What does this make me?

[Libertarian California]

Okay, you guys all know I'm very libertarian, and I really like the Founding Fathers. So, I did some reading on a Jeffersonian Democracy (which was the type of government Thomas Jefferson would have implemented in a perfect world). One of the things a Jeffersonian Democracy calls for is this, and this is straight from Wikipedia:

All men had the right to be informed, and thus, to have a say in the government. The protection and expansion of human liberty was one of the chief goals of the Jeffersonians. They also reformed their respective state systems of education. They believed that their citizens had a right to an education no matter their circumstance or status in life.

This is one of the core values of a Jeffersonian Democracy. Now, while I still support private schools, I have found myself coming to support this as well. So, yeah, I now support universal education. Hard to believe it took a guy from 18th Century to convince me.

However, the way it's worded: "They also reformed their respective state systems of education". Are they advocated for universal education for the whole country or only their respective states?

So what I'm asking is, do I support education throughout the whole country, or states's rights (and the ability of each state to allow free education for all it's citizens)?

Sorry if it's really bloggy or I'm being redundant.

Merry Christmas everybody

[Souseiseki]

So what I'm asking is, do I support education throughout the whole country, or states's rights (and the ability of each state to allow free education for all it's citizens)?

I don't understand. What do you support?

Do you only support it because this totally cool guy said it once, and what you support is therefore based on figuring out what he supported?

[Falcania]

Oh, interesting!

Purely working off your post, I'd say that Jeffersonians are advocating universal education, yeah. If a government's role is to safeguard liberty for all people, then they must have the education to participate in that government. Pretty laudable.

"They reformed their respective state systems of education" sounds like an afternoon at the library, hitting the history books, but my reading would be that they were trying to conform to the Jeffersonian ideal within the reality of their environment. Realpolitik ahoy.

And a merry christmas to you too!

[Takaram]

I can't talk about you, but IMO, individual civil rights > states rights in every possible occasion, bar none, period.

[Libertarian California]

So what I'm asking is, do I support education throughout the whole country, or states's rights (and the ability of each state to allow free education for all it's citizens)?

I don't understand. What do you support?

Do you only support it because this totally cool guy said it once, and what you support is therefore based on figuring out what he supported?

I don't know. I don't want to come off as supporting this only because Jefferson supported this, but that's kind of what it is.

[Libertarian California]

I can't talk about you, but IMO, individual civil rights > states rights in every possible occasion, bar none, period.

What about if state's each provided their own universal education instead of the federal government? I mean that way, California can teach what it wants, and Texas can teach what it wants, but in the end, everyone gets an education of some sort.

[Tmutarakhan]

No "state system of education" existed in the 18th century. This was an innovation in 19th century New England.

[Silent Majority]

I can't talk about you, but IMO, individual civil rights > states rights in every possible occasion, bar none, period.

What about if state's each provided their own universal education instead of the federal government? I mean that way, California can teach what it wants, and Texas can teach what it wants, but in the end, everyone gets an education of some sort.

This already happens for the most part

[Libertarian California]

What about if state's each provided their own universal education instead of the federal government? I mean that way, California can teach what it wants, and Texas can teach what it wants, but in the end, everyone gets an education of some sort.

This already happens for the most part

But it only goes up to high school, and it's all around pretty shitty quality in some areas.

[Libertarian California]

No "state system of education" existed in the 18th century. This was an innovation in 19th century New England.

Oh. Then what were they talking about by that?

[The New Sea Territory]

Merry Christmas fellow Libertarian-ish person. Very few HARDLINE libertarians exist, as we all have differences in our personal views and variations. For example: I'm Far-right fiscally, but am moderate socially. I personally don't like abortion, and I promote Gun Rights. This pushes me to "moderate" rather than "liberal".

To define libertarianism: Fiscally Right, Socially Left.

My Proof: The opposites (Statists), a great example being the Nazis, are economically left and socially Right. This makes a perfect "statist", because the government restricts everything.


Don't pay attention to my Nation. I Role-play as a Nazi.



Back to the topic, What Jefferson said probably comes from this:

Before the American Revolution, men could be arrested or fined without having any prior knowledge such a law existed. Most Authoritarians like to do this, and the Imperialist England was flaming with Authoritarianism and incest, not that they aren't now, just to a less degree.

He doesn't necessarily say that all men must be educated school-wise, I just think he meant more specifically that everyone should know their Rights, Laws and Responsibilities, and what the Government's powers are.

Sadly, both Reps and Dems have greatly crossed that line. Jefferson would not approve.

[Threlizdun]

Okay, you guys all know I'm very libertarian

No you're not

So what I'm asking is, do I support education throughout the whole country, or states's rights (and the ability of each state to allow free education for all it's citizens)?

Why the hell are you asking us?

To define libertarianism: Fiscally Right, Socially Left.

Blatantly false

My Proof: The opposites (Statists), a great example being the Nazis, are economically left and socially Right. This makes a perfect "statist", because the government restricts everything.

What the hell are you talking about? The left is anti-statist in nature.

[Conserative Morality]

What the hell are you talking about? The left is anti-statist in nature.

You anarchists really need to stop trying to appropriate everything for your own cause. The left can be statist or anti-statist.

[Dyakovo]

Okay, you guys all know I'm very libertarian, and I really like the Founding Fathers. So, I did some reading on a Jeffersonian Democracy (which was the type of government Thomas Jefferson would have implemented in a perfect world). One of the things a Jeffersonian Democracy calls for is this, and this is straight from Wikipedia:

All men had the right to be informed, and thus, to have a say in the government. The protection and expansion of human liberty was one of the chief goals of the Jeffersonians. They also reformed their respective state systems of education. They believed that their citizens had a right to an education no matter their circumstance or status in life.

This is one of the core values of a Jeffersonian Democracy. Now, while I still support private schools, I have found myself coming to support this as well. So, yeah, I now support universal education. Hard to believe it took a guy from 18th Century to convince me.

However, the way it's worded: "They also reformed their respective state systems of education". Are they advocated for universal education for the whole country or only their respective states?

So what I'm asking is, do I support education throughout the whole country, or states's rights (and the ability of each state to allow free education for all it's citizens)?

Sorry if it's really bloggy or I'm being redundant.

Merry Christmas everybody

A sheep who is incapable of independent thought?

[Tmutarakhan]

No "state system of education" existed in the 18th century. This was an innovation in 19th century New England.

Oh. Then what were they talking about by that?

I have no idea. It sounds like they were talking out of their hat.

[Zweite Alaje]

What the hell are you talking about? The left is anti-statist in nature.

You anarchists really need to stop trying to appropriate everything for your own cause. The left can be statist or anti-statist.

Indeed, anarchists like to claim their particular branch is True Socialism, ridiculous. There are many paths to Socialism, the variant you follow merely suits what one believes is important.

I respect Threlizdun as a fellow socialist, but the constant denying of the vastness of the socialist continuum is ridiculous. He even has the audacity to label me a reactionary.

[Genivaria]

A nation that educates its people creates an intelligent population, wow that was supposed to resist the mob mentality that was so easily manipulated by populists and tyrants.

[Liriena]

Education is a human right, and an educated population is the first step towards progress and development.

An ignorant population will only be the constant tool of power-hungry and corrupt populists, and will never see past the smoke and mirrors of politics.

Free, public, open-for-all universal education in the elementary, middle, high and university levels!

[Forster Keys]

A fellow with a perhaps unhealthy focus on Jefferson's words.

[Meryuma]

My Proof: The opposites (Statists), a great example being the Nazis, are economically left and socially Right. This makes a perfect "statist", because the government restricts everything.

What the hell are you talking about? The left is anti-statist in nature.

Anti-statism is historically leftist, but one can be a leftist and not anti-state (though it's very misguided).

[Galborg]

Clearly Jefferson wanted proper education.
Currently Federal govt supports Evolution and real education whereas some states ram religion down the students' throats.

Clearly in this case, Jefferson wants the Fed govt to have the Power and vice-versa if the States are right and the Fed is wrong.

[Nadkor]

I fail to see why if you support universal education and see it as being necessary in a democracy you wouldn't want to ensure that children across the whole country get a good public education.

"States' rights" is bollocks, and anybody with an ounce of conviction in what they believe (unless it's "let's oppress the blacks, the women, and/or the gays", I guess) would realise that.

[Mike the Progressive]

A communist.

[Duvniask]

A communist.

Does that word even mean anything anymore?

[Frisivisia]

You anarchists really need to stop trying to appropriate everything for your own cause. The left can be statist or anti-statist.

Indeed, anarchists like to claim their particular branch is True Socialism, ridiculous. There are many paths to Socialism, the variant you follow merely suits what one believes is important.

I respect Threlizdun as a fellow socialist, but the constant denying of the vastness of the socialist continuum is ridiculous. He even has the audacity to label me a reactionary.

How could you possibly be reactionary when you hate gays, abortion, and personal rights?