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

[elbe]

So rather than address the actual arguments you decide to spout off some of your "greatest hits".

Never let a good conspiracy theory go to waste.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The case I was talking about illustrated a common problem. ...

Can I use that justification, too, or is only available to those on the State-worshipful side of this argument?

... In the case I was thinking of, the factory owners being rich manage to buy political influence. After such a public incident, this is overidden, but for less public fatalities they are pretty well protected.

Like the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

Milton Friedman observed that the best protection a good worker has is a competitive market for his skills. Value is determined by supply and demand. The rate at which humans trade for other resources depends, in part, on the supply of humans.

Unless the employers form a cartel to manipulate the market.

Like the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

Today, in the US, children work, unpaid, as windowdressing in a make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

I think the more usual interpretation is that children are being taught by teachers.

For many children, that's a fond hope that reality does not support. The costs and benefits of the education industry's current legal/institutional environment, relative to politically possible options, is partly an empirical question.

 

[RandFan]

Today, in the US, children work, unpaid, as windowdressing in a make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

I think the more usual interpretation is that children are being taught by teachers.

For many children, that's a fond hope that reality does not support.

Oddly private industry in America values that education very highly. It's valued so highly that those who do not have a high school diploma will have a difficult time getting a good paying job.

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.

So is private industry part of this conspiracy theory of yours?

 

[jimbob]

The case I was talking about illustrated a common problem. ...

Can I use that justification, too, or is only available to those on the State-worshipful side of this argument?

Go on - as long as you also supply evidence that supports your claim that most children would be better off without mandatory education.

... In the case I was thinking of, the factory owners being rich manage to buy political influence. After such a public incident, this is overidden, but for less public fatalities they are pretty well protected.

Like the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.Um...
Not exactly. Do many school buildings collapse killing hundreds of people after cracks were reported but the NEA/AFT/AFSCME members forced the children to attend?

Milton Friedman observed that the best protection a good worker has is a competitive market for his skills. Value is determined by supply and demand. The rate at which humans trade for other resources depends, in part, on the supply of humans.

Unless the employers form a cartel to manipulate the market.

Like the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

Not exactly. Does your claimed cartel act to prevent teachers moving jobs?

Today, in the US, children work, unpaid, as windowdressing in a make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

I think the more usual interpretation is that children are being taught by teachers.

For many children, that's a fond hope that reality does not support. The costs and benefits of the education industry's current legal/institutional environment, relative to politically possible options, is partly an empirical question.

We did this experiment in the 19th Century and early 20th Century in my country, and in yours.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Go on - as long as you also supply evidence that supports your claim that most children would be better off without mandatory education.¹Not exactly. Does your claimed cartel act to prevent teachers moving jobs?²We did this experiment in the 19th Century and early 20th Century in my country, and in yours.³

1. a) NOT("education" = attendance at school). "Mandatory education" is impossible; some children enter the world with skulls full of cerebro-spinal fluid and empty of grey matter. If "education" refers to outcomes (e.g., reading comprehension, mathematical literacy) rather than processes (e.g., attendance at school), then for every measure of education above "comatose" there will be some child for whom no amount of resources will suffice to attain that level. The human and canine IQ curves overlap.
Abundant evidence supports the following generalizations:
b) As institutions take from individual parents the power to determine for their own children the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction overall system performance falls.
c) Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically-adept parents.
I have supplied much of this evidence. There is a lot more.
2. Students, not teachers, are the counterpart of plantation slaves. Yes, most US States assign students by district. Parents have faced prosecution for falsifying residence information to escape abusive schools. Not that the cartel's shills care.
3. I recommend West, Education and the State. The initial legislation in Great Britain for State-funded schools proposed to address the issue of those few children who fell through the cracks. Subsidized institutions displaced unsubsidized institutions.

 

[RandFan]

1. a) NOT("education" = attendance at school). "Mandatory education" is impossible; some children enter the world with skulls full of cerebro-spinal fluid and empty of grey matter. If "education" refers to outcomes (e.g., reading comprehension, mathematical literacy) rather than processes (e.g., attendance at school), then for every measure of education above "comatose" there will be some child for whom no amount of resources will suffice to attain that level. The human and canine IQ curves overlap.

Yet you can't explain why private industry values a public education.

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.

That's called value. Odd that private industry is part of your conspiracy theory.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm, changing the subject slightly, but it is relevant to the child labour part of this discussion.
There has been a factory collapse in Bangladesh¹. The latest I have heard was that a crack was visible the day before the collapse but that the factor owners "forced" their employees to go to work.
I would say that "force" is the correct term because in such situations, inadequate or ineffective legal protection² enables the and will *definitely* starve as opposed to *possibly* getting maimed.
This is not slavery but is exploitation³.
Child labour relies on exploitation, child education is not exploitation.⁴

1. Be assured that Ant and Randfan will not dump on you for suggesting that an anecdote qualifies as evidence of anything.
2. The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). People do not become more intelligent, better-informed, more altruistic, or (except to the extent that their access to the tools of State violence empowers them) more capable when they enter the State's employ. Regulation may just as well empower the already-powerful.
3. Milton Friedman observed that the best protection a good worker has is a competitive market for his skills. Value is determined by supply and demand. The rate at which humans trade for other resources depends, in part, on the supply of humans.
4. Today, in the US, children work, unpaid, as windowdressing in a make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

So rather than address the actual arguments you decide to spout off some of your "greatest hits".

Were the dots really too far apart for you to connect?

I addressed Jim's argument directly, if too abstractly for you to see the connection.
The point about anecdote addresses the ongoing attempt by Randfan, Ant, and David to pose as fastitious about evidence.
BTW, my college-level statistics did not bother defining "anecdote" or defining problems with anecdotal evidence. They analyzed the relation between sample size and probability that a measure on a sample approaches the measure on the population. Neither did my college gym class bother with kindergarten lessons like "don't run with scissors". Randfan claims to have learned kindergarten-level statistics in a college statistics class. I can imagine a Philosophy of Statistics class that might do this (philosophers will discuss anything). Otherwise, I doubt Randfan's assertion that "Mine did" (discuss defects with anecdotal evidence).

The definition of "government" relates directly to Jim's assertion "inadequate or ineffective legal protection enables the factory owners to collude and keep working conditions rock bottom". You'all advocate for a government role in the education industry. Nobody explains why government employees and decision-makers will behave differently from decision makers and employees of other organizations. Jim argues that exploitation happens in the absence of State oversight. It happens in the presence of State oversight, also. It happens also in the absence of oversight from wise, altruistic unicorns.

We return repeatedly to the definition of "government" because this is the politics forum and I hope that one day the indoctrinated socialists will finally understand that their God has feet of clay. Governments are made of self-interested people. Just like manufacturing corporations, labor unions, and garden clubs.

Value is determined by supply and demand. Working conditions, wages, and other prices reflect, to a considerable degree, the level of wealth in society. "Expoitation" is a matter of degree that reflects the availability of options (as Jim implies rather directly with " factory owners to collude and keep working conditions rock bottom - blacklists are a common method - if someone doesn't agree to working in dangerous conditions they will not be allowed to work anywhere". The Friedman reference addressed that point directly.

Governments systematically reduce education options, to the benefit of system insiders and detriment of children, parents, real classroom teachers, and taxpayers.

 

[RandFan]

NOT(education = attendance at school). NOT("public education" = attendance at State-operated indoctrination centers). Whether "private industry values" graduates of government schools more highly that graduates of independent schools or homeschoolers I doubt.

What you doubt is immaterial and irrelelvant. It's beside the point. Private industry values public education. End of story. You imply that education is worthless and therefore it's slavery. Yet the student gets something of value.

Randfan's idea of civility: call the opposition "bigot", "racist", ignorant, and delusional.

You are the one claiming this is a "make work" project. That would require a conspiracy. Especially if private industry is in on it.

So, what are we left with?

Facts:

• Humans are born incapable of taking care of themselves.
• Young humans require adult figures to compel them to learn.
• The state requires that people get an education.
• Private industry values that education.

It's simply the consequences of your statements.

 

[A'isha]

Malcolm isn't just repeating himself, he's repeating himself verbatim.

Please try to argue your position, Malcolm, and not just make repetitive assertions as if by rote.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

What you doubt is immaterial and irrelelvant. It's beside the point. Private industry values public education¹. End of story. You imply that education is worthless and therefore it's slavery². Yet the student gets something of value³.

1. Does RandFan contend that employers care how job applicants acquired the skills that the employer seeks? If not, what purpose does the adjective "public" serve here?
2. Not at all. I cannot comfortably agree that education is valuable without a definition of "education". Depends on what you study. Freedom is valuable, including the freedom to study what you want. For children, parents will better serve taxpayers' interests than will government agents. What makes compulsory school attendance "slavery" is the compulsion.
3. That depends on the student and on the venue.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm isn't just repeating himself, he's repeating himself verbatim.

Please try to argue your position, Malcolm, and not just make repetitive assertions as if by rote.

The story is told that someone asked Paul Dirac for an explanation of something he'd said in a lecture. Dirac repeated what he'd said verbatim. I have two reasons for doing this: it's as succinct as I can make it and I make the point that this argument goes in circles, and this conversation will not advance until advocates for an intrusive State either explain what makes government action special or until they grant my point that government employees are not special.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

One alternative to OJT is school. Becker defines "school" as an institution whose principal product is education. As the term "principal" indicates, the apparent dichotomous classification {school, job--as in "on-the-job) is more accurately characterized as a continuum.

It has been very big of everyone to not point this out and laugh.
I'm not such a good person. *snicker*

Please elaborate. Do you intend a comment on the difference between "principle" and "principal"? "Principal" means "primary". "Principle" means "rule".

It has been very big of everyone to not point this out and laugh.
I'm not such a good person. *snicker*[/QUOTE]

 

[RandFan]

1. Does RandFan contend that employers care how job applicants acquired the skills that the employer seeks? If not, what purpose does the adjective "public" serve here?
2. Not at all. I cannot comfortably agree that education is valuable without a definition of "education". Depends on what you study. Freedom is valuable, including the freedom to study what you want. For children, parents will better serve taxpayers' interests than will government agents. What makes compulsory school attendance "slavery" is the compulsion.
3. That depends on the student and on the venue.

1. I am simply making a distinction between home schooling/parochial schools and state subsidized *"public" education. Public = not private (see link below or google "public education").
2. Parents compel their children to do things therefore that is slavery? Again, you are simply wrong or you are equivocating the word "slavery". Ownership is a component of slavery.
3. I'm speaking statistically here. The odds of getting a higher salary rise sharply with an education (that includes state subsidized "public" education"). It is statistically valuable and I've provided the proof that.

*What is Public Education?

Public education is education required for the children as stipulated by the laws in the government - national, regional, or local – and financially supported by the civil through taxes.

 

[A'isha]

The story is told that someone asked Paul Dirac for an explanation of something he'd said in a lecture. Dirac repeated what he'd said verbatim.

You are hardly Paul Dirac.

I have two reasons for doing this: it's as succinct as I can make it and I make the point that this argument goes in circles, and this conversation will not advance until advocates for an intrusive State either explain what makes government action special or until they grant my point that government employees are not special.

The notion that they're "special" is nothing more than your strawman.

It's like you've never even read The Federalist Papers.

 

[RandFan]

... either explain what makes government action special....

Straw man. It's what works. It's what has been adopted by most if not all modern liberal democracies. Private industry values that children are educated and it's good for society. As the quote from emony states, a child with diploma will earn more money and therefore purchase more and pay more in taxes.

I'll keep making those points until you can show me an alternative that has been shown to work.

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.

It works. That's it. Nothing "special". Just that those who take advantage of what they are being offered can have a better life. It's up to the adults to decide what is best for the children. We do that via democracy and allowing parents some discretion.

• The child is better.
• Society is better.

That's value.

 

[Dancing David]

So Malcolm, where are the employers who want to provide OJT?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You are hardly Paul Dirac.

Neither of us is. One of us appreciates the value of a precise statement, and of repetition.

 

[elbe]

One of us appreciates the value of a precise statement, and of repetition.

It is useful to point out that precision does not necessarily mean factual.

 

[RandFan]

Straw man. It's what works. It's what has been adopted by most if not all modern liberal democracies. Private industry values that children are educated and it's good for society. As the quote from emony states, a child with diploma will earn more money and therefore purchase more and pay more in taxes.

I'll keep making those points until you can show me an alternative that has been shown to work.

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.

It works. That's it. Nothing "special". Just that those who take advantage of what they are being offered can have a better life. It's up to the adults to decide what is best for the children. We do that via democracy and allowing parents some discretion.

• The child is better.
• Society is better.

That's value.

So, how is it slavery if students get value for their effort?

 

[A'isha]

It is useful to point out that precision does not necessarily mean factual.

And, of course, that mindless cut-and-paste repetition of the exact same things is hardly something to be valued.