Republicans Represent the People

[HeyItsZeus]

[Minimalist]

[theVOID]

I disagree with them here, consenting to trade is only applicable to adults, not children - An adult can agree to any terms and conditions they like, a child lacks the ability to so with the same knowledge of the consequences.

Whether or not it should be the parents or a blanket ultimatum that dictates child working conditions is another issue, I'm leaning towards it being the responsibility of the parents to ultimately decide the terms that their child, if they wish to work, should do so under - This of course has the previsions that the parent is not allowed to force or coerce the child into working, it has to ultimately be the choice of the child to seek labor. And keep in mind, when we speak of 'child' it's really teenagers.

[Dotard]

Cocksuckers. The lot of 'em.


Oh wait... that's not an insult anymore is it?

[8BitAtheist]

cocksuckers is not an insult. No.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Well, it seems that the more republicans that win in elections, the closer that American can reach the height of the pentultimate freedom and small government that American was made for:

A Plutocracy.

Their changes (read: enormous cuts) to education, child labor laws, the right to collective bargaining, will allow a new working class... "serfs" if you will to have the ultimate freedom. The kind of freedom they're forced into by the wealthy.

Libertarians will love it once the government has no power to protect its citizens from the absolute worst of capitalism.

[theVOID]

Capitalism > Corporatism.

The 'cuts' to education is namely moving control largely back to states.

The Ron Paul libertarians are against the control over unions, those moves were made by the big govt republicans, he's spoken out against those moves in numerous interviews already.

I disagree with any repeals to Child labor laws other than those that would make the parents ultimately responsible. Children simply do not count amongst the consenting adults that should be free from intervention in the choices they freely make.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

The cuts to education is going to leave the states, with all their rights, with far more uneducated people. Not because they choose to be uneducated, but because private institutions are beyond their price range.

Without a good state-to-state standard (something public schools have), you also get nasty "benefits" of some states deciding that things like creationism is science and therefore should be taught in a classroom.

Hey - it's their right, after all, and whose to say that the US government should tell Texas not to teach that the earth revolves around the Sun?

Regulated Capitalism > Capitalism

[theVOID]

State education=/= private education.

How do you get from "States have more control" to "less people are educated" - That seems like a complete non-sequitur.

Teaching creationism would still be unconstitutional no? Allowing states to set standards within the legal sphere, have more control over spending, more control for teachers, parents and communities wouldn't change that, what it would do is make spending more transparent, more cost effective and give parents, teachers etc more say in what goes on.

Why should your government get to dictate beliefs to everyone else, be they right or wrong? And even if you wanted a single government mandate such as "you must teach what is currently espoused by the consensus of experts in the relevant field to get funding" there would be no other reason to usurp power.

Regulated Capitalism = Interfering in the consensual trade of adults = Opportunities and motivations for corruption = Corporate welfare = Tainted markets = debt.

[DeistPaladin]

Cocksuckers. The lot of 'em.


Oh wait... that's not an insult anymore is it?

I lament that oral sex on men has gotten such a bad rap in our society.