So are laws for affirmative action, and laws allowing abortions, and laws preventing religious fanatics from taking their kids to faith healers instead of doctors.
Actually, all laws are created for the purpose of social engineering–i.e. keeping society functioning the way we want it to.
I’d never thought much about the issue of drivers licenses for dropouts–but it seems like a good idea.If you are too immature to realize the necessity of getting a basic education, you may well be too immature to drive.If you drop out of school, then maybe you need a bit of external motivation, to force you to understand that responsible citizens need education as much as a car.
Some people may need to work at age 16 to feed the family—but poverty-stricken people will usually find it easier to get out of poverty if they have an education.
ing dropouts (16 yr olds) wait till they are 18 before they get their license seems reasonable.
(But it doesnt have to be a major issue at the presidential level.Haven’t Bush and Kerry got a few other issues to settle first?)
And when I said “As long as Kerry doesn’t actively try to get states to adopt this policy…”, this is the kind of thing I was talking about. If he were to “allow/agree with” that sort of strong-arm tactics with this case, I would certainly disagree with him.
The part that doesn’t really settle well with me is this: if you want to take a position like this, to reduce the dropout rate, why don’t you just try to make it illegal to drop out of school…? I mean, why hide behind the driver’s license front? I would bet that that would reduce the dropout rate, as well.
Where did I ask for comparison? But since you started it, to respond to your first point, does your father have the same views you do? On every issue?
This is a very disturbing charge. I googled the quotation only to get 152 relevant hits and scanned each one of those links looking for a mainstream news source particularly ABC. I found none. This particular verification technique has been used several times here on the SDMB, and I suggest that it may very well not be true.
I don’t. In my opinion you’ve got a difficult choice to make. My history might show heavy focus on Kerry, but that’s because any criticism of Bush is largely redundant around here.
As I’m no longer a teenager - it hasn’t mattered to me in a while. But when I was, in WA you needed to attend school between ages 8 and 18 (or had a diploma or GED). You could get a license at 16 and a permit at 15.
So, yes, it would have had an effect for kids ages 15-18.
If you assume that having a car leads a person to drop-out (a bad thing for society), then conversely, not having one means that person will stay in education (a good thing for society).
If you are prepared to legislate against people drink-driving because of the potential to cause harm to people (society) then instituting this small law tweak on what is, as was said above, a limited-rights population anyway seems to be similar in aim: attempting to better society.
If its affective then why not? Bring it on.
By expanding the original thread premise to include a no vote for Kerry based on his desire to limit personal freedoms, the comparison is then invited.
No, of course not. But this is the Striaght Dope - are we to pretend Bush’s father had no influence on his presidency?
I’ve been able to track it to an episode of Good Morning America June 24th 1999. The transcripts for that episode cost $29.95 and I’m not paying But, they do list Wicca as a topic of discussion: “WICCANS IN THE ARMY ARMY WITCHES”.
They seem to beat up both candidates pretty good around here. But then, I’m new, so I don’t have as much perspective.
“Liberal values” means. among other things, recognizing that there are massive education disparities in America, and that these are partially due to lack of motivation among some students. It also means believing that the government has a responsibility to help move unmotivated, underperforming groups up to the same level of achievement as other groups. The drivers license issue is one way to do so.
There is not, to my knowledge, any major problem with people in that narrow age range not having available transportation. Between walking, bicycling, public transit, and rides with family/friends, I imagine the vast majority can get where they want to go. There is a huge problem in this country with education disparities, so fixing that is a much more important goal.
It is not discrimination. Anyone who chooses to drop out of high school does so knowing that they are sacrificing the possibility of certain later possibilities. If the government only considers people with high school diplomas for a certain job, is that also denying rights to high school dropouts? No. It’s just common sense.
What is a law that would? Kerry’s web page doesn’t say that he intends to introduce any law, just that he would support states with such programs already on the books. So anyone who finds this idea “vile” would do better to take it up with the state legislature in question.
By the way, has anyone seen Bush speaking out against such laws? If not, it would appear that they have his tacit approval, or at the very least that he doesn’t view them as a significant problem.
Don’t misunderstand me… I don’t think this is a good idea. I’m generally against social engineering, but it does happen all the time and it certainly isn’t illegal.
Alright, how about this:
A member of this very board dropped out of highschool so that she could go to college. Her first year, from what I have read, was hell for her cause she couldn’t drive. 40 minute commute both ways. Should she be punished for dropping out of high school even if she did it to go to college?
Meaningless buzzword. Every law on the books is "social engineering. " I defy you to name one that isn’t.
I have zero problems with denying a drivers license to someone who is not responsible enough to stay in school for two measley years until they graduate.
I don’t like it. There must be better ways to decrease dropout rates without potentially endangering the livelihoods of said dropouts. And, as ZebraShaSha ponted out, to make the law at all fair and in line with its spirit, there’d have to be so many exceptions to render it meaningless. That said, I don’t find it absolutely horrifying either. In my state, the “rights” of minors to drive and work are very tentative, to begin with. It’s a bad law, IMHO, but not “indefensibly facist”.
So, that’s a point against Kerry. The best one I’ve heard in a long time (unless you count how gorram lousy a campaigner he is). Not nearly enough to lose him my vote, and miles away from making his distinguished opponent look good.
The term is generally used by us libertarians (small “l” and large) to mean laws that are NOT intended to pretect the citizenry from physical harm by our fellow citizens. Laws that are designed not to prevent coercion, but actually**to **coerce the citizenry to “do good things”.
Laws against murder do not coerce you to do something, but prevent you from coercing your fellow citizens.
In the real (non-ibertarian) world, it’s resaonable to think of most of our laws as lying somewhere on the continuum of “no social engineering” and “complete social engineering”. This law would be pretty close to the latter.
Personally, I think the driving age should be raised to 18 anyway- maybe even 21. I have no problem with denying these delinquent little thugs the opportunity to kill my family with their reckless, drug-addled driving. And it’s not like they can’t go back to school and get their degree.
Sam, do you understand that this only affects minors? Since when do minors have the same rights as adults?
Oh my goodness, but that is a terrible thing for Dubya to say! But there is a silver lining to this in that John Kerry now has an issue other than Vietnam to campaign on! Johnnyboy can get on TV and tell the whole nation that, “…unlike my opponent, I, John Kerry, love the witchcraft!”
Look: If high school isn’t working for you, it simply isn’t working! Not everybody who drops out does so because they’re stupid or irresponsible.
I dropped out at age 16, with a driver’s license. The knowledge that my license would have been pulled if I dropped out would have had absolutely ZERO effect on my decision. At the time I knew a number of others who dropped out, and I don’t think the driver’s license question would have deterred them from dropping out either.
My life was such that I had to make some changes, and while these changes were easier with the ability to drive than they would have been without it, I would have simply said “that sucks”, dropped out and moved on.
By the time I was 26, ten years after dropping out I had: 1)A GED, 2) Completed four years of military service, 3) Earned a degree from a major university, 4) Started a rewarding career in my field of study.
Just because somebody’s life situation is such that they have a need to drop out of high school doesn’t mean that they are going to be a drain on society, or that they should be subjected to prejudicial laws such as denying them a driver’s license.
Probably both of the less than desirable candidates for president would come out in favor of such a law if they thought taking such a position would get them a net gain of ten votes, so please don’t take my statement as a partisan position.
Dismounts from soapbox amid a mixture of cat-calls, jeers, cheers and boos.
Are you mocking freedom of religion? If so, you are only highlighting the problem with the religious right - which is freedom of religion to them, means freedom of their religion. My spouse is a Wiccan, and I assure you she takes her religion very seriously. Not to mention, pagan religions existed long before Christianity did. The use of the word witchcraft to describe them is singularly offensive.
If you are not mocking, and I’ve misinterpreted your tone, I apologize.
If he were to “allow/agree with” that sort of strong-arm tactics with this case, I would certainly disagree with him.