Public Education Commission opposes education in New Mexico
Need yet another reason to get The State out of the business of schooling? The state's Public Education Commission has denied applications for six (out of eight) charter schools during their most recent meeting. The commission, along with the Orwellian "Education Department", has struck a blow against education and for the status quo.
Charter schools are not the best answer, obviously (since they still accept stolen money and are subject to government oversight), but they are one facet of the solution to the disaster of "public education". One that doesn't go near far enough, but can be a good first step for those still somewhat addicted to the government indoctrination centers called "schools". A way to begin to see that there are better options that can break the monopoly in some small way.
Any charter school that admitted it would emphasize independence, self-government, and critical thinking- especially where the claims of the parasitic governing class are concerned- wouldn't stand a chance of being accepted. Not that those likely to establish such a school would go seeking official permission or handouts. I'd also be willing to bet that those approved are promising to produce the kind of citizens most useful to, and accepting of, the gang of thugs known as "government". Of the two charter schools approved in the meeting, one is to be in Albuquerque: The New Mexico International School. Doesn't that sound like just what the collectivists envision for us all?
Here's an alternative suggestion and an offer: come to me, offer a little money or trade for my time and materials, and we can have our own School of Individual Liberty right in my yard.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Gubernatorial candidate Martinez confused about what a 'law' is
Gubernatorial candidate Martinez confused about what a 'law' is
In Albuquerque news: Susana Martinez is showing her ignorance again. The Republican candidate for New Mexico tyrant... er, "governor", says she would repeal the medical marijuana law because "She feels that there are other treatments for patients in need of care that do not break the law." Hey, Genius, because of the current medical marijuana law, it is NOT "breaking the law" to use medical marijuana. That's the whole point of having that particular law. And, according to the Tenth Amendment, state laws trump federal laws every time they deal with something not specifically authorized to the feds by the Constitution (RIP). Like it or not.
This doesn't mean that the state "laws" prohibiting a mere plant to the rest of the people not covered by the medical marijuana law are legitimate, they are not. No one has the right or the authority to control what any other person ingests. Not ever, under any circumstances.
This is getting embarrassing for poor Susana.
As much as I dislike Diane Denish (and I assure you, that's a LOT), at least she isn't opening her mouth as frequently and showing what a fool she is to quite the extent Martinez is lately. I expect that to change soon.
* * * *
Which leads to another lesson in libertarian philosophy.
The people who don't believe rights really exist- that you only have the rights you are willing to fight and kill to assert, and that no one else has any obligation to respect those rights- may have a point. Perhaps rights are all in our minds and are simply a social construct.
Maybe you don't really have property rights that others should respect, and that you can defend if they are violated.
Maybe you don't really have the right to not be attacked, and if you are, to defend yourself from that aggression.
If this is truly the case, how would it change anything?
If you have no rights, then neither do those who claim the right or the authority to control you. Perhaps the true nature of rights really comes down to negatives. Things you do not ever have a right to do. Things such as using coercion against non-violent people. Things such as requiring permits from people just wanting to go about their lives. Things such as forbidding behavior between responsible individuals which harms no third party. Things such as telling any other person what they may ingest, and attacking them if they ignore your demands. This is all a roundabout way of saying there is no right, ever, to rule any other person.
Which leads back to the exact same destination from the opposite direction. This causes me to think, once again, that rights are real, and that we already know what they are, and what they are not.
In Albuquerque news: Susana Martinez is showing her ignorance again. The Republican candidate for New Mexico tyrant... er, "governor", says she would repeal the medical marijuana law because "She feels that there are other treatments for patients in need of care that do not break the law." Hey, Genius, because of the current medical marijuana law, it is NOT "breaking the law" to use medical marijuana. That's the whole point of having that particular law. And, according to the Tenth Amendment, state laws trump federal laws every time they deal with something not specifically authorized to the feds by the Constitution (RIP). Like it or not.
This doesn't mean that the state "laws" prohibiting a mere plant to the rest of the people not covered by the medical marijuana law are legitimate, they are not. No one has the right or the authority to control what any other person ingests. Not ever, under any circumstances.
This is getting embarrassing for poor Susana.
As much as I dislike Diane Denish (and I assure you, that's a LOT), at least she isn't opening her mouth as frequently and showing what a fool she is to quite the extent Martinez is lately. I expect that to change soon.
* * * *
Which leads to another lesson in libertarian philosophy.
The people who don't believe rights really exist- that you only have the rights you are willing to fight and kill to assert, and that no one else has any obligation to respect those rights- may have a point. Perhaps rights are all in our minds and are simply a social construct.
Maybe you don't really have property rights that others should respect, and that you can defend if they are violated.
Maybe you don't really have the right to not be attacked, and if you are, to defend yourself from that aggression.
If this is truly the case, how would it change anything?
If you have no rights, then neither do those who claim the right or the authority to control you. Perhaps the true nature of rights really comes down to negatives. Things you do not ever have a right to do. Things such as using coercion against non-violent people. Things such as requiring permits from people just wanting to go about their lives. Things such as forbidding behavior between responsible individuals which harms no third party. Things such as telling any other person what they may ingest, and attacking them if they ignore your demands. This is all a roundabout way of saying there is no right, ever, to rule any other person.
Which leads back to the exact same destination from the opposite direction. This causes me to think, once again, that rights are real, and that we already know what they are, and what they are not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)