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

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Why suppose that assumption of responsibility for that judgment by agents of the largest extortion racket in your locality (the State) enhances the well-being of anyone but agents of the largest extortion racket in your locality?

...because it does? As we've been trying to tell you, compulsory mass education benefits children and it benefits employees.

We disagree. State (government, generally) operation or subsidization of school or education requires a definition of "school" or "education". The people who compose the definition will define these terms to suit themselves.

If parents want to educate their kids someplace different, they're perfectly free to do that. On their own dime.

Unless government (organized violence) is a good in itself, why this restriction?

Because we've seen what the alternative is, and it's kinda bad for everyone except an elite, moneyed few.

Flat false. Many governments subsidize options outside of the schools operated by government employees: Belgium, some Canadian provinces, Chile, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden, to name a few.

 

[A'isha]

We disagree. State (government, generally) operation or subsidization of school or education requires a definition of "school" or "education". The people who compose the definition will define these terms to suit themselves.

Yes, because when they don't, you end up with ******** like this.

Flat false. Many governments subsidize options outside of the schools operated by government employees: Belgium, some Canadian provinces, Chile, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden, to name a few.

All of which also have compulsory school attendance, national curriculum standards, and (with the exception of Sweden) nationally-standardized examination systems.

But in any case, I wasn't referring to government subsidization of private schools, but to your "Isaac Newton and Benjamin Franklin didn't need to go to compulsory public schools, therefore no one needs to go to compulsory public schools and they should be abolished" argument.

 

[bruto]

Nice catch. Thanks. I ran into a real paid shill once (he replied from the office of the organization with which he claimed to have no connection to an email from me to that organization). Hookers use personals. Is it so hard to imagine that the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel has shills around here?

Anything can be imagined. You seem, however, to be stating this as fact, which generally requires a little more than the ability to imagine it.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Anything can be imagined. You seem, however, to be stating this as fact, which generally requires a little more than the ability to imagine it.

It's the only possible explanation.

 

[Belz...]

It's the only possible explanation.

Repeating it doesn't make it true, and your inability to imagine an alternative is not evidence that there isn't one.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Repeating it doesn't make it true, and your inability to imagine an alternative is not evidence that there isn't one.

Thank you. We agree completely. I'm going to run this into the ground.

 

[Belz...]

 

[bruto]

It's the only possible explanation.

Your response here utterly baffles me. It would appear that you are citing Cleon here, and your contention that his "only possible" opinion was a mistake.

So are you saying that because Cleon made a mistake you are entitled to an equal one?

Are you saying Cleon did not make a mistake and therefore all statements that resemble his are correct as well?

Setting aside for the moment the somewhat off-topic question of how many decades of empirical evidence are required before you will acknowledge its existence, I truly am mystified by your belief that the reference chosen does anything at all to reinforce your viewpoint. The word "bizarre" comes to mind here.

 

[TjW]

"Totally copied REO Speedwagon" springs to mind.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Your response here utterly baffles me. It would appear that you are citing Cleon here, and your contention that his "only possible" opinion was a mistake.¹
So are you saying that because Cleon made a mistake you are entitled to an equal one?²
Are you saying Cleon did not make a mistake and therefore all statements that resemble his are correct as well?

Setting aside for the moment the somewhat off-topic question of how many decades of empirical evidence are required before you will acknowledge its³ existence, I truly am mystified by your belief that the reference chosen does anything at all to reinforce your viewpoint. The word "bizarre" comes to mind here.

1. Cleon attributes opposition to adoption by homosexuals to antipathy toward homosexuals. That's pure prejudice on his part. That's no "mistake"; Cleon is a bigot.
2. I'm granting to myself the same freedom that the moderator Cleon gives himself. Maybe Ant isn't a paid shill for the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel. Where's the evidence? Ant's relentless defense of the US State-monopoly school system leaves no other possible explanation.
3. To what does "it" refer?

 

[Border Reiver]

Malcolm, how can there be a "monopoly" on education in the US where there are:

A. Public funded schools;
B. private schools; and
C. Home schools.

Unless you are using a definition of monopoly of your own creation, the existence of options precludes a monopoly.

 

[Belz...]

1. Cleon attributes opposition to adoption by homosexuals to antipathy toward homosexuals. That's pure prejudice on his part. That's no "mistake"; Cleon is a bigot.

Bigoted towards what ? Do you even know what the word means ?

Maybe Ant isn't a paid shill for the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel. Where's the evidence?

I see you still haven't gotten the hang of that one.

 

[Belz...]

Unless you are using a definition of monopoly of your own creation, the existence of options precludes a monopoly.

He seems to be using definitions of his own creation for pretty much every word in the book.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

duplicate

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm, how can there be a "monopoly" on education in the US where there are:

A. Public funded schools;
B. private schools; and
C. Home schools.

Unless you are using a definition of monopoly of your own creation, the existence of options precludes a monopoly.

Policies in many US States give the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy. As the sole provider of education services to the government, the cartel's schools qualify as a monopoly. Milton Friedman called the system a monopoly. Furthermore, restrictions on homeschooling, enforcement of accreditation requirements on non-State providers, and the crowding-out effect on independent options that the restriction of subsidization to the cartel's schools has on the range of options, the result in many locales is a real monopoly.

 

[Border Reiver]

Policies in many US States give the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy. As the sole provider of education services to the government, the cartel's schools qualify as a monopoly.

There are no jurisdictions that ban any of the other options.

You must share your definition of "monopoly". Monopoly is generally defined as the exclusive control of a commodity or service. Since none of the alternates to public education are banned and exist throughout the US, I believe that no such monopoly on education exists.

Milton Friedman called the system a monopoly.

So, he can make a mistake as often as anyone else.

Furthermore, restrictions on homeschooling,

What restrictions?

enforcement of accreditation requirements on non-State providers,

Oddly the same requirements they enforce for the "cartel" you so deride.

and the crowding-out effect on independent options that the restriction of subsidization to the cartel's schools has on the range of options, the result in many locales is a real monopoly.

Anything to back this assertion up?

 

[A'isha]

Milton Friedman called the system a monopoly.

So?

Furthermore, restrictions on homeschooling, enforcement of accreditation requirements on non-State providers,

And this is a good thing! This is what ensures that children educated via these methods actually do get an education, instead of being taught that Jesus rode dinosaurs and that Algebra is a tool of the Devil.

 

[bruto]

1. Cleon attributes opposition to adoption by homosexuals to antipathy toward homosexuals. That's pure prejudice on his part. That's no "mistake"; Cleon is a bigot.
2. I'm granting to myself the same freedom that the moderator Cleon gives himself. Maybe Ant isn't a paid shill for the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel. Where's the evidence? Ant's relentless defense of the US State-monopoly school system leaves no other possible explanation.
3. To what does "it" refer?

2: In other words, if you are right about Cleon's opinion, you are acknowledging that Cleon's bigotry gives you license to be equally wrong.

3: Maybe you should read the sentence again. I ask how long empirical evidence should exist before you acknowledge it. Assuming, just for the hell of it, that I am not grammatically illiterate, what do you think the "it" refers to?

I stand by my opinion that your citation does you no credit.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

2: In other words, if you are right about Cleon's opinion, you are acknowledging that Cleon's bigotry gives you license to be equally wrong.

Or to mock him/her.

3: Maybe you should read the sentence again. I ask how long empirical evidence should exist before you acknowledge it. Assuming, just for the hell of it, that I am not grammatically illiterate, what do you think the "it" refers to?

Dunno. That's why I asked. Either the evidence or the thing for which the proffered evidence is allegedly evidence.[/QUOTE]

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

There are no jurisdictions that ban any of the other options.

False. Some States require that homeschooling parents have teacher certification. This puts homeschooling off limits to many families.

You must share your definition of "monopoly". Monopoly is generally defined as the exclusive control of a commodity or service. Since none of the alternates to public education are banned and exist throughout the US, I believe that no such monopoly on education exists.

From the Economist site.

Monopoly

When the production of a good or service with no close substitutes is carried out by a single firm with the MARKET POWER to decide the PRICE of its OUTPUT.

The State's commitment to purchase education services exclusively from the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel gives the cartel a monopoly. See also the definition of "market power" and then consider the political influence of the cartel's lobbying and campaign support.

Anything to back this assertion up?

Yes. E.G. West studied the response of the market in education services to subsidization of one provider. In general, it can be hard to sell steak if the butcher down the block is giving away "free" hamburger. Do you doubt it?