about Sexual Education...

One of the many problems in the debate over abortion is the fact people get pregnant in the first place. many talk about birth control, but what of personal responsibility and understanding of sex, pregnancy, and child birth in general? What about the sexual education taught to our children in school, or the lack thereof?

Many beleive that teaching children abstiance is the way, the only way, and everything else is playing dice with chemicals. Others say that properly educated children informed for not only abstianace, but also personal responsibility, contriceptives, and understanding of the remifications of sexual behavior would provide a better well rounded understanding and ability to choose their own sexual path.

what do you think about how children should be taught? at what age? in the school or in the home? and what should sex be taught as? As a negative -something to steer clear of and avoided till 'grown up'- or a positive -something wonderful, natural, but not without its ups, downs, and risks?

The purpose of public schooling is to keep voters educated, not to institutionalize sex-ed and fund it with tax money.  That was the reason the public education system was created, and if we are going to have it, we should not lose sight of this. 

I'm not sure what to say about abstinence.  I don't think the government should interfere with the peaceable and lawful trade of contraceptives in any way, for sure. 

>>2 "The purpose of public schooling is to keep voters educated, not to institutionalize sex-ed and fund it with tax money.  That was the reason the public education system was created, and if we are going to have it, we should not lose sight of this." I'm not buying it. Sex-ed is just that; education about a particualr subject that society at large will benefit from. So call me a non-libertarian. There are worse things to be.
"I'm not sure what to say about abstinence.  I don't think the government should interfere with the peaceable and lawful trade of contraceptives in any way, for sure." Abstinence-only doesn't work. Social conservatives don't want to realize this.
>>1 Good ideas there. This shouldn't be an issue as much as a possibility. Parents should be encouraged to tell kids all the truth and facts, and schools should just step in if parents suck at it. I blame prissy parents on both sides of the spectrum.

>>3
"I'm not buying it. Sex-ed is just that; education about a particualr subject that society at large will benefit from. So call me a non-libertarian. There are worse things to be."

Really? Worse things to be than non-libertarian? Well, I guess this is true.  However, as soon as you start giving justifications to government programs based on 'the common good', the 'public good' or any of these type of rationales, you are approaching a dangerous borderline, and statism lies on the other side.

Nextly, public education was created to keep voters at the polls educated, due to the fact that their votes end up affecting the rest of the population.  Sex-ed really has nothing to do with this, and thus should be kept out of public education, and left where it belongs:  private education.

Sex-ed does not benefit the entire population, it benefits individuals who don't know how to take care of themselves, and comes at the expense of everyone, including those who don't need it individually, yet are still forced to pay for it against their will.

"Really? Worse things to be than non-libertarian? Well, I guess this is true.  However, as soon as you start giving justifications to government programs based on 'the common good', the 'public good' or any of these type of rationales, you are approaching a dangerous borderline, and statism lies on the other side." Reality is cumulative and probabilistic. And past experiences has shown humanity that abstinence-only and lack of good sex-ed is bad. So until a culture that is ready to take up the burden of giving kids a good basis of knowledge coalesces, government is justified.
"Sex-ed really has nothing to do with this, and thus should be kept out of public education, and left where it belongs:  private education." Society will suffer by a lack of good sex-ed, since there will be more unwanted pregnancies, more STDs et al. Sex is the basis of human behavior, for Garm's sake. Also, in a laissez-faire state consumer knowledge is just as importnant as voting. So we should teach consumers to spend their money very carefully and appropriately, by the same maxim.
"Sex-ed does not benefit the entire population, it benefits individuals who don't know how to take care of themselves, and comes at the expense of everyone, including those who don't need it individually, yet are still forced to pay for it against their will." It is very difficult to quantify the utilitarian justification of policy decisions. So we look at causation to see some patterns in the froth of uncertainty that is existence. And a lack of sex-ed is not attractive under current circumstances.

Education is very important in preserving liberty, since democracy is ruled by the people, if they are raised to hate liberty then democracy simply will not last.

"Nextly, public education was created to keep voters at the polls educated, due to the fact that their votes end up affecting the rest of the population."

just because it was created for this doesn't mean it's its current purpose. are you saying that k-12 are mearly for voting purposes? sounds like BS to me, esp considering k-12 is a hellava lot more than politics and government. shit, if we were just going through public school for voting education, why did i take biology and gym? Sex education is as important to our society than how our citizens vote. no, i dont think it should be mandatory in schools, but the level of education given currently in the school that do have such programs isn't all that great.

also, i agree it's the parents job to teach their kids stuff like this, but considering the number of adults who dont even understand sex as much as they should, they arent really the best to be giving a well rounded look at sex. sure, mom knows some math and history, but we dont NOT have classes for those subjects.

>>5
"Reality is cumulative and probabilistic. And past experiences has shown humanity that abstinence-only and lack of good sex-ed is bad. So until a culture that is ready to take up the burden of giving kids a good basis of knowledge coalesces, government is justified."

Not having sex-ed doesn't mean sex-ed wouldn't exist.  It means it would be in the hands of private individuals/the private sector.  Government is not justified unless its purpose is expressly to provide for the continuity of a relatively free country.

"Society will suffer by a lack of good sex-ed,"

Not having public sex-ed doesn't mean it would not exist.  It will be there if there is a market for it.  Furthermore, the only ones who would suffer are those who are too stupid or too irresponsible to take care of themselves. 

"since there will be more unwanted pregnancies, more STDs et al. "
Sex is the basis of human behavior, for Garm's sake. Also, in a laissez-faire state consumer knowledge is just as importnant as voting. So we should teach consumers to spend their money very carefully and appropriately, by the same maxim."

What you deem 'appropriate' is not necessarilly objectively true.

"It is very difficult to quantify the utilitarian justification of policy decisions."

Utilitarianism sucks.  Violating people's rights to make larger groups of people satisfied is not libertarian. 

"So we look at causation to see some patterns in the froth of uncertainty that is existence. And a lack of sex-ed is not attractive under current circumstances."

And, from a libertarian perspective, higher taxes, and more unnecessary government programs is not attractive either. 

>>7
"Nextly, public education was created to keep voters at the polls educated, due to the fact that their votes end up affecting the rest of the population."

"just because it was created for this doesn't mean it's its current purpose."

I know that isn't its current purpose.  That's a problem.

"are you saying that k-12 are mearly for voting purposes? sounds like BS to me, esp considering k-12 is a hellava lot more than politics and government."

What you are saying sounds like BS to *me.*  Anyone with a well rounded education knows that most of the subjects taught in school relate to each other, and to other things as well (such as politics), in some way or other.  A general knowledge of the four subjects, math, science, history, and english is required for a complete understanding of the big political picture, and is a practical requirement for informed voting.

"shit, if we were just going through public school for voting education, why did i take biology and gym?"

Exercise is helpful to the brain.  Other than that, yeah, PE is a worthless class.  Biology on the other hand, plays an obvious and crucial role in voting. 

"Sex education is as important to our society than how our citizens vote. no, i dont think it should be mandatory in schools, but the level of education given currently in the school that do have such programs isn't all that great."

So you don't advocate mandatory institutionalized sex-ed, yet you see a problem with what we have now? Well what do you want then?

"also, i agree it's the parents job to teach their kids stuff like this,"

Yes, not the state's.

"sure, mom knows some math and history, but we dont NOT have classes for those subjects."

If, suddenly, we just did away with public education alltogether, and closed down all the schools, do you really think your average person would then not know these subjects due to not having institutionalized classes in them? 

If public schools closed, private schools would meet the people's demand for education.  Sex-ed should be left to the private sector.

I strongly support sex ed. I have seen over and over in my generation and others what happens when kids are not taught about sex from a REALIST perspective. They pick it up from their peers, or they just make somthing up. This is the result of teachers and parents not telling their kids the truth. Because I am a sensitive person I sometimes take issue with the female centered view of many advice columnists BUT I would willingly make relevent Dear Abby or even Dan Savage "Savage Love" collumns MANDITORY reading across America. Not in high school. In middle school. Why? Because I care what happens to these kids. And even if I only cared about myself I would vote the same on this. Why? Because later down the line their problems are going to become MY problems. And I have enough problems.

Children should be encouraged to become homosexual because heterosexuality is evil.

>>8 "It means it would be in the hands of private individuals/the private sector.  Government is not justified unless its purpose is expressly to provide for the continuity of a relatively free country." Well that is a gamble, and it could be a pyrrhic victory. If public ed should go it will do so incrementally.
"It will be there if there is a market for it.  Furthermore, the only ones who would suffer are those who are too stupid or too irresponsible to take care of themselves." Some things shouldn't have to be justified with a presence on the market.  Also, I believe the suffering of others apply to me sooner or later, so I would pay taxes for my own benefit.
"What you deem 'appropriate' is not necessarilly objectively true." O rly?
"Utilitarianism sucks.  Violating people's rights to make larger groups of people satisfied is not libertarian." I am too reality-based for that. Since reality is chaos we look for patterns and causation. If people benefit from paying for a certain faculty they should do so, it is in their own interest.
"And, from a libertarian perspective, higher taxes, and more unnecessary government programs is not attractive either." How can a certain taxation that causes a net good be unneccesary? I'm not certain if it causes a net good but if it does I'm ready to pay and to vote to make others pay with me. I'll look at the facts first, make no mistake.

>>10 "Why? Because later down the line their problems are going to become MY problems. And I have enough problems." Agreed. Doesn't mean that we'll continue support of a program if it is apparent that we aren't getting our money's worth.

P.S. Feel free to call me a sick shit licking faggot, I am not a homophobe.

I agree with the sick shit licking faggot.

>>11
As a gay man I disagree. I think children should be encouraged to experiment and break all their taboos and then be what they want to be.

>>10 Damn right.

Education for the win. Children need education in order to make informed decisions and take responsibility for their lives ahead of them.

>>12
"Well that is a gamble, and it could be a pyrrhic victory. If public ed should go it will do so incrementally."

Of course.  I'm all for incremental removal of unnecessary government.  If this is what you want, I'll back you 100%. 

"Some things shouldn't have to be justified with a presence on the market.  Also, I believe the suffering of others apply to me sooner or later, so I would pay taxes for my own benefit."

But do *other* people think this? It is an *unnecessary* program, and they might have qualms with it.  I'd be against it on libertarian principles, and that it is simply not necessary.  I'm all for a privatized version though. 

"O rly?"

Yes, rly.

"I am too reality-based for that. Since reality is chaos we look for patterns and causation. If people benefit from paying for a certain faculty they should do so, it is in their own interest."

But not everyone benefits from it.  Those who are able to take care of themselves are not benefitted in the least.  Furthermore, it is simply not necessary.

"How can a certain taxation that causes a net good be unneccesary?"

Well, you see, I can live without it.  It is not necessary for my health, life, well being, and nor is it necessary for the preservation of freedom within our country.  In fact, it actually detracts from freedom.

'As government expands, liberty contracts.' -Ronald Reagan

"I'm not certain if it causes a net good but if it does I'm ready to pay and to vote to make others pay with me. I'll look at the facts first, make no mistake."

Yes, exactly.  For those whom you cannot convince that this program presents a demonstrable benefit, you intend to 'convince' them with gun/bayonet point. 

>>17
"Education for the win. Children need education in order to make informed decisions and take responsibility for their lives ahead of them."

Right.  They need *regular* education for this, not sex-ed.  You can't say it is necessary considering the fact that there is such a large body of people who get by without it just fine.

"It is an *unnecessary* program, and they might have qualms with it." That doesn't have any objective value. If they don't realize that it is to their own advantage (and I am not stating I can say what is) then they'll just be pleasantly surprised.
"Yes, rly." Megafail. You say Ya rly not Yes rly. Disappointed!!
"Those who are able to take care of themselves are not benefitted in the least." Once again, if something cases a net good it is implied that it is everyone's interest. But if that self-reliant majority doesn't want to be part, they can lessen their taxes by abstaining from receiving it, considering sex-ed is a small allotment.
"In fact, it actually detracts from freedom." The level of freedom and well-being isn't that easy to quantify.
"you intend to 'convince' them with gun/bayonet point." This is the extension of my argument. But if they do not want to pay, they could just abstain from the service. That is a better system, since it would make government compete with private suppliers, forcing a change.

>>20
"Once again, if something cases a net good it is implied that it is everyone's interest. But if that self-reliant majority doesn't want to be part, they can lessen their taxes by abstaining from receiving it, considering sex-ed is a small allotment."

Or, they could vote to lessen their taxes by voting libertarian and opposing it.

"The level of freedom and well-being isn't that easy to quantify."

It detracts from freedom and enlarges government unnecessarilly.

"you intend to 'convince' them with gun/bayonet point." This is the extension of my argument."

LOL

"But if they do not want to pay, they could just abstain from the service."

Or, they could vote for a candidate who won't force them to pay, such as the libertarians.

Governmentschmuvernment. Sex-ed benefits people for the greater good and allows them to make informed decisions and take responsibility for their actions. There's nothing wrong with that. The only people whom see that wrong are the Right religious loonies and those screaming 'But the government will have power!' at the tops of their lungs.

>>22
"Governmentschmuvernment. Sex-ed benefits people for the greater good and allows them to make informed decisions and take responsibility for their actions."

No, people are able to make informed decisions and take responsibility for their actions without sex-ed.  Sex-ed is not necessary to make informed and responsible decisions.

"There's nothing wrong with that. The only people whom see that wrong are the Right religious loonies and those screaming 'But the government will have power!' at the tops of their lungs."

Hahahaha.  I'm not religious, nor am I a 'right winger'  (I'm a libertarian), but you know, I'd much rather be called a right winger than a left winger.

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." - George Bernard Shaw

People want sex-ed because they dread the responsibility of having to handle their own education themselves.  The lack of sex-ed does not mean sex-ed would not exist, it means that people will have to take on this responsibility as individuals. 

"The only natural rights that humans have are the rights to their persons and property, but government has continually usurped these rights by placing the law above them." - Ludwig von Mises

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." - Abraham Lincoln

"A gun is not an argument." - Ayn Rand

"Which nations are the happiest, most moral and most peaceful? Those among which the law intervenes least in private activity." - Frederic Bastiat

>>24 "Laissez-faire sucks" - A lot of people in South America.

>>25
They are all poor due to the shitty governments they have crushing individuality and ambition.  Sucks for them.  Us americans are rich because we were capitalist for so long.

>>26 Nonetheless, economic liberalims and pro-American governments didn't work. Let's not forget that Argentin was the star pupil for a while.
"A gun is not an argument." "No it's not you poor excuse for a laissez-faire philosopher, but you'll be dead when this sentence ends." - Xel

>>27
lol@xel for critisizing laissez faire philosophers while being inconsistently laissez-faire himself

>>27
Nor did their shitty governments, obviously.  However, we americans up here are successful and prosperous thx to capitalism.
http://www.justiceplus.org/capitalist.htm
See "what is the cause of mass poverty".

>>29 "However, we americans up here are successful and prosperous thx to capitalism." When you say "we americans"...

>>30
Americans are, generally speaking, prosperous and well-off.  Those who aren't generally aren't due to their own actions and irresonsibility. 

>>31 "Americans are, generally speaking, prosperous and well-off.  Those who aren't generally aren't due to their own actions and irresonsibility." O'Reilly? Is that you?

The earth is a paradise, if you are healthy, not experiencing a natural disaster (which can be prevented and avoided) or overpopulation, poverty is not a default and no one chooses poverty by default, most poverty is caused by criminals in the government. Justice must be enforced so people have the liberty to take themselves out of poverty.

>>32
Nope, I'm just an average guy.

bump for defeat of spammer

>>9 "If, suddenly, we just did away with public education alltogether, and closed down all the schools, do you really think your average person would then not know these subjects due to not having institutionalized classes in them?"

No, it'll just be more expensive and/or more difficult to obtain.

"If public schools closed, private schools would meet the people's demand for education.  Sex-ed should be left to the private sector."

That doesn't make any sense. public schools are the most readily available source of structured education, but you dont want sex-ed to be a part of it. YET, if all public schools closed, and private schools were the only thing left to pick up the slack, you would be in favor of sex-ed in said schools? How is private school any better of a place to teach sex-ed than public schools, whether or not one takes monopoly over the other? Those in public schools should recieve the same education as those in private. the level of quality wont be the same, but you can't justify one being more diserving of a certain curriculum than the other, let alone making it so the subject of sex-ed should ONLY be taught in private schools.

Also, last i checked, not everyone can afford private schools. No, public schools can't match what money can buy in a private school, but at least it's there. We shouldn't be comparing soup kitchens with five star restaurants. when it comes to schools, it's never good to let only those who can afford education have it. Instead of relying on individually funded schools, it would benifit us all if the quality of public schools rivaled that of private, and if it's gotta come from tax dollars so be it.  There's a saying 'college may be expensive, but not as much as ignorance.' same goes with general education.

"How is private school any better of a place to teach sex-ed than public schools, whether or not one takes monopoly over the other?" Well, the argument is that the government takes children away from their parents and put them in the hand of strangers who operate under a quite rigid syllabus. If I was an objectivist I would whine about fascist methods, conformity and use adjectives like "sick", but as a moderate I think libertarians should pick their battles.
"Instead of relying on individually funded schools, it would benifit us all if the quality of public schools rivaled that of private, and if it's gotta come from tax dollars so be it." Yeah I can buy that, this would stifle the libertarian vice of regarding the quality of government as intrinsic. A battle between government and private institutions would be interesting.

>>37 A battle between government and private institutions would be interesting.

and beneficial for the 'consumer', because you'd be pitting privatly funded institutions against government funded ones. ideally this would mean either better public schools, or far cheaper private schools. but this is only if the government side is willing to put up a fight. the private half's incentive is profit, so the governments efforts would have to come from something else (or maybe profit as well, but how?)

bump for defeat of spammer

>>36

"No, it'll just be more expensive and/or more difficult to obtain."

That's right.  It means you will have to pay for things you want yourself, rather than forcing other people to pay for it for you.

"That doesn't make any sense. public schools are the most readily available source of structured education, but you dont want sex-ed to be a part of it."

Because the purpose for which public schools were created is not to teach kids about sex.  The justification in having them is not to teach kids about sex.  Also, that does make sense..

"YET, if all public schools closed, and private schools were the only thing left to pick up the slack, you would be in favor of sex-ed in said schools?"

Private schools teaching sex-ed? Sure, I could care less in that case.  Go for it.

"How is private school any better of a place to teach sex-ed than public schools, whether or not one takes monopoly over the other?"

It has nothing to do with which would do it better, to me.

"Those in public schools should recieve the same education as those in private."

No, people in private schools pay for their education, and they can pay for a specific type of education if they please.  This is their right.

"the level of quality wont be the same, but you can't justify one being more diserving of a certain curriculum than the other, let alone making it so the subject of sex-ed should ONLY be taught in private schools."

It isn't about 'diserving', it is about rights.  A private school owner has the right to teach whatever subjects in his school he likes. 

"Also, last i checked, not everyone can afford private schools."

That's their fault.  The fact that you can't afford something does not justify stealing from someone else so you can have it.

"Also, last i checked, not everyone can afford private schools."

That's their fault.  The fact that you can't afford something does not justify stealing from someone else so you can have it."

This guy wants to kill the poor. He's very immoralistic.

>>23
Durr, libertarianism(as libertarian party's version) is right wing idelogy. Capitalism = right wing. Socialism = left wing. Right wing is not synonymous to crazy neo-conservative, nor is left wing synomyos to some brainwashed communist.

>>41
"This guy wants to kill the poor. He's very immoralistic."

No, I respect property rights.  I have no issue with private charity. 

"That's their fault.  The fact that you can't afford something does not justify stealing from someone else so you can have it."

fuck the poor, huh?

>>41 "This guy wants to kill the poor. He's very immoralistic." LOL at you. No fucking generalizations please. No the quality of government contra market isn't fixed. Yes government needs to improve. No democrats are not the answer cept for rare occasions. Yes the current American right sucks.

>>41
 I'm all for personal responsibility, but to give a 'fuck you' to those who cannot afford many of the things that we should have a right to have is pretty shitty. Food, shelter, those are a requisit for life, but not a terribly good one. Education fosters personal betterment. It's not so easy to pay for an education, when the lack of one is the reason why you dont have money in the first place.

There's nothing wrong with private enterprises, but when that's the only option, and said options progress is motivated by profit, shit goes awry. If private enterprises were left to their own devices without government regulation, we would soon be consuming under a single, if not only a handfull of very powerful conglomerates. I'd rather not see a monopoly driven by profit, esp when it comes to education.

"That's right.  It means you will have to pay for things you want yourself, rather than forcing other people to pay for it for you."

well shoot, privitize the military. i sure as hell dont want my tax dollars going to maintain our ever dust collecting nuclear arsenol. While we're at it, let's bring back private law enforcement and fire depeartments. house burning down? Getting robbed? didn't pick the right company? or worse yet, couldn't afford one? sorry, tough luck, come back when you have money.

shut your stupid mouths, worthless americans

>>47
"well shoot, privitize the military. i sure as hell dont want my tax dollars going to maintain our ever dust collecting nuclear arsenol. While we're at it, let's bring back private law enforcement and fire depeartments. house burning down? Getting robbed? didn't pick the right company? or worse yet, couldn't afford one? sorry, tough luck, come back when you have money."

Certain things can't be done by private enterprise, such as the military.  Most reasonable libertarians recognize the need for a police force, military, court system, fire fighters... etc.  Public education is fine with me as well even.  Private schools are iffy, but I would likely support slow & incremental changes toward private education.

The thing is is that in some instances, you have to be willing to give up some rights for the preservation of a relatively free state, and the preservation of your other rights.  This is what keeps libertarianism distinct from anarchy.  We don't want anarchy, we just want things to be a little freer than they are now, generally.

just because you regulate things like hostpitals and schools doesn't mean you're giving up your personal rights. the amount the tax payers pay to keep public schools on alive (barely) is peanuts compared to military spending, much of which can be cut back dramatically without effecting the quality of the operations.

>>50
And libertarians want to remove unnecessary government.  I would imagine this would include the military, assuming they were *actually* spending too much on it.  I have not heard otherwise, at any rate.  We would, of course, keep a military strong enough to keep us safe.  It is one of the proper functions of good government, of course.