You Evil Parents!

[Cerebrum123]

Gotta be able to accurately restate a philosopher's argument before you go about criticizing his competence as a philosopher. Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring and all of that.

He explicitly said that private schools can't be defended, and should be removed. This is because of the inequality they create. His own evidence suggests that reading bedtime stories to children is far worse than private schools in this matter. Yet he somehow says they are okay. This leads to him being a liar, idiot, or both. That you are unwilling to accept the conclusions that follow from his own words is rather telling actually.

[Paprika]

I don't understand on why that would work though, evil people could make their way into power so they could exert their control over people.

Right, everything dies in the long run.

A small government that prevents violence and protection of property would protect against those other groups trying to exert power because they wouldn't be able to use violence to meet their aims and thus others can choose to argue against them.

It's practically impossible for a government to do that and remain "small".

[Darth Ovious]

Right, everything dies in the long run.

I think I agree with that actually. every civilisation fails in end run and has to reset. All we can do is put up the best fight we can in the meantime.

It's practically impossible for a government to do that and remain "small".

Only because there are those who feel the need to expand government to take on different issues. Essentially when everything gets too big it eventually falls apart and the system resets itself.

[Sam]

He explicitly said that private schools can't be defended, and should be removed. This is because of the inequality they create. His own evidence suggests that reading bedtime stories to children is far worse than private schools in this matter. Yet he somehow says they are okay. This leads to him being a liar, idiot, or both. That you are unwilling to accept the conclusions that follow from his own words is rather telling actually.

See, the part you're missing is the "somehow" in "Yet he somehow says they are okay." The article, as you say, is quite specific here:

Source:

‘Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’


In contrast, reading stories at bedtime, argues Swift, gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.

© Copyright Original Source

Bolding added.

Swift's argument, therefore, can be written as:

P1) Private schooling bestows an unfair advantage AND
P2) Private schooling is not justified by appeal to familial goods. THEREFORE
C1) Private schooling cannot be defended.

In contrast,

P3) Bedtime reading bestows an unfair advantage BUT
P4) Bedtime reading is justified by appeal to familial goods. THEREFORE
C2) Bedtime reading can be defended.

All perfectly valid reasoning, all perfectly evident by simply reading and understanding the article. You've got to be able to do that stuff before you harp on someone about being a philosopher. It's just basis due diligence.

[Paprika]

Only because there are those who feel the need to expand government to take on different issues. Essentially when everything gets too big it eventually falls apart and the system resets itself.

You're missing the point. You claim that a 'small government' can protect against other groups; it can't, it can only do so by being big.

[Darth Ovious]

You're missing the point. You claim that a 'small government' can protect against other groups; it can't, it can only do so by being big.

I said it can create laws against violence so the other groups can't use violence to get what they want.

[Paprika]

I said it can create laws against violence so the other groups can't use violence to get what they want.

And what if the laws aren't followed? It'll need to enforce them. And it'll need the enforcement to be bigger than any other group so they'll be enforced. It'll need to be able to quash all rebellions and uprisings against the social order.

It'll need to be big.

[Darth Ovious]

And what if the laws aren't followed? It'll need to enforce them. And it'll need the enforcement to be bigger than any other group so they'll be enforced. It'll need to be able to quash all rebellions and uprisings against the social order.

It'll need to be big.

This is what the police force is for. America did last a long time on this principle you know. I agree it eventually deviated away from it but that doesn't mean it's not the best point we should be at.

[Paprika]

This is what the police force is for. America did last a long time on this principle you know.

I'm not well read up on the first two centuries but I don't think the government was ever that 'small' not least given the strong Federalism movements; There was a strong Federal government that pacified the Indians, and other troublesome groups including the Mormons, and let us not forget punishing the uppity South for daring to break off.

[seer]

All perfectly valid reasoning, all perfectly evident by simply reading and understanding the article. You've got to be able to do that stuff before you harp on someone about being a philosopher. It's just basis due diligence.

You are missing the point Sam:

‘

What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children’.

What do they mean - allow or not allow parents? How is it any of their business?

[Darth Ovious]

I'm not well read up on the first two centuries but I don't think the government was ever that 'small' not least given the strong Federalism movements; There was a strong Federal government that pacified the Indians, and other troublesome groups including the Mormons, and let us not forget punishing the uppity South for daring to break off.

I think our misunderstanding is what is perceived to be small and what is perceived to be big in terms of government. I think that the modern governments in the west are a lot bigger now than what they were back then.

[Jedidiah]

Swift's argument, therefore, can be written as:

P1) Private schooling bestows an unfair advantage AND
P2) Private schooling is not justified by appeal to familial goods. THEREFORE
C1) Private schooling cannot be defended.

In contrast,

P3) Bedtime reading bestows an unfair advantage BUT
P4) Bedtime reading is justified by appeal to familial goods. THEREFORE
C2) Bedtime reading can be defended.

All perfectly valid reasoning, all perfectly evident by simply reading and understanding the article. You've got to be able to do that stuff before you harp on someone about being a philosopher. It's just basis due diligence.

The argument, even as you lay it out, is not at all valid. It assumes that the only value to be considered is promotion of familial goods.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm not well read up on the first two centuries but I don't think the government was ever that 'small' not least given the strong Federalism movements; There was a strong Federal government that pacified the Indians, and other troublesome groups including the Mormons, and let us not forget punishing the uppity South for daring to break off.

IMO you're confusing scope with strength. The US tried a weak central government during its War for Independence, and found it wanting. If you look at the Cabinet, for instance, it is much larger in scope now than it was in the early republic (to say nothing of expansion below the cabinet level).

The Mormons, fwiw, were not "pacified" - they were just forced to choose between polygamy and entry into the Union.

[Cerebrum123]

See, the part you're missing is the "somehow" in "Yet he somehow says they are okay." The article, as you say, is quite specific here:

Source:

‘Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’


In contrast, reading stories at bedtime, argues Swift, gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.

© Copyright Original Source

Bolding added.

Swift's argument, therefore, can be written as:

P1) Private schooling bestows an unfair advantage AND
P2) Private schooling is not justified by appeal to familial goods. THEREFORE
C1) Private schooling cannot be defended.

In contrast,

P3) Bedtime reading bestows an unfair advantage BUT
P4) Bedtime reading is justified by appeal to familial goods. THEREFORE
C2) Bedtime reading can be defended.

All perfectly valid reasoning, all perfectly evident by simply reading and understanding the article. You've got to be able to do that stuff before you harp on someone about being a philosopher. It's just basis due diligence.

When they are speaking of potentially abolishing the family entirely appealing to "familial relationship goods" is nothing more than a bit of sugarcoating, and a flimsy excuse for them to look rational to normal people.

[Paprika]

IMO you're confusing scope with strength.

I think that's a fair good point, but how would you define the difference?

The Mormons, fwiw, were not "pacified" - they were just forced to choose between polygamy and entry into the Union.

They were pressured by many legal and civil measures until they gave in:

The issue of polygamy among the Latter-day Saints in Utah was one of the contributing factors that lead to the Utah War, in which the President of the United States dispatched an army to Utah to quell a perceived rebellion. In the midst of the American Civil War, Republican majorities in Congress were able to pass legislation meant to curb the Mormon practice of polygamy. One such act was the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, which was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. The act banned plural marriage and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.

the Poland Act...redefined the jurisdiction of Utah courts by giving the United States district courts exclusive jurisdiction in Utah Territory over all civil and criminal cases. The Act also eliminated the territorial marshal and attorney, giving their duties to a U.S. Marshal and a U.S. Attorney. The Act also altered petit and grand jury empaneling rules to keep polygamists off juries. By removing Latter-day Saints from positions of authority in the Utah justice system, the Act was intended to allow for successful prosecutions of Mormon polygamists.

Immediately, under the act, the United States Attorney tried to bring leading church officials to trial. These efforts culminated in the sentencing of George Reynolds to two years hard labor in prison and a fine of five hundred dollars for his practice of polygamy.

n February 1882, George Q. Cannon, a prominent leader in the church, was denied a non-voting seat in the House of Representatives due to his multiple marriages. This revived the issue in national politics. One month later, the Edmunds Act was passed, amending the Morrill Act by declaring polygamy a felony, revoking a polygamist's right to vote, making them ineligible for jury service, and prohibiting them from holding political office. These restrictions were enforced regardless of whether an individual was actually practicing polygamy, or merely believed in the Mormon doctrine of plural marriage without actually participating in it. All elected offices in the Utah Territory were vacated, an election board was formed to issue certificates to those who both denied polygamy and did not practice it, and new elections were held territory-wide.

Electoral obstacles to prosecution were now removed, and the new territorial officials began criminal prosecutions in ernest. Judge Charles S. Zane, the Republican appointee of Chester A. Arthur, handed down harsh sentences to church leaders, beginning with apostle Rudger Clawson.[8]

Finally, the Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887 ... disincorporated both the church and its Perpetual Emigration Fund on the grounds that they fostered polygamy. The act prohibited the practice of polygamy and punished it with a fine of from $500 to $800 and imprisonment of up to five years. It dissolved the corporation of the church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties valued over a limit of $50,000.

In July of the same year, the U.S. Attorney General filed suit to seize the church and all of its assets. The act was enforced by the U.S. marshal and a host of deputies.