Separation of Education and State

[Robespierre]

I think that one of the most pressing threats to the peace and security of modern society is public education. I look at the combination of state and education as something just as fundamentally wrong as a connection between state and religion. Both religion and education are areas where the state, federal, provincial, municipal or otherwise, has no right to intrude.

Education is just as fundamental to the values and world-views of individuals as is religion. Intellectual freedom should be just as sacred as spiritual freedom. If the state set up "public churches" and looted thousands of dollars a year from property owners to pay for them, whether or not they attended, and had required attendance of one church or another every sunday, there would be angry mobs with torches in the streets. Oh, there would be those who defened the public churches, and their arguments would sound very familiar.

"If we don't supply the proper church environment, many families will simply go without"

"Those who don't want to go don't have to, they are allowed to attend private churches"

"Why should everyone be made to pay for the public churches? Because they are public goods. How can we allow people who benefit from the intelligent and spiritually mature individuals provided by these churches to get off without paying for them?"

Think of public schools as just another example of government over-stretch. People generally accept that government shouldn't be forcing people to think one way or another. The problem comes when those people happen to agree with the point of view that the government is enforcing, and don't see it as a problem.

[Division56]

Public schools are a method of survival of the country in the United States. They educate children just enough to be subsistence laborers.

[Robespierre]

Public schools are a method of survival of the country in the United States. They educate children just enough to be subsistence laborers.

I don't think there is any sort of plan to keep people stupid, or to produce biological robots for industry. I think those involved actually think they are doing good. At least they constantly say so...

Just as all tyrants typically think they are doing everyone a favor.

The great danger is in placing the minds of youth in the hands of government employed propagandists. They will invariably steer their courses toward the goals of the state.

[Clara]

That is a familiar sounding round of comments, in your first post - only yours are about education...

However, your further comments are very similar to ones I have heard applied to education, here (and maybe those earlier ones have, too - only in other towns...)

I think that when there is an elaborate bureaucracy... the ones receiving the educations get overlooked, somehow - I don't understand this - except by those in regular contact with them.

[Robespierre]

That is a familiar sounding round of comments... only yours are about education... *blink*

Time to google "where is RF" I think.

Российская Федерация (Russian Federation)

I simply re-phrased the most popular rhetorical supports for public education into supports for "public church".

[Clara]

Here: hospitals, for your first post.

By the way, I laughed and blushed, to have asked google "where is Russia" - I have trouble with geography, but not to that extent :D

[Robespierre]

Here: hospitals, for your first post.

Hospitals are another great example of something that no government has any business being involved in. Public health is just as disgusting as public education. Good example.

[Clara]

So, how are schools faring in your part of RF?

(I didn't continue googling until a map, because I own a large map, only it isn't currently on a wall - it has a heavy line drawn around Russia, however, because it was taken to school when the teachers asked the students to each research a country).

[Robespierre]

So, how are schools faring in your part of RF?

(I didn't continue googling until a map, because I own a large map, only it isn't currently on a wall - it has a heavy line drawn around Russia, however, because it was taken to school when the teachers asked the students to each research a country).

I don't live in Russia. I have spent time there, but I live in the US now. And US public schools are terrible. Russian schools are no better though.

[Clara]

I'm sorry, that was impolite to not have asked... and then to have asked for news and commentary.

Which must be very much like someone saying similar things, to me, about Quebec. And asking specific questions about topics I might know slightly, or indirectly.

[indie]

I think that one of the most pressing threats to the peace and security of modern society is public education.

I can understand why you would feel this way with the recent event of the schoolchildren taken hostage in Russia. Article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131060,00.html)


I look at the combination of state and education as something just as fundamentally wrong as a connection between state and religion. Both religion and education are areas where the state, federal, provincial, municipal or otherwise, has no right to intrude.

What do you mean when you say "right"? Is it not a government's place to decide fundamentally what is "wrong" or "right" for its people? (i.e. serial killers should be put in prison or sentenced to death) Are you saying in an ideal government that's how it should be? :)


Education is just as fundamental to the values and world-views of individuals as is religion.

You lost me on this one. The bushmen of South Africa, the aboriginies of Australia . . . they've gotten by for a long time without formal education. Their religion/spirituality/beliefs/traditions are what have preserved them.


Intellectual freedom should be just as sacred as spiritual freedom. If the state set up "public churches" and looted thousands of dollars a year from property owners to pay for them, whether or not they attended, and had required attendance of one church or another every sunday, there would be angry mobs with torches in the streets.

Probably. I agree that intellectual freedom is important, but you can't have intellectual freedom without intellect, learned in some form or another of education; denying people education is just as bad as denying people their religion with that argument.



Think of public schools as just another example of government over-stretch. People generally accept that government shouldn't be forcing people to think one way or another. The problem comes when those people happen to agree with the point of view that the government is enforcing, and don't see it as a problem.

I vehemently defend public education on (1) a personal level -- I was once homeless, raised partially in foster homes. . . public education allowed me to attain the basic framework of how to learn, so I can decide what is right and wrong for myself. . . it essentially gave me the opportunity to obtain an education that a poor person like myself would have been denied if all schools were privatized. (2) a "non-personal level" -- private schools, funded by private dollars of, by, and for the elite would only serve to further reduce the middle class.

[coffeezombie]

If education were not funded publicly somewhat, people would undervalue education and not become educated as much as they should. Is it better to have a society of educated drones productive to the work force or a society full of idiot trouble-makers constantly commiting crimes? Personally, I found my experience with public education quite valuable and quite supportive of my desire to want to think for myself, for the most part, but those who show less aptitude got "placed" into lesser classes than the ones I took, and also did not get the opportunity to go to the same public university that I did. In that case, I can see where your argument might have a point.

[Edmond Zedo]

If education were not funded publicly somewhat, people would undervalue education and not become educated as much as they should. Is it better to have a society of educated drones productive to the work force or a society full of idiot trouble-makers constantly commiting crimes? Personally, I found my experience with public education quite valuable and quite supportive of my desire to want to think for myself, for the most part, but those who show less aptitude got "placed" into lesser classes than the ones I took, and also did not get the opportunity to go to the same public university that I did. In that case, I can see where your argument might have a point.
Homologization is fun! Everybody's doing it. Really, I used to think more about large scale injustice and get riled. Now I'm kind of "Eh, whatever." I think the good outweighs the bad in this case, pragmatically. There would come a storm of REALLY uneducated urban tribesmen. Hell, they might even take over the country French Revolution style. But I don't want that. And you don't want that. And Ringo here definitely doesn't want that.

[Robespierre]

I can understand why you would feel this way with the recent event of the schoolchildren taken hostage in Russia.

That could have happened at a private school, a restaurant, or anywhere else. Beslan is not an argument against public schools.



What do you mean when you say "right"? Is it not a government's place to decide fundamentally what is "wrong" or "right" for its people? (i.e. serial killers should be put in prison or sentenced to death) Are you saying in an ideal government that's how it should be? :)

A right is not something that can be created or destroyed, only recognized or not. Rights exist as a natural property of being. As such, the ownership of one's own body is a fundamental right, as is the stewardship of one's own offspring.

This means that governments do not decide what is "right" and "wrong". When the government referred to is a modern state, its very existence is a wrong, as it must take from those subjected to its rule some fundamental rights without their consent.


You lost me on this one. The bushmen of South Africa, the aboriginies of Australia . . . they've gotten by for a long time without formal education. Their religion/spirituality/beliefs/traditions are what have preserved them.

Think of education as another form of religion. Is it based on observable facts? Sometimes, but I defy anyone to observe the causes of the civil war and tell me that the way it is taught and sermonized over in public schools is factually correct. Even science education can quickly be politicized and wrought into a tool for keeping the populace in line and happily calling for more government. But history is certainly the worst example of the bunch.

The "knowledge" that an individual has about history will inform his opinions about the present. If you believe that the United States entered WWI to make the world safe for democracy and was totally just in doing so, your beliefs about current events are likely to be moulded by this. History is taught through the prism of politics, always. There are always interpretations to be made and blanks to be filled in. Given the large amount of material to cover, even the choice of what topic to discuss steers the learning in one way or another.

My gripe is not that education should be cleansed of opinion. My problem is with government forced education. I am an atheist, but I have no problem with people spending their own money on churhes and religious regalia. I would have a problem with people using the fedgov to loot me and spend that money on churches.


Probably. I agree that intellectual freedom is important, but you can't have intellectual freedom without intellect, learned in some form or another of education; denying people education is just as bad as denying people their religion with that argument.

Well you can't have religion without some knowledge of God, so in order to promote religious freedom, we must force all people to pay into a socialized system to teach all citizens about the existence of God.

The logic doesn't stack up. You basically suggest that we should remove intellectual freedom in order to sustain it. There is no right or wrong direction or amount of education. That is all for the individual to decide.


I vehemently defend public education on (1) a personal level -- I was once homeless, raised partially in foster homes. . . public education allowed me to attain the basic framework of how to learn, so I can decide what is right and wrong for myself. . . it essentially gave me the opportunity to obtain an education that a poor person like myself would have been denied if all schools were privatized. (2) a "non-personal level" -- private schools, funded by private dollars of, by, and for the elite would only serve to further reduce the middle class.

Here we see the most wise spread fallacy used to support public education. "Look at the private schools, they are soo expensive, without public schools, no poor kids could afford to go."

This is simply untrue. Public schools have eliminated any possibility of private schools that serve low-no income families. By taking money for public schools from property taxes, everyone, be they owners or renters pays the tax, and pays for schooling at least once. Then, to expect the low income people to be able to cough up more money to pay for something they already payed for, that's crazy. Of course there are no schools for low income students.

Imagine if there were government run food-stores, and they were funded by taking thousands of dollars per year from the average person through property taxes. Do you suppose private grocery stores could remain open in low income areas for very long?

The greatest injustice of the public school system is what it does to low income kids. The quality of education is abysmal, in my opinion. The poor are those who suffer the most under the current system.

[Robespierre]

If education were not funded publicly somewhat, people would undervalue education and not become educated as much as they should.

There is no objective right or wrong value on education. The only values worth discussing are those subjective valuations of individuals. Only the individual may value something, and that individual cannot possibly be wrong.


Is it better to have a society of educated drones productive to the work force or a society full of idiot trouble-makers constantly commiting crimes?

Not for you to decide. I am of the opinion that you present a false choice though. I think the choice is between educated drones and educated useful productive members of society, with the drones being the product of socialist education and the others being the product of private education, whatever form it may take.


Personally, I found my experience with public education quite valuable and quite supportive of my desire to want to think for myself, for the most part, but those who show less aptitude got "placed" into lesser classes than the ones I took, and also did not get the opportunity to go to the same public university that I did. In that case, I can see where your argument might have a point.

I am not hinging my argument so much on the quality of the education provided, althought that is an important point to uderstand, but the fundamental nature of the system which supports socialist education, and the damage it is doing.

[Robespierre]

Homologization is fun! Everybody's doing it. Really, I used to think more about large scale injustice and get riled. Now I'm kind of "Eh, whatever." I think the good outweighs the bad in this case, pragmatically. There would come a storm of REALLY uneducated urban tribesmen. Hell, they might even take over the country French Revolution style. But I don't want that. And you don't want that. And Ringo here definitely doesn't want that.

The French Revolution was one in which those involved thought they could eliminate the old social order, and install their own beliefs as the "right" ones. They decided they would remake all of society. Their fundamental theory of government was based on the idea that they were exercising the "will of the people". Of course, such a concept is wrong-headed in the extreme, as there is no such thing.

As far as the "pragmatic" argument, I don't much go in for those. However, if I were to suddenly go all utilitarian on your ass, I would not be likely to support to craptastic public education system, as it accomplishes less and less with more and more money.

[Edmond Zedo]

The French Revolution was one in which those involved thought they could eliminate the old social order, and install their own beliefs as the "right" ones. They decided they would remake all of society.
I was thinking of more of a thoughtless "F tha man!" orgy of violence. I'm quite certain many of the more simple participants in the FR and others were party to something similar. See L.A. Riots, 1992.

[Robespierre]

I was thinking of more of a thoughtless "F tha man!" orgy of violence. I'm quite certain many of the more simple participants in the FR and others were party to something similar. See L.A. Riots, 1992.

It was a revolution of techonocrats. They wanted to rule society in a scientific way. They made up a new calendar, renamed and reformed the various provinces of france, etc etc. It was not quite a frothy rebellion of savages like in LA.

[Clara]

Edmond Zedo, I hope you don't take this the wrong way... but I agree with you on this :blink: (It actually isn't the first time I'm thinking about something you said, and agreeing with some of it... it's just difficult, sometimes, to sort what is meant as serious opinion, and what is not - so I'm often just waiting to hear the rest of it. - my clumsy joke was an attempt to say, "E.Z. just may be more like most of us than he seems to think, after all" ;) j/k)

They weren't all technocrats - most of them "just made up the crowd." (it's a quote, I forget from whom) That doesn't mean that none of the crowd thought about, and agreed with, the principles...

Robespierre, I don't disagree with what you're saying, about inefficiency and waste; or the sad results of well meaning people trying to apply standards set by people who don't seem to understand what is needed, in practice.

I do think the pragmatic question, "And, so, how does it work?" does very much have a place in discussion.

[Robespierre]

I do think the pragmatic question, "And, so, how does it work?" does very much have a place in discussion.

I disagree. But supposing I didn't, what "it" are you asking about? How does what work?

If you are referring to the current system of socialized education, the obvious smart-arse answer is "it doesn't work".

If you are asking how a totally private system would work, all I need to do is refer you to any other market, say for food. I don't think the relative lack of government involvement in the distribution of food in the USA has had any negative effects. If anything, where there may be problems, the problems likely exist as a result of government protections of polticially popular groups, like farmers.

[Clara]

No, Robespierre, I wasn't actually... I was waving a flag for... the often neglected process of auditing/reviewing, as applied to all of the above, in this thread. Because there are (examples - but which to choose) many things which seem possible, plausible - beautiful, even... which will be either impossible, or disastrous unless revised.

I agree that much of what works, works despite the bureaucracy surrounding them. I also know (because I tend to engage conversations with those I meet) that there are good-intentioned, intelligent people working in every level of every kind of organization.
And I think, "But, does it work?" is very often a polyvalent (that may not be English) tool for remembering that if something is good and true, it must prove itself so from many - different - perspectives.

This is a discussion which interests me very much.

I'll post this now, so I can follow it some more.

[Robespierre]

No, Robespierre, I wasn't actually... I was waving a flag for... the often neglected process of auditing/reviewing, as applied to all of the above, in this thread. Because there are (examples - but which to choose) many things which seem possible, plausible - beautiful, even... which will be either impossible, or disastrous unless revised.

I have to admit, I still don't understand.


I agree that much of what works, works despite the bureaucracy surrounding them. I also know (because I tend to engage conversations with those I meet) that there are good-intentioned, intelligent people working in every level of every kind of organization.
And I think, "But, does it work?" is very often a polyvalent (that may not be English) tool for remembering that if something is good and true, it must prove itself so from many - different - perspectives.

As I was trying to communicate before to Zedo, whether or not socialist education "works", it is entirely immoral.

[SheepDog]

The question, "so, how does it work" seems to imply that the state should be involved, which seems to be Robespierre's objection. Would it be more fair to ask, more simply, "what would this be like, if we got the state out of education?" It seems that several posters here are wanting to envision that. I realize that doing this comparison still begs a question of whether or not it would be a good idea, whereas I think that Robespierre is putting the principle above the practical implications.

For the record, the fedgov.inc (my addition ;) ) is very much involved in food, as it is in education. All sorts of subsidies exist which alter the economics of food production, distribution, development (thinking of intellectual property rights of altered foods), just to name a few factors.

[Robespierre]

For the record, the fedgov.inc (my addition ;) ) is very much involved in food, as it is in education. All sorts of subsidies exist which alter the economics of food production, distribution, development (thinking of intellectual property rights of altered foods), just to name a few factors.

I do agree that fedgov is all over the food industry. The relative intervention in the education system is much greater, in my opinion, than the intervention in the food production and distribution system.

[SheepDog]

The way that money is spent by fedgov.inc certainly does obfuscate the true cost of things...

[Clara]

I have to admit, I still don't understand.
Sadly, I get that a lot. There is yet hope, however, that I'll overcome present difficulties... only time, and trying, can tell.


As I was trying to communicate before to Zedo, whether or not socialist education "works", it is entirely immoral.
We may have similar views of morality - we may not. Regardless, I am thoroughly delighted to have this come into the discussion. (And, yes, I suspect that for many here, expressions like that may seem misplaced, and maybe are... who knows? Not I.)

Still outside the meat of the topic, I know.

I think that the process by which sound principles are defined, established, worded, and so on... is more important than many people (who are taking a pragmatic view where that is not the lens called for, then) appreciate.

I think that the experience of those who "do the work," and those who, in this thread, are the students -- must be given greater weight in the definition of what a successful outcome will (look like - I'm sure there's another word...) And I think that scrutiny is necessary, as in "Will it be more likely, or less likely, to work, in real application." Followed by, "Is it working, and what modifications might help it work better."

And I think that any proposed changes which can be seen as probably worsening the resulting education of -- even some of the students -- must be revised before implementing.

[Clara]

I live in a place where it's easy to find people of whom to ask, "What do you think?" So I know that some form of some of this, at least, preoccupies many... educators, administators, bureaucrats, politicians, parents - and some people who are none of those roles.

[Robespierre]

We may have similar views of morality - we may not. Regardless, I am thoroughly delighted to have this come into the discussion. (And, yes, I suspect that for many here, expressions like that may seem misplaced, and maybe are... who knows? Not I.)

In my usage, morality defines negative rights WRT other humans. If there was only one human, there would be no moral or immoral actions, only amoral action. Morality and rights are one in the same for me. By negative rights, I mean those rights which exclude others from certain actions. Private property rights are key in my understanding of rights and morality. Each individual owns himself, and as such, always has at least one piece of property.

I would define ethics as the subjective individual valuations of certain courses of action. Morality says you have no right to steal your neighbor's car, ethics say you should help your elderly neighbor rake the yard.

[Edmond Zedo]

I would define ethics as the subjective individual valuations of certain courses of action. Morality says you have no right to steal your neighbor's car, ethics say you should help your elderly neighbor rake the yard.

"What Reeeallly makes a man good?"--('R)

[SheepDog]

Private property rights are key in my understanding of rights and morality. Each individual owns himself, and as such, always has at least one piece of property.

I can't get a question out of my mind. What is the basis for 'ownership', in your view of morality? By that, I mean, how can anybody claim ownership of any physical thing, since all things come from the earth and existed before any of us did? Land is an abstraction of this, and anything that can be created is really just a manipulation of objects that were already there.

[Robespierre]

I can't get a question out of my mind. What is the basis for 'ownership', in your view of morality? By that, I mean, how can anybody claim ownership of any physical thing, since all things come from the earth and existed before any of us did? Land is an abstraction of this, and anything that can be created is really just a manipulation of objects that were already there.

A very good question. Somewhere at the very bottom of my views is an a priori assumption. That assumption is that individual liberty is a good thing. I choose to believe that, and have no way to prove it to be good. However, I rarely have people who will question whether or not individual liberty is good, but only on how to secure it.

So basically, I would define ownership as the exclusive control over some physical place or property(property as in feature. eg radio waves are a property of energy and the universe, and can be owned). Each individual owns himself because he has exclusive control over himself. No other person can directly cause another's muscles to move.

From this point forward, I draw from John Locke and his concepts of how property outside of the individual comes to be owned. When an individual mixes his labor(owned by the individual) with some unowned land(land, as you say, in the sense of any naturally occuring and already unowned resource) he becomes the owner of that land. The process is known as homesteading.

[Clara]

*nodding at SheepDog's post*

I agree with the notion that we have a reciprocal obligation toward one another - to limit our own freedom to act as we might otherwise do, when those actions violate their - equal - right to be free from being harmed by our actions. (Poorly parsed - I know) Society implies contracts - some of them mutually agreed on.

The long version of moral rectitude fills books - or years. Laws, legislated or religious, or someone's personal definition of ethics. There are short ways of summing them up, sometimes. (R, you don't really think morality is defined by personal possessions - ? That wasn't my understanding, earlier, from what you said.)

I lost my thought... oh, about things. Borrowing SheepDog once again - because he seems like such an easygoing fellow - little kids prefer to use things belonging to their parents, instead of the identical ones of their own. There's a built-in infringement, and a built-in ongoing negotiation of what's acceptable or not. And a growing understanding, on the parents' side, that all children are entitled to that parent's protection... with many, many qualifiers attached to that (Starting with the most important restriction: this child has adults who bear the responsability for him...) Not to imply that adults who are not parents don't share in this, only that there's often a deeper understanding following assuming that role.

(I no longer know what I was trying to say - good thing there are so many of us :) )

[indie]

Here we see the most wise spread fallacy used to support public education. "Look at the private schools, they are soo expensive, without public schools, no poor kids could afford to go."

This is simply untrue. Public schools have eliminated any possibility of private schools that serve low-no income families. By taking money for public schools from property taxes, everyone, be they owners or renters pays the tax, and pays for schooling at least once. Then, to expect the low income people to be able to cough up more money to pay for something they already payed for, that's crazy. Of course there are no schools for low income students.

I got my MBA from an extremely Republican Uni in Southern Utah. One of the things the extremely Republican professors/students loved to bitch about there is public education; I can almost guarantee I've heard every argument for rationalizing widespread privatization, and I don't buy a single one.

Here's why:

Privatization of the entire system could never happen in one day, one week, one year, five years, even ten years. The lag between the time the "good teachers" left the public schools for the better paying private schools would be lengthy. The "bad" public school teachers who would remain would have increased class sizes and increased responsibility to teach more subjects (I'm using elementary schools for this theoretical example). The quality of education that those students would receive would be far worse than it is now (as bad as it is, I know), but FAR FAR worse than the the quality of education that students at private schools recieve.

Yes, I know what you are going to say The public schools are going to have to "up" their game to compete with the private schools . . . public schools should phase out eventually.

However It won't work because guess what? They are *still* public schools; the money is still going to have to come from taxpayers' pockets.

2. The low-income families that can't afford to "shuttle" -- literally, most private schools don't offer bus service -- their child off to some far-away private school would be forced to keep their children in public school. . . "At least until the whole privatization thing kicks in fully," Which, when it does will a period of time so removed from when the whole process started that, even if it was, say 3-5 years is a significant period of time for children who are in K-5. Reading? Math? The basic skills learned in Elementary school would be inferior.


The greatest injustice of the public school system is what it does to low income kids. The quality of education is abysmal, in my opinion. The poor are those who suffer the most under the current system.

I believe I addressed this above. Now (even after all that) I'm not saying I completely disagree with privatization; in theory, it's a great idea. But in reality, the implementation of it would be a total disaster.

[coffeezombie]

Right... privatize education, so that it is controlled by rich corporate interests rather than the state? How does that encourage more free thinking and less corporate drones? I can't see to see the first "Wal-Mart High School" when it opens up. Maybe I will go to McDonalds or Disney instead if Wal-Mart doesn't suit my needs. Want to open up your own high school and offer a free-thinking education? Don't count on it. Starbucks High School will put you out of business in a second.

Corporate interests may control the politicians we elect that fund our education systems currently, but at least state education provides one more barrier against corporate education than the fully privatized alternative

[Robespierre]

I got my MBA from an extremely Republican Uni in Southern Utah. One of the things the extremely Republican professors/students loved to bitch about there is public education; I can almost guarantee I've heard every argument for rationalizing widespread privatization, and I don't buy a single one.

Here's why:

Privatization of the entire system could never happen in one day, one week, one year, five years, even ten years.

There is no reason at all why it could not happen overnight. Simply close eveyr public education institution in existence. Hand all the stolen tax money back to the property owners. Simple.


The lag between the time the "good teachers" left the public schools for the better paying private schools would be lengthy.

Those teachers are going to want jobs. Some may or may not apply to private schools, it really doesn't matter. Cetainly no reason to delay the shutdown of a massive mafia-like operation like public education.


The "bad" public school teachers who would remain would have increased class sizes and increased responsibility to teach more subjects (I'm using elementary schools for this theoretical example). The quality of education that those students would receive would be far worse than it is now (as bad as it is, I know), but FAR FAR worse than the the quality of education that students at private schools recieve.

Firstly, your idea of what a good education is a subjective thing. There does nto exist an objective standard by which to measure education. As far as my idea of a good education goes, it is difficult to imagine a greater failure than the US public schools.


Yes, I know what you are going to say The public schools are going to have to "up" their game to compete with the private schools . . . public schools should phase out eventually.

However It won't work because guess what? They are *still* public schools; the money is still going to have to come from taxpayers' pockets.

I don't support any sort of "phase out" of public schools. I also don't support a "phase out" of the drug war. I place both on the same level of immorality. Both need to be ended now.


2. The low-income families that can't afford to "shuttle" -- literally, most private schools don't offer bus service -- their child off to some far-away private school would be forced to keep their children in public school. . . "At least until the whole privatization thing kicks in fully," Which, when it does will a period of time so removed from when the whole process started that, even if it was, say 3-5 years is a significant period of time for children who are in K-5. Reading? Math? The basic skills learned in Elementary school would be inferior.

Very interesting. Still no justification for organized theft. I cannot see the future, so I can't say exactly what solutions the free market would provide for demanded services, but I would suggest that whatever happens, it will end up being superiour to state-run busing and desegregation schemes.

When you place the bar so low, achieving more success than public schools, it's almost impossible to imagine failure.


I believe I addressed this above. Now (even after all that) I'm not saying I completely disagree with privatization; in theory, it's a great idea. But in reality, the implementation of it would be a total disaster.

A disaster for who? For scions of public money?

[Clara]

Now (even after all that) I'm not saying I completely disagree with privatization; in theory, it's a great idea. But in reality, the implementation of it would be a total disaster.
Actually, I just remembered something. Private schools are not necessarily free from problems - it entirely depends on the individual teachers, administators and parents, whether a student will find the necessary ressources (in the broadest definition of the word) while s/he is there.

Stupid decisions, because they seem fiscally wise, can also be applied in private education.

And, I really want to underline that there is a huge distinction to be made between the generalities of what might be better, or worse - and the practical reality that, the measure of "a good school" is:
do students have what they need, to learn.

[Robespierre]

Right... privatize education, so that it is controlled by rich corporate interests rather than the state?

Controlled? Define control. Does Walmart control retail sales? Are they able to throw people in jail who don't shop at their stores?

There would certainly be firms that operate schools, but it is hard to envision their ability to control anything.


How does that encourage more free thinking and less corporate drones?

The goal is NOT to ecourage free thinking and discourage corporate dronage, but to stop a massive and unjust redistribution of wealth, and restore human rights.


I can't see to see the first "Wal-Mart High School" when it opens up. Maybe I will go to McDonalds or Disney instead if Wal-Mart doesn't suit my needs. Want to open up your own high school and offer a free-thinking education? Don't count on it. Starbucks High School will put you out of business in a second.

Okay, so then what? If people don't want to go to your school, why should they be forced? If they prefer starbucks high, what should your opinion of it matter?


Corporate interests may control the politicians we elect that fund our education systems currently, but at least state education provides one more barrier against corporate education than the fully privatized alternative

The idea that public education protects anyone from corruption is laughable. Socialist education is one of the greatest ongoing crimes against the american people. To avoid the mythical "corporate control" you would have education placed in the hands of totally unaccountable monsters who act as parasites on productive society.

[Robespierre]

Actually, I just remembered something. Private schools are not necessarily free from problems - it entirely depends on the individual teachers, administators and parents, whether a student will find the necessary ressources (in the broadest definition of the word) while s/he is there.

Stupid decisions, because they seem fiscally wise, can also be applied in private education.

And, I really want to underline that there is a huge distinction to be made between the generalities of what might be better, or worse - and the practical reality that, the measure of "a good school" is:
do students have what they need, to learn.

Again, I have not stated that private schools would be problem free. Only that they are not a massive ongoing criminal organization, like public education is.

[coffeezombie]

I'm not sure what you are talking about, Robespierre. The idea is that elected politicians appoint people to serve as educational administrators. How does that make educational administrators unaccountable? School district superintendents in the US are constantly getting fired for performing a poor job.

Just because you offer many alternatives does not mean people will choose the best alternative. People will buy the best thing they can afford for the cheapest amount of money. An education is too important to allow certain people out there to choose the "cheapest option." People need the best education they can get, and an adequately funded government school system with responsible people running it is the best way to give the most people this alternative. Privatized education just means that poor people stay poor because they get bad educations, unless you suggest government should intervene in providing scholarships to certain schools, in which case I don't see how this system is too much different than the current one run by governments.

[Robespierre]

I'm not sure what you are talking about, Robespierre. The idea is that elected politicians appoint people to serve as educational administrators. How does that make educational administrators unaccountable? School district superintendents in the US are constantly getting fired for performing a poor job.

The public schools are in no way accountable. I cannot decide whether or not to send them money. They take it from me under threat of violence.


Just because you offer many alternatives does not mean people will choose the best alternative.

I agree. But niether of us are qualified to say what alternatives are good or bad, that is the problem. People must be free to choose.


People will buy the best thing they can afford for the cheapest amount of money. An education is too important to allow certain people out there to choose the "cheapest option."

Too important to you perhaps. Other people may suggest that spirituality to too important to leave in your hands, and that the government should mandate some specific religion in order to insure that receive the best religious instruction possible.


People need the best education they can get, and an adequately funded government school system with responsible people running it is the best way to give the most people this alternative. Privatized education just means that poor people stay poor because they get bad educations, unless you suggest government should intervene in providing scholarships to certain schools, in which case I don't see how this system is too much different than the current one run by governments.

You can't see the difference between voluntary exchanges and theft?

[indie]

There is no reason at all why it could not happen overnight. Simply close eveyr public education institution in existence. Hand all the stolen tax money back to the property owners. Simple.

:lol: :rofl: Are we talking "hand" as in Mr. President knocks on everyone's door one night and hands them a check? Like the Santa Claus of Educational Money? Should it happen over Christmas break while all the kiddies are out of school?

Your illogical arguments are too funny to annoy me.

[Robespierre]

Are we talking "hand" as in Mr. President knocks on everyone's door one night and hands them a check? Like the Santa Claus of Educational Money? Should it happen over Christmas break while all the kiddies are out of school?

Your illogical arguments are too funny to annoy me.

A literal "handing" of the money back would be nice, as it could be followed by a nice apology, but I would settle for checks in the mail.

I really have a hard time understanding the blind allegance to the state apparatus, especially one that is so monsterously horrid.

[Dman]

On the school thing, I haven’t decided whether I agree with you or not, since it appears to me that you have an underlying conviction of a larger magnitude. The root problem seems to be the idea of being taxed, no? You despise having your money “stolen” from you and redistributed towards something you don’t believe is giving you a higher investment return.

I agree with your right to voice a protesting opinion, but you must realize that all of the problems you have with public education can just as easily occur in private education, with one primary difference – you aren’t “forced” to pay for private education.

So let’s say public education disappears, and only those who choose to pay for schools do pay. Naturally, home-schooling would suddenly become very popular for people who think they can teach their children better, and save money. Now you have people getting educated under all kinds of different systems, and being taught a varying wide range of topics (while potentially not being taught many topics as well). Now these people enter the “real world” with some being very well educated and some not knowing the most basic fundamentals. The better off would by nature end up in more important roles and leadership positions while the worse off would be subject to their (the better educated) whim. Kind of like under today’s system, but at least we wouldn’t be forced to pay, right?

However, over time the less educated would become more and more disillusioned under this system, and eventually revolt. They would demand the OPPORTUNITY to be provided with a decent education that would at least be able to provide adequate learning materials and teachers. They would seek to elect leaders who shared this vision with them, and would vote to have all people who lived in a certain region to help contribute money to a system where everyone would have a good chance at an education that at least teaches them the fundamentals of reading, writing, math, etc. in able to function as productive members of society. Even people who could afford to send their kids to good private schools would be willing to chip in a little extra for these folks, so that they would stop burglarizing their houses and selling crack to their kids and be able to function as good community citizens. In fact, since EVERYONE benefits from it, everyone should contribute to it. Kind of like the police, or the military.

Your analogy to the church falls short, because religion imposes a set of values and beliefs that are faith-based and by nature do not encompass all people in equal terms. However, public schools (although far from immune to opinions) are set up exclusively to encompass all people equally and to provide them with the fundamentals of learning how to think, communicate, and understand our world. This noble goal has the intention of intrinsically benefiting all members of society for the better. The church does not accomplish this, and specifically excludes people who believe other than they do – for this reason it can never be sanctioned by the state.

Now having said all that, yes I agree that our public education system is a mess. But going pure-private would ultimately fail in achieving what our founding fathers envisioned this country to be.

[Robespierre]

On the school thing, I haven’t decided whether I agree with you or not, since it appears to me that you have an underlying conviction of a larger magnitude. The root problem seems to be the idea of being taxed, no? You despise having your money “stolen” from you and redistributed towards something you don’t believe is giving you a higher investment return.

I agree with your right to voice a protesting opinion, but you must realize that all of the problems you have with public education can just as easily occur in private education, with one primary difference – you aren’t “forced” to pay for private education.

Actually, none of the main issues I take will public education can occure in private education. No group can be forced at gunpoint to supply education to another group. And government cannot(read as should not) steer private education to suit its own desires.


So let’s say public education disappears, and only those who choose to pay for schools do pay. Naturally, home-schooling would suddenly become very popular for people who think they can teach their children better, and save money.

Much like today.


Now you have people getting educated under all kinds of different systems, and being taught a varying wide range of topics (while potentially not being taught many topics as well). Now these people enter the “real world” with some being very well educated and some not knowing the most basic fundamentals.

Two points here. Again, there is no objective way to measure education. Only education as you or some other person understands it. I may decide that all who cannot read and write classical greek are uneducated. You may decide that all people who cannot recite the constitution upon request are not educated. Am I right or are you?

Also, if I accept the government standard for what an education is, or at least my understanding of it, this problem exists in great multiplicity toady. Many graduates of public schools can't read, write, locate the US on a map, etc. So even when judged by their own pathetic standards, the public schools fail.


The better off would by nature end up in more important roles and leadership positions while the worse off would be subject to their (the better educated) whim. Kind of like under today’s system, but at least we wouldn’t be forced to pay, right?

Right. I don't see anything at all wrong with those who have more, enjoying more benefits. This is the nature of our universe. Material goods that are not possessed cannot be directly enjoyed.


However, over time the less educated would become more and more disillusioned under this system, and eventually revolt.

What would they become disillusioned with? This sounds like Marxian class theory to me, and it sounds completely non-specific and undefined.


They would demand the OPPORTUNITY to be provided with a decent education that would at least be able to provide adequate learning materials and teachers. They would seek to elect leaders who shared this vision with them, and would vote to have all people who lived in a certain region to help contribute money to a system where everyone would have a good chance at an education that at least teaches them the fundamentals of reading, writing, math, etc. in able to function as productive members of society.

Again, why?


Even people who could afford to send their kids to good private schools would be willing to chip in a little extra for these folks, so that they would stop burglarizing their houses and selling crack to their kids and be able to function as good community citizens. In fact, since EVERYONE benefits from it, everyone should contribute to it. Kind of like the police, or the military.

The free rider argument. Totally bogus for many reasons. If you provide me with a good, something I did not ask you to provide, do I owe you for it? If you plant a tree on your property which shades my house and saves me on cooling in the summer, do I owe you something? I say no, of course not.


Your analogy to the church falls short, because religion imposes a set of values and beliefs that are faith-based and by nature do not encompass all people in equal terms.

Education is identical in every way to the terms you put on religion in your previous statement.


However, public schools (although far from immune to opinions) are set up exclusively to encompass all people equally and to provide them with the fundamentals of learning how to think, communicate, and understand our world.

There is no fundamentally correct way to educate people. There exists no all-inclusing non-offensive dicipline to teach all people, that is so universal that it would be perfectly okay for a violent gang to impose onto everyone.

You suggest that the government should be teaching the fundamentals of "how to think"? This implies that there is one proper means of thought which could be taught.


This noble goal has the intention of intrinsically benefiting all members of society for the better. The church does not accomplish this, and specifically excludes people who believe other than they do – for this reason it can never be sanctioned by the state.

Again, I see no difference. The goal of "teaching people how to think" is really sickening to me. Especially in the sense that you mean, imposition by force from above. Education specifically excludes those who think as individuals, and rewards those who go along with the groupthink and grouphate. No difference at all between education and religion.


Now having said all that, yes I agree that our public education system is a mess. But going pure-private would ultimately fail in achieving what our founding fathers envisioned this country to be.

I personally don't care what our founding fathers had to say. I think they were partially right on some issues, and majorly wrong on others. However, if you are going to make this appeal, I feel required to explain why it is so horribly wrong. The founding fathers would have been sickened to see the massive size of our current government. They made very specific their ideas on how big government should be. The IXth and Xth amendments specifically limit the fedgov to spending and legislating in those areas specifically alotted to fedgov in the constitution. No where in the the constitution is it provided for the congress to allocate billions of dollars for schools, or the power to regulate schools.

[Dman]

Actually, none of the main issues I take will public education can occure in private education. No group can be forced at gunpoint to supply education to another group. And government cannot(read as should not) steer private education to suit its own desires.



Much like today.



Two points here. Again, there is no objective way to measure education. Only education as you or some other person understands it. I may decide that all who cannot read and write classical greek are uneducated. You may decide that all people who cannot recite the constitution upon request are not educated. Am I right or are you?

The best way of measuring an education is to measure how well graduates of the system can think critically and function well in their society. Someone who only reads or writes Greek in the US would not function well. Many of those that cannot quote the constitution can function and think very well. Just because the quality of an education is intangible does not mean it can’t be measured to some relevant degree.


Also, if I accept the government standard for what an education is, or at least my understanding of it, this problem exists in great multiplicity toady. Many graduates of public schools can't read, write, locate the US on a map, etc. So even when judged by their own pathetic standards, the public schools fail.

I agree with you that the government’s standard of education is a farce. The school itself, as well as it’s stakeholders, should determine the level and quality of education. A public school can do this if the fed gov would let it; in fact some of the best public schools are those that are most autonomous.


Right. I don't see anything at all wrong with those who have more, enjoying more benefits. This is the nature of our universe. Material goods that are not possessed cannot be directly enjoyed.



What would they become disillusioned with? This sounds like Marxian class theory to me, and it sounds completely non-specific and undefined.

Disillusioned by being repressed by the “better educated”. When they see that those with an unfair advantage have better opportunities than them, and they become damned to serving the upper class. Why does any class of people become disillusioned?


Again, why?



The free rider argument. Totally bogus for many reasons. If you provide me with a good, something I did not ask you to provide, do I owe you for it? If you plant a tree on your property which shades my house and saves me on cooling in the summer, do I owe you something? I say no, of course not.

Too bad it’s not that simple. The government providing a good or service you did not “ask” for is completely different from an individual doing the same. Should you have the right to not pay for protective services like police, fire, military? How would that work? I didn’t “ask” the fireman to save my mom’s house from burning down, why should I have to pay for fire services? It’s arrogant to say that since you don’t ask for something, you should not pay for it. Besides, that’s why we vote on stuff. How can you provide a benefit/good/service that affects the vast majority of people but excludes those who don’t want to pay?




Education is identical in every way to the terms you put on religion in your previous statement.



There is no fundamentally correct way to educate people. There exists no all-inclusing non-offensive dicipline to teach all people, that is so universal that it would be perfectly okay for a violent gang to impose onto everyone.

You suggest that the government should be teaching the fundamentals of "how to think"? This implies that there is one proper means of thought which could be taught.



Again, I see no difference. The goal of "teaching people how to think" is really sickening to me. Especially in the sense that you mean, imposition by force from above. Education specifically excludes those who think as individuals, and rewards those who go along with the groupthink and grouphate. No difference at all between education and religion.

So how does private school achieve anything different? You’re nit-picking the definition of how to educate someone and using it as your rationale for abolishing public schools. How can you define that the schools are failing? There is no “correct” way to educate, so how would we know which way is “right”? Although public schools definitely lean towards collective curricula vs. individual, there are still avenues for pursuing individual learning exercises. Furthermore, schools at least offer the opportunity to form an unbiased opinion by providing various approaches and opinions to problems. Example – school teaches you to read. By teaching you to read, a public school has opened your eyes to discovering virtually anything you desire. You can read anything that is written by anyone and form your own opinion, your own interpretation. This does not exist in the church. There is only one interpretation, which is God’s way. This leaves no room for argument, no room for opposing ideas, no way to be able to think critically. In my opinion that is different than public school. Public school is not always about conforming to the system. You will always find teachers, subjects that ask you to question the system. Likewise there are those that do the opposite. But this does not exist in church. No difference? Come on, you’re not that naïve. I do not see how a privately funded school could teach me how to think any better than a public one. Differently perhaps, but not better.




I personally don't care what our founding fathers had to say. I think they were partially right on some issues, and majorly wrong on others. However, if you are going to make this appeal, I feel required to explain why it is so horribly wrong. The founding fathers would have been sickened to see the massive size of our current government. They made very specific their ideas on how big government should be. The IXth and Xth amendments specifically limit the fedgov to spending and legislating in those areas specifically alotted to fedgov in the constitution. No where in the the constitution is it provided for the congress to allocate billions of dollars for schools, or the power to regulate schools.

I agree that the country now is not necessarily the one envisioned by the founding fathers. However, I think they would be pleased to know that regardless of the "letter of the law", the spirit of their intentions still exists...it is arguably the most free place to live on the planet and continues to survive as one of the most successful societies ever with the highest living standards in known human history.

[Robespierre]

The best way of measuring an education is to measure how well graduates of the system can think critically and function well in their society. Someone who only reads or writes Greek in the US would not function well. Many of those that cannot quote the constitution can function and think very well. Just because the quality of an education is intangible does not mean it can’t be measured to some relevant degree.

Actually, that is precisely what it means. There is no objective standard by which to measure education. What units will you use in this measurement? The problem involved is theoretical, as your concept of "good" in education is not the same as mine. This is why we cannot measure the "goodness" of a candy bar in any objective way.


I agree with you that the government’s standard of education is a farce. The school itself, as well as it’s stakeholders, should determine the level and quality of education. A public school can do this if the fed gov would let it; in fact some of the best public schools are those that are most autonomous.

As long as they are receiving stolen money, the content of their education means nothing to me, as they are criminal organizations and should be closed post haste.


Disillusioned by being repressed by the “better educated”.

Define "repressed". Do you mean left out of all the reindeer games? Do you mean enslaved?


When they see that those with an unfair advantage have better opportunities than them, and they become damned to serving the upper class. Why does any class of people become disillusioned?

What is unfair about having been born to a family with lots of money? What is unfair about being born into a family with nearly no money?

I don't believe that any class of people become "disillusioned". Individuals within a class may, but not the class as a whole.

BTW, the only classes I recognize are the tax producers and tax consumers.


Too bad it’s not that simple. The government providing a good or service you did not “ask” for is completely different from an individual doing the same. Should you have the right to not pay for protective services like police, fire, military?

Yes of course, otherwise they are not services, but impositions from the ruling mafia.

If the local mob-boss struts into your business and demands you pay him $10,000 for his protection services, do you intent to pay him? Do you suppose he has a right to demand that money from you? Isn't he providing you a service?


How would that work? I didn’t “ask” the fireman to save my mom’s house from burning down, why should I have to pay for fire services? It’s arrogant to say that since you don’t ask for something, you should not pay for it.

Funny, I was thinking the exact opposite. If some salesman sticks a diamond ring in your mail box and walks away, then you get an invoice for it in a few weeks, would you think it was arrogant to not pay for the ring?


Besides, that’s why we vote on stuff. How can you provide a benefit/good/service that affects the vast majority of people but excludes those who don’t want to pay?

If people want the service, they will pay for it.

And voting on these things is laughable. Should the majority be allowed to vote on how much you spend on christmas presents for your children?


So how does private school achieve anything different? You’re nit-picking the definition of how to educate someone and using it as your rationale for abolishing public schools.

My rationale for abolishing public schools is that there never exists a right to take money from people without their consent. The ends NEVER justify the means.


How can you define that the schools are failing?

My personal definition of what education is, excludes most of what public schools produce. I should not have to pay for this service which I don't use and don't approve of.


There is no “correct” way to educate, so how would we know which way is “right”?

WE DON'T! There is no objective standard that makes it right or wrong! This is why the government should never attempt to provide it! This makes education no different than religion in this respect. There is no "right" religion, and no way or reason to enforce any particular religion onto the subjects of the US.


Although public schools definitely lean towards collective curricula vs. individual, there are still avenues for pursuing individual learning exercises. Furthermore, schools at least offer the opportunity to form an unbiased opinion by providing various approaches and opinions to problems.

I disagree.


Example – school teaches you to read.

I disagree.


By teaching you to read, a public school has opened your eyes to discovering virtually anything you desire.

And has also informed you on what you should desire, along with any number of other functions that a government has no business being involved in.


You can read anything that is written by anyone and form your own opinion, your own interpretation. This does not exist in the church. There is only one interpretation, which is God’s way.

That's not true at all. Why are there thousands of different sects of christianity alone, if there was only one way?


This leaves no room for argument, no room for opposing ideas, no way to be able to think critically.

Which sounds precisely like a public school to me.

"Teacher, what caused the civil war?"

"Well suzy, the EVIL white people who lived in the southern states wanted to keep black people as slaves, and also to eat their own young. A brave and intelligent lawyer name Abraham Lincoln was selected by the people of the blessed north who loved him dearly. He then asked the south to politely stop keeping slaves and eating their young. The evil south rejected his kind proposal and then they started killing people!"

Obviously I am being satirical, but I think you get my drift.


In my opinion that is different than public school. Public school is not always about conforming to the system. You will always find teachers, subjects that ask you to question the system. Likewise there are those that do the opposite. But this does not exist in church. No difference? Come on, you’re not that naïve. I do not see how a privately funded school could teach me how to think any better than a public one. Differently perhaps, but not better.

This is the exact reason to avoid publically funded schools and religions. I don't agree that one way of educations is merely "different" and not "better". I think there are certain topics and areas that need to be covered, and any education that falls short is crap. You have a different opinion. Fine. I am not going to force you to educate your children the way I want mine educated. Why should you or the government force me to do the same?


I agree that the country now is not necessarily the one envisioned by the founding fathers. However, I think they would be pleased to know that regardless of the "letter of the law", the spirit of their intentions still exists...it is arguably the most free place to live on the planet and continues to survive as one of the most successful societies ever with the highest living standards in known human history.

You say this, but do not back it up. What is the spirit of the law that Jefferson envisioned? How about Jackson, Washington, Franklin, Calhoun, and Madison? Did they intend for the fedgov to control every tiny detail of the subject's life?

[Dman]

I said does not mean it can’t be measured to some relevant degree, not a precise unit of measurement. For example how many students successfully continue to higher education (private or public); how many can read; etc. A higher number would imply, though not precisely, a higher quality of education. But is your idea that since it is difficult if not impossible to measure, we should not bother to at all? By this logic the candy bar manufacturers might as well put dirt in the bar, since they can’t precisely measure how much one person likes it vs. the other. Why bother to make it taste better? Better to who?

On the gov’t providing services paid for through taxes, you are being obstinate as I believe you understand where I am coming from. The Mafia demanding payment for protection is protecting you from themselves, not foreign governments. The salesman demanding payment for a ring he left in your mailbox is not an example of a good or service that benefits the greater society/community. You can do better than that! Speaking of which, you didn’t answer the question of how to provide a good/service that benefit everyone in the community, but only taxing those who “want” it. How do you prevent those who don’t want it from enjoying the benefits?

As to Christianity, maybe thousands of sects, but these are just variations. There is still only one final answer to the most fundamental questions.

Regarding the History teacher example, you use one teacher, teaching a subject which is always open to controversy, as an example, but public school is full of several teachers (and students) as well as reference information for which to ask opposing questions and receive differing answers. What about the teacher who states that history is open to interpretation, and will vary depending upon who you are talking to or reading from? Who shows you where to find information from other cultures regarding their interpretations? Again, how would private school be different?

Your argument is based on the assumption that all public schools are the same and do nothing but teach people how to conform. It’s really up to the teachers, isn’t it? Sure there are govt guidelines, but there are still individual people teaching. Or do you think that all the teachers are in on the conspiracy?

We can continue bantering back and forth over specific interpretations and examples, but the main issue appears to be your opposition to being taxed by the government for something you see as pointless. What if the other 99% of the people you lived near disagree? Should it change because of what you think? It goes back to the main point which is how does the government prevent those people who don’t want to pay from benefiting? Deportation perhaps? You also mention being forced to pay under threat of violence. You are also forced to obey the laws of society under threat of violence; it is the price we pay for living in this society. We are also free to assemble and vote, and lastly, we are free to leave the country should we become to cynical to deal with it anymore.

[Robespierre]

I said does not mean it can’t be measured to some relevant degree, not a precise unit of measurement. For example how many students successfully continue to higher education (private or public); how many can read; etc. A higher number would imply, though not precisely, a higher quality of education.

Which religion is the best? Who is the best member of that religion?


But is your idea that since it is difficult if not impossible to measure, we should not bother to at all?

No, and I am fairly certain that you know it is not. Not once have I said that there should be no education. I HAVE said, about 50,000 times by now, that the education a person receives is their own concern or than of their parents, not the state.


By this logic the candy bar manufacturers might as well put dirt in the bar, since they can’t precisely measure how much one person likes it vs. the other. Why bother to make it taste better? Better to who?

Are you serious? How about if we had a candy-bar tax, and the government made ONE candy bar, but we ALL got to vote on what was in it. Everyone would be happy right?


On the gov’t providing services paid for through taxes, you are being obstinate as I believe you understand where I am coming from.

I understand you just fine, but I completely disagree with you. This is okay, we can end on a difference of oipinion, I don't expect people to drop their safety nets over night.


The Mafia demanding payment for protection is protecting you from themselves, not foreign governments.

No, they protect you from rival gangs, just like the fedgov. The fedgov protects us against various other fedgovs. Look at the amount of people killed by nation-states in the 20th century and tell me that states protect us from anything. The total is somewhere around 500 million.


The salesman demanding payment for a ring he left in your mailbox is not an example of a good or service that benefits the greater society/community.

This is exactly how I feel about public education. It does not benefit the community, quite the opposite in fact.


You can do better than that! Speaking of which, you didn’t answer the question of how to provide a good/service that benefit everyone in the community, but only taxing those who “want” it. How do you prevent those who don’t want it from enjoying the benefits?

I did answe that question when I explained how silly the "free-rider" canard is.

I have decided that you benefit from my comments here on this forum. I am instructing you and all who read the forum. I have deemed that this benefits "society" and have also decided that you should compensate me for my teaching services. You now owe me $10.


As to Christianity, maybe thousands of sects, but these are just variations. There is still only one final answer to the most fundamental questions.

Like who started the civil war and why?


Regarding the History teacher example, you use one teacher, teaching a subject which is always open to controversy, as an example, but public school is full of several teachers (and students) as well as reference information for which to ask opposing questions and receive differing answers. What about the teacher who states that history is open to interpretation, and will vary depending upon who you are talking to or reading from? Who shows you where to find information from other cultures regarding their interpretations? Again, how would private school be different?

Private school would be different in that the students who attend would be doing so, not as slaves, but as voluntary consumers of the product being provided by the school. Big difference.


Your argument is based on the assumption that all public schools are the same and do nothing but teach people how to conform.

You really haven't been paying close attention to what I have been saying. That is NOT what my argument hinges on. My argument hinges on the fact that public education is a form of theft and slavery.


It’s really up to the teachers, isn’t it? Sure there are govt guidelines, but there are still individual people teaching. Or do you think that all the teachers are in on the conspiracy?

Conspiracy to steal my money and use it to fund their schools, yes.


We can continue bantering back and forth over specific interpretations and examples, but the main issue appears to be your opposition to being taxed by the government for something you see as pointless.

You're getting warmer...


What if the other 99% of the people you lived near disagree?

Then yahoo! Let them disagree. What if?


Should it change because of what you think?

What if 99% of the people around me prefer to drink coca-cola rather than pepsi, but I prefer pepsi? Then what? What happens? How is this horrible problem solved?


It goes back to the main point which is how does the government prevent those people who don’t want to pay from benefiting?

Don't let them use the service in question?


Deportation perhaps? You also mention being forced to pay under threat of violence. You are also forced to obey the laws of society under threat of violence; it is the price we pay for living in this society. We are also free to assemble and vote, and lastly, we are free to leave the country should we become to cynical to deal with it anymore.

We are not free to leave the country. The south proved this in 1861. They tried leaving the country, and 600,000 people were murdered and many more maimed and looted to prove that one cannot leave the country.

[Dman]

You're comparing apples and oranges. People's preferences for cola drinks vs. taxes & education are very separate things, thank you very much.

[Robespierre]

You're comparing apples and oranges. People's preferences for cola drinks vs. taxes & education are very separate things, thank you very much.

You're very welcome and also very wrong. What is different about the market for education and the market for cola-drinks? Does supply and demand apply to one and not the other?

[Dman]

How do you not let people use said service in question? They are benefitting from a service (educated citizens, police protection, fire protection, etc.) so how do you exclude those who decide not to pay the taxes for them?

As far as the southern states attempt at secession, another apples to oranges case. Yeah, let's take the resources that belong to the entire country and decide we want to take a portion for our own. No, I'm talking about leaving and finding one's own land and resources and creating the utopian society desired. Like it or not, the majority rules in this country.

[Dman]

Public education as a form of theft and slavery? Your arguments are not very compelling, rather they sound like someone who is just trying to find a way to rationalize avoiding taxes. Visions of an unrealistic utopian society. I agree with some of your principles, but we also live in a complex society with other people in it. Radical approaches from minority viewpoints are rarely useful or successful, particularly when freedom, life and limb are not in jeapordy.

[Robespierre]

How do you not let people use said service in question? They are benefitting from a service (educated citizens, police protection, fire protection, etc.) so how do you exclude those who decide not to pay the taxes for them?

Don't let them go to school, inform the fire dept not to put out fires on their property, and don't allow the police to help them. Simple.


As far as the southern states attempt at secession, another apples to oranges case. Yeah, let's take the resources that belong to the entire country and decide we want to take a portion for our own. No, I'm talking about leaving and finding one's own land and resources and creating the utopian society desired. Like it or not, the majority rules in this country.

The United States government has homesteaded very little land. As such, it rightfully owns very little land.

[Edmond Zedo]

You're very welcome and also very wrong.
Now I like that.

Y'all are arguin' the wrong shit here. You can't win.

[Robespierre]

Public education as a form of theft and slavery? Your arguments are not very compelling, rather they sound like someone who is just trying to find a way to rationalize avoiding taxes.

My arguments sound that way because that is precisely what they are. How do you define slavery? How do you define theft?


Visions of an unrealistic utopian society. I agree with some of your principles, but we also live in a complex society with other people in it. Radical approaches from minority viewpoints are rarely useful or successful, particularly when freedom, life and limb are not in jeapordy.

I don't suggest that my views will ever succeed against the views of statists and their ilk. Only that I am right.

[Robespierre]

Now I like that.

Y'all are arguin' the wrong shit here. You can't win.

I can usually get people to agree to the premises, non-aggression, property rights, etc, but then the trouble comes with the conclusions.

[HeyBooU]

So, just to clear things up Robesspierre...you would prefer anarchy?

[Robespierre]

So, just to clear things up Robesspierre...you would prefer anarchy?

Yes. Not anarchy as most people seem to understand it, chaos, buring, dead babies and such. But only in the most literal definition of the word, no coercive government.

[HeyBooU]

Yes. Not anarchy as most people seem to understand it, chaos, buring, dead babies and such. But only in the most literal definition of the word, no coercive government.
I don't think many on this board would put have anarchy in the same form of chaos.

[Edmond Zedo]

I can usually get people to agree to the premises, non-aggression, property rights, etc, but then the trouble comes with the conclusions.
At this stage in history I would support a fascist government more than a socialist one. For purposes of world force, not individual liberty. Liberty I wish for our great, great grandchildren.

[Robespierre]

I don't think many on this board would put have anarchy in the same form of chaos.

Excellent, I have underestimated this board then.

[Dman]

BTW, ever heard of school vouchers?

[Robespierre]

BTW, ever heard of school vouchers?

Yes of course. They are a terrible idea. If we are going to actually give people the money back, why bother taking it in the first place?

[Dman]

Ever heard of a sustainable modern society with no government?

Ideals are nice, but without a realistic method to ever put them to practice, they are nothing more than fantasy. Makes for good books though. You'll need to nail down your logical arguments though, unless your just going for emotion.

[Edmond Zedo]

Ever heard of a sustainable modern society with no government?

Ideals are nice, but without a realistic method to ever put them to practice, they are nothing more than fantasy. Makes for good books though. You'll need to nail down your logical arguments though, unless your just going for emotion.
Joo needing dee common defense-a, yes?

[Robespierre]

Ever heard of a sustainable modern society with no government?

Nope, they must be an impossibility


Ideals are nice, but without a realistic method to ever put them to practice, they are nothing more than fantasy. Makes for good books though. You'll need to nail down your logical arguments though, unless your just going for emotion.

Find one logical flaw in my previous chapters of posts. I am not the one arguing from emotion. "Oh, think of the children!"

[indie]

Robespierre's ideas, which are -- um, the only words I can think of are "close-minded" -- are defined by his lack of attention to detail. Is he talking about education as it exists in America today (as per his first posts on this thread), or is he talking about some utopian ideal of education (as per his last posts on this thread)? If it is the former, he should realize that change doesn't happen in a day (refer to earlier posts). If it is the latter then he should be making an entirely different argument. Not the


There is no reason at all why it could not happen overnight. Simply close eveyr public education institution in existence. Hand all the stolen tax money back to the property owners. Simple.


A literal "handing" of the money back would be nice, as it could be followed by a nice apology, but I would settle for checks in the mail.

Checks in the mail? Overnight?

Robespierre obviously has no idea how long it takes for things to happen with the current system . . . thus my point Why the Republican's idea of Privatization is Bull-Shit (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=34560&postcount=33)

Then, of course, there's this:


I really have a hard time understanding the blind allegance to the state apparatus, especially one that is so monsterously horrid.

I have no problem with wanting to envision a better system or ideal. Calling it "monsterously horrid?" That, I have a problem with. What do you have against public education? Are you a student? Teacher? Parent? If you're just some jaded idealist, you really should explain your reasoning a little better.

[Robespierre]

Robespierre's ideas, which are -- um, the only words I can think of are "close-minded" -- are defined by his lack of attention to detail.

Define close-minded.


Is he talking about education as it exists in America today (as per his first posts on this thread), or is he talking about some utopian ideal of education (as per his last posts on this thread)?

Can't I talk about education as it is today, and as I think it should be? Why can't we talk about both? It's hard to imagine any serious discussion leaving one or the other out...


If it is the former, he should realize that change doesn't happen in a day (refer to earlier posts). If it is the latter then he should be making an entirely different argument.

Well then, since change won't happen in a day, we just throw our hands up and stop talking about it all together. Sounds very open-minded to me.


Checks in the mail? Overnight?

Or next week. However long it takes to print up 300 million checks.


Robespierre obviously has no idea how long it takes for things to happen with the current system . . . thus my point Why the Republican's idea of Privatization is Bull-Shit

Are you referring this to me or someone else? Do you see a red "R" on a black armband around my arm?

Also, the current system is the problem. It will not be possible to fix the system by working within it.


I have no problem with wanting to envision a better system or ideal. Calling it "monsterously horrid?" That, I have a problem with. What do you have against public education? Are you a student? Teacher? Parent? If you're just some jaded idealist, you really should explain your reasoning a little better.

I think I have explained myself pretty thoroughly over the last few pages of this thread. If you have a specific question, axe away.

[Salad]

i'm extremely intrigued by this thread, especially as a divergent (at least in my opinion) member of society educated in the public school system of california. my question is however, why did you pick public schools as the topic of this conversation? it could have just as easily been law enforcment, health care, our nation's infrastructure, military, utilities, or any other service that is primarily funded by taxpayer dollars. that is the main issue, isn't it?

i don't think the error of your arguement is in the "practical details" of abolishing public education, as someone earlier put it, but the fact that all your arguments stem from a support of anarchy. i think anarchy is impossible, even based on your description of no coercive government. (which in fact is not any definition of the word at all and a contradiction of terms, but i understand what you mean)

let's say that a powerless goevernment existed. (if it was not powerless then it would have power over at least one individual, and of course this would be coercion) let's say that you and i live together in this society. each of us would have to produce everything we use and own, or we would have to enter into agreement with one another to share and trade. we seem to be doing fine on our own, but one winter you run out of food. now, the laws of this powerless goevernment say i have to sell you food at a reasonable price, but i'm an asshole and don't follow the laws of a powerless government becasue, well, what the hell are they going to do? all they citizens around us are also assholes and want to price-gouge you as well, so you end up buying some food from one of us. we have just coerced you into an action against your will. we have just become your ruling body. in essence, we are the government that now rules you. either that, or you can starve. or, you decide to rise up against me and demand your "fair share" of food. i tell you no and we end up fighting. now, whichever one of us has larger arms is the other's ruler.

agreements may be met and violence may be avoided, but unless every single desire we have is met in out agreement, one of us has been coerced into something we didn't want, and the tiniest form of government known is brought into existence. it is in the nature of man to enter into agreements with one another (if for nothing else than for needs of survival), and coercion is impossible to avoid.

now if you'd like to talk about government size, i will agree that the federal government has overstepped its bounds in nearly every possible way. this country was set up so that states would independently run themselves with guidance and protection by the federal government. this has obviously changed. i severly dislike federal policies made by a president who was elected by a portion of the country far removed from my own.

so... i guess i'll just end with saying i am grateful for my public education through college (i'm actually still attending) and i fully intend to support any taxes intent on supporting public schooling once i start paying taxes. (my conclusion doesn't really have anything to do with the rest of my post, yay!)

[Robespierre]

i'm extremely intrigued by this thread, especially as a divergent (at least in my opinion) member of society educated in the public school system of california. my question is however, why did you pick public schools as the topic of this conversation? it could have just as easily been law enforcment, health care, our nation's infrastructure, military, utilities, or any other service that is primarily funded by taxpayer dollars. that is the main issue, isn't it?

Dang, at least someone was paying attention. Yes, my arguments could be applied to anything. I chose education because I personally feel it to be one of the most damaging instances of governmental waste and destruction.


i don't think the error of your arguement is in the "practical details" of abolishing public education, as someone earlier put it, but the fact that all your arguments stem from a support of anarchy. i think anarchy is impossible, even based on your description of no coercive government. (which in fact is not any definition of the word at all and a contradiction of terms, but i understand what you mean)

If you think my definition is a contradiction of what anarchy means, then I don't think you do understand what I mean. Demonstrate what you are telling me. How is lack of coercive government a contradiction of the term anarchy?


let's say that a powerless goevernment existed. (if it was not powerless then it would have power over at least one individual, and of course this would be coercion)

Why on earth would we talk about something so pointless as this? Why assume there is a government at all?


let's say that you and i live together in this society. each of us would have to produce everything we use and own, or we would have to enter into agreement with one another to share and trade. we seem to be doing fine on our own, but one winter you run out of food. now, the laws of this powerless goevernment say i have to sell you food at a reasonable price, but i'm an asshole and don't follow the laws of a powerless government becasue, well, what the hell are they going to do? all they citizens around us are also assholes and want to price-gouge you as well, so you end up buying some food from one of us. we have just coerced you into an action against your will.

How? What have you done to coerce me? For coercion to take place, on of you must have either threatened me with direct violence, or perhaps taken something from me against my will. If you own the food I am supposed to have needed, then you own that food. My need would not turn the food into my property, you still own it.

I always laugh at the various example stories of what would happen were the government not to exert violent force on people. Every day we have interactions with one another, without any particular interference from above, and most of those interactions go over perfectly smoothly. Another thing to consider, the nation-states of the world are in a state of anarchy with respect to one another. Yes, sometimes they have conflicts, but generally, life goes on. I don't suggest that people will magically become perfect when governments stop violating our fundamental rights, people will continue to act just as people always do. There will always be charities, religious or otherwise, people will always have a general sense duty to those around them, at the very least to inspire the same in their neighbors.


we have just become your ruling body. in essence, we are the government that now rules you.

I know I already questioned this, but I am really interested to hear how this can be so.


either that, or you can starve. or, you decide to rise up against me and demand your "fair share" of food. i tell you no and we end up fighting. now, whichever one of us has larger arms is the other's ruler.

Or, since there are no interferences in the commodities markets by governments, food becomes much much cheaper than it is right now, and this is not an issue at all.


agreements may be met and violence may be avoided, but unless every single desire we have is met in out agreement, one of us has been coerced into something we didn't want,

Coerced? "You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.."


and the tiniest form of government known is brought into existence. it is in the nature of man to enter into agreements with one another (if for nothing else than for needs of survival), and coercion is impossible to avoid.

Sure, the way you define it. Your working definition seems to suggest that coercion is preventing people from doing anything they want.


now if you'd like to talk about government size, i will agree that the federal government has overstepped its bounds in nearly every possible way. this country was set up so that states would independently run themselves with guidance and protection by the federal government. this has obviously changed. i severly dislike federal policies made by a president who was elected by a portion of the country far removed from my own.

Democracy is no better than totalitarianism. The majority has no more a right to limit your individual liberty than a king does.


so... i guess i'll just end with saying i am grateful for my public education through college (i'm actually still attending) and i fully intend to support any taxes intent on supporting public schooling once i start paying taxes. (my conclusion doesn't really have anything to do with the rest of my post, yay!)

So you don't actually pay any taxes then? Just wait 'till that first paycheck rolls around, or that first mortgage application. You will be treated to the hillarious spectacle of the absolute destruction of property rights in order to provide for an entity that is supposed to protect property rights.

[SheepDog]

Coerced? "You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.."
inconceivable.



Democracy is no better than totalitarianism. The majority has no more a right to limit your individual liberty than a king does.
A surprising number of people believe in the superiority of democracy as including the right of the majority to control the lives of everyone. I think this is one of the most offensive (and depressing) aspects of the current conservative swing.

[Robespierre]

A surprising number of people believe in the superiority of democracy as including the right of the majority to control the lives of everyone. I think this is one of the most offensive (and depressing) aspects of the current conservative swing.

The superiority of democracy is something we are drilled with from the earliest age on up. Of course, we are never told why this should be so. In the past the majority has chosen to outlaw inter-racial marriages, enact the fugative slave act, plenty of horrible things have been enacted by majorities.

Ask a democrat(one who believes in democracy), what happens when the majority chooses to enslave the minority. They don't generally have an answer for this, because they avoid recognizing that rights exist outside of government. So if the government decides that one group of peopel has no rights, then what can they say?

[Robespierre]

http://www.mises.org

http://www.lewrockwell.com

http://www.strike-the-root.com

http://www.blackcrayon.com/

Anyone interested in some outside reading on the topics mentioned should check out these websites. If you have specific questions about the ideas of Individualism(anarchy), pay special attention to blackcrayon.

[Dman]

I don’t think you’ll find many people here who would argue that the federal government is not too large and is perfect. Your idealistic principles are great, but they are just that – idealistic. At some point you have to reconcile ideals with reality. So you are voicing your opinions on what you see needs to be changed or is wrong with the present situation. No problem, naturally you have that right.

What I don’t understand is your logic regarding public school teachings. You seem to have a black and white view that public school is absolutely worthless. That’s a bold statement to make when you cannot back it up. Since you can’t back it up you seem to have taken it to the anti-government level, but let’s get back to the school system. What I’m understanding you say is that the public school system exists primarily to support a devious government. If that is what you are saying, then I think you give the government too much credit. Like I said earlier, individual people teach at these schools, with their own opinions and their own voices. Surely you don’t think they are all in on a conspiracy with the federal govt. In all reality I think you know your argument does not have legs to stand on, so you’re taking the anti-government stance because it’s easier to argue principles than facts.

You also seem to have romantic delusions that somehow you are outside the “system” and therefore can see what all of “us inside” the system cannot. Simply because we do not take the radical approach of being anti-everything does not mean we do not see the injustices and problems with our world and the power structures that exist, as well as attempts to brainwash (for lack of a better word) people to conformity. But as I’ve mentioned before, at some point you have to reconcile with reality. Surely you can see that even in a utopian dreamworld there has to exist some type of conformity in order for humans to coexist. It is our nature.

But then again perhaps I’m mistaken.

[Robespierre]

I don’t think you’ll find many people here who would argue that the federal government is not too large and is perfect. Your idealistic principles are great, but they are just that – idealistic. At some point you have to reconcile ideals with reality. So you are voicing your opinions on what you see needs to be changed or is wrong with the present situation. No problem, naturally you have that right.

What I don’t understand is your logic regarding public school teachings. You seem to have a black and white view that public school is absolutely worthless. That’s a bold statement to make when you cannot back it up.

What do I need to back up? Do you doubt that I actually hold that opinion?

By now you must have understood my whole point about the subjective value of education, and must understand that I am not going to try and convert you over to agreeing with my values. All I want is the right to not support your values.


Since you can’t back it up you seem to have taken it to the anti-government level, but let’s get back to the school system. What I’m understanding you say is that the public school system exists primarily to support a devious government.

I have stated more than once that those involved think they are doing good. There is no knowing conspiracy to control the minds of the youth. However, try to imagine Pat Robertson, if he were granted control over "public churches", my guess is he would think that his work in teaching the nation about religion with government money and laws was a good thing, and not devious.


If that is what you are saying, then I think you give the government too much credit. Like I said earlier, individual people teach at these schools, with their own opinions and their own voices. Surely you don’t think they are all in on a conspiracy with the federal govt. In all reality I think you know your argument does not have legs to stand on, so you’re taking the anti-government stance because it’s easier to argue principles than facts.

What argument would that be? The argument that you have no right to force me to subsidise the transmission of your values to my children?


You also seem to have romantic delusions that somehow you are outside the “system” and therefore can see what all of “us inside” the system cannot.

Please show me what gives you this idea. I think you are heading off into crazy-land now. You have absolutely no idea how to attack my ideas, because they are perfectly consistent, and are resorting to the typical ad-hom attacks.


Simply because we do not take the radical approach of being anti-everything does not mean we do not see the injustices and problems with our world and the power structures that exist, as well as attempts to brainwash (for lack of a better word) people to conformity. But as I’ve mentioned before, at some point you have to reconcile with reality.

Your reality? Because I don't think your reality corrolates with much in the "real" world.


Surely you can see that even in a utopian dreamworld there has to exist some type of conformity in order for humans to coexist. It is our nature.

What are you talking about? What is your definition of comformity, and what does it have to do with my moral objection to theft?


But then again perhaps I’m mistaken.

More than likely, I'd say.

[Killsteel]

Hey, Rob, you know you can have home schooling, right? And you can choose which school you send your child to. And you can 'enforce' your own morality to your children if you want to.

[Robespierre]

Hey, Rob, you know you can have home schooling, right? And you can choose which school you send your child to. And you can 'enforce' your own morality to your children if you want to.

Oh great, so I can just ignore that pesky notice in the mail about the property taxes being due?

[mgb]

Hey, Rob, you know you can have home schooling, right? And you can choose which school you send your child to. And you can 'enforce' your own morality to your children if you want to.

Actually he can't force his kids to do anything. He can offer room and board if he wants under the condition that the kids agree to be home schooled but technically he is under no obligation whatsoever to provide his offspring any sort of shelter or safety at all once they enter the world. He would only do so because it suits his best interests. Eventually, presumably once the kids could read and write, there would have to be some sort of contract between parents and child that would allow the household to function. Without the contract the child risks being thrown out on the street to sell his labour.

To "enforce" something is to do so with the inherent threat of violence and is therefore not an acceptable form of behavior.

[Killsteel]

Lol, oh yeah.....

I meant, you know, tell the child your views or whatever...


Oh great, so I can just ignore that pesky notice in the mail about the property taxes being due?

I'm sorry, you've confused me. What about property taxes?

[Robespierre]

Actually he can't force his kids to do anything. He can offer room and board if he wants under the condition that the kids agree to be home schooled but technically he is under no obligation whatsoever to provide his offspring any sort of shelter or safety at all once they enter the world. He would only do so because it suits his best interests.

You've been paying attention.


Eventually, presumably once the kids could read and write, there would have to be some sort of contract between parents and child that would allow the household to function. Without the contract the child risks being thrown out on the street to sell his labour.

I guess I spoke to soon. It's really funny sometimes how much people assume that human nature is not human nature, but a result of decisions made by government.


To "enforce" something is to do so with the inherent threat of violence and is therefore not an acceptable form of behavior.

non-aggression. It does not preclude all violence. Violence may be perfectly in order when defending oneself from a violent aggressor.

[Robespierre]

Lol, oh yeah.....

I meant, you know, tell the child your views or whatever...

So you are telling me that I can choose what my children should be taught, and do it myself, without ANY trouble from the state?

[Killsteel]

No, I'm simply saying you can home school your kids. Am I wrong here? Is there something I've missed?

And the government can't tell you what kind of morality you should teach your kids...

[Robespierre]

No, I'm simply saying you can home school your kids. Am I wrong here? Is there something I've missed?

Perhaps a point?

I have aknowledged that the state grudgingly allows some form of homeschooling, and evel allows some private schools. However, neither are totally free from interventions, and in both cases, the subject must still pay into the socialist education system.

[Killsteel]

Of couse not. The government has to make sure you're children are being educated, doesn't it?

And I don't know what to say about the whole tax thing....

[Robespierre]

Of couse not. The government has to make sure you're children are being educated, doesn't it?

No, of course not. Does the government need to insure that your children are worshiping the right god in the right manner?


And I don't know what to say about the whole tax thing....

What's not to know?

[mgb]

Of couse not. The government has to make sure you're children are being educated, doesn't it?

And I don't know what to say about the whole tax thing....

Even if you home school your kids you still have to pay taxes. Those taxes go to supporting publically funded schools. If you are home schooling your kids, money that in a normal situation would have gone to funding your child's education (if they were in public schools) is now funding some other child's education. There is no "opting out" of paying your tax bill so you are now forced to pay for some other child's education plus your child's education. If you don't pay your taxes you end up in jail.

As well, even under a home schooling situation your children are still expected to be able to pass a set of standarized tests and follow certain curiculum(?) goals. So now you are paying for the education of two children and the state still controls what you have to teach your children.

Under Robespierre's system, the government in under no obligation to make sure your children have an education and presumably there would not even be a government.

Even without home schooling you can still teach your kids a thing or two after school about life and morality and things like that...so it's really a moot point, the part about morality I mean.

*add edit*

For further clarification about morality I was responding to this...



And the government can't tell you what kind of morality you should teach your kids...

They can try and teach morality at schools, the very system creates a sense of morality. But when the kids get home parents are free to teach them whatever they want. If parents want to teach their kids that people with nice cars are good people they are free to. If people want to teach their kids that being cleanliness is next to godliness no one can stop them. This can happen outside of school and probably has more affect on kids that what they learn at/because of, school. If a parent chooses to teach their child a lesson about how the school and tax system is screwing them over and government shouldn't exist, they are free to do that too.

[Dman]

What do I need to back up? Do you doubt that I actually hold that opinion?

By now you must have understood my whole point about the subjective value of education, and must understand that I am not going to try and convert you over to agreeing with my values. All I want is the right to not support your values.



I have stated more than once that those involved think they are doing good. There is no knowing conspiracy to control the minds of the youth. However, try to imagine Pat Robertson, if he were granted control over "public churches", my guess is he would think that his work in teaching the nation about religion with government money and laws was a good thing, and not devious.



What argument would that be? The argument that you have no right to force me to subsidise the transmission of your values to my children?



Please show me what gives you this idea. I think you are heading off into crazy-land now. You have absolutely no idea how to attack my ideas, because they are perfectly consistent, and are resorting to the typical ad-hom attacks.



Your reality? Because I don't think your reality corrolates with much in the "real" world.



What are you talking about? What is your definition of comformity, and what does it have to do with my moral objection to theft?



More than likely, I'd say.

I apologize, did I touch a nerve?

I’ll try & tone it down. I am not asking that you try to convert me, I’m trying to see your point of view so I can better understand where you’re coming from. I want to understand your logic. But you seem to have the idea that because you do not agree with an aspect of our society, the entire society is flawed and illegal. A blanket statement such as that generally requires some good support if you would like others to understand your POV.

It’s a cop-out to say “you are wrong because that’s my opinion”. Show me why I’m wrong. Convince me. I’m willing to listen to reasonable responses. Otherwise why are you posting? Just to preach your opinions? That isn’t very interesting for the rest of us. I think your values are wrong, mine are right, blah blah blah. The reason I’m trying to push your buttons is not to fight, but to get more clarity. Instead I’m getting more anti-gov propaganda. Please provide something we can sink our teeth into.

I will borrow your religious analogies and state that this conversation is very similar to arguing for factual proof that God exists to a religious person. Your arguments are based on your opinions but your evidence is shaky. I have an open mind and can be persuaded to see other people’s points of view, but they have to convince me with solid, rational evidence. It’s easy to point out flaws in a system & critique it; the difficulty lies in providing a viable alternative. Saying that public schools are an abomination and the answer is to eliminate government is so wide ranging we could spend years discussing it.

You started to point out what was wrong with public schools, but I have yet to hear specifically what is wrong and HOW to address those issues. Something slightly more specific than “I disagree” that schools teach people to read, and the solution for teaching people to read is to get rid of government. If the best arguments you have are blanket statements and simply your opinions, then I guess I have nothing further to add.

[Robespierre]

Even if you home school your kids you still have to pay taxes. Those taxes go to supporting publically funded schools. If you are home schooling your kids, money that in a normal situation would have gone to funding your child's education (if they were in public schools) is now funding some other child's education. There is no "opting out" of paying your tax bill so you are now forced to pay for some other child's education plus your child's education. If you don't pay your taxes you end up in jail.

Spot on.


As well, even under a home schooling situation your children are still expected to be able to pass a set of standarized tests and follow certain curiculum(?) goals. So now you are paying for the education of two children and the state still controls what you have to teach your children.

Again, right on.


Under Robespierre's system, the government in under no obligation to make sure your children have an education and presumably there would not even be a government.

Bingo.


Even without home schooling you can still teach your kids a thing or two after school about life and morality and things like that...so it's really a moot point, the part about morality I mean.

The morality part is not at all moot. The immorality of public schools comes from the theft they commit to fund themselves.

[Salad]

i read some of the information on the websites you listed, including blackcrayon. what was once an extremely intriguing thread quickly became extremely un-intriguing. i'll quickly explain a few miscommunications between us then leave you with a last thought or two. i don't expect to reply to this thread again.

my contradiction of terms was not between anarchy and a non-coercive government, but between non-coercive and government. it is an oxy-moron. as far as me using the word coerce a lot, it was because you hadn't given me the word exploitation yet, or i possibly missed it. i was using a broad understanding of the word which would include much more than threats of violence or fraud. pier pressure is a form of coercion that involves neither. as far as my example, that was just a bunch of trash attempting to demonstrate that (coercive) government, whether official or not, is unavoidable. it was unsuccessful, i didn't put much energy into it.

now, the main purpose of my last post was to say that anarchy is impossible. as such, the rest of your argument has nothing to stand on. what is ironic is you chose to support your theory of non-government by showing the waste of public education. if anarchy were even slightly possible, the public would have to be highly educated and share the same basic values of rights and responsibilities.

i enjoyed the judgment of me you included at the end of the post. you assume i hold the same attachment to material goods as you, the same value of property rights as you, and the assumption that i will have a mortgage. the first two i obviously hold different values. the last i will avoid if at all possible, i don't believe in the american dream. my ideal world would be one in which i were allowed to design (architecture) exactly as i wish with only room, board and travel as compensation. i think a man's work (his art) is much more important to him that anything gained in return.

finally, (this turned out longer than i expected) i would like to thank you for subsidizing my tuition. unfortunately, you live in a flawed society that you believe violates your rights. there are a few options available to you, fantasizing about an ideal anarchy is one of them. it won't do anything to change your present condition, but you are certainly allowed to if you wish. i'm sure there are more productive alternatives, maybe you'll find one.

[Robespierre]

i read some of the information on the websites you listed, including blackcrayon. what was once an extremely intriguing thread quickly became extremely un-intriguing. i'll quickly explain a few miscommunications between us then leave you with a last thought or two. i don't expect to reply to this thread again.

Pity.


my contradiction of terms was not between anarchy and a non-coercive government, but between non-coercive and government. it is an oxy-moron.

Government does not necessarily imply coercion. In our modern usage of the word, it typically does though.


as far as me using the word coerce a lot, it was because you hadn't given me the word exploitation yet, or i possibly missed it.

Are you not allowed to use words that I haven't written yet?


i was using a broad understanding of the word which would include much more than threats of violence or fraud.

That fits just fine with my understanding of the word coerce.


pier pressure is a form of coercion that involves neither.

And would thus not be described as coercive but persuasive.


as far as my example, that was just a bunch of trash attempting to demonstrate that (coercive) government, whether official or not, is unavoidable. it was unsuccessful, i didn't put much energy into it.

Umm, good... I guess?


now, the main purpose of my last post was to say that anarchy is impossible. as such, the rest of your argument has nothing to stand on.

Well shit. I didn't realize that. You have saved me a lot of trouble.


what is ironic is you chose to support your theory of non-government by showing the waste of public education. if anarchy were even slightly possible, the public would have to be highly educated and share the same basic values of rights and responsibilities.

Why?


i enjoyed the judgment of me you included at the end of the post. you assume i hold the same attachment to material goods as you, the same value of property rights as you, and the assumption that i will have a mortgage.

Yeah, that was a mistake. I can tell that you are a lot more enlightened and nobler than I.


the first two i obviously hold different values.

Obviously. Every human being has a unique set of values. This is why it is infinitely foolish to impose your concept of value upon anyone else.


the last i will avoid if at all possible, i don't believe in the american dream. my ideal world would be one in which i were allowed to design (architecture) exactly as i wish with only room, board and travel as compensation. i think a man's work (his art) is much more important to him that anything gained in return.

Well, I think you are full of shit. But that's the best part. It doesn't matter what I think about your dreams and values, so long as I am not in government. If I am in the government, then it matters very much what I think, because with the turn of a pen, I can destroy your life.

Pauper-architect. Interesting.


finally, (this turned out longer than i expected) i would like to thank you for subsidizing my tuition. unfortunately, you live in a flawed society that you believe violates your rights. there are a few options available to you, fantasizing about an ideal anarchy is one of them. it won't do anything to change your present condition, but you are certainly allowed to if you wish. i'm sure there are more productive alternatives, maybe you'll find one.

I appreciate the thought. But I would take it all back in a heartbeat if I could.

You left without explaining why anarchy "won't work". You may well be right, I don't know, but I will never know if you don't tell me.

[crule81]

By using Bill O'Reilly "logic", one example from my own experience creates a universal truth:

My mother taught English at a public school for 10 years before I was born. However, I have never set foot in a public institution of learning as a student. Despite the fact that she was a public school teacher, she believed that a public school education was not good enough for me. (That sounds snobby, doesn't it. But that's simply what she believed.)

I do think that most public schools do have trouble dealing with advanced students. Its seems, however, that they have at least progressed in offering advanced classes since I was that age. Most high schools, I believe, now offer many AP courses at least.

[Dman]

By using Bill O'Reilly "logic", one example from my own experience creates a universal truth:

My mother taught English at a public school for 10 years before I was born. However, I have never set foot in a public institution of learning as a student. Despite the fact that she was a public school teacher, she believed that a public school education was not good enough for me. (That sounds snobby, doesn't it. But that's simply what she believed.)

I do think that most public schools do have trouble dealing with advanced students. Its seems, however, that they have at least progressed in offering advanced classes since I was that age. Most high schools, I believe, now offer many AP courses at least.

Depends on the high school. In the Portland school district, there is a high school (in low income neighborhood of course) that offers a grand total of one AP course. In the same district, there are other high schools that offer at least a dozen.

You have to look at each individual school. There are many public schools that far exceed standards in private schools and vice versa. Then you have schools that excel in some things and suck at others. Depends on your priorities.

[Robespierre]

I do think that most public schools do have trouble dealing with advanced students. Its seems, however, that they have at least progressed in offering advanced classes since I was that age. Most high schools, I believe, now offer many AP courses at least.

They do provide all sorts of classes. In the larger and richer school districts they provide magnet schools and all sorts of advanced programs. This is not the problem.

The problem stems from a government promotion of one line of thought as superior to other philosophies. I am not suggesting that no one should be allowed to do this, just that it is bad for governments to do this. That is why I invoked the example of religion. People seem capable of realizing that government involvement in religion, one way or the other, is a very bad thing. However, when applied to something just as important in determining one's outlook on life and one's place in society, education, people start to make excuses for imposing a system that supports their views upon all in society.

[Lucas]

Teachers in public schools must teach to the lowest students in the class. They tend to make the classes just hard enough for them, raising their level of education and dumbing down the education of the more advanced students.

I was bored out of my mind in middle and high school. The public education that I experienced was nothing more than subsidized child care.

[Robespierre]

From and article on lewrockwell.com by Fred Reed

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed52.html

Some years back, while laboring in the grim vineyards of police correspondence for a metropolitan daily, I appeared as a guest lecturer before a class of undergraduates in criminology at the University of Maryland. The idea of a major in criminology struck me as peculiar, but apparently there was one. I was to explain to the students the realities of police work.

The adventure was a revelation. The kids, a scruffy bunch dressed in student tatterdemalion, heavy on minorities, were as lacking in polish as in grammar. Their intelligence seemed low. They had strong, simple prejudices instead of ideas, and no inclination to examine them. The intellectual level was that of a rural high school. They appeared to be bored. They had no business in a university.

Why, I wondered, were we forcing these bedraggled beings to feign a scholarship which appealed to them not at all, which they at once endured and degraded – and that at great expense to the public? Why do we make this burdensome imposition on people who do not want schooling, do not need it, and do not understand what it is? It is wrongheaded.

I submit that it makes no sense to inflict on the unprepared and incapable a pretense of a university education for no other reason that to further a pretense of equality. What real purpose is served? And yet this forcing of the unneeded on the undesirous runs through all schooling in America.

It makes little more sense to require that the intelligent but uninterested study what they do not like – usually, the liberal arts. Doing so accomplishes nothing. An engineer forced to read Blake is merely an annoyed engineer. He will never touch a book of poetry in his academic afterlife. There is no reason why he should.

I think that we ought to abandon utterly any requirement that vocational students waste time on the liberal arts. Schools of engineering, criminology, and business management are just that, vocational schools, nothing more. They may be of a high order. Graduating in electrical engineering from a school of the first rank is not easy. Yet the document awarded is not a diploma but a trade-school certificate. So is a degree in chemistry or ophthalmology. All are evidence of training, not education. If a student of chemistry wants to study history, and many might, he should certainly be enabled to do so. But it should not be required.

Universities usually defend requirements in the liberal arts on many grounds in which few believe. I suggest that we cease to defend them at all. A liberal schooling should be a luxury, like a yacht, and should be regarded as such. The arts are not for many and should be forced on none. They require much and exact a price. Only the intelligent can profit by them, and of the intelligent, few want them. Why not make them voluntary?

I now hear of departments of English literature which award degrees to students who have never read Shakespeare or Chaucer. The students of course say that such authors are “irrelevant.” The literate respond with horror, leaping to such barricades as may be found in publications on coated paper.

But the students are right. Shakespeare is irrelevant. More accurately, Shakespeare is irrelevant to anyone who believes that he is irrelevant. You do not get a federal job by knowing Chaucer, or having heard of Chaucer. Those forced to study writers, or philosophy, or history they don’t want to study will gain nothing. Those who do want to study them lose much, because the courses will often be of sufficiently little rigor as not to oppress the bored.

Yet there are intelligent young of inquiring nature and breadth of mind to whom liberal studies appeal – students actually attracted to reading Aeschylus in the original, and Asian history and the Elder Edda, who want to study Fragonard and Watteau. Let them. By so doing they harm no one. Being turbulent adolescents under the influence of evil hormones, they will need direction. Nonetheless if a student chooses such schooling, knowing what he is choosing, it is his business.

It is not just in the universities that we force the young to study things that mean nothing to them and will have no influence on their lives. As soundings of the public monotonously reveal, a minority of the population is in possession of such arcane information as the century in which the Civil War occurred, or who fought in World War I, or where Italy might be found on a map. Things are yet worse: Far more people than we admit can barely read. Most who can, don’t. The United States is not the well-schooled nation that it seems to believe that it is.

The public schools, say some, have failed to such a degree as to make their continuance rationally unjustifiable. Yes, they fail, but why? To some extent it is because they are expected to do what cannot be done – to educate the uneducable. For reasons of dizzy idealism, we pretend that all students have the wit to learn. Thus we suffer high-sounding programs like No Child Left Behind. You cannot ensure that no child will be left behind. You can try to ensure that no child will get ahead. To this we incline.

As in the universities, the difficulty is that we refuse to separate the able from the rest, yet insist on attempting to teach to the uninterested things that they do not want to know. If this effort bore fruit, it might be justified: A disputable case can be made that the historically literate are better equipped to vote, etc. But it is easily demonstrated that the majority do not learn much. Why bother?

A wise course, and therefore one impossible of realization, might be to recognize that schooling is inherently hierarchical and not susceptible to populist leveling. A beginning would be to make all study voluntary beyond, say, the sixth or eighth grade. By then all would have learned to read who were ever going to learn. Below the university level, private schools unregulated by government are the only way to let people study the subjects they choose at the level of rigor that they want. Freedom from federal intrusion is crucial. Nothing else can prevent resentful minorities from imposing invertebrate standards on all.

Fat chance.

[Dman]

I don't know for sure, but it seems I've heard that certain countries in Europe actually channel students into vocational schools, similar to what I read in the above post. Students interests/skills are determined at an earlier age, and their future schooling/training is based upon this. Is that correct? If so, are they successful?

[booyalab]

The Peter Principle is VERY evident in American public education.

[mgb]

The Peter Principle is VERY evident in American public education.

Which part? I can see what you mean if you are talking about the beauracracy of education...the part not done in schools but offices, planning, budgeting, organizing the schools...the SJ stuff.

If you mean the work done at schools, I am not so sure about it. I think the people in contact with students probably have the best intentions but have to muddle through the work created by those above them. They never really go anywhere and thusly don't really "rise" to anything.

[wezl]

The problem with education is that it serves the wrong purpose. Whatever politicians say it is for, it is really just patronage to employ a bunch of people who will vote to maintain their jobs, which maintains the bureacracy and politicians. As far as educating people, the Republicans tried that back in the 1950s and what they discovered was that education "liberalizes" people and makes they question and think for themselves. The result was the 1960s, with Free Speech Movements, Civil Rights Protests, Anti-War demonstrations, etc. The Republicans will never make that mistake again. (actually, since they don't study history, they are doomed to repeat it)

[songbird36]

What a bizarre opinion.

I'm not even going to engage in a response..

[Dman]

I will respond, if nothing else, just to rephrase what I said to Robespierre way back when…

We are taught to read and write in school. Whenever this occurs, it provides the ability and means to write down your opinions and the ability to read others’ opinions. This gives you the means with which to make up your own mind and communicate your ideas. Although there may indeed be some forms of brainwashing evident in schools, there are still avenues and subjects taught that enable one to see through any attempts to do so. For this one reason alone education is not worthless, and there are countless more examples.

Perhaps a better phrase to voice one’s discontent with the educational process would be that there aren’t enough alternative viewpoints presented in institutions of education. However we must keep in mind that schools have to leave some of the critical thinking up to the students, it is simply not feasible to provide every aspect, unbiased or not, of education to each individual student and to meet each student’s individual needs.

My argument is that school gives us the tools to ultimately think for ourselves, including the ability to decide that we distrust the very institutions that taught us in the first place.

Robespierre’s response was simply “I disagree” that schools teach people to read. Not a real compelling defense, if you ask me.