I share Mr. Fritz' concerns with government indoctrination of children, but I must be one of Anon. from Reston's counter-examples. I went through public schools in the US during the last century and I suppose my parents were politically weak. But I'm convinced my elected leaders have been mostly bad and that their policies have frequently been unwise and have very often sucked. I'm tolerant of religions; I think that whatever goes on between someone and their deity, if any, should stay between them and that proselytizing is in appallingly bad taste. I'd go to war to defend my country in a heartbeat, and I believe our current wars have nothing whatsoever to do with that. My girlfriend is a product of similar circumstances but not as cynical as I am. I'll ask her about the cheering thing.

Professor Otteson raises an interesting point, but I must be missing something. When I am in biology classes the instructors are not required to tell me on which day someone's god created the fossils. Is this an example of state regulation of education? I would say so, and I'm grateful for it. In my admittedly limited experience, the only government policies that have affected my education are the ones that required and allow me to go to school, and permit me to learn science in science class. Our Constitution in general, in this case the first amendment in particular, appears to be protecting me from the kind of regulation Professor Otteson refers to. At the same time, the idea that standardized test results can carry so much weight in determining the level of government funding a school system receives is absurd. I've heard public school educators report having to abandon the curriculum for weeks at a time in order to coach the students to pass the tests. In this case government regulation is interfering with education, and it has no connection with Congress not making laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I would appreciate it if anyone here could explain the state regulations of education Professor Otteson is concerned with. Thank you.

This quote is almost clever. Before a historian or anyone else can engage in deliberate sacrilege he must first be able to determine what, if anything, is sacred. To mock false gods he has to know which, if any, gods are true. To be able to do carry out these so-called duties, especially the latter, would require some level of subjectivity. I consider the products of objective historians to be closer to the truth.

This quote is neither negative nor positive. It says nothing about the formal aspects of school or the relative qualities of different kinds of schooling. Illich is pointing out the significance of school as an agent of socialization, nothing more. I'm not yet familiar with him but I appreciate the wit and wordplay of this quote very much. "School is the advertising agency which makes you believe that you need the society as it is."

Hodgskin's point is well made and well illustrated.

Agreed, Bryan. Well said indeed. I wonder how von Mises came to this conclusion.

Curious about the context.

RBESRQ, I agree that this isn't much of a quote. It provides a somewhat limited illustration of some aspects of the 1st Amendment, and no real insight. Atlas, the right to speak certainly does pertain to our speech to each other, in public at least. You may be pleased to control who speaks in your home, but I am pleased that I do not live there.

A good start, but what about finding food and water?

Dear Editor, When did you start posting quotations from Chick Publications? I don't know how else to put this at the moment, but, WTF?

RBESRQ, As do I.

I admire Jefferson very much, but when reading some of his statements I can't help but wonder what Ms. Hemings would have thought. "...probably the greatest concentration of talent and genius in this house except for perhaps those times when Thomas Jefferson ate alone." - John F. Kennedy, Describing a dinner for Nobel Prize winners. (Elsewhere on this site.)

I suspect collectivist ethics is either an extremely shallow subject or an oxymoron.

All life, in its essence, is organized exploitation.

Human history supports this idea. Waffler, could you have meant introspection?

Nicely said.

Thank you, Alex. I'll take the bleeding obvious for five-hundred.

"...a Communist nation like China for whom we are trying to change...." We are trying to change for China?

Gotta love Teddy.

Also, I like this quote very much.

Waffler, the other day you advocated denying individuals their freedom simply because you don't share their views (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Rosa.Luxemburg.Quote.ED1B). Today you're saying that preferring one state over another for reasons you happen to consider irrational is treasonous. I'm grateful that your power in these matters is limited to posting gibberish on web forums and your vote.

I don't know the context in which Churchill made this statement, but "democracy" is a much more accessible term for most than "constitutional representative republic". Not to defend the many who see the two forms as the same thing, but Churchill seemed to know his audiences, what they could handle and what kind of language a situation called for. A brilliant man.

She's right; freedom versus tyranny is always the cause, regardless of what our leaders or opinion makers may say. The problem is knowing which side your efforts are really supporting.

My first impression was that Luxemburg was just stating the obvious. Then I saw Waffler's contribution. He illustrates the need for people like Luxemburg to keep making that point. Waffler's posts could actually be funny, except for the fact that the clown has just as many votes as I do. I'm reminded of a quote from George Orwell, "Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious", and why it is so.

Logan, you've presented a very clear and reasonable argument. Unfortunately, when I consider who you are addressing I'm reminded of that saying about teaching a pig to sing.