Public Education is a Socialist Monopoly

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Jonathan, you still haven't addressed who is going to pay to send everyone to private schools. The government? Oops! That's socialist!

No. The State would not own voucher-receiving independent schools.

Nor have you addressed how shifting every single student from a "public" school to a "private" school will change well...anything. So they'll all be "private" and eventually separate themselves into better "private" (where the rich people send their kids) and worse "private" (where the poor people go). You're left with the same exact system that exists now, just with a different name.

Except that if such a system were to come into place, there are certain constitutional protections which would no longer apply, such as the separation of church & state. I think that's one reason why so many fundamentalists support school vouchers in the first place.

1. The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". If the US shifted to a voucher system and kept compulsory attendance laws on the books, some school would have to accept those students whom other schools rejected. Call these default-option schools "public schools". Likely, these would cost more, per pupil, to operate. I expect that schools would differentiate in a way that anti-discrimination policies in today's government schools and the threat of lawsuits based on "disparate impact" do not currently allow.
2. The policy which prevails across most US States, which restricts parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy to schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, originated in the early decades of the 19th century, when waves of Catholic immigrants provoked an allergic reaction in the resident Protestant majority. Polities which had subsidized attendance at Church-operated schools of the parents' choice (a voucher system, basically) shifted to a State-monopoly system. The US State-monopoly system originated in religious intolerance,

 

[fuelair]

Correlation does not imply causation.
That's just basic science education.
Those who think it does
Have brains full of fuzz,
And indulge in mental masturbation.

Which requires a mental!!

 

[uruk]

~SNIP~

Freedom - anathema to Leftists, who favor socialism
"One nation, under God" - also anathema to Leftists, who spin and lie relentlessly

You have learned the ways of teaparty drivel well my son. Now only if you only had proof to support thier blather.

"Under God" was in the oringinal pledege of allegiance. It was added in the 50's by people who were subverting the Constitution's 1st admendment.

Every single state in the United States has a preamble which acknowledges God.

Note how it concienciously never mentions the name "Jesus". Our founding fathers wanted the people to practice whatever religion they wanted. Not just Christianity.
That is why they put in the non-establishment clause in the first admendment. that is also why the documents say "god" and not "Jesus"

Every penny, every dime, every nickel, every quarter, every dollar and five and ten and twenty you have ever spent reads "IN GOD WE TRUST".

Again, added to our money in the late 1800's by people who wanted to subvert the Constitution.

I find the dishonesty of the Left absolutely incredible.

look it up yourself. Oh wait, you can only look in sources that are approved by your teaparty overlords. Hail Beck!!!!

Moreover, the reason I support vouchers is the same reason Professor Friedman supported them. It's called "school choice"!

You think that is what it means? Do you think that a privtely run school is going to be forced to accept these vouchers from student "types" they may wish not to accept from? And without any regulation what is to stop unscrupulous school owners from taing vouchers and providing substandard education?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Are you a sock-puppet of a previously banned poster? No offense intended, but your posting style is oddly familiar.

I was banned from Internet Infidels. I used the phrase "what do you mean 'we', paleface". A moderator, Brian 63, said his friends thought I was a racist. I pointed out to the administrators that a moderator, toto, had used the phrase as I had, to mean "I do not accept the group identity you offer", observed that "you're a racist" is a specifically banned insult, and said if "my friends think you're an X (fill in the blank)" sterilizes an insult then my friends think Brian63 sucks cum out of dead dogs.

I got banned.

My friends think the moderators and administrators at FRDB (nee IIDB) are lying statist bigots.

 

[excaza]

No. The State would not own voucher-receiving independent schools.

Government paying for anything is, by definition, socialist. This includes education, no matter what you want to call it.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I was banned from Internet Infidels. I used the phrase "what do you mean 'we', paleface". A moderator, Brian 63, said his friends thought I was a racist. I pointed out to the administrators that a moderator, toto, had used the phrase as I had, to mean "I do not accept the group identity you offer", observed that "you're a racist" is a specifically banned insult, and said if "my friends think you're an X (fill in the blank)" sterilizes an insult then my friends think Brian63 sucks cum out of dead dogs.

I got banned.

My friends think the moderators and administrators at FRDB (nee IIDB) are lying statist bigots.

Who cares? What does this have to do with anything here? Do you still think that correlation implies causation?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Government paying for anything is, by definition, socialist. This includes education, no matter what you want to call it.

Here's Merriam-Webster Online: ": any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". Tuition vouchers are not "socialist", by this definition.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

How I got banned from IIDB...

Who cares? What does this have to do with anything here?

Nobody cares, and I apologize for the derail. I just answered a question.

Do you still think that correlation implies causation?

Correlation or something like it is all we will ever have to infer causation. Fundamentally, it's all we can mean by "causation". Read Russell's chapter on Hume.

 

[Jeff Corey]

How I got banned from IIDB...Nobody cares, and I apologize for the derail. I just answered a question. Correlation or something like it is all we will ever have to infer causation. Fundamentally, it's all we can mean by "causation". Read Russell's chapter on Hume.

No, it's not correlation that establishes causation.
It is experimentation, where a scientist manipulates an independent variable and reliably measures the effect on the dependent variable, while controlling for confounding variables.
I don't have to read any chapters that you refer to, I'm way ahead of you..

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

No, it's not correlation that establishes causation. It is experimentation, where a scientist manipulates an independent variable and reliably measures the effect on the dependent variable, while controlling for confounding variables.

"Effect" means what? Another correlation, right?

I don't have to read any chapters that you refer to, I'm way ahead of you..

But are you ahead of Russell?

 

[GreyArea]

Ignore List

* bikerdruid
* Brainache
* Dancing David
* Dinwar
* excaza
* John Jones
* majamin
* Marduk
* Mirrorglass
* Paulhoff
* RecoveringYuppy
* RossFW
* Simon39759
* Sledge
* Travis
* Tubbythin
* uruk
* wollery

What have I done wrong? When are you going to surrender to me, too?

 

[Jeff Corey]

"Effect" means what? Another correlation, right?But are you ahead of Russell?

No, read my post about the difference between a correlation and an experiment. Experiments are more likely to establish causal relationships than mere correlations.
First, correlations may have another, third variable causing both to covary. The causation might be misinterpreted in a backward fashion and people cherry pick data to provide false correlations.

 

[JonathanQuick]

Correlation does not imply causation.
That's just basic science education.
Those who think it does
Have brains full of fuzz,
And indulge in mental masturbation.

Uh huh. Tell that to Al Gore, who has audiences FULL of Left Wing Zealots, who gaze with their mouths agape at his causative, correlative graphs, temperature paralleling carbon dioxide.

How DARE you call your fellow Lefties mental masturbators, with brains full of fuzz.

Al earned a C- and a D in the two science courses he took.

The man's a Left Wing Science EXPERT!

 

[JonathanQuick]

/// The causation might be misinterpreted in a backward fashion and people cherry pick data to provide false correlations.

"People" "cherry pick DATA"???

NOOOOO!

Global Warming Scientists would NEVER do that.....

"Global warming is the greatest scientific scam I have ever encountered in my long life." - Hal Lewis, in his letter resigning from the American Physical Society

 

[JonathanQuick]

No, it's not correlation that establishes causation.

He did NOT say "establishes." He said "infer(s)".

You see, the Left is so very eager to refute, refute, deny, and disparage, that Leftists expertly misquote and misstate in order to mislead.

I don't have to read any chapters that you refer to, I'm way ahead of you..

Of course. Of course you are. Leftists are ALWAYS "way ahead" of anyone else. It is your Foundational Claim. So modest of you, really.
Your misquoting humility is touching.

 

[Jeff Corey]

He did NOT say "establishes." He said "infer(s)".

You see, the Left is so very eager to refute, refute, deny, and disparage, that Leftists expertly misquote and misstate in order to mislead.




Of course. Of course you are. Leftists are ALWAYS "way ahead" of anyone else. It is your Foundational Claim. So modest of you, really.
Your misquoting humility is touching.

I must admit that I am not demonstrating humility . I must apologize for knowing much more than you pavenues about how science is practiced.

 

[Travis]

No. The State would not own voucher-receiving independent schools.1. The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". If the US shifted to a voucher system and kept compulsory attendance laws on the books, some school would have to accept those students whom other schools rejected. Call these default-option schools "public schools". Likely, these would cost more, per pupil, to operate. I expect that schools would differentiate in a way that anti-discrimination policies in today's government schools and the threat of lawsuits based on "disparate impact" do not currently allow.

Uh huh. How will this help the average student in the Oakland school system?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(Vouchers)...

Uh huh. How will this help the average student in the Oakland school system?

Federalism and markets institutionalize humility on the part of government actors. If a policy dispute turns on a matter of taste, numerous local policy regimes (e.g., small school districts) and competitive markets in goods and services allow for the expression of varied tastes while the struggle for control of a State-monopoly provider must inevitably create unhappy losers. If a policy dispute turns on a matter of fact, where "What works?" is an empirical question, numerous local policy regimes and competitive markets in goods and services will generate more information than will a State-monopoly provider. A State-monopoly system is like an experiment with one treatment and no controls: a retarded experimental design.

The education process is extremely sensitive to variations in inputs (individual students' interests, abilities, and transient moods) and outputs (the possible career paths which a modern economy offers). Education is naturally a cottage industry (at the delivery end, at least). Bureaucratic control must operate through general rules. If we all have to wear the same size shoes, most people's feet will hurt, no matter if we "democratically" determine the size.

Empirically, polities which subsidize parent control of school generate higher performance at lower cost than State-(government, generally) monopoly school systems.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

For those here who approve the current policy which prevails across most US States, which reserves to schools operated by government employees an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy, a thought experiment. Compose answers to the following questions:...

1. From State operation of what industries does society as a whole benefit? You may suppose either a dichotomous classification, A=unlikely candidate for State operation, B=likely candidate for State operation, or a continuum,
(highly unlikely) -1________.________+1 (highly likely).
2. Now consider the further question: What criteria determine an industry's categorical assignment or position on the continuum?

 

[uruk]

Signature page of the United States Constitution:

"Attest William Jackson Secretary

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

"In the year of our lord" is a refrence to the julian calender not necessarily a religious refrence. Year of our lord = Anno Domine = AD

The fact that this was written in an important document and the numbers of the date is written out with words means that this is mearly poetic flourish rather than an appeal to the almighty.