On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
What is this post? See this is what I mean by Socialists assuming and making asses of themselves. As in the analogy I gave in my first post. Because I am against the State providing 'education' therefore, I must be against science, math, etc. etc. How absurd can one get? Because I do not want the State to grow food, therefore I want everyone to starve. This is your reasoning. In actuality it is the complete opposite. Because of my love of advancement and progress, I precisely do not want the State involved whatsoever.
If you had read my post you would not have written what you did.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
You sounds conspiracy theorist:
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
On your point about science and math, unless your parents are, say, physicists, who's going to teach you special relativity or evolution or integration by parts or Taylor series, in a competent and correct way? Sure, you can read it off a textbook, but it's much better to learn off both a textbook and a qualified science or math teacher.
Yes, it should be free. It should always be in the countrys best interest to educate its people. In Norway we pay $80 per semester, basically a fee for student ID card etc.
On March 14 2012 00:07 Mafs wrote: Yes, a lot of people are home schooled because parents want their children to follow an agenda, which is bad. But when done correctly the most intelligent people come out successful from homeschooling.
That is a backwards conclusion. On average, (and for the average student) home schooling is terribly inefficient. The exception to this rule is students that are not average (on either side of the range), who can especially benefit from a personally tailored curriculum. (e.g. a public school typically is not equiped to deal with students with a very high IQ, a student with a very high IQ may therefore benefit from home schooling. Especially since he/she is more likely to have highly educated parents.)
On March 14 2012 00:08 Euronyme wrote: Just for the record. I'm pretty sure every university in the world requires good marks for you to be accepted. You have to send in your high school grades / do a test and then the uni accepts the best.
This is not entirely true. Dutch universities will (have to legally) accept any student with a VWO (highschool) degree.
To catch here, is that the Netherlands has a tiered high school system. VWO is the highest tier of this system, completing it means you already among the upper 10-20% of the population in terms of learning potential.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to homeschool these millions of kids?
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
Are you kidding? From the 70s to now on Economics courses are all about classical liberalism. We saw where it led us.
Hmmm, yes, that is why there is no Income Tax / internal taxation, no regulations, free-banking, and competition in currency...I can't think of any country with free-trade (you know, that thing written about by the likes of Francis Quesnay, Richard Cobden, etc.), etc.
Most of the world's economies today are Corporatist / Fascist. There is not one Laissez-Faire economy in the world today.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
Maybe he thinks if you're the type of person with a victorian era style of thinking regarding education, you may also subscribe to the victorian view on women in the home?
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
Are you kidding? From the 70s to now on Economics courses are all about classical liberalism. We saw where it led us.
Actually, in my experience most economics courses start with free market models, simply because they are the easiest to understand. They are the cleanest and simplest, requiring only the use of grade 9 math.
Then it goes on to discuss more complicated models, based on the fact that some of the assumption of the free market models are wrong, such as rational expectations being unrealistic, and market failures due to information asymmetry, like moral hazard, agency problems etc.
Usually there's a discussion of other market failures like monopolies and externalities, etc.
This generally a sensible way to teach, start with a simple free market model, show that the assumptions can't be true in reality, then go to the more complicated models as a result of the simple model being wrong.
Some people only pay attention to the first part and not the second.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
Maybe he thinks if you're the type of person with a victorian era style of thinking regarding education, you may also subscribe to the victorian view on women in the home?
Well, the pair of you have shown a propensity for assumption.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
Are you kidding? From the 70s to now on Economics courses are all about classical liberalism. We saw where it led us.
Hmmm, yes, that is why there is no Income Tax / internal taxation, no regulations, free-banking, and competition in currency...I can't think of any country with free-trade (you know, that thing written about by the likes of Francis Quesnay, Richard Cobden, etc.), etc.
Most of the world's economies today are Corporatist / Fascist. There is not one Laissez-Faire economy in the world today.
The invisible hand has its limits. And not believing it is foolish. Even a bachelor in Economics should be enough to understand that.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
Maybe he thinks if you're the type of person with a victorian era style of thinking regarding education, you may also subscribe to the victorian view on women in the home?
Well, the pair of you have shown a propensity for assumption.
What other alternatives exist for dealing with a victorian reactionary?
I pay alot of money for my schooling (university), and honestly wouldn't have it any other way. I'm commiting around 8 years of my life to post secondary, the fact that I have to pay for it makes it so much more important to me. I also appreciate the fact that most of the people at my school aren't being givin a free ride, they had to work hard to get where they are just like I did.
That being said K-12 should always be free everywhere, without learning basic skills associated with those years, you're not likely to go anywhere.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
Are you kidding? From the 70s to now on Economics courses are all about classical liberalism. We saw where it led us.
Hmmm, yes, that is why there is no Income Tax / internal taxation, no regulations, free-banking, and competition in currency...I can't think of any country with free-trade (you know, that thing written about by the likes of Francis Quesnay, Richard Cobden, etc.), etc.
Most of the world's economies today are Corporatist / Fascist. There is not one Laissez-Faire economy in the world today.
The invisible hand has its limits. And not believing it is foolish. Even a bachelor in Economics should be enough to understand that.
I don't even like Smith, who wasn't even Laissez-Faire. No one has ever made the argument that laissez-faire is perfect. The argument is that it is both morally superior and economically superior to any other. It's like blaming the shopkeeper for rising prices instead of the Government printing fiat notes. Your perception belies the truth.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
He probably isn't implying either. It's completely unrealistic and idiotic to think that every child in America could be home-schooled. It would cause a complete breakdown in societal structure. For every teaching job that disappeared, there would be 10 men or women (it doesn't matter) who wouldn't be working anymore because they're forced to stay at home to make sure their kid gets an education.
The whole "man goes to work while woman stays at home" or vice versa model doesn't work in today's society. For the most part, both partners in a lower/middle-class home are required to work, and especially so if they have children.
Santorum may be able to afford homeschooling for his children, but the vast majority of Americans cannot. It's just not realistic and it's insensitive of him to denounce public schooling since he is part of the 1% who can afford to do it.
Like it or not, public education is the best option we have. It's not perfect, and a lot of the time it's damn inefficient, but it gives kids the social structure they need to grow emotionally and (hopefully, this depends on the teachers) teaches them how to learn so they can succeed in higher education.
I think education should be free but it should be limited by smartness and skill so that anybody can get all the education he wants as long as he's good enough in this particular subject. Of course having connections would give you advantages but you could take care of that and it would be hard to actually find out how is good and talented at something and who jsut practiced alot or had luck but I'm sure you could find out.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
You assume so much you deserve to have your mouth sewn shut. Maybe the shit will start spewing out of the intended end.
Great answer. Nice reasoning, clear arguments and a good conclusion. Gratz. Now, home schooling is indeed ridiculous. Why? Because parents are not teachers. And as much as you look upon teachers, it's their job. And it would require the women (i guess?) to stay at home to teach to their kid. And if the mom is really religious she would maybe skip evolution, won't she? There could be so many drifts...
Objectively, those are assumptions. There was no argument in my post, I was simply pointing out what is obvious. Most homeschooling is not done for religious reasons. That's simply a stereotype. Teachers teach at an average students pace. Those who are below average struggle, are left behind, and could do well with attention tailored to their specific needs. Those above average find themselves bored with how mundane their classes are. They become restless. Their true potential is being squandered as opposed to fostered. Often times, their are parents of great intellect who decide their child would do better under their own tutelage, or perhaps from a private tutor. They have this right. Your backhanded attempt to bring women's rights into this is shameful.
Shameful indeed, then tell me who is going to home school this millions of kids?
Are you suggesting that women don't have the right to stay home and teach their children? Or are you implying that men don't? I'm not really sure which, but either way its incredibly sexist.
Maybe he thinks if you're the type of person with a victorian era style of thinking regarding education, you may also subscribe to the victorian view on women in the home?
Well, the pair of you have shown a propensity for assumption.
What other alternatives exist for dealing with a victorian reactionary?
Perhaps I'll speculate based off of assumptions myself for a bit. I'd venture a guess that the pair of you fell into the "partisan trap" where one subscribes to the ideology that their are exactly two sides to political discourse. "Mine" and "Their's". You then go on to assume that anyone who disagree's with you on something must necessarily be a part of that "evil side" and must necessarily disagree with you on every last issue. Because I demonstrated support for home schooling, and the right to do it, you have assumed that I am sexist. Am I racist as well? Perhaps a homophobe? Generally extremists and radicals draw these kind of absurd conclusions.
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
The reason why people need more education now then they did many years ago is because the world gets more complicated and technology gets more complicated. Your example of the Human Genome Project is something that needs intellectuals such as academic biologists.
Homeschooling is generally great way to shut yourself off to different perspectives and critical reasoning.
You appear to have a extreme right-wing bias, and you're entire argument for schools indoctrinating children is because schools don't exclusively teach right-wing dogma, but teach also things such as science, math, critical thinking, language, etc.
You also make it sound like universities are some sort of ponzi scheme sucking money from government subsidies to fund the extravagant lifestyles of their benefactors. In actuality, universities use their money for research, to build faculties for teaching and research, and to pay academics (which aren't as richly compensated than some of private industry counterparts). Universities provide a lot more public good and most private companies.
What is this post? See this is what I mean by Socialists assuming and making asses of themselves. As in the analogy I gave in my first post. Because I am against the State providing 'education' therefore, I must be against science, math, etc. etc. How absurd can one get? Because I do not want the State to grow food, therefore I want everyone to starve. This is your reasoning. In actuality it is the complete opposite. Because of my love of advancement and progress, I precisely do not want the State involved whatsoever.
If you had read my post you would not have written what you did.
It saddens me that due to the increasing nature of the State monopolizing 'education' that classical liberalism is completely ignored. It is as if I am talking through everyone.
Um,I don't know everything about the university's in other country's,but they way it works here the body's that regulate everything are completely separate from the state government,like for instance the judicial system. While yes these are founded by the government by the tax payers money,the conspiracy theory of the government owning the university's is completely ridiculous because they are not the only source of income. The way it works here if you enroll a university here its completely free.If you fail a subject however or didn't meat the requirements to attend the exam you need to retake the subject and pay for it.The amount you pay is calculated by the point index of a subject and the net worth of a point is 120,00 kunas for a grade average of 3,4 to 3,6(grade average can be from 1,5(lowest) to 5,0(highest)),the net worth of a point becomes more of less depending on your average grade score. This year I had to retake thermodynamics again which cost me about 720,00 kunas(that's like 127 $ I think). So all in all,I think its not the best system,but I think its pretty fair considering your first shot is free from all costs and if you fail something and have to retake it you than pay for it. The best students are therefore rewarded by "free education" and the ones that are not excellent need to pay.
Oh forgot to mention one other thing,you can retake a subject only once.There are 4 exams for each subject per year,if you fail the exam 8 times you are banned from that university for life.That means you can't stick around at a university indefinitely EVEN if you have money.
The university's that are considered "the best" here are FER(faculty of el. engineering),FSB(faculty of mechanical engineering and naval architecture),Architecture,Law and Medicine. They are all public university's and are way more rigorous and the quality of education is considered better than in any other private uni in this country.