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.
WTF? When did I imply that every child should be homeschooled? And the rest of that. I defended the right to choose homeschooling, nothing else. Where does all this other shit come from?
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 to 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.
Not at all. It's just that if you need someone to stay at home to teach their kid we know that in most cases it would be the woman. I don't see why you relate it to racist, homophobic or whatsoever. The woman thing was directly related to home schooling.
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.
Laissez-Faire if all we were don't is selling the same type of vegetables to each other.
It doesn't work in the complex and interconnected world we live in where there are information asymmetries in the underwriting of financial derivatives, agency problems such as losses by banks being borne by taxpayers, too-big-to-fail banks gambling billions in financial instruments like credit default swaps (a bet that another party will default), while neither the quants working at the banks nor the academics understand some of the math required to even price these exotic derivatives, so how can rational expectations possibly hold? The assumptions of Laissez-Faire cannot possibly hold, even if there are 0 government regulation.
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
You've got to note that you're talking about university education here. So if we consider the postive externalities of university education, the marginal external benefit derived from university versus, say, primary is much less. That and university education is harder to provide which makes goverments think twice about paying for university as compared to primary education, being free also encourages waste ie. people not paying attention, coming out with degrees but being useless. There aren't also enough jobs for grads to go around sadly. I read a story of how chinese plumbers earn more than fresh grads cause they're so many of them.
University isn't often worth it to governments, I don't think it should be free, but it should be affordable to almost all. Primary education on th other hand is very important. I'd like university to be free but it wouldn't be practical.
EDIT: On the topic of school being indoc centres and places which instill certain dogmas, kinda off-topic isn't it? I wouldn't consider it "an education" Proper school, on the other hand, should be free (or close to)
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
That doesn't happen... unless you live in one of those states that teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
On March 13 2012 15:48 TanTzoR wrote: In the UK the gov has triple the fees. Basically if you entered this year you will pay 10k for a bachelor, if you enter next year you will pay 30k. Actually a free education at a uni level is not that good. But it shouldn't be absurdly high like in the US or soon in the UK. For instance in France the unis are for bad students, the good ones go to high ranked business and engineering schools.
france universities are obviously not the same as US universities then -.- apples to oranges
On March 14 2012 01:02 taldarimAltar wrote: You've got to note that you're talking about university education here. So if we consider the postive externalities of university education, the marginal external benefit derived from university versus, say, primary is much less. That and university education is harder to provide which makes goverments think twice about paying for university as compared to primary education, being free also encourages waste ie. people not paying attention, coming out with degrees but being useless. There aren't also enough jobs for grads to go around sadly. I read a story of how chinese plumbers earn more than fresh grads cause they're so many of them.
University isn't often worth it to governments, I don't think it should be free, but it should be affordable to almost all. Primary education on th other hand is very important. I'd like university to be free but it wouldn't be practical
Why wouldn't it be practical? It's not like it's not a huge investment regardless. You're missing out on lost wages. You could've been working and making money, instead you're studying something useless making +-0. It works very well in a lot of countries.
On March 13 2012 15:48 TanTzoR wrote: In the UK the gov has triple the fees. Basically if you entered this year you will pay 10k for a bachelor, if you enter next year you will pay 30k. Actually a free education at a uni level is not that good. But it shouldn't be absurdly high like in the US or soon in the UK. For instance in France the unis are for bad students, the good ones go to high ranked business and engineering schools.
france universities are obviously not the same as US universities then -.- apples to oranges
Never said so. But the engineering and business schools which are among the best in the world are still way cheapen than the US unis.
On March 14 2012 00:14 smokeyhoodoo wrote: [quote]
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 to 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.
Not at all. It's just that if you need someone to stay at home to teach their kid we know that in most cases it would be the woman. I don't see why you relate it to racist, homophobic or whatsoever. The woman thing was directly related to home schooling.
Perhaps it would be the woman, that is the parent's business. It wasn't directly related it was just kind of a dazed and confused way to accuse me of being sexist when it really isn't pertinent to women's rights at all.
school should be free.. Belgium is the land with the highest tax-rate in the world. At first you'll be like wtf that is terrible .. but it also has some cool benefits, for example i only had to pay 100€ for an entire year of coleage.
But even better, my friend had to pay 500€ but he got all kinds of reductions so the state refunded him 1500€ so he basicle made 1000€ simply by going to school ofc this wasnt the state's intention, but w/e
"You couldn't let an individual decide, because after all he would make the wrong choice."
That is why public (free is a terrible misnomer) education is so corrupt and such a failure.
The tone of that speech suggests that Friedman was arguing against public education.
However, the words of the speech suggest the opposite.
So what side is he on?
It's not that simple. There aren't only two "sides" to be on. He's arguing that the social-elite theory of "molding" children into good citizens is wrong, and that education should be geared toward teaching certain factual subjects according to objective standards, but not to indoctrinate students into any political or social ideology.
When you get out of scientific subjects everything is ideology. The kid is impregnated by ideology at home as well. The only thing you can do about it is provide him with critical thinking.
Universities should not be free because they are not necessary in order to get a job. My dad never went to college, and while we're not rich, he's a foreman in an auto-plant here. For those saying Universities are overly expenses, there are tons of scholarships that you can apply for and FASFA is a huge help, I know without those plus an a scholarship from my university I could never afford to attend. I'm not saying university is as affordable as it could be, but university is a choice and part of that choice is figuring out how to pay to attend, and choosing a university based of what you can afford.
On March 14 2012 00:19 TanTzoR wrote: [quote] 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 to 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.
Not at all. It's just that if you need someone to stay at home to teach their kid we know that in most cases it would be the woman. I don't see why you relate it to racist, homophobic or whatsoever. The woman thing was directly related to home schooling.
Perhaps it would be the woman, that is the parent's business. It wasn't directly related it was just kind of a dazed and confused way to accuse me of being sexist when it really isn't pertinent to women's rights at all.
Studies have proven that, for instance, in a case of a disable child it will be by a huge margin the woman who will stay home to take care of their kid. Why? Mainly because the dad makes more money. Why would it be different for home schooling?
Um, nothing is free. We all pay for our education via taxes. Unless you are very poor, or an illegal immigrant, in which case richer (or more legal) people than you pay for your education.
Now what we are really asking is should paying for education be mandatory for all people regardless of whether they use it or want to use it, and then whether it is okay for it to be mandatory for the rich to pay for the education of the poor.
Most of us will still probably say yes, but it's important to really understand what we are talking about here.