Teachers or Baby Sitters?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

Teachers or Baby Sitters?

How important is the profession of elementary education? How difficult is it? Could you do it? How much do teachers deserve to get paid?

I think a lot of people have the belief that elementary education is very important but not that difficulty. Paradoxically, many people in the field say it is very difficult and impossible to be prepared for the first day of teaching. Interestingly, these two views and the questions posed above are all actually related. They are symptoms of a larger problem, a problem of ideology (if we take ideology as a system of beliefs, political or otherwise).

What We Believe: Teacher are Baby Sitters

For the most part we look at education of the youngest of students as banking. Teachers, those who possess knowledge, deposit knowledge in to students. When we think of a classroom we usually think of a room, chairs in rows, with the teacher in the front dispensing information. The students are learning if they are quiet.

What ideas or beliefs are we harboring if we think the above scenario is ideal? It shows that we think elementary students are empty vessels, sponges, just waiting to absorb knowledge. This ignores motivation and all of the factors that may contribute to it, as well as the prior knowledge, experiences, and dreams students enter the classroom with.

If you enter a classroom or if you think back to your own elementary years you will agree that that what I am saying is true. Teachers have teacher�??s guides and all kinds of guides that map out exactly what teachers should be covering and when they should be covering it. This seems great except that every body–yes every child–is different. What works well for one student or for one group of students does not work well with other students. But since we believe that every child is a blank slate, we believe that a program that works well for one should work well for all. And since we think teachers simply have to deposit knowledge, we give them guides, and since they are following guides in this easy task of education, they really don�??t need a high quality education, and since they aren�??t well educated and they are not working all that hard they don�??t deserve very much money. It�??s all connected. And it becomes a cycle.

The Truth: Teachers are Baby Sitters

There is a saying: those who can, do. Those who can�??t, teach. People hear this, they see the way teachers are treated, and they see how much teachers earn and they start believing that the profession truly is easy. So many people, I believe, that enter into education end up going into it because they had no other options, they think the money is good enough for the little work they will be doing, and they think working with kids will be fun. (Pet peeve of mine: when somebody answers they want to be a teacher because they love kids! Yeah you should love kids, we all should, but you can baby sit if you like kids, or perhaps that is what you think teachers are?)

So many people, but definitely not all, that enter educational programs are actually lazy, unmotivated, and do not like to take risks (they see teaching as a safe bet). These are also the people that are least likely to challenge the status quo since they think that elementary education is already good (�??I made it to college,�?? they proclaim). So these people enter teacher programs and they find them difficult, the professors take note and so they have to reduce the work load of their courses. These teachers get to the classroom and are totally unprepared and do a horrible job their first 3, 7, or 40 years of teaching. The government, made up of non-educators, start point out inept teachers and so they require that teachers have teacher�??s guides and programs in their class. The college then begins teaching to these programs rather than to the underlying philosophies behind education, and even if they had a choice, professors wouldn�??t because their students wouldn�??t want to read them or be able to understand the material. Then the cycle continues.

The Solution: Money is the root of all�?�

So how do we solve this problem? How do we end the cycle? We change our beliefs about children and education. To accomplish this, one thing the government can do is begin increasing teacher�??s pay. Although, I would say that not al teachers deserve to get paid as well, yet at the same time, we can�??t simply blame teachers. So, I suggest we increase their pay if they take progressive educational courses. Currently a teacher�??s salary cap, with something like 10 years of experience and a master�??s degree or better is $80,000. That is a good start, but definitely not enough.

We could then introduce paid sabbaticals so that teachers can continue their professional development, the way professors do.

While we are doing this, we have to improve teacher�??s educational preparation at the college level. These teachers, with a better, longer, perhaps more difficult education would be paid better than the current starting salary of around $40,000. I personally don�??t like waving around money as rewards for excellence, but in our society, I think it is called for.

As for this education, I would love to outline it in another blog. I would say that elementary teachers should double major, they should receive a major in educational psychology, philosophy, or the sociology of education and they should receive a degree in one area of study like Language arts, math, science, history, the fine and performing arts, etc. Rather than having one elementary teacher teaching all subjects, I think elementary schools should be like middle and high schools. Except students would not be moved around and separated every period, instead the teachers would rotate. I�??ll discuss this next time.

Inspired by Paulo Freire�??s, �??Teachers as Cultural Workers: Letters to Those who Dare Teach�??

2

States and municipalities are broke. They also lost a shitload in the CDO sub-prime smashup. In fact, I think one or more defaults by a state or big city will trigger an even bigger credit collapse.

Since teacher pay is a big chunk of muni budgets and funding for education is big for states, I’d expect teacher salaries (and especially insurance and retirement plans) to get CUT dramatically. Many teachers who were counting on pensions and healthcare will truly be SOL.

3

This is a great post. I have been debating this question a great deal lately. Just about everyone in my family, as well as my brother-in-law, is in one way or another in the education profession. Both my sisters are elementary teachers (my youngest sister teaches the hearing impaired at a magnate school). My father was a SERE instructor in the USAF for nearly 3 decades. I also am in the business of teaching, though indirectly connected to my academic profession.

First, formal education is not a right. It is a privilege. In a free society everything must be earned because that is the essence of freedom – self-responsibility. This does not mean that just because one lacks the means to obtain an education it should be denied if one has the ability to pursue it. I believe that charities could exist in a free society to educate those individuals with the potential for upward mobility. I believe if parents viewed education in this manner we would have better results. Why, for example, do international students who come to the US seem to be better prepared for academia than our own children?

When you consider the fact that children spend a great deal of their time during the day from school age until early adulthood in a classroom teachers can indeed be considered “babysitters”. I do not know if I consider this a pejorative term or not. Being a positive adult influence is a huge responsibility. School is not just a place where children learn to socialize with each other but it is also a place where social mores and norms are learned and reinforced. If parents are doing the right job instilling these ideals into their children the teachers job should not be that difficult. The teacher should only be reinforcing ideas that are already understood.

In the last few years my opinions about the role of teachers and schools has changed drastically. To me, growing up, the public school was the almighty institution that was responsible for shaping the development of every individual. I have come to see this as a bad thing, however, because can there only be one right way to raise and educate a child. For example, a parent with means to do so may have “better” results with homeschooling.

Part of me really believes that all parents with the means should take the time to home-school their child until at least middle-school age. We do not need to rely on school as the only institution to socialize our children. There are many others such as churches, sports leagues, etc. This, I believe, would help alleviate the the vapid indoctrination of our youth into the acceptance of State protocol. There are alternatives to state education that should be explored to break from robotic thought processes within the confines of government bureaucracy.

If children came to school with a better grasp of the foundations of basic knowledge I think it would be easier for teachers to do their job. Of course these basic foundations would be debatable and individualized per institutional requirement.

More competition within the schooling process would turn out a better product. Eventually, educators would learn processes that work for generalized classes of children. We could have schools the excel at one particular type of educational need or want – such as language immersion, etc.

I think truly great schools will learn how to operate on a non-profit model of business, not relying on government subsidies to remain afloat. These institutions would be the modern day Academy and would pick and choose their pupils based on their own criteria.

Teachers should be role-models but they should not be tasked with raising our children or else we will just end up with robotic, non-individual thinking citizens. This will only be achieved when parents understand that their child’s education is their responsibility and not the school’s, the teacher’s, or the State’s.

4

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

First, formal education is not a right. It is a privilege. [/quote]

According to the Universal Decleration of Human Rights adopted by the general assembly of the UN in 1948, a free education is a right.

Should children be punished because they were born into the wrong family or situation?

Who determines who has the potential for upward mobility? How do we know which children will be upwardly mobile? [quote]

I believe if parents viewed education in this manner we would have better results. Why, for example, do international students who come to the US seem to be better prepared for academia than our own children? [/quote]

If we mean international college students than I would look at the resources they come with. If we are talking students in general than I would say that not all do as well as others. Those that do better do so for a couple of reasons. One because they have a dual frame of reference. They know how life was in their home country and if they came to the United States, they probably didn’t like it back home. So, they are going to struggle to do well here because they know it can be worse. Other students do better because, again, their resources.

These resources, as I mentioned above, do not just include financial, though that is a large part. These resources also include the support the US government gives them, for example refugees. Finally, if we are trying to compare other countries educational outcomes compared to ours, I would say it has more to do with the beliefs their society hold in education and the way they affect policy. I believe Japanese tend to do better than Americans in Math.

If you look at their curriculum they study less content, but they go more in depth. We think more is better and we get breadth but we get little understanding.

I suppose this does depend on the babysitter. Any babysitter I’ve ever known or seen on TV never began teaching the kids lessons. Sure there will be incidental learning, of course, and maybe some reading. But mostly I think of babysitters plopping down kids in front of a TV and getting them to be quiet while the sitters do something else. Perhaps that is why they are called babysitters? They sit babies down and keep them quiet. Teachers, I think we would agree, should not do this.

I believe a fundamental to democracy is difference. Without difference we would not have democracy because there would be nothing to choose from, nothing to compare and contrast and debate. So, when we think about norms, we should question whether it is truly the correct thing to try and instill specific norms on our children, while undermining others. Don�??t get me wrong, there have to be rules, but we have to be sensitive to the rules that we put in place and for what group of students.

In this quote above, I get the feeling that there are some correct ways to behave and there are some wrong ways to behave and if children simply behaved correctly, than the teacher�??s job would be easy. But norms are cultural and in this democratic society we have different norms. Teachers should use those different norms to their advantage. Imagine the kinds of learners, the bright, critical thinking students we would have if schools could help students be bi-cultural?

[quote]
In the last few years my opinions about the role of teachers and schools has changed drastically. To me, growing up, the public school was the almighty institution that was responsible for shaping the development of every individual. I have come to see this as a bad thing, however, because can there only be one right way to raise and educate a child. For example, a parent with means to do so may have “better” results with homeschooling.[/quote]

I agree that there is no one correct way to educate a child. It is all based on each individual child�??s needs. However you allude to economics which I think is fundamental to my position. Students and schools that do not do as well as others tend to be poorer than the others.

I do happen to believe that school choice is a good thing. I doubt however, that anybody else or anything else can educate children as efficiently and effectively as a state run institution. This is not to say that our state is running at 100% efficiency/effectiveness or anywhere near it, however no other institution would be able to match it. Notice, I state effectiveness and efficiency. I think that small group or one-on-one educator, or home school–if one has the means–can be very effective, perhaps surpassing a state run institution. But this would not be as efficient.

You are right in that there is no fundamental knowledge. For the most part, what we consider fundamental is simply cultural. And the dominant culture is the culture of the dominant group, which means this question of fundamental knowledge would be political. But, I digress.

What is currently failing us is this generalized education. We already have and have had for quite some time, mass produced education. This does not work because no student is a model student. We all have different needs and desires and we are dynamic people which means we change. So even if we found a program that worked for a student at one moment, it probably won�??t work at another moment.

Also, if schools become specialized, how will students get to them? Will they be bussed half, one, two, or four hours away? Or will parents have to move closer to the schools they think, or their children think, are best for them? This would mean that parents would have to have the means to make a move like that. Or will children be lucky enough or unlucky enough to b born near a certain school?

They will pick and choose the best apples and toss the rotten apples? But children are not apples, they are not static, they can change. I�??ve always thought that a teachers most important role was to help each and every one of their students live up to their fullest potential. What you are asking for are elitist institutions that pick, choose, and label students. What you are asking for is a caste system for education.

Who will educate the parents? And who educated the parent�??s parents? And, once again, I can only think of a caste system emerging. The parents with the greatest resources would produce the children with the greatest resources. And what kind of job or education will the child get? Very likely one similar to what the parents are getting, so if a parent is an engineer, the child will probably be mathematically or scientifically inclined. What about the poor store clerk? What kind of child will this person educate?

I really have not studied home schooling, and I am sure that currently what I have described does not happen. But those who can home school have the means to obtain wide ranging materials and allow their children to pick and choose. But the poor would not, so in that sense, I probably have painted an accurate picture.

5

[quote]md1587 wrote:

According to the Universal Decleration of Human Rights adopted by the general assembly of the UN in 1948, a free education is a right.

[/quote]

Which makes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a contradictory work of wishful thinking unless of course the money falls from the sky.

Otherwise you need my money to do it which violates my rights to life, freedom and property.

6

[quote]orion wrote:
md1587 wrote:

According to the Universal Decleration of Human Rights adopted by the general assembly of the UN in 1948, a free education is a right.

Which makes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a contradictory work of wishful thinking unless of course the money falls from the sky.

Otherwise you need my money to do it which violates my rights to life, freedom and property.

[/quote]

Yep. Amazing how liberals blank-out the source of all the ‘goodies’ they pass out to the ‘poor and deserving’.

The people who provide the means to help the poor and helpless are never considered. Their desires, their hopes, their dreams are meaningless — “We’ve got hungry people here!!! How dare you want to keep your money!!”

What happens if I don’t WANT to produce a ‘free’ education for others? Will I be forced to do so at gunpoint? “Pay these taxes or go to jail!!!”

All liberalism must descend into a totalitarian police state.

7

[quote]md1587 wrote:
First, formal education is not a right. It is a privilege.

According to the Universal Decleration of Human Rights adopted by the general assembly of the UN in 1948, a free education is a right.
[/quote]
Is food a right? Is clothing a right? Is housing a right? Is health care a right? Tell me, where do these things come from that they can be granted to all? If it does not inherently exist without natural creation then it cannot even be considered a right because it requires the labor of others to create. If you take someone else’s labor without compensating them then it is called slavery or theft.

Should animals be punished because they weren’t fortunate enough to be born human? There is a place in society for the ignorant and it is behind a broom – unless of course you don’t think hygiene is a necessary function of society.

Who decides anything in a free society? Individuals and private institutions engage in voluntary contract. No one is coerced and no one gets a free lunch.

No. The many international students I have encountered value education because it wasn’t forced on them like it is here. Their parents had to work for it and instilled this ethic in them. Yes, they mostly come from means but the means only exist because of their parent’s work ethic. There are no entitlements in most third world countries. As proof all you need to see is the fact that on any given night around my university campus in the bars there are virtually no internationals partying. They are at home with their noses in their books…preparing to steal your child’s future job – and it’s a good thing too!

Please understand I do not blame poor children or even poor parents for their situation. In this country it is possible to make it but unfortunately we have a system that works against itself. We create more poverty by subsidizing it. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime…
[/quote]
I suppose this does depend on the babysitter. Any babysitter I’ve ever known or seen on TV never began teaching the kids lessons. Sure there will be incidental learning, of course, and maybe some reading. But mostly I think of babysitters plopping down kids in front of a TV and getting them to be quiet while the sitters do something else. Perhaps that is why they are called babysitters? They sit babies down and keep them quiet. Teachers, I think we would agree, should not do this.
[/quote]
Learning is much more general than a classroom influence. Learning begins the moment one is birthed from the womb and receives signals from the outside world.

It doesn’t matter what the customs are or where one learns them. It only matters that individuals learn not to alienate other individuals. You can call that whatever you want to but the idea is the same where ever you go on the planet.

This is a truism that must me adhered to. Why should someone who is not fit for a certain task continue to be subsidized to do it? Should businesses get bailed out because they don’t perform as well as their competitors? Economics, indeed!

Every private Catholic and Lutheran institution in the city of Saint Paul would disagree with this statement. Efficiency has little to do with education. It is because state run schools have to do more with less that they under-perform most private institutions.

I always start from the premise that your child doesn’t have the right to the same education as mine because education is not a right. Yes, I am an elitist in that I know it as a reality. There is a reason why there are fewer brain surgeons than painters. Instilling self reliance in a child is the only education he or she needs. With that and an undying curiosity to learn anything is possible with the necessary biological means. Life offers no guarantees…it is foolish to teach children that there is some inherent right that exists when in fact they do not.

Who will educate the educators? You forget that civilization was built on the backs of the ignorant and the few elite who ruled over them.

8

Yes, according to the Universal Declaration of Rights, those are all rights. I think these are considered rights not for the benefit of individuals, but for the benefit of society, for all of civilization. If somebody is well fed, safe, and healthy they really have no reason to steal or kill or harm anybody else unless they are mentally ill or something else is really wrong with them. And if people are well educated, than we can have a true democracy. A democracy cannot exist without a well educated society, this makes education a right.

Perhaps we are speaking about taxes? We benefit from taxes directly and indirectly. Think about the police, firefighters, postal service, the military, CIA, FBI, congress, the judiciary branch, etc. We benefit when everyone is educated. As I said above, we cannot even have a democracy if we do not have a well educated society

Some would say that they should not be punished. I am an omnivore, I eat meat, I love it. Others have different beliefs and that is their right. When you think about this economically, when you realize it takes much more land and energy and creates more pollution to eat meat, than perhaps vegetarians and vegans have a good point. Indirectly we harm others by taking away land and creating large farms. Indirectly or directly we harm others with the chemicals we are using. But I think this is an argument for another thread.

These ignorant people you speak of would be stuck there, and so would there children because they would not have the means to fun their childrens education. We would end up with a caste. Why punish the children? Or, rather than arguing with the heart, let us argue with the pocket book. Howard Gardner has a theory of multiple intelligences stating that there are different kinds of intelligences. Einstein would be said to have been a mathematical-logical thinker.

He was lucky enough to have been born middle class in a society that values mathematical-logical thinkers. Imagine if he had been poor, would he have had the same opportunity? Imagine if Leonardo Da Vinci would not have been related to a rich relative that could support his talents, would we have had his art?

Imagine all of the Einsteins, Da Vincis, and others that are barred from reaching their full potentials because they were unlucky enough to have been born in a poor family. Imagine how we are handicapping our society and our economy because we do not give them the education they deserve.

Those in power, the elite few, relative to the masses, have the power and are able to define the norms. Look at our tastes, why do we label Beethoven classical music and see it as high art? Although you do make a good point about voluntary contracts, unfortunately when people attempt to break away from these contracts they get punished. Look at Native Americans who are supposed to have their own sovereign nations and yet have to deal with the government for putting casinos. Look at the land they inhabit. We can only have a voluntary contract if we truly have other choices. Otherwise they are not voluntary.

I am not very familiar with successful third world country students. The successful group of international students we usually point to out Chinese or Indian, those are not third world. Those that do come from third world countries must be the elite or at least some where near the upper echelon because they were able to afford to come here and get an education. In these third world countries or anywhere for that matter, do you really believe they simply worked hard and rose from the bottom? The rich get richer and the poor, poorer.

This is social reproduction. And you may be right, international students probably do not make up a large population in the clubs or bars. They also do not make up a large population in our schools. And maybe you are right that rather than drinking and partying they are studying. But perhaps this goes back to the dual frame of reference. Hey came here for an education because life here is probably better, do they really want to mess up their chance?

Right. So let us give the poor the best damn education we possibly can.

Absolutely. But I would prefer having my child learning from an educator, going to museums, and zoos and all those things rather than having my babysitter teach my child.

Yet we should keep the poor from attaining a good education?

Businesses should get bailed out if their failures will leave us with monopolies. We need competition right? It sounds to me as though you are looking to substitute what you think is one monopoly–state run education–and replace it with another monopoly–the monopoly the elite would hold over education. Although, I do not think the state has a monopoly. There are private schools.

Agree. So let us give educators and schools more money to have smaller classrooms and more paraprofessionals, psychologists, school nurses, etc.

Supply and demand. I don�??t think we have as many brain surgeons as painters because the demand is not there. Though, I must confess, I do not know what the figures are, I am just guessing.

I agree that self reliance and curiosity are hugely important. But so is motivation, and it is hard to be motivated when you are living in a dangerous neighborhood, going to a terrible school, and being told that all you have to do is work harder. It may be possible for an adult to make it through this kind of life, but a child? A child who has never known anything else? A child who does not know what kind of potential he or she has? When we blame the poor for being poor, we are telling them that they deserve what they received and with all of the images they see around them, they begin to believe this.

I hope we have changed somewhat in the 10,000 years since the agricultural revolution.

9

[quote]md1587 wrote:
Is food a right? Is clothing a right? Is housing a right? Is health care a right? Tell me, where do these things come from that they can be granted to all? If it does not inherently exist without natural creation then it cannot even be considered a right because it requires the labor of others to create.
Yes, according to the Universal Declaration of Rights, those are all rights. I think these are considered rights not for the benefit of individuals, but for the benefit of society, for all of civilization. If somebody is well fed, safe, and healthy they really have no reason to steal or kill or harm anybody else unless they are mentally ill or something else is really wrong with them. And if people are well educated, than we can have a true democracy. A democracy cannot exist without a well educated society, this makes education a right.

If you take someone else’s labor without compensating them then it is called slavery or theft. Perhaps we are speaking about taxes? We benefit from taxes directly and indirectly. Think
about the police, firefighters, postal service, the military, CIA, FBI, congress, the judiciary branch, etc. We benefit when everyone is educated. As I said above, we cannot even have a democracy if we do not have a well educated society

[/quote]

That sounds as if a democracy is a goal in and of itself instead of a means to accomplish something.

If it becomes an instrument of stealing from each other the only form of equality that is definable and achievable, the equality before the law is no more.

All the classic rights that protected us from our governments are not seriously weakened but abolished if we expect them to provide food, shelter and education because if they can even tax your labor you only “own” something as long as the government does not take it, i.e you are a slave, interestingly enough forbidden by the declaration.

And you might have noticed that when democracy becomes a race who steals from whom first, the rich steal way better than the poor.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Thomas Jefferson

An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods

Ambrose Bierce

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

Thomas Jefferson

A democratic despotism is like a theocracy: it assumes its own correctness.

Walter Bagehot

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C.S. Lewis

Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.

Aristotle

10

Freedom is the goal. Democracy is a means to it. True human freedom is probably not achievable, we probably do have to have limitations for society to exist, but we are constantly aiming towards freedom. The rich have much more freedom than the poor, I think we do have to balance that out somehow. This does not mean simply taking away, it can also mean becoming more efficient and responsible.

Let us take race here to show how we are not stealing, we are taking back. Native Americans inhabited this land first. Europeans came and took it from them, realize that Native Americans had no concept of land ownership so when we hear in history classes that Native Americans sold land, it is simply not true. They thought they were sharing the land. Native Americans lost land, were seen as subhuman, many were placed into slavery, and they were kept from participating in society. Fast forward to present day and you can see the effects of long ago. They are disproportionately poor, have terrible educational outcomes, and have poor health, not to mention they still suffer at the hands of our government and our beliefs. Giving them extra funding is perfectly fine, they deserve it and probably a lot more than we would actually give them. It would be your tax money, and mine as well, but we have to remember that we can pay taxes simply because we took their land. We have the means because they do not.

Here is a definition of slavery from Wikipedia: Slavery is a social-economic system under which certain persons �?? known as slaves �?? are deprived of personal freedom and compelled to perform labour or services. The term also refers to the status or condition of those persons, who are treated as the property of another person or household.

Taxes are percents of your total income, you still have the freedom to use the rest of your money and furthermore, somebody else is able to live their life and live freely because of your taxes. We should be proud that our money is going towards helping others, but we are so individualistic in this country we begin to dehumanize others and look at them as lazy and ignorant when, as shown above, we are to blame for their condition. We also benefit from others being clothed, fed, and educated. Crime is reduced and we have more of a democracy because more people are able to participate. We also benefit our economy because verybody gets to live up to ther potential and if you believe competition is good, than you have to admit, we would have more of it.

Yes, the rich are great thieves.

[quote] The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson [/quote]

I�??ve never known a child or heard of any person say that they want to live a mediocre life, maybe even a life in poverty and discomfort. Most people I know say they want the very best life for themselves. Those that do not live up to their dreams cannot because of other factors outside of themselves. I will concede that there are probably some people that would not mind living poor, difficult lives but I doubt it is 1 billion people around the world who live in extreme poverty (under a dollar a day) or the nearly 3 billion that live in moderate poverty (two dollars a day). Out of these 3 billion people that live in poverty, about 1 billion of them are children. Why don�??t they just get their act together and work harder?

[quote] An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods
Ambrose Bierce
[/quote]
So, maybe elections should be completely run with tax money?

[quote] A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson [/quote]

That is when the other 49 percent are subordinated. For example, banning gay marriage. On the other hand, barring public funds from being used for religious purposes, like setting up nativity scenes, does not subordinate anybody. It allows everybody to practice their own religion.

[quote]A democratic despotism is like a theocracy: it assumes its own correctness.
Walter Bagehot [/quote]
Yes. We cannot subordinate others.

[quote]Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C.S. Lewis [/quote]

Again this relates to subordination, about forcing others to do what we think is best for them, or even worse without even taking into consideration the other group. Like with slavery, missions, Japanese internment, embargo on Cuba, intervention in Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Chile, Invasion of Granada, and the list can go on.

[quote]Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.

Aristotle [/quote]

And yet the republic of Rome became the empire of Rome.

11

You’re either free or your not. I feel like a slave who is allowed to cultivate his own little chunk of land but when ‘massa’ calls, I ‘gots to wok on his propitty’.

This whole experiment in Socialism and Mixed Economies is the Devil’s Race.

12

[quote]md1587 wrote:
That sounds as if a democracy is a goal in and of itself instead of a means to accomplish something.

Freedom is the goal. Democracy is a means to it. True human freedom is probably not achievable, we probably do have to have limitations for society to exist, but we are constantly aiming towards freedom. The rich have much more freedom than the poor, I think we do have to balance that out somehow. This does not mean simply taking away, it can also mean becoming more efficient and responsible.

If it becomes an instrument of stealing from each other the only form of equality that is definable and achievable, the equality before the law is no more.

Let us take race here to show how we are not stealing, we are taking back. Native Americans inhabited this land first. Europeans came and took it from them, realize that Native Americans had no concept of land ownership so when we hear in history classes that Native Americans sold land, it is simply not true. They thought they were sharing the land. Native Americans lost land, were seen as subhuman, many were placed into slavery, and they were kept from participating in society. Fast forward to present day and you can see the effects of long ago. They are disproportionately poor, have terrible educational outcomes, and have poor health, not to mention they still suffer at the hands of our government and our beliefs. Giving them extra funding is perfectly fine, they deserve it and probably a lot more than we would actually give them. It would be your tax money, and mine as well, but we have to remember that we can pay taxes simply because we took their land. We have the means because they do not.

All the classic rights that protected us from our governments are not seriously weakened but abolished if we expect them to provide food, shelter and education because if they can even tax your labor you only “own” something as long as the government does not take it, i.e you are a slave, interestingly enough forbidden by the declaration.

Here is a definition of slavery from Wikipedia: Slavery is a social-economic system under which certain persons �?? known as slaves �?? are deprived of personal freedom and compelled to perform labour or services. The term also refers to the status or condition of those persons, who are treated as the property of another person or household.

Taxes are percents of your total income, you still have the freedom to use the rest of your money and furthermore, somebody else is able to live their life and live freely because of your taxes. We should be proud that our money is going towards helping others, but we are so individualistic in this country we begin to dehumanize others and look at them as lazy and ignorant when, as shown above, we are to blame for their condition. We also benefit from others being clothed, fed, and educated. Crime is reduced and we have more of a democracy because more people are able to participate. We also benefit our economy because verybody gets to live up to ther potential and if you believe competition is good, than you have to admit, we would have more of it.

And you might have noticed that when democracy becomes a race who steals from whom first, the rich steal way better than the poor.

Yes, the rich are great thieves.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

I�??ve never known a child or heard of any person say that they want to live a mediocre life, maybe even a life in poverty and discomfort. Most people I know say they want the very best life for themselves. Those that do not live up to their dreams cannot because of other factors outside of themselves. I will concede that there are probably some people that would not mind living poor, difficult lives but I doubt it is 1 billion people around the world who live in extreme poverty (under a dollar a day) or the nearly 3 billion that live in moderate poverty (two dollars a day). Out of these 3 billion people that live in poverty, about 1 billion of them are children. Why don�??t they just get their act together and work harder?

An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods
Ambrose Bierce

So, maybe elections should be completely run with tax money?

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson

That is when the other 49 percent are subordinated. For example, banning gay marriage. On the other hand, barring public funds from being used for religious purposes, like setting up nativity scenes, does not subordinate anybody. It allows everybody to practice their own religion.

A democratic despotism is like a theocracy: it assumes its own correctness.
Walter Bagehot
Yes. We cannot subordinate others.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C.S. Lewis

Again this relates to subordination, about forcing others to do what we think is best for them, or even worse without even taking into consideration the other group. Like with slavery, missions, Japanese internment, embargo on Cuba, intervention in Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Chile, Invasion of Granada, and the list can go on.

Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.

Aristotle

And yet the republic of Rome became the empire of Rome.
[/quote]

First of all the Roman empire was a tyranny. At the beginning a tyranny of good intentions and at a later stage play writers got executed when they displeased the emperor.

The decline of the West Romans began when no one was able to stop one benevolent law after the other.

In essence you are saying that violence against people is wrong and yet other people can take my money at gunpoint to achieve their version of a social utopia?

You do not see any contradictions there?

I simply do not seem to get how someone else’s misfortune justifies armed robbery by a third party? Should we help those in need? Sure. Should we be forced to helped them at gunpoint? No!

Can they demand to be fed at my expense just because there are more than me?

No all those poor Indians and black people sure had a hard time. It is just, who cares? How are people born decades after those tragedies responsible for it? How come white people are blamed for the negative consequences of slavery but not praised for the good ones? Shouldn`t the descendants of slaves, if we all embraced that collectivist logic, just say thank you that they were not born in Somalia, Nigeria or Cameroon and be done with it?

How about black successful people, do they pay for the evils of slavery too? Why?

In case the word slavery is too strong for you I could use serfdom, but than again their masters could not just simply take their property with a decree.

Ours can.

13

[quote]In essence you are saying that violence against people is wrong and yet other people can take my money at gunpoint to achieve their version of a social utopia?

You do not see any contradictions there?[/quote] But you already pay taxes. Should we not pay taxes? Should we not have a government?

[quote]I simply do not seem to get how someone else’s misfortune justifies armed robbery by a third party? Should we help those in need? Sure. Should we be forced to helped them at gunpoint? No! [/quote] Because wealth comes at the expense of others misfortune. I will discuss this below.

[quote]Can they demand to be fed at my expense just because there are more than me?[/quote] Should the majority of people–taking into account people in other nations–suffer so that you can live happily?

[quote]No all those poor Indians and black people sure had a hard time. It is just, who cares? How are people born decades after those tragedies responsible for it?[/quote] This is like saying history does not matter. This is why I aim to be an educator, and hopefully a better one than those who taught me.[quote] How come white people are blamed for the negative consequences of slavery but not praised for the good ones? [/quote] If I stab a person and then bandage him up, should that person thank me for helping him? [quote]Shouldn`t the descendants of slaves, if we all embraced that collectivist logic, just say thank you that they were not born in Somalia, Nigeria or Cameroon and be done with it?[/quote] Again, we forget history and colonialsim. I think they would have been much more pleased if the United States and other countries did not maintain a system of subordination. Take for example Reaganomics. When Robert McNamara left the World Bank, he was replaced by the Reagan backed A.W Clausen. Clausen was later replaced by ex-republican Barber Conable. The World Bank then began running by the logic of Reaganomics, rolling back aid. They still continued to offer loans, however they priortized by giving dictators and military generals more money than others. With this money also came SAPs or Structural Adjustment Programs. These forced third world governments to open their doors to foreign investment and reduce their welfare programs. The result? Third World countries actually became poorer than they were during the mid 1900s after decolonialism. In essence, Reaganomics was Neo-colonialism. And Bill Clinton didn’t stop this, he signed NAFTA, keeping Mexico subordinated. So how come we are not thanked for our generosity? Because we put our own interests first. Although, I shouldn’t say we, I actually mean elites do and we the people back them hoping for their crumbs or as politicians and economist would say, we are hoping wealth will trickle down.

[quote]How about black successful people, do they pay for the evils of slavery too? Why? [/quote]According to 2002 census data, 13 percent of the US population is Black. 17% of that 13% have at least a bachelor’s degree. How many of them do you think are rich? I cannot speak for rich Black citizens, however, I will say that the price they must pay for becoming successful tends to be losing their identity. I have no quelps with this, people should do as they please, however, losing ones identity should not be the only route to achievement. We will never have a democracy if we are all the same.

[quote]In case the word slavery is too strong for you I could use serfdom, but than again their masters could not just simply take their property with a decree.

Ours can.[/quote]You are right, Japanese internment and Mexican Repatriation shows what the government can do to citizens of the United States who do not look American enough for others. US policy abroad shows what our government will do in its own interest. We have to understand that wealth comes at the expense of others suffering under our current logic. If you are fine with this than we must agree to disagree.

14

[quote]md1587 wrote:
But you already pay taxes. Should we not pay taxes? Should we not have a government?

We have to understand that wealth comes at the expense of others suffering under our current logic. If you are fine with this than we must agree to disagree.
[/quote]
The government does not create wealth. Individuals who are productive create wealth. By taxing the productivity of its citizens the government is in fact destroying wealth. Just because one may view taking care of the poor as a moral obligation does not mean the government can force me to do it if I do not want to. Voluntary contract is the essence of freedom.

In a free society everyone is free to engage in voluntary contract. If one does not like his or her current circumstance then he or she is free to choose something else. In fact, it is the government and the special interests that destroy peoples freedom and wealth by making entry into the market – and thus engagement in voluntary contract – nearly impossible. The solution is less government. The larger government is the more corporations will control the government. Government and bureaucracy enable corporate interests.

The only role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. It cannot legitimately create “equality” but rather ensure that all are treated equally under the law. It cannot control the fact that more men are suited to pushing a broom than performing brain surgery.

15

[quote]md1587 wrote:
In essence you are saying that violence against people is wrong and yet other people can take my money at gunpoint to achieve their version of a social utopia?

You do not see any contradictions there? But you already pay taxes. Should we not pay taxes? Should we not have a government?

I simply do not seem to get how someone else’s misfortune justifies armed robbery by a third party? Should we help those in need? Sure. Should we be forced to helped them at gunpoint? No! Because wealth comes at the expense of others misfortune. I will discuss this below.

Can they demand to be fed at my expense just because there are more than me? Should the majority of people–taking into account people in other nations–suffer so that you can live happily?

No all those poor Indians and black people sure had a hard time. It is just, who cares? How are people born decades after those tragedies responsible for it? This is like saying history does not matter. This is why I aim to be an educator, and hopefully a better one than those who taught me. How come white people are blamed for the negative consequences of slavery but not praised for the good ones? If I stab a person and then bandage him up, should that person thank me for helping him? Shouldn`t the descendants of slaves, if we all embraced that collectivist logic, just say thank you that they were not born in Somalia, Nigeria or Cameroon and be done with it? Again, we forget history and colonialsim. I think they would have been much more pleased if the United States and other countries did not maintain a system of subordination. Take for example Reaganomics. When Robert McNamara left the World Bank, he was replaced by the Reagan backed A.W Clausen. Clausen was later replaced by ex-republican Barber Conable. The World Bank then began running by the logic of Reaganomics, rolling back aid. They still continued to offer loans, however they priortized by giving dictators and military generals more money than others. With this money also came SAPs or Structural Adjustment Programs. These forced third world governments to open their doors to foreign investment and reduce their welfare programs. The result? Third World countries actually became poorer than they were during the mid 1900s after decolonialism. In essence, Reaganomics was Neo-colonialism. And Bill Clinton didn’t stop this, he signed NAFTA, keeping Mexico subordinated. So how come we are not thanked for our generosity? Because we put our own interests first. Although, I shouldn’t say we, I actually mean elites do and we the people back them hoping for their crumbs or as politicians and economist would say, we are hoping wealth will trickle down.

How about black successful people, do they pay for the evils of slavery too? Why? According to 2002 census data, 13 percent of the US population is Black. 17% of that 13% have at least a bachelor’s degree. How many of them do you think are rich? I cannot speak for rich Black citizens, however, I will say that the price they must pay for becoming successful tends to be losing their identity. I have no quelps with this, people should do as they please, however, losing ones identity should not be the only route to achievement. We will never have a democracy if we are all the same.

In case the word slavery is too strong for you I could use serfdom, but than again their masters could not just simply take their property with a decree.

Ours can.You are right, Japanese internment and Mexican Repatriation shows what the government can do to citizens of the United States who do not look American enough for others. US policy abroad shows what our government will do in its own interest. We have to understand that wealth comes at the expense of others suffering under our current logic. If you are fine with this than we must agree to disagree.

[/quote]

A) But we already pay taxes.

True, but what for? If I pay taxes to be defended against aggression from others either by the military or the police they make a civilized society possible.

If taxes become the means to rob me and the police and the military will enforce those laws at gunpoint the law and the tax purpose have been perverted.

A brilliant text from over 200 years ago.

Read it:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G1407

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.

B)Wealth is aquired at the expense of others.

That is inaccurate. That is how wealth distribution and land conquering works but most wealth is created by helping other people and thereby making them richer.

Logically it can not be any other way, otherwise we would not have more relatively rich people that are healthier and better educated than ever before.

If all wealth was created at the expense of others how could there possibly be more of us that are better off? Even 6 billion at the level of 1500 would be a miracle.

C) “This is like saying history does not matter”.

No this is like saying two wrongs do not equal one right. Just because some white people did something 100 years ago you cannot rob their ancestors.

D) Reagan, neo-mercantilism:

I totally agree. A lot of these institutions were created and run in a way to support pro western governments and to enrich western nations, or to be more precise certain companies.

Or to put it another way, your money was stolen (aka) taxes, to steal from very, very poor people in the third world to enrich a few already wealthy shareholders.

If you kind of resent that the fruit of you labor is taken from you to serve such purposes, please also accept that I do not want my money to serve yours.

Plus the very idea of an income tax is very new and was simply unthinkable 100 years ago, and for excellent reasons.