NationStates Jolt Archive

We've had offshoots of this discussion in various threads so I felt that perhaps we should have one place to debate instead of numerous different threads.

Should education be privatized? [be specific: primary, college, whatever]

No, our High School doesn't need a pro-tobacco sign every 5 feet.

No.

No.

Personally, I can see the many pro's of the privatization of education, but I just don't think it's time, if ever will be. One of the advantages is/would be higher quality education. I believe if education was privatized, the middle class would benefit the most. The rich could already afford it, but the poor would be left to either cheap, low-cost private schools or no school at all. So the poor would get screwed over.

There is an easy and reasonable acid test for this problem:

Are the education systems of the five countries with the best education systems private?

No.

Emulate what works, dont be a crook. (read: privatization advocate).

No, our High School doesn't need a pro-tobacco sign every 5 feet.

:rolleyes:

Yes, exactly. Afterall, all the current private schools do that.

Personally, I can see the many pro's of the privatization of education, but I just don't think it's time, if ever will be. One of the advantages is/would be higher quality education. I believe if education was privatized, the middle class would benefit the most. The rich could already afford it, but the poor would be left to either cheap, low-cost private schools or no school at all. So the poor would get screwed over.

All valid except the last point. You make the unwarrented assumption that public schools would serve the needs of the poor better than private schools.

Private Schools Serving the Educational Needs of the Poor: A Global Research and Dissemination Project (http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/research/privateschools.html)

The Quality and Efficiency of Private and Public Education: A Case-Study of Urban India, Kingdon, 1996 (http://www.econ.ox.ac.uk/Members/geeta.kingdon/PublishedPapers/OXBESquality&Efficiencyeducation.pdf) (PDF)
Private education: the poor’s best chance? (http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_11/uk/doss22.htm)
The Hole in the Wall Project (http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/holeinthewall.html)

No. I do not want paying for school made easier by the fine folks of Smith and Wesson.

No, school should be secular and totally apolitical, and as such the public system is best.

No, I would gladly help finance the education of your brats....just keep the little thugs off my street and away from my car...please.

I would prefer that the government get out of education because there is too much of a posibility for it too be abused. It is inevitable that a government will attempt to press it's own religious, philosophical, or political agenda in publicly funded schools. Authority over childhood education is too great with potential power and consequences too large for any government to excercise, even those with good intentions at heart. The fact of the matter is, he who controls the money controls what's taught.

I would prefer that the government get out of education because there is too much of a posibility for it too be abused. It is inevitable that a government will attempt to press it's own religious, philosophical, or political agenda in publicly funded schools. Authority over childhood education is too great with potential power and consequences too large for any government to excercise, even those with good intentions at heart. The fact of the matter is, he who controls the money controls what's taught.

What do you trust more-the government, or big buisness?

I would accept the privatization of public schools with the following rules:

1] Transportation to and from school is still freely available.
2] Religious private schools must be clearly stated as such.
3] Statewide curriculum standardization of all secular private schools. (read: a school owned and operated by Microsoft must still educate and not spend all their time brainwashing the kids into worshipping Bill Gates)
4] If I live in an area where only religious education is available that conflicts with my family's religion (ie. only schools near me being Christian schools and I'm not Christian), the State must provide transportation to a secular school or to the closest school of my religious choice - unless said transportation would take longer than 1 hour, in which case the State must pay to move me and my family to a more suitable location.

Ya know what ... forget it. Keep public schools public. Privatization would only lead to problems. Big problems. Especially for minority religions and, well, minorities!

Imagine the school board of a private school deciding they didn't want black students. Government can't touch them because, hey, they're *private* schools.

Nope ... no privatization of public schools. Forget it. No way.

I would prefer that the government get out of education because there is too much of a posibility for it too be abused. It is inevitable that a government will attempt to press it's own religious, philosophical, or political agenda in publicly funded schools. Authority over childhood education is too great with potential power and consequences too large for any government to excercise, even those with good intentions at heart. The fact of the matter is, he who controls the money controls what's taught.

A government is more likely to control that than a school run by private vested interests. Corporations and business by their nature have agendas they may wish to force, at least a government can claim to be responsible and protect liberties. As an aside, many public school teachers are left-leaning, however work under right-wing governments. If public education was uncontrollable and unable to control "brainwashing" how did Bush, Blair and Howard for example get into power? It is also inevitable that a religious school will push a religious agenda, no? Because an elected government is directly responsible to the people that it serves, such a rampant bias within public education cannot occur except in a dictatorship.

I think many people are assuming that privatization of education means that we get corporate schools. It does not mean that. Privatization of education means that it's no longer a concern of government, which as other people say, has its advantages and disadvantages. Personally, as I value education above almost everything (you can even check my nation on that one), I believe that all people should have equal and free access to the highest level of education, no matter what the cost for the funders. I'd much rather pay for books than bombs.

I think many people are assuming that privatization of education means that we get corporate schools. It does not mean that.

Oh, i'm not saying you would get the "General Electric School of Excellence" and the "Daimler College" but they would be part of the corporate infrastructure, inevitably, even if it were behind the scenes.

Oh, i'm not saying you would get the "General Electric School of Excellence" and the "Daimler College" but they would be part of the corporate infrastructure, inevitably, even if it were behind the scenes.You're not, but some people are. I would probably end up homeschooling my children in such a scenario, though. I'd much rather subject my radical agenda on my the kids than the corporate puppetmaster's. ;)

I only think some of education should be privatized. Specifically the maintainance and janatorial parts. I wouldn't hand Nike the keys to the school, but I'd let an independant company clean the classrooms.

Oh, i'm not saying you would get the "General Electric School of Excellence" and the "Daimler College" but they would be part of the corporate infrastructure, inevitably, even if it were behind the scenes.

I would trust corporations with my child more than I would trust the government. If corporations did it, the only agenda that I would expect them to push would be making a buck. And if I didn't like how my kid was taught, I could just pull him/her out and use another school. Granted, I can pull my kid out of the government school and either homeschool or use a private school, but I still support the public schools with my tax dollars. Something is not right here.

Actually people homeschooling their brats scares me more than letting the Ford Motor Company seeing to their indicrination. I would rather see the kids getting a good education , so that they could be happy, docile workers than letting Otis and his wife educate their children into whatever half-baked right-wing religious propaganda they believe in, thats way too dangerous.

Personally, I can see the many pro's of the privatization of education, but I just don't think it's time, if ever will be. One of the advantages is/would be higher quality education.

Higher quality education? You think so?

A National Center for Education study (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=55) comes up with mixed results, at best. In general, I think their results tend to show that public schools are prepared to supply a better education, at least at the secondary level. For example, did you know....

"Traditional public secondary and combined schools were more likely to offer Advanced Placement (AP) courses than were private and public charter secondary and combined schools. Among secondary and combined schools, and estimated 51.2 percent of traditional public schools offered these courses, compared with 35.7 percent of private schools and 30.5 percent of public charter schools."

"Of those schools or districts using a salary schedule, public charter schools offered the highest base salary for teachers with a bachelor’s degree and no experience. The average starting salary for teachers with no experience in public charter schools that used a salary schedule was $26,977, compared with $25,888 for public school districts. Private schools offered the lowest base salary, with teachers with a bachelor’s degree and no experience earning $20,302 annually."

"Across all sectors, more than 40 percent of full-time teachers reported participating in professional development activities that focused on in-depth study of content in their main teaching field in the last 12 months. Among full-time traditional public school teachers, 59.3 percent participated in such professional development activities, compared with 55.2 percent of full-time public charter school teachers and 43.1 percent of full-time private school teachers.

Full-time traditional public school teachers were more likely than full-time teachers in other sectors to participate in professional development activities on the uses of computers for instruction. An estimated 70.7 percent of full-time teachers in traditional public schools participated in such professional development activities. This contrasts with 56.9 percent of full-time teachers in public charter schools and 52.1 percent of full-time teachers in private schools."


So, public schools offer more money to new teachers... which, if we can assume there is a competitive labor market, should attract many of the best teaching candidates. Public school teachers are also more likely to continue professional development, and the schools are more likely to offer advanced college-level courses.

The downside? Public schools have slightly larger class sizes -- but this can easily be corrected by giving them the funding they need. Teachers in public schools, on average, also have to deal with greater behavioral problems... but private schools have the advantage of being able to turn away children with behavioral problems, as well as avoiding the problems surrounding the most disadvantaged students. Since privatizing education would not eliminate these students from the system, these problems cannot be solved by changes in education alone... they require more general economic reform.

I'll post some more later giving my thoughts on post-secondary education.

Imagine the school board of a private school deciding they didn't want black students. Government can't touch them because, hey, they're *private* schools.

Uh, let it be pointed out that this is decidedly incorrect. A private school is a 'public business'. In the same way that McDonalds doesn't have the right to refuse service to a black person (for being black), no private school has the right to do so. The only difference in the racial makeup of a private versus public school would be that a private one is not bound by racial quotas. I.E. they can't refuse entrance to a black student, but they are also not required to go out looking for them (and this is only in the case of schools on the collegiate level).

Actually people homeschooling their brats scares me more than letting the Ford Motor Company seeing to their indicrination. I would rather see the kids getting a good education , so that they could be happy, docile workers than letting Otis and his wife educate their children into whatever half-baked right-wing religious propaganda they believe in, thats way too dangerous.

Some people are homeschooling their kids precisely to avoid half-baked right-wing religious propaganda. Quit being a bigot.

Private Schools Serving the Educational Needs of the Poor: A Global Research and Dissemination Project (http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/research/privateschools.html)

The Quality and Efficiency of Private and Public Education: A Case-Study of Urban India, Kingdon, 1996[/ur] (PDF)
[url=http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_11/uk/doss22.htm]Private education: the poor’s best chance? (http://www.econ.ox.ac.uk/Members/geeta.kingdon/PublishedPapers/OXBESquality&Efficiencyeducation.pdf)
The Hole in the Wall Project (http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/holeinthewall.html)

WOW. What a neutral and objective source. All I had to do was read their name.

It is inevitable that a government will attempt to press it's own religious, philosophical, or political agenda in publicly funded schools.

Really? I think someone has already made this point, but it is worth mentioning again that public school teachers are just as critical of the government -- if not more so -- than private school teachers. While I am aware of a few exceptions (a friend of mine went to a fantastically radical high school), those only show that private schools, when they have an agenda, pursue it more deliberately and relentlessly than any public school. If anything, public schools in a democracy (or the loose approximation of democracy we get in America) reflect all the conflict of democratic politics. No one political voice is likely to pull them too far in any one direction... and therefore they are likely to provide the most freedom in education, with the most diversity in viewpoints from which young minds can learn.

But, if you just want a single dogma shoved down your child's throat, I am sure you can find a private school willing to charge you for it.

WOW. What a neutral and objective source. All I had to do was read their name.

Yes. Unesco and organizations trying to bring private education to students who are not being given any chance for public education are completely biased and evil.
:rolleyes:
(read the links)

Oh, i'm not saying you would get the "General Electric School of Excellence" and the "Daimler College" but they would be part of the corporate infrastructure, inevitably, even if it were behind the scenes.
I only think some of education should be privatized. Specifically the maintainance and janatorial parts. I wouldn't hand Nike the keys to the school, but I'd let an independant company clean the classrooms.
No. I do not want paying for school made easier by the fine folks of Smith and Wesson.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Why do so many people here seem to automatically assume private schools=coroporate schools?
What, if any, evidence can you provide to show that a privatised education would be run anyother way than existing private schools?

Similarly to what I said above, all one needs to do is looks at the huge number of private schools already existing to know this argument is grossly stupid.

Some people are homeschooling their kids precisely to avoid half-baked right-wing religious propaganda. Quit being a bigot.

Please, the only people who take this homeschooling seriously are half-baked right-wing religious nuts...if we continued to allow these people to indoctrinate their brats into nonsense the consequences are going to be more Timothy McVieghs and more Wacos. And I don't beleive that some harried mother of 10 is going to be able to give her brats the full education that they will need to have in order to compete on the job market.

Yes, some of it.

Our colleges are the envy of the world, and how are they set up? Both private and public, it is the best of both worlds, simple economics really. One note, however, is that there needs to be some regulation in such a way that it is not public vs. private, but networked by state, or other smaller district. Public and private institutions need to interact with one another, much like our colleges do.

Yes, some of it.

Our colleges are the envy of the world, and how are they set up? Both private and public, it is the best of both worlds, simple economics really. One note, however, is that there needs to be some regulation in such a way that it is not public vs. private, but networked by state, or other smaller district. Public and private institutions need to interact with one another, much like our colleges do.

Could you be more specific? Whose colleges are the envy of the world? Certainly not the United States... In case you hadn't noticed, we are having trouble attracting the best students from around the world, especially in the last few years. We face terribly fierce competition from Europe and -- this will probably surprise you -- Africa, too.

I attend the 7th best high school in America, and it is public, so I see no need for change. The best way to improve failing schools is simply give them more money!

I attend the 7th best high school in America, and it is public, so I see no need for change. The best way to improve failing schools is simply give them more money!

So just throw money at the problem? Failing schools is not just about money

No, our High School doesn't need a pro-tobacco sign every 5 feet.

You'd like the private school I went to, then.

Private education should be abolished, levels the playing field.

So just throw money at the problem? Failing schools is not just about money
Mostly, it is. Parents don't earn enough to have their taxes pump significant amounts of money into the schools. Their kids receive inadequate education or dropout alltogether. They, in turn get poor jobs, and the vicious cycle continues.

Its not just about money.. because the system is fundementally flawed in itself.. money is wasted ineffeciently... and the amount of money you would have to litterally throw at it to make it go away is so staggering its almost unrealistic.. u have to expand schools dramatically, pay teachers more.. maybe even give some benifits.. school the better, supply schools, and keep a steady stream of funding... you also need more schools to stem over populated classes .. they simply have to stream line the whole education system.. give universal standards to meet.. and means in which to keep steady funding.. also give more stability to teachers and/or atleast give them more power over students and parents. This is why im for federalizing the education system.. states obviously cant handle the great cost.. and its far too important to let them continue to screw it up

Personally, I can see the many pro's of the privatization of education, but I just don't think it's time, if ever will be. One of the advantages is/would be higher quality education. I believe if education was privatized, the middle class would benefit the most. The rich could already afford it, but the poor would be left to either cheap, low-cost private schools or no school at all. So the poor would get screwed over.


:rolleyes:

I live in Florida, pronounced "Floriduh" since Jeb Bush started the school voucher system. Do you know what we got for our tax dollars? Strip Mall instant schools being investigated for fraud.

In every municipality in strip malls where super markets have closed down, private schools have been popping up in their place. Yep, they just take down the grocery sale signs from the window and (in one place I saw) paint a little red school house.

True a Florida High School education just qualifies you for becoming a bag boy, but don't you think this begs the point?

Mostly, it is. Parents don't earn enough to have their taxes pump significant amounts of money into the schools. Their kids receive inadequate education or dropout alltogether. They, in turn get poor jobs, and the vicious cycle continues.

How about this...First the schools have to stop wasting money teaching self-esteem, values clarification, political correctness, tolerence, creationism, abstinence or any nut-job right-wing or left-wing morality or propaganda coming down the pike and stick to teaching the brats how to read, how to write and how to do some basic math. Schools are not in the business of teaching kids morality. The only thing that the school system should be producing is good happy consumers who can compete in the job market, that is all I want the schools to do, is that asking to much?

Mostly, it is. Parents don't earn enough to have their taxes pump significant amounts of money into the schools. Their kids receive inadequate education or dropout alltogether. They, in turn get poor jobs, and the vicious cycle continues.

Money is only part of the entire picture. You must consider efficiency too. Are we putting the money where it needs to be? Are we getting the most out of it?

The US spends a great deal more than other countries on public education, but is still at the bottom of the barrel.

I'd like to hear people's opinions on government-paid private school vouchers. That is a big part of the issue as well.

No, school should be secular and totally apolitical, and as such the public system is best.

do you honestly think that the public schools that we have now are apolitical? if you do either you have rose tinted glasses on or your a fool. there are many student established organizations being created to point out the fact that the public school system is not apolitical. if you went into ANY public school in the USA this past year, i bet you that you would see the truth in what i am saying, and if you dont then a) your not looking hard enough, b) you dont want to admit the truth, or c) your a fool. every single one of those liberal teachers in the public schools are indoctrinating our young to follow a relativistic, atheistic, anti-conservative, pro-socialist, pro-homosxual lifestyle. the majority of them have spent the last 4 years complaining about George Bush, Iraq, etc., even when their curriculum has nothing to do with current political events. for too long have the teachers and liberals pointed to the right to free speech and then turned around and failed those students with the audactiy to use their free speech to contradict the teachers. i think the schools should be privitized. that way the parents and the students alike will know the environment and opinions and education the will truely be recieving instead of playing russian roulette with their children's minds and grades.

How about this...First the schools have to stop wasting money teaching self-esteem, values clarification, political correctness, tolerence, creationism, abstinence or any nut-job right-wing or left-wing morality or pro da coming down the pike and stick to teaching the brats how to read, how to write and how to do some basic math. Schools are not in the business of teaching kids morality. The only thing that the school system should be producing is good happy consumers who can compete in the job market, that is all I want the schools to do, is that asking to much?

i completly agree

every single one of those liberal teachers in the public schools are indoctrinating our young to follow a relativistic, atheistic, anti-conservative, pro-socialist, pro-homosxual lifestyle.

I sure hope you're not implying that ALL public school teachers are this way.

Back in the day (3 years ago) when I was in high school, I had many teachers that would stick to the curriculum and bypass consideration to the daily news. This was especially true in math courses. We sat down, opened our books, and took notes nonstop.

And I sure as hell never had a teacher stick a rainbow colored flag in any of my orifices, so you can cut it out with the "teachers promoting homosexuality" nonsense.

privatize education. the only occupation the government may engage in is defense. no social programs and no public education. who gave the government the right to take income tax and spend it on people i don't know? i don't know them, i don't care for them. this includes the jobless and children. if a childs parent fails and is unable to provide an education, clothes, shelter, food, anything, its not my problem. need is not a valid claim. i have absolutely no problem with people volunteering to give money for others, but the government has no claim to my money.

if we privatize education, schools would improve drastically. if you prefer mcdonalds over burger king, which do you use? whichever you please. if one day mcdonalds changes their ingredients and all of their food tastes bad, but burger king food still tastes pretty good, which do you use? if you're unhappy with a private school, send your child to another. if you can't afford another, tough luck. you have no right to anything but what you can earn. you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of your own happiness. you do not have the right to my life, my liberty, or your own happiness. all you can have on this world is what you can earn. you do not have an inherent claim to anything but what you have earned, and neither does the government. if you don't want your kid seeing ads in a school, get over it or send them to another school. you don't have the right to an ad-free education for your child. if nobody wants their kids seeing ads between calculus and physics, they can choose another school to send their kids to, and the ad-free schools will flourish while the ad full schools will fail. its simple economics.

Please, the only people who take this homeschooling seriously are half-baked right-wing religious nuts...if we continued to allow these people to indoctrinate their brats into nonsense the consequences are going to be more Timothy McVieghs and more Wacos. And I don't beleive that some harried mother of 10 is going to be able to give her brats the full education that they will need to have in order to compete on the job market.

yes and on the other hand the half-back left wing athiest communist waco professors can indoctrinate their students to become bommb throwing anrchists or anti-capitalist communists too.

privatize education. the only occupation the government may engage in is defense. no social programs and no public education. who gave the government the right to take income tax and spend it on people i don't know? i don't know them, i don't care for them. this includes the jobless and children. if a childs parent fails and is unable to provide an education, clothes, shelter, food, anything, its not my problem. need is not a valid claim. i have absolutely no problem with people volunteering to give money for others, but the government has no claim to my money.

if we privatize education, schools would improve drastically. if you prefer mcdonalds over burger king, which do you use? whichever you please. if one day mcdonalds changes their ingredients and all of their food tastes bad, but burger king food still tastes pretty good, which do you use? if you're unhappy with a private school, send your child to another. if you can't afford another, tough luck. you have no right to anything but what you can earn. you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of your own happiness. you do not have the right to my life, my liberty, or your own happiness. all you can have on this world is what you can earn. you do not have an inherent claim to anything but what you have earned, and neither does the government. if you don't want your kid seeing ads in a school, get over it or send them to another school. you don't have the right to an ad-free education for your child. if nobody wants their kids seeing ads between calculus and physics, they can choose another school to send their kids to, and the ad-free schools will flourish while the ad full schools will fail. its simple economics.

*shakes your hand* you said it better then i could.

I sure hope you're not implying that ALL public school teachers are this way.

Back in the day (3 years ago) when I was in high school, I had many teachers that would stick to the curriculum and bypass consideration to the daily news. This was especially true in math courses. We sat down, opened our books, and took notes nonstop.

And I sure as hell never had a teacher stick a rainbow colored flag in any of my orifices, so you can cut it out with the "teachers promoting " nonsense.[/QUOTE]

i wasnt saying all public school teachers are that way, however if you look at the stats, professed liberal teachers outnumber professed conservative teachers by 7 -1

So just throw money at the problem? Failing schools is not just about money
alot of it is

Yay! Trolls ahoy!
Publicization. It's why Scandinavian countries (socialist tax run states) are so sweet.

Schools are not in the business of teaching kids morality. The only thing that the school system should be producing is good happy consumers who can compete in the job market, that is all I want the schools to do, is that asking to much?
Teaching kids to be consumers who compete in the job market is still imposing values on people. You're telling me that schools shouldn't favor one group or another. Isn't that favoring capitalism? The school should not have a standard policy on any issue, but they mustn't stifle independent thoughts!

Yay! Trolls ahoy!
Publicization. It's why Scandinavian countries (socialist tax run states) are so sweet.
It's why Scandinavian countries have better schools than America!

Teaching kids to be consumers who compete in the job market is still imposing values on people. You're telling me that schools shouldn't favor one group or another. Isn't that favoring capitalism? The school should not have a standard policy on any issue, but they mustn't stifle independent thoughts!

Hey, what's wrong with capitalism??? ;)

Teaching kids to be consumers who compete in the job market is still imposing values on people. You're telling me that schools shouldn't favor one group or another. Isn't that favoring capitalism? The school should not have a standard policy on any issue, but they mustn't stifle independent thoughts!

The most important thing for me, is that the students when they leave the education system have the ability to land jobs...they have to eat you know

Teaching kids to be consumers who compete in the job market is still imposing values on people. You're telling me that schools shouldn't favor one group or another. Isn't that favoring capitalism? The school should not have a standard policy on any issue, but they mustn't stifle independent thoughts!

And if schools were privatized, you'd get to choose which kind of school you'd like to go to.. one that values capitalism/jobs and another that values individuality and stuff.

Teaching kids to be consumers who compete in the job market is still imposing values on people. You're telling me that schools shouldn't favor one group or another. Isn't that favoring capitalism? The school should not have a standard policy on any issue, but they mustn't stifle independent thoughts!

I don't care about independent thoughts, you don't go to school to have independent thoughts....you go to learn and that the only thing students should be doing in school...learning a values-free cirriculum that will help them survive in the world

It's why Scandinavian countries have better schools than America!

The literacy rate in all major Scandinavian countries is 100%, excepting Sweden, which has 99%. The United States of America as a literacy rate of 97%. That should stand for something, especially looking at Finland, which really started up around the middle of the 20th century.

I do believe that not only Scandinavia but probably all of Europe, except, perhaps, eastern Europe has an educational system that's better than those of the U.S.

I don't know how everything is arranged in other countries but here in Holland it's mostly public schools for all I know and I never had a situation in which I felt that an opinion was forced upon me or that I couldn't discuss a different view with a teacher. Also the level of education is quite high here in Holland, I for sure have nothing to complain about being intellectually challenged in college.

How about this...First the schools have to stop wasting money teaching self-esteem, values clarification, political correctness, tolerence, creationism, abstinence or any nut-job right-wing or left-wing morality or propaganda coming down the pike and stick to teaching the brats how to read, how to write and how to do some basic math. Schools are not in the business of teaching kids morality. The only thing that the school system should be producing is good happy consumers who can compete in the job market, that is all I want the schools to do, is that asking to much?

Teaching "morality" in some form appropriate to democracy (no more, no less), to include things like basic political tolerance, is a good idea... but I really do not want to get off on that tangent.

I whole-heartedly agree, however, that the so-called "self-esteem movement" is the real downfall of primary and secondary education. Whether it is a cause or a symptom of the epidemic of narcissism in this country is anybody's guess.

if we privatize education, schools would improve drastically. if you prefer mcdonalds over burger king, which do you use?

Great example. If we privatize education, many schools will adopt curricula about on a par with a McDonald's salad.

if one day mcdonalds changes their ingredients and all of their food tastes bad, but burger king food still tastes pretty good, which do you use?

The problem is, in this kind of market, McDonald's is losing customers to Burger King all the time... and vice versa. Neither one ever bothers to get any better to keep from losing customers, because they will always have new ones to replace the old. (Sometimes complaining is better than just leaving.)

Teaching "morality" in some form appropriate to democracy (no more, no less), to include things like basic political tolerance, is a good idea... but I really do not want to get off on that tangent.

I whole-heartedly agree, however, that the so-called "self-esteem movement" is the real downfall of primary and secondary education. Whether it is a cause or a symptom of the epidemic of narcissism in this country is anybody's guess.

I agree we should teach kids how to be a good citizen and their basic rights under the Constitution, thats very important for little Johnny and chances are if Johnny knows that the Constitution means something and he has rights and responsibilities under that document then most likely he will not be shooting up the 'hood when he hits 12 and gets his first UZi for X-mas. And maybe schools should teach some table manners and the dangers of incest for Otis and kin , but thats has far has they should go...

We've had offshoots of this discussion in various threads so I felt that perhaps we should have one place to debate instead of numerous different threads.

Should education be privatized? [be specific: primary, college, whatever]
No! No, no, no, no, no...oh, and NO. Simply put, education is of better quality when funded by the government; in fact, I advocate a quadruple boost in the education budget of the US. We'll have to cut military spending somewhat, but that shouldn't affect us all that much, considering we spend 53% of our annual budget on the military.

Education is the most important part in the formation of a productive, educated, civilized citizen (Whoa, that was redundant). It should be free for all, for the cost of maintaining a free school system is smaller than the social benefit society gets out of it.

Now, im not saying that private schools should be terminated, not at all. But they must accept co-existance with public schools, which are a necessity.

Even if full privatization would improve quality, the exclusion of a big chunk society would be unbereable and unfair: You would be dooming the childreen of the poor, to be poor, since no education would save them. You would be terminating the productivity of your citizens, since most would not be able to afford education, and in the long run, you would have more people applying to macdonalds, not less, due to this fact.

You know what amazes me the most...its the middle-class walmarteers who constantly bitch and complain about how their taxes are being used to educate someones elses kids but they always screaming for the government to hire more police and build more prisons which cost more...go figure

I've never been educated anywhere other than Canada, South-Western Ontario, and I can say for certain that more efficient private schooling is much preferable to more of this public school crap.

Private schools don't make the news with guns, drugs; the CATHOLIC Seperate School Board (which I attended) is publicly funded; it's widely acknowledged that the Catholic system, with it's problems, is better than the public.

My high school (a Catholic one, with uniforms and all), I have seen - with my own eyes - a handgun dropped in the hall. The Canadian Emergency Response (i.e. SWAT) team stormed my school (that was pretty cool actually). The Ontario budget is freely available for the last ten or so years - it shows spending on education rising both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the budget, even through the "evil" Mike Harris years.

Another Catholic (Publicly-funded) school has a "smoking hill". At first, they smoked cigarettes. Now they smoke marijuana, and do heroin and cocaine. During class time students are not allowed out of the classroom. Police with dogs regularly sweep the halls.

Ladies and gentlemen these schools are not in the Bronx, like the movies. These schools are not in the Deep South of the United States. These schools are populated by students who fervently believe they are better than any American student - and studies seem to show they're right. Or, at least the studies the teachers give us.

Speaking of the teachers, should I mention how our teachers - at a CATHOLIC school - reguarly indoctrinate children by telling them how evil the Conservatives are, federally and provincially? So much for "Religious right-wing ideology". The teachers who give us a crappy education and whine about how they get treated like shit and need to run to the Teacher's Union - teachers who ABUSE children get their jobs back because of the teacher's union - are supposed to be practicing Catholics, and telling us that anything right-wing is wrong? And not supporting the statements with any sort of facts or, hell, even a cogent argument.

With the socialist education system we have here in a dismal state, you'd think people would support alternatives. But when the Harris gov't introduces private school vouchers, people are up in arms - and these vouchers only give you a tax break, since you're paying TWICE for your child's education if you send him/her to a private school (private school tuition and education through taxes).

Privatize it all. Teach the teachers a lesson about manipulating children with their own ideology and playing God with their students lives with their strikes.

Americans who complain about their taxes--STOP WHINING. We pay NOTHING compared to many European countries. Those countries have superior healthcare and education. This results in a better standard of living and life expectancy age. Is your random consumer spending really worth it?

I've never been educated anywhere other than Canada, South-Western Ontario, and I can say for certain that more efficient private schooling is much preferable to more of this public school crap.

Private schools don't make the news with guns, drugs; the CATHOLIC Seperate School Board (which I attended) is publicly funded; it's widely acknowledged that the Catholic system, with it's problems, is better than the public.

My high school (a Catholic one, with uniforms and all), I have seen - with my own eyes - a handgun dropped in the hall. The Canadian Emergency Response (i.e. SWAT) team stormed my school (that was pretty cool actually). The Ontario budget is freely available for the last ten or so years - it shows spending on education rising both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the budget, even through the "evil" Mike Harris years.

Another Catholic (Publicly-funded) school has a "smoking hill". At first, they smoked cigarettes. Now they smoke marijuana, and do heroin and cocaine. During class time students are not allowed out of the classroom. Police with dogs regularly sweep the halls.

Ladies and gentlemen these schools are not in the Bronx, like the movies. These schools are not in the Deep South of the United States. These schools are populated by students who fervently believe they are better than any American student - and studies seem to show they're right. Or, at least the studies the teachers give us.

Speaking of the teachers, should I mention how our teachers - at a CATHOLIC school - reguarly indoctrinate children by telling them how evil the Conservatives are, federally and provincially? So much for "Religious right-wing ideology". The teachers who give us a crappy education and whine about how they get treated like shit and need to run to the Teacher's Union - teachers who ABUSE children get their jobs back because of the teacher's union - are supposed to be practicing Catholics, and telling us that anything right-wing is wrong? And not supporting the statements with any sort of facts or, hell, even a cogent argument.

With the socialist education system we have here in a dismal state, you'd think people would support alternatives. But when the Harris gov't introduces private school vouchers, people are up in arms - and these vouchers only give you a tax break, since you're paying TWICE for your child's education if you send him/her to a private school (private school tuition and education through taxes).

Privatize it all. Teach the teachers a lesson about manipulating children with their own ideology and playing God with their students lives with their strikes.
in AMERICA, religious schools ARE private

oh yes lets privatise everything, that way

1) schools can decide to not let children attend: children with discipline problems, asians, africans, people who need to take any type of medication, people with freckles, it doesnt matter, they can do it

2) charge a crapload for students to go and students go because they cant go to public schools ebcause they are underfunded and the teachers are even more underpaid so dont give a shit so they have to pay out their ass to get a halfway decent education

3) public schools get shut down because guess what, the more students a school has, the more money it receives from the government.

etc etc etc, schools are not one of those things you want privatised

Americans who complain about their taxes--STOP WHINING. We pay NOTHING compared to many European countries. Those countries have superior healthcare and education. This results in a better standard of living and life expectancy age. Is your random consumer spending really worth it?
no, but our assumed random cosumer spending is.

in AMERICA, religious schools ARE private

oh yes lets privatise everything, that way

1) schools can decide to not let children attend: children with discipline problems, asians, africans, people who need to take any type of medication, people with freckles, it doesnt matter, they can do it

2) charge a crapload for students to go and students go because they cant go to public schools ebcause they are underfunded and the teachers are even more underpaid so dont give a shit so they have to pay out their ass to get a halfway decent education

3) public schools get shut down because guess what, the more students a school has, the more money it receives from the government.

etc etc etc, schools are not one of those things you want privatised

If a school discriminated, a lot of people wouldn't attend it for such policies. It wouldnt survive anywhere except maybe Mississippi.

Americans who complain about their taxes--STOP WHINING. We pay NOTHING compared to many European countries. Those countries have superior healthcare and education. This results in a better standard of living and life expectancy age. Is your random consumer spending really worth it?
Americans spend, per capita, more on both education and healthcare than Europeans, IIRC.

Americans spend, per capita, more on both education and healthcare than Europeans, IIRC.
Not really. In terms of pure numbers, yes, but that's because we're a much larger number--err... I mean nation. >_> (I'm very tired.). Compare them percentage wise and you'll see our spending amounts are quite low compared to theirs.

No, but I think that it should be ran more by the community than by the government. I go to a small public school in Canada, and theres a lack of interesting courses. Sudents who want to learn are neglected by the teachers because they already know the necessities, and the dumb ones need help. If only people were generous enough to do teaching by volunteerism. Everybody's good at something or other, and if everybody in the community took a few days out of thier work schedule to teach, then we could save money, or abolish the need for it completley, people could learn a variety of things, and then do some sort of apprentiship program to find out more about thier prime interests. And with such a wide range of teachers, no one teachers ideas would be crammed down thier throats.

If a school discriminated, a lot of people wouldn't attend it for such policies. It wouldnt survive anywhere except maybe Mississippi.
people will have no choivce BUT to attend, public schools will be clsoed and other schools will have similar policies. especially the one where they dont allow children with disciplinary problems to attend and expel anyone who develops any

Not really. In terms of pure numbers, yes, but that's because we're a much larger number--err... I mean nation. >_> (I'm very tired.). Compare them percentage wise and you'll see our spending amounts are quite low compared to theirs.
Yes but percentage dosen't matter. If a country spends 50% on healthcare, but its revenue is only $10, whereas another country spends 1% but has a revenue of 1,000,000,000, the secound country ends up spending more. A per capita dollar measurement takes this into account, and shows how much a government is spending per person.

Americans spend, per capita, more on both education and healthcare than Europeans, IIRC.
yet our healthcare and education is worse

Yes but percentage dosen't matter. If a country spends 50% on healthcare, but its revenue is only $10, whereas another country spends 1% but has a revenue of 1,000,000,000, the secound country ends up spending more. A per capita dollar measurement takes this into account, and shows how much a government is spending per person.
It's also a pointless exercise, because our education system is not as good as the European's is. Thus, we need to spend more. QED

Does the Constitution explicitly state that citizens have a right to an education?

Just wondering

It's also a pointless exercise, because our education system is not as good as the European's is. Thus, we need to spend more. QED
No, that dosen't make sense. If we already spend more and its worse, the answer could be many things - but should obviously not be more money. What don't you get about that?

yet our healthcare and education is worse
Exactly, we need some system reforms, not just throwing money at the problem.

No, that dosen't make sense. If we already spend more and its worse, the answer could be many things - but should obviously not be more money. What don't you get about that?


Exactly, we need some system reforms, not just throwing money at the problem.
But those reforms have to be funded. You're missing the point. Yes, we spend more, but that's because we have more to spend on. In total, we have not spent as much per school due to our larger population. Don't confuse pure dollar numbers with actual spending amount.

Actually people homeschooling their brats scares me more than letting the Ford Motor Company seeing to their indicrination. I would rather see the kids getting a good education , so that they could be happy, docile workers than letting Otis and his wife educate their children into whatever half-baked right-wing religious propaganda they believe in, thats way too dangerous.
The attitude you exhibit is the number one reason GWB won the election. Your transparent snobbery and disdain for anyone that does not hold the same left-wing beliefs you have turns off even those who might normally sympathize with you. Parents should have the right to bring up their children as they see fit. If your kids were being taught a right-wing agenda at the public school, wouldn't you want to be able to bring them home and "bring them up right"?

The attitude you exhibit is the number one reason GWB won the election. Your transparent snobbery and disdain for anyone that does not hold the same left-wing beliefs you have turns off even those who might normally sympathize with you. Parents should have the right to bring up their children as they see fit. If your kids were being taught a right-wing agenda at the public school, wouldn't you want to be able to bring them home and "bring them up right"?

I don't care if they are right nuts or left nuts, you nuts are not qualified to determine what is right or wrong, why you might ask..well, you are nuts and I don't know about you but I don't what any nuts educating anyone not even their own kids...its just too dangerous. The only thing kids need to learn is how to be productive happy docile citizens who can work their jobs and go home to watch their TV's, thats all that is necessary. The only good education is a values-free education.

I don't care if they are right nuts or left nuts, you nuts are not qualified to determine what is right or wrong, why you might ask..well, you are nuts and I don't know about you but I don't what any nuts educating anyone not even their own kids...its just too dangerous. The only thing kids need to learn is how to be productive happy docile citizens who can work their jobs and go home to watch their TV's, thats all that is necessary. The only good education is a values-free education.
Sorry, I just realized I was talking with a moral relativist - or, should I say, an amoralist, as I should have realized from your moniker. So:
1. You want values-free education.
2. YOUR values are such that children should have values-free education.
3. Is that not a value in itself, and being imposed on my children, when I want them to have values, such as don't steal, don't kill, respect others, etc?

Personally, I really want to see the entire American education system re-worked. There are too many out-dated texts, too many STUPID quotas, and too many WEIRDOS home-schooling their children with OPINIONS rather than cold, hard FACTS. (Give kids the facts and let them come to their own conclusions through experience.)

Sorry, I just realized I was talking with a moral relativist - or, should I say, an amoralist, as I should have realized from your moniker. So:
1. You want values-free education.
2. YOUR values are such that children should have values-free education.
3. Is that not a value in itself, and being imposed on my children, when I want them to have values, such as don't steal, don't kill, respect others, etc?

The only education society should give to children is one that enables them to function properly in a capitalistic society as productive happy consumers, if you want to instruct your child in your religious morals then do so, it is the job of the parent to do so in the first place, it is not the job of publically funded schools. If you think it is the job of the schools to teach your values to all children and then to make it fair they should teach my nihilistic values (whatever nihilistic values are) to your children...is that what you want? Its only fair.

The only education society should give to children is one that enables them to function properly in a capitalistic society as productive happy consumers, if you want to instruct your child in your religious morals then do so, it is the job of the parent to do so in the first place, it is not the job of publically funded schools. If you think it is the job of the schools to teach your values to all children and then to make it fair they should teach my nihilistic values (whatever nihilistic values are) to your children...is that what you want? Its only fair.
Is not the absence of the teaching of values a value judgement itself? If so, then your values are trumping mine, and I don't think that is fair. But then, as my mother always says, "nobody ever said life was fair" (nagging, annoying tone).

The only education society should give to children is one that enables them to function properly in a capitalistic society as productive happy consumers,

Now, that is going too far. You want to indoctrinate capitalist values, but capitalism is not really the agreement upon which our society is based; democracy is. Sure, our economy is largely capitalist -- although if you get into the details, ANY government intervention in the economy for the purpose of benefiting society as a whole is "socialist," and by now such intervention is generally accepted as commonplace. (Whether this means "conservative" tax breaks, subsidies and bail-outs that 'stimulate' the economy, or "liberal" measures like free education or redistribution.)

The point is, economic issues are things about which the democracy decides -- they are not the basis of democracy itself. Thus, students should be educated to be good democratic citizens. Yes, this involves teaching "values" like free speech, how to interact in political cooperation with others, and so on. I will even go so far as to include certain whatever other values are generally agreed upon -- and to this extent, some respect for capitalist notions makes sense, such as a respect for merit-based rewards and so on. Of course, to be fully prepared for democratic interaction means having an awareness of the criticisms and problems, of the disagreements and divisions of the existing society as well.

if you want to instruct your child in your religious morals then do so, it is the job of the parent to do so in the first place, it is not the job of publically funded schools.

True... this is one of those "common values" that I mentioned above, viz. that religious/moral instruction is essentially a private matter. However (and keep in mind this is coming from an atheist), I see no problem in teaching something of religious doctrine and history as an academic subject, even in primary and secondary schools. I would even allow an emphasis on Christian doctrine, from the perspective of "how this shapes the American public," and including an examination of other major religions (Judaism, Islam). I think even young students should be able to appreciate the history of conflict and/or compromise between these major doctrines, and how this shapes contemporary politics. As it is, most Americans actually lack the terms in which to even begin to discuss, for instance, conflict with the Arab/Muslim world.

Naturally, I think such instruction should also include an analysis of atheist/humanist/scientific belief, how and why people choose this over traditional religions, and most importantly how the dynamic of secularism vs. religion plays out in American or [insert your own country here] politics. It may be somewhat difficult for teachers to deal with these issues in a non-partisan way... but I have found that if they are well-taught themselves, and with experience, it can be done. And the benefits are well worth the effort.

If you think it is the job of the schools to teach your values to all children and then to make it fair they should teach my nihilistic values (whatever nihilistic values are) to your children...is that what you want? Its only fair.

Sure, why not? Should children not be taught to recognize and understand others' beliefs? Is it not best that, when meeting someone who thinks differently than themselves, they should be prepared to identify the most salient points of disagreement... and the points of commonality as well?

Understanding our commonalities, and being familiar with our differences, is the beginning of truly democratic dialogue.

Sure, why not? Should children not be taught to recognize and understand others' beliefs? Is it not best that, when meeting someone who thinks differently than themselves, they should be prepared to identify the most salient points of disagreement... and the points of commonality as well?

Understanding our commonalities, and being familiar with our differences, is the beginning of truly democratic dialogue.

I really don't think that public schools should teach nihilism or spirituality to children....God forbid if they ever taught nihilism to little kids, scares me to even think about it...I will get back to you about the rest

But those reforms have to be funded. You're missing the point. Yes, we spend more, but that's because we have more to spend on. In total, we have not spent as much per school due to our larger population. Don't confuse pure dollar numbers with actual spending amount.
Do you understand what per capita means?

If a school discriminated, a lot of people wouldn't attend it for such policies. It wouldnt survive anywhere except maybe Mississippi.
I went to a school with a...80-90% white population and a 0% black population. Founded right after Brown v. The Board of Education (of which the state which the school was located in was a defendant in). One of the most popular schools in the area today, they just put in a multi-million dollar expansion. I still don't think they have a black student, though they might now after they fired the founding headmaster over his comments about how Gays have no rights. (Private, by the way)

I made a long post once about a specific aspect of this issue.
See http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7466322#post7466322.

We need to fund public education so that my tuition is lower. If we do not, tuition will increase and I may not be able to afford it. Making it all private is the worst idea I have ever heard.

Do you understand what per capita means?

Clearly he does not.
Nor would he understand if you pointed out that the US spends more as a percentage of GDP on Education and Healthcare than most if not all European nations. I am positive on the Healthcare(% of GDP) and pretty sure about the education(% of GDP).

Quite probably he is a product of the aformentioned educational system that he wishes to throw more money at.

side note
inner city NYC public schools spend 12-14 thousand per pupil per school year yet receive MUCH worse results than Catholic school located in the same neighborhoods teaching the same kids. The Catholic schools do it for 3-4 thousand per pupil per year. Clearly, there is something more important than money when it comes to the education of children.

Before people start screaming about religion, keep in mind that not only am I an atheist, I think religious people are not entirely sane. But I have to give credit to the results generated by some of these educational institutions.

And as to privatization, it wouldnt lead to corporate schools. A more likely solution would be vouchers that could be used wherever a parent wanted. They could even use it in the public schools if they so chose.

Liberals are always screaming about choice, well vouchers are about choice. Vouchers give choices to people who could not otherwise afford them. You would think that liberals would be for vouchers.

I really don't think that public schools should teach nihilism or spirituality to children....God forbid if they ever taught nihilism to little kids, scares me to even think about it...I will get back to you about the rest

Why worry about teaching them nihilism? Sooner or later we teach them about Nazism, and are we really afraid that many children will convert to the teaching?

As for nihilism, we teach them the notion and discuss its place in the world. When are they ready for such a discussion? Probably about the time they really get into things like Nazism; I seem to remember learning WWII in depth in 9th or 10th grade. By this time, children are familiar enough with our common values (and the values instilled by their parents) that they can deal with Nazism as something "foreign" -- something to be understood but not necessarily imitated. I think the same is appropriate for nihilism. Indeed, by this time in classes that allow more discussion -- often English and occasionally a "social studies" class -- students begin to suggest the nihilistic conclusion themselves, whether they have heard it elsewhere or they just recognize it as in some ways a "logical" conclusion from the nature of discussion about values.

Of course, as in most discussions of the nihilistic position, other participants in the dialogue are likely to pick up on some of its contradictions (just as the nihilist picks up on some of the contradictions in traditional value systems). Most likely, none of them will ever be truly satisfied with their own moral conclusions... but that is just another way to say they will be "open-minded."

By promoting such discussions by introducing controversial and competing ideas about the world, teachers can introduce students to a very "adult" way of looking at the world. Sooner or later they have to understand that the world offers few "final" answers, and democratic political life requires a constant renegotiation of accepted beliefs -- we have to know that there are alternatives, and we have to have a sense of where they stand in relation to the larger culture.

Perhaps more importantly, it promotes a kind of self-knowledge. Exposed to new points of view, students get a more detailed and profound sense of who they are and what they believe. They learn what ideas are attractive to them, and they learn to wonder why.

in AMERICA, religious schools ARE private

oh yes lets privatise everything, that way


1) schools can decide to not let children attend: children with discipline problems, asians, africans, people who need to take any type of medication, people with freckles, it doesnt matter, they can do it

Yes. And your point is?

2) charge a crapload for students to go

Not neccesarily. See my posts above.

and students go because they cant go to public schools ebcause they are underfunded and the teachers are even more underpaid so dont give a shit so they have to pay out their ass to get a halfway decent education

That makes no sense at all. :confused: I know you have a better command of English than that, Chess.

3) public schools get shut down because guess what, the more students a school has, the more money it receives from the government.

And the less taxes one is required to spend, means the more funds that can be spent on good schools.

etc etc etc, schools are not one of those things you want privatised

Yes, they are.
Does the Constitution explicitly state that citizens have a right to an education?

Just wondering

Not a word about education in the US constitution.

Isanyonehome, stop making so much good sense. You'll confuse people here. :cool:

Why worry about teaching them nihilism? Sooner or later we teach them about Nazism, and are we really afraid that many children will convert to the teaching?

As for nihilism, we teach them the notion and discuss its place in the world. When are they ready for such a discussion? Probably about the time they really get into things like Nazism; I seem to remember learning WWII in depth in 9th or 10th grade. By this time, children are familiar enough with our common values (and the values instilled by their parents) that they can deal with Nazism as something "foreign" -- something to be understood but not necessarily imitated. I think the same is appropriate for nihilism. Indeed, by this time in classes that allow more discussion -- often English and occasionally a "social studies" class -- students begin to suggest the nihilistic conclusion themselves, whether they have heard it elsewhere or they just recognize it as in some ways a "logical" conclusion from the nature of discussion about values.

Of course, as in most discussions of the nihilistic position, other participants in the dialogue are likely to pick up on some of its contradictions (just as the nihilist picks up on some of the contradictions in traditional value systems). Most likely, none of them will ever be truly satisfied with their own moral conclusions... but that is just another way to say they will be "open-minded."

By promoting such discussions by introducing controversial and competing ideas about the world, teachers can introduce students to a very "adult" way of looking at the world. Sooner or later they have to understand that the world offers few "final" answers, and democratic political life requires a constant renegotiation of accepted beliefs -- we have to know that there are alternatives, and we have to have a sense of where they stand in relation to the larger culture.

Perhaps more importantly, it promotes a kind of self-knowledge. Exposed to new points of view, students get a more detailed and profound sense of who they are and what they believe. They learn what ideas are attractive to them, and they learn to wonder why.


Anarch, are you in the education field?

Personally, I can see the many pro's of the privatization of education, but I just don't think it's time, if ever will be. One of the advantages is/would be higher quality education. I believe if education was privatized, the middle class would benefit the most. The rich could already afford it, but the poor would be left to either cheap, low-cost private schools or no school at all. So the poor would get screwed over.

Working class kids are usually too thick to get decent qualifications anyway. Even with the UK's comprehensive system, it is your class background that mostly determines your educational prospects.

I think that a voucher system with popular and oversubscribed schools being allowed to charge extra would be a good idea. That way the market would provide incentives for better performance, and children from different social backgrounds could be taught in different schools.

That way teaching and disipline methods could be adjusted to deal with the different sorts of pupils in different sorts of schools. Better than the disasterous one school fits all compehensive system.

Anarch, are you in the education field?

Yes, I am. College-level.

Yes, I am. College-level.

I am very glad to hear people like you are. Thank you.

I didn't really feel like reading this entire string so I'll just state my position on this issue and maybe even help some others decide. Public education is one of the main ideas behind socialism (you may like to read The Communist Manifesto by Marx) so, if youre are a high level corporate executive you probably want privitizaion becuase that would make the world a little bit more capitalistic. If you privatize education you may have some students recieve better educations but that would also take away other, less privileged students from recieving this education. I believe that the education system is doing just fine (in the sense of how it is set up, not how well it teaches kids, that can only be fixed by updating the curriculum) and if you want your child to get a better education, send them to a private school.

I find it interesting that every suvey that I've seen in the past few years say that public school teachers are a disproportionately large segment of the population of people who send their kids to private school or do homeschool. Makes me wonder.

I find it interesting that every suvey that I've seen in the past few years say that public school teachers are a disproportionately large segment of the population of people who send their kids to private school or do homeschool. Makes me wonder.

Would you mind posting a source, please? Thank you.

Great example. If we privatize education, many schools will adopt curricula about on a par with a McDonald's salad.

way to go, you're a moron. how, exactly, would you define the curriculum that a mcdonalds salad offers? i'll argue with you when you have something intelligent to say. hey, for you, i'll set aside intelligence, and i'll just demand coherence.

The problem is, in this kind of market, McDonald's is losing customers to Burger King all the time... and vice versa. Neither one ever bothers to get any better to keep from losing customers, because they will always have new ones to replace the old. (Sometimes complaining is better than just leaving.)

okay, how about this: you can choose A. burger king (crappy private school, kept afloat by corporate funding) B. a nice, upscale, dine-in, four-star restaurant (high-brow, quality education paid for by parents who can afford it) or C. cook for yourself (homeschooling because you can't afford a nice school and don't like what your children are taught at a crappy one). do whatever you can afford, because, frankly, i don't care. if you want me to pay for you to eat at a four-star restaurant, you can screw yourself, because i don't care what you want, and i won't be taxed for it. your kind of complaining is invalid, because you complain about something handed to you on a silver platter that you don't deserve, such as an education stolen from the millions who pay more taxes than a private education for their children would cost. the only time you can complain is when you have paid for a service and have not received it in full, and if your complaints aren't taken care of, you have two options: sue, because you've just been robbed, or leave, because you've just been robbed.

way to go, you're a moron. how, exactly, would you define the curriculum that a mcdonalds salad offers?

Hello? Anybody in there??

It was a metaphor... extended, you should notice, from the previous post. The poster compared the "freedom" of choosing a school to that of choosing between McDonald's and Burger King... which is a rather funny example to use to prove that the market necessarily produces quality products, don't you think??

okay, how about this: you can choose A. burger king (crappy private school, kept afloat by corporate funding) B. a nice, upscale, dine-in, four-star restaurant (high-brow, quality education paid for by parents who can afford it) or C. cook for yourself (homeschooling because you can't afford a nice school and don't like what your children are taught at a crappy one). do whatever you can afford, because, frankly, i don't care. if you want me to pay for you to eat at a four-star restaurant, you can screw yourself, because i don't care what you want, and i won't be taxed for it.

You completely miss the point. I don't want to pay taxes to educate other people's children out of some sort of charity -- not by a long shot. Rather, I want to contribute toward purchasing a common good, namely a population with the best general education possible. Why? Because I think my life will be better if the people I deal with on a regular basis have a decent education. I think my world will improve.

So when I discuss the merits of private education as opposed to public education, I am concerned with what will produce the greatest benefits for me. When I try to convince you that the public should provide education, I am really trying to convince you that educated people are better for you and me than uneducated people. They are less likely to hurt us, more likely to contribute productively to society, and more likely to engage in reasonable democratic politics.

If you do not think that is a good worth buying, then make that your argument. Tell me why an educated population -- that makes the world better for me -- is not worth the fraction of my salary that I contribute towards it. That is the real argument here: not whether people without money "deserve" an education, but whether the world is better when they have one or not.

You completely miss the point. I don't want to pay taxes to educate other people's children out of some sort of charity -- not by a long shot. Rather, I want to contribute toward purchasing a common good, namely a population with the best general education possible. Why? Because I think my life will be better if the people I deal with on a regular basis have a decent education. I think my world will improve.

If you do not think that is a good worth buying, then make that your argument. Tell me why an educated population -- that makes the world better for me -- is not worth the fraction of my salary that I contribute towards it. That is the real argument here: not whether people without money "deserve" an education, but whether the world is better when they have one or not.
few others want to pay for that shit, so your idea fails

few others want to pay for that shit, so your idea fails


This being a democracy... if so "few" others want to pay for public education, why does it persist?

EDIT: Besides which, the point here is to convince each other one way or another... I would convince you that education is a general good that benefits everyone (one could also say it produces positive externalities). Presumably, if you would convince me to swing my vote in favor of privatizing education, you must either (a) show me that private education produces a higher quality good than public education; or (b) convince me that education is not in fact a public good.

Do you have anything to bring to the table?

few others want to pay for that shit, so your idea fails
because people are quite frankly fucktards

This being a democracy... if so "few" others want to pay for public education, why does it persist?

EDIT: Besides which, the point here is to convince each other one way or another... I would convince you that education is a general good that benefits everyone (one could also say it produces positive externalities). Presumably, if you would convince me to swing my vote in favor of privatizing education, you must either (a) show me that private education produces a higher quality good than public education; or (b) convince me that education is not in fact a public good.

Do you have anything to bring to the table?
oh no, she was referring to private education i believe, unless its some really weird public burger king and mcdonalds
so i believe you are misunderstanding the posts here

oh no, she was referring to private education i believe, unless its some really weird public burger king and mcdonalds
so i believe you are misunderstanding the posts here

No... I think you are.

She was certainly referring to private education. She thinks it is a good thing that we might have schools that resemble fast-food restaurants. I think it is a bad thing.

You see, I was cleverly playing with her metaphor. I can see such subtlety eludes you. (If this is what your school has done for you, maybe you should sue them.)

No... I think you are.

She was certainly referring to private education. She thinks it is a good thing that we might have schools that resemble fast-food restaurants. I think it is a bad thing.

You see, I was cleverly playing with her metaphor. I can see such subtlety eludes you. (If this is what your school has done for you, maybe you should sue them.)
what the hell then, i was agreeing w/ you...
this is quite strange i must say

I still think that public schools should be abolished because they are too big of a tool for social engineering, and I don't trust the government with it. I'll give you an example from Alaska, my home state.

For about three quarters of a century, it was federal policy that the Native kids were taken out of their villages and sent to boarding schools. At these schools, they were taught English and American culture. When they expressed their Native culture or used their Native language, they were beaten. The idea was to exterminate their cultures, and it nearly succeded. They went from having thousands of speakers for each of the Native languages to having some fo the languages die off, and most of the rest are on the brink of extinction. And this was all accomplished by the use of the schools.

This is too powerful a tool for the government to use.

I still think that public schools should be abolished because they are too big of a tool for social engineering, and I don't trust the government with it. I'll give you an example from Alaska, my home state.

For about three quarters of a century, it was federal policy that the Native kids were taken out of their villages and sent to boarding schools. At these schools, they were taught English and American culture. When they expressed their Native culture or used their Native language, they were beaten. The idea was to exterminate their cultures, and it nearly succeded. They went from having thousands of speakers for each of the Native languages to having some fo the languages die off, and most of the rest are on the brink of extinction. And this was all accomplished by the use of the schools.

This is too powerful a tool for the government to use.

Just a question: what century did this take place in?

Just a question: what century did this take place in?

I don't have exact years, but I believe that it ended around the time that Alaska became a state, so 1959.

I'm gonna re-iterate my question:

Does the Constitution state that citizens have the right to an education?? I'd like to know this fact

I still think that public schools should be abolished because they are too big of a tool for social engineering, and I don't trust the government with it. I'll give you an example from Alaska, my home state.

For about three quarters of a century, it was federal policy that the Native kids were taken out of their villages and sent to boarding schools. At these schools, they were taught English and American culture. When they expressed their Native culture or used their Native language, they were beaten. The idea was to exterminate their cultures, and it nearly succeded. They went from having thousands of speakers for each of the Native languages to having some fo the languages die off, and most of the rest are on the brink of extinction. And this was all accomplished by the use of the schools.

This is too powerful a tool for the government to use.


It sounds like the schools in question were especially established to accomplish the purpose of this policy... in which case it is difficult to see why one's opposition to such a policy must necessarily extend to all schools. Should the government wish to institute a similar policy in the future, they could just establish new schools for the purpose at that time.

Furthermore, in a democracy you can always oppose certain uses for the schools. That "the government" has power means that "we" have power. (Of course, you can make the very good argument that "we" do not really have that much power at all... but, there is your problem. That is what needs fixing.)

I'm gonna re-iterate my question:

Does the Constitution state that citizens have the right to an education?? I'd like to know this fact

No, it does not... but so what?

I for one am not defending education as an individual's right... rather, I defend it as a benefit to all. (I.e. if your kids are educated it makes it easier for all of us to deal with them.)

We all know that people whose only interest is to make money have the best interest at heart. Thats why wal mart is such a good company.

No, it does not... but so what?

I for one am not defending education as an individual's right... rather, I defend it as a benefit to all. (I.e. if your kids are educated it makes it easier for all of us to deal with them.)
Don't get me wrong, I do believe the government should provide some level of education . . . I just don't like the way education is shaping up right now

My personal opinion, don't hate me.

I personally am opposed to the privatization of education, as public schools are held up to a set of readily visible standards, that are tested and checked by the government regularly. Private schools may conform to these standards, but who is to say they will.....they are not so easily managed and checked by the government, who would probably ensure that something gets done.

Besides, I read about the Edison Schools Company in US News and World Report, and it seems they do a bad job, it seems they are mainly focused on leveling up test scores, and they can't even do that well, evidenced by the volume of complains they got from parents of schoolchildren in Edison Schools and the fact that their stock seems to be a penny stock, .31 cents last I checked.

In America, before the coming of tax-based public schools in the mid-1800's, education was in sorry shape, as it was only available to the rich for white men, and for women, it was rare to get one that didn't deal with homemaking. Many of those private schools anyway were catered to an elitist market, as they trained the sons of the elite to act and be as such.

I am not saying public education was a cure-all, I am saying it helped put us on the way to a better society.

Hello? Anybody in there??

It was a metaphor... extended, you should notice, from the previous post. The poster compared the "freedom" of choosing a school to that of choosing between McDonald's and Burger King... which is a rather funny example to use to prove that the market necessarily produces quality products, don't you think??

it was not extended, it was butchered in a poor attempt at humor. there is obviously a market for the products those companies produce, so saying they don't produce quality products is a poor argument, given a look at their revenue.



You completely miss the point. I don't want to pay taxes to educate other people's children out of some sort of charity -- not by a long shot. Rather, I want to contribute toward purchasing a common good, namely a population with the best general education possible. Why? Because I think my life will be better if the people I deal with on a regular basis have a decent education. I think my world will improve.

So when I discuss the merits of private education as opposed to public education, I am concerned with what will produce the greatest benefits for me. When I try to convince you that the public should provide education, I am really trying to convince you that educated people are better for you and me than uneducated people. They are less likely to hurt us, more likely to contribute productively to society, and more likely to engage in reasonable democratic politics.

If you do not think that is a good worth buying, then make that your argument. Tell me why an educated population -- that makes the world better for me -- is not worth the fraction of my salary that I contribute towards it. That is the real argument here: not whether people without money "deserve" an education, but whether the world is better when they have one or not.

i think you miss the point. i am not advocating the abolishment of quality education, i'm advocating the abolishment of theft. the government has absolutely no right to take my money. as they have no right to take my money, they have no right to spend it. this means the abolishment of public schools. private schools are fine, i think everybody should be educated to the best of their ability, but for the vast majority of this country, that potential is extremely limited, and i won't waste my money on it. if you wish to give money to the government because you think having joe blow in alaska educated with a high school degree and working at the local gas station benefits you, go ahead. but stop taking my money. since there is no way to do this without cancelling social programs, i advocate their cancellation. this applies to education, welfare, medicaid, and government control or regulation of anything. the only valid purpose of a government is to defend its citizens from violence. the only valid tax is a flat tax, which is equal to cost of defending the country and punishing those who initiate violence (army, police, and legal system) divided by population of legal age. every citizen pays the same amount to defend the country, because every citizen benefits equally from that protection. a valid government can not regulate trade, education, or any social programs. these are individual citizens responsibilities, and have to be left to them.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe the government should provide some level of education . . . I just don't like the way education is shaping up right now

Hell, I'll agree with that. I just don't think turning over the bulk of the responsibility to the private sector, or diverting taxes to pay private tuition, is the answer.

it was not extended, it was butchered in a poor attempt at humor. there is obviously a market for the products those companies produce, so saying they don't produce quality products is a poor argument, given a look at their revenue.

Of course there is a market for them... That does not mean they produce a "quality" product. Hell, the people who eat the stuff know it's not good. The point is, having a "market" does not equate to having a "quality product." What it means is that there are people willing to buy the product, i.e. there is demand. But demand depends on two things: desire and money. In the case of the low-end market (of so many goods), often money is a determining factor... this market caters to people who cannot afford better. Since I think a general education benefits society, I do not want people "settling" for what they can afford.

Of course, there is also that "desire" factor... Fast-food does exist because people want a fast, easily-obtained meal -- not for its "quality"!! Again, however, being that I think education is a public good, I do not think people should "get away with" an easy, unchallenging education. To be sure, some people would pay for it so that they could divert their resources to other things -- but if they do so to the detriment of society, it should not be allowed.

i think you miss the point. i am not advocating the abolishment of quality education, i'm advocating the abolishment of theft. the government has absolutely no right to take my money.

That's bullshit, and you know it. The government is the public hand that provides for the public good. Since you cannot avoid the fact that we live in society, you cannot avoid the fact that there are public goods rightly provided by all (since we all reap the benefits). Your only option is to go live in a cave by yourself.

Imagine you get a house or apartment with, say, four friends. The other three share cleaning responsibilities, but you say you are not interested. Yet you live there, so you cannot avoid receiving the benefit of a clean house. But let us push the point a bit further... When your friends challenge you, you say, "It would not bother me to live in filth. You three may like cleanliness, and that's fine with me -- provide it for yourselves. But since I do not consider it a good worth paying for, I opt out. And you have no right to force me."

Do you think they would accept that? Do you think they would even believe you? I think not... just as I don't really believe that you want to live in a world in which the mass of the population has no decent education. (Of course, you may be confused about this... perhaps you should think carefully about what that world would be like.)

Anyway, your friends have every right to coerce you into helping out... or chipping in to hire a maid service... or picking up some other share of the collective burden -- or they would be well within their rights to kick you out. Just as society has the right -- through the arm of the government -- to coerce payments to pay for our collective goods as a society. If you live here, you cannot help but reap the benefits. You drive on the streets that we clean and plow, you are protected by the police that we provide, you enjoy the military defense that we pay for. You enjoy the benefits of living in a world where the average person has a basic education.

If you refuse to pay, do you know what that makes you? A freeloader, living off of other people's work.

Of course, this is a democracy. You can try to convince us that these are not goods we should be paying for. But as long as there is a general agreement about what the good things are, we are all bound to pay. You can argue about the things we should pay for, but once we have decided, you can never call the legally required payment "theft." It is nonsense.

i think you miss the point. i am not advocating the abolishment of quality education, i'm advocating the abolishment of theft. the government has absolutely no right to take my money. as they have no right to take my money, they have no right to spend it. this means the abolishment of public schools. private schools are fine, i think everybody should be educated to the best of their ability, but for the vast majority of this country, that potential is extremely limited, and i won't waste my money on it. if you wish to give money to the government because you think having joe blow in alaska educated with a high school degree and working at the local gas station benefits you, go ahead. but stop taking my money. since there is no way to do this without cancelling social programs, i advocate their cancellation. this applies to education, welfare, medicaid, and government control or regulation of anything. the only valid purpose of a government is to defend its citizens from violence. the only valid tax is a flat tax, which is equal to cost of defending the country and punishing those who initiate violence (army, police, and legal system) divided by population of legal age. every citizen pays the same amount to defend the country, because every citizen benefits equally from that protection. a valid government can not regulate trade, education, or any social programs. these are individual citizens responsibilities, and have to be left to them.
ACTUALLY the government DOES have the right to take your money and spend it.

Article 1 section 8 clause 1 or even clause 18 if you like

ACTUALLY the government DOES have the right to take your money and spend it.

Article 1 section 8 clause 1 or even clause 18 if you like

how about article 1 section 9 clause 4, which states "No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." of course, it was made void by amendment 16 (instituted in the middle of the depression to redistribute wealth for the health of the economy and sold to the people as a temporary measure) which essentially said "screw you, founding fathers, we'll do what we want." some argue that the entire system of amendments was designed to improve the constitution, and it was, but it was not designed to change us from a capitalist country to a socialist country, which is what the collection of income taxes and institution of programs such as welfare, medicaid, and social security did. amendment 16 was the government giving itself the right to my money. the constitution is a limit on GOVERNMENT not on citizens. the government decided to give itself more power, and what did we do? we said "okay then." income tax is unconstitutional, and amendment 16 must be repealed. a flat tax is not unconstitutional (every citizen pays the same fee).

Of course there is a market for them... That does not mean they produce a "quality" product. Hell, the people who eat the stuff know it's not good. The point is, having a "market" does not equate to having a "quality product." What it means is that there are people willing to buy the product, i.e. there is demand. But demand depends on two things: desire and money. In the case of the low-end market (of so many goods), often money is a determining factor... this market caters to people who cannot afford better. Since I think a general education benefits society, I do not want people "settling" for what they can afford.

Of course, there is also that "desire" factor... Fast-food does exist because people want a fast, easily-obtained meal -- not for its "quality"!! Again, however, being that I think education is a public good, I do not think people should "get away with" an easy, unchallenging education. To be sure, some people would pay for it so that they could divert their resources to other things -- but if they do so to the detriment of society, it should not be allowed.

quality is relative. for the speed of service and the price, fast food is a quality meal. i dare you to whip up a hamburger, fries, and a drink in 2 minutes in your kitchen.



That's bullshit, and you know it. The government is the public hand that provides for the public good. Since you cannot avoid the fact that we live in society, you cannot avoid the fact that there are public goods rightly provided by all (since we all reap the benefits). Your only option is to go live in a cave by yourself.

Imagine you get a house or apartment with, say, four friends. The other three share cleaning responsibilities, but you say you are not interested. Yet you live there, so you cannot avoid receiving the benefit of a clean house. But let us push the point a bit further... When your friends challenge you, you say, "It would not bother me to live in filth. You three may like cleanliness, and that's fine with me -- provide it for yourselves. But since I do not consider it a good worth paying for, I opt out. And you have no right to force me."

Do you think they would accept that? Do you think they would even believe you? I think not... just as I don't really believe that you want to live in a world in which the mass of the population has no decent education. (Of course, you may be confused about this... perhaps you should think carefully about what that world would be like.)

Anyway, your friends have every right to coerce you into helping out... or chipping in to hire a maid service... or picking up some other share of the collective burden -- or they would be well within their rights to kick you out. Just as society has the right -- through the arm of the government -- to coerce payments to pay for our collective goods as a society. If you live here, you cannot help but reap the benefits. You drive on the streets that we clean and plow, you are protected by the police that we provide, you enjoy the military defense that we pay for. You enjoy the benefits of living in a world where the average person has a basic education.

your second sentence is incorrect. the role of a government is to provide for the public DEFENSE, not the public good. a government that purports to provide for the public GOOD, is a socialist, statist, or communist government. as has been demonstrated by numerous examples in the last 100 years, these do not work. as has been demonstrated by our current government, trillions of dollars in debt because of our social programs.

as to your example, you're wrong. they have no right to demand that i clean the apartment once i live there. they have the right to set the terms and conditions of living in that apartment, but once a contract is signed and both parties are in agreement as to the responsibilities of each (land owner or friends provide a room, i pay rent (and whatever other stipulations they wish, as long as i agree to them (if i don't agree, they have the right to refuse the room))). they have no right to force me to do anything but what i have agreed to.

If you refuse to pay, do you know what that makes you? A freeloader, living off of other people's work.

and what about poor people collecting welfare paid by the taxes of those with jobs? thats not freeloading? justify it.

Of course, this is a democracy. You can try to convince us that these are not goods we should be paying for. But as long as there is a general agreement about what the good things are, we are all bound to pay. You can argue about the things we should pay for, but once we have decided, you can never call the legally required payment "theft." It is nonsense.

i absolutely can and should call it theft. if you're walking home from the bank, after cashing or depositing a paycheck, and a robber demands 100 dollars from you but says he will give 10 back (so that you benefit as well), is it not theft? how about if 10 robbers stop you, demand 100 dollars, and give you ten back (so that you benefit as well), is that not theft? after all, the majority of people decided they needed your money. theft by the many is the same as theft by an individual. if the entire country but myself wishes to pay welfare to the poor, go ahead, as long as you don't force me to do it.

income tax is unconstitutional, and amendment 16 must be repealed. a flat tax is not unconstitutional (every citizen pays the same fee).

Well, by definition the income tax is not unconstitutional, since Amendment 16 is a part of the constitution, whether you like it or not. You cannot argue for the repeal of an amendment on the grounds that it is "unconstitutional" without sounding like a complete idiot.

Meanwhile, if you want to make the political argument that we should repeal the amendment and the income tax, go ahead -- and good luck with that. While once upon a time Americans held a "minimum government" view, there is no question that this changed dramatically in the second half of the twentieth century, and shows absolutely no signs of going back. Americans now want a government that does things for them.

Actually, I think your biggest hurdle in opposing American "socialism" will be those giant corporations that constitute the backbone of twenty-first century capitalism. The bulk of our socialist policy -- and it is socialist in a very important sense -- is directed to their benefit (with at least lip-service paid to the notion that what benefits them benefits us all).


A final point: so what if the original Consitution failed to support an income tax or government spending in the modern sense? Seriously, so what? First of all, as you yourself point out, the document was designed with the flexibility to adapt to changing times and new needs; it has done just that. Secondly, the Constitution can only ever tell us what is legal, not what is right. If you want to convince us to change it, you will ultimately have to respond to my argument from the public good. You will have to convince the population that there are no public goods worth paying for (other than the sort of protection you mention, I suppose) -- a difficult argument indeed.

Finally, what distinguishes military and/or police protection from other public goods? Why would a community constitute itself with the ability to provide these, but then shrink from providing others? As Aristotle would put it, why settle for life when we have the ability to provide a good life, or at least a better one?

quality is relative. for the speed of service and the price, fast food is a quality meal. i dare you to whip up a hamburger, fries, and a drink in 2 minutes in your kitchen.

You are mistaking the economic definition of "value" for the concept of "quality." We all know fast-food has value because it is fast and easy. These traits make up for its inherently poor quality. (Moreover, notice that this does not make up for its quality enough for McDonald's to charge the same price as, say, a gourmet burger restaurant.) The point stands... a market-based education system would in all likelihood produce the "fast, easy" version of basic education with diminished quality.


the role of a government is to provide for the public DEFENSE, not the public good.

The public defense is a public good. The question is, why stop there? Defense is a very basic need. For a community of human beings to come together, provide for the common defense, and then go no further to do good things for themselves -- like roads and road maintenance, the provision of a system of communications, the preservation of their public spaces and so on -- is barbaric. How will you convince people not to buy good things that, together, they can afford?

a government that purports to provide for the public GOOD, is a socialist, statist, or communist government. as has been demonstrated by numerous examples in the last 100 years, these do not work. as has been demonstrated by our current government, trillions of dollars in debt because of our social programs.

You think the debt is because of social programs?? I strongly suggest you re-examine our spending policy. Also, our government's most socialist policies relate to regulating and maintaining the capitalist economy. Again, you are going to have to contend with far too many businesses that understand the inherent pitfalls of a hands-free economy.

as to your example, you're wrong. they have no right to demand that i clean the apartment once i live there. they have the right to set the terms and conditions of living in that apartment, but once a contract is signed and both parties are in agreement as to the responsibilities of each (land owner or friends provide a room, i pay rent (and whatever other stipulations they wish, as long as i agree to them (if i don't agree, they have the right to refuse the room))).

Again, you are talking about legal as opposed to moral or political right. You enumerate their legal rights correctly -- but when discussing the proper ends of association and government (which precede legality), this amounts to a circular argument. Moreover, in discussing the income tax and government spending, the law as it exists is on my side. So your argument not only fails, but turns in on itself.

and what about poor people collecting welfare paid by the taxes of those with jobs? thats not freeloading? justify it.

Sure, that is a kind of freeloading. No argument here -- although for many I find it less culpable, a point I will explain in a moment. First, however, I return to my original argument, viz. that whether they "deserve" welfare or not, giving it to them provides benefits for me, you, and the rest of the taxpayers. People on adequate welfare with no other income are less likely to resort to crime, more likely to raise children in a decent environment, and even more likely to find themselves productive employment than if we simply let them to starve on the streets. This is not to say that no one "abuses" the system -- but they are just a cost of what is overall a healthy system that provides for a public good: cleaning up the streets and preventing further degeneration in society. None of them deserve welfare, but it suits our good to give it to them.

Now, back to the question of culpability as freeloaders. To the extent that many welfare recipients truly experience sorry straits and conditions beyond their immediate control, I blame them less for freeloading than people such as yourself who have the resources to contribute to the public good, but want to refuse them. You are a freeloader who truly cashes in, enjoying the benefits of a well-run society (which include the very ability to make money -- unless you believe you would have as much had you been born in Guatemala?), but who protests against all right that although he receives the benefits society provides, the group has no claim upon his resources. You are the real bum.

i absolutely can and should call it theft. if you're walking home from the bank, after cashing or depositing a paycheck, and a robber demands 100 dollars from you but says he will give 10 back (so that you benefit as well), is it not theft?

But that is a false analogy. A better analogy would be this: You live in a smog-polluted city. A majority of the residents have a meeting and decide it should be cleaned up. (You probably do not attend, having private concerns that occupy your time.) They decide that if everyone pitches in $100, the pollution can be eliminated. Now they set about doing it, and sure enough the smog is gone. Everyone breathes easier, including yourself. They set up a collection to pay the bill. Of course, you could send in your $100... but you don't want to. Eventually, the city sends an agency to collect from you, and they threaten to throw you in jail if you do not pay... because you are freeloading off of everyone else's effort.

Of course, you could have attended the meeting and argued against the proposal. But you were too busy.

You talk about "agreement." Well, the fundamental agreement of this democracy is that the majority makes binding decisions for the whole.

Since you are so wrapped up in the Constitution, I suppose you have read... the first line?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

There is an easy and reasonable acid test for this problem:

Are the education systems of the five countries with the best education systems private?

No.

Emulate what works, dont be a crook. (read: privatization advocate).
What countries are those?

Let me guess:

Sweden
Denmark
Canada
Norway
Finland

?

A good quality education whould be provided by the state for all children, funded by taxation. Private schools should be available (within limited government guidelines in quality of their education so that nutters can't set up schools to teach that the world is flat!) which can be selective in their intake, for example sngle sex schools, religious schools etc should be self-funding.

At post 16 (or whatever age education becomes non-compulsory) then the same applies; education should be provided free by the government unless the institution has a peculiar admissions programme or management structure. When a person attends an adult education facility funded by the government they should be informed of the cost; if they ever wish to emigrate they have to pay back their education.

As an aside, many public school teachers are left-leaning, however work under right-wing governments. If public education was uncontrollable and unable to control "brainwashing" how did Bush, Blair and Howard for example get into power?
Why are so many people, particularly conservative Americans, so freaked out about "teacher/professor political bias"?

Do they not realise that the majority of teachers are not out to embark on a grand brainwashing programme?

I think that anyone with the money should be allowed to go to a private school, but for the poor there should be a good government-funded education system.

Actually people homeschooling their brats scares me more than letting the Ford Motor Company seeing to their indicrination. I would rather see the kids getting a good education , so that they could be happy, docile workers than letting Otis and his wife educate their children into whatever half-baked right-wing religious propaganda they believe in, thats way too dangerous.
I don't know. I don't think home schooling is that great, but I would trust it more than corporate education. At least the former will not produce a society full of identical work drones.

PS, why do you think that most parents are right-wing religious types?

WOW. What a neutral and objective source. All I had to do was read their name.
What? You consider UNESCO to be biased?

i absolutely can and should call it theft. if you're walking home from the bank, after cashing or depositing a paycheck, and a robber demands 100 dollars from you but says he will give 10 back (so that you benefit as well), is it not theft? how about if 10 robbers stop you, demand 100 dollars, and give you ten back (so that you benefit as well), is that not theft? after all, the majority of people decided they needed your money. theft by the many is the same as theft by an individual. if the entire country but myself wishes to pay welfare to the poor, go ahead, as long as you don't force me to do it.
ok heres a solution, buy your own small island, live there, that way you will never have to actually give up any of your money to support your way of life ever again! no one will ever tax you or otherwise tae your money for their evil ventures in socialism :rolleyes:

idiots like you should honestly be shot

What? You consider UNESCO to be biased?

No. But two out of three links (the ones to which I referred) were to an institute specifically devoted to private education. Now, you may respond that this is nevertheless an academic institute, affiliated with a university, and therefore unbiased... but this just reflects your lack of experience with how such "institutes" are founded. Basically, several professors and other experts develop a theory (in this case, that private education is "good"), and they get together to find support for it... in the process, they also have to get funding. You can guess who provides the funding.

Has anybody considered the origins of public education? It has an interesting history in that it was invented at about the same time by two different countries for two different purposes.

The first was Great Britian in the late eighteenth century. Public education was introdued to get children accustomed to working in factories: long and boring hours, permission required to leave the room, be on time or be punished, massive amounts of rote and drill, etc.

The second was in Prussia about the same time. It was designed to take power away from the dominant Lutherans (who did most of the educating at the time) and transfer it to the state. Remember what I said in earlier posts, that whoever controls the kids will have a ready-made power base in the next generation. Nearly every dictator in history has known and used this fact.

So on the one hand we have church/state issues, and on the other we have ties to an old and dying (factory jobs in the US have been declining since the late '60's) economic system. Either way, the public schools need to be scrapped.

There is an easy and reasonable acid test for this problem:

Are the education systems of the five countries with the best education systems private?

No.

Emulate what works, dont be a crook. (read: privatization advocate).
verynice

What countries are those?

Let me guess:

Sweden
Denmark
Canada
Norway
Finland

?
my guess is

Japan
Korea
Norway
Singapore
Swizerland

Okay, so I only read the first three pages of posts, then skipped to the last one, and... umm, skimmed. Now I would like to throw in my 3 cents, with a little background first:

I went to a red-neck public high school North of Seattle. Full of hicks. I'll admit that now. However, the teachers remained relativly unbiast about our lifestyles and political ideas (we were the only county in Western Washington to vote a majority Bush in this last election, Newsweek says so).

I went to a private, religious, University in South-Eastern Idaho. (Anyone care to guess which one? There's only one there.) The entire staff was right wing. They were hired for that reason.

I now teach at a very, very, VERY, liberal high school. I try to keep my opinions to myself. I think all of my teachers did, (well, not the private school ones. Who was there to repremand them?)

Now here's the kicker: I don't think I got a better/worse education at either school I attended. I just had to keep in mind that everyone has their own opinions, and you just need to see through it for the truth underneath.

And for all of you who think schools are going to end up being funded by Bic, could it be because you just finished reading Jennifer Government, and haven't yet distinguished between fact and fiction?

And for all of you who think schools are going to end up being funded by Bic, could it be because you just finished reading Jennifer Government, and haven't yet distinguished between fact and fiction?


Yeah, that's just stupid. Coca cola will easily out-bid Bic. Can you imagine that kind of total indoctrination? Sod milk for primary school kids (I'm a brit. We used to do that when I was a lad; might still do), get 'em a can of coke!

Then we'll all be taken over by hyper-wealthy dental floss corporations, and be forced to fight in the collgate-listerine war. It's been building for years, man. You just refuse to see the signs.... ;)

US education shoud be completly privatized.

Well, by definition the income tax is not unconstitutional, since Amendment 16 is a part of the constitution, whether you like it or not. You cannot argue for the repeal of an amendment on the grounds that it is "unconstitutional" without sounding like a complete idiot.

just because an amendment made it into the constitution doesn't mean its constitutional. how about the eighteenth amendment, prohibition? you can't buy alchohol now. next time, you can't buy books that speak out against the government. thank god the americans of the time realized that the law was crap and started drinking ON PRINCIPAL. the same should be done for the sixteenth amendment.

Meanwhile, if you want to make the political argument that we should repeal the amendment and the income tax, go ahead -- and good luck with that. While once upon a time Americans held a "minimum government" view, there is no question that this changed dramatically in the second half of the twentieth century, and shows absolutely no signs of going back. Americans now want a government that does things for them.

you said americans now want a government that does things for them. that equates to "americans now want things done for them at the expense of other taxpayers, whether or not they earned it." again, i point to welfare and medicaid. again, it is not my responsibility, nor my wish, to provide for those who refuse to earn an adequate income for their needs.

Actually, I think your biggest hurdle in opposing American "socialism" will be those giant corporations that constitute the backbone of twenty-first century capitalism. The bulk of our socialist policy -- and it is socialist in a very important sense -- is directed to their benefit (with at least lip-service paid to the notion that what benefits them benefits us all).

find a single law on business that does not harm them in some way. anti-monopoly laws are for the benefit of businesses? how about microsoft, which is being penalized for putting out a quality product that people buy. those who do not wish to buy it, buy linux or apple. nobody forces the bulk of americans to buy microsoft, thereby giving them a "monopoly", it is their choice. but the government tells them that they are a bad company and need to be punished, and so sues them, forcing them to defend themselves for making a good product. where in that entire string of events do you find logic, or a benefit for microsoft? i believe my staunchest supporters for less government control will be big and small businesses, as both are equally hemmed in by unnecessary rules and regulations that do nothing but force them to spend more money buying a license or some other piece of nonsense to do exactly what they were going to do anyways.


A final point: so what if the original Consitution failed to support an income tax or government spending in the modern sense? Seriously, so what? First of all, as you yourself point out, the document was designed with the flexibility to adapt to changing times and new needs; it has done just that. Secondly, the Constitution can only ever tell us what is legal, not what is right. If you want to convince us to change it, you will ultimately have to respond to my argument from the public good. You will have to convince the population that there are no public goods worth paying for (other than the sort of protection you mention, I suppose) -- a difficult argument indeed.

the times have not changed so drastically that we should condone theft by making it legal. your second point in this paragraph, about the difference between legality and what is right, is horribly flawed. what is legal MUST be right, or should not be legal. you assume my argument is that there are no public goods of worth to buy. this is not the case. my point is that i don't give a shit about some starving refugee in africa, or a sign post across the country from me, that my money goes to pay for. if a group of citizens in a subdivision wants a paved road through their neighborhood, that's great. they can gather the money from all those in the neighborhood (not across the country, by way of taxes) who wish to buy a road, and hire a company to build it. those who do not wish to pay may not use the road, as they do not own it. if they wish to drive on it, they must pay. its that simple. if they can't raise enough money to buy it outright, they can have a company fund it and build it, and pay a fee to the company for the use of the road. they may not, under any circumstances, force a man 2000 miles away to pay for it unless he wishes to.

Finally, what distinguishes military and/or police protection from other public goods? Why would a community constitute itself with the ability to provide these, but then shrink from providing others? As Aristotle would put it, why settle for life when we have the ability to provide a good life, or at least a better one?

the distinction is this: military, police, and the legal system protect us from VIOLENCE. welfare protects me from a man thousands of miles away, or even right next door, going hungry...oh wait, i don't care. if you care you can give them money, but this is not something i wish to buy. you may not force me to buy something if i do not wish it. reason and logic end where the muzzle of a gun begins.

Oplet, now you are just mindlessly repeating the same bullshit over and over... and utterly failing to respond reasonably to my posts. I will therefore respond to this one, but I doubt there is much point in continuing further. I have made every effort to understand where you are coming from: I know it seems unfair that taxpayers pay for things that benefit other people, who may not even deserve it. I sympathize... But I have tried to explain to you the other, more important explanation for government expenditure, even on "welfare" policy, namely that as a democracy we collectively decide to purchase certain things that benefit everyone or nearly everyone. This is what politics is. But you have made utterly no effort to extend yourself beyond your narrow perspective.


just because an amendment made it into the constitution doesn't mean its constitutional.

That's nonsense. It's a truly laughable statement. An amendment to the Constitution is "constitutional" by definition. There is simply no other way to look at it. It may not be good, but if it is in the Constitution, it is legal.

how about the eighteenth amendment, prohibition?

What about it? Prohibition was constitutional law for, what, three years? It is not anymore... but only because the Constitution as amended again to change it.

you said americans now want a government that does things for them. that equates to "americans now want things done for them at the expense of other taxpayers, whether or not they earned it."

No, it does not. You really have to try to understand this point, because it is terribly important, and if you grasp it now you will be light-years ahead of your peers if you continue an education in politics and political economy: When I say "Americans want a government that does things for them," I am not talking about welfare recipients wanting the government to do things for them at the expense of the taxpayers. I am referring to the notion that, taken together, the taxpayers constitute a group with tremendous buying power... with which they want their agent, the government, to buy things for them.

A few of us may think that people have a "right" to food, clothing, shelter, and medical care... but that is beside the point. For the purposes of this discussion, assume there are no such rights. (Notice I am taking your position here. This is how real debaters proceed.) The fact of the matter is that, through the legitimate (right and legal) procedures of democracy, we decide how to spend our money. We decide to buy things that will benefit us, or most of us. Now, if we decide to purchase health care for the poor, or food stamps for the hungry, it is not because we think of the government as a great charitable organization. It is because we have become convinced that to do so will somehow benefit all of us, in the same way that purchasing police protection will benefit all of us. Ironically, you complain that we should only purchase protection from violence... but you manage to ignore the claim that welfare recipients are less likely to become violent criminals. Is this not therefore protection from violence?

So you see, your appeals to "right" are meaningless. You admit that it is right (and legal) to be taxed for the purpose of common defense... but you have yet to justify the distinction between this common good and other common goods. It is right (and legal) for the government to tax the population in order to provide for public goods (or the "general Welfare" as the Constitution puts it) such as defense. When we provide welfare, we are not really concerned with a person's "right" to such payments. Rather, we are concerned for the good we believe we are buying for ourselves. So if you want to convince us to stop paying out welfare (or building roads), you will have to convince us that those things are not good, or that the good produced does not benefit people as generally as we believe it to. Your argument from "right" completely misses the point!


find a single law on business that does not harm them in some way.

If United States law was not incredibly pro-business, do you really think our economy would have the relative strength that it does? Moreover, given the obvious power of business within circles of government, do you really believe they would not change laws that do nothing to help them? No one wants a "free" market.

anti-monopoly laws are for the benefit of businesses? how about microsoft, which is being penalized for putting out a quality product that people buy.

It does not prove a point to pull out the few examples of businesses that may be hurt by a particular law. Law is always directed toward the general good (St. Thomas Aquinas, from whom you presumably derive your decidedly natural law views). On the whole, virtually every economist, and even most honest businesspeople, agree that anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation promotes a healthy economy.

(As it happens, I do not always agree. In fact, I think that Microsoft's operating system is a fantastic example of a product that should be a monopoly -- although in that case it should be required to be open-source. Actually, it would be a fine instance in which to have an enforced monopoly held together by the government (since it could not work otherwise). The economic reasons are a bit complex, but basically the reason is that in the current segmented market, the high-end, "quality-conscious" consumers use other products designed to meet their needs... leaving no one with any strong concern behind to complain successfully to Microsoft about Windows' serious shortcomings. An enforced monopoly would therefore put more pressure on Microsoft than the existing "competition" can possibly achieve. But this is beside the point.)

where in that entire string of events do you find logic, or a benefit for microsoft?

You really give yourself away. How about I turn your question back on itself... Can you find no company or companies that benefit? The question is... is the benefit to some greater than the penalty to one. Or more importantly, is the benefit to the taxpaying consumer greater than the harm done to some (or even all) of the business community? Again, however, I find this particular issue troublesome... it may be that an allowed -- or even an enforced -- monopoly would benefit the consumer. But, that just shifts the argument back to the question "what is the general good." Convince the voters that it would be better to allow monopoly than to punish it, and we will happily oblige. But that is just the point: we already know we have the right to manage the economy. If you want to convince us to manage it otherwise, you need to convince us that your proposals are good.

the times have not changed so drastically that we should condone theft by making it legal.

This is comical. "Theft" is a legal term. If it is legal to do something, it cannot possibly be theft. Taxation is legal, as is the wide range of government spending. Therefore it is not theft.

your second point in this paragraph, about the difference between legality and what is right, is horribly flawed. what is legal MUST be right, or should not be legal.

Well, there are some serious flaws in the argument that "what is legal MUST be right," but I think it stands in the reduced version, "what is legal MUST NOT be wrong." (Because so many laws deal with expediency rather than right... is it "right" that we yield to pedestrians in crosswalks? There does not seem to be an answer in the abstract moral field... but at the very least it is not "wrong," and we believe it to produce a good, namely the safety of pedestrians.)

At any rate, however, it is still necessary to distinguish between the legal and the right... and the problem with your argument is that you fail to do so. Worse, you try to criticize law by claiming that it is "illegal." What you need to do is apply the natural law theory you propose. That is, if you want to tell me that a law should be repealed, you cannot claim that this is because it is an "illegal" law (unless it is unconstitutional, or a state law superceded by federal law, etc.). What you need to do is tell me why it is wrong in moral terms... which means you cannot use the term "theft," which is a legal category.

you assume my argument is that there are no public goods of worth to buy. this is not the case. my point is that i don't give a shit about some starving refugee in africa, or a sign post across the country from me, that my money goes to pay for.

But you utterly fail to respond to the fact that, for the purposes of this argument, neither do I. I "don't give a shit" for other people's needs. But I recognize that meeting some of their needs may meet some of my desires, or at least provide the necessary context in which my desires can be fulfilled. I may not care about starving refugees... but if you can convince me that giving them money will improve the world's view of my country, and therefore their willingness to do business with my companies, and therefore improve our economy and therefore my ability to generate wealth, then I will approve the decision. (You should be aware that the alienating foreign policy decisions of the last few years have had a noticeable negative impact on foreign businesses' willingness to deal with companies from the United States. A globally unpopular foreign policy directly affects the economy, something Bush seems to have been unable to understand.) I certainly do not care about a sign-post across the country or across the state from me... on the other hand, I can easily be convinced of the benefits of consistent highway system. If I ever travel, I will be grateful for it. Even if I do not travel, I will be grateful for the fact that it expedites interstate trade and lowers prices on consumer goods -- a direct benefit to me.

if a group of citizens in a subdivision wants a paved road through their neighborhood, that's great. they can gather the money from all those in the neighborhood (not across the country, by way of taxes) who wish to buy a road, and hire a company to build it. those who do not wish to pay may not use the road, as they do not own it. if they wish to drive on it, they must pay. its that simple. if they can't raise enough money to buy it outright, they can have a company fund it and build it, and pay a fee to the company for the use of the road.

Great... So now every road is a toll road. Or, every road has guards at every entrance ramp who check ID to be sure the person is an "owner." Has it never occurred to you that people build public roads precisely because they want to purchase the considerable public good that is convenience and ease of travel? Certainly such a system is more welcoming of trade and tourism. Has it not occurred to you that we value such things enough to outweigh our indignation at the minor injustice that some people get to enjoy the good who have not payed for it??

they may not, under any circumstances, force a man 2000 miles away to pay for it unless he wishes to.

Again, you mischaracterize the situation. If it were the case that people in my home state of Pennsylvania tapped the resources of California exclusively for the good of Pennsylvania... and, say, threatened war if Californians refused, then that would reflect the situation you imagine. It would be a sort of imperialism. But what we have instead is a political association in which the States join for -- according to the Constitution -- the "general Welfare." If Californians ever really felt that they were only the payor, and never the payee, we would have a problem. But in fact, we all put our money into a common pool, and then we decide in common, i.e. democratically, how to spend it. Again, you talk about "agreement," but neglect to notice that the fundamental agreement of our political existence is democracy -- the binding decision of the majority.

the distinction is this: military, police, and the legal system protect us from VIOLENCE.

Yes, that is obvious. But you fail to offer a distinction that suggests why political association begins and ends in common defense. When people discover that, as a political entity, they can provide for a wide range of common goods, why should they stop at preventing violence?

if you care you can give them money, but this is not something i wish to buy. you may not force me to buy something if i do not wish it.

Like it or not, you are a part of a political association. I have already hinted that I think this association has every right to "your" money, since it provides the environment and tools that make that wealth possible. Again, do you think, given the same amount of hard work you have surely done here, you would have as much working in Guatemala? Surely not... and therefore the collective has every right to claim its share of what we produce as a group, since we would not produce as much in some other group, and we would certainly not be so wealthy if we lived in no political association at all.

More importantly, this particular political association gives you the right to protest. It gives you the right to voice your concerns in how the collective fund is spent. Yes, it even gives you the right to complain that the government should not take your money at all, or should take much less of it. But this returns to the point I have been trying to make again and again. Although you have the right to make that complaint, your lack of understanding for political reality has you making it in entirely the wrong way -- in a way that will never convince the majority of people.

You argue from "right"... but you will never convince the political association that it has no right to levy taxes in order to pay for the common good. If you really want to convince us to change the way we spend it, or if you want to convince us to stop demanding it, then you will have to convince us that a world with litte to no taxation and little non-defense/non-justice spending is a BETTER one than the world in which we live.

I invite you to make that argument. Tell me why we would, on the whole, be happier and better off in such a world. It is at least a more interesting argument than the one you make at present.

reason and logic end where the muzzle of a gun begins.

You make a false distinction. You think that defense and justice spending are fine, right? And taxation for this purpose as well? But surely if a person refuses to pay any tax, even if it is for the common defense, the coercive arm of the government will come down on them? So if reason and logic end where the muzzle of a gun begins, as you say, then there is no more reason in taxation for purposes of defense than in taxation for other purposes.

EDIT: Indeed, what if I do not want defense? I have my gun, and I am making plans to turn the undefended part of my property into a minefield. I'll be okay. "If I don't want to pay for it, you can't make me." I live in Pennsylvania. How do you justify making me pay for a Navy that I will never see?

You are mistaking the economic definition of "value" for the concept of "quality." We all know fast-food has value because it is fast and easy. These traits make up for its inherently poor quality. (Moreover, notice that this does not make up for its quality enough for McDonald's to charge the same price as, say, a gourmet burger restaurant.) The point stands... a market-based education system would in all likelihood produce the "fast, easy" version of basic education with diminished quality.

you are mistaking the word "quality" for an absolute. quality is relative, and depends entirely on circumstances.

The public defense is a public good. The question is, why stop there? Defense is a very basic need. For a community of human beings to come together, provide for the common defense, and then go no further to do good things for themselves -- like roads and road maintenance, the provision of a system of communications, the preservation of their public spaces and so on -- is barbaric. How will you convince people not to buy good things that, together, they can afford?

we stop there because any other "public good" benefits individual sections of america, not america as a whole. public defense is for the entire country, regardless of location or need. for a longer response, see my last post.

You think the debt is because of social programs?? I strongly suggest you re-examine our spending policy. Also, our government's most socialist policies relate to regulating and maintaining the capitalist economy. Again, you are going to have to contend with far too many businesses that understand the inherent pitfalls of a hands-free economy.

you think the national debt is for anything other than our social programs? and again, see my previous post for an in depth response.

Again, you are talking about legal as opposed to moral or political right. You enumerate their legal rights correctly -- but when discussing the proper ends of association and government (which precede legality), this amounts to a circular argument. Moreover, in discussing the income tax and government spending, the law as it exists is on my side. So your argument not only fails, but turns in on itself.

again, you fail by trying to separate legality and the right. what is legal MUST be right. if a law gives you the power to kill others indiscriminately, should it be abolished? yes, because it is illegal. how do we know that it is illegal, even though it exists as a law? because it is wrong. something that is wrong is illegal, regardless of our current legal system. and stating the fact that the law is on your side, in a discussion about whether or not it should be a law, is a ridiculous thing to say. the law is wrong, is therefore illegal, and needs be abolished.

Sure, that is a kind of freeloading. No argument here -- although for many I find it less culpable, a point I will explain in a moment. First, however, I return to my original argument, viz. that whether they "deserve" welfare or not, giving it to them provides benefits for me, you, and the rest of the taxpayers. People on adequate welfare with no other income are less likely to resort to crime, more likely to raise children in a decent environment, and even more likely to find themselves productive employment than if we simply let them to starve on the streets. This is not to say that no one "abuses" the system -- but they are just a cost of what is overall a healthy system that provides for a public good: cleaning up the streets and preventing further degeneration in society. None of them deserve welfare, but it suits our good to give it to them.

endorsing mediocrity, rewarding inability, and excusing laziness do not benefit society, they help quicken the decay. a healthy society is one that rewards ability, rejects mediocrity, and condemns laziness. it is not to the benefit of society to do an individuals work for him/her, it is a horrible evil.

Now, back to the question of culpability as freeloaders. To the extent that many welfare recipients truly experience sorry straits and conditions beyond their immediate control, I blame them less for freeloading than people such as yourself who have the resources to contribute to the public good, but want to refuse them. You are a freeloader who truly cashes in, enjoying the benefits of a well-run society (which include the very ability to make money -- unless you believe you would have as much had you been born in Guatemala?), but who protests against all right that although he receives the benefits society provides, the group has no claim upon his resources. You are the real bum.

your argument is negated by my argument above. no other response is required.

But that is a false analogy. A better analogy would be this: You live in a smog-polluted city. A majority of the residents have a meeting and decide it should be cleaned up. (You probably do not attend, having private concerns that occupy your time.) They decide that if everyone pitches in $100, the pollution can be eliminated. Now they set about doing it, and sure enough the smog is gone. Everyone breathes easier, including yourself. They set up a collection to pay the bill. Of course, you could send in your $100... but you don't want to. Eventually, the city sends an agency to collect from you, and they threaten to throw you in jail if you do not pay... because you are freeloading off of everyone else's effort.

Of course, you could have attended the meeting and argued against the proposal. But you were too busy.

i have no responsibility to pay for a service i do not endorse. its that simple. if they wish me to pay, they must get my agreement to pay before acting. this does not mean that i WILL not pay, it means that i have no OBLIGATION to pay.

You talk about "agreement." Well, the fundamental agreement of this democracy is that the majority makes binding decisions for the whole.

no, this is a representative democracy, not a true democracy. the fundamental agreement of this democracy is that the legislature votes on laws, the executive branch executes it, and the judicial branch upholds it. nowhere in this do the people come in. they vote on the members of congress and a few members of the executive branch, but once those officers are in office they hold the power and make the decisions, until we take it from them. as is, we do not have the ability to create new laws. the few laws we are allowed to vote on, we don't get to do so until the legislature has approved it. i do not propose to go against the will of the majority, i propose to gain the majoritys will. i will do this by presenting logic, and a system to replace the current one. if the majority does not agree, i will be unable to accomplish my goals. nowhere in this do i attempt to wrest control from the majority. i wish to give it to them. though i do not believe the majority to be right all of the time, i do believe that it is the only acceptable form of government, until violence is eradicated from the earth and people deal with each other as traders, never demanding anything (and i am not unrealistic, i do not expect this to happen, even though it should).

Since you are so wrapped up in the Constitution, I suppose you have read... the first line?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

as i have stated before, socialist measure do not benefit society, they breed ignorance, slothfulness, ieptitude, malice, greed, and jealousy. welfare, medicaid, social security, and other measure such as these, reward all that is undesirable in society. government regulations, public projects, handouts, and control all take the power of choice and the need for thought out of society.

just because an amendment made it into the constitution doesn't mean its constitutional. how about the eighteenth amendment, prohibition? you can't buy alchohol now. next time, you can't buy books that speak out against the government. thank god the americans of the time realized that the law was crap and started drinking ON PRINCIPAL. the same should be done for the sixteenth amendment.

since the people didnt want prohibitation.it was indeed unconstitutional and was repealed.but these are fundamentally diffrent.


you said americans now want a government that does things for them. that equates to "americans now want things done for them at the expense of other taxpayers, whether or not they earned it." again, i point to welfare and medicaid. again, it is not my responsibility, nor my wish, to provide for those who refuse to earn an adequate income for their needs.

most the people want these programs,hence only a small percentage is getting what they DONT want.we are a democracy,you have the right to your opinions but 90% of opinions detirmine that your paying taxes to fund public education.thats democracy.if you dont like it,go to a diffrent country.


find a single law on business that does not harm them in some way. anti-monopoly laws are for the benefit of businesses? how about microsoft, which is being penalized for putting out a quality product that people buy. those who do not wish to buy it, buy linux or apple. nobody forces the bulk of americans to buy microsoft, thereby giving them a "monopoly", it is their choice. but the government tells them that they are a bad company and need to be punished, and so sues them, forcing them to defend themselves for making a good product. where in that entire string of events do you find logic, or a benefit for microsoft? i believe my staunchest supporters for less government control will be big and small businesses, as both are equally hemmed in by unnecessary rules and regulations that do nothing but force them to spend more money buying a license or some other piece of nonsense to do exactly what they were going to do anyways.

monopolys hurt the economy,microsoft may not like laws against them,but it doesnt mean there not importent to small buisness.you know,were innovative and quality products are created?large buisness dont innovate.


the times have not changed so drastically that we should condone theft by making it legal. your second point in this paragraph, about the difference between legality and what is right, is horribly flawed. what is legal MUST be right, or should not be legal. you assume my argument is that there are no public goods of worth to buy. this is not the case. my point is that i don't give a shit about some starving refugee in africa, or a sign post across the country from me, that my money goes to pay for. if a group of citizens in a subdivision wants a paved road through their neighborhood, that's great. they can gather the money from all those in the neighborhood (not across the country, by way of taxes) who wish to buy a road, and hire a company to build it. those who do not wish to pay may not use the road, as they do not own it. if they wish to drive on it, they must pay. its that simple. if they can't raise enough money to buy it outright, they can have a company fund it and build it, and pay a fee to the company for the use of the road. they may not, under any circumstances, force a man 2000 miles away to pay for it unless he wishes to.

remember libertarian goverment=dictatorship


the distinction is this: military, police, and the legal system protect us from VIOLENCE. welfare protects me from a man thousands of miles away, or even right next door, going hungry...oh wait, i don't care. if you care you can give them money, but this is not something i wish to buy. you may not force me to buy something if i do not wish it. reason and logic end where the muzzle of a gun begins.

now your being a fool.less educated people means more poor folk.poor folk commit ALMOST ALL VIOLENT CRIMES.hence it DOES protect us from violence.AND improves our economy.DOUBLE benefits.

ok heres a solution, buy your own small island, live there, that way you will never have to actually give up any of your money to support your way of life ever again! no one will ever tax you or otherwise tae your money for their evil ventures in socialism :rolleyes:

idiots like you should honestly be shot

hey, how about this: instead of presenting a valid argument or debating my ideas, how about you say nothing at all by essentially telling me to go screw myself, while at the same time being shot. this is constructive criticism at its best.

Oplet, I said in my last post I would continue this discussion if you chose to respond in a reasonable way.

You have not. You have merely reiterated the same nonsense you continually spout, and you have failed to respond to any of my arguments. Neither of us will get anything out of continuing this discussion. I trust by now anyone following this thread will have decided which of us is correct.

Oplet, I said in my last post I would continue this discussion if you chose to respond in a reasonable way.

You have not. You have merely reiterated the same nonsense you continually spout, and you have failed to respond to any of my arguments. Neither of us will get anything out of continuing this discussion. I trust by now anyone following this thread will have decided which of us is correct.

when you prove conclusively that i have no right to the money i earn, then i will discuss what we spend it on. i agree with you that those following this discussion have already chosen a side, and that neither of us is going to convince the other. i thank you for your time. out of curiosity, how old are you?

Hey, Oplet, out of curiousity, have you or members of your family ever attended public schools? Do you have your money in an FDIC-insured bank? Have you ever driven on an interstate highway? Does your state have ethanol inclusion requirements for gasoline? Have you ever used public transportation, including buses, subways, light rail systems, or trains? Have you ever purchased goods that have been transported using these systems? If you've attended college, have you ever taken a student loan? Have you ever taken a home loan? Have you ever bought agricultural products produced by farms receiving subsidies?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then you're guilty of "freeloading" on socialist programs supported by the U.S. government and by the taxpayer.

There's more to government than defense, and like it or not, you're benefiting from it. So don't spout this "socialism is evil" crapola. You can't argue absolutes when you're a beneficiary of the system you declare to hate. The argument here is about "how much socialism." Take away socialized programs, the U.S. becomes a third-world nation.

when you prove conclusively that i have no right to the money i earn, then i will discuss what we spend it on.

I have given the argument already. I still await your response to it.

out of curiosity, how old are you?

I am twenty-four. Since we're sharing, how old are you?

Like it or not, you are a part of a political association. I have already hinted that I think this association has every right to "your" money, since it provides the environment and tools that make that wealth possible. Again, do you think, given the same amount of hard work you have surely done here, you would have as much working in Guatemala? Surely not... and therefore the collective has every right to claim its share of what we produce as a group, since we would not produce as much in some other group, and we would certainly not be so wealthy if we lived in no political association at all.

i assume that this is the argument you make for the collective having first dibs on my production? the only "debt" i owe to society is not to the government, nor a government made up of the people, but to the people who invented and discovered the tools and means by which i make my money. i would not be able to produce an eighth, with twice the effort, of what i produce now were it not for the thinkers of history, and today, who made it possible. this does not imply a debt to society, it implies a debt to copyright and patent owners and beneficiaries. copyrights and patents are not "granted" by the government, they are enforced by the government, a service for which copyright and patent holders pay the government. were i to work in a factory, and the factory to use machines and tools invented by others, i would owe a debt to the inventors of those tools and processes which i use. the government did not enable them to invent. if you go back far enough, to when there was no government, everybody rose and fell on their own effort (hard, but fair.) then, somebody invented a wheel, discovered how to make fire, or domesticated livestock or a crop. the beneficiaries of these inventions owe a debt to the men who invented them, not to every human being alive at the time.

I am twenty-four. Since we're sharing, how old are you?

i am 17.

Hey, Oplet, out of curiousity, have you or members of your family ever attended public schools? Do you have your money in an FDIC-insured bank? Have you ever driven on an interstate highway? Does your state have ethanol inclusion requirements for gasoline? Have you ever used public transportation, including buses, subways, light rail systems, or trains? Have you ever purchased goods that have been transported using these systems? If you've attended college, have you ever taken a student loan? Have you ever taken a home loan? Have you ever bought agricultural products produced by farms receiving subsidies?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then you're guilty of "freeloading" on socialist programs supported by the U.S. government and by the taxpayer.

being forced to comply with a system does not imply a sanction of it. i would rather have paid only for the services i have used (and this could be done much more easily if those services were in the hands of private owners or companies), rather than services such as welfare, which i will never collect, and social security, which i will never collect.

There's more to government than defense, and like it or not, you're benefiting from it. So don't spout this "socialism is evil" crapola. You can't argue absolutes when you're a beneficiary of the system you declare to hate. The argument here is about "how much socialism." Take away socialized programs, the U.S. becomes a third-world nation.

take away social programs, and the U.S. has to rely on ability. is that so scary? do you have so little faith in yourself?

Opie, at 17, I don't think you've paid enough tax to cover any of the services you've received. I could be wrong, you could be among the top 0.00001 % of 17 year olds, earnings-wise, and already paid enough tax to cover the defense and/or education you've received. Or maybe you've paid tons in capital gains tax on your staggering trust fund. If this is the case, please don't talk about ability. But if not, bear in mind you're talking about other people's money when you're talking about how you would have spent your hypothetical loot.

Also note that, at 17, you declare that you're never going to get social security. Why is this? Is this because you're betting the system will fail or because you'd refuse to accept it on principle? I'm just curious about this.

Consider too that your argument about ability assumes that Horatio Alger is home truth. That effort is rewarded and that there is some measure of fairness or justice to economic reward. This is baloney. There is luck, there is chance, there is injustice, there is corruption. Will does not equal way. Truth is that wealth begets wealth and that the socioeconomic divide is greater now in the U.S. than practically any point in its history while economic mobility is lower than ever. So much for up-by-the-bootstraps. Meanwhile, evil "socialist" nations like Sweden, Germany, Finland, and Canada have much greater rates of economic mobility, meaning that the "American Dream" (doing better than your parents) is alive and well, just not in America.

Ability and drive are good things, but you're assuming that somehow ambition and drive are incompatible with socialized programs, which just doesn't hold water. The number one factor for increasing economic mobility (which allows ability to be rewarded) is sound public education.

Mull it over.

Opie, at 17, I don't think you've paid enough tax to cover any of the services you've received. I could be wrong, you could be among the top 0.00001 % of 17 year olds, earnings-wise, and already paid enough tax to cover the defense and/or education you've received. Or maybe you've paid tons in capital gains tax on your staggering trust fund. If this is the case, please don't talk about ability. But if not, bear in mind you're talking about other people's money when you're talking about how you would have spent your hypothetical loot.

you can not invalidate my argument by virtue of age, and to attempt it is unreasonable and childish.

Also note that, at 17, you declare that you're never going to get social security. Why is this? Is this because you're betting the system will fail or because you'd refuse to accept it on principle? I'm just curious about this.

i will not accept social security. if i have not earned enough to support myself by the time i wish to retire then i will not retire. i will not give my consent for the government to take money from my paycheck "for me".

Consider too that your argument about ability assumes that Horatio Alger is home truth. That effort is rewarded and that there is some measure of fairness or justice to economic reward. This is baloney. There is luck, there is chance, there is injustice, there is corruption. Will does not equal way. Truth is that wealth begets wealth and that the socioeconomic divide is greater now in the U.S. than practically any point in its history while economic mobility is lower than ever. So much for up-by-the-bootstraps. Meanwhile, evil "socialist" nations like Sweden, Germany, Finland, and Canada have much greater rates of economic mobility, meaning that the "American Dream" (doing better than your parents) is alive and well, just not in America.

you conclude, from the fact that sometimes luck and injustice come into play, that to strive to award excellence only is "baloney"? i am advocating the abolishment of systems that enable injustice and corruption. if the government is allowed no role in business, how will injustice or corruption allow someone to earn an unjust profit? stating that luck can come into play as a reason that we should not award excellence is nonsense. at times, a random factor can be unfair, so why should we even try to be fair? that is the question you pose. why, i ask you, do we take money from those who earn it and give money to those who don't? many people equate this with a virtue. some, as in this discussion, believe it buys them security. citing an economic "divide" as a negative assumes that a divide is unjust. if we reward only ability and production, then yes, there will be a large divide. many people are not as able as the few. this is a bad thing? this is wrong? taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't is not a virtue, it is theft, plain and simple. you can not justify it as a virtue. taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who do not does not buy your personal security. this argument supposes that humans are, by nature, evil, and that a hungry person is a thieving or violent person. yes, many will take that path, but paying them to not take it is wrong as well. the economic divide you cite is large in america because we are the only country that still maintains even the semblance of rewarding excellence. this nation is quickly learning (by way of budget deficits and national debt) that you can not have a half socialist, half capitalist nation. we are rapidly approaching a choice, and there is a right answer and a wrong answer. i will do my best to illuminate the choices for what they are, one, a system that rewards excellence, ability, production, and effort, and another that rewards incompetence, cringes at the condemnation of other nations, breeds laziness, and penalizes ability.

Ability and drive are good things, but you're assuming that somehow ambition and drive are incompatible with socialized programs, which just doesn't hold water. The number one factor for increasing economic mobility (which allows ability to be rewarded) is sound public education.

Mull it over.

i do not claim that ability and drive are incompatible with socialist programs, i state the simple fact that socialist programs feed on and punish ability and drive. ability and drive will earn you money and security under a socialist program, but only so long as the government pleases. if a socialist government believes you have too much money and joe blow doesn't have enough, they will take your money from you and you can do nothing about it, because it is "legal". what incentive is there to earn if it can be taken away at the whim of any corrupt law?

i will do my best to illuminate the choices for what they are, one, a system that rewards excellence, ability, production, and effort, and another that rewards incompetence, cringes at the condemnation of other nations, breeds laziness, and penalizes ability.

So go ahead. Illuminate these choices, cause you haven't done it yet. What you have done is present a circular argument based upon the idea that we accept your definition of what these "choices" are. Frankly, they seem cooked out of some hodgepodge of the evils of Marxist Socialism, the gutlessness of liberalism, and a smidge of Ayn Rand heroics.

For example, what do socialized medicine or public schools have to do with "cringing at the condemnation of other nations"? I mean, really. Where is the connection?

Moving on, you say that privatized programs are somehow less vulnerable to corruption than public programs. I offer up social security. Operating costs of the SSA Trust Funds are below 1%. I challenge you to find a private money manager who operates as cheaply. Moreover, the transition to a private carve-out could cost in excess of $1 trillion. But this is alright, because it would go to the good people at Solomon Smith Barney or Goldman Sachs, people who have earned this money because of their excellence and ability? Right?

Third, look at medicine for a moment. The largest problems in the field come from *lack of regulation.* Out-of-hand malpractice suits drive up the cost of insurance for providers which in turn drives up the cost of insurance for the individual, making it harder for the individual to afford care. Does this extra money go to doctors and other care providers (people with advanced degrees and specialized skills, you might say the able)? No. It goes to trial lawyers, insurance workers, and injured individuals. Is this rewarding drive? Ability?

Last, look at education (which is, after all, the topic at hand). I'll say again that a sound public school system is the number one factor in economic mobility. You rebut that economic mobility is overrated and that a large divide illustrates that a nation rewards ability and drive. I say instead that this large divide illustrates nothing more than the inertia of wealth. This is the end of the American dream and the consolidation of a nearly feudal class system.

For example I give you Paris Hilton. While she has demonstrated, on film, certain talents that may be worth several hundred dollars an hour, what has the princess done to deserve her umpteen millions?

So with inheritance, education. Say we buy into one of these privatization schemes, such as vouchers or the underwriting of private schools. Money will be drained from public institutions for what? A few grand per student per year. Compare this to the real expense of the $30,000-a-year Choate. Then compare Ivy League admission rates between Choate and some $3,000-a-year private school (and bear in mind, there ain't many that cheap). What this does is deepen the divide and make the feudal economic split more intergenerational (as if we needed help with this). The American dream becomes less probable and individuals become locked more firmly into their stations.

Meanwhile, you're talking about the incorruptibility of privatized industry and equating public schools with all the evils of scientific socialism. Go figure.

This isn't about party, it's about maintenance of power. Privatizing programs such as education serve to reinforce the existing power structure. By linking schooling more closely to wealth, the folks on top of the heap stay on top of the heap. By strengthening free public schools, you increase mobility, which is the truest measure of just rewards.

if we privatize education, do you think we will escape the unjust condemnation of other countries? this desire in our government to appear open and cooperative with the whims of other nations is indeed cringing at their condemnation.

you give social security budgets as proof of a good government program? one of the most contentious issues policy makers face today? specifically because it is losing money and can not continue as is? i can find no argument to counter, you merely enforce my point. socialist programs DO NOT WORK.

the problems in medicine do come from lack of regulation. laws have not clearly defined what a medical practitioner may justly be held liable for. current laws also allow people to get around the agreements they must sign (almost all of which state that medicine is not an exact science and a doctor may not be held liable for anything other than extreme negligence or ineptitude) before a doctor will operate on them. millions of dollars are awarded to "injured" parties who experience complications which are out of the control of modern medicine. that is unfair to the able.

there is something wrong with inheritance? is it somehow "unfair" to a common worker when a millionaire gives money to his/her son/daughter which that worker never would have seen? is giving your child lunch money unfair to the child whos parents do or can not? does giving your child that lunch money take anything out of the pockets of the other parents?

i advocate no "privatization schemes." i am just as against vouchers and the underwriting of private institutions as i am against wholesale public schools. the issue at hand is: by what right does the government take millions of tax dollars from one party without children to make up for the inability of the parents of thousands of children to make enough to send their children to school? i DO NOT give my consent, and will not until it is a matter of volition. economic mobility is not the issue, keeping everyone on the same level is not the issue. dragging the rich down (by taking money from them) to bring the poor up (by giving them money or funding their education) is not a measure of just rewards. we do not come into this world as equals, whether you measure wealth or ability. were i poor, i have no "right" to be rich. were i rich, you have no right to demand i be no richer than yourself. were i dumb, i have no right to be smart. were i smart, you have no right to demand that i restrain my intellect. the only manner in which we are equal is our individual rights. you have the right to the PURSUIT of happiness, not happiness. you have the right to YOUR life, not mine. you have the right to YOUR liberty, which is EXACTLY equal to mine, and which may not infringe upon my liberty. you have the right to what you have produced, and only what you have produced, not what i have produced.

if we privatize education, do you think we will escape the unjust condemnation of other countries? this desire in our government to appear open and cooperative with the whims of other nations is indeed cringing at their condemnation.
What does any of this have to do with the argument?
you give social security budgets as proof of a good government program? one of the most contentious issues policy makers face today? specifically because it is losing money and can not continue as is? i can find no argument to counter, you merely enforce my point. socialist programs DO NOT WORK.
I guess you missed this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=386765&highlight=social+security).

Yes. Compare education in the early 19th century to how shitty it is today. Also, read None Dare Call it Education by John Stormer and The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt.

First off, I am jumping in at the end of this thread without actually reading it all, so if I say something already said, shoot me OK.

For primary and secondary education in the rich developped world then it should definately be provided by the state (nation) and not depend upon the vagaries of the market driven economics of private funding. University education is a little / lot more complicated. Here there should be space for both private and public funded institutions.

Inb other parts of the world the question arises as to the financial ability of the government to provide sufficient school places for the entire population. This is a problem here in Brazil. The economy is currently growing quite nicely, with good future prospects, but we are emerging from a period of severe instability. One of the consequences of this is that there simply is not enough tax revenue to provide all the services required as well as pay off the international debt. We have little or no choice regarding the debt, so some if not all services are underfunded. (Yes I know that a large chunk disappears in corruption etc. but recovering that is a long term operation and will not help the current funding situation.)
Education is a legal right here, but the legal system is so moribund that if you were to take a case against the government for not providing education for your child, the decision would probably only benefit your great grandchildren. The alternative, which is in place, is to have a mixed system of state and private schools. The town I live in has a population of some 200,000 and has at least five private schools that provide education from age 3 (pre-school) through to 17 (second grade complete). There are also numerous state schools. The wealthy and the middle classes generally send their kids to the private schools as the monthly fees tend to be only one and two times the minimum salary here. Some however do not and send their kids to the state schools.

The down side is that the private schools have more money than the state ones. So better teachers (better salaries = more selection power), better equipment, better infrastucture, ergo better education. But this is not available to all, it is too expensive for the unskilled and semi-skilled worker to afford. There is almost a caste social system due to this. The kids of the proffessional classes go to the better schools , get into university, obtain professional qualifications and repeat this into the future. The kids of the workers go to the poorer schools, if at all, get less education, very rarely get into university and so end up working as unskilled or semi skilled labour.

Until the government can afford to provide decent education for all, this is the best we can do.

anarchy and poland, i must bow out. i have mid-terms this week, and i am out of my league in this discussion. i simply do not know all of the facts to support my opinions (although i believe my opinions to be accurate and the facts to exist.) anarchy, i had not seen that thread (i do not usually take an active role in the forums) and i can not argue with you about social security until i know all of the issues facing it. this has been enjoyable, and i thank you both.

I don't want schools to be treated like businesses. Businesses are out to make money. They'll do this by charging tuition and placing ads everywhere. Some ads I can accept but you know they'll get out of hand. I would expect some companies would bring in small stores, set up stands and the like, and bringing in people demonstrating their products. You can't expect to learn in such a cheapened environment.

Besides, privatization ends up costing more out-of-pocket than it did while being paid with tax money.

anarchy and poland, i must bow out. i have mid-terms this week,

Ah yes, the high school "mid-term" that falls annoyingly right after Winter Break. Oplet, despite your misguided notions -- probably at least half the fault of your unmotivated faculty -- you seem like a smart kid. Take my advice and do what I did: drop out of high school as soon as possible.

Best decision I ever made.

and i am out of my league in this discussion.

That is true... but it happens to all of us. (If anyone tells you otherwise, either they are lying or their name is Wilson Carey McWilliams -- and he would probably never tell you that, he'd just prove it to you more times than you can count.) However, as long as you are willing to admit when you are wrong (or don't know what you're talking about), chances are you will always learn from the experience; and for what more could you ask?

i simply do not know all of the facts to support my opinions (although i believe my opinions to be accurate and the facts to exist.)

Well, now that could be a dangerous path to travel. Always be willing to re-evaluate your opinions in the light of new information. If you hold very strong opinions but cannot find the information to support them, chances are good that someone -- teacher, politician, parent, or whomever -- has done a good job convincing you of something that simply is not true. Unfortunately, once we become convinced of things, we tend to take it personally when our beliefs are challenged. Thus it may take real courage to question our own beliefs when they seem to be contradicted by the facts.

anarchy, i had not seen that thread (i do not usually take an active role in the forums) and i can not argue with you about social security until i know all of the issues facing it.

In this you are like most Americans. We watch the TV news, and we hear people debating over and over again how we might "save" Social Security, or we hear conservative politicians constantly warning us that it will fail... and it begins to seem like a fact. It is very surprising to us to have someone spell out the actual facts of the case to show that the fear itself is, ultimately, a kind of politics and not reality.

this has been enjoyable, and i thank you both.

Likewise... just try not to take it personally when you are wrong. (And please don't take that comment as patronizing... if you browse the forums enough, I know that you will find many instances in which I concede a point or tone down my convinctions in the face of a valid point or strong evidence to the contrary. Not only does it make things more fun -- once you realize that "being wrong" is nothing to be ashamed of -- but it generally means you start to actually learn things.)

Yes. Compare education in the early 19th century to how shitty it is today. Also, read None Dare Call it Education by John Stormer and The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt.

When I finished undergrad, the president of the university delivered a speech comparing the courseload and expectations of the first class (early 1800s) versus the courseload and expectations of my class (late 1990s).

Example: "The first class was prohibited from all bars, billiard parlors, and coffeehouses, on penalty of expulsion. This class, let me just say that if I were to walk into the Oasis on any Thursday night, we wouldn't have a graduating class."

There was laughter after each of these comparisons and the speech was very well received, but after listening to that for twenty minutes, I felt like I knew every "you might be a slacker if . . ." joke ever told.

Now, not being able to speak for all public schools, I found that my public school experience (in California, no less) was much more rigorous than any (private) university experience. This is something to think about also: Privatization makes schools more accountable to the students. This can be a fault as well as a strength. Accountability for providing a sound education is one thing, but when you start treating a student as a client, or adopt the "customer is always right" mindset, there are a whole batch of new problems.

anarchy and poland, i must bow out. i have mid-terms this week, and i am out of my league in this discussion. i simply do not know all of the facts to support my opinions (although i believe my opinions to be accurate and the facts to exist.) anarchy, i had not seen that thread (i do not usually take an active role in the forums) and i can not argue with you about social security until i know all of the issues facing it. this has been enjoyable, and i thank you both.

Peace out, Oplet. I'm sorry I called you Opie.

Hey, I used to be one of these hardcore, virtue of selfishness, personal responsibility guys in high school (which ain't all that long ago). I could argue all day about how crummy and impractical and evil ideal Marxist socialism is. But, in theory, unregulated capitalism is as bad or worse. A little regulation, a progressive tax scale, a few socialized programs can help to, quote FDR, save capitalism from itself. Hell, the Army is a socialized program, and you approve of government providing for defense. We pool our resources to afford a structure that, while beneficial, no one could afford alone. No one gets to "opt out" of defense spending without going to jail, whether they feel they benefit or not. People in Idaho still pay for a Coast Guard they might never see because they benefit from secured borders.

So too, whether or not an individual has kids in school, they benefit from public schools. It means that when they go to the grocery, the teller will have learned how to figure proper change; it means the nation's productivity will be higher because of a more highly-skilled workforce; it means voters have the means to become involved in government (think about what it means to be a government by the people if the people can't read).