Tom Woods finally spills the beans... http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/announcing-the-ron-paul-homeschool-curriculum/ I think it is pretty awesome. The more kids out of the indoctrination centers the better. I think a huge part of changing the current course is through our kids and instilling the values of the NAP & Liberty, which would be much more difficult if the state has your kid for at least half the day. The more tools that are made available, the better. Thoughts? Do you all think it is a good use of their time?
Pretty amazing! A lifetime of tireless educational efforts to inform people about liberty culminates in this, perfect! When all the Ron Paul haters are long dead and forgotten, his life and efforts will still be remembered and honored by many.
Awesome! Ron Paul might not be focusing on the political game anymore, but he still cares about the country.
This is the new "political" game. The way I see it, we will never be able to legislate away what we have, so non participation is key. I am not saying those like Justin Amash are wasting their time and I am considering of moving to New Hampshire for the Free State Project but I just do not see how voting for a new puppet master on a national level is going to change anything. I think RP recognizes this too and few places are better to start than growing your own food and raising your own kids. One is easily obtained by most so I guess he started on the home schooling.
I'm confused, is this something Ron Paul is a part of or something that is just dedicated in his name?
No, I just know how he will be talked about in the future. It's obvious if you study history and who we still talk about today. Ron Paul will be seen as one of the greats, that's just how it is. He's already one of the most influential libertarians of the past 50 years, easily. Someone like that isn't forgotten. It's just looking at things objectively, try it sometime.
"Ron Paul is great." "Try looking at things objectively." You aren't too self-absorbed to recognize the conflict in what you are saying, are you?
There is no conflict. He's already seen as being great by the libertarian movement as a whole, and is universally acknowledged as principled, consistent, etc., even by his political enemies. Objectively, future generations of libertarians will continue to see him this way, what reason is there to think otherwise?
If you want to be objective you should drop words such as greatness, which is a value judgement, as value is subject to individual therefor subjective preferences... Also assumptions about the future should be dropped. If you want to throw around the objective thing that is. Basically you are not being objective at all in this thread.
Is what i mean. What is great, objectively? Can it be measured objectively? It's not really an object so much as an ideal, no? Anyways back to the OP... that's nice, i am all for homeschooling as an option. If parents want to push a different curriculum on their kids they sure can go ahead and do that. I have not qualms with it.
It doesn't matter what greatness is. That isn't relevant to the discussion. You claimed that I wasn't being objective by saying that future generations would see Ron Paul as great. The nature of greatness is of no concern, only if people see him that way or not. Currently, many do see him that way. Logically, future generations are likely to continue to see him this way. Unless you can show how that conclusion is based on emotion or prejudice, instead of logical inference based on the history of the libertarian/classical liberal movement, than you have failed to show how I'm not being objective.
If the nature of greatness is of no concern then how will you or anyone else know (objectively, since you had to bring it up) whether what they are seeing is truly greatness or not... you are being too wishy washy to be objective. You can't even state that it is objectively guaranteed that humans will exist on this planet a moment from now. You can't say the future objectively exists... it is a metaphysical concept. Back to the OP (again) i would personally rather see an educational approach where the student's preferences for learning were what defined the curriculum... after all just as not all students are interested in what is taught in mainstream academia, not all students are going to want to study the philosophy of economic science. I know i wouldn't, and if i were the child of someone who forced me to study this regardless, there would probably be some unaccounted for personal education going on in the background that might not lend itself to this narrow philosophical bent. Related to this, isn't the idea of a one size fits all curriculum the anti-thesis of respecting that we are all individuals with personal preferences that need not be the same as everyone elses'? Is there any wisdom in trying to douse a flame with more fuel?
What you can't like a person and support what they've done with their life? What does anything have to do with jihad? I think my friend you just had a fruedian slip, it is you who has jihad against Ron Paul and libertarianism.
Could have used some of that while i was mind raped in school. Way to shit all over the thread with whocaresies
I don't think you know what objective even means, so let's define the term. Again, whether or not he is objectively great isn't relevant, only that he is seen that way by people. Since that was the only proposition I made. I never claimed he was "objectively great". This is a straw man. I never used the term guarantee. I said it's likely he'll be seen as great in the future. Here's the quote. This is another straw man. What I stated still stands as being objective. Saying something is likely to occur can be said objectively. Can you stop wasting my time now? This is incredibly boring.
For the first few minutes of the "Ron Paul Curriculum" video, I thought it was a parody - but after watching the whole thing it's apparent that they're actually serious about it.
That was FUCKING PAINFUL to read. Holy shit. Hahahahaha and yes! Garrison makes an appearance what a fucking day!