I can delinate soil and groundwater contamination and can remediate contaminated water, but it only takes one or two people to do that for the community; each man need not be able to. Yet again, SOME people need these things; others not.
That would be a skill that would be nice to have in redundancy for emergencies, like a meteor striking the two people in charge of it.
|
And I fervently disagree that everyone in the world needs to make their own soap, and that anyone who doesn't isn't a "real man."
[snip]
But can you climb a chain-link fence, see through a con man's wiles, spot a potential drive-by before it happens, or blind someone with a car antenna? People needed those skills a lot more, in some of the places I've lived.
I don't think I said anything about being a real man. :D And I didn't say these things were necessarily necessary to be a success in life, I said that these were things anyone should be able to do. Meaning, they are not above the ability of the average man.
That being said, I think there's an awful lot to be said for the ability to be self sufficient when the need arises. You don't have to live on a farm to learn the basics of gardening and growing your own food is an enjoyable thing even if you live in town. And when money is tight (and it often is for us) being able to make a batch of laundry soap from things we already have in the house comes in very handy. We take a lot of things for granted, but its nice to know that in a pinch you could find your own food.
(And yes, I can climb a chain link fence, see through con men, and I understand the basics of self defense. Though, in honesty, I'm not in as good a shape as I should be.)
The point is though, men in ages past had to be able to do all these things. They had to build their own houses, make their own furniture, etc. We look at these as specialized tasks that only the experts can do. But anyone, with just a little practice, can do all or any of it. Naturally some were better at building houses than others, and some were better at farming than others, but it was generally agreed that anyone who worked hard enough could succeed at these things. Teaching is the same way. While some people are better teachers than others, its not such a specialized skill that your average parent can't or couldn't do it. Parents have been teaching their own kids for thousands of years, often quite successfully. I think we sell people short too often in what they can do when they need to or want to.
You don't have to live on a farm to learn the basics of gardening and growing your own food is an enjoyable thing even if you live in town.
In a low-tech, agrarian-based society with a total human population of 500,000,000, you're spot-on in all respects. The current situation of a high-tech, urban-based mass of 7,000,000,000 sadly defies such simple categorization of "self-sufficient." Man lives in a communal society in a particular environment; he's not an independent entity alone in the void. I'd argue that everyone in the U.S. today should much more pressingly be able to complete and file their own tax returns -- you can get food from others if you can't grow it, but the IRS ALWAYS gets their pound of flesh, as it were!
The assumption that everyone belongs to what I think of as the "landed gentry," and that what served gentlemen farmers in the past is still of paramount importance, is somewhat flawed in other words. Some of us didn't inherit anything, and are proud enough not to live in debt -- so we might not own so much as a square foot of dirt in some cases (and don't engage in hydroponics, due to police overreaction to same). Yes, anyone could learn the rudiments of growing food, for example, but not everyone has the opportunity (Admission: I personally have, by helping my retired friends who did amass enough wealth to own a plot of ground, but that wasn't always the case).
And no one has ever been truly self-sufficient; even the old-timey farmers relied on others to mine and smelt the metals that went into their tools.
Like I said, I agree that people can do a lot more than most assume. I also think there's a list of things that pretty much everyone should be able to do. I disagree that the list is fixed in stone, based on what worked for agrarian gentry, however.
|
|
Kirth, if you agree most can do more than what many assume they can, then we are in agreement.
I'm not sure what you are talking about with Landed Gentry. I have not inherited anything from anyone yet and while I did say self sufficiency was laudable, even desirable, I recognize not every skill suits every situation. (Though I think you take it for granted you can always get food from others. Thats not always true and situations can change. I'm not a survivalist or anything like that, don't get me wrong, but historically there are always times of shortage at some point.)
But you can, if given the opportunity, learn how to do these things, and more importantly, if you can learn it, you can teach it. Thats my point.
But you can, if given the opportunity, learn how to do these things, and more importantly, if you can learn it, you can teach it. Thats my point.
No disagreement from me at all, as far as that goes. I said I had mixed feelings because you were making a case for homeschooling, and citing things that one should know and be able to teach to homeschooled kids -- and I felt (and still feel) that the list of things that are "essential knowledge" has changed a bit from the ones you've outlined. Everyone above the age of puberty now needs to know what AIDS is and how it is acquired, for example, but AIDS didn't exist in 1776...
|
|
But you can, if given the opportunity, learn how to do these things, and more importantly, if you can learn it, you can teach it. Thats my point.No disagreement from me at all, as far as that goes. I said I had mixed feelings because you were making a case for homeschooling, and citing things that one should know and be able to teach to homeschooled kids -- and I felt (and still feel) that the list of things that are "essential knowledge" has changed a bit from the ones you've outlined. Everyone above the age of puberty now needs to know what AIDS is and how it is acquired, for example, but AIDS didn't exist in 1776...
You are still misunderstanding me - I was not holding forth a list of "essential" knowledge, I was holding forth a list of things the average person could do and teach others to do. Many of these are fields we think of as specialized today, only because we have never bothered to do them. I could make a different list if it would make you happy. A man should be able to do his taxes, drive a car, talk to a lawyer, type, analyze the stock market, sketch the layout of his living room, build a bookcase, rewire his house, put in a septic tank, read and write a second language, understand the basics of the political system he is under; and what is more, he should be able to teach all these things to his children.
Though, as an aside, after reflecting on it, full disclosure, I can't think of a single place I have ever lived where most people didn't garden. Maybe its only because I've never lived downtown in an apartment building in a major city, but everyplace I've ever lived - town, country, suburb, rich, poor: you name it; they've all been full of people who grew their own food in the summer and planted flowers in their yard. Not everyone of course, but a good many, everywhere.
I didn't mean to turn this into a parental rights debate.
SCOTUS has upheld the first amendment rights of minors with regard to government coercion, and they have done so in a very limited way. The case law in question still gives public schools broad latitude to control expression on school grounds if it is deemed sufficiently disruptive. We have litigated against this when my daughter was in this school district. These issues still go to court every year.
Out of curiosity (if I'm prying say so) what were you litigating against the schools?
The first issue was terminating an IEP the system had my daughter on. She has never had any kind of learning disability, but they labeled her verbal acting out as a behavioral disorder. She has always had a mouth on her and the fact that that I taught her to question authority and be skeptical didn't exactly help her to blend in to the background. Don't get me wrong she had some legitimate discipline issues, and the fact that I raised her to know that she has a fundamental human right to self defense didn't always work so well in public schools. The bottom line was that being a mouthy teenager isn't a pathology, but the district receives supplemental funding for special needs kids, so we had to fight long and hard to force them to drop the IEP (Individual Education Plan). I don't think we retained counsel for that one, but It finally got settled one step away from court.
The second issue we did wind up spending quite a bit on an education/civil rights lawyer. My daughter was suspended for wearing a Hindu swastika. When we appealed to the administration they threatened us. When I told them I wouldn't be intimidated, and their actions were unlawful, they expelled my daughter outright. It was the end of the year and this would have caused her to loose half of her credits for the year. IIRC she had around a 3+ GPA. At this point we retained counsel. After an intensely adversarial process we confronted the superintendent and elected school board in open session with legal council. When we made it clear that we would not hesitate to file in court the next day the school board wisely choose to follow the US Constitution.
I have talked to a number of other parents in the district who had similar problems, but they just didn't want to pi$$ off the district, or they couldn't afford the lawyers. After my confrontation with the district they were a little better educated about the issue, and other parents had fewer problems for a couple of years. OTOH, the superintendent and the administration for the district vividly remembered our family and made no effort to hide their overt and intense hostility to the day my daughter graduated.
Let's face it; very few people would have taken this as far as I did. Most school districts are able to bully the parents into compliance. I have no use nor tolerance for state thuggery, and I have no issue with confronting it. I have definitely paid a price for it at times, but not many people have my combination of colorful character traits.
A school district cannot punish a child for praying before eating or wearing a pentagram, for instance, under the existing SCOTUS case law.As they shouldn't, and I believe that (most) current dress codes are fair if implemented as intended.
These limitation do not apply to parents. For example, if a 15 year old's parents converted to, say, Judaism and they make him go to synagogue his legal recourse is virtually zero.To bring this back around to medical issues...what if the parents wanted to circumcise said 15 yo? Should he have a say?
I'm not saying this is your position, but should your 6 year old's medical information be withheld from you in the interest of privacy? Of course not, but the line has to be drawn somewhere for legal reasons. 18 is (mostly) the age of majority. Legal consistency seems to suggest that 18 should be the baseline for these issues.18 is the age of majority unless the state doesn't feel like it. If a person can't vote, they shouldn't be charged as an adult. That being said, if children can be charged as adults they should at least have a say in their medical care. I recall an instance of where a patients medical condition (HIV) was discussed with family members in the room. They didn't know and the hospital got sued because they let it slip. I don't recall the age of the patient, but it shouldn't matter if...
Free exercise and establishment go way beyond dress codes.
If parents want to circumcise a fifteen year old, and he is violently opposed to it he can seek judicial restraint. The basic legal assumption is that the parents know best, but the state can intervene with the force of law. I would think a fifteen year old should be able to make this choice for himself, but I don't think it's my place to force my opinion onto the family through state force without extraordinary (judicial) reason.
I think kids should have a role in all of their decisions, but my opinion doesn't exceed that of the parents.
It's well and good to say kids should be involved in their choices, but when does the state impose its will on families by force?
|
Free exercise and establishment go way beyond dress codes.
If parents want to circumcise a fifteen year old, and he is violently opposed to it he can seek judicial restraint. The basic legal assumption is that the parents know best, but the state can intervene with the force of law. I would think a fifteen year old should be able to make this choice for himself, but I don't think it's my place to force my opinion onto the family through state force without extraordinary (judicial) reason.
I think kids should have a role in all of their decisions, but my opinion doesn't exceed that of the parents.
It's well and good to say kids should be involved in their choices, but when does the state impose its will on families by force?
When the best interests of the child are not being considered by the family. Take a look at all of these faith healing deaths that happened up in the NW (there were 3-4 around WA/OR that happened back to back). The parents let their children die of easily treatable illnesses when any person with common sense would have taken them to a doctor.
As to more mundane things (ie.- the circumcision thing), I highly doubt that a respectable medical professional would proceed with any procedure like this on an unwilling patient who is old enough to hold down a job. What are they going to do? Secretly or forcibly drug them? The first part of the oath doctors take states "First, do no harm." this includes psychological harm, and it would be highly unethical for a doctor to subvert the will of any patient reasonably capable of making their own decisions.
Free exercise and establishment go way beyond dress codes.
If parents want to circumcise a fifteen year old, and he is violently opposed to it he can seek judicial restraint. The basic legal assumption is that the parents know best, but the state can intervene with the force of law. I would think a fifteen year old should be able to make this choice for himself, but I don't think it's my place to force my opinion onto the family through state force without extraordinary (judicial) reason.
I think kids should have a role in all of their decisions, but my opinion doesn't exceed that of the parents.
It's well and good to say kids should be involved in their choices, but when does the state impose its will on families by force?
When the best interests of the child are not being considered by the family. Take a look at all of these faith healing deaths that happened up in the NW (there were 3-4 around WA/OR that happened back to back). The parents let their children die of easily treatable illnesses when any person with common sense would have taken them to a doctor.
As to more mundane things (ie.- the circumcision thing), I highly doubt that a respectable medical professional would proceed with any procedure like this on an unwilling patient who is old enough to hold down a job. What are they going to do? Secretly or forcibly drug them? The first part of the oath doctors take states "First, do no harm." this includes psychological harm, and it would be highly unethical for a doctor to subvert the will of any patient reasonably capable of making their own decisions.
How goes the parental rights discussion for you?