All the self-serving arguments of school choice opponents are bogus : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

All the self-serving arguments of school choice opponents are bogus

Walter Williams

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Cleveland school voucher case, Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris, that taxpayer funds that go to parents who might use the money to enroll their children in religious schools was constitutional. One need not be a rocket scientist to understand why.

The Constitution's First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." Devious and ignorant lawyers, judges and politicians exhibit little respect or understanding of the Framer's intent behind the First Amendment. England had an established church -- the Church of England -- supported by the taxpayers. Its members were given privileges that were denied to members of other congregations. The Framers were Englishmen and feared the creation of a similar state church in our country.

If state and local governments choose to finance education, and they give parents a voucher to be spent at schools of the parent's choosing, only an intellectual or a person with legal training will see that as government establishment of a state church -- a Church of United States. With that kind of reasoning, food stamps would also violate the Constitution's "establishment of religion" clause. Why? Because people of the Jewish faith might use their food stamps for the purchase of kosher food, and that too should be seen as the government establishing a state church. The same applies to those who'd give part of their Social Security check as their weekly church offering.

The First Amendment arguments by opponents of vouchers and school choice have always been bogus. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has held it as such, they will no doubt shift their focus to: "We must save public schools instead of draining money away for school choice." That, too, is bogus.

Try a little math. Take Washington, D.C., which spends over $10,000 per student for education whose student achievement would be dead last if Mississippi chose to secede from the Union. Suppose Washington gave each parent even a $5,000 voucher -- that wouldn't mean less money available per student. To the contrary, holding total education expenditures constant, it'd mean more money per student remaining in public schools.

School choice opponents are also dishonest when they speak of saving public schools. A Heritage Foundation survey found that 47 percent of House members and 51 percent of senators with school-age children enrolled them in private schools in 2001. Public school teachers enroll their children in private schools to a much greater extent than the general public, in some cities close to 50 percent. This also applies to the black elite. Jesse Jackson, for example, sent his son to Washington's most elite private school.

One particularly insidious argument of voucher opponents is that vouchers will "skim" away the more academically talented students whose parents want better and safer schools for them. That's a vision that's hideous and rotten to the core. It says that such students should be held hostage, unable to escape rotten schools and be academically destroyed, in the name of saving public schools at some distant, yet undetermined, unpromised date.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of educational vouchers and choice is: When a society decides to publicly finance a good or service, it doesn't follow that it must be publicly produced. We publicly finance F-16 fighter jets, but there's no government F-16 fighter jet factory. That same principle applies to education. We can publicly finance education, but where it's produced should be determined on the basis of economic efficiency. Where can we get the biggest bang for the buck?

All the self-serving arguments of school choice opponents are bogus. Saving public education is not the same as, and may indeed be exactly the opposite to, saving children.

-- Uncle Deedah (, July 30, 2002



-- Uncle Deedah (, July 30, 2002.

You know that sound that a ghost town in the old west makes? The howling wind, the whistled tune from high plains drifter.

See what happens when you let a couple of trolls run rampant and scare away all the decent folk? Swallow your pride and take care of bidness.

-- (get rid of@abusive.trolls), July 30, 2002.

The gubmint doesn't belong in the education business, plain and simple.

The expense of this voucher idea is going to get out of control. As more and more families choose to send their kids to the better private schools, the cost of going to those schools will soar astronomically, and the taxpayer will get stuck with the bill.

I have no children, why should I have to pay for other people's kids to go to school? I say we close down public education altogether. Let everyone send their kids to private schools based on what they can afford. If they're rich enough to send their kids to the best, more power to 'em. If they're poor, they either teach their kids themselves or let them grow up dumb. The harder the parents work to educate their kids, the more educated the kids will be. Let market forces decide what happens.

I'll tell you what bogus is, our entire taxation system. Now THAT'S BOGUS!

-- (fuckin gubmint should get @ their filthy fuckin hands. out of my pockets), July 30, 2002.

"See what happens when you let a couple of trolls run rampant and scare away all the decent folk?"

LOL! Just because YOU don't have the balls to debate anyone with a different opinion doesn't mean that all the decent folk are scared to.

You better go find yourself a Nazi forum, Unk don't play that game.

-- lol (get lost @ chicken. shit), July 30, 2002.

Homeschool World

-- (NEA @ public.trough), July 30, 2002.

get rid of,

Question, a serious question. Why should I take the advice of someone unwilling even to stick to a known handle? Isn't that exactly what the trolls do, switch handles with every post?

Another question, also serious. What exactly should the grounds for "taking care of bidness" be? And how much time should I invest in same in order to protect the balance between people's feelings and the right of other people to state their feelings?

-- Uncle Deedah (, July 30, 2002.


This is Flint's opinion of the site:

"Unk still has a forum, but despite password protection, a few of the real anarchists have been allowed in and pretty much laid the place waste all by themselves. These are the people who tended (in what became the bad old days) to cause each thread to have a half-life of only a few hours, before the "real" handles trying to discuss a topic were drowned out by nitwits posting mostly empty name calling using a different handle with every post. By now, on most threads that half-life is usually shrunk to the initial post. And initial posts are rare (why bother anymore?), so the name callers have nobody to piss on and the forum is basically dead. That's the worst thing that can happen. "

I can't disagree at all. Soon serious discussion will be between you, Lars and your collection of morons.

Best Wishes,,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, July 30, 2002.

Cute Z, but I don't see a solution in there.

24/7 with my hand on the delete key don't cut it for me.

But thanks for the wealth of advice,

Best wishes,


-- Uncle Deedah (, July 30, 2002.

Z, where did Flint post that paragraph? I don't disagree, I'm just curious. Was it at TB2K?

Unk, sad to say, but maybe what is being proven here is that a Libertarian society (virtual or real-life) is inherently impossible. There will always be those that take advantage of the freedoms in order to destroy the freedoms.

Why? Just for the "fun" of destruction, I think.

-- (, July 30, 2002.

I must dis-agree Lars. Even in a Libertarian society there are laws, and people paid to uphold those laws. Or do you wish to be the head cop around here? Good luck, considering the software here.

-- Uncle Deedah (, July 30, 2002.


That would be on the Dennis board:

Third post down

Can't link a single post there. ;<)

Best Wishes,,,,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, July 30, 2002.

I happen to be a regular poster. There are some serious wackos running around in here, therefore I prefer to remain anoymous.

I think a person in charge should be able to distinguish abusive psychotic behavior from non. Most people have a sense of common courtesy/decency. Have you none?

-- (how be??), July 30, 2002.

I don't see anyone "destroying" anything on this forum. The only problem seems to be that the repugs can't stand to listen to anyone but themselves. How quickly they forget what THEY were like when "Klintoon" was in office.

-- lol (pugs can dish it out @ but. can't take it), July 30, 2002.

Bullshit, the "Klintoon" crowd hangs out at Dennis' board now, you are just mad cause you will get deleted there, while I don't have the time for a pissing contest.

-- Uncle Deedah (, July 30, 2002.

Unk, you may have confused me with the poster above me. I'm perfectly happy with this forum, it is the troll "how hard" who is unhappy and wants you to start censoring people. You are one of the few people who permits freedom of speech without going on a power trip, and that's mighty white of ya. I would suggest this troll who wants a fascist dictator deleting anything they don't agree with to go over to Olson, he should be able to fill those shoes.

As for the "bullshit" part, nope I'm not lying. I've been with these forums all the way back to the original Yourdon in 98, and I'm aware of who the Clinton bashers and liberal haters are. Many of them are still posting here, though they have eased off now that they've got their boy. If they don't like my posts or opinions, all they have to do is ignore them, SIMPLE AS THAT. But NOOO, they won't be happy until they have total fascist control over the thoughts of everyone else.

BTW, Roland is one of the ones who is going around posting as an anti-repug troll, hoping to bring you to precisely this point. He wants you to start deleting anyone who doesn't hold conservative views, and I wouldn't be at all suprised if he is also this same troll "how hard" who is now getting on your case to begin fascist tactics. LOL, poor boy is so insecure about his politics that he can't even tolerate any criticism! Check the IP's, you may be surprised.

-- (pugs can dish it out @ but. can't take it), July 30, 2002.

There are some serious wackos running around in here,...

Who is a serious wacko here? Excluding mule lovers, of course.

-- helen (, July 30, 2002.

BTW, Roland is one of the ones who is going around posting as an anti-repug troll, hoping to bring you to precisely this point. He wants you to start deleting anyone who doesn't hold conservative views,

You really don't get it, trollboy. My troll posts are simply to ridicule your own. And I think they have successfully made the point that you are a buffoon. I am not the only one who mocks you by using the trollboy voice. ROTFL!!!!!! Heeehaw!!!

If you want to make a serious point, that would be fine with me. If you would use a consistent screen name, I might even "discuss" issues with you.

The way you come off to me is as an "anti". You come-off as anti everything. I have yet to see you be for anything. What do you believe in? Are you a Democrat? I don't think so. Democrats aren't especially into conspiracy theories. Democrats don't see a NWO behind every tree (or Bush). In fact, Democrats were the original "one-worlders". Just ask Hillary to channel with Eleanor to confirm that.

-- (, July 30, 2002.

I wonder why Anita has mostly left this forum? Here is my guess---your voice embarrasses her, trollboy. Altho she would agree with many of your views, she has too much class to express them in your tone, or even to post on the same board with a boor like you.

If this forum goes down, you will be the main cause. Where will you post your graffitti then?

-- (, July 30, 2002.

Anita has class?

-- (you're@kidding.right), July 30, 2002.


I think the last post by one of your pug friends answers the questions why Anita left. It's the disgusting and hateful attitudes of you pugs that are making the decent people sick.

-- rotfl (there's @ your. answer), July 31, 2002.

Ok back to the topic of this thread. It seems to me the liberals keep coming down on the 'separation of church and state' issue a lot these days. I'm not sure why. Maybe because they see Ashcroft or any conservative with a profession of faith as a threat. But these right wing 'conservatives' (as if that's an ugly name) are doing exactly what the constitution allows, freedom of religious expression. Here the liberals are blasting away someone's rights. I guess it's just a part of the liberal double standard, "You can speak your mind only when I say you can."

I'm all for vouchers, giving parents a choice. The left-wing liberals have held our school system hostage way too long. It's time to give it back to the children. Freedom (in the screams of Wallace - Braveheart).

-- Maria (, July 31, 2002.

"It seems to me the liberals keep coming down on the 'separation of church and state' issue a lot these days. I'm not sure why."


LOL!! Did you ever hear of The Constitution of The United States of America, or does that mean NOTHING to you? If you don't remember that, perhaps you will recall the slaughter of 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany, or the massacre of tens of thousands of Palestinians by the Israeli government, and on, and on, and on. Believe me dim bulb, our forefathers had a DAMN good reason for putting that in our Constitution. They saw it coming.

-- mr. handyman (fixing @ dim. bulbs), July 31, 2002.

Mr. handyman, please tell me which state has forced you to join which religous organization?

-- Maria (, July 31, 2002.

Also, when did the government stop you from practicing the religion of your choice or even from setting up your own jim jones religion.

Also why do you mention foreign countries in your rant against me? After you bolded The Constitution of The United States of America, you continue with Germany and Palestine. Huh? What do these countries have to do with our constitution?

-- Maria (, July 31, 2002.

Trollboy has finally taken my advice and named himself ("Mr Handyman"). Very good trollboy, are you sure you didn't mean "Mr Handjobman"?

-- (, July 31, 2002.

Duuuh. If we allow our government to preach religion, it's only a matter of time before Asscroft and Dumbya start dictating which is the RIGHT religion to belong to and which isn't. The other countries are examples of what can happen when you ignore our Constitution as you suggest we do. Duuuuh. Yeah, just forget about it, it's meaningless. After all, it won't happen in your lifetime, and who cares if our grandchildren get cooked in pizza ovens!

-- mr. handyman (maria @ beyond. repair), July 31, 2002.

There he goes down that Slippery Slope Fallacy again. Nippy, please help this poor boy.

-- (Trollboy flunking @ Logic.101), July 31, 2002.

It's not a fallacy, Oh Ignorant One. History proves time and time again what happens when too much power is placed into the hands of government. Not only are you dumb, but apparently BLIND and dumb.

-- lol (ignorance@is.bliss), July 31, 2002.

Z to Unk:

“Soon serious discussion will be between you, Lars and your collection of morons.”

Then Z, where is the category for pompous wannabe bullshitters like yourself?

-- HuDuYu (think@yer.kidding?), July 31, 2002.

In regard to the slippery slope "fallacy", if your government takes baby steps that errode liberty just a little bit at a time, does not enough of these little incremental baby steps eventually end up at a place that NOBODY would have allowed in one big step?

Of course they do. Look around you.

-- Uncle Deedah (, July 31, 2002.

handy, your fear of government is well placed, so why not fear a school system funded by public money that's carefully sifted and parceled out on the basis of carrot/whip adherence to GOVERNMENT edicts!

-- Carlos (, July 31, 2002.

You talkin to me?? If so, you must be trippin. I never said I support a gubmint school system. In fact, if you'll take a closer look at the 3rd reply on this thread, I suggested we close them all down and go strictly private sector. You been takin drugs lately Carlos?

-- mr. handyman (fixing @ dim. bulbs), July 31, 2002.

Mr. Handyman is just a worthless pug like the rest of you. This right-wing facist wants to destroy the public education system and let Enron educate our children.

-- handyboy and (dumbya@evil.ones), July 31, 2002.

Mr handyman = trollboy

-- (Talkin @ myself.again), July 31, 2002.

That was you, handy? Can't keep up with the sigs. Zeroed on your fear of Bush, Ashcroft mandating a theocracy for us and figured you didn't like the idea of school choice. Just don't visit here often enough to keep up with the players that don't sign. Nevermind.

-- Carlos (, July 31, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ