[GA] Choice in Education [Complete]

Christian Democrats:

There's no need for your aspersions or for your out-of-character, out-of-context paraphrases of in-character comments. Also, above, you shouldn't have quoted a poorly reasoned judicial opinion on "the importance of pluralism" if that's not what you actually believe. Own up to your beliefs.

Click to expand...

Wow. I really did call it exactly. Foremost, the entire discussion on the GA forums was OOC, so there's no much ground to backpedal on. I happen to agree with the opinion delivered by the ECHR, the 'statist claptrap', if I recall correctly.

Christian Democrats:

In your view, the state should aim to homogenize its citizens because social cohesion is the highest good.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Talk about 'aspersions' right here, when ostensibly championing your 'truth'. Society has an important role in the education of its citizens, because we live in a world with trade-offs, certain priorities trade off with other ones. My problem with your proposal, with great abstraction, is that it forces nations to make a trade-off that, in their context, may be sub-optimal.

Christian Democrats:

Yes, I do reject your "utilitarian view" of "parental authority" because it's wrong. Parenthood isn't good merely because it's useful (an instrumental good); parenthood is a basic good in society.

Click to expand...

Parenthood is not an intrinsic good. State intervention is justified where such intervention increases everyone's welfare, in a long-run discounted view. It has the right to compel any outcome it wants on that basis. Choice of school isn't a right. Even if it is, it is not absolute.

I vote against.

If you're not going to engage with my comments, IA, I don't see why we should continue this conversation.

Imperium Anglorum:

State intervention is justified where such intervention increases everyone's welfare, in a long-run discounted view. It has the right to compel any outcome it wants on that basis.

Click to expand...

The state has a "right to compel any outcome it wants" if the state believes it "increases everyone's welfare" . . .



EDIT: I tend to agree with Mill's view that individuals are ordinarily the best judges of their own welfare.

Christian Democrats:

If you're not going to engage with my comments, IA, I don't see why we should continue this conversation.

Click to expand...

Really? I guess we've just living in a reverse Golden rule then. I specifically wrote them all to include the same inattentive assertions that you so commonly employ. In fact, it's even built on the same semantic structure as your response! Assert something about moral philosophy, assert the nature of some good, assert the role of the state. Entirely warrantless. I don't see why we should continue this conversation either.

Christian Democrats:

I tend to agree with Mill's view that individuals are ordinarily the best judges of their own welfare.

Click to expand...

Yes. Individuals, however, are not always going to be the best judges of their own welfare. That is why society is reserved the power to compel any outcome it wants on a utilitarian basis. But, hold on:

"Parenthood isn't good merely because it's useful (an instrumental good); parenthood is a basic good in society."



"the state is an auxiliary to society's more fundamental units, such as the family."



"That some European judges spew statist claptrap from the bench is not convincing. First, socialization is a parental duty. It's not the duty of the state."



"Pluralism (the salad bowl) and integration (the melting pot) are, in other words, mutually exclusive."

present

For

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.