It's not cohesive if given the choice to opt out.

I'd agree with that. Lots of parents wouldn't. Some parents would say evolution is heresy and they want no part of it. But you don't think those parents have any right to educate their children in the manner they see fit. Why? Presumably because you, along with the "experts" whose authority you respect = the scientific community, are evolutionists. So never mind what those backwards parents think, their views won't be respected. Because the experts don't agree with them. You're setting up a panel of experts to dictate to the parents what their children will be taught. That, I think, was batair's point in using the "experts" comment (but he might have meant something different and he can speak for himself).

I'm fairly certain you would have to educate people to get them to that level of understanding, and thus coerce them.

There are other implications which are worse, but in a black/white discussion this one is better because it shows how the entire coercion argument is just intellectual regurgitation.

If I go to a guitar teacher and ask him to teach me to play the guitar (and pay him whatever his fee is), that's not coercive. I'm putting myself under his authority voluntarily. If on the other hand he comes to my house uninvited, demands that I learn the guitar even though I have no interest in learning the guitar, and snatches his fee out of my wallet. That's coercion. The difference is very simple, there's no reason at all why education needs to be coercive.

To anticipate a possible objection to this example, virtually everyone accepts that parents have, and should have, some level of coercive power over their children. They have the authority to force their children to do things they don't want to do. That's part (hopefully a relatively small part) of parenting. Some of us just don't grant that same authority to the state in regard to education. We think the parents should be the final authority on that matter.

If those parents agree with the premise that kids should be taught basics of (modern) stuff, and don't think evolution is basics - their cluelessness should have little regard. Maybe there is a bunch of parents that think PI=3.14... is not basics and that they should teach the biblical PI=3.00 instead - should we allow that? No.

I mean if you agree that state should insist on kids learning basics and this whole discussion is about what basics is - well, there is really nothing to discuss then. Any group of adults with brains that are familiar with basic evidence for evolution agree that it's a basic fact not different in any way from the fact of gravity or existence of Jupiter.

Ok, so we don't disagree on coercion, only how and why. That is all I wanted to know, it's the dichotomy I'm destroying.

And yes, I think enforced public schooling policies gives less coercion, not more. So there you have it. We both favor coercion and merely disagree which tactic gives the least of it.

I dont disagree allowing kids to be educated by their parents ideals can be dangerous. And when it goes to that extreme society should punish those parents according to its rules. Giving an opt out option for evolution or really any other subject in school isn't likely to cause to much death though.

Does anyone know how much emphasis is put on evolution in school anyway? Are we talking about more than an hour or two?

1. Those parents are dumb.
2. But I still think they should be allowed to teach their children this nonsensical Bible Math if they want to. Or even 2+2=3 if that's what they want to teach. Or the sky is yellow and the sun is blue.

Will this be harmful to the children? Certainly - they'll probably struggle to function in society later on because of all the screwy things their parents taught them. I think teaching creationism is also harmful to children, as are the majority of religious teachings in general. I think it would be better for the children if they were taught the truth, and in my view the truth is that God doesn't exist and all the world's religions are fairy tales which should only be studied in terms of their historical significance. I think that because I'm an atheist.

But mainly I think that if they're not my kids, it's none of my business what their parents teach them. And that despite the worst case scenarios being really horrible ("Hey kids, eat a rotten banana every morning and you'll be impervious to gunfire for the rest of the day! Wrap a live earthworm around your pinky finger and jump off a cliff, you'll be able to fly!"), most parents actually care about their children. They wouldn't knowingly teach them insane beliefs (yes I think religious beliefs are frequently insane, but the parents only teach them because they themselves believe them).

But I don't agree. I take the radical libertarian view that parents should be allowed to teach their children any nonsense they like, with no state supervision required. Might as well state it plainly, that's my position. And I'm comfortable with leaving the state out of it completely, because I have a lot more faith in parents to have the best interest of their children in mind than I do in the state. Even though I know it's not a perfect world, and some parents are stupid or evil or whatever. I still think leaving it to the parents is the way it should be, and the best society can do for the children, overall.

It's hard to go through an entire year of high school biology without mentioning evolution several times a week. I can't remember specifically what I learned then, but I feel like evolution was the basis for nearly everything in that class.

Maybe not death, but I do feel that it is dangerous to allow parents to opt their kids out of evolutionary teaching. As I said above, it would make teaching any part of biology difficult. But more importantly, it would give the kids the idea that evolution isn't fact. Not only would this hurt their understanding of the biological and medical fields, but it would also impair their view of science as a whole. That is, if you are told that a theory with that much evidence that passed through the scientific method for over 150 years (wait, maybe exactly 150 years?) is actually a lie, then how can you trust and understand science at all?

I'm trying to see where this would lead and I'm having trouble. The idea that "evolution is false" and "science is real" just makes my head hurt. What else would one who believes that believe? Would they be more likely to go with some unverified naturopathic treatment instead of proven medical therapy? I think it's very possible, and that would make it dangerous.

This sort of leads us to your earlier question about who the experts are. If you understand science, then it's really hard to not accept as fact anything that an expert says is based on sound science. Sure, things were/are different in more theocratic societies, but that does nothing to discredit scientific experts in our society today.

As expected of an arrogant authoritarian, I have to add that having the best interest of the kids in mind isn't good enough. Wanting to do good and actually doing good are not always the same thing. With an expert-backed state curriculum, the intelligent parents would agree with teaching that stuff anyway, and the less intelligent ones would have harmed their children by trying to help them.

Does it seem weird to you, by the way, that you're an atheist and you want to allow parents to teach their kids creationism instead of evolution, and I'm a Jew and I want to prevent parents from preventing their kids from learning evolution?

Unlike, say, your car, your dog, your house?
Who do they belong to?

Sure, I'm not claiming that parents have some mythical ability to flawlessly convert their intentions into reality. In fact I'm sure some of them would mangle their children's education horribly. Possibly on purpose - I mean some parents are sick and deranged human beings. There's probably a married couple out there somewhere that decided to have kids strictly for the purpose of torturing them for fun. I just think that kind of thing is really rare. The parental bond is strong, and for obvious evolutionary reasons. Parents generally want to prepare their children for happy and productive lives. They don't always succeed, of course. But in general I wouldn't expect the state to do a better job.

I've been a libertarian for a long time now (and had a fundamentally libertarian outlook on a lot of issues before I had a label for it), so I'm used to the apparent contradictions. There are a lot of issues where I would personally prefer people to act in a certain way, but at the same time I consider my personal preferences to be irrelevant because I believe they should be allowed to decide for themselves. So for example, I would personally prefer that every building I enter not have cigarette smoke, because I don't smoke and I don't like having to breathe it in. But I don't have the authority to dictate a non-smoking policy to anybody else. I think the building owner should be allowed to decide that for themselves. So I strongly oppose anti-smoking laws, even though they might result in a situation that would be more convenient for me. My convenience is irrelevant here, I consider those laws to be a violation of the building owner's rights.

Now if your particular beliefs include creationism, and you think the theory of evolution is false. And you still demand that parents allow their children to be taught evolution. That would be weird. But you believe in evolution, right?

The parents (surprise?)

evilsteve, you out-libertarian me harder than i could ever imagine anyone could. and i'm quite libertarian

With all due respect guys, I suspect you're libertarian only because you currently don't live in a libertarian society.

Try the Politics forum. There's ACists there. I like the concept, but I'm just not convinced that the power vacuum left by eliminating the government entirely wouldn't be filled by something worse in its absence. So I'm still for having a government, police, a court system, national defense (but that's defense, not the crazy offensive juggernaut the US military has become). Maybe a few other things I overlooked but just the bare essentials. Still, they'd call me a minarchist. And look down on me with contempt.

Point the way. Where is it?

Well, if we're talking free market libertarianism, then surely the least we should expect is that it should be able to out-compete it's authorative rivals.

As for non free market libertarian sociteties, they have existed and exist in abundance and in economics we call them cooperatives and in social anthropology you'll typically see it in agricultural communes. Both are succesful models.

1) Completely off-topic, but do you care at all that second hand smoke is dangerous to your health? It's not just a bad smell that makes it hard to breath, it actually kills you.

2) Yes, I believe in evolution. I'm not that weird...

I avoid second hand smoke when I can. I don't think occasional second hand smoke is that big of a deal, and I'm not exposed to it very often, but whatever effect it has can't possibly be good. Given a choice between eating at a restaurant that allows smoking and one that doesn't, I'd eat at the one that doesn't (other factors might sway me though, like if the smoking restaurant has better food).

Is the owner of the smoking restaurant victimizing his non-smoking customers by exposing them to second hand smoke? I don't think so. They aren't forced to eat there. And incidentally I think the market tends to take care of issues like this pretty well. If enough customers start asking for a smoke free environment, the owner will likely give them what they want. Not out of the kindness of his heart, but because he doesn't want to lose customers.

.....check Texas and Kansas. Iirc, in both states now public schools must teach Creationism/ID along with evolution and teachers must say "evolution is only a theory" even though it's a mis-use of the word "theory."

Where do you stand on parents who beat their children black & blue? Also none of your business?

It's not like I have been told that public education is a good thing and lack of it is a bad one. I don't even think I've ever heard the question come up. But as soon as you mentioned your view I went through this thought process: 1) education is CRUCIAL 2) selection and arrangement of education requires a lot of intelligence and knowledge 3) most parents are dumb 4) thus giving the selection of education to parents is horrible because a lot of them would **** up royally cause they're really dumb 5) I've yet to see a real problem with public education system thus lets keep it.

I didn't say it's bad just because. I had a line of reasoning that I had never even goen through before because I never heard question come up. Where's the indoctrination there? Give a different example please.

Do you feel similarly about non-smoking policy in school? Do you feel teachers should be allowed to blow smoke into children's face? Also, do you think parents should have the right to blow smoke into their children's face and ruin their lungs through 20 years of passive smoking?

So you agree that this would lead to terrible things, yet you want that? I really don't get it. Where are the plus sides? What's wrong with the current system to replace it with something that clearly has negative consequences for children? And I'm not even addressing how the society as a whole would suffer from this, but just the children themselves.


Again - why would this be better? We both see how this will be harmful for some children and would disable them for their entire lives. Current system at least tries to give all children an equal chance at succeeding in the society - your system would basically kill out the genetic lines of uneducated parents and parents with bad judgments as their children would be even worse educated and their children even worse and would probably just become bums not being able to fit anywhere in a modern educated world.

I mean you talk about free societies and then want to promote such inequalities? Pretty crazy imo.