|
|
Post by robin on Feb 8, 2010 8:09:57 GMT -8
Diddo!
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 10, 2010 3:42:32 GMT -8
OK, Mo, I follow you. I agree that on the scale of tyranny or persecution this ranks very low. However, I think the one thing that still remains unclear to me is your insistence that laws must always be obeyed. You didn't really mean that as an absolute did you? Okay, let’s see. I understand your confusion about my statement. It certainly offers space for misunderstanding. I believe you got me wrong. I still stand by every part of the statement, but let me try to be more understandable. The statement in question is not a conclusion, it is a premise: Social coexistence, from the small family to the large society is organized through rules. Such rules don’t always have to be written down. Sometimes they are tacit agreements, sometimes they are explicit, sometimes they are implicit. The explicit rules organizing the coexistence within a country are called laws. The idea behind a law is that it is binding. That’s the important part. If laws aren’t binding for everybody a priori, there is no point in establishing laws to begin with. If everybody can just pick and choose which laws he finds compelling and ignore the rest of them, we are dealing with anarchy. I have substantiated why I believe anarchy is not an option above. This is why I believe that laws in general are and should be binding for everybody and enforced if necessary. Remember, this is a premise – a generalization. We will get to the problematic part of it soon enough, so please don’t protest just now.  I hope and actually believe that we are in agreement thus far. You for instance want abortion outlawed. But what’s the sense of such a law if pro-choicers simply ignore it without consequence? What about the hardcore communist, who doesn’t believe in property? What if he chooses to take whatever he likes from whoever crosses his path by whatever means he sees fit? What about the cult I read about some years ago, that practiced sex with children arguing that it was best for them to be introduced into the sexual world by a gentle, loving and caring community? What about those who believe in Jihad and the necessity to kill “the enemy”? The list goes on and on and on. The problem here is subjectivity. Regardless of whether one believes in absolute right and wrong, there are people who perceive the world differently and who disagree on basic assumptions – including the harm emanating from their choices. That’s what the stoner and the homeschooling parents have in common: both believe that they should be free to handle things the way they see fit and both believe that their particular decision is harmless. At the same time, there are enough people who believe it isn’t. So as we can see, subjective differences often collide heavily (pro-life vs. pro-choice is an even better example, because smoking pott and homeschooling aren’t mutually exclusive). Subjective clashes require objective instances, standards and regulations (unless we just say: may the stronger have his way!). That’s the aspiration of the law. Now: What if one finds himself confronted with a law he cannot follow no matter how much he generally agrees on the necessity of laws and law enforcement? This is what I perceive to be your beef with the premise I established. I never said or intended to say that one has to follow such a law mindlessly just because. Laws being binding don’t cease one’s ability - one's freedom - to make a decision. That’s another premise. But one has to bear in mind the consequences. If I believe I’m in control of my car and the street situation, I can choose to speed. But I can’t complain if the cops stop and fine me. The homeschooling parents can choose to break the law but they can’t complain if they are being warned, fined and ultimately put into prison (keep in mind that prison is the end of the line and not the immediate sanction). I remember how we discussed about the war in Iraq on Steve’s wedding. You said something along the line that Saddam had had more than enough diplomatic warnings and economic sanctions and that since he kept overstepping the line, war was ultimately a legitimate way to put him in his place. War is a way more drastic measurement than prison, but the underlying logic is the same: If someone keeps breaking the law and no other measurement can stop this person from breaking the law, prison is the unfortunate but legitimate last resort. Let’s also keep in mind that breaking the law is not the only possibility one has when confronted with a law one perceives to be illegitimate. First and foremost, in democracies like Germany or the USA there’s the recourse to the courts. A complaint of unconstitutionality is open for everybody. Just today, the German Supreme Court overturned a law concerning the minimum amount of money unemployed parents are entitled to get from the State in order to satisfy the basic needs of their children. Taking legal action is not futile. Simultaneously one can start a movement: Team up with like-minded people, gather support, speak in public, demonstrate, use the media and put pressure on local politicians. You have to know: Germany hasn’t got a two party system often only offering the choice between devil and the deep blue sea. Currently, there are five major parties in the parliament finding themselves in fierce competition. Lately, no party has been able to get more than about 35% of the popular vote. If there is an issue, especially an emotional issue, politicians are more than likely to pick it up if they believe this might give them a couple of extra votes. If one fails to gather enough support to put politicians under pressure, it indicates that it is a very special interest we are talking about. One can try a revolution, but a revolution requires vast support and if you’re able to gather enough support to overturn a system, you could just as well gather enough support to simply have the law changed. Overthrowing a democracy through the force of the majority is contradictory because in a democracy, the majority is already sovereign. And overthrowing the system through the force of a minority is tyranny in the true sense of the word. Lastly, one can also leave if a law is unbearable in one’s mind. I’ve said all this before. There’s a variety of things one can try if one doesn’t want to obey the law. You don’t have to play by the rules. But that doesn’t change the premise that laws are – laws have to be – binding. I hope that answered your question. The Romeikes tried the things I’ve listed. They went to the courts – and lost. They tried to get enough public attention to put their cause on the agenda of politicians – and failed. They left the country. Currently they are trying to use the mass media. I’m not blaming them for fighting. Not at all. On the contrary, I’m growing more and more sympathetic to the idea of homeschooling. But I despise their style. That’s what this thread is all about. They are not persecuted, let alone because of their religious views. They are not even discriminated: Compulsory school attendance applies to every German citizen regardless of their sex, race, religious, political views, etc. The law doesn’t prefer one group over the other. They all have to send their kids to school. Terms like persecution, tyranny or discrimination simply don’t apply. And it’s not as if sending kids to school was such a terrible thing, irreconcilable with the dignity of humanity. As it is, parents remain the main source of influence on their children. Let’s keep things in proportion a bit, please. Compulsory school attendance is not Jim Crow Segregation. The demagogical farce they chose to play is bad style. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 10, 2010 3:43:52 GMT -8
Gentlemen, I beseech thee. The term Persecution should not be confused with enforcing the law. There is no intent on the part of the German government to supress any religious opinion or group. Our Chancelor herself is a devout Christian. Germany is a free republic and is very tolerant of diverse viewpoint. As a collective democratic entity, they created a law which requires public school attendance. It was not imposed by some elite ruling class, or dictatorial regime. It was employed by free political process. Some may argue that it is very nearly the scene in Star Wars were chancelor Palpatine refuses to relinquish control of the republic, but I think that is going considerably further than the metaphor allows. I myself am not a proponent of big government. I think it weighs down the economy, stifles growth, and can go down that slippery slope to 1984, but this example, of which we are speaking, is still well within the bound of morality and reason. (is this a runon sentence?) That is why I say it is not a moral issue. One may complain about it and say that one does not like it, but to say that it is persecution is simply not true. (...) Also, While your theory, concerning the muslim contingent in Germany is plausible, it simply isn't the case. The tension between racial, and religious groups in germany is a result of certain kids getting left behind in school because they don't have the parental, linguistic and social support outside of school. This in turn leave them with fewer and fewer prospects of success in society and therefore makes them targets for extremist recruiters. Yet another great post, Mr. K. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 10, 2010 3:45:40 GMT -8
I have been sounding inconsistant. I guess I just think it is silly to claim "political asylum" for this. I do not see this issue as persecution or suffering in any way. I think this is the biggest roadblock between you and I on this issue. The parents should just send their kids to school, and then educate them at home after school is dismissed if they do not like how the school teaches. Yes, the family did act, but only to benefit themselves and what they wanted. I am sure there are others in Germany who want home schooling rights...why not organize and start a movement? They would not have had to leave home and country! I am sure the German government would have got the message if enough people demonstrated, protested, and civilly disobeyed! You are right, the family did give up home and country for what they thought was right, and I suppose that is admirable. Personally, though, I think it is a silly thing to give up home and country for. I just don't get it. Maybe it's because I am not a parent. This whole situation just seems ridiculous to me. However, there are things I would stand up for, and maybe leave my home and country for that you would find ridiculous. Much agreement here. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 10, 2010 3:46:22 GMT -8
I'm so glad we live where it's legal to homeschool. Kirby, one thing to keep in mind, it's not just about the outcome, it's also about the journey, and the bonding that happens with the kids. I'd be very sad if my boys had to go off to school for the majority of one of my days off (Mondays). Having said that though, it may be a bit of stretch to say it's "persecution". I do think it's unfair and I don't fault the parents for seeking an environment that not only allows homeschooling, but is very supportive of it. Maybe they went too far to seek political asylum, but maybe it was the only way to get an extended visa for that long. I don't know. Much agreement here as well. Keep in mind though, that there are several other countries within the European Union which allow homeschooling and which require no visa for European citizens at all. If this was merely about immigrating into the USA, I believe there are other ways as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 15, 2010 17:20:25 GMT -8
I finally read your last big post. And I have to say..... I'm entirely in agreement with you sir!  I wasn't aware that German politics worked like this. Fascinating... and refreshing, I think.... unless it just means more political headaches? I do hate the two-party system. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 16, 2010 8:38:57 GMT -8
I finally read your last big post. And I have to say..... I'm entirely in agreement with you sir! I wasn't aware that German politics worked like this. Fascinating... and refreshing, I think.... unless it just means more political headaches? I do hate the two-party system. The political headaches unfortunately remain. Every system has its pros and cons, I guess. Over here, a party has to gain 5% of the popular vote in order to make it into parliament. That means that minorities have a real chance to get their representatives into the legislative process. However, this also means that progress is often terribly slow: The more parties involved, the more compromises have to be made in order to get things done. But all in all I think it's a good thing. If competition is good for business, it's also good for politics. I've been talking to a couple of Americans on my trip around the world and many said that they didn't feel represented by either Dems or GOP. If that is true for a significant number of people, I think they have a right to be heard in Washington as well. I don't quite understand the American system anyway. Why do they give the entire number of electors to the victor of a state? I mean, if someone wins 51% of Oregon, he gets 100% of the electors. And why is the vote of a Californian worth more than the vote of most other Americans? Doesn't that mean that in a fictive scenario someone can become president without even getting the majority of the populations vote?  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 16, 2010 8:44:02 GMT -8
It's pretty silly. However, a few states are able to divide their electoral votes (it depends on the state rules). I think they should all be that way. But I imagine it's hard to change because the dominant parties in each state have a vested interest in keeping it that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 16, 2010 8:52:25 GMT -8
Each state has 2 Senators in Congress (the Senate), which means a tiny state like Rhode Island is equal to a giant state like California. To offset this, each state gets Representatives in Congress (the House) based on their population- from like 1 to like 45. This is reasonable when it comes to representation, but the way the electoral votes work for the big states is, again, very silly. This has actually happened 4 times: Four candidates won the popular vote but lost the presidency: Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election to John Quincy Adams (1824); Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford B. Hayes (1876); Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election to Benjamin Harrison (1888); Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush (2000).source: www.infoplease.com/spot/prestrivia1.html |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 16, 2010 8:53:51 GMT -8
It's my opinion that there really shouldn't be an electoral vote anyway. It stems from a distrust of the masses.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Feb 17, 2010 18:50:46 GMT -8
" It stems from a distrust of the masses. "
There is a very justifiable fear of the massives. Individuals are smart, mobbs are violent, reactionary, and simple minded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 17, 2010 20:44:03 GMT -8
True. It's just I don't trust the wealthy few any more than the unwashed masses  |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Feb 18, 2010 9:45:33 GMT -8
Given that we are a Representative Republic, it would not make any since to have a popular vote for a national election. The Federal government is a coalition of independent states each with it's own constitution and laws. Each state is better represented when it votes collectively, gaining that state more influence in Washington. This system also encourages more involvement in the political system by small groups and individuals. Think about it. If a small community is able to rally enough votes to swing an election, even by the smallest majority, that group is able to gain the represntative vote of the entire state. Without this system presidential candidates would only focus their attention and ponder to the highly populated regions, leaving no voice to small communities.
I also think that results like that of the 2000 election show the brilliance of the system by showing that each vote is significantly more valuable in this system than in a true democracy.
Well that would depend on the individuals within the group, would it not? I'm curious to know what groups or mobs come to your mind when you make such a statement. Do you care to elaborate?
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Feb 19, 2010 18:03:51 GMT -8
Robin, First, I largely agree with your analysis of states voting as unified blocks to advance thier influence in Washington. TO elaborate on my point of view, I find that people in large mobbs, the anwashed masses tend to be destructive. Take for example the concept of equal rights via race. Dr. King was articulate and founded a school of thought around non violent protest. Yet within those protests and indeed expanding beyond them, the mobbs that formed frequently engaged in violent behavior. IT is the person who is smart, once that person turns his voice over to be ruled by a mobb, all intelect and conscience leave the person.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 19, 2010 18:54:03 GMT -8
Another great example would be the original Martin Luther, who advocated reform not revolution, yet his uneducated and desperately poor admirers used his message as a pretext for ransack and murder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Margot on Feb 20, 2010 23:12:59 GMT -8
True. It's just I don't trust the wealthy few any more than the unwashed masses y-e-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s! |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 21, 2010 5:51:15 GMT -8
Well that would depend on the individuals within the group, would it not? I'm curious to know what groups or mobs come to your mind when you make such a statement. Do you care to elaborate? Robin and krhagan First of all we have to distinguish between groups and mobs. Every mob is a group, yet not every group is a mob. My understanding of the word mob already includes a state of instigation. I'm just saying this to make sure you guys are not talking past each other. As Robin says, groups are made up of individuals and hence it really all depends on the behavior of individuals. However, the evidence of collective propensity towards violence, collective disinhibitions, reciprocative goading resulting in escalations and excesses (for example lynching), group pressure and general group dynamics has been keeping psychologists and sociologists busy for quite a while already and produced heaps of empirical substantiation. Although we must always be careful with generalizations (there is also evidence for unbloody revolutions, e.g.), it is certainly observable that people behave differently in groups than they do on their own. This disposition has often led to mob violence which the participating individuals weren't able to explain rationally afterwards. This disposition has also been deliberately instrumentalized and abused by ideologues and systems alike many many times throughout history and all over the world (for example the German November Progromes of 1938, the countless lynchings during the times of slavery and the Civil Rights Movement in the USA, or the constant mobs of screaming Arabs in the Middle East tearing down everything that stands in their way, etc. etc. etc.). But when it comes to the question of whether the masses are to be entrusted with the responsibilities of democracy, we must keep in mind that when we go to the polls, we are ultimately on our own in the polling-booth (at least where I live). |
|
