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

[elbe]

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

It can make everyone else quit from frustration and then you win by forfeit... the sweetest win there is...

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

It is useful to point out that precision does not necessarily mean factual¹.

And, of course, that mindless² cut-and-paste repetition of the exact same things is hardly something to be valued³.

1. Correct. There's a difference between "precise" and "accurate". It's easier to fix an object with a broad searchlight (more accurate) than with a laser pointer (more precise). A telescope designer will recognize trade-offs between light-gathering power and resolving power. When the details of the phenomenon matter more to the question under consideration than existence or not, precision matters more than accuracy (since existence is presumed). Consider the difference between a telescore that gives blurry images of distant objects quickly and one that can resolve details after a long exposure. Both have their place.
Consider...

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

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 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.

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").

*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.

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.
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.

So, according to RandFan, "public" makes a "distinction between homeschooling/parochial schools and state subsidized *"public education".
Hmmmm...
Does definition by really recursion work here?
...
(RandFan): "'Public education' refers to educaton that is not homeschooling or parochial schools but state subsidized 'public' education."
...
Don't you consider this confused (imprecise)? How 'bout tax-subsidized church-operated schools like they have in Ireland, Belgium, and Chile? According to the quote, tax-supported education is "public education". Subsidized homeschooling would qualify. Vouchers to St. Francis or the Academy of the Sacred Heart would qualify.
As to...
...
(RandFan): "... private industry values a public education ..."
...
Why would a private-sector employer care whether the skills a prospective employee offers were gained at taxpayer expense or not?

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

3. Maybe if you'd thought otherwise you'd be better at Math.

 

[A'isha]

So, according to RandFan, "public" makes a "distinction between homeschooling/parochial schools and state subsidized *"public education".

No, "public" means public sector, and "private" means private sector.

Don't you consider this confused (imprecise)? How 'bout tax-subsidized church-operated schools like they have in Ireland, Belgium, and Chile? According to the quote, tax-supported education is "public education". Subsidized homeschooling would qualify. Vouchers to St. Francis or the Academy of the Sacred Heart would qualify.

No, that would be either government subsidizing of private sector schools (which does not make them public sector schools), or voluntary sector schools (such as they have in Hong Kong).

This is why your nonsensical redefinition of terms is an impediment to the discussion.

Why would a private-sector employer care whether the skills a prospective employee offers were gained at taxpayer expense or not?

They don't. A private-sector employer values the skills a prospective employee offers that were gained at taxpayer expense just as highly as the skills a prospective employee offers that were gained through the free market.

That's why public education is important to both society and to private-sector employees, because it increases the number of people in a country who have those skills to begin with.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

Rote repetition of mantras is not a substitute for an actual argument.

3. Maybe if you'd thought otherwise you'd be better at Math.

Perhaps, but since I don't, that's what makes me a better writer and historian.

And in any case, the value of such mindless cut-and-paste repetition in mathematics, whether true or not, is irrelevant here, since this is not a discussion about a mathematical subject.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

No, "public" means public sector, and "private" means private sector.

Look:

The public sector, sometimes referred to as the state sector or the government sector, is a part of the state that deals with either the production, ownership, sale, provision, delivery and allocation of goods and services by and for the government or its citizens, whether national, regional or local/municipal.

So grocery stores are "public sector" because they sell "goods ... for citizens"?

 

[Border Reiver]

Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery. Where dictionary definitions involve commerce in people, they are imprecise; the Soviet Union used slave labor and labor camp inmates were not sold. You "control" someone's labor if you can force (there's the compulsory part) them to do what you want (like pose as "students" in your make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel).

Actually Slavery is defined as an economic system based on the ability to treat human beings as property and to be able to exploit their labour and bodies in the same manner that we exploit the labour of machines or animals. Without the ability to treat humans as property it is not slavery - it is a system of forced labour, which oddly IS what was practiced in the gulags of the Soviet system.

Your definition of slavery as "compulsory, unpaid labour" is inaccurate, as it captures far too much, such as household chores by children, to make it worthwhile.

 

[RandFan]

Why would a private-sector employer care whether the skills a prospective employee offers were gained at taxpayer expense or not?

That's a straw man. I only note that state subsidized public education (not a controversial statement as I've provided sources State School Public Shool) But at the end of the day I'm simply talking about the same thing you call slavery. State Subsidized School (most of us simply call it public school).

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

3. Maybe if you'd thought otherwise you'd be better at Math.

This is just rhetoric. Have you given up? You don't say whether or not a child that goes to state subsidized public education (what you call slavery) provides something of value to the child.

• Does private industry value the education that you call slavery (and I call subsidized public education by definition)?

Public education = not run by a religion or private group or individuals. Lots of private things receive public education without making them public. Your argument is demonstrably absurd and pointless. That education which you call slavery is that which I call public education.

 

[RandFan]

4. If you follow the chain of definitions, from "slavery" through "property" and onward, you ultimately bump into "control" (i.e., compulsion).

By this definition children are slaves of their parents because parents compel their children to do chores and learn. Your special pleading fails utterly to resolve this little oversight of yours.

You also conveniently leave out other components of slavery. Like it's not slavery if you are getting something as valuable as a career for your efforts. Parents force their children to learn history, math, reading, etc., because it is in the best interest of the child. It's also in the best interest of society not to have illiterate citizens.

• Parents value state subsidized public education.
• Private industry values state subsidized public education.
• The children get something of value.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... Why would a private-sector employer care whether the skills a prospective employee offers were gained at taxpayer expense or not?

That's a straw man.

Ummmm...

... private industry values a public education.

 

[RandFan]

Ummmm...

Ummm....

Valuing state subsidized education does NOT mean they don't value other forms of education.

Ummmm.....

Jesus Christ Malcolm, my only point is that what you call slavery enables a child to get a career because private industry values what you call slavery.

 

[A'isha]

Jesus Christ Malcolm, my only point is that what you call slavery enables a child to get a career because private industry values what you call slavery.

He appears to be doing his best to muddy the waters and nitpick in an effort to avoid addressing that.

 

[RandFan]

He appears to be doing his best to muddy the waters and nitpick in an effort to avoid addressing that.

Yeah, I've been making the point for days and he's just now getting around to addressing it at all. How is it slavery to force children to improve themselves? You know, like parents do to their children? How is that slavery? He won't tell us. He can only focus on semantics. Which I should point is very rude and not at all civil.

 

[Dancing David]

So, do we have the list of businesses that want to to provide OJT?

 

[bruto]

Is there any substance to this argument other than a misapplication of the transitive property to definitions?

 

[RandFan]

Is there any substance to this argument other than a misapplication of the transitive property to definitions?

Semantics and a single point of comparison.

Compulsory= slavery (except when parents do it but not when they force children to go to state subsidized public education then it's slavery). It's hard to keep up with the special pleading.

Perhaps this will help. Compulsory = slavery except when it doesn't.

 

[RandFan]

Three million people were worked to death in the camps of the Kolyma River. They were treated like disposable tissue. They were slaves.

How many children work themselves to death going to state subsidized public school (what you call slavery)? How many children get something of value by going to state subsidized public school (what you call slavery)?

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.

They don't work to death and they get something very valuable for their efforts, an education, one in which private industry values. It's so important that parents will make their children go to school including home schooling and privately run schools. All require roughly the same work (study, write reports, take tests) yet in your mind it's only slavery if its a state school/public education.

How on earth can gaining enough information and thinking skills to be gainfully employed and capable of taking care of oneself be slavery by virtue of the govt mandating it?

Hint: It can't be.

 

[RandFan]

And the market says "We want educated people and we don't want to do the education ourselves".

There is nothing stopping private enterprise from offering free schooling. Wouldn't that be a great option for parents and businesses could educate in ways that best ensure reliable workers. There would need be minimum standards of course. But if private industry really didn't value state subsidized public schools (what Malcolm calls slavery) you would think they would have a solution, right?

 

[RandFan]

The argument that Zambrano makes relates directly to our topic. That Ant calls it "irrelevant" means s/he has failed to deal with it.Steel companies would like to have tax-subsidized pig iron delivered to the steel foundry. Plate glass manufacturers would like to have tax-subsidized supplies of quartz sand, lime, and energy delivered to the plant. Problem is, we can't all be subsidy recipients. State distribution of subsidies is a negative-sum game (reread that Zambrano quote).

All of the things you mentioned are things of value. Seems to be a concession by you that what you call slavery, state subsidized public education, actually has value.

• Businesses would like to have educated workers.
• Parent's would like their children educated so they, the children, can get good jobs and have a higher quality of life than one without an education.
• The state would like productive citizens who can be consumers and pay taxes.

Citizens win. Private enterprise wins. Society wins. Parents win.

I've yet to see a downside. Sure, public education can be improved but state sponsored education is very much a public good valued by parents, students employers and most if not all nations high in economic freedom, GDP and HDI.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

All of the things you mentioned are things of value. Seems to be a concession by you that what you call slavery, state subsidized public education, actually has value.

What I call "slavery" is compulsory attendance at State-operated schools.

I've yet to see a downside.

The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". Students, parents, teachers (or employers) and taxpayers are then bound by the State's definitions.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

All of the things you mentioned are things of value. Seems to be a concession by you that what you call slavery, state subsidized public education, actually has value.

• Businesses would like to have educated workers.
• Parent's would like their children educated so they, the children, can get good jobs and have a higher quality of life than one without an education.
• The state would like productive citizens who can be consumers and pay taxes.

Citizens win. Private enterprise wins. Society wins. Parents win.

There's a big difference between "__X__ is valuable" and "Societies benefit when their governments dominate the __X__ industry". Think, "collective farming".

 

[RandFan]

The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". Students, parents, teachers (or employers) and taxpayers are then bound by the State's definitions.

And the students get something of critical value.