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

[bruto]

Or to mock him/her.Dunno. That's why I asked. Either the evidence or the thing for which the proffered evidence is allegedly evidence.

It is probably a symptom of the slavery I endured as a child, but I once learned how to diagram a sentence. The "it" refers of course to the evidence. You continue to contend that empirical evidence does not exist. The subject of that evidence is an issue that cannot be addressed, except by the unutterably, obstinately stupid, if the very existence of the evidence is not acknowledged first.

 

[Belz...]

False. Some States require that homeschooling parents have teacher certification.

That's not banning.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That's not banning.

Try this, then: homeschooling parents must be over 10 feet tall. Is that a ban or not?

 

[A'isha]

Try this, then: homeschooling parents must be over 10 feet tall. Is that a ban or not?

It's possible to get a teaching certificate if you don't have one. It's not possible to grow to over ten feet tall if you're shorter than that.

Try again.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Edison, Fitzroy, etc.. They are not a statistically significant sample size. They prove that some people can succeed without education.

NOT(attendance at school = education). NOT(attendance at tax-subsidized schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel = public education).

... Had there been no state run compulsory education I would very likely never have gone to the University of Utah. Crack addicts, neglectful parents, parents who care more for themselves, you have never explained how the children of such parents would not fall through the cracks.
Until you address that question the idea of getting rid of state run compulsory schools is a non-starter.

"Getting rid of State-run schools" is not my recommendation, so that's a distraction. But let's consider the larger issue in abstract.
First, two analogies:
1. In the bad old days of the evil empire, Soviet planners often asked westerners how prices were set in a market economy. People accustomed to the idea of centralized planning had a hard time accepting that mutual exchange within the system of title and contract law could produce an orderly and benign result.
2. My favorite subject to teach is Alg. I. Students would often ask: "when will we ever use this?", with the implication that they did not expect ever to use it. I answered with an analogy: what if I taught PE instead of Math and we spent the semester working out with dumb bells and bar bells and you asked me "when will I ever need to lift a dumb bell or a barbell outside of a PE class or a gym?". Well, you might someday find an attractive job that requires strength. You might have to carry an injured friend to safety. You might have to lift a fallen branch off of a friend's pinned leg. I don't know. What if I taught swimming and you asked "when will I ever need to use this?" If you live in a dry desert you might never encounter a body of water large enough in which to swim. However, you might vacation with a friend and need to swim to shore when the cruise boat capsizes. You might prefer to help rather than watch helplessly when you see a child at the bottom of a swimming pool. You might hike into Kalalau and find that tasty dinner is swimming just yards away, and someone will lend you a mask, fins, and a spear.

In abstract: competition among providers improves goods and services and lowers per-unit costs. Raising the returns to school will increase the opportunity cost of indifference to neglectful parents. Without any threat from the state, this functions like a fine for educational neglect. Another analogy: cut a rubber band to form a elastic segment and glue one end to a ruler. Stretch the band along the ruler. The points closest to the glued end move least, but unless a point is glued in place, it moves in the direction of the stretch.

How will negligent parents respond? Go back to the first two analogies: who sets prices in a competitive market? When will students ever use Alg I? I don't know. Anymore than I know what the Representative to the Minnesota House of Representatives from Eagle Bend will have for lunch next week. That doesn't mean s/he will starve.

 

[RandFan]

NOT(attendance at school = education). NOT(attendance at tax-subsidized schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel = public education).

I've honestly no idea how this is responsive to what I said.

You provided anecdotes. Those anecdotes prove nothing other than some prodigies can be successful without education (regardless of how you define education).

"Getting rid of State-run schools" is not my recommendation, so that's a distraction. But let's consider the larger issue in abstract.

Hey, I tried to reach out to you and get you to have a discussion but you slapped that down. If you want me to consider the larger issue in abstract I suggest you back of the compulsory schooling = slavery meme. It's nonsense and no one is buying it for all of the reasons stated. I suggest you start a new thread and we can all start new. If you do that I promise to give your ideas a fair hearing and to be objective. The choice is yours. This thread is hopelessly poisoned by overblown rhetoric and ad hominem poisoning the well.

I don't hold any grudges. If you want to have a discussion about the merits vs problems of state run schools then try a little civility and meet me half way. Get off of the ham handed "cartel" nonsense. That's just paranoid conspiratorial rhetoric. No one buys that either. I'm not trying to insult. My response would be no different to a 9/11 truther or an ID proponent. It's just rhetoric.

How will negligent parents respond? Go back to the first two analogies: who sets prices in a competitive market? When will students ever use Alg I? I don't know. Anymore than I know what the Representative to the Minnesota House of Representatives from Eagle Bend will have for lunch next week. That doesn't mean s/he will starve.

It means I would not have gotten an education. Period. And many children of negligent parents would not get an education.

That doesn't mean s/he will starve.

Really? The best the children of negligent parents can hope for is that they won't starve? If you think that is a compelling answer then I've got news for you. It's not at all. My life has not been perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I've had some difficult times of late. But my life was no where near as bad as my parents who struggled their entire lives. They never had a new car. They never had anything new except for a microwave once and couple of color tv's.

I had a great run from my 20's through to my mid 40's. Until then I regularly purchased new cars and was able to buy a nice home. I had things my parents never could. I was able to regularly travel by plane and rent cars while I was on vacation. I credit my state run compulsory education. I never could have gotten high scores on my ACTs (equivalent of SATs). I would have never been a computer programmer and insurance auditor. No chance in hell. But I wouldn't have starved according to you. Please forgive me if I find that the worst consolation I ever heard of. I'm really surprised that you thought that was a compelling answer to my question.

Hey, at least you finally answered it. The answer went over like a lead balloon but I think it is an honest answer. You don't care if poor people suffer without state run compulsory education.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I've honestly no idea how this is responsive to what I said.

You provided anecdotes. Those anecdotes prove nothing other than some prodigies can be successful without education (regardless of how you define education).

Randfan equates "school attendance" and "education". I do not.

Hey, I tried to reach out to you and get you to have a discussion but you slapped that down.

Really? Where?

If you want me to consider the larger issue in abstract I suggest you back of the compulsory schooling = slavery meme.

Not here. I answered your question "Crack addicts, neglectful parents, parents who care more for themselves, you have never explained how the children of such parents would not fall through the cracks.
Until you address that question the idea of getting rid of state run compulsory schools is a non-starter."

...
I don't hold any grudges. If you want to have a discussion about the merits vs problems of state run schools then try a little civility and meet me half way. Get off of the ham handed "cartel" nonsense. That's just paranoid conspiratorial rhetoric.

Let's see..."ham handed", "nonsense", "paranoid conspiratorial rhetoric"...
"Try civility", huh?

It means I would not have gotten an education. Period. And many children of negligent parents would not get an education.

Many children currently do not get an education, despite spending 12 years in the cartel's wretched schools.

Really? The best the children of negligent parents can hope for is that they won't starve?

It's an analogy. I cannot tell you how parents will deal with a competitive market in education services any more than I can tell you what some stranger on the other side of the planet will have for lunch next week Wednesday.

Hey, at least you finally answered it. The answer went over like a lead balloon but I think it is an honest answer. You don't care if poor people suffer without state run compulsory education.

Randfan pretends to read minds. It's people who support the wasteful, abusive, and incompetent cartel who don't care whether poor kids don't get a decent education. Competitive markets improve services and reduce costs. Across industries, monopolies deliver wretched goods and services at high per-unit cost and subsidized goods are over-consumed.

 

[RandFan]

¹Randfan equates "school attendance" and "education". I do not.

²Really? Where?

³I answered your question "Crack addicts, neglectful parents, parents who care more for themselves, you have never explained how the children of such parents would not fall through the cracks.

Many children currently do not get an education, despite spending 12 years in the cartel's wretched schools.

⁵It's an analogy. I cannot tell you how parents will deal with a competitive market in education services...

⁶It's people who support the wasteful, abusive, and incompetent cartel who don't care whether poor kids don't get a decent education. Competitive markets improve services and reduce costs. Across industries, monopolies deliver wretched goods and services at high per-unit cost and subsidized goods are over-consumed.

1. I attended state run school. I got a primary education (which private business values regardless if it is parochial, home schooled or state run compulsory schools).
2. Here, post #688. Border Reiver commented and agreed that it would be a better use of time in post #691. And in post #694 you responded to Border and rudely called me a shill. Hardly civil.
3. Yes, you finally answered my question by giving me a false consolation and telling me at least I wouldn't starve. State run education not only prevented me from starving but allowed me to go to a university and to get a good career for 27 years.
4. I got an education and went on to a university. Something I and many poor people could never get. That's a fact. I got an education from state run schools. Colleges accept state run schooling and they accepted me on the strength of my ACT's and AP courses. They would have never accepted me if there were no state run education. I could not have possibly have taken AP course and passed my ACT's.
5. If parents don't have money to send 5 kids to school then keep them home and put them to work.
6. I support it and I damn well care. I made my kids go to state run schools because I wanted them to have a shot like I did. One graduated from a university and is a programmer like me. The other two are in college. They are getting a higher education. They didn't want to simply "not starve".

You've never acknowledged the fact that state run compulsory school gave me, a guy who would have otherwise been illiterate and able to only work menial jobs (we need ditch diggers so let the poor people do that, they won't starve). I'll bet that really burns you that a state run education empowered me to be better off than my parents. I'll bet it really burns you that I was able to go to a university. I'm not the only one BTW. I grew up with lots of poor kids and many of them went on to get degrees. One of my best friends, after graduating with a business degree opened a cabinet shop in SLC. He retired and turned the business over to his sons. I know kids who went on to be attys, physicians, etc. My best man at my wedding is an optometrist with a very successful business in Idaho. These are anecdotes but they falsify your claims.

Your claims that poor people cannot get an education in state run compulsory school is demonstrably false. Your consolation that we wouldn't starve is fatuous at best.

 

[Belz...]

Try this, then: homeschooling parents must be over 10 feet tall. Is that a ban or not?

Given that this had no bearing on reality, I see no reason to humour you on this.

Do you agree that the current laws do not ban homeschooling ?

 

[Border Reiver]

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

Which states?

How is regulating an activity with clear requirements banning it?

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.

So, because one supplier purchases gets its employees from a particular source that makes it a monoploy?

Sorry, monopolies do not permit competition - the existence of private schools, homeschooling, etc. would seem to indicate that there is competition.

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?

West's work has been criticized over the years, not least for handwaving the rise in literacy and numeracy in England during the late 19th Century after the 1870 reforms, which contradicts his assertion that the numbers of educated persons remained constant.

If you want steak, you'll buy the steak anyway.

 

[Belz...]

How is regulating an activity with clear requirements banning it?

Well you need the Kirkpatrick Encyclopedia of Redefined English (KERE), available on Amazon, maybe.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

1. 
   ...
2. Here, post #688. Border Reiver commented and agreed that it would be a better use of time in post #691. And in post #694 you responded to Border and rudely called me a shill. Hardly civil.¹
3. Yes, you finally answered my question by giving me a false consolation and telling me at least I wouldn't starve. State run education not only prevented me from starving but allowed me to go to a university and to get a good career for 27 years.²
4. I got an education and went on to a university. Something I and many poor people could never get. That's a fact.³ I got an education from state run schools. Colleges accept state run schooling and they accepted me on the strength of my ACT's and AP courses. They would have never accepted me if there were no state run education. I could not have possibly have taken AP course and passed my ACT's.
5. If parents don't have money to send 5 kids to school then keep them home and put them to work.⁴...

You've never acknowledged the fact⁵ that state run compulsory school gave me, a guy who would have otherwise been illiterate and able to only work menial jobs (we need ditch diggers so let the poor people do that, they won't starve). I'll bet that really burns you that a state run education empowered me to be better off than my parents. I'll bet it really burns you that I was able to go to a university.⁶ I'm not the only one BTW. I grew up with lots of poor kids and many of them went on to get degrees. One of my best friends, after graduating with a business degree opened a cabinet shop in SLC. He retired and turned the business over to his sons. I know kids who went on to be attys, physicians, etc. My best man at my wedding is an optometrist with a very successful business in Idaho. These are anecdotes but they falsify your claims.

Your claims that poor people cannot get an education in state run compulsory school is demonstrably false.⁶ Your consolation that we wouldn't starve is fatuous at best.⁷

1. I don't see how that's slapping down the attempt to have the discussion.
2. No. I analogized State-run schooling and collective farming. Is this really so hard to grasp? This is hard for devout socialists to understand, even with mountains of evidence, but many industries do not exhibit the economies of scale that make them likely candidates for nationalization. To oppose collectivized agriculture is NOT to endorse starvation. To oppose the State-monopoly school system is NOT to endorse ignorance.
3. I don't accept this as "fact". School can be expensive. Education is potentially cheap.
4. (a) See #3.
(b) Why does not on-the-job training qualify as "education"?
(c) Does Randfan here mix the "poor" and "negligent" objections together?
5. I don't accept as "fact" the implication that a State role in the education industry enhances either overall system performance or the education services available to poor families.
6. That many poor children do not get a decent education from the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools is demonstrably true.
7. Readers may assess. I analogized collective farming and State-run schools and markets in food to markets in education services. See "analogy".

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Sorry, monopolies do not permit competition - the existence of private schools, homeschooling, etc. would seem to indicate that there is competition.

The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel stridently lobbies against vouchers, subsidized homeschooling, and charter schools. The cartel insists on an exclusive (monopoly) position in delivery of education services to the State. From the taxpayers' POV, the cartel has a monopoly.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Given that this had no bearing on reality, I see no reason to humour you on this.

Do you agree that the current laws do not ban homeschooling ?

Current laws don't ban murder, either, they just make it expensive. Laws put homeschooling off limits to many people. Effectively, a ban.

 

[A'isha]

3. I don't accept this as "fact". School can be expensive. Education is potentially cheap.

Not in the 21st Century, it's not.

(b) Why does not on-the-job training qualify as "education"?

Because it doesn't end up with the person being educated, merely trained to do one specific job. And why do seem to think it's an either-or? I've both received an education and been given on-the-job training at every job I've ever had.

6. That many poor children do not get a decent education from the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools is demonstrably true.

That many others do is also demonstrably true.

 

[A'isha]

Current laws don't ban murder, either, they just make it expensive. Laws put homeschooling off limits to many people. Effectively, a ban.

Uh, no, current laws explicitly ban murder, making it punishable by imprisonment or death. There is nothing even remotely like that for homeschooling.

"Standards" are not a ban.

 

[Border Reiver]

The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel stridently lobbies against vouchers, subsidized homeschooling, and charter schools. The cartel insists on an exclusive (monopoly) position in delivery of education services to the State. From the taxpayers' POV, the cartel has a monopoly.

And this "Cartel" is so effective that vouchers, homeschooling and charter schools still exist and deliver education to people.

It's almost like education ISN'T a monopoly.

 

[Belz...]

Current laws don't ban murder, either, they just make it expensive. Laws put homeschooling off limits to many people. Effectively, a ban.

Actually, laws DO ban murders: it is forbidden, under penalty. They do not ban homeschooling, because you can actually do it.

Your posts make less and less sense.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And this "Cartel" is so effective that vouchers, homeschooling and charter schools still exist and deliver education to people.

It's almost like education ISN'T a monopoly.

In some jurisdictions, yes, the monopoly is cracking.

 

[Border Reiver]

In some jurisdictions, yes, the monopoly is cracking.

It's not cracking if it never existed - again, please show the jurisdictions where the public option is legally the only option available. In those areas you would have a monopoly by the state, and only there.