Yeah, that’s the kind of thing we’d oppose with violence if necessary (though more likely by moving).
The legality of unschooling in the US varies mostly on a state-by-state basis. When compulsory schooling was first introduced in Massachusetts, there was armed resistance and the children ended up being marched off to school by soldiers. Fortunately, there are still some bastions of sanity—at least, in most places you can just fill out some “homeschooling” paperwork and they won’t bother you.
Good for you. Unfortunately, there’s no other state that would admit me, probably ever (unless I become very rich somehow). I have to live under laws I can’t really influence and just hope they don’t change too much for the worse. This is the situation for the great majority of world people.
Opposition with violence to your state sounds completely unrealistic, in any state, including the US. You yourself say that in MA the state sent in soldiers and won. Moving is plausible, of course.
Opposition with violence to your state sounds completely unrealistic, in any state, including the US.
It’s not unrealistic at all. It’s what the US was founded on. It’s why there exists the second amendment to the constitution. Yes, most revolutions will fail. But as far as we’re concerned, the proper response to a stranger trying to steal your children is “Over my dead body.”
Yes, most revolutions will fail. But as far as we’re concerned, the proper response to a stranger trying to steal your children is “Over my dead body.”
It’s a little ironic that the ‘defection’ here is the act of not having the “Over my dead body” reaction when successful defiance is not realistic. If other people go about doing suicidal defiance you get most of the deterrence benefits and at least get to live on and have more childeren!
It’s not unrealistic at all. It’s what the US was founded on.
And yet some states have passed mandatory education laws, which makes me assign a nontrivial probability to a future where more states will do so, until they all do or you find that you don’t wish to live in any of the rest.
Yes, most revolutions will fail
Given that, and given that resistance to this particular governmental intrusion has already failed in MA, and that there doesn’t seem to be very widespread popular support for such a resistance unless on principle (percentage of people who homeschool or unschool where legal today is low) - why do you still proclaim defiance?
Signalling defiance for deterrence is expected, but will you personally really risk your life and be jailed or otherwise punished, merely to make a public statement of protest—the most likely outcome?
Signalling defiance for deterrence is expected, but will you personally really risk your life and be jailed or otherwise punished, merely to make a public statement of protest—the most likely outcome?
Yes. It might be irrational—I might change my mind later. But in my opinion, if your children are being tortured, abused, raped, etc., then you do whatever you can to try to stop it, even risking your life. And knowing that parents really do say “Over my dead body” (with an implied “Over your dead body first”) when it comes to their children’s safety, really does make their children safer.
Unfortunately this is illegal, here in Israel and in many other countries.
Yeah, that’s the kind of thing we’d oppose with violence if necessary (though more likely by moving).
The legality of unschooling in the US varies mostly on a state-by-state basis. When compulsory schooling was first introduced in Massachusetts, there was armed resistance and the children ended up being marched off to school by soldiers. Fortunately, there are still some bastions of sanity—at least, in most places you can just fill out some “homeschooling” paperwork and they won’t bother you.
Good for you. Unfortunately, there’s no other state that would admit me, probably ever (unless I become very rich somehow). I have to live under laws I can’t really influence and just hope they don’t change too much for the worse. This is the situation for the great majority of world people.
Opposition with violence to your state sounds completely unrealistic, in any state, including the US. You yourself say that in MA the state sent in soldiers and won. Moving is plausible, of course.
It’s not unrealistic at all. It’s what the US was founded on. It’s why there exists the second amendment to the constitution. Yes, most revolutions will fail. But as far as we’re concerned, the proper response to a stranger trying to steal your children is “Over my dead body.”
It’s a little ironic that the ‘defection’ here is the act of not having the “Over my dead body” reaction when successful defiance is not realistic. If other people go about doing suicidal defiance you get most of the deterrence benefits and at least get to live on and have more childeren!
And yet some states have passed mandatory education laws, which makes me assign a nontrivial probability to a future where more states will do so, until they all do or you find that you don’t wish to live in any of the rest.
Given that, and given that resistance to this particular governmental intrusion has already failed in MA, and that there doesn’t seem to be very widespread popular support for such a resistance unless on principle (percentage of people who homeschool or unschool where legal today is low) - why do you still proclaim defiance?
Signalling defiance for deterrence is expected, but will you personally really risk your life and be jailed or otherwise punished, merely to make a public statement of protest—the most likely outcome?
Yes. It might be irrational—I might change my mind later. But in my opinion, if your children are being tortured, abused, raped, etc., then you do whatever you can to try to stop it, even risking your life. And knowing that parents really do say “Over my dead body” (with an implied “Over your dead body first”) when it comes to their children’s safety, really does make their children safer.