Education is Not a Right

[vroom]

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Sorry, I’m not certain what you mean, but if you are saying that I deny the existence of use of force in society, I don’t. That’s one of the few things I’m convinced about. There will never be a society where people are not forced to comply to something.
[/quote]

One of the questions that some of these people don’t seem to want to face is what makes a society? What thing do we as individuals have to give up to be part of a society? We give up some rights, some freedoms, and accept the will of others when it falls within the rules that govern the operation of our society.

It’s great to wish for feudalism, or perhaps a place on the planet that remains undiscovered, but for now, as the population increases, we are forced to accept more and more impositions on our lives to keep society functioning. Say hello to taxes and services.

Those that are unwilling are forced to comply. If society becomes vastly unreasonable maybe there will be a revolution of some type… but I don’t think public education will be the issue to cause it.

[orion]

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:
I could answer that in detail, however let me ask you a question.

Why is it so hard for you, assuming that you believe in public education that that requires that you force other people at gunpoint to serve you?

Sorry, I’m not certain what you mean, but if you are saying that I deny the existence of use of force in society, I don’t. That’s one of the few things I’m convinced about. There will never be a society where people are not forced to comply to something.

[/quote]

Sure but what are they forced to comply with?

Not to hurt others or to serve other?

Therefore again, do you accept that the right to an “education” must result in the duty of others to provide it and that you are willing to force them to provide it.

[orion]

[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
Bastiat has you number…

Having a clever argument on a web site doesn’t mean a fuck of a lot. If it did, I’d be a king myself.[/quote]

You think?

[orion]

[quote]vroom wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Sorry, I’m not certain what you mean, but if you are saying that I deny the existence of use of force in society, I don’t. That’s one of the few things I’m convinced about. There will never be a society where people are not forced to comply to something.

One of the questions that some of these people don’t seem to want to face is what makes a society? What thing do we as individuals have to give up to be part of a society? We give up some rights, some freedoms, and accept the will of others when it falls within the rules that govern the operation of our society.
[/quote]

And yet we face those questions and have a consistent logical system that provides answers.

You know that, otherwise you would not avoid to get into an argument at all costs.

But now, that we have seen that welfare was more efficient in Victorian England and crime rates were infinitely lower could we at least agree that laisser faire capitalism, free trade and personal responsibility led to a society that was in many ways better than ours even though it had much less resources?

Since you are all for people looking beyond their ideologies.

[vroom]

[quote]orion wrote:
But now, that we have seen that welfare was more efficient in Victorian England and crime rates were infinitely lower could we at least agree that laisser faire capitalism, free trade and personal responsibility led to a society that was in many ways better than ours even though it had much less resources?

Since you are all for people looking beyond their ideologies.
[/quote]

No, you are still slapping an ideology on top of the study. Also, as you know, better is a very subjective term.

People in that era were different than people today. We know a lot more, have different technology, can communicate and travel much faster and more efficiently (the world is smaller so to speak).

We have a history that shapes us. We have past conflicts that shape our society relations. We are guaranteed rights and freedoms and we are much more aware of our rights and freedoms. We are subject to innumerable morons with ideologies because anyone with an opinion can publish anything to stir up dissension.

Anyhow, to get down to brass tacks, if it was so fucking great it probably would not have been abandoned.

Why do you continually argue for ideas from the past? We need to dump the financial system. We should strive for the values of the Victorian era. Get over it. Time only flows in one direction…

However, that is not to say that trying to dispel some of the excesses of our culture of greed and consumerism would be bad.

[orion]

[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
But now, that we have seen that welfare was more efficient in Victorian England and crime rates were infinitely lower could we at least agree that laisser faire capitalism, free trade and personal responsibility led to a society that was in many ways better than ours even though it had much less resources?

Since you are all for people looking beyond their ideologies.

No, you are still slapping an ideology on top of the study. Also, as you know, better is a very subjective term.

People in that era were different than people today. We know a lot more, have different technology, can communicate and travel much faster and more efficiently (the world is smaller so to speak).

We have a history that shapes us. We have past conflicts that shape our society relations. We are guaranteed rights and freedoms and we are much more aware of our rights and freedoms. We are subject to innumerable morons with ideologies because anyone with an opinion can publish anything to stir up dissension.

Anyhow, to get down to brass tacks, if it was so fucking great it probably would not have been abandoned.

Why do you continually argue for ideas from the past? We need to dump the financial system. We should strive for the values of the Victorian era. Get over it. Time only flows in one direction…

However, that is not to say that trying to dispel some of the excesses of our culture of greed and consumerism would be bad. [/quote]

Excuse me, you are arguing the logic of the horde, your playbooks is essentially from Plato.

Compared to your ideas, which are the same ideological and illogical fallacies over and over again my ideas are sparkling and shiny and new.

They still have that fresh car smell whereas yours smell of the graveyards they have produced.

And that is what I would say if I even believed that the age of an idea was important. I happen to believe in “right” ideas, as compared to “wrong” ideas, no matter what their age.

What is next, “modern” geometry?

So you are saying that we know more, have better technology, and yet free man in Victorian England could build a better system than ours, with a gold currency, no less?

And that helps your argument in what way?

Plus, you still have not shown where I go wrong, it is just that my ideas are “unfashionable”? And that does not strike you as being a tad superficial?

[kaaleppi]

[quote]orion wrote:

Sure but what are they forced to comply with?

Not to hurt others or to serve other?

Therefore again, do you accept that the right to an “education” must result in the duty of others to provide it and that you are willing to force them to provide it.

[/quote]

Uh, orion, your question is so theoretical and far removed from reality that I have difficulties in answering it.
There are so many wannabe-teachers trying to get in university each year that only a part of them can fulfill their wish. Nobody is forcing them, or if somebody is, it’s probably their parents who have indoctrinated them.
Those who are forced to partake are the pupils.
Nobody is forced to provide, but everybody is forced to receive. But you can choose home schooling or private schools if you wish.
If you are referring to taxes, then yes, we have a duty to provide it. One is free to try his luck elsewhere, though, if the costs of public education is a key question. And he can take his education with him, he don’t have to repay, it’s on us.

[orion]

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:

Sure but what are they forced to comply with?

Not to hurt others or to serve other?

Therefore again, do you accept that the right to an “education” must result in the duty of others to provide it and that you are willing to force them to provide it.

Uh, orion, your question is so theoretical and far removed from reality that I have difficulties in answering it.
There are so many wannabe-teachers trying to get in university each year that only a part of them can fulfill their wish. Nobody is forcing them, or if somebody is, it’s probably their parents who have indoctrinated them.
Those who are forced to partake are the pupils.
Nobody is forced to provide, but everybody is forced to receive. But you can choose home schooling or private schools if you wish.
If you are referring to taxes, then yes, we have a duty to provide it. One is free to try his luck elsewhere, though, if the costs of public education is a key question. And he can take his education with him, he don’t have to repay, it’s on us.
[/quote]

How is my question theoretical?

I mean exactly what you are referring to in your last paragraph.

So, explain to me how forcing me at gunpoint to pay for your children´s education is morally different from forcing me to pick your cotton.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
There are so many wannabe-teachers trying to get in university each year that only a part of them can fulfill their wish. Nobody is forcing them, or if somebody is, it’s probably their parents who have indoctrinated them.
[/quote]
They are drawn to the public trough like swine at a slop-fest.

Since government by nature will always misallocate resources they tend to draw talent away from other sectors of the economy that may be more greatly felt had government not gotten involved in education in the first place. You could possible have cheaper material goods but instead you have “free” education and a heavily taxed population that supports it.

You make the mistake of every wanna-be economist working in government: you argue from the point of view of what is seen and never consider the possibilities of what it not seen.

[Otep]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
There are so many wannabe-teachers trying to get in university each year that only a part of them can fulfill their wish. Nobody is forcing them, or if somebody is, it’s probably their parents who have indoctrinated them.

They are drawn to the public trough like swine at a slop-fest.

Since government by nature will always misallocate resources they tend to draw talent away from other sectors of the economy that may be more greatly felt had government not gotten involved in education in the first place. You could possible have cheaper material goods but instead you have “free” education and a heavily taxed population that supports it.
[/quote]

I dunno man. Norway seems to be doing pretty well for itself these days, based on economic terms. It would be unfair to discount their heavy emphasis on education as a factor in that.

Which is to say, maybe they’re doing something that works.

[orion]

[quote]Otep wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
There are so many wannabe-teachers trying to get in university each year that only a part of them can fulfill their wish. Nobody is forcing them, or if somebody is, it’s probably their parents who have indoctrinated them.

They are drawn to the public trough like swine at a slop-fest.

Since government by nature will always misallocate resources they tend to draw talent away from other sectors of the economy that may be more greatly felt had government not gotten involved in education in the first place. You could possible have cheaper material goods but instead you have “free” education and a heavily taxed population that supports it.

I dunno man. Norway seems to be doing pretty well for itself these days, based on economic terms. It would be unfair to discount their heavy emphasis on education as a factor in that.

Which is to say, maybe they’re doing something that works.[/quote]

Hey, maybe if I find oil in my backyard I could squander money too!

Plus, a heavy emphasis on education is a good thing.

If you pay for it yourself.

Do you seriously believe that if the Norwegian government had just lowered taxes and everybody had paid their own way that their educational system would be worse?

[oneforship]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
yet they make fun of a lot of fundamental christians for home schooling.

Freedom means the freedom to fuck up your kids’ minds too.[/quote]

This is going back a bit, but I was home schooled for 6 years, attended high school for the sports, and went on to an Ivy League institution.

Don’t assume that because some people take the opportunity of home-schooling to non-school their kids, that it is the norm.

Similarly, don’t assume that attending schools breeds intelligence, as that is far too often not the case.

[/hijack]

[apbt55]

The whole problem comes back to pushing ideological agenda’s in our schools, causing our children to grow up thinking the world owes them something. and then we wonder why people take every entitlement and say it is a right.

It is not a right that the governement should enforce.

Our government has gotten way to big. And teachers are horrible here, not all but a majority, especially the liberal administration that thinks it needs to make everyone happy.

A friend of mine is a high school teacher near hershey PA. He says he can’t give students zeros fo not doing home work, when they write essay they can only give a revision option not a final grade. We are forcing our schools to give deplorable education by trying to make everybody happy.

No I on’t feel my neighbors should pay for my child to be educated, it was my responsibility once I brought them into this world, I am need to hold myself accountable for the things I think they should have not others.

But as a society if people want to come together and start a school to educate and people in that society want to contribute that is different.

The state of the current education system in this country really pisses me off. There are a few good conservative teachers, but a majority of them are liberal hypocrits who would rather teach kindergartners what a condom is then teach them discipline and a good work ethic, and start on mathematics and science. It the parents job to teach these things don’t overstep you bounds.

So I again reiterate private/charter school and if you don’t have a child in the public school system then it is not your obligation to pay taxes to that public school system. That is infringing on other peoples rights, to pay their bills, to own a home, to pay for their children to get a real education.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
There are so many wannabe-teachers trying to get in university each year that only a part of them can fulfill their wish. Nobody is forcing them, or if somebody is, it’s probably their parents who have indoctrinated them.

They are drawn to the public trough like swine at a slop-fest.

Since government by nature will always misallocate resources they tend to draw talent away from other sectors of the economy that may be more greatly felt had government not gotten involved in education in the first place. You could possible have cheaper material goods but instead you have “free” education and a heavily taxed population that supports it.

You make the mistake of every wanna-be economist working in government: you argue from the point of view of what is seen and never consider the possibilities of what it not seen.[/quote]

I’m not working in the government and I have no intention to become an economist.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]orion wrote:

How is my question theoretical?

I mean exactly what you are referring to in your last paragraph.

So, explain to me how forcing me at gunpoint to pay for your children´s education is morally different from forcing me to pick your cotton.

[/quote]

I realized you ment taxes when I had written the first paragraph.

Firts, some trivial but important points. Iäm not pointing a gun at you, not physically nor metaphorically. You are not paying for my childrens education, we live in different countries. And I don’t have cottonfields.

Secondly, you seem to turn every question into an question about taxation, just like a feminist always manages to turn every discussion into a critisicm of the patriarchy.

And finally your question. You are forcing a question upon me that you already have an answer to in your framework, that is taxation is evil. Probably the most vile thing mankind have ever invented.
Your problem arises only because you assume that the workings of a society or its government should be logically consistent with a principle. I beg to differ. As I already said, the outcome is the important part. That you feel like a slave because you have to pay taxes is higly dramatized. Paying taxes in a western country is a far cry from being a slave on the cotton field. That you are able in words to compare these two forms of exploitation doesn’t mean it is meaningful in any way.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]orion wrote:
Otep wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
There are so many wannabe-teachers trying to get in university each year that only a part of them can fulfill their wish. Nobody is forcing them, or if somebody is, it’s probably their parents who have indoctrinated them.

They are drawn to the public trough like swine at a slop-fest.

Since government by nature will always misallocate resources they tend to draw talent away from other sectors of the economy that may be more greatly felt had government not gotten involved in education in the first place. You could possible have cheaper material goods but instead you have “free” education and a heavily taxed population that supports it.

I dunno man. Norway seems to be doing pretty well for itself these days, based on economic terms. It would be unfair to discount their heavy emphasis on education as a factor in that.

Which is to say, maybe they’re doing something that works.

Hey, maybe if I find oil in my backyard I could squander money too!

Plus, a heavy emphasis on education is a good thing.

If you pay for it yourself.

Do you seriously believe that if the Norwegian government had just lowered taxes and everybody had paid their own way that their educational system would be worse?[/quote]

I don’t know about the level of the educational system, but they would have lost many talents, and that’s a big deal for a small country.

[Otep]

[quote]orion wrote:
Otep wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
There are so many wannabe-teachers trying to get in university each year that only a part of them can fulfill their wish. Nobody is forcing them, or if somebody is, it’s probably their parents who have indoctrinated them.

They are drawn to the public trough like swine at a slop-fest.

Since government by nature will always misallocate resources they tend to draw talent away from other sectors of the economy that may be more greatly felt had government not gotten involved in education in the first place. You could possible have cheaper material goods but instead you have “free” education and a heavily taxed population that supports it.

I dunno man. Norway seems to be doing pretty well for itself these days, based on economic terms. It would be unfair to discount their heavy emphasis on education as a factor in that.

Which is to say, maybe they’re doing something that works.

Hey, maybe if I find oil in my backyard I could squander money too!

Plus, a heavy emphasis on education is a good thing.

If you pay for it yourself.

Do you seriously believe that if the Norwegian government had just lowered taxes and everybody had paid their own way that their educational system would be worse?[/quote]

The point was that the government of Norway is misallocating it’s resources by investing in the education of it’s youth(or he’s arguing Norwegian teachers should be making inferior goods, but that wouldn’t make sense). That is something that cannot be answered empirically (yet), only ideologically (as lifty has demonstrated with his universal decrees).

I think, to postulate what would happen if Norway reduced taxes is to ignore the entirity of Norwegian history. Social Democracy has a strong hold in Norway because of the lack of social cleavage other than class (society is pretty homogenous) and because of it’s experience with early capitalism (industrial revolution).

After getting fucked over and then discovering collective bargaining, Norwegians embarked on a slow campaign to socialize their country. Universal public education is one of it’s hallmarks.

SO

If universal public education is one of their hard-fought victories, why would they abandon it and go back to how they were under early capitalism?

I realize this is one of those ‘it is how it is because that’s the way it is’ arguments, but to take something out of context (norwegian education) and give it the social mobility allowed in America is preposterous.

[Otep]

Here’s why I am NOT a fan of eliminating public education.

If you eliminate public education, the rich will afford to send their kids to school, and the poor will decide that short-term gain is more important than long-term investment, and send their child to work.

Over time, this will kill the social mobility I love about America. Youth raised in poverty will not be able to compete with highly educated youth raised in the upper and middle class for modern jobs, and will be forced to take low paying jobs.

This system will perpetuate itself into permanent classhood. This is a bad thing.

Theoretically, youth raised in poverty will be able to afford to put themselves through schooling to one day compete with the youth of the middle and upper class. But they’ll be way behind in terms of experience, too old and have a difficult time doing it (it’s MUCH easier to not have to work while going to school).

So to create an equality of opportunity, I support public education, so that no child is limited by the means of their parents.

[Sloth]

Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year. They will develop national guidelines for service- learning and will give schools better tools both to develop programs and to document student experience.

[orion]

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:

How is my question theoretical?

I mean exactly what you are referring to in your last paragraph.

So, explain to me how forcing me at gunpoint to pay for your children´s education is morally different from forcing me to pick your cotton.

I realized you ment taxes when I had written the first paragraph.

Firts, some trivial but important points. Iäm not pointing a gun at you, not physically nor metaphorically. You are not paying for my childrens education, we live in different countries. And I don’t have cottonfields.

Secondly, you seem to turn every question into an question about taxation, just like a feminist always manages to turn every discussion into a critisicm of the patriarchy.

And finally your question. You are forcing a question upon me that you already have an answer to in your framework, that is taxation is evil. Probably the most vile thing mankind have ever invented.

Your problem arises only because you assume that the workings of a society or its government should be logically consistent with a principle. I beg to differ. As I already said, the outcome is the important part.

That you feel like a slave because you have to pay taxes is higly dramatized. Paying taxes in a western country is a far cry from being a slave on the cotton field. That you are able in words to compare these two forms of exploitation doesn’t mean it is meaningful in any way.

[/quote]

Contrary to your beliefs I know that ideas do matter. Without the rights of the Englishmen to own property, no industrial revolution, no free trade, no American revolution, no constitutions, no republics, no freedom.

Property rights are no something to dismiss easily as one right of many, but the philosophical, economical and ethical core of our economic and political system.

Your idea of “rights” threatens the very foundation of our civilization because those ideas are not only inconsistent but directly contradict themselves.

If that was just mental masturbation I would agree that logical consistency is irrelevant, but once people turn the republic from the res publica into a weapon to steal from each other the republic will fall.

In fact it already is falling.

Consistency is also important to me, because it is not a trivial matter to me who owns me. It might not be important to you but I like to think of myself as a free man.

Then I see that you prance around the issue like everyone else does when it comes to the gun you point at other people:

Yes, I do not pay for your children´s education, but you force someone else too.

Yes, that someone does not pick cotton, but whatever he does, you take most of it away and spend it as you wish.

Yess, you do not point the gun yourself, but you employ the people that do it in your name.

Yes, people could leave your country, but what kind of person are you that people have to flee to be save from you?

So, how is it that you can force other people to work for you?