Dear Rob,
I am wondering who can bring better evidence whether or not JROTC is
"good" for the kids or not than the parents? And it seems to be the
parents who want it back. BTW, if you present the argument as is
voting in favor of *ANY* taxpayer funded program libertarian, then I
would have to agree with you that it is not.
However, the instant we start thinking about costs and benefits, given
the present social and political reality, then the rule above goes by
the wayside.
Marcy
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