Unlikely at this time; but it takes awhile for a philo-
sophical movement to gain acceptance. The Marx-
ists and welfare statists have been in the dominant
part of the culture for a long time; what it remains for us to do is push Objectivism ,push Objectivism, push Objectivism.

While I agree in principle, that will not happen. Those receiving loot can vote and they will not vote to remove their access to loot.

I don't think people should "get paid by govern-
ment without any incentive to work and produce."
The welfare state should be eliminated. We should
have some kind of Constitutional amendment that
the only purpose of government shall be to protect man from force and violence, and pun-
ish same. Then it would be safe to allow "uni-
versal" suffrage (although children and mental
dificients would have to be excluded from the
franchise, of course).

Unfortunately, universal suffrage doesn't work in reality. If your motivation is only to get paid by government without any incentive to work and produce and you use your vote to loot others who produce then you should not be allowed that vote. Democracy has always been a failure, and was not intended to be the method of government in America.

People are not allowed to take the law into their own hands, but required to use the government as
their agent to right their wrongs. That being the case, they are certainly entitled to a say in making
the laws, in the form of the vote. --Having paid money, or not.

I don't favor charter schools. I favor outright
abolition of public education. And it would be nice
to start with abolishing that whole Federal depart-
ment.

My leftist friends are completely flipping out over this. I just keep saying, "More choice for families is good. Let's let the poor child in the ghetto have a choice!" And they just start speaking in tongues...They flat-out refuse to let poor children have a choice, because it is being carried out by a Republican president. They're really loosing their s*$t.

I think voting rights should accrue to citizens who actually pay for the governmental services they receive.

I agree with the statement that a Hail Mary has very little chance of success. However, what does taking the fed out of education 'a little bit at a time' look like? I'm not wanting a debate but would truly like to know the best, next small step and open to any ideas that really do want the same end.

It was early on when Juan Rico was being evaluated, the evaluator explained to him what it would mean if he failed and he explained they were not allowed to let them fail, they were there to just define what they would be best at, based on preparation. And yes, I could go for any job where you have to serve the community, to earn your franchise, remember, it came out of WW3, and a disastrous peace where many POW's were not forced to be returned by their governments, so the people became "vigilantes" and were not "going to allow some stinking politician to decide what they could or could not do". You are very correct in what college towns would turn into, as they would have to earn their privilege.

The correct choice for liberty would be to banish the Department of Education not choose someone who is 'favorable' to charter schools. What criteria will she make the charter schools meet? What federal guidelines will she demand they meet to get their charters?

While we have philosophical objections to government funding of education, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning that battle at this time. For generations, the left has owned the school system and has been pumping out socialists. The more 'education' you have the more socialist you are.

If we can leverage the money that is already being spent to get some of the children out of that educational system and into a more competitive one there might be a remote chance of the number of economically literate citizens increasing.

If there is one thing the left has excelled at, it's getting what they want a little bit at a time. We keep trying for philosophical purity. We want to throw a hail-Mary into the end zone, rather than make the next down marker.

Is it true that she is a big supporter of Common Core? As a father of a 6th and 9th grader, I've seen the dramatic difference between how my daughters have been taught and really hope she is not carrying that torch.

It'll do them good.

I don't remember an alternative way to earn citizenship in Starship Troopers, although I could toss in doing another job for the country where you put your life on the line (that was Heinlein's criteria, as I recall) - Police, Fire Fighters, etc. If you cared enough to put your life on the line, you wouldn't squander other lives, other's money, etc. What would we become if only "people who have skin in the game" could vote? College towns would go back to being non-radical since the children and 'snowflakes' couldn't vote.

It's a neat idea, if somebody trustworthy (= not the government) could be found to administer it. There's the rub.

Why?

Somewhat, but charter schools are public schools and depend on existing authorities, not parents, for their funding. Our goal needs to be to smash the whole rotten system of which they are part.

Thank you, sir. My best back to you and yours.

Why? That would seem to be a good thing. I would say that a proper school system uses a common set of standards (not common core crap) to define the minimum education needed to produce a self sufficient adult after gestation, at age 18. The system today fails at that utterly, so we send them to 4 more years of wasted time, then either send them back to mom and dad, the military or inflict them on business.....

Of course they are wealthy Republican donors:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewith...

But then, to have the time to become someone they recognize, seems to involve something along those lines.

Their Foundation (what is it with rich people and their foundations? It always seems to add up to a scam...

http://www.dbdvfoundation.org/

Dale, maybe not:

http://pix11.com/2016/11/24/betsy-dev...

Mike, that is not a bad idea, and I think is where a lot of people are going. The Charter School idea is just that, you take your tax money and decide where to put it. If you do not like the public school political indoctrination then go tp a Charter that does not do it. The public school system may shrink 50% but it is not a shrink, as a change. Totally removing government is laudable, because like anything else they do, they are incompetent at it, and the system has been corrupted by using it as a political platform, same with colleges.However, the dismantling process would be daunting,

As I understand it, she is a strong proponent of Charter Schools.