Split Thread Does compulsory schooling equate to slavery? (Split from: "Liberal Fallacies" thread)

[tyr_13]

(Malcolm): "Compulsory attendance at school is a subset of compulsory, unpaid labor."
Laws mandate attendance at school. That is, attendance is compulsory. Students are not paid. In school, teachers (overseers) assign classwork and homework.
Compulsory, unpaid labor.

It is compulsory. It is not unpaid. It is not labor in the sense you are taking it as.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry. Not sufficient. I don't accept that sitting in class is labor. I reject your premise. If the children were making things that the schools were profiting from (public schools are not for profit) then you would have an argument.

Having 24 hour control over another person's life is a defining characteristic. It's called ownership. It doesn't matter if the slave was paid for. If you are my legal property then you are my slave. If I can kill you for not doing as I ask then you are my slave.

Your argument fails. Compulsory != slavery.

Malcolm, your argument requires a lot of special pleading to even consider.

• The free market values public education.
• Rich people value private education.
• You need a diploma or GED to get a job.

Your fatal error is to fail to take into account that humans aren't born capable of surviving without parental supervision and they won't get far in life without an education. Which is why most if not all modern liberal democracies compel their children to get an education.

Again, your failure mounts as you are incapable of addressing a few very simple points.

1. Humans are born incapable of taking care of themselves.
2. It's the parents responsibility to prepare their child for adulthood. This includes teaching them hygiene, safety, and as much about reality and how to think as possible (public education).
3. The free market values public education.

You freely admit that there is a gradient between a child who does not have the cognitive ability to make responsible choices and the adult that child will become. Having to take out the trash and wash dishes is trivial compared to what a child will learn at school. Public education is slavery the way gold is lead. A point of comparison does not a valid analogy make.

So you can keep ignoring the points but I'll make sure everyone knows that you are ignoring them.

 

[Dancing David]

Do you dispute Becker's definition of "school" as an institution whose principal product is education? If not, what's the point of belaboring the observation that this is what the word "school" means?

I am not, which makes me wonder what you are doing, my issue is 'what evidence is there to support Becker's conclusions', which I can go and get from your post about them.

That is why I asked for metrics, while you were going on whatever side trip it was. I thought that this was about something to do with how employers don't want to provide OJT? Isn't that the context where you used the word 'Becker'?

 

[RandFan]

In school, teachers (overseers) assign classwork and homework.

And parents assign chores. To what end? To prepare the child for his or her future. In America a diploma or GED is a very valuable thing.

It is undisputed that lacking a high school diploma can hurt a worker in terms of the salary that he can earn over his lifetime. Not having a high school diploma affects not only the individual, but also the wider community since the individual generates less revenue in taxes because he has a lower-paying job. He also has less money to spend at local businesses than if he had a job with a higher salary, which affects the economy.

Read more: Pay Scale for High School Diploma vs. Without One | eHow.com
​

Ignorance is bliss though, right Malcolm?

Is there anyone else who doesn't understand why most if not all modern liberal democracies have compulsory education? Is there anyone else who doesn't get the correlation between high achieving nations, nations with high GDP, HDI and economic freedom and compulsory education? Is there anyone else not getting this?

 

[Dancing David]

And again, you fail to recognize the point, employers do NOT want to train their workers. It is not burdensome regulations, it is that they want people to have the skills already.

I can look for our discussion of junior colleges and higher education. It is employers who set these standards, not the colleges and junior colleges.

IT wants all sorts of certifications, they do NOT want to train you.

Employers do NOT want to train welders, they want them to have already passed the eight week class.

So this is where you mentioned Becker to me
QUOTE=Malcolm Kirkpatrick;9165241]And again, David personalizes the discussion. David fails to understand that Becker (Human Capital) defines "school" as an institution whose principal product is education. At one time, on-the-job training was routine for nearly all professiona and trades. See Berg, Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery. People went from high school to teaching hospitals for training as nurses until after WW II. Lawyers and surgeons learned through apprenticeship.[/QUOTE]

So how is what they did in the past having bearing on the present employers, and what does it have to do with my point that employers do not want to train their workers.

Care to explain what Becker had to do with that? Are you saying employers should be schools?

 

[RandFan]

So how is what they did in the past having bearing on the present employers, and what does it have to do with my point that employers do not want to train their workers.

Things were much better in the past. Children learned all about civics, history, biology, chemistry, math, social science at work. Here we find our workers/students learning about geology.

Compare that to unpaid slavery (AKA school)

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I am not, which makes me wonder what you are doing, my issue is 'what evidence is there to support Becker's conclusions', which I can go and get from your post about them. That is why I asked for metrics, while you were going on whatever side trip it was. I thought that this was about something to do with how employers don't want to provide OJT? Isn't that the context where you used the word 'Becker'?

Which "conclusions"? I introduced Becker as the author of the definition of "school". If that is not in dispute, I don't see the point of the continued discussion of Becker.

I recommend his Human Capital.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Ignorance is bliss though, right Malcolm?

You would know.

 

[Minoosh]

...That is why I asked for metrics ...

The way it was explained to me, there are no numbers in nature, therefore there is no such thing as quantitative evidence, i.e., metrics.

 

[RandFan]

You would know.

I'm the one advocating education, public and private. But keep ignoring the facts.

Malcolm, your argument requires a lot of special pleading to even consider.

• The free market values public education.
• Rich people value private education.
• You need a diploma or GED to get a job.

Your fatal error is to fail to take into account that humans aren't born capable of surviving without parental supervision and they won't get far in life without an education. Which is why most if not all modern liberal democracies compel their children to get an education.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The way it was explained to me, there are no numbers in nature, therefore there is no such thing as quantitative evidence, i.e., metrics.

That's another wild misrepresentation of the argument.

The world is a pile of anecdotes (observations, raw data). People attach words and numbers to observations. Various mathematical operations on numbers yield statistics. So far, David's demand for "metrics" remains unclear to me. That is, I have no idea what he wants. Word frequency counts of the appearance of "school" in relation to other words? What? How would that advance the discussion of education policy?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I'm the one advocating education, public and private.

No. You're defending compulsory school attendance policies. NOT(school = education).

 

[RandFan]

No. You're defending compulsory school attendance policies. NOT(school = education).

One more time Malcolm, humans are not born with responsible brains to make choices that are best for them. Which is why parents compel their children to do their chores and go to school. Without that there is not a whole lot of education.

So yeah, I am the one advocating for education.

 

[RandFan]

Still ignoring arguments:

Let's recap what you cannot address:

Having 24 hour control over another person's life is a defining characteristic. It's called ownership. It doesn't matter if the slave was paid for. If you are my legal property then you are my slave. If I can kill you for not doing as I ask then you are my slave.

Your argument fails. Compulsory != slavery.

• The free market values public education.
• Rich people value private education.
• You need a diploma or GED to get a job.

Your fatal error is to fail to take into account that humans aren't born capable of surviving without parental supervision and they won't get far in life without an education. Which is why most if not all modern liberal democracies compel their children to get an education.

1. Humans are born incapable of taking care of themselves.
2. It's the parents responsibility to prepare their child for adulthood. This includes teaching them hygiene, safety, and as much about reality and how to think as possible (public education).
3. The free market values public education.

You freely admit that there is a gradient between a child who does not have the cognitive ability to make responsible choices and the adult that child will become. Having to take out the trash and wash dishes is trivial compared to what a child will learn at school. Public education is slavery the way gold is lead. A point of comparison does not a valid analogy make.

So you can keep ignoring the points but I'll make sure everyone knows that you are ignoring them.

 

[jimbob]

Malcolm, you seem to have gone down a side alley arguing about the concept of statistical significance.

I have seen nobody argue that homeschooling is bad for everybody - indeed in the UK at least it is perfectly legal to homeschool one's child but my understanding is that certain standards have to be met.

I am describing the UK as that is what I know. Maybe someone in the US could say whether this is vastly different from this situation. From what I have read I doubt it, but as we are discussing the concept here, this is an example of a system where attendance at any particular type of school is not mandated.

It is the education that is compulsory, not attendance at state school. Describing this as slavery is just insane.

 

[jimbob]

As for the discussion about statistical significance - Malcolm, your argument seems to be that some people thrive with homeschooling (no dispute there).

What doesn't follow is that this is what should happen for everyone.

 

[bruto]

Malcolm, you seem to have gone down a side alley arguing about the concept of statistical significance.

I have seen nobody argue that homeschooling is bad for everybody - indeed in the UK at least it is perfectly legal to homeschool one's child but my understanding is that certain standards have to be met.

I am describing the UK as that is what I know. Maybe someone in the US could say whether this is vastly different from this situation. From what I have read I doubt it, but as we are discussing the concept here, this is an example of a system where attendance at any particular type of school is not mandated.

It is the education that is compulsory, not attendance at state school. Describing this as slavery is just insane.

Pretty much the same here, last I knew. There are standards, and I believe some standardized achievement tests, that must be met. Home schoolers do indeed often do better than others, because, of course, they're getting plenty of personal attention and less waste of time on the problems of others, and the schedule is flexible. But the education, based on results, is compulsory. Insofar as it's possible to slack off and fail repeatedly in school, but a disqualification in home schooling, one might argue that the compulsory element, which Malcolm equates with slavery, is greater.

 

[jimbob]

Thanks Bruto.

 

[Dancing David]

Which "conclusions"? I introduced Becker as the author of the definition of "school". If that is not in dispute, I don't see the point of the continued discussion of Becker.

I recommend his Human Capital.

Which is why I asked, what did it have to do with my saying that employers do not want to train workers. I am not understanding that.

How does Becker relate to that?

 

[Dancing David]

The way it was explained to me, there are no numbers in nature, therefore there is no such thing as quantitative evidence, i.e., metrics.

Um, no. Calibration may or may not be arbitrary, but prey organisms vs. predator organisms ratios is a metric.

So what are you trying to say, and who explained this to you?