Interesting video....how true is it to you?

[audtatious]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1MASsKbWQs[/youtube]

[bigbadberry3]

Eh, I feel like if you are intelligent you could pick a lot of this apart.

[AppleBonker]

I lolled. At least make it believable.

My high school history teacher was actually quite conservative (he would definitely put Greg's fiscal conservatism to shame), though he managed to present a pretty centered point-of-view on historical events. My college science courses (engineering degree, so they were plentiful) definitely did touch on some advanced theories. I'm not too sure what the video's complaint about this stems from. Should these theories have been completely left off of the curriculum? Any evidence uncovered so far corroborates the theory, so it should not be taught until it is completely proven true? Is science not allowed to correct itself? I'm kinda lost there...

And I've heard the argument numerous times that the education system pushes a progressive/liberal agenda. But I would love for someone to explain why that is true.

Also, what is with the complaint on taxes? Would I appreciate having more of my paycheck in my pocket? Most definitely. Do I feel like I'm hurting because of the money being taken out by the government? Not really. Abolish social security and my paycheck would look dandy! Do kids cost a lot of money? Heck yes and it should be a given, so why is this seemingly a complaint in this video? Does the writer/narrator not understand that income tax and sales tax go to different places? Would it be better to have it all pulled out as income tax and have no sales taxes or anything like that? Assuming the amount of money would be roughly the same, I don't see the point. So, how true is the video to me? At this point, it's pretty meaningless.

[stebo0728]

And I've heard the argument numerous times that the education system pushes a progressive/liberal agenda. But I would love for someone to explain why that is true.

The Law and Education
You say: "There are persons who lack education," and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property.

Because the idea of public education itself is a form of redistribution of wealth, which is one of the hardcore tenants of the liberal movement. Public education uses the force of law by both collecting taxes for, and forcing attendance for education, in an effort to balance a perceived imbalance of nature. Rather than let man be free and attend to their own educational needs, the law seeks to take care of this for us, as if to say we cant do it on our own. Liberal programs tend to foster liberal agendas.

[audtatious]

And because God is not allowed in school anymore and gay is being pushed into schools.

There, I said it

</Conservative racist homophobe redneck bible thumper>

[AppleBonker]

Because the idea of public education itself is a form of redistribution of wealth, which is one of the hardcore tenants of the liberal movement. [...] Liberal programs tend to foster liberal agendas.

Ah, now that would be a fair argument. I would disagree, as I don't necessarily look at it as a redistribution of wealth. Rather, it appears to me as more of a foundation for knowledge (the following is purely my opinion, so I am fairly certain you will disagree). Unskilled labor no longer creates a powerful nation. Take China, for example. They have always had a huge pool of labor to pull from. But now that they are catching (and in many cases passing) the US in terms of education, they are becoming much more of a world power. With public education, there is clearly a much greater number of educated students that will strive for higher learning and be able to take on many of these more advanced job. This would require more universities (than would be useful if the private sector handled ALL education). The larger number of universities breeds competition and generates better schools. And so on.

Now, given that one may disagree with this, I'd be interested to hear the conservative/private sector argument as to how the teachings would differ. We can leave history alone, as I am quite confident I understand how one could put a conservative/liberal spin on past events. What I am more concerned about (and what really made me scratch my head in the video) is how a conservative (or at least less liberal) agenda would alter my science courses.

Edit: stebo, I should also point out that I grew up in a fairly wealthy suburb of Chicago. Our public education system was pretty fantastic. While I could see it being an issue for my parents' local taxes going to create schools for inner-city kids, that's not the case. The school districts are so local that in nearly all situations areas of vast economic wealth have better schools than the poorer ones. To me, this actually demonstrates the opposite of redistributing the wealth...

[AppleBonker]

And because God is not allowed in school anymore and gay is being pushed into schools.

There, I said it

</Conservative racist homophobe redneck bible thumper>

You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure I see that being applied. I had friends of numerous religious affiliations in high school, and they were all allowed to practice openly in the school. In fact, one of my friends on our high school swim team regularly had to leave practice/meets/whatever to pray. And during Ramadan he was allowed to adjust his team schedule based on the times he was fasting (namely, when he was allowed to eat he took the opportunity to eat right then and not try to do it when practice wasn't in session). God (and, to be more accurate, ANY God) was welcome at my school.

And I find "gay being pushed into schools" to be a laughable claim. To be honest, I have no idea how one could make this assertion. Are the kids being taught to be gay? Can this be taught? Am I missing something?

[stebo0728]

In fact, these writers on public affairs begin by supposing that people have within themselves no means of discernment; no motivation to action. The writers assume that people are inert matter, passive particles, motionless atoms, at best a kind of vegetation indifferent to its own manner of existence. They assume that people are susceptible to being shaped — by the will and hand of another person — into an infinite variety of forms, more or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected. Moreover, not one of these writers on governmental affairs hesitates to imagine that he himself — under the title of organizer, discoverer, legislator, or founder — is this will and hand, this universal motivating force, this creative power whose sublime mission is to mold these scattered materials — persons — into a society.

Again, if you cant tell, I really applaud this author and his insight.

Basically the answer to your question, "how would the private sector handle education?" is - Dont worry about it, its not a proper function of the law to worry about it. When you set up programs like public education using the law, the government, the only entity necessarily required to use force, then you forward a presumption that mankind is basically inable to handle that aspect of their lives themselves, without intervention of the law. This is a wholly flawed presumption. And the generalized discord between conservatives and "public education" is just that, that its really "government education". Public education, or further, public anything CAN be handled by the private sector, and I would argue magnitudes more successfully. But when you start to allow the law to handle such a matter, the question you must answer first, is whether this is an aspect of life that should be entrusted to the law. I think test scores, school performance levels, and other markers will show the elephant in the corner that no one wants to deal with. NOT EVERYONE IS MEANT TO BE EDUCATED. Yes I said it, not everyone is suited to education beyond that required to eat and poop properly, and perhaps work a machine to earn a living.

BUT - everyone has the liberty to pursue an education, no one has a RIGHT to HAVE an education. The same argument is fuming in another segment of our lives right now - healthcare. And again the same framework exists for healthcare. Everyone has the liberty to pursue healthcare, but no one has a RIGHT to HAVE healthcare. Unfortunately the converse has once again been adopted, and yet another for of legalized plunder is about to hit our streets, in the form of universal healthcare.

Government should never seek to better one man at the expense of another, that is the whole idea behind Bastiats work. Government, having the inescapable trait of using force to accomplish its goal, must never be given the reigns to legally plunder. Government works properly ONLY when it limits itself to protecting the life liberty and property of all men equally.

[audtatious]

And because God is not allowed in school anymore and gay is being pushed into schools.

There, I said it

</Conservative racist homophobe redneck bible thumper>

You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure I see that being applied.

I meant it as lighthearted. You should not be so serious about everything posted on the internet

[audtatious]

BUT - everyone has the liberty to pursue an education, no one has a RIGHT to HAVE an education.

Depends on your viewpoint. Seems people think they have a right to health care. Some think they have a right to water and air of some cleanliness. Some feel everyone has the right to good nutrition and food while others think they have the right of having a place to live and transportation. Others feel they have the right to smoke pot when they want to (public or otherwise) while others think they have a right not to be offended by smokers in any circumstance.

It's all about perception and who can pull the most strings to get their viewpoints passed as "law". The way things are going, nobody will be able to have their own viewpoint as "law" will circumvent it sometime in the future.

[stebo0728]

BUT - everyone has the liberty to pursue an education, no one has a RIGHT to HAVE an education.

Depends on your viewpoint. Seems people think they have a right to health care. Some think they have a right to water and air of some cleanliness. Some feel everyone has the right to good nutrition and food while others think they have the right of having a place to live and transportation. Others feel they have the right to smoke pot when they want to (public or otherwise) while others think they have a right not to be offended by smokers in any circumstance.

It's all about perception and who can pull the most strings to get their viewpoints passed as "law". The way things are going, nobody will be able to have their own viewpoint as "law" will circumvent it sometime in the future.

But thats the whole problem, we have created a system of legalized plunder nested into our legal system. Passing laws to buy votes, to plunder one segment of voters in order to supplement another segment, this has become the norm. This is why we are in trouble unless we realize that law can only function in its most peak efficiency when it is limited to only protected life, liberty, and property of all men equally.

[AppleBonker]

Public education [...]CAN be handled by the private sector, and I would argue magnitudes more successfully.

See, I don't buy this for an instant. Members of affluent suburbia may be able to handle this in the private sector. But what about city-dwellers? The CPS (Chicago Public School) kids do NOT perform at the level of the rich suburb kids. The schools are simply better in suburbia. Same generally holds true for the rural areas - on average they fair worse than suburban schools. With the crime rate/etc in Chicago or the low resident density in the rural areas, what private entity will work to educate those folks? There's no money in it. And don't even try to convince me that the world is that charitable, because the length of human existence demonstrates otherwise.

everyone has the liberty to pursue an education, no one has a RIGHT to HAVE an education

While I would be ok with this, if you privatized all schooling, it would come at an expense to the students. So, in many cases, a student/child would be left out because their parents couldn't (or wouldn't) pay for said schooling. How in the world can anyone consider this a good idea? If you hate children, that's your own deal. But this is just cruel. Why should my chance at obtaining an education hinge solely on the wealth of my parents?

Now that would create a cycle in many locations where the poor would remain poor and would not be able to truly better themselves (which I can totally follow as being a conservative goal). With that larger portion of poor families, there would be more people leeching off national resources. Unless you plan to cut off all support (which would follow the "anti-socialist" idea). This would likely lead to the death of vast quantities of these people. Genocide rocks!

Government should never seek to better one man at the expense of another

I'd love to know who is suffering because of public education?

[AppleBonker]

I meant it as lighthearted. You should not be so serious about everything posted on the internet

I know you did. But this isn't the only time this idea has been presented. I am simply wondering where it comes from? There are large groups of people that truly believe this, and I am simply trying to understand it. Maybe it's different in other parts of the country?

[stebo0728]

Well you seem to maybe have missed where I pointed out what no one really likes to admit, that not everyone is cut out for book learning, for higher education. Somehow we have placed a social acceptance meter on education. What about people who retire from waste management? Lets say they were educated to the college level, but for what reason? They probably suffered through most of the higher courses, wishing they were elsewhere, and still ended up a wasted investment, as they still took the remedial job. Thats ok, some are just remedial type people, and theres nothing wrong with that.

Also, the major point that I am making is not that people shoulnt strive to be educated, if they are the educable type, but my point is that its not a proper function of the governing body to handle.

And again, good point about wondering who suffers from public education. I can name a few examples, such as elderly people still hamstrung paying education ear marked property taxes. Some counties exempt senior citizens, but many dont. Or families that choose to home school or privately educate, yet still have to pay into the public system. Vouchers seek to handle this, but vouchers would actually force teachers to do their jobs, the teachers unions wont stand for that. BUT - even with that said, I will concede that education is not necessarily the best example of the wealth redistribution gone wrong, BUT, the whole notion of wealth redistribution is abhorrent, and any form regardless of its perceived effect on society, should be eradicated, and man kind should be left to handle these matters on their own. Philanthropy, however warm and fuzzy it makes you feel, is dangerous to free men.

[AppleBonker]

No, I caught the part where you argued some people aren't cut out for schooling. And even if I concede that point to you, the problem with your argument is that the decision for who gets schooling and who doesn't is a function of parental/caretaker/family wealth. NOTHING to do with the ability for that child to be educated.

What your asking for is a large amount of charity from a very small portion of the population. Cruel as it sounds to say, I probably wouldn't be investing much in school systems since I don't currently have kids. And I'm sure there are many people like that. Who is going to support (financially) the task of education if it is in the private sector?

the whole notion of wealth redistribution is abhorrent

This may be where we fundamentally differ. I think the notion of a person (child or otherwise) dying in the street because of a mistake(s) their parents made is abhorrent.

[stebo0728]

This may be where we fundamentally differ. I think the notion of a person (child or otherwise) dying in the street because of a mistake(s) their parents made is abhorrent.

Fair enough, and understandable. Now your task is to find a way to keep said child from dying is said street WITHOUT violating the life, liberty, or property of any other individual. In other words, find a way that doesn't involve plunder. Then we have a basis to form a workable solution.

[AppleBonker]

And I see your point. I'd argue there isn't one. So your way has a kid dying in the street, but people with possessions (or whatever) maintain them. Mine has the kid surviving at some cost to the person with possessions. In these VERY simplistic terms (nothing is ever this black or white), there can be no middle ground. Which is the bigger crime?

[IBCoupe]

Public education uses the force of law by both collecting taxes for, and forcing attendance for education, in an effort to balance a perceived imbalance of socioeconomics.

FTFY

If liberals had the intention of balancing nature, they'd had done a lot more about the relation of men to abortion rights. There's an argument (that I disagree with) that men should have an opt-out right if a woman wants a child and they do not. The reason I disagree (as do liberals, I assume) is that this attempts to balance out an imbalance of nature, not of government law. Men have the same abortion rights as women, they just happen to get pregnant in far smaller numbers.

[stebo0728]

I expected pretty strong contention on that point, but it stands, as I originally wrote it. Liberals, socialists, seek to fix what they think nature screwed up. You say socioeconomics, but socioeconomics is only the here and now. The root of the "problem" perceived by liberals goes all the way back to the natural balance (or imbalance as they see it) created by nature.

[IBCoupe]

Stebo, the day I take your word for how liberals think is the day I read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to get my talmudic interpretation.

[stebo0728]

Stebo, the day I take your word for how liberals think is the day I read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to get my talmudic interpretation.

Should be a fun day, let me know, ill bring the beer and pizza!

[IBCoupe]