[DEFEATED] Choice in Education

[Uan aa Boa]

So, Ambassador, it's perfectly fine, in your opinion, if a Protestant nation, let's say, wants to use its public school system to indoctrinate children with fundamentalist beliefs while, at the same time, prohibiting private schools? Hindus, secularists, and others living in such a nation should not be at liberty to set up their own schools "proliferating" their own beliefs, "masquerading as truth," correct?

If such is your concern, why not protect the many by writing a resolution that outlawed religious indoctrination in public schools rather than providing a lifeboat for the wealthy few by means of private schools? We would have wholeheartedly supported such a resolution.

[Consular]

So, Ambassador, it's perfectly fine, in your opinion, if a Protestant nation, let's say, wants to use its public school system to indoctrinate children with fundamentalist beliefs while, at the same time, prohibiting private schools? Hindus, secularists, and others living in such a nation should not be at liberty to set up their own schools "proliferating" their own beliefs, "masquerading as truth," correct?

If such is your concern, why not protect the many by writing a resolution that outlawed religious indoctrination in public schools rather than providing a lifeboat for the wealthy few by means of private schools? We would have wholeheartedly supported such a resolution.

Because, as I suspect you know, that would rather defeat the real purpose behind this resolution.

[Christian Democrats]

So, Ambassador, it's perfectly fine, in your opinion, if a Protestant nation, let's say, wants to use its public school system to indoctrinate children with fundamentalist beliefs while, at the same time, prohibiting private schools? Hindus, secularists, and others living in such a nation should not be at liberty to set up their own schools "proliferating" their own beliefs, "masquerading as truth," correct?

Implementing this proposal is only an attempt to ensure the proliferation and dissemination of your own parochial doctrines.

Because only Catholics have the wherewithal to establish private schools?

It cannot be said to contain even the thinnest veneer of a humanistic leaning. Also, I object to the use of the word "immodest" in the proposal. I do not believe in entertaining such empty and arbitrary moralism.

Have you read the proposal? The word "immodest" appears nowhere in it.

As the education of our citizens is a compelling state interest, We cannot allow the existence of a private fifth-column within our most august State. That is all.

A robust civil society is not a fifth column; it is necessary for a good society.

Earlier in this debate, the representatives of Christian Democrats argued that education is more important than any other industry, because it concerns itself with the production of persons. Though the argument was dismissed because read literally it is rather absurd, we actually quite agree. The education a person receives shapes their view of the world and profoundly influences their character -- it is indescribably important.

However, we fundamentally disagree with their conclusion, that education is far too important for a government monopoly. It is precisely because education is so important that it is essential it is strictly controlled -- to ensure every child is provided with the knowledge to realise their potential. It cannot be safely left to the design of inadequate persons, nor left at the mercy of their whimsical personal interests and agendas.

How is it that the state is better equipped to build character than the family or civil society? Why do you believe the state's assessment of a child's best interests is better than that of his parents? If you substituted any other freedom, would you argument make sense?

So, Ambassador, it's perfectly fine, in your opinion, if a Protestant nation, let's say, wants to use its public school system to indoctrinate children with fundamentalist beliefs while, at the same time, prohibiting private schools? Hindus, secularists, and others living in such a nation should not be at liberty to set up their own schools "proliferating" their own beliefs, "masquerading as truth," correct?

If such is your concern, why not protect the many by writing a resolution that outlawed religious indoctrination in public schools rather than providing a lifeboat for the wealthy few by means of private schools? We would have wholeheartedly supported such a resolution.

We don't believe international bodies should set the curricula for local schools. Moreover, we aren't just concerned with religious indoctrination but with irreligious indoctrination too and with all of the other varieties of illiberal schooling. The issues involved in education are quite complex. By affection, the natural decision-maker -- and normally the best decision-maker -- on these matters is not this Assembly or the state; it's the family -- "the natural and fundamental group unit of society." Their rights ought to be protected.

[Tengoto]

You know, as much argument there is against private schools in relation to this proposal, there is nothing stopping a properly motivated government from simply refusing to sell the property or land that would be required to actually set up even a decent school. Granted this is something that is only easy to accomplish if there is no privately held industry in the nation, but the nations against this provision due to the requirements for private schools would probably have limited or no private industry anyway.

Another way to bypass private schools is to simply create the facade of privately owned schools. All a concerned government need do is make sure that all privately owned schools created in the nation are schools that by coincidence happen to teach the same ideology and philosophy that is taught in government owned schools.

[Consular]

How is it that the state is better equipped to build character than the family or civil society? Why do you believe the state's assessment of a child's best interests is better than that of his parents?

You did not answer my questions, so I am not sure why I should address yours.

Let me ask again, then: What is the purpose of private schools, if not to covertly subvert the intended outcomes of the state education system? If these two schools teach the same curriculum, then what is it exactly that parents choosing?

If you substituted any other freedom, would you argument make sense?

I will address this, because it's a very odd thing to say. All rights and freedoms are not the same. They are not readily interchangeable.

So which freedom should I substitute? Freedom of speech, of expression, and so forth, these are negative rights -- they require only that the state does not actively infringe on them. But the right to an education is a positive right -- it requires the state to take real positive action to ensure it is provided. These are not comparable in the way you suggest.

[Covenstone]

How is it that the state is better equipped to build character than the family or civil society? Why do you believe the state's assessment of a child's best interests is better than that of his parents?

You did not answer my questions, so I am not sure why I should address yours.

Let me ask again, then: What is the purpose of private schools, if not to covertly subvert the intended outcomes of the state education system? If these two schools teach the same curriculum, then what is it exactly that parents choosing?

While I am obviously not the delegate from Christian Democrats, I can answer for my nation.

Our state school system is there to provide a balanced education on all subjects :- music, art, literature, languages, sciences, maths, RE, PE and so on. However because we are teaching all sorts of students from all walks of life, we have to have a generic curriculum (for want of a better phrase.) We don't have time to focus on specific areas for the more gifted students, because we just don't have the time.

So if we have the next Mozart, or the next Hawking, or the next Meyer, then we would be woefully under valuing them. And, more to the point, if we have a student whose family wishes them to get more of a religious orientated education (say in the Wiccan arts, or the Christian doctrines, or the Merlaniac ways, then there are schools they can send their children to.

HOWEVER, we do insist that those schools provide the children with a basic grounding in the required subject :- maths, sciences, languages, knowledge of other religions and PE. But the rest (music, art, literature and so on) are at their discretion so that they can direct the education of the children in their school.

This way we believe children can get the education they need while a) getting the same basic education as the rest of the children in Covenstone and b) not being driven to extremist teachings and c) not being marginalised and forgotten. Because the children are our future. If we teach them well, they will lead the way for future generations.

And there is nothing in this proposal that prevents that.

If you substituted any other freedom, would you argument make sense?

I will address this, because it's a very odd thing to say. All rights and freedoms are not the same. They are not readily interchangeable.

So which freedom should I substitute? Freedom of speech, of expression, and so forth, these are negative rights -- they require only that the state does not actively infringe on them. But the right to an education is a positive right -- it requires the state to take real positive action to ensure it is provided. These are not comparable in the way you suggest.

The right to a fair trial requires the state to actively participate. The right to equal treatment before the law and before the state requires the state to participate. The right to a safety at work, to petition, to clean water. There are numerous rights to which the state has to take action to make sure citizens have them.

[Bears Armed Mission]

"As believers in Freedom, and opponents to the concept of 'the over-might state' , we have voted FOR this proposed resolution."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Consular]

The right to a fair trial requires the state to actively participate. The right to equal treatment before the law and before the state requires the state to participate. The right to a safety at work, to petition, to clean water. There are numerous rights to which the state has to take action to make sure citizens have them.

Alright. The right to a fair trial then -- do we allow citizens to choose a private court, or do they need to use the courts provided by the state?

[Covenstone]

The right to a fair trial requires the state to actively participate. The right to equal treatment before the law and before the state requires the state to participate. The right to a safety at work, to petition, to clean water. There are numerous rights to which the state has to take action to make sure citizens have them.

Alright. The right to a fair trial then -- do we allow citizens to choose a private court, or do they need to use the courts provided by the state?

If you can afford a better lawyer, you pay for a better lawyer, and you get better representation. Surely that applies even if your country, yes? Or does everyone have a state appointed lawyer and no one hires their own?

And my original point was you said that, aside from the right to education, there are no rights in which the state needs to take an active role to ensure the citizens have it. I was just pointing out that that was not a true assertion - if it doesn't train unbiased judges and have the correct procedures, then no one gets a fair trial and you might as well return to lynch mobs and witch hunts.

But we are kind of getting off topic, which is the proposal to allow parents to decide, within the confines of the proposal, whether the state is educating their children to their satisfaction and what can be done about it.

If you want to debate the merits of fair trials and clean water, I suggest we take it somewhere else and not clog up this thread

[Consular]

If you can afford a better lawyer, you pay for a better lawyer, and you get better representation. Surely that applies even if your country, yes? Or does everyone have a state appointed lawyer and no one hires their own?

And my original point was you said that, aside from the right to education, there are no rights in which the state needs to take an active role to ensure the citizens have it. I was just pointing out that that was not a true assertion - if it doesn't train unbiased judges and have the correct procedures, then no one gets a fair trial and you might as well return to lynch mobs and witch hunts.

Did I say that?

Benji flipped back through his notes

No, I don't believe I did. I didn't provide examples of other positive rights, but I did not say there weren't any.

But you've perhaps inadvertently helped there. I would view the role of the school as comparable to the judge, not the lawyer. It is important the judge, and the teachers, be trained to be unbiased -- and we have more confidence in the state's ability to do this than any family or private school.

But more broadly, my point was that these rights are not directly comparable, and I don't think the argument we've just had is particularly helpful. I rather think the representatives from Christian Democrats are just trying to be distracting.

[Bears Armed]

Alright. The right to a fair trial then -- do we allow citizens to choose a private court, or do they need to use the courts provided by the state?

"If both sides in a dispute within Bears Armed freely agree to use a court other than a 'state' one then that is considered perfectly acceptable. There are legal limits on how far the punishments imposed by non-'state' courts can exceed those that would be imposed by 'state' ones, but that's all..."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Covenstone]

If you can afford a better lawyer, you pay for a better lawyer, and you get better representation. Surely that applies even if your country, yes? Or does everyone have a state appointed lawyer and no one hires their own?

And my original point was you said that, aside from the right to education, there are no rights in which the state needs to take an active role to ensure the citizens have it. I was just pointing out that that was not a true assertion - if it doesn't train unbiased judges and have the correct procedures, then no one gets a fair trial and you might as well return to lynch mobs and witch hunts.

Did I say that?

Benji flipped back through his notes

No, I don't believe I did. I didn't provide examples of other positive rights, but I did not say there weren't any.

Then we have a misunderstanding, as sometimes happens. My apologies

But you've perhaps inadvertently helped there. I would view the role of the school as comparable to the judge, not the lawyer. It is important the judge, and the teachers, be trained to be unbiased -- and we have more confidence in the state's ability to do this than any family or private school.

We believe that judges use the law to guide them in their unbiasedness (which I am fairly sure might be a word?) and this proposal allows the state to require schools of all flavours, types and classifications to be governed by the law. *shrug* Which I suppose makes it a matter of semantics?

But more broadly, my point was that these rights are not directly comparable, and I don't think the argument we've just had is particularly helpful. I rather think the representatives from Christian Democrats are just trying to be distracting.

Given that I am not him/her, I couldn't say. And all new arguments are helpful, because either they help establish a position, or eliminate the possibility of one. But again, that could just be a point of view

[Iciaros]

We are, perhaps, a little late to the party; nonetheless, we feel like we would like to comment on our stance towards this Resolution. It is a rarity as far as our conviction goes - there are very few Resolutions that demand that we take a firm stance, and this is one of them.

So, to be clear: we have voted AGAINST this resolution. It is partly a product of our national classification (it would seem that we have been named a Libertarian Police State) but also partly a product of the fervent disagreement in our government in response to a particular insinuation of the Resolution. Our stance is this:

The family is NOT always in the best position to determine what is right for a child.

This is not to say that they are never, or even not often, in a better position to make decisions for their child than the state. Parents have an intimate understanding of the psychology and character of a child, and we have made sure to the best of our abilities that there exist a variety of schools, both public and private, to cater to a variety of people, personalities, level of talent, and skill sets.

However, the expression of ideologies in schools is where we draw the line. We have made very sure that, in our education system, only facts are taught as facts, and theories with insufficient evidence to qualify as fact with scientific rigour are treated and taught as such. Our schools may educate students on religions, and teach them about their tenets and teachings, but at no point is it permitted for these schools to present them as facts - rather, religion should be presented as one might present art to an onlooker; to be debated upon and discussed, rather than revered.

We would like to contest a primary implication that parents have the inherent right to make decisions for their child. We disagree. The role of the parent is to be a caretaker for the child, and to act in their best interests only. We believe that many religions serve to present theories as facts, and in some cases discourage critical thinking, questioning, and encourage irrational opinions and decisions, which affect not only themselves but the community around them. It is for this reason that religious affiliation and teachings are prohibited in our Imperium - for the good of our children, in order to protect them, and their impressionable minds born of their young age, from either the conscious or unconscious bias of their parents.

Of course, we understand that this is a sensitive topic, with much potential for disagreement. We would be happy to see our fellow nations engage in critical thought over this issue, and to challenge our outlooks on the basis of reason and fact. We look forward to seeing what discerning arguments may be raised.

[Adytus]

From the Osiris Fraternal Order
And the office of the Vizier of World Assembly Affairs

---

---

“As Ra makes his way across the heavily sky, and the cycle of the universe continues, the people of Osiris and its prosperity of the Nile, after consulting with the community, and the gods Seshat and Ma’at, have determined to vote AGAINST the current resolution. The Pharaoh will vote according to the people, and according to Ma’at. His actions are necessary in maintaining the balance between order and chaos, truth and darkness, and Osiris will follow the Pharaoh’s direction. The government of the Osiris Fraternal Order will consider no proposal without the text meeting the requirements of Ma’at. We will continue to uphold our moral responsibilities to the people, maintaining and voting in favor of any proposals that will forward the truth and honor that is expected of all who call Osiris home. Cosmic harmony is only obtainable through expressing the will of Ma’at, and the will of the Pharaoh. Although we have derived at this decision, the author of the proposal - or any party interested - is welcome to present a case that would enlighten the Pharaoh and the community to the purpose of the proposal, and perhaps change the will of the gods, the Pharaoh, and the community. If this interests you, please visit our kingdom and speak your knowledge here. All information is important, and will be presented to Seshat, the goddess of wisdom, knowledge, and writing to help direct the Pharaoh to make the right decision for the people of fraternal order. If you have any questions about Osiris in the World Assembly, please direct them to the office of the Vizier of World Assembly Affairs by sending Adytus a telegram. For more general questions regarding Osiris, please direct them to the Pharaoh, Neo Kervoskia. Thank you fellow ambassadors, and author of the current proposal at vote, for your time. Osiris, her people, and the office of the Vizier greatly appreciate your time, and patience.

Best Regards,
The Vizier of World Assembly Affairs, Adytus."

[Azurius]

We normally don´t show much interest for WA resolutions... but have taken an interest in this one since education is such a vital topic and soaks up a big budget in our nation too.

We have clearly voted against this resolution for the following reasons:

1: Bad definitions overall to start with more abstractly.

2: Forcing private schooling in our nation which has always been, and will always be, a no go here.

3: Same goes for homeschooling, we are not willing to adopt to barbarian schooling methods of the dark medieval times, and would rather leave the WA then have primitive homeschooling forced onto us! Not too long ago homeschooling was the only means for poor people to get education, since they could not afford private education(and state schools simply didn´t exist back then).

Homeschooling in every way is inferior to public or even private schooling. For the sole reason that no matter how smart the childs parents are, they simply cannot replace all the knowledge and skills provided by hundreds of teachers, each of them specialized experts on their subject/s and field/s, in the childs school career. Even if the parents are as smart as let´s say Einstein: The child will have excellent education in maths and physics, so far so good. But what is with: Biology? Languages and grammar? History? Chemistry? Etc. the list goes on and on. Parents as smart as they may be, simply lack the knowledge, skill and also competence to provide a proper education to their children, and for this reason schools exist.

4: It would force subjects onto our nation we don´t want, namely religion. And we are not willing to waste funds, space, ressources and time on teaching people how to become unscientific and backwards, sorry but, religous bigots. In our grand nation anyone can study theocracy in university, or simply in their free time educate themselves about religion or theocracy all they like. At home parents can teach religous values here as well in private. Hence we see absolutely no need to force these subjects in school education. These subjects simply have no place in our schooling system and general education and they never will either.

5: We will NOT allow private education either! And here we would like to adress the proposers hypocrisy since the proposer cites "freedom" and "freedom of choice" so much:

Private schools in fact BAN peoples freedom! Or they at least lower and threaten it if you have a mixed system of public and private schools. Because they allow wealthy people unfair advantages over poor people. You can also argue "poverty is your own fault" all you want as well, a child is born to parents, the child does not choose to be born to his or her parents, nor did the child ever "choose" poverty either! Why force the lifestyle of their parents onto the child...? So much for that, but it goes even further when we talk about "freedom of choice":

How can you call private schooling a "freedom of choice" when poor people are banned from proper education from the very start...? They then cannot choose "proper private education" because they simply can´t afford it! How is that "freedom of choice" when people are already banned from access to proper education, or choosing their school themselves, when material conditions prevent them from doing so from the very start? That is indeed not freedom of choice but actually, you force choices on them! You decide for them based on material condition which, we mention it again, are neither the choice nor the fault of the child or often enough neither of the parents either!

That is indeed not freedom but the very opposite of it! Nor does it grant equal chances to children! A child should not be punished for the mistakes of their parents either!

This resolution however just completely ignores that all and forces homeschooling and private schooling onto nations which do not wish to have it. And even worse, you force your decisions onto the children too. We are well aware that children are not legaly able to make decisions for themselves, so far so good. At the same time Azurius also recognizes that this doesn´t mean that children are prey to do whatever one wishes with! Most nations will oppose child abuse like we do, exactly because: Despite children being not legaly able to make decisions, they are still humans with rights and also certain freedoms too, and Azurius will not trample over them. And neither parents have this right(child protections laws etc.) nor should authorities either. Yet this is exactly what this proposal does: Force by authority and allow(in our oppinion)unjust parental force over their children. For nothing less then idiological reasons too clearly. This entire resolution, to us at least, reeks of idiological bias. I.e. pro christian and pro capitalist.

Azurius will remain to have nothing but high quality public schooling and with that, grant equal chances to all children or teens, and we will continue to have that compulsory as well. As well as we will continue to respect the rights of children too, to what we see fit. Just as we won´t go around dictating other nations laws or what they see fit either.

For these reasons we voted and voiced ourselves against this resolution. And encourage all other nations to do the same.

Lastly we would like to adress some of the proposers earlier claims:

"If multiple children from different families are being educated outside their homes by a private person, I'd call that a private school."

Well, in your own definition maybe, but according to law, customs and language this may be interpreted very differently by different nations. The resolution itself fails to adress that as well. And in our own definition for example: No, this is not private schooling but homeschooling. We oppose both nonetheless.

With such unclear definitions you open doors and gates to loopholes in laws as well as abuse of law and corruption. Yet another reason any nation should vote against this resolution.

"We'll have to agree to disagree. A parent is better positioned than a government to make decisions concerning a child's upbringing. Thus, the government has no legitimate authority to interpose except for compelling reasons, namely abuse or neglect."

And here we have to heavily disagree. Depending on circumstances, a parent is exactly NOT fit to make decisions for their children, nor in a better position then law enforcement would be. This is typical liberal capitalist talk: "Government is ineffective/always does wrong! Let privatism/private industry decide!". This exactly has proven itself to be false and will continue to be false, since it DEPENDS on circumstances.

We hardly believe that some neglectent, junky parent is in any way fit to decide what is best for the child. For that reason laws exist, as well as childrens protection institutes, and last but not least also schools, to teach, protect and correct where the parents fail. If you believe otherwise and believe it is not dependant on circumstances, well, then you are completely delusional and unable to argue logical and rational on this point either. We will continue to rub the above example under your nose, and ask you: Are such parents really capable of deciding what is best for their children...? No they are not plain and simple! And for that reason laws, child protection institutes as well as schools exist.

"What's absolutely unacceptable is your delegation's failure to recognize that private interests should guide private persons. Man is not an ant in an anthill but rather an autonomous being made in the image of an autonomous Creator."

We disagree yet again. As the proposer fails to recognize the private interest of children completely. Which is a paradox that basically contradicts itself, and contradicts what the proposer says they value. If you cannot see the obvious paradox and self contradiction well... we cannot help you and no further comment on that(remember what we stated above about the delicate topic of: Children being not legally competent but yet having rights and freedoms too).

"After all, parents are, with God, the creators of their children or, in cases of adoption, their lawful substitutes."

We don´t think we have to mention how ridicilous this sounds in the eyes of many other nations and how many nations will automaticaly oppose such a view... We would only like to mention here to remind yourselves about what we already said above: About how this entire resolution itself reeks of idiological bias. Well, such comments by the proposer only undermine our initial suspicions even further and prove us right. The proposer and the entire resolution are marked by idiological bias and by the agenda to force their own values onto fellow WA nations, hiding that under the mantle of "freedom" or "liberty", which by the way, we find very low and also very cowardly. If the proposer would at least have the decency to be honest about their bias and plan to enforce their values onto others, but alas, they don´t and like to hide themselves behind the mantle of words that sound good, such as "liberty". And do the exact opposite too: Bereft other nations of their own liberty and autonomy of choices, including the people living within these nations too. Yet another self contradicting paradox which is produced by the proposer.

"Nobody's freedom to express himself is violated by a state monopoly on the means by which he learns to express himself, really?"

Again dear proposer: It depends on circumstances. Depending on the laws of said state, state education can indeed be a pinacle of liberty and the freedom of choice for both their citizens as well as the children in it too.

To say that true liberty in education is impossible in completely state owned education is completely preposterous, false and is clearly a sign of absolute idiological bias too. Once again the proposer shows his own idiological bias in comments, again proving that this entire resolution is an attempt to force their own values onto fellow WA members. And that it is also full of flaws too, since the proposer puts his own idiological bias over rationality and facts.

Also... we would like to mention about the topic monopolies: We find it highly interesting that the proposer blames state monopolies, but at the same time has no problem with monopolies automaticaly enforced by this resolution, namely the monopoly of private people and their capital over education. That is suddenly no monopoly anymore or what...? Seriously? In state owned education people at least have a CHANCE to decide democraticaly, depending on how much freedom the nation itself allows its citizens on that. But in your system, people are forced to be dependant to wealth, and to the monopolies of wealth too, and are bereft of their liberties and freedom to choose and also to democraticaly decide.

We believe idiological bias should have absolutely no place in WA resolutions, only logic and rationality should. Idiological bias very often prevents from seeing things objective and rational, this is resolution as well as the arguments of its proposer are a good example of that.

Also to finish this topic: In fact, let´s look at pure anarchy: It is definitely a lawless society. Some would argue that this would be the pinacle of liberty. Others like us who argue rational, will disagree, because:

If everyone can do what they want and no laws or regulations exist, what prevents these people from forcing their own laws upon everyone around them? Or use brute force or brute authority in many different ways, either direct or indirect? Exactly, nothing.

Same can be argued about wanting to privatize or allow private schools. The freedom of private enterprise only goes as far as the freedoms the OWNERS decide(unless you have laws and regulations to prevent that).

But this side of the coin is just completely ignored by the proposer. Fact is true liberty in education and can be achieved in both private and state owned education. To say otherwise is pure idiological bias that as mentioned should have no place within WA resolutions. It clearly depends on the circumstances, i.e. the detailed laws of each nation on that subject. Private ownership is just as able to kick freedom of expression with feet as state ownership is. Actually we would argue that only state ownership CAN guarentee true liberty... but that is a different story and may also be biased on our sides, and off topic too.

Neither is this recognized by the proposer or the resolution, nor is that properly defined within the resolution itself either. Yet another reason for any nation that values true liberty to vote against it and voice itself against it too.

"How is it that the state is better equipped to build character than the family or civil society? Why do you believe the state's assessment of a child's best interests is better than that of his parents? If you substituted any other freedom, would you argument make sense?"

Again we refer to the above mentioned example of the neglectent junky parents. And again we ask back: Does your government, state, ruler or whatever really believe that such neglectent parents are fitter to decide what is best for the child then a well ran and funded state or government institute? We highly doubt that. Nor are such parents fit to build a proper character either.

Another thing we would like to mention at this point: The proposer fails to recognize the difference between state and government owned too. Which is both, a sign of incompetence which shows itself in the resolution, as well as idiological bias.

Also while we are at it... the proposer leaves yet another matter completely unadressed and hence a huge loophole in the entire resolution as well:

What about children that have NO parents...? If you oppose any form of non family intervention that badly, what about the subject of orphans in general? Also what about orphans in regard to this entire resolution as well...?

Is the orphanage or state or government or maybe church or military in certain nations etc. the legaly defined parrent or... what or who is? Yet another problem that arises within this resolution. What happens to those with the bad fortune of no parrents at all in such a system or also this resolution? We shudder to think considering already mentioned flaws in the resolution and the idiological bias attached to it by the proposer.


We think this is enough for now. As we have adressed many points as well as comments by the proposer too.

We encourage all nations to read this carefully, even if it is much(Education is a sensible and important topic to us, and in our oppinion it should be for all other nations as well). And consider each point brought up carefully too. And again encourage to vote and voice against this resolution because of these points.

[Azurius]

You know, as much argument there is against private schools in relation to this proposal, there is nothing stopping a properly motivated government from simply refusing to sell the property or land that would be required to actually set up even a decent school. Granted this is something that is only easy to accomplish if there is no privately held industry in the nation, but the nations against this provision due to the requirements for private schools would probably have limited or no private industry anyway.

Another way to bypass private schools is to simply create the facade of privately owned schools. All a concerned government need do is make sure that all privately owned schools created in the nation are schools that by coincidence happen to teach the same ideology and philosophy that is taught in government owned schools.

Sooo... just because a loophole exists you think of it as okay to force values onto others...? Again I ask people who argue like you or the proposer: Where is the "liberty" in that? Also by doing that you effectively promote corruption... So I guess it is okay to promote corruption and loopholes for the sake of you forcing your own values onto others...? I hope you realize how that sounds.

[Tengoto]

You know, as much argument there is against private schools in relation to this proposal, there is nothing stopping a properly motivated government from simply refusing to sell the property or land that would be required to actually set up even a decent school. Granted this is something that is only easy to accomplish if there is no privately held industry in the nation, but the nations against this provision due to the requirements for private schools would probably have limited or no private industry anyway.

Another way to bypass private schools is to simply create the facade of privately owned schools. All a concerned government need do is make sure that all privately owned schools created in the nation are schools that by coincidence happen to teach the same ideology and philosophy that is taught in government owned schools.

Sooo... just because a loophole exists you think of it as okay to force values onto others...? Again I ask people who argue like you or the proposer: Where is the "liberty" in that? Also by doing that you effectively promote corruption... So I guess it is okay to promote corruption and loopholes for the sake of you forcing your own values onto others...? I hope you realize how that sounds.

You seem to have misunderstood our intent. We are against this proposal, and were pointing out potential loopholes in the proposal as a means of criticism.

[Christian Democrats]

How is it that the state is better equipped to build character than the family or civil society? Why do you believe the state's assessment of a child's best interests is better than that of his parents?

You did not answer my questions, so I am not sure why I should address yours.

Let me ask again, then: What is the purpose of private schools, if not to covertly subvert the intended outcomes of the state education system? If these two schools teach the same curriculum, then what is it exactly that parents choosing?

Your first question is conspiratorial. There's no covert subversion.

The answer to the second question should be obvious -- class sizes, quality of teachers, electives, religious instruction, etc.

Now, do you plan to answer my questions?

If you substituted any other freedom, would you argument make sense?

I will address this, because it's a very odd thing to say. All rights and freedoms are not the same. They are not readily interchangeable.

So which freedom should I substitute? Freedom of speech, of expression, and so forth, these are negative rights -- they require only that the state does not actively infringe on them. But the right to an education is a positive right -- it requires the state to take real positive action to ensure it is provided. These are not comparable in the way you suggest.

First, positive rights have negative aspects. The government should not force people to accept services that they don't want if they would prefer to choose a reasonable alternative. Second, the right to education is also a negative right -- the right to seek knowledge and impart knowledge without undue governmental interference.

The right to a fair trial requires the state to actively participate. The right to equal treatment before the law and before the state requires the state to participate. The right to a safety at work, to petition, to clean water. There are numerous rights to which the state has to take action to make sure citizens have them.

Alright. The right to a fair trial then -- do we allow citizens to choose a private court, or do they need to use the courts provided by the state?

If all parties consent, people are generally free to settle their disputes outside of court. Also, there's a thing called alternative dispute resolution.

However, the expression of ideologies in schools is where we draw the line. We have made very sure that, in our education system, only facts are taught as facts, and theories with insufficient evidence to qualify as fact with scientific rigour are treated and taught as such.

First, all schools have some ideological underpinning. Second, if your nation's schools teach only facts, is it safe to say that they do not teach literature or civics and that they do not present any types of historical interpretations but only historical facts?

Our schools may educate students on religions, and teach them about their tenets and teachings, but at no point is it permitted for these schools to present them as facts - rather, religion should be presented as one might present art to an onlooker; to be debated upon and discussed, rather than revered.

This is itself an ideological view -- that religion is a matter of taste and not a matter of truth.

We believe that many religions serve to present theories as facts, and in some cases discourage critical thinking, questioning, and encourage irrational opinions and decisions, which affect not only themselves but the community around them.

The operative words are "we believe." You haven't demonstrated why your nation's beliefs should trump the beliefs of individuals.

religious affiliation and teachings are prohibited in our Imperium

Your nation is in violation of international law, Ambassador. And it's oppressive.

Of course, we understand that this is a sensitive topic, with much potential for disagreement. We would be happy to see our fellow nations engage in critical thought over this issue, and to challenge our outlooks on the basis of reason and fact. We look forward to seeing what discerning arguments may be raised.

Well, we're glad that you'd like to see us engage in critical thought -- a right that your people apparently don't have.

[Azurius]

Sooo... just because a loophole exists you think of it as okay to force values onto others...? Again I ask people who argue like you or the proposer: Where is the "liberty" in that? Also by doing that you effectively promote corruption... So I guess it is okay to promote corruption and loopholes for the sake of you forcing your own values onto others...? I hope you realize how that sounds.

You seem to have misunderstood our intent. We are against this proposal, and were pointing out potential loopholes in the proposal as a means of criticism.

Our bad then, sorry.

[Azurius]

First, positive rights have negative aspects. The government should not force people to accept services that they don't want if they would prefer to choose a reasonable alternative. Second, the right to education is also a negative right -- the right to seek knowledge and impart knowledge without undue governmental interference.

True, but nor should a private owner have that right either(since there is no democratic and free decision possible under that system). But that is effectively what you encourage. I think the people should decide democraticaly, but you bereft nations like mine(who build heavily on direct democracy) of exactly that ability with your resolution. And on top of berefting us of our autonomy and freedom to decide, even worse, you bereft our people of the means to ever democraticaly decide on that topic as well!

First, all schools have some ideological underpinning. Second, if your nation's schools teach only facts, is it safe to say that they do not teach literature or civics and that they do not present any types of historical interpretations but only historical facts?

False, depending on laws and circumstances, schools are free of idiological underpinning. Also why would they not teach civics? These go hand in hand with facts. The problem is the civics that your christianity teaches are neither rational(the bible and the whole history of christianity is marked by flaws and by constant changes, christianity itself goes back to old spiritual beliefs in fact that have only been perverted and formed into an organized religion to in fact OPRESS free speech, free belief etc and allow a wealthy elite to exploit. Since all that was given before your beloved christianity ever started to exist and at some point, remove things like freedom of belief and other freedoms too, because your beloved christianity always was and still is the exact opposite of freedom of choice and belief) nor correct but in fact are based on bias and oppinion and also FORCE by authority enforced and written by mankind over the centuries.

Also seriously... your christian "civics" are more then self contradicting and hypocritical to no end anyway. I think any nation is better off without "christian civics" as they contradict themselves, are false, are built on lies, and encourage abuse like you try to achieve. Abuse the word "freedom" to force your very own dogma and authority on fellow WA nations. Sorry but once again, why am I not surprised that a christian like you is the most hypocritical liar who hides behind good words and ideals to try to enforce authoritarian systems(under the mantle of good words like "freedom") with your lies...? It is always the same with you guys... IRL as well as in nationstates.

This is itself an ideological view -- that religion is a matter of taste and not a matter of truth.

It is though, since even in spirituality, christianity and any other organized religion is a false pervertification of existing spiritual belief(I am both a scientists and spiritualist myself, and I am well aware about the history and beliefs of cultures, especially your christian one. And I can tell you it is built on nothing but pervertifications and lies, and the only people that benefits are dogmatists or wealthy and powerfull elites at the top. Sorry but it is true, dig into history, especially the history of christianity and how modern christianity came to be. Hell, early christianity was diversified as hell we have proven that by today. The catholic dogma that all christianity derived out of "1 streamline" is in fact false. Catholicism in fact was originaly just 1 of many different christian streamlines. Due to its ruthlessness it quickly dominated and forcefully removed any other form of christianity however). Your kind has also crushed any alternative belief(even alternative christians beliefs too!!!) over the centuries too with brute force as well... And you are now, today trying to do the same yet again! Typical.

Also if you fail to see how the bible itself and christianity itself contradict themselves heavily... you are beyond help. Fun fact for you: Science does not contradict itself, your bible and even your entire resolution however does, just like you tend to contradict yourself too.

Your nation is in violation of international law, Ambassador. And it's oppressive.

So is your nation and even your entire resolution... so what? And again your point is what exactly...?

Well, we're glad that you'd like to see us engage in critical thought -- a right that your people apparently don't have.

Nor do your people and we already multiply mentioned in detail why. Nor are you able to engage in criticial thought, sorry, as you showed clear idiological bias multiple times already. Again your point with all you say and your resolution is what exactly...? Hell, here, take a bible quote you love so much and actually take it to heart:

"And who is without sin, may throw the first stone..."

You are just as much without freedom and full of sin as all the other nations you criticized so far. And yet you seem to put yourself above all others and think you have achieved the pinacle of freedom and liberty, even when this is far from the truth. Here another bible quote on that:

"Do not grant yourself the authority to play god!"

Yet you are doing exactly that, though one could argue that god would be wise enough to not contradict himself unlike you... You are trying to play god over other nations once again, just like your earlier resolution on abortion... And like last time you meet massive resistance and are debunked hardly by lots of other nations. and your resolution also meets massive resistance and votes against, good and rightfully so too in my oppinion.

Why don´t you just give it up and let it be...? Some people I guess just never learn...

P.S. For people like you I often really do hope something like "hell" exists, because preachers like you who act like god, contradict themselves, and preach water but drink wine, would be the first to drop down to hell in your very own definition of the very own religion you preach. As of such yeah, would be cool if hell existed, because your kind would be the first ones to go down there and burn in hell forever.

[New Jaedonstan]

You just described the 6th circle of hell, my friend. I am both appalled and enlightened by the statements of my friend above. He points out a serious problem that many Christians have today: Hypocrisy. Lies. Deceit. Et cetera. As a Christian, I will attempt to learn from his criticisms.

However, this legislation, though written with good intent and so carefully and thoughtfully written, goes against the entirety of what my nation believes about national autonomy. We strictly hold to the idea that nations should be left to themselves to decide about things such as education and safety and such. There are hardly any "one size fits all" proposals. Thus, only the "local" government (in the sense that they are closer than the international government) is fully qualified to make such important decisions since only they know exactly what their people need/want. I support the idea behind thus proposal, but cannot endorse or support it.

[Christian Democrats]

Private schools in fact BAN peoples freedom! Or they at least lower and threaten it if you have a mixed system of public and private schools. Because they allow wealthy people unfair advantages over poor people.

You're not making sense, Ambassador. You're saying that something should be banned if not all people can afford it. Not all people can afford their own homes; should home ownership be banned? Would a ban on homes increase "peoples freedom"?

How can you call private schooling a "freedom of choice" when poor people are banned from proper education from the very start...? They then cannot choose "proper private education" because they simply can´t afford it! How is that "freedom of choice" when people are already banned from access to proper education, or choosing their school themselves, when material conditions prevent them from doing so from the very start? That is indeed not freedom of choice but actually, you force choices on them!

Giving people more choice doesn't "force choices" on people. Also, it's irrational to deprive some people of their choices just because those choices are not available to all. If your real concern is the availability of choices, then your government should take action to increase choice for the "have-nots." It should not deprive freedom of choice from the "haves."

If you believe otherwise and believe it is not dependant on circumstances, well, then you are completely delusional and unable to argue logical and rational on this point either.

You appear to be the one "unable to argue logical and rational."

Also to finish this topic: In fact, let´s look at pure anarchy: It is definitely a lawless society. Some would argue that this would be the pinacle of liberty. Others like us who argue rational, will disagree, because:

If everyone can do what they want and no laws or regulations exist, what prevents these people from forcing their own laws upon everyone around them? Or use brute force or brute authority in many different ways, either direct or indirect? Exactly, nothing.

Same can be argued about wanting to privatize or allow private schools.

You're saying that the government should ban private schools and that it should require all children to attend public schools because people shouldn't "forc[e] their own laws upon everyone around them." Ambassador, your proposition actually leads to the opposite conclusion. If people shouldn't "forc[e] their own laws upon everyone around them," then private schooling should be legal.

First, positive rights have negative aspects. The government should not force people to accept services that they don't want if they would prefer to choose a reasonable alternative. Second, the right to education is also a negative right -- the right to seek knowledge and impart knowledge without undue governmental interference.

True, but nor should a private owner have that right either(since there is no democratic and free decision possible under that system). But that is effectively what you encourage. I think the people should decide democraticaly, but you bereft nations like mine(who build heavily on direct democracy) of exactly that ability with your resolution. And on top of berefting us of our autonomy and freedom to decide, even worse, you bereft our people of the means to ever democraticaly decide on that topic as well!

So, in your opinion, true freedom is not letting people make their own decisions; it's letting 51% of people make decisions for everyone?

As of such yeah, would be cool if hell existed, because your kind would be the first ones to go down there and burn in hell forever.

We're impressed by your ability "to argue logical and rational."

There are hardly any "one size fits all" proposals. Thus, only the "local" government (in the sense that they are closer than the international government) is fully qualified to make such important decisions since only they know exactly what their people need/want.

Better than the local government, people know what people need/want. Why not let people make their own decisions?

[Iciaros]

However, the expression of ideologies in schools is where we draw the line. We have made very sure that, in our education system, only facts are taught as facts, and theories with insufficient evidence to qualify as fact with scientific rigour are treated and taught as such.

First, all schools have some ideological underpinning. Second, if your nation's schools teach only facts, is it safe to say that they do not teach literature or civics and that they do not present any types of historical interpretations but only historical facts?

I'm afraid that you are misunderstanding our words. Our schools do not only teach fact. We teach theories as well - but when theories are taught, they are presented as theories, rather than fact. Such subjects as literature, for example, have no one fixed interpretation, and when we teach our students the widespread interpretation we do not assert them as fact, but rather as a certain viewpoint, and lay out the evidence in support - as well as the evidence in opposition. We strive to have a fair system, Ambassador.

Our schools may educate students on religions, and teach them about their tenets and teachings, but at no point is it permitted for these schools to present them as facts - rather, religion should be presented as one might present art to an onlooker; to be debated upon and discussed, rather than revered.

This is itself an ideological view -- that religion is a matter of taste and not a matter of truth.

That is perhaps true, Ambassador. However, keep in mind that we are not asserting that religion is NOT a matter of truth. We are simply saying that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it is, beyond reasonable doubt, a matter of truth. And until such evidence is produced, we would rather err on the side of caution and ensure that no theory that is in doubt is presented as truth.

We believe that many religions serve to present theories as facts, and in some cases discourage critical thinking, questioning, and encourage irrational opinions and decisions, which affect not only themselves but the community around them.

The operative words are "we believe." You haven't demonstrated why your nation's beliefs should trump the beliefs of individuals.

Perhaps, let us put this ball back in your court, Ambassador - why should the beliefs of individuals trump the beliefs of the state? While, of course, there is always the possibility that the state is wrong, our leadership is well-educated and trained to produce critical thought, and to ensure accountability, it closely consults the people when making decisions. In contrast, many in the population are prone to fits of madness and irrationality, such as the anti-vaccination and anti-modern medicine bloc, and parents are not accountable to any party when making decisions that could potentially ruin their children's lives.

religious affiliation and teachings are prohibited in our Imperium

Your nation is in violation of international law, Ambassador. And it's oppressive.

Oppression is a matter of taste, Ambassador. Though, to be clear, it would seem we have misphrased that statement - religious affiliation and teachings are prohibited only in the SCHOOLS of our Imperium. Once students reach an appropriate age to approach issues with proper consideration and thought, of course they are welcome to follow any religion they wish. Our only objective is to prevent indoctrination, as at a young age minds are very impressionable, and should be protected.

Of course, we understand that this is a sensitive topic, with much potential for disagreement. We would be happy to see our fellow nations engage in critical thought over this issue, and to challenge our outlooks on the basis of reason and fact. We look forward to seeing what discerning arguments may be raised.

Well, we're glad that you'd like to see us engage in critical thought -- a right that your people apparently don't have.

We would beg to differ, Ambassador. But no doubt any further defence on this topic is going to lead us down a rabbit hole of insults and subjectivity, and it contributes nothing to the discussion at hand.

I hope the clarifications above may help you better understand our argument, and where we are coming from.

Cheers, Ambassador.

[Christian Democrats]

First, all schools have some ideological underpinning. Second, if your nation's schools teach only facts, is it safe to say that they do not teach literature or civics and that they do not present any types of historical interpretations but only historical facts?

I'm afraid that you are misunderstanding our words. Our schools do not only teach fact. We teach theories as well - but when theories are taught, they are presented as theories, rather than fact. Such subjects as literature, for example, have no one fixed interpretation, and when we teach our students the widespread interpretation we do not assert them as fact, but rather as a certain viewpoint, and lay out the evidence in support - as well as the evidence in opposition. We strive to have a fair system, Ambassador.

All books are imbued with certain views. How do your schools decide which books to teach in literature classes?

This is itself an ideological view -- that religion is a matter of taste and not a matter of truth.

That is perhaps true, Ambassador. However, keep in mind that we are not asserting that religion is NOT a matter of truth. We are simply saying that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it is, beyond reasonable doubt, a matter of truth. And until such evidence is produced, we would rather err on the side of caution and ensure that no theory that is in doubt is presented as truth.

Your government's judgment that there is "insufficient evidence" for religion shouldn't control your people's judgment with respect to the education of their own children.

The operative words are "we believe." You haven't demonstrated why your nation's beliefs should trump the beliefs of individuals.

Perhaps, let us put this ball back in your court, Ambassador - why should the beliefs of individuals trump the beliefs of the state?

The natural decision-maker for decisions that affect a person's life is the person himself. The burden of proof is on the state when the state wants to substitute its own decisions for those of the person.

While, of course, there is always the possibility that the state is wrong, our leadership is well-educated and trained to produce critical thought, and to ensure accountability, it closely consults the people when making decisions. In contrast, many in the population are prone to fits of madness and irrationality

Even if we accept that many people are mad/irrational, that doesn't justify the state deciding for all people.

Oppression is a matter of taste, Ambassador. Though, to be clear, it would seem we have misphrased that statement - religious affiliation and teachings are prohibited only in the SCHOOLS of our Imperium. Once students reach an appropriate age to approach issues with proper consideration and thought, of course they are welcome to follow any religion they wish.

How can people "approach [religion] with proper consideration and thought" if the state shields them from it until adulthood? Similarly, how could people "approach [mathematics] with proper consideration and thought" if the state shielded them from it until adulthood"? How about history, science, or any other subject? Shielding a person from a certain subject biases him against that subject.

Our only objective is to prevent indoctrination, as at a young age minds are very impressionable, and should be protected.

"Protection," as you call it, is its own form of indoctrination. It's usually known as censorship.

[Iciaros]

I'm afraid that you are misunderstanding our words. Our schools do not only teach fact. We teach theories as well - but when theories are taught, they are presented as theories, rather than fact. Such subjects as literature, for example, have no one fixed interpretation, and when we teach our students the widespread interpretation we do not assert them as fact, but rather as a certain viewpoint, and lay out the evidence in support - as well as the evidence in opposition. We strive to have a fair system, Ambassador.

All books are imbued with certain views. How do your schools decide which books to teach in literature classes?

That is perhaps true, Ambassador. However, keep in mind that we are not asserting that religion is NOT a matter of truth. We are simply saying that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it is, beyond reasonable doubt, a matter of truth. And until such evidence is produced, we would rather err on the side of caution and ensure that no theory that is in doubt is presented as truth.

Your government's judgment that there is "insufficient evidence" for religion shouldn't control your people's judgment with respect to the education of their own children.

Perhaps, let us put this ball back in your court, Ambassador - why should the beliefs of individuals trump the beliefs of the state?

The natural decision-maker for decisions that affect a person's life is the person himself. The burden of proof is on the state when the state wants to substitute its own decisions for those of the person.

While, of course, there is always the possibility that the state is wrong, our leadership is well-educated and trained to produce critical thought, and to ensure accountability, it closely consults the people when making decisions. In contrast, many in the population are prone to fits of madness and irrationality

Even if we accept that many people are mad/irrational, that doesn't justify the state deciding for all people.

Oppression is a matter of taste, Ambassador. Though, to be clear, it would seem we have misphrased that statement - religious affiliation and teachings are prohibited only in the SCHOOLS of our Imperium. Once students reach an appropriate age to approach issues with proper consideration and thought, of course they are welcome to follow any religion they wish.

How can people "approach [religion] with proper consideration and thought" if the state shields them from it until adulthood? Similarly, how could people "approach [mathematics] with proper consideration and thought" if the state shielded them from it until adulthood"? How about history, science, or any other subject? Shielding a person from a certain subject biases him against that subject.

Our only objective is to prevent indoctrination, as at a young age minds are very impressionable, and should be protected.

"Protection," as you call it, is its own form of indoctrination. It's usually known as censorship.

We think you are labouring under a few misconceptions about the handling of our education, Ambassador. As we said before, we do not exclude subjective topics or theories from our education. We do present them, but we present them as theories. When we teach literature books, we allow students to engage in the message, its meaning, its relevance, and whether it is applicable or acceptable. Similarly, we educate our students on religions - many religions, rather than a singular one - and inform them of their tenets and teachings, but not presenting them as fact. Whether or not students want to follow these religions afterwards is up to them. It is not censorship, Ambassador, merely a more objective, detached way of looking at the same topics.

Furthermore, we are fully in agreement that people should be able to make decisions for themselves. What we are disputing is the parent's ability to make decisions for their children. By all means, children may make decisions on religion, but only when they are capable of understanding and applying critical thought; not at the behest of biased parents who force their views upon their children when said children are too young to understand and question what they are being taught. It is for this reason that only one specific section of the parent's ability to make decisions for their child, that being ideological indoctrination, is restricted.

Finally, Ambassador, I think you'll find that you have made many comments that are, in fact, based on rather subjective values judgements. We do not disagree - in fact, we do wholeheartedly agree with the preservation of individual freedoms and the right for one (not one's parents, though) to decide to live one's life in whatever way one wishes - but it may be prudent to consider that there are opposing views, with strong arguments of their own, and that one should try to approach these topics from a factual, logical level, such as predicted outcomes and consequences, rather than a subjectively moral level.

Cheers, Ambassador. I hope we have not offended you, and that we may continue to engage in thoughtful discussion.