarding them.

...

First of all, at least in my high school, drama and debate WERE

for-credit

courses held during school hours. I know, because I took them. The
reason we don't have GSAs or Bible studies funded by the schools during
school hours is that it would likely be unconstitutional to do so. My
"rational basis" is that it appears to improve the ability of certain
students to get an education, which is the sole purpose of schools,

public