NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your thoughts?

(As always, there will be a poll.)

bump

Yes.

Ignorance is a societal problem.

Since when has it not been, i thought it was in the entire western world. I know it is in the u.k where you have go to public (state) school untill 16, and even if you dont (i know a few people get around it) you have to sit exams at 16 GCSE, or its not offical but pratically impossible to be employed.

Yes, becuase in a uneducated population tyrany florishes, just look at the dark and middle ages, no education bar a few redoubt like universities and tyrany florished.

Yes. Education should be compulsory, secular, and aimed at three main goals.

1 A mastery of one's own language and a few others that allows the student to communicate complex ideas easily and comprehend complex ideas spoken and written by others

2 The greatest possible mastery of mathematics based on the student's individual talent

3 A working knowledge of the scientific method, and at least minimal exposure to the major historical and contemporary developments in all branches of science.

I wish I could say that I considered this a topic that really needs debate, but it seems blatantly obvious to me.

Education is a cornerstone of western society. I often don't think education goes far enough, basic arithmetic and english, which is basically what you learn at GCSE is insufficient for a well rounded education. In that respect the American Education system, in keeping students in education until they are 18 years old is much better.

I think first every pupil should learn basic things (here I include a lot more than writing and basic maths: it should as wel include a rough understanding of what culture is all about and how the world works).
Then I think (maybe at the age of about 16) pupil should have the right to completely tetermine what they want to learn.

Dose anyone else think basic or otherwise philosophy should be part of the nationial cirriclum?

I mean it kind of is allready in the from of R.S GCSE, but well..... It's stupid.

Teaching people to think criticaly well, it would reap its own rewards.

Also yeah education dose not go far enough, problem is a lot of people just dont want to learn, so really what is the point in keeping thouse people in post 16+ if there just going to make arses of themselves.

2 The greatest possible mastery of mathematics based on the student's individual talent

What about students who suck royally at math?

yes, and i agree that philosophy should be a core subject


edit:

What about students who suck royally at math?
yeah, like me! :eek:
i have dyscalculia - its dyslexia for maths :headbang:

Education wasn't only always public, nor mandatory. There was a time when there was no formal education at all.

And it's in part a question of personal liberty. Forcing an 18-year-old to attend high school infringes on his personal autonomy.

But I agree. Compulsory education. Pass on culture, history, ideas and skills that are important to being human and American.

As Plato stated, a nation ruled by philosophers would be the greatest nation on earth.

Well he was talking about the forms, which is a highly flawed idea, actually ill make a thread on it now.

Yes education should be mandatory to about the 8th grade level. After that it should either be mandatory for you to get an education in a trade or for you to complete highschool.

ignorance is not a right.

ignorance is a privilege.

Yes. Education should be compulsory, secular, and aimed at three main goals.

1 A mastery of one's own language and a few others that allows the student to communicate complex ideas easily and comprehend complex ideas spoken and written by others

2 The greatest possible mastery of mathematics based on the student's individual talent

3 A working knowledge of the scientific method, and at least minimal exposure to the major historical and contemporary developments in all branches of science.

I would rather prefer these goals:
1. The pupil should be able to earn money.
2. The pupil should be able to "take part in democracy/society". (learn how govermental system works, how debate works, how he/she informs/decides about an issue.
3. Should be offered the opportunity to learn as much as possible of what he/she is interested in.
4. The pupil should be offered the possibility to learn how to live happy life.

What about students who suck royally at math?
Teach them as much as they can handle. Not everyone will be able to do the really hard stuff, but math is important even for the trades.

And why science? Why not leave that to people who want to be scientists?

And why science? Why not leave that to people who want to be scientists?

Because the scientific method is the cornerstone for western civilization. We must understand how our world works or we can NEVER hope to peacefully co-exist with it.

Besides, People rarely listen to scientists anymore...

Just look at all the pollution is good for us freaks.

Science is not just for scientists. Just like writing and reading is not just for english professors.

I would rather prefer these goals:
1. The pupil should be able to earn money.
2. The pupil should be able to "take part in democracy". (learn how govermental system works, how debate works, how he/she informs/decides about an issue.
3. Should be offered the opportunity to learn as much as possible of what he/she is interested in.

1. Can't see why they cant already, I’m in 6th form collage lots of my friends have jobs (abiet shite ones)

2. Democracy's latest and greatest failing is that most of the people in my gerneation are completely aphetic to it, probably because they’ve never had to fight for it, or even noticed it. I doubt this would work, although there is a limited scheme to add a 'government'(called something similar) GCSE along those lines

3. Again another modern problem in the British education system, less and less people are taking subjects like sciences and Math, in favour of easier more popular subjects like p.e and psychology, in the future our economy may suffer from a lack of people with mathematic and scientific education

And why science? Why not leave that to people who want to be scientists?
It teaches critical thinking and how to separate actual observations from the observer's bias.

Yes. Education should be compulsory, secular, and aimed at three main goals.

1 A mastery of one's own language and a few others that allows the student to communicate complex ideas easily and comprehend complex ideas spoken and written by others

2 The greatest possible mastery of mathematics based on the student's individual talent

3 A working knowledge of the scientific method, and at least minimal exposure to the major historical and contemporary developments in all branches of science.
Ay, you're such a MAN...what about art? What about literature and critical thinking beyond science? Sheesh! :D

The only things I learned in school that helped me make money were propper grammar and spelling (more or less), conversion from metric to standard, and the pythagorean theorem. All covered in two of my three requirements.

The only things I learned in school that helped me make money were propper grammar and spelling (more or less), conversion from metric to standard, and the pythagorean theorem. All covered in two of my three requirements.
:D

Yes. Education should be compulsory, secular, and aimed at three main goals.

1 A mastery of one's own language and a few others that allows the student to communicate complex ideas easily and comprehend complex ideas spoken and written by others

2 The greatest possible mastery of mathematics based on the student's individual talent

3 A working knowledge of the scientific method, and at least minimal exposure to the major historical and contemporary developments in all branches of science.

I note you make no mention of subjects such as history, civics, art, music, etc. Do you believe that the liberal arts are unimportant?

Ay, you're such a MAN...what about art? What about literature and critical thinking beyond science? Sheesh! :D
Literature can be taught used as a tool in teaching proper grammar, spelling, writing, and reading comprehension. Critical thinking is taught in science. It can be applied elsewhere. Art is something I've never really had any use for.

:D
Note the "more or less" qualification.

I note you make no mention of subjects such as history, civics, art, music, etc. Do you believe that the liberal arts are unimportant?
History and civics, yeah, I can see those being taught. Art and music are too subjective and open to interpretation to be taught in the basic curriculum.

Meh, science is nothing more than a great big gigantic pain in the alimentary canal.

I personaly think it should be the child's choice.

1: Only when one has the freedom can one truly see the reprocussions of one's own actions. Otherwise they'll always wonder in the back of thier mind.. "was i just conforming?"

2: This would not nesscarely build a nation of ignorance, as anyone who doesn't want to work at McDonalds for the rest of thier life will still pick up a book and get an education.

All this does is weed-out the lazy ones that arn't paying attention in school anyways, and allows more time for teachers to "teach" the few children that are motivated and gifted. Here in America we complain how the schools are so packed, well duh. if kids don't have to go most won't allowing the state to meet each child's needs, putting less preassure on the parents who KNOW they have a deadbeat kid, and everybody has thier freedom of choice.

You can't force people to be productive, but you can ignore them when they want something. They want to be bums, let'em, but don't let cloud your judgment.

I personaly think it should be the child's choice.

1: Only when one has the freedom can one truly see the reprocussions of one's own actions. Otherwise they'll always wonder in the back of thier mind.. "was i just conforming?"

2: This would not nesscarely build a nation of ignorance, as anyone who doesn't want to work at McDonalds for the rest of thier life will still pick up a book and get an education.

All this does is weed-out the lazy ones that arn't paying attention in school anyways, and allows more time for teachers to "teach" the few children that are motivated and gifted. Here in America we complain how the schools are so packed, well duh. if kids don't have to go most won't allowing the state to meet each child's needs, putting less preassure on the parents who KNOW they have a deadbeat kid, and everybody has thier freedom of choice.

You can't force people to be productive, but you can ignore them when they want something. They want to be bums, let'em, but don't let cloud your judgment.

*Applause*

That is one of the wisest, most logical, and sensible things I have ever heard in my life. Bravo.

i guess it depends on what level you are talking about

everyone needs a basic education but at some point it should be up to the individual what to learn and how much time to spend at it.

in new mexico, a person can drop out of highschool at 16. its not a GOOD choice but surely there are spaces for people at the bottom if that is the life they want to choose for themselves.

1. The pupil should be able to earn money.The ability to earn money is directly related to education levels.

I personaly think it should be the child's choice.

1: Only when one has the freedom can one truly see the reprocussions of one's own actions. Otherwise they'll always wonder in the back of thier mind.. "was i just conforming?"

2: This would not nesscarely build a nation of ignorance, as anyone who doesn't want to work at McDonalds for the rest of thier life will still pick up a book and get an education.

All this does is weed-out the lazy ones that arn't paying attention in school anyways, and allows more time for teachers to "teach" the few children that are motivated and gifted. Here in America we complain how the schools are so packed, well duh. if kids don't have to go most won't allowing the state to meet each child's needs, putting less preassure on the parents who KNOW they have a deadbeat kid, and everybody has thier freedom of choice.

You can't force people to be productive, but you can ignore them when they want something. They want to be bums, let'em, but don't let cloud your judgment.
i think that approach works better in a country like the US where you get almost unlimited "do overs". in some countries if you screw up your education you are finished. no practical chance at higher education after you smarten up and realize you dont want to live at the bottom.

Compulsory? Absolutely NOT!
Sorry but the school system is so overcrowded thx to mandatory attendance. If it were voluntary, those parents who are smart enough to realize the benefits of an education can go to school, while those who are a drain on the system can just leave.

Heck, I'm not even sending my kids to public school coz it's so bad (and I'm a friggin Honors student). I've decided that when I have kids they are definitely going to private school

And it's in part a question of personal liberty. Forcing an 18-year-old to attend high school infringes on his personal autonomy.

But I agree. Compulsory education. Pass on culture, history, ideas and skills that are important to being human and American.
Yes, in a ideal world, education would be optional. But sometimes you have to compromise ideology for practicality.

No. The government has no right to point a gun at someone and force them against their will to do this - even if you do think it is for the "social good".

No. The government has no right to point a gun at someone and force them against their will to do this - even if you do think it is for the "social good".
Sure it does. That's what governments are for. They keep everyone on the same page so progress can be made toward the common good.

"Sure it does. That's what governments are for. They keep everyone on the same page so progress can be made toward the common good. "

The government has no right to decide what's best for me. Their job is to keep things from getting stolen from me, to keep me from getting killed. Not force something on me that I don't want to have forced on me. If this creates problems, then so be it. Liberty is more important than anything else.

"Sure it does. That's what governments are for. They keep everyone on the same page so progress can be made toward the common good. "

The government has no right to decide what's best for me. Their job is to keep things from getting stolen from me, to keep me from getting killed. Not force something on me that I don't want to have forced on me. If this creates problems, then so be it. Liberty is more important than anything else.
That's your point of view. You're a libertarian. My point of view is different. Government IMHO is a tool used by the people to organize the society to achieve certain ends. Sometimes to achieve those ends it must infringe on a few people's liberties. That sort of behavior must be kept to a minimum, and in some cases not be permitted at all, but in my estimation, giving every working person a living wage outweighs the liberty of several hundred very rich people and corporations holding on to every cent that they get.

No. The government has no right to point a gun at someone and force them against their will to do this - even if you do think it is for the "social good".
so for you it would be OK for parents to keep their children at home and never teach them to read and write?

so for you it would be OK for parents to keep their children at home and never teach them to read and write?

If that was to happen, the countries that actually for whatever reason allowed that to happen, whould enter into another dark age. As most know one of the reasons the dark ages happend was because of the lack of education.

If people know nothing else other than to resort to violence first, then thats all that will happen. Violence.

How about compulsory state provided education from the age of five to the age of ten. This gives six years of education to establish just the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic. After this it becomes the parents choice as to what further education the child should receive. This education is paid for either directly by the parents (private) or by deferred taxation to be levied on the student after they have finished education. Pay your own way. Those that consider education critical to success would pay for it, those that consider it a waste of time would not. The right to education for a further total of six to eight years on a tax credit scheme would remain with a person from the age of ten onwards until they have used them. After retirement, the price of the education could be levied on the estate of the person when they die. (It is open to some abise, but not much).
The first six years, the compulsory ones would have a centrally defined curriculum. The remaining six years would be defined by the student/institution.
Those wanting to become lawyers would have to audit certain subjects, those wanting to become doctors would have other requirements.

Specialist third level education (universities) would carry on as now. They could define the curriculum that they would want prospective students to have taken. The curriculum becomes market driven.

The primary problem I see with not making grade school [grades 1-8, in other words] compulsory is that a child really isn't responsibile or intelligent enough to make an educated [hah hah, get it?] decision about his education and life. We don't let them vote, drink, smoke, drive or fight in wars, so why should we let them decide on something this vital and important? You're getting a bit too ideological when you want to protect the freedom of choice and instill responsibility in children at the cost of intelligence and opportunity for these kids.

It shouldn't be compulsory, and it should be up to the students to decide. However, it should be up to the parents to decide before the High School years.

Look, forcing kids to go to school just doesn't sound right. It seems Fascist.

It should be up to the kids if they want to go to school or not.
RB has over 12000 posts? :eek:
Don't you have a life of some kind?

It should be up to the kids if they want to go to school or not.
Yes, but those who choose not to go to school should be immediately killed, their organs harvested for transplant, their meat used for food, and the blood and bone dried and ground up for fertilizer so that they can still contribute something to society.

Yes, but those who choose not to go to school should be immediately killed, their organs harvested for transplant, their meat used for food, and the blood and bone dried and ground up for fertilizer so that they can still contribute something to society.
And who will shine my shoes then?

And who will shine my shoes then?
A well educated shoe shine boy.

And who will shine my shoes then?

Those who only went to school for a year or so.

My idea: Why should fat, creative people be forced to do intense sports? And why should people who like sport be forced to stay inside and do geography and history and other stupid nonsense? Maths is only any good to future maths teachers. Why should anyone have to do anything that isn't critical in today's world and is strongly against their aspiration?

Hmmm...sounds good. A degree from Shoe Shine University.

My idea: Why should fat, creative people be forced to do intense sports? And why should people who like sport be forced to stay inside and do geography and history and other stupid nonsense? Maths is only any good to future maths teachers. Why should anyone have to do anything that isn't critical in today's world and is strongly against their aspiration?
Math is also good for future construction workers. If you don't think so, try to lay out a "lagoon" shaped in-ground swimming pool for excavation. Math is important for everyone.

Hmmm...sounds good. A degree from Shoe Shine University.
He'd give you the best quality shine you've ever gotten.

Math is also good for future construction workers. If you don't think so, try to lay out a "lagoon" shaped in-ground swimming pool for excavation. Math is important for everyone.
I agree. You have nothing if you can't explain why E=MC2.

He'd give you the best quality shine you've ever gotten.
PhD in Shoe Shining.
Doctordoctor we have a shoe shine emergency!!!

If the student doesn't want to be there we should not make them and at the same time if they do not at least get a high school degree they should not be allowed to vote.

He'd give you the best quality shine you've ever gotten.
Nah, he'd tell you that a high-gloss shine is so twentieth century and insist on giving your shoes a matt finish that he perfected for his final year project at uni.

And charge you double for a pre-shine examination of your shoes.

Nah, he'd tell you that a high-gloss shine is so twentieth century and insist on giving your shoes a matt finish that he perfected for his final year project at uni.

And charge you double for a pre-shine examination of your shoes.
He'd charge you $5 instead of the standard $2.

He'd charge you $5 instead of the standard $2.
Yeah, but you can always just rob him when he's done and make a profit to go along with your nice shiny shoes.

Meh.

Children are children. Even up to age 21, young brains do not work the same as those as adults. More importantly, prior to age 18, youths lack sufficient knowledge, wisdom, and experience to make intelligent decisions about their future.

Children have always been held to have less rights than adults, precisely because they are not fully formed decision-makers.

Nor should children be completely at the mercy of their parents. The lottery of genetics and families is bad enough without adding further inequality. Those who would leave it up to the parents or require parents to pay for seem to forget that some children don't have parents, have abusive parents, etc. Why should a child's future be further damaged if they lack wise parents?

Compulsory education is necessary in part for the good of each youth but even more for the good of society. We cannot expect to function well as a democracy if future citizens are not educated about civic values, history, and critical thinking. Our economy demands citizens with a variety of knowledge. Rather than assuming some ceiling that ignorant masses cannot exceed, why not embrace a minimum of education from which all can start (and most exceed). Public education has done wonders for the United States. Even with all the misinformation many people believe, general knowledge levels have increased from generation to generation (particularly if you look back in large increments).

Finally, libertarians need to recognize we live as part of a society under a democratic government. We are not each autonomous agents free to do what we please. We do not live in a state of nature. Our nation is based on the concept of a social contract. We each surrender some (just some) freedoms to advance the good of us all. Some freedoms are sacred -- such as those enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We should always be vigilant and wary of intrusions upon liberty, but that does not mean every government action is an unjustifiable tyranny. You do not live in a cave or on a deserted island. What you do effects others, what others do effects you. We have tried to maximize freedom through a constitutional republic. Deal with it.

Meh.

Children are children. Even up to age 21, young brains do not work the same as those as adults. More importantly, prior to age 18, youths lack sufficient knowledge, wisdom, and experience to make intelligent decisions about their future.

Children have always been held to have less rights than adults, precisely because they are not fully formed decision-makers.

Nor should children be completely at the mercy of their parents. The lottery of genetics and families is bad enough without adding further inequality. Those who would leave it up to the parents or require parents to pay for seem to forget that some children don't have parents, have abusive parents, etc. Why should a child's future be further damaged if they lack wise parents?

Compulsory education is necessary in part for the good of each youth but even more for the good of society. We cannot expect to function well as a democracy if future citizens are not educated about civic values, history, and critical thinking. Our economy demands citizens with a variety of knowledge. Rather than assuming some ceiling that ignorant masses cannot exceed, why not embrace a minimum of education from which all can start (and most exceed). Public education has done wonders for the United States. Even with all the misinformation many people believe, general knowledge levels have increased from generation to generation (particularly if you look back in large increments).

Finally, libertarians need to recognize we live as part of a society under a democratic government. We are not each autonomous agents free to do what we please. We do not live in a state of nature. Our nation is based on the concept of a social contract. We each surrender some (just some) freedoms to advance the good of us all. Some freedoms are sacred -- such as those enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We should always be vigilant and wary of intrusions upon liberty, but that does not mean every government action is an unjustifiable tyranny. You do not live in a cave or on a deserted island. What you do effects others, what others do effects you. We have tried to maximize freedom through a constitutional republic. Deal with it.

Sounds good to me, but I still think that kids should be able to choose whether they go to High School or not. They do that in Japan, and it works quite well.

Cat tribe: That was facking awesome. And I'm one of those libertarians. ^_^

Nothing should be compulsary, not even breathing.

Nothing should be compulsary, not even breathing.
Well, gun owership definately should.

No. The government has no right to point a gun at someone and force them against their will to do this - even if you do think it is for the "social good".
Why do extreme libertarians always use the sensationalist image of the government "pointing a gun at you" to make their points? I've never heard of the government pointing guns at people for not paying taxes, or pushing kids into school by applying a gun to the back of a head.

Liberty is more important than anything else.
So what do you think the country would be like if education was entirely optional?

Do you even care?

I said yes - other. The reason I chose that is because I believe that students should be allowed to pick from several points of view in any given controversial subject, so they could be taught different points of view by different teachers. But there should still be a standard that they have to reach in order to graduate, a standard established inside the ideology they choose to pursue.

Did that make any sense?

Cat tribe: That was facking awesome. And I'm one of those libertarians. ^_^

Thank you. You're a wonderful audience. Thank you. Thank you very much. :D

That's your point of view. You're a libertarian. My point of view is different. Government IMHO is a tool used by the people to organize the society to achieve certain ends. Sometimes to achieve those ends it must infringe on a few people's liberties. That sort of behavior must be kept to a minimum, and in some cases not be permitted at all, but in my estimation, giving every working person a living wage outweighs the liberty of several hundred very rich people and corporations holding on to every cent that they get.

I'm not the governments plaything. The gov. has no more right to force me to go to school against my will than you do. Why is the government exempt?

As for the economic thing, I could really care less about the minimum wage as long as you keep it reasonable. It is really pointless, although it does increase unemployment and make some kinds of business venture undoable because you can't make a profit. Getting rid of the minimum wage wouldn't really harm many people. They wouldn't be willing to work for much less than the minimum wage, so employer's couldn't lower it to 5 cents like so many liberals think they would. It isn't possible under capitalism. It would also create more jobs. But really, it has little effect on the economy. It's not on the top of my list of things to get rid of.

I'm the first to choose other, so I'll take a crack at giving a cursory outline of my entirely serious viewpoint:

Most people need to be taught basic ways of thinking (et al) because they are too stupid to think on their own.

Unfortunately, quite a few people are too stupid even to be taught, and therefore need to be sent to work at McDonald's or a church immediately so as not obstruct the learning of others. Also, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.


Note: I am a libertarian. But honestly, if any of die-hard libertarians or anarchists have a problem with this, then society will cut off your water supply, withhold innoculations, and let your ass starve for not contributing to society. You want to be independent, go ahead, but don't expect any more handouts or anyone to hold your ignorant hand in the big scary world.

I'm not the governments plaything. The gov. has no more right to force me to go to school against my will than you do. Why is the government exempt?

As for the economic thing, I could really care less about the minimum wage as long as you keep it reasonable. It is really pointless, although it does increase unemployment and make some kinds of business venture undoable because you can't make a profit. Getting rid of the minimum wage wouldn't really harm many people. They wouldn't be willing to work for much less than the minimum wage, so employer's couldn't lower it to 5 cents like so many liberals think they would. It isn't possible under capitalism. It would also create more jobs. But really, it has little effect on the economy. It's not on the top of my list of things to get rid of.

The government is empowered to force you to do or not do lots of things. The US Constitution empowers the federal government and state constitutions empower state and local governments.

The government acts on behalf of all of its citizens. It is the agent of the social contract.

That is how the government is "exempt."

As for your economic argument, history begs to differ. Not to mention sweatshops currently in existence both overseas and (illegally) in the US. Poverty and hunger soon undermine your bargaining power.

and libertarians wonder why their politics isnt more popular!

let's set society back 150 years! yeah i love that idea!

Yes it should be compulsary, this world already has enough stupidity.

The government is empowered to force you to do or not do lots of things. The US Constitution empowers the federal government and state constitutions empower state and local governments.

The US government has no power to do anything or force anything on anyone unless it directly prevents victimization. That's MY social contract. It disagrees with the common one. So what does the gov. do? It fines me and jails me. Is this right? No. Might does not make right. It is no more right than if you did it to me or I did it to you.

and libertarians wonder why their politics isnt more popular!

let's set society back 150 years! yeah i love that idea!

OK. That's idiocy. If you are referring to the leftist ecnomics, then you are wrong. Go read Milton Friedman or someone who knows what they're talking about, don't read another word of "Das Kapitol". People in the 1800's didn't have a high quality of life because they didn't produce much. It had nothing to do with lack of government regulation.

Anyway, where did I advocate ending education? I say that if people don't want it, you shouldn't point a gun at them and force them to accept your view of things. I'm not advocating the end of education. In fact, I advocate the improvement of it through voucherization. The vast majority of students will stay in school.

The US government has no power to do anything or force anything on anyone unless it directly prevents victimization. That's MY social contract. It disagrees with the common one. So what does the gov. do? It fines me and jails me. Is this right? No. Might does not make right. It is no more right than if you did it to me or I did it to you.

And simply saying "no" doesn't make you right. You do not unilaterally set the terms of the social contract. You can accept or leave. You can argue for change, but you'll have to do better than "I don't wanna."

Quite frankly, your views are un-American. If you reject the US Constitution and the constitution of whatever state you live in, perhaps you should find someplace to live alone.

I believe in a great deal of liberty, but you and many other libertarians take the idea too far. You are not Davy Crockett or some other Frontier hero. You are not alone and you cannot act like you are.

And simply saying "no" doesn't make you right.

Actually, my argument makes a lot of sense. It gets rid of a ton of problems. If yous simply don't force someone to accept your beliefs there will be a lot less chaos. Besides, most of what this will do is stop the idiots from wasting our money and not paying attention. If they don't want to be in school they aren't going to do good. No reason to force them too.

Really, it should be left up to the parents.

See, that was the utilitarian argument for libertarianism. It not only doesn't infringe on liberty, it makes a lot of sense.

Actually, my argument makes a lot of sense. It gets rid of a ton of problems. If yous simply don't force someone to accept your beliefs there will be a lot less chaos. Besides, most of what this will do is stop the idiots from wasting our money and not paying attention. If they don't want to be in school they aren't going to do good. No reason to force them too.

Really, it should be left up to the parents.

See, that was the utilitarian argument for libertarianism. It not only doesn't infringe on liberty, it makes a lot of sense.

Having noticed your vote, I wondered if you would raise this point.

Why is it up to the parents?

Is this autonomous being who shouldn't be forced by the government to do anything the chattel of his or her parents?

Please explain why parents should have control over whether a student is educated, but not society.

Having noticed your vote, I wondered if you would raise this point.

Why is it up to the parents?

Because, the children are not legitimate decision makers yet. They are not fully grown, so they shouldn't make the decision on their own. Just like they can't vote and can't drink.

[/QUOTE] Is this autonomous being who shouldn't be forced by the government to do anything the chattel of his or her parents?[/QUOTE]

Parents have the right of control, government does not.

[/QUOTE] Please explain why parents should have control over whether a student is educated, but not society.[/QUOTE]

Society does not have a personal relationship with the child. It is not the guardian.

Darn, I'm so tempted to say "screw society, they have no right to say what's best for me". But that's going back to natural rights logic. You don't believe in natural rights. You believe that if someone disagrees with the majority, they should be forced to be free (which is an idiotic argument made by the non-philosopher Rousseau). So, I have to use utilitarian.

Sounds good to me, but I still think that kids should be able to choose whether they go to High School or not. They do that in Japan, and it works quite well.They can. At least, here in Lancaster, PA they can; the Amish children stop going to school after 6, 7 or 8th grade and work on the family farm.

My idea: Why should fat, creative people be forced to do intense sports? And why should people who like sport be forced to stay inside and do geography and history and other stupid nonsense? Maths is only any good to future maths teachers. Why should anyone have to do anything that isn't critical in today's world and is strongly against their aspiration?That'd be a piss poor education, and you wouldn't be able to function on any professional level with that kind of focus.


Darn, I'm so tempted to say "screw society, they have no right to say what's best for me". But that's going back to natural rights logic. You don't believe in natural rights. You believe that if someone disagrees with the majority, they should be forced to be free (which is an idiotic argument made by the non-philosopher Rousseau). So, I have to use utilitarian.That's how a democracy functions. You're bound to the decisions of millions of people who have nothing to do with you beyond being in the same country. It's the price you pay.

*snip*

Darn, I'm so tempted to say "screw society, they have no right to say what's best for me". But that's going back to natural rights logic. You don't believe in natural rights. You believe that if someone disagrees with the majority, they should be forced to be free (which is an idiotic argument made by the non-philosopher Rousseau). So, I have to use utilitarian.

You assume I don't believe in natural rights. That isn't necessarily true.

Rousseau wrote a work called The Social Contract, but he was hardly the only proponent of the idea.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke also put forth the notion of a social contract.

Locke was a firm believer in natural rights. But he argued that agreeing to a certain curtailment of those rights to form the social contract was necessary to preserve one's natural rights.

Our Founding Father's based their ideas very heavily on Locke.

(I majored in Political Science, with a minor in philosophy. Political philosophy is my friend. ;) )

That's how a democracy functions. You're bound to the decisions of millions of people who have nothing to do with you beyond being in the same country. It's the price you pay.

That's not entirely true. The US is guided by, not ruled by, majority opinion. Liberty is more important than democracy, and the founding father's realize this and the fallacy of believing in absolute totalitarian democracy. The population can't suddenly decide that being liberal is illegal, it can't demand the burning at the stake of non-virgins, and it can't take your property and give it to another person without just cause. This is not-objectionable, do you agree? Hitler was elected by majority, I remind you.

So what do you think the country would be like if education was entirely optional?

I don't think it'd make that much of a differnece. The vast majority of people would choose not to bail out. Anyway, education hasn't been compulsory for most of our history. I'm not advocating the end of education, just the idea that if you someone doesn't want to do something there's no point in forcing them too as long as their not hurting anyone but themselves. Let 'em be stupid if they want. We need more good McDonald's workers.

I'm glad I voted with the majority. Anyways, yes with requirements because to be a functioning member of society, IMO education is a must. As for requirements, then without a stabilized curriculum, then teachers can go ahead and teach 'Video Game Class' and kick Math out of the schedule.

You assume I don't believe in natural rights. That isn't necessarily true.

You believe in curtailment of them if the majority of people agree, like Rousseau. That's why Rousseau wasn't really considered part of the enlightenment.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke also put forth the notion of a social contract.

John Locke believed that the government should only curtail natural rights if these "rights" infringed on other peoples rights. For instance, you can't steal. But you can refuse to go to school. That's you decision.

I'm glad I voted with the majority. Anyways, yes with requirements because to be a functioning member of society, IMO education is a must. As for requirements, then without a stabilized curriculum, then teachers can go ahead and teach 'Video Game Class' and kick Math out of the schedule.

Haven't you ever heard of "Fallacy of the majority"? Just because the majority thinks something doesn't make it right. For instance, in the 1800's the majority believed in slavery. Does that make slavery right?

Anyway, it's their decision. If they want to be a screw up, let them be a screw up. You have no right to force them to mold to your viewpoint of the world. Try and convince them that education is good, don't force them to go. They'll just waste our money if they go involunatrily.

You believe in curtailment of them if the majority of people agree, like Rousseau. That's why Rousseau wasn't really considered part of the enlightenment.

John Locke believed that the government should only curtail natural rights if these "rights" infringed on other peoples rights. For instance, you can't steal. But you can refuse to go to school. That's you decision.

With all due respect, you do not appear to understand either Rousseau or Locke -- let alone me.

Our constitution protects both enumerated rights and fundamental liberties. Your "right" not to be educated is not a fundamental liberty.

I vehemently defend real liberties. But not every government policy you disagree with infringes a fundamental liberty.

No, to many educated ruin the world, we only need a select few educated, selected at birth perhaps, then the rest could be taught enough to do the job they are set by the government, many of course would be forced into the army to fuel the war effort...

...After all who needs to be taught anything other than how to salute, fire your weapon and charge the enemy? No expensive education required....;)

It should be compulsory unless you get a 65% final or lower. At that point, you are on your own.

That's not entirely true. The US is guided by, not ruled by, majority opinion. Liberty is more important than democracy, and the founding father's realize this and the fallacy of believing in absolute totalitarian democracy. The population can't suddenly decide that being liberal is illegal, it can't demand the burning at the stake of non-virgins, and it can't take your property and give it to another person without just cause. This is not-objectionable, do you agree? Hitler was elected by majority, I remind you.Indeed. But if the federal government is completely forbidden from infringing on personal liberty, it won't be a government. It will be a mess. Ultimately, government MUST be authoritarian to some degree for it to function.

With all due respect, you do not appear to understand either Rousseau or Locke -- let alone me.

Our constitution protects both enumerated rights and fundamental liberties. Your "right" not to be educated is not a fundamental liberty.

I vehemently defend real liberties. But not every government policy you disagree with infringes a fundamental liberty.

Just because something is not mentioned in the constitution does not mean that it isn't a liberty. There is no reason to force someone to do something against their will unless they have created a victim. There is no justification for it. Liberty is far to precious. Locke would have agreed with me. The founding father's would have too.

Indeed. But if the federal government is completely forbidden from infringing on personal liberty, it won't be a government. It will be a mess. Ultimately, government MUST be authoritarian to some degree for it to function.

What is the purpose of forcing someone to do something if they aren't hurting anyone? It's illogical.

A rising topic in British politics is how history is taught in schools. The Conservative Party (the main opposition party) have been saying that history should be made compulsory to Year 11 (thats the last year of compulsory schooling, the age of 16). Also they are promising to teach more British history than relatively irrelevant foreign history. As a history student, I couldn't agree more with this policy. The British youth are astonishingly ignorant about their own history and history of their neighbours. One recent polls have shown that a whopping 60% of young people believe Winston Churchill was the nodding dog mascot from the car insurance company Churchill. Another survey showed that estimately 50% of British youth didn't know who Hitler was. These statistics appalled me. I have been conducting my own survey, asking my friends if they are aware what relevance the year 1688 has to British history. Not one has answered correctly yet that year has as much signifance to us Brits as Independence Day does to Americans and the Revolution Day does to Russians!

A rising topic in British politics is how history is taught in schools. The Conservative Party (the main opposition party) have been saying that history should be made compulsory to Year 11 (thats the last year of compulsory schooling, the age of 16). Also they are promising to teach more British history than relatively irrelevant foreign history. As a history student, I couldn't agree more with this policy. The British youth are astonishingly ignorant about their own history and history of their neighbours. One recent polls have shown that a whopping 60% of young people believe Winston Churchill was the nodding dog mascot from the car insurance company Churchill. Another survey showed that estimately 50% of British youth didn't know who Hitler was. These statistics appalled me. I have been conducting my own survey, asking my friends if they are aware what relevance the year 1688 has to British history. Not one has answered correctly yet that year has as much signifance to us Brits as Independence Day does to Americans and the Revolution Day does to Russians!

haha. Even I knew that 1688 was when.... uhh... something democratic happened in Britain!

Anyway, that isn't what the thread is about. Of course kids should be taught history.

OK. That's idiocy. If you are referring to the leftist ecnomics, then you are wrong. Go read Milton Friedman or someone who knows what they're talking about, don't read another word of "Das Kapitol". People in the 1800's didn't have a high quality of life because they didn't produce much. It had nothing to do with lack of government regulation.

Anyway, where did I advocate ending education? I say that if people don't want it, you shouldn't point a gun at them and force them to accept your view of things. I'm not advocating the end of education. In fact, I advocate the improvement of it through voucherization. The vast majority of students will stay in school.

Will you please STOP USING THE GUN ACCURASATION no guns!
The government is NOT forcing kids into schools with guns
Get it in you head please.
NO GUNS INVOLVED

Yes Compolsory school, yes required classes.
But like our schools have it there are basic classes that you HAVE to take and then you have electives. Electives include art classes, extra english/philosophy classes, home ed (food, clothing), bussiness ed, computer tech ed , etc

Just because something is not mentioned in the constitution does not mean that it isn't a liberty. There is no reason to force someone to do something against their will unless they have created a victim. There is no justification for it. Liberty is far to precious. Locke would have agreed with me. The founding father's would have too.


Meh.

"Liberty" is too easily applied to every individual whim. There is both less and more to the concept.

I agree that liberty is not limited to rights in the Constitution. It is a handy lodestone, however. And simply because someone may wish to do something does not make it a fundamental liberty.

The Founding Father's did not apply a principle such as you propose in our early government. Locke is little aid to you. You will find little of the limitations you assert in Locke.

Moreover, Locke saw science, reason, and experience as the best safeguards of liberty. Education is critical to personal development and the development of life-sustaining activities, as well as participation in the social order. As explained by Kant, a Lockean State requires an enlightened public and therefore public education. Thus, mandatory public -- not even private -- education follows from Locke. You might wish to read this essay on the subject: Compulsory Education and Liberal Legitimacy (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/EIS/Cuatto.pdf)

Ironically, you would have better luck relying on Rousseau. He wrote in the Social Contract that all men are born free and equal and the State is a contract in which individuals surrender none of their natural rights, but rather agree for the protection of them

What is the purpose of forcing someone to do something if they aren't hurting anyone? It's illogical.You mean like pay taxes? The government forces you to do that. Damn them and their tyranny!

As for 1688.. was that when Cromwell took power?

bump

My guess is that teenagers don't want school to be compulsory. I felt that way as a teenager, but now being a college educated adult who is a school counselor, I think school should be year round. Many of today's youth do not appreciate values like hard work, commitment, and sacrifice because they have had it so easy. School is easy because its not real life. I have seen some of my friends who didn't finish high school, and all of them are bums with jobs that pay barely above minimum wage. I don't think that teenagers should even get a say in whether or not they should attend school because they have not lived long enough to appreciate the value of an education. If that is equivalent to being under a psychotic dictatorship, then just call me insane! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

My guess is that teenagers don't want school to be compulsory. I felt that way as a teenager, but now being a college educated adult who is a school counselor, I think school should be year round. Many of today's youth do not appreciate values like hard work, commitment, and sacrifice because they have had it so easy. School is easy because its not real life. I have seen some of my friends who didn't finish high school, and all of them are bums with jobs that pay barely above minimum wage. I don't think that teenagers should even get a say in whether or not they should attend school because they have not lived long enough to appreciate the value of an education. If that is equivalent to being under a psychotic dictatorship, then just call me insane! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

I don't think school should be year round.