Topic: Libertarian Principles and Economic Social Pragmatism
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Quote courtesy of Something Awful:
quote: This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.
At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at public school where they learn curriculum from teachers that are both regulated by the Department of Education.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it’s valuables thanks to the local police department.
I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and send out emails about how SOCIALISM and TAXES are BAD because the government can’t do anything right.
I usually respond to Libertarians I talk to with some variant of the above but the response is usually "the private sector should be doing it, and it would be better than the public sector/the public doing it is WRONG no matter how effective it is and the private sector should be doing it.
Or some variation of, especially when confronted with the "Tragedy of the Commons" hypothesis of "Then they were not actually doing the task for their best rational self interest. It is impossible for something to be in their best interest AND kill them (deplete their resources etc) at the same time, and that corporations have an "interest" in making sure their privately owned schools are "good".
Though my counter argument is that there is no profit motive for funding subjects like the humanities or social sciences, or for ones that might lead to things like statistics the profit motive is perversed to support predetermined outcomes.
Discuss. What is the Free Market/Libertarian counter argument to the above, and what is our "Free Market but Slightly in favor of some intervention, affirmative action (broad sense) and investment through taxes counter counter argument.
IP: Logged |
posted
Lumping those who favor free (rather, free-er) markets with libertarians won't make for an honest or enlightening conversion, IMO. You can be one and not the other as well as - and I believe this is by far the more common - a varying mix of the two.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really Blayne, I don't think it's a productive point of discussion because it's meant to be funny. And it doesn't present a nuanced view of the issue because it doesn't need to, to be funny.
I mean, I dont care to, but I think I could put together an equally funny rant about socialism, having lived in a more socialist country. Rule of funny.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, I know we don't often agree on things but I just wanted to say I totally agree with your assessment here.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's a little something that annoys me about being from Northern California sometimes. People I agree with politically come up with really cheap shots, and a little part of me in the background is screaming: "No! That's what stupid conservatives do!!" So I don't send chain emails. I don't repost witicisms, and when I post something on facebook in the realm of politics- I try to avoid the truly cheap shot, and go for some substance.
It's when I see my like minded country-folk assigning some real truth value to these kinds of things, rather than to really nuanced and more difficult and demanding material, that I get worried about who's in my camp, and why.
Granted I *do* think it's funny. In a Carlinesque kind of way. Nothin wrong with that on its face. But if we're applying some standard of actual productiveness to the joke, then I have to also acknowledge that an equally one sided pile-up gag *against* regulation would probably annoy me, even if it managed to also make me laugh.
And I'm not saying that means that both sides of the coin have equal merit. I'm on the socialist side of that coin. But I recognize that it's a cheapish gag- and to actually ask for an answer to it is to ask that the respondent invite ridicule by not getting the joke. Essentially, asking for a serious response to this is adding insult to injury.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Serves as a thorough explanation for this kind of political humor. I only just read it the other day and haven't finished thinking about it, but it addresses this situation pretty well, I think-on what it's like to zing! the given idiots in one's political pantheon, and why it's likely to be much less innately zing than we think.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see the humor in Blayne's bit. Not slap my knee and laugh humor. I see a rational listing of daily realities that go against the Libertarian ideal.
I don't see the attempt to label all pro-freer market folks with the Libertarian fringe.
I just see a request to discuss the fact that the government has and can do some things well, despite what the Libertarians argue is impossible, and the response is an attack not on the facts of his list but on Blayne and the style of the list.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Related to libertarianism, I've actually been watching a very interesting phenomenon take place with Bitcoins, since to many of the True Believers, they represent a chance to implement a libertarian ideal and create an alternative to the regulated fiat currency they hate.
Without fail, the Bitcoin experiment has been a fast-forwarding demonstration of why we have those regulations in place to begin with, and has led many of those true believers to start clamoring for those selfsame regulations within Bitcoin trading. In the meantime, their ideology has made them easy pickings for scammers and schemers.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking as a Libertarian (and one not involved in politics by choice) it isn't that I want all government to be abolished, replaced by the private sector, or do not appreciate what the gov does for us citizens.
What I don't like is that gov spends its money (our money) as it sees fit. Yes, we vote for our reps, and can vote on local/state issues, but for instance: I would rather see only parents with children in public school -have to- pay for public schools. I would love to see a form where you got to choose where some/most of your tax money went, such as education, law enforcement, disaster relief, roads, etc, etc.
I want a stream lined government, one that doesn't do that many things, but does them very well, instead of large, top heavy authority with a hand in everything.
I also prefer state and local governments to have more power then the federal. We are one people by country, but many many different sub cultures with different needs and priorities, and taking power away from a centralized gov and giving it to the locals would make this country much more flexible and accessible to change from us the citizens.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no children but my life is better because the people with whom I interact every day are educated.
And making only parents pay for education is a super way to make sure the children of poor people stay poor!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: and the response is an attack not on the facts of his list but on Blayne and the style of the list.
I'm not intending to attack Blayne. It's not his list. He's just reposting it.
And no, it's not "the style" of "the list.." It's a joke. It's most obviously a joke. There's a punch line in there, down at the bottom. That's *meant* to be funny. Don't tell me it isn't.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Speaking as a Libertarian (and one not involved in politics by choice) it isn't that I want all government to be abolished, replaced by the private sector, or do not appreciate what the gov does for us citizens.
What I don't like is that gov spends its money (our money) as it sees fit. Yes, we vote for our reps, and can vote on local/state issues, but for instance: I would rather see only parents with children in public school -have to- pay for public schools. I would love to see a form where you got to choose where some/most of your tax money went, such as education, law enforcement, disaster relief, roads, etc, etc.
I want a stream lined government, one that doesn't do that many things, but does them very well, instead of large, top heavy authority with a hand in everything.
I also prefer state and local governments to have more power then the federal. We are one people by country, but many many different sub cultures with different needs and priorities, and taking power away from a centralized gov and giving it to the locals would make this country much more flexible and accessible to change from us the citizens.
In general, I am in favor of systems that give you more control over your tax dollars. But education is one area where everyone should be required to contribute. Education is the single most important thing to guarantee EVERYONE the best version they can possibly have, because it's the one of the few tools that help lower class people improve their situation.
I say this as someone who ALSO thinks the public education system is fundamentally broken and needs a major overhaul. I think the innovation required to fix education will occur in the private sector, but those innovations should be implemented in the public sector as fast as is appropriate.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
What I don't like is that gov spends its money (our money) as it sees fit. Yes, we vote for our reps, and can vote on local/state issues, but for instance: I would rather see only parents with children in public school -have to- pay for public schools. .
You understand the real and immediate effect on communities that would result from such a policy? And the enormous burden and disadvantage it would place on the poor? What you're asking for is the makings of institutionalized ghettoization on American education- to a greater extent even than already occurs, with local funds paying for much of education already.
A shchool services a community. It is a public good. Education itself may be treated, sometimes, as a fungible commodity, but a school, and a school system, are not. It's not more reasonable than asking that people only pay for police when they use the police themselves. Thatbwould create a highly perverse set of incentives.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah! Can you imagine the police or fire department being funded by charging people for their services? You get robbed or assaulted or your house catches fire and you get your savings wiped out, too! That would be a disaster.
Come to think of it, it's a lot like we do health care.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
There's a difference between normal "humor" and "goon humor" goon humor is that the joke and the argument tend to indistinguishable. It's a rational argument, ie it has to have content but its also the forum style to be humorous in its point.
So yes it is BOTH a rational listing of every reality based contradiction of the randian libertarian ideal AND a humorous aside at the end as we can't be self aware neckbeards without at least making an active attempt to be insufferable at the sametime.
Its thus a serious criticism of a political ideology and is also meant to be humorous.
The problem with todays US economy is not that it is too much government power but that there is too much private power, the Fed, is supposedly a privately owned institution by a cartel of private banks and most of current modern woes are a result of their chronic mismanagement. Put regulations and the boot on the brakes to limit the ability of the Fed to just infinitly print money and the economy would be brought partly back under control.
IP: Logged |
posted
I was wondering something similar to this conversation: Where has the idea of Community gone? I know, it reeks of socialism or communism. Community organizer is a bad word now. But what happened to the idea that we are a city, state, and nation as a whole, not just a bunch of individuals who seek only what is best for themselves, who happen to live near each other.
Has the pendulum swung so far that the whole idea of "good for the community" is lost? We only care, want our taxes to pay for, and will allow, only those things that have a tangible benefit for ourselves.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to start off by saying that I don't think the level of general education we put our children through is actually helpful. There are some basic skills and knowledge that is absolutely important for -everyone- to know, but the lack of vocational skills taught at the high school level at the cost of "general" skills nearly pains me. I exhausted nearly all science and math classes available to me by my Jr. year, and the 100% most useful class I ever took was typing, the second being a study hall in the computer lab. I knew all the math, grammar, history and poly sci I've ever needed before or in Jr. High.
High schools used to be an optional school which was designed for people going on to college, while most people took on an apprenticeship or started to learn their family trade instead of going. Oh God do I wish I had had a family trade or an apprenticeship at a young age.
Not everyone needs college prep classes, and not everyone needs college to be successful. Yes, statistically people with a degree will make more money, but that is part of the core Libertarian point of view: just because something is better for some, doesn't mean it should be mandatory for all.
The kind of people, regardless of social class, location, "race", etc, who flourish in an educational system will seek out more learning and better opportunities. Forcing all teenagers into the round hole of academia is not a good thing. There are all kinds of scholarship programs, grants, federal school loans, etc, and if we streamlined our schools towards the actual needs of different peoples it would be cheaper, more effective and in the end better for everyone.
As to the disadvantage to the impoverished, if everyone had to pay their own way for school, there would be competition for those dollars, much more then now, where the majority go to "free" public school and the elite go to uber expensive private school. "Public schools" would and should be a thing of the past, if people had to pay directly for their children's education, public school would simply be another "private" school competing for the students/money, but there would be a lot more options and appropriate educations.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone Wolf, I agree completely with most of your points. As I said, there is a lot wrong with public schools, and those things need to be fixed. Emphasis on academia is one of the worst things.
This doesn't mean the problem is "public school," it means the problem is our particular execution of it. There is little economic incentive for the free market to produce good schools catering to the poor. If there WERE, we'd already have plenty of good private schools for the poor and the poor would already go there.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
General skills like reading and writing? Your plan basically insures that people who can't afford secondary education will - no matter their aptitude - get only vocational training that will funnel them into a (vanishing number of) blue collar jobs. So their children will also not be able to afford secondary education and...so on. Forming an even more permanent under class than we have now. Social stratification is already a problem here more that elsewhere despite our egalitarian pretensions. Do we really want to make it more so?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If everyone had to pay their own way for education even in childhood...then what would happen is that a very, very great number of people *wouldn't*. Quite simple. It's a bad idea, and that's all there is to it.
If the free market could take care of education in a socially satisfactory way...why on *Earth* did we need to have public education funded by gov't and taxation back when the free market was a *much* more powerful force than it is now?
There are, again, contradictory ideas in your suggestion that make it, after a bit of consideration, fundamentally flawed. Not to mention in effect if not intent cruel and selfish.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
RA: I agree that revamping would be hugely beneficial, but I do think that a big part of the problem is public school. Part of what I think is the problem with public high schools is their cookie cutter approach to education, another is mandatory way it is handled. I knew a lot of kids who knew they had no interest in going to college and hated being forced to learn the year when Napoleon started his Russian campaign.
If our schools were the top number one in the world, producing young adults ready to step into the world of employment as well rounded citizens then I likely would not bat an eyelash at everyone being required to foot the bill. But forcing young people to go and forcing everyone to pay for it when the results are questionable at best is...well, not good.
m_p_h: I have an AS in Computer Drafting and Design and have worked directly with Mechanical and Electrical engineers and Architects and never used the geometry, physics, calculus, trig or statistics that I took. I find science interesting and love to watch shows about it, so, if I had not been forced into all the science classes I took, I would still know quite a bit from seeking it out on my own. My grammatical, reading and writing skills blossomed when I started getting into reading novels, and were not from the uber boring and repetitive classes that were required -every- year of school. Etc, etc. Plus, I wasn't bragging.
Boots: I don't know what High School you went to Boots, but I could read and write well before 9th grade. Also, I didn't say that only vocational schools would be available to less fortunate people. I said that students who do well in school, regardless of background, can and would find ways to excel, and get access to higher and higher forms of education. If there was less of a tax burden, I can only imagine that scholarships and grants would be -more- prevalent then they are now making it easier for low income students to get into better schools.
One might check out a "free public school" in Watts and compare it to a "free public school" in Beverly Hills and then tell me that our current system is one which favors the underclasses.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If everyone had to pay their own way for education even in childhood...then what would happen is that a very, very great number of people *wouldn't*.
There would still be requirements, but there would be far more reasonable then "graduate high school, go until the age of 16/17). I think the government can set reasonable standards, I just don't think they are the ones to fulfill them.
quote:If the free market could take care of education in a socially satisfactory way...why on *Earth* did we need to have public education funded by gov't and taxation back when the free market was a *much* more powerful force than it is now?
The industrial revolution moved people away from highly skilled craftsmen and small family businesses toward a higher demand for a generally educated workers. High school was considered "higher" education...secondary school...as in more then bare requirements.
What I'm suggesting is much like auto insurance. The government mandates that we have it, but doesn't provide it. As such, there is a lot competition and the price is relatively low for a good quality product.
Before, when there wasn't public school, there was not standard/requirement to be met.
quote:There are, again, contradictory ideas in your suggestion that make it, after a bit of consideration, fundamentally flawed. Not to mention in effect if not intent cruel and selfish.
What contradictions are you referring to? How is it cruel? And are you forgetting I have two children? It's hardly selfish of me to suggest that everyone shouldn't be on the hook for paying for them.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:m_p_h: I have an AS in Computer Drafting and Design and have worked directly with Mechanical and Electrical engineers and Architects and never used the geometry, physics, calculus, trig or statistics that I took. I find science interesting and love to watch shows about it, so, if I had not been forced into all the science classes I took, I would still know quite a bit from seeking it out on my own. My grammatical, reading and writing skills blossomed when I started getting into reading novels, and were not from the uber boring and repetitive classes that were required -every- year of school. Etc, etc. Plus, I wasn't bragging.
I find it surprising that you never use any trigonometry in drafting. I assure you, if you scratch below the surface of whatever CAD system you're using, trigonometry is absolutely essential for what you're doing.
But what's really shocking is that you know so little of history and political science that you don't even realize that you need to know more than you learned in junior high.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point isn't that the knowledge is -useless-, it's that it's not useful as -general knowledge-. Why require teenagers to know this stuff? What is the upside? If they are going on to be engineers and mathematicians they are going to get much more specialized training in college, and likely need to redo a lot of their math classes.
I had to retake physics in college even though I took it high school.
As to your last assertion: I enjoy knowing things about history and science, so I tend to read/watch stuff. It isn't that I don't know it, it's again, that it isn't required to make well rounded teen age individuals.
Also, my Jr. High was magnet, so perhaps I have a skewed perception of what is and isn't taught at that level.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Boots: I don't know what High School you went to Boots, but I could read and write well before 9th grade. Also, I didn't say that only vocational schools would be available to less fortunate people. I said that students who do well in school, regardless of background, can and would find ways to excel, and get access to higher and higher forms of education. If there was less of a tax burden, I can only imagine that scholarships and grants would be -more- prevalent then they are now making it easier for low income students to get into better schools.
One might check out a "free public school" in Watts and compare it to a "free public school" in Beverly Hills and then tell me that our current system is one which favors the underclasses.
But that isn't what happens. I read before kindergarten but I had the luxury of a stay home mom. I also went to a great public high school - 98% of my graduating class went on to college. Under your system, do you really think that some idiot son of a millionaire stock brokers are going to go to trade school aptitude or not? Or that the very bright son of a poor single mother is going to overcome the various obstacle to higher education?
Of course not. Rich boy is going on to let's say Texas A&M (where he will make connections if not good grades) and poor kid is never getting out of the slum. We have a hard enough time making decent education affordable as is. My niece - salutatorian, president of student council with a list of extra curriculars as long as your arm (plus working two jobs) could get accepted anywhere but her parents can only afford to send her to state school. You are going to make that more difficult?
Watts and Beverly Hills don't have the same kinds of schools because we already punish the poor by having schools funded mostly by local taxes rather than state or federal funds. Your solution would make that worse, not better.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I had to retake physics in college even though I took it high school.
I really, really wanted physics in HS, but there were not enough other classmates of mine who did. I was at a serious disadvantage in college physics classes, where almost everyone else already had a grounding in concepts that I was learning for the first time.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Under your system, do you really think that some idiot son of a millionaire stock brokers are going to go to trade school aptitude or not? Or that the very bright son of a poor single mother is going to overcome the various obstacle to higher education?
Being well off is an unarguable advantage, but who cares if little Jr. billionaire gets a degree or not? It has no bearing on the conversation that I can see.
As to the poor single mother's bright son...I think he would be better off either getting a vocation and being able to instantly help out with family expenses at a young age by being able to work as a professional instead of having a free high school diploma which entitles him to flip burgers at Mc Deadend, or get a grant, scholarship, school loan and go to a great school which helps him propel himself into a fulfilling career after getting more education.
quote:Watts and Beverly Hills don't have the same kinds of schools because we already punish the poor by having schools funded mostly by local taxes rather than state or federal funds. Your solution would make that worse, not better.
There is another reason that the two qualities of schools are so different. Watts High School is clogged with people who have zero interest in being there, learning or creating a culture which is positive to education. If those teens who wanted to learn art, music or mechanics or simply not go to any school, could do so instead of all being crammed together with lots of school budget going to fences, security guards and metal detectors, not only could they attract a better class of teacher, they could have better classroom experiences.
Look, I'm not saying just make people pay for school the way it is. That would be very much a hardship for poor people. I'm saying eliminate a lot of unnecessary requirements and classes and teach every day useful things to most people, with options for more gifted/interested students.
rivka: Again, it is not okay to mandate that because it serves as an advantage for some that it should be a requirement for all. This is a free country and the ideals at the heart of public school are communist, and work just about as well.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So bright potential astrophysicist gets shunted off to work as an apprentice - what? Factory worker? What exactly do you mean by vocation?
Grants, scholarships, and school loans are not often enough to go to a great school which isn't an option anyway without a high school degree which the kid can't pay for.
Do you think that if the children in Watts had the same opportunities as the children in Beverly Hills that the situation would be the same? Do you think there is something genetically or fundamentally wrong with those children that is fundamentally right with the children in Beverly Hills?
You want to make education better fit the person, make it federally funded, free through university, compulsory through age 16 and with vocational and or academic tracks determined by placement testing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is another reason that the two qualities of schools are so different. Watts High School is clogged with people who have zero interest in being there, learning or creating a culture which is positive to education. If those teens who wanted to learn art, music or mechanics or simply not go to any school, could do so instead of all being crammed together with lots of school budget going to fences, security guards and metal detectors, not only could they attract a better class of teacher, they could have better classroom experiences.
One of the single biggest determining factors in student interest in school is the education level of their parents. That is to say, students whose parents are invested in education are themselves more likely to be well educated.
And how do you think kidsget an interest in higher education? Is it something a child of eight was just born with? "Someday, I'm going to want to know about quantum mechanics so I can do research." No. Nobody is born with a high desire for academic achievement. It's something that is-here are the important words-taught and learned.
As for the ideas that are contradictory, that's one of them right there. That the way to foster better academic achievement is to...offer it to many less people. That privatization will promptly afford vastly greater efficiencies and opportunity (this is sometimes true, but the Libertarian ideal that this is a given is just flat-out wrong). That what stops children from learning more than just junior high history is that 'they just don't want to'. It doesn't ask the next question, "Why don't they want to?" And it also doesn't ask the question, "Is it useful to know more?"
It's selfish in effect because it will ensure that the poorest will be much more likely to have poor descendents.
It's strange because while on the one hand it says, "Children just don't need/want higher education," the exact same things you say stop them from achieving higher levels - desire - can be equally applied to vocations. For students and families who decide, early, that they want their child to go to vocation school it is entirely possible to do so. Far from difficult, so long as a family doesn't decide february of the senior year. The opportunity is there, so what must be stopping (according to this style of thinking) more students from taking this approach is a lack of desire.
Education isn't food. People don't just want it at the same levels as part of being an animal. It's not something that can just be safely relied upon across-the-board. It must be learned, and one of the surest ways to make sure it's learned less and less over time is to teach less.
All of this is aside from the fact that you're basing this idea on the education system we (America) had generations ago. There's just...lots and lots of problems with this idea of yours.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: rivka: Again, it is not okay to mandate that because it serves as an advantage for some that it should be a requirement for all. This is a free country and the ideals at the heart of public school are communist, and work just about as well.
Having taught high school physics to students who had no intention of attending college, I utterly and completely reject your assertion that it is not useful to EVERY student -- certainly as an option they should have.
The word you want is "socialist", not "communist". If you're not sure of the difference, maybe you should have paid more attention in those high school classes you so blithely dismiss.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: One of the single biggest determining factors in student interest in school is the education level of their parents. That is to say, students whose parents are invested in education are themselves more likely to be well educated.
Are there any studies or data to back this claim? And are you differentiating between well educated and college educated?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boots, I was talking about grants/scholarships to high school, not college.
I think the cultures are different, and those different cultures have a different view of the importance of education as well as ease accessibility to it.
quote:And how do you think kidsget an interest in higher education? Is it something a child of eight was just born with?
Kids, by the time they are about to go to high school, have been in the educational system for eight years. During this time they might just get a feel if they want to continue or not.
quote:As for the ideas that are contradictory, that's one of them right there. That the way to foster better academic achievement is to...offer it to many less people.
It isn't contradictory because "fostering better academic achievement" isn't my goal. I don't think it is so vital as to be a law and to take money from everyone without their choice that we teach teenagers the depth of academia we do. By trying to force all this minutiae down the throats of -all teenagers- we take the emphasis off the useful teachings, clog the schools with people who likely will not retain or use the info and rightfully resent having it foisted on to them.
If what you are saying is true, and vocational school is easy to get to, then great! I'm very happy to hear it.
quote:It must be learned, and one of the surest ways to make sure it's learned less and less over time is to teach less.
To what end must we force feed specific, unimportant detail, specialized tools and repetitive noneffective knowledge to -everyone-...because "it must be learned"? A circular argument?
quote:All of this is aside from the fact that you're basing this idea on the education system we (America) had generations ago.
I'm not basing it on the educational system of generations ago. I was pointing out why it changed and then why it needs to change again!
People seem to think that "education" is a goal in and of itself. It isn't. Knowledge may be, but "education" isn't gold, it isn't food, it only works when it works. Our system is very flawed and mandatory, both as a requirement for attendance and for paying for it.
It is as if I said that everyone on my block HAD to pay for the gardeners, and they tend to kill the plants, and you can't opt out of paying or having your grass cut 18th worst of the blocks around.
ETA: You can opt out, and pay for your own gardener, but you still have to live on a block with poorly gardened houses AND pay for said poor gardening.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Having taught high school physics to students who had no intention of attending college, I utterly and completely reject your assertion that it is not useful to EVERY student -- certainly as an option they should have.
How would not being forced to take physics in high school eliminate the option you are speaking of?
quote: The word you want is "socialist", not "communist". If you're not sure of the difference, maybe you should have paid more attention in those high school classes you so blithely dismiss.
posted
Let me put this as a real question to you advocates of universal education:
What is the advantage that a high school student gets for knowing specific knowledge such as the years of historical events, higher mathematics or chemistry if they do not plan on going on to college?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is the advantage that a high school student gets for knowing specific knowledge such as the years of historical events, higher mathematics or chemistry if they do not plan on going on to college?
- The unemployment rate for dropouts is twice that of the general population - Dropouts are more likely to commit crimes, abuse drugs and alcohol, become teenage parents, live in poverty and commit suicide - Dropouts cost federal and state governments hundreds of billions of dollars in lost earnings, welfare and medical costs, and billions more for dropouts who end up in prison.
There is INCREDIBLE value in having a high school degree. There is even MORE value to a society that establishes a high school degree as the default expectation.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yeah! Can you imagine the police or fire department being funded by charging people for their services? You get robbed or assaulted or your house catches fire and you get your savings wiped out, too! That would be a disaster.
Come to think of it, it's a lot like we do health care.
Well, yes, it's very similar. Which is why health care is actually also a public good- and we just pretend it isn't because we're idiots.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I currently work at a non-profit where one of the programs involves paying for adults to finish their high school education via an online program. The program has a very large waiting list because of the incredible value of a high school degree (even over a GED). Part of being in the program involves qualifying for welfare (but not being on it)- which realistically means that it is almost all single mothers. Without intervention of some type, the kids are extremely likely to continue the cycle of poverty.
If you want a society in which there is opportunity for advancement and ideally *LESS* money being spent on social safety nets- education is the best place to put it.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'd like to start off by saying that I don't think the level of general education we put our children through is actually helpful. There are some basic skills and knowledge that is absolutely important for -everyone- to know, but the lack of vocational skills taught at the high school level at the cost of "general" skills nearly pains me. I exhausted nearly all science and math classes available to me by my Jr. year, and the 100% most useful class I ever took was typing, the second being a study hall in the computer lab. I knew all the math, grammar, history and poly sci I've ever needed before or in Jr. High.
quote: High schools used to be an optional school which was designed for people going on to college, while most people took on an apprenticeship or started to learn their family trade instead of going. Oh God do I wish I had had a family trade or an apprenticeship at a young age.
People used to die of polio at the age of 8, and people thought it was caused by eating ice cream.
They also used to send 6 year olds into factories. Quite a lot of things used to be. That doesn't make them better. Considering that we live longer, safer, healthier, more productive lives today, than we "used to," I'd suggest you reevaluate the idea that "used to" equals "venerable and good."
Respectfully, you betray a general innocence of knowledge about education, and history in general. And as an entree to an argument about the dismantling of public education? This is not the way to go. You are not inviting argument here, you are inviting ridicule.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I knew all the math, grammar, history and poly sci I've ever needed before or in Jr. High.
Yikes. That's...not something I would brag about.
Hard to argue- he's not using an understanding of history that he might have acquired in high school.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mean besides the civil benefit of having a more informed citizenry better able to judge the worth of such things in our democratic society than those who know nothing about them thar sciencey magics?
Edit: Darn, too many posts came after mine. This was in response to stone-wolf's last question.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: There is INCREDIBLE value in having a high school degree. There is even MORE value to a society that establishes a high school degree as the default expectation.
While interesting, that is not my question. A high school diploma is one thing, and is used a milestone in our society which does not directly speak to it's usefulness of the knowledge which is the prerequisite for getting it.
As to the issue of poverty and lack of education, I would be willing to add in legislation which provides monies for low income families for schools. I just don't think that having everyone pay for a third rate education is a good plan.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You are not inviting argument here, you are inviting ridicule.
quote:Hard to argue- he's not using an understanding of history that he might have acquired in high school.
And yet you are the only one ridiculing while everyone else is having a civil discussion. Perhaps it says much less about me and much more about you, and your wish to ridicule people.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: You mean besides the civil benefit of having a more informed citizenry better able to judge the worth of such things in our democratic society than those who know nothing about them thar sciencey magics?
Higher level math, science and repetitive grammar doesn't help you vote! It isn't a question of "knowing nothing about them thar sciencey magics"...there is a difference between introductory classes which can spark the imagination of those who are interested and install a basic understanding vs being forcibly burred up to your eyeballs in useless specifics which for those who go on, will have them repeated and refined when they receive another round of general education before being allowed to study their chosen field.
Chemistry class has never affected my ability to vote, has it yours?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A high school diploma is one thing, and is used a milestone in our society which does not directly speak to it's usefulness of the knowledge which is the prerequisite for getting it.
Many people have agreed with the suggestion to add vocational tracks in high school. I certainly don't think everyone needs to take Physics or Trig. But there's a far cry from saying we should edit the current standards to the claim you are making that a secondary education should be completely optional.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You are not inviting argument here, you are inviting ridicule.
quote:Hard to argue- he's not using an understanding of history that he might have acquired in high school.
And yet you are the only one ridiculing while everyone else is having a civil discussion. Perhaps it says much less about me and much more about you, and your wish to ridicule people.
Eh, no. I find what you have to say on the topic to be painfully stupid. I'm not the only the one of course- because it *is* stupid. I'm just happy to tell you, and not concerned with being nice to you. Because I'm a secret handshaking hatrack "scumbag." Remember?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Higher level math, science and repetitive grammar doesn't help you vote!
You really believe this?
Would you vote for a presidential candidate who claimed that ID was a scientific theory, and should be taught in science classrooms? If not, then why not? Where did you learn what science really was? You just picked that up somewhere? Where did you learn to read? Where did you learn to read on complex subjects, and identify solidly presented writing and research, and where did you learn to parse that information and make judgements based on what you read? And did that research also contain graphs and charts, and ask you to understand statistical relationships, basic chemistry and biology and astronomy concepts? How did you understand those? How did you gain the experience to tell you that a certain kind of analysis was sound, and should be looked at more carefully? How did you do those things?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: While interesting, that is not my question. A high school diploma is one thing, and is used a milestone in our society which does not directly speak to it's usefulness of the knowledge which is the prerequisite for getting it.
No, it speaks indirectly to the usefulness of the knowledge which is the prerequisite for getting it. For it to speak *directly* to that knowledge, you would have to go on some sort of Star Trek quest where you applied all that knowledge in a series of different puzzles in order to *find* your diploma.
You say this crap like it means something, and like everybody actually walks around thinking that a high school diploma is actual knowledge. Like we're the scarecrow in Wizard of OZ. We get it. You have to learn something to get the diploma- that is the nature of its value. It is not supposed to be given away. We want a robust and challenging education system *so that* when presented with a high school diploma we can reasonably assume that the person holding it possesses the knowledge and ability necessary to obtain it at a standard we find acceptable.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Eh, no. I find what you have to say on the topic to be painfully stupid. I'm not the only the one of course- because it *is* stupid. I'm just happy to tell you, and not concerned with being nice to you. Because I'm a secret handshaking hatrack "scumbag." Remember?
Man, this kind of offended me. I also completely disagree with Stone_Wolf_ on this topic, but he's not bringing incivility in to this thread. I'm getting involved because if somebody was bashing me the way you're bashing him, I'd hope somebody else would say something.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: Many people have agreed with the suggestion to add vocational tracks in high school. I certainly don't think everyone needs to take Physics or Trig. But there's a far cry from saying we should edit the current standards to the claim you are making that a secondary education should be completely optional.
All I want are options. When you make a law, you have to back it up with punishment. Go to school or we will throw you (or your parents) in jail. It would defiantly be a large step in the right direction to make the more specialized subjects optional, and have a lot more vocational possibilities.
The concept of liberty which is the core idea behind Libertarians means that you have to give up some control of others, and let them make their own mistakes. It may be a good idea for more then half of the teens in the country to be in a learning environment, but should it be so mandatory that it is punishable by law if someone follows a different direction? Does that punishment actually help make the situation better?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
