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

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The earliest records that we have of slavery date back to Mesopotamia and the earliest legal codes.

In addition many illiterate societies practised slavery ...

Reason right there to suppose that slavery pre-dated written legal codes. Thanks for your support.

...The institution of slavery requires that people have a societal framework for recognizing property, and that is about as basic as we get in a legal system.

Not in ordinary usage. Here, for example.

 

[jimbob]

Malcolm,

The vast majority of parents have their children's welfare as their main concern. However a significant minority don't.

The citizens of a democratic state can decide that a system is needed to protect vulnerable children. There doesn't need to be any profit motive involved in this.

In poor families, children could even think that they should work to help support their family financially, even though that might be against their own interests. We tried child labour in the 19th century and it wasn't good. Compulsory education arose in part to protect children from this.

 

[RandFan]

Which books children read and whether or not the child will read the book are NOT invariant under differences in the legal environment in which education institutions operate.Some children are compensated.

This answer does not suddenly make the act of reading a math book slavery. Your answer is just special pleading.

Some are abused and/or neglected in the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools.

Many are abused and/or neglected in parochial schools.

Policies which give to individual parents the power to determine for their own children the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction put control in the hands of people who are most reliably concerned for children's well-being and who have closest knowledge of each individual child's interests and aptitudes.

Had I grown up in that world I would not have gotten an education. In the past poor parents were content to send their children to work. How reliably concerned is that?

The results of parent reliably concerned for their children. BTW: Do you know that some parents sell their children into slavery? How ironic is that?

 

[RandFan]

The vast majority of parents have their children's welfare as their main concern. However a significant minority don't.

The citizens of a democratic state can decide that a system is needed to protect vulnerable children. There doesn't need to be any profit motive involved in this.

In poor families, children could even think that they should work to help support their family financially, even though that might be against their own interests. We tried child labour in the 19th century and it wasn't good. Compulsory education arose in part to protect children from this.

Malcolm would be fine if I had been denied an education. He would rather that I be poor and uneducated than to have the opportunity to better my life.

I grew up on a farm and my father often kept me home from to work on the farm. That's what Malcolm wants for poor people who cannot afford school and would benefit from putting their children to work instead.

Thankfully not many people buy into this state run school = slavery definition. Thank goodness Walter Williams is ignored by most thinking people. And when I say most people I mean most people in modern liberal democracies. The one's highest in economic freedom and Human Development Index. The nations with the best outcomes have compulsory education because it is good for society.

 

[bruto]

Of course, those making arguments in this thread are already schooled and hardly about to undo that advantage, which rather skews the argument. There is a bit of historical evidence to suggest that denying public education to the majority is one way for an educated minority to promulgate bad ideas.

 

[RandFan]

Christian School Child Abuse - My Personal Experience

When I was 8, I met one of the most sadistic human beings I have ever had the misfortune to encounter, the principle/preacher of my A.C.E. Christian school. This type of character is very typical in the preachers I have gotten to know in my life.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm,

The vast majority of parents have their children's welfare as their main concern. However a significant minority don't.¹
The citizens of a democratic state can decide that a system is needed to protect vulnerable children.² There doesn't need to be any profit motive involved in this.³
In poor families, children could even think that they should work to help support their family financially, even though that might be against their own interests.⁴ We tried child labour in the 19th century and it wasn't good.⁵ Compulsory education arose in part to protect children from this.⁶

1. Same for teachers and other system insiders. The issue boils down to who besides parents shall determine how people shall spend the time between birth and age 18. This is what the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's shills defend. In Hawaii, juvenile arrests FALL when school is NOT in session. Juvenile hospitalizations for human-induced trauma FALL when school is NOT in session.
2. That was not how compulsory schooling policies entered the statute books. Compulsory schooling originated in theocratic indoctrination and anti-Catholic bigotry.
3. Great! Try suggest that teachers in government schools work donate their time and that the NEA, AFT, and AFSCME donate contract negotiation and enforcement services.
4. Benjamin Franklin attended school for two years and apprenticed. Richard Arkwright was homeschooled. Thomas Edison was homeschooled and began work at 14. Cyrus McCormick was homeschooled. David Farragut joined the navy at 9, went to sea at 11, and commanded his first ship at 15. Please read Ted Kolderie's 2001-Jan. Minnesota Journal article on adolescence.
5. Compared to what? Why does on-the-job training not qualify as "education"?
6. The winners write (and teach) History. One more reason to oppose policies that restrict parents' education options.

 

[RandFan]

1. Same for teachers and other system insiders. The issue boils down to who besides parents shall determine how people shall spend the time between birth and age 18.

• Many parents abuse and neglect their children.
• Many parents do not insure that their children are educated.
• Poor people are less likely to ensure that there children are educated.
• Poor people in the past have sold their children into slavery and sent them to work.

Thank goodness the state does ensure that children are educated and not exploited by their parents. Malcolm would be fine with parents exploiting their children.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(jimbob): "The vast majority of parents have their children's welfare as their main concern. However a significant minority don't."
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "Same for teachers and other system insiders. The issue boils down to who besides parents shall determine how people shall spend the time between birth and age 18."

Many parents abuse and neglect their children.
Many parents do not insure that their children are educated.
Poor people are less likely to ensure that there children are educated.
Poor people in the past have sold their children into slavery and sent them to work.

Thank goodness the state does ensure that children are educated and not exploited by their parents. Malcolm would be fine with parents exploiting their children.

Many parents teachers abuse and neglect their children students.
Many parents teachers do not insure that their children students are educated.
Government schools in heavily minority or low income districts Poor people are less likely to ensure that there their children students are educated.
Governments Poor people in the past have sold their children into slavery enslaved their subjects and sent them to work.

Surveys find that support for vouchers decreases as income increases. Surveys find greater support for vouchers among minority parents than among white parents. Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents. Poor parents want OUT of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's wretched schools. Randfan continues to defend the incompetent, abusive, over-priced NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... There is a bit of historical evidence to suggest that denying public education to the majority is one way for an educated minority to promulgate bad ideas.

Please elaborate.

The first compulsory attendance policy became law in Reformation Germany at the instigation of Lutheran clergy, who sought to indoctrinate children into the new religion. The first compulsory attendance laws in the colonies of British North America entered the statute books of the Congregationalist theocracy of Massachusetts Bay. The explicit rationale was that parents neglected the religious instruction of their children. Search " 'That Old Deluder, Satan' Act".

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Malcom, I would seriously suggest you look into the conditions of the child labourers in the 19th century.
For every success story you cite there are literally hunderds of thousands of children who did NOT get any chance in life because education was withheld from them.
The UK cotton mills are a good example.
They'd approach a poor family that had just lost its income due to the cotton mill undercutting their homespun industry. They'd pay that family a sum of money to 'apprentice' one of their children. The families had no real choice as they often could not feed their children.
The children then had to sign a contract (before they could read/write) that they would work in the mill from the age 4/5 to 18 or so. They'd be payed a wage, based on their work during a day, but also had to pay for room, board and education. Since their education mainly consisted of learing the bible they also could not calculate, hence they did not see that their income did not exceed the costs. Combined with this was the fact that both being sick and a large number of other 'transgressions' carried fines.
By the time their contract expired they most often had a debt to the company they worked in, meaning they had to sign another contract (which they still could not comprehend) to keep working in a different part of the factory for a few years or face debtors prison.
By the time they were discharged they still had no money, no real education and the cycle begins anew.

THAT is why compulsory education was instituted. Not because an extremely small amount managed to escape this cycle, but because the vast majority did not. And fortunately there were people with a conscience that decided that it would be better if everyone in their countries were educated.

And it turned out that an educated workforce actually makes the country better off, especially as during school education children get to see everything, learn what they are good at and then make an informed decision on what they'd actually like to be doing rather than just be apprenticed at some random job. Thus often showing innovation and initiative based on their education and improving rather than maintaining the company they work for.

 

[bruto]

Please elaborate.

The first compulsory attendance policy became law in Reformation Germany at the instigation of Lutheran clergy, who sought to indoctrinate children into the new religion. The first compulsory attendance laws in the colonies of British North America entered the statute books of the Congregationalist theocracy of Massachusetts Bay. The explicit rationale was that parents neglected the religious instruction of their children. Search " 'That Old Deluder, Satan' Act".

I seem to recall that the Lutherans were reacting to something or other.

 

[RandFan]

Government schools in heavily minority or low income districts Poor people are less likely to ensure that there their children students are educated.

Children in poor areas are far more likely to be educated with state run schools than if there if there were no state run schools. This is an empirical fact. Nations highest in literacy rates are nations with compulsory education.

Even if I granted you your premise, I don't, it still wouldn't make education slavery. Children would still have the opportunity to gain something very valuable.

And of course you ignore the fact that children are often abused in parochial schools. You turn a blind eye to that because it doesn't fit your bias. I've conceded that public schools can be problematic. But there is PTA and local public school boards. It's not as if government shuts out the parents involvement. Also parents frequently sue public schools in order to correct wrongs. If the government were intent on simply providing employment to unions they would do away with the ability to sue.

 

[A'isha]

So compulsory education in 21st Century America is bad because in Reformation-era Germany the Lutherans compelled children to undergo religious indoctrination?

How is that even an argument?

 

[TjW]

You can't very well have an argument for the proposition that compulsory schooling is slavery.
The best you can do is have responses for the people who correctly answer "No."

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Children in poor areas are far more likely to be educated with state run schools than if there if there were no state run schools. This is an empirical fact.¹ Nations highest in literacy rates are nations with compulsory education.²

1. Across the US and internationally, private and parochial schools outperform government-operated schools.
2. Nations highest in literacy, per capita GDP, and Human Development Index all have atmospheres of approximately 79% N2, 19 % O2, 1% argon. So, of course, do nations lowest in literacy, per capita GDP, and HDI. These statistics say nothing useful.

And of course you ignore^* the fact that children are often abused in parochial schools. You turn a blind eye^* to that because it doesn't fit your bias.^* I've conceded that public schools can be problematic. But there is PTA and local public school boards. It's not as if government shuts out the parents involvement. Also parents frequently sue public schools in order to correct wrongs. If the government were intent on simply providing employment to unions they would do away with the ability to sue.

* How 'bout conducting the discussion w/o the personalization?
The pre-college education industry, public or private, attracts pedophiles. Elections, Board meetings, lawsuits and consumer choice are feedback mechanisms. Which work best for which industries in an empirical question.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So compulsory education in 21st Century America is bad because in Reformation-era Germany the Lutherans compelled children to undergo religious indoctrination?

How is that even an argument?

How's that for a wild misrepresentation? I responded to a mistaken account of the historical origins of compulsory schooling.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcom, I would seriously suggest you look into the conditions of the child labourers in the 19th century.

I have. Please read Capitalism and the Historians, Joel Spring, The American School.
Also: ...
"Children's plight not Dickensian"
The Australian
September 08, 2007

LONDON: The plight of child labourers in Victorian Britain is not usually considered to have been a happy one. Writers such as Charles Dickens painted a grim picture of the hardships suffered by young people in the mills, factories and workhouses of the Industrial Revolution. But an official report into the treatment of working children in the 1840s, made available online yesterday for the first time, suggests the situation was not so bad after all. The frank accounts emerged in interviews with dozens of youngsters conducted for the Children's Employment Commission. The commission was set up by Lord Ashley in 1840 to support his campaign for reducing the working hours of women and children.
Surprisingly, a number of the children interviewed did not complain about their lot -- even though they were questioned away from their workplace and the scrutinising eyes of their employers.
Sub-commissioner Frederick Roper noted in his 1841 investigation of pre-independence Dublin's pin-making establishments: "Notwithstanding their evident poverty ... there is in their countenances an appearance of good health and much cheerfulness."
A report on workers at a factory in Belfast found a 14-year-old boy who earned four shillings a week "would rather be doing something better ... but does not dislike his current employment".
The report concluded: "I find all in this factory able to read, and nearly all to write. They are orderly, appear to be well-behaved, and to be very contented."

 

[RandFan]

1. Across the US and internationally, private and parochial schools outperform government-operated schools.
2. Nations highest in literacy, per capita GDP, and Human Development Index all have atmospheres of approximately 79% N2, 19 % O2, 1% argon. So, of course, do nations lowest in literacy, per capita GDP, and HDI. These statistics say nothing useful.* How 'bout conducting the discussion w/o the personalization?
³The pre-college education industry, public or private, attracts pedophiles. ⁴Elections, Board meetings, lawsuits and consumer choice are feedback mechanisms. Which work best for which industries in an empirical question.

1. So you claim. ANTPogo has more than adequately rebutted your claim. But even if I granted you the premise it would not answer the questions you keep ignoring, how would society ensure that poor people are educated in spite of their parents wishes to put them to work? You don't explain how the children of neglectful and apathetic parents would be educated.
2. You ignore the fact that high literacy rates are negatively correlated with nations that don't have compulsory education. Your cherry picking of data is naked.
3. Parochial schools attracts pedophiles.
4. Public schools have the very same feedback mechanisms. Courts often dictate to schools how they must educate.

Catholic sex abuse cases in the United States

To accomplish this, the U.S. bishops pledged to establish uniform procedures for handling sex-abuse allegations against lay teachers in Catholic schools,

 

[RandFan]

I have. Please read Capitalism and the Historians, Joel Spring, The American School.
Also: ...
"Children's plight not Dickensian"
The Australian
September 08, 2007

The irony is so rich.

Was Slavery a Good Thing? Examining Doug Wilson

“The incidence of abuse, rape, broken homes and murder are 100 times greater, today, in the housing projects than they ever were on the slave plantations in the Old South,” he wrote. “The truth is that nowhere on the face of the earth, in all of time, were servants better treated or better loved than they were in the Old South by white, black, Hispanic and Indian slave owners.”

If you can quote it then it must be true. Right Malcolm?