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

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The military, the police, firefighters, road construction and maintenance, prisons and jails, the judiciary, and basic utilities.

Oh, and education.

How 'bout part two:
"2. Now consider the further question: What criteria determine an industry's categorical assignment or position on the continuum?"

 

[Belz...]

How 'bout part two:

No, how about you acknowledge that society benefits from the state running these things ?

 

[RandFan]

¹Try civility.

²...Randfan displays...

³A. This has next to nothing to do with my observation that Randfan displays the typically socialist unfamiliarity with the basic arguments for a legal regime of markets and freedom of contract. B. Socialism is a matter of degree.

⁴No. Modern soft-socialist governments coast on the wealth amassed by more market-directed legal environments.We agree here.

⁵Please read (and try to actually comprehend, for once) that Eduardo Zambrano quote.

1. Great idea. You should.
2. Try civility.
3. A.) I am carrying your logic to it's conclusion. B.) Denmark, by your definition, is the highest in socialism but ranks in the top 10 in Economic Freedom.
4. Yet you cannot demonstrate a correlation between increased socialism (your definition) and decreased wealth or decreased economic freedom. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. By your logic as socialism rises the wealth and well being of a nation should fall. But you cannot demonstrate that. I can demonstrate that as socialism (your definition) rises the wealth and well being of a nation rises. You keep claiming that I'm simply pointing out a correlation. Do you have data that correlates to your thesis? Do you have a scientific model to explain your thesis? Is that model demonstrated by field research and does it make predictions that we can verify? I have provided a scientific model that explains and predicts the data.
5. You have dishonestly snipped my comment to quote me out of context. Your ellipse is the critical context. BY YOUR LOGIC. I'm not making that claim. I'm making the claim that the conclusion follows from your logic.
6. Explain how it addresses the point. Arguing via link is poor form. Demonstrate that you even understand Eduardo Zambrano.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

No, how about you acknowledge that society benefits from the state running these things ?

I grant without any reservation some amount of police services (if they do their jobs), some amount of national defense (if they do their jobs), some amount of judicial services. I don't mind promulgation of standardized weights and measures (aids in adjudication of disputes) and rules of the road. Also, some amount of road construction and maintenance. I'd add to the list some amount of environmental protection. I'm on the fence about zoning. We disagree about education services.

 

[Mister Earl]

Malcom. Given this thread is 22 pages deep, does the fact that you've swayed nobody with your argument have any standing with you at all? Does this tell you anything?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcom. Given this thread is 22 pages deep, does the fact that you've swayed nobody with your argument have any standing with you at all? Does this tell you anything?

a) How do you know that I've "swayed nobody"? I expect some people drop in and attend for a while and leave.
b) Even if no one ever smacks his forehead and says to himself: "I never realized that", some of the argument might abide in the recesses of memory and slowly work on someone's outlook.
c) Besides, the style in which defenders of the cartel conduct the discussion discredits their voice, seems to me.

 

[RandFan]

b) Even if no one ever smacks his forehead and says to himself: "I never realized that", some of the argument might abide in the recesses of memory and slowly work on someone's outlook.
c) Besides, the style in which defenders of the cartel conduct the discussion discredits their voice, seems to me.

b.) Someday I might smack your forehead. It wouldn't be the first time. I came here a staunch conservative. Then, maybe, just maybe, you might be the one smacking his forehead.

C.) This is the common tactic of the CTer. Ad hominem positioning the well Accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a shill. I'm in favor of increased options for parents. Your opponents are not taking a hard line. You are. You declare that nearly every modern modern liberal democracy is either apathetic to the plight of children or that they are actually malign in their intent. Never mind that these nations spend enormous sums of money protect their greatest asset (their children) from disease.

The thesis of your opponents is that we can do better and we are open to solutions. We have invited to you to have a civil discourse about eduction without all of the ham handed rhetoric about conspiracy theory, slavery and union thugs.

I think there is a stark difference between you and your opponents and it's not the opponents who are resistant to a civil discussion about the merits of various solutions. However, accusing you opponents as mere shills for the unions and, claiming that state run education is slavery and, politicians in every modern liberal democracy have malicious intent for their children is a non-starter.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... This is the common tactic of the CTer. Ad hominem positioning the well ...

Ummmm....

...We have invited to you to have a civil discourse about eduction without all of the ham handed rhetoric about conspiracy theory, ...

Good idea.

 

[RandFan]

Ummmm....Good idea.

Ummmmm....

When you argue modern liberal democracies have state run compulsory schools to benefit educators then you are de facto engaging in conspiracy theory. Stating the obvious isn't ad hominem poisoning of the well. It doesn't require mind reading or presumption of intent. It's your argument that is being attacked, not you.

The notion that nearly every single nation highest in economic freedom compels their children to go to school to benefit educators and unions requires one to believe in conspiracy. It would only work if the politicians were colluding with educators.

If you would get off the claim that politicians in every modern liberal democracy act in bad faith when it comes to their children, the key to their future, then we could have a discussion.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Ummmmm....

When you argue modern liberal democracies have state run compulsory schools to benefit educators then you are de facto engaging in conspiracy theory. Stating the obvious isn't ad hominem poisoning of the well. It doesn't require mind reading or presumption of intent. It's your argument that is being attacked, not you.

The notion that nearly every single nation highest in economic freedom compels their children to go to school to benefit educators and unions requires one to believe in conspiracy. It would only work if the politicians were colluding with educators.

If you would get off the claim that politicians in every modern liberal democracy act in bad faith when it comes to their children, the key to their future, then we could have a discussion.

Nothing promotes civil discussion like suggesting that people who disagree are delusional (the implication of "conspiracy theory", right?). Randfan's comment describes the relation between State support of school if readers replace "conspiracy theory" with "interest group politics" and "their children" with "other people's children". As I have asserted many times in this discussion, "political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents". Politicians did collude with educators. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, composed during the formation of the United Nations, commits signatories to compulsory elementary schooling.

 

[Belz...]

I grant without any reservation some amount of police services (if they do their jobs), some amount of national defense (if they do their jobs), some amount of judicial services. I don't mind promulgation of standardized weights and measures (aids in adjudication of disputes) and rules of the road. Also, some amount of road construction and maintenance. I'd add to the list some amount of environmental protection. I'm on the fence about zoning. We disagree about education services.

Thank you.

 

[RandFan]

Nothing promotes civil discussion like suggesting that people who disagree are delusional (the implication of "conspiracy theory", right?).

Fallacious argument, appeal to consequences. I've no idea if you are delusional, sincerely mistaken or just not getting it. The consequences of your logic are undeniable. You are claiming that nearly every nation that is high in economic freedom maliciously enslave their children by colluding with educators. There is a word for that. Conspiracy. In America that would be a conspiracy on a massive scale.

Randfan's comment describes the relation between State support of school if readers replace "conspiracy theory" with "interest group politics" and "their children" with "other people's children".

When I say "their children" I'm talking about the nation's children. The future of the nation rests in the hands of a nation's children. You are suggesting that on one hand politicians care sufficiently enough about their children (the nations children) to expend resources to fight childhood disease, and on the other the hand, these politicians harbor malign intent or apathy and choose to harm the children to enrich educators.

One more time, unlike your childish patronization by referring to me in the 3rd person, this is not about you. It's about your arguments. They are incoherent and are necessarily conspiratorial.

If you attacked unions alone and made the claim that they are harming children and if you argued that politicians are sincerely wrong about supporting state run compulsory school then I could understand your argument. I would disagree with it but it wouldn't require appeals to conspiracy and a majority of politicians in nearly all modern liberal democracies to be stupid, and/or apathetic and/or malign when it comes to children.

You have yet to make compelling case for why such nations plan and pass policies to ensure the perpetuation of their nation but ignore their greatest asset, their children.

 

[A'isha]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, composed during the formation of the United Nations, commits signatories to compulsory elementary schooling.

Good.

 

[RandFan]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, composed during the formation of the United Nations, commits signatories to compulsory elementary schooling.

Good.

It's NOT good if you assume that the purpose of the UN is to seize control of nations and thus gain unelected power and to subjugate and oppress people.

I wonder how much money the UN gets in kick backs for being the head of the conspiracy and for colluding with all of the nations that have state run compulsory schools.

Then again, blasphemy is a mortal sin if you believe in god.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Fallacious argument, appeal to consequences. I've no idea if you are delusional, sincerely mistaken or just not getting it.

No fallacy. I object to the incessant barrage of insults. "Conspiracy theory" (Randfan even capitalized it) customarily means "delusional".

The consequences of your logic are undeniable. You are claiming that nearly every nation that is high in economic freedom...

And nearly nation low in economic freedom also.

... maliciously enslave their children by colluding with educators. There is a word for that. Conspiracy. In America that would be a conspiracy on a massive scale.

There's another word (for another theory of the observed events): "interest group politics".

When I say "their children" I'm talking about the nation's children.

Right. And that's a fundamental difference between us. I suggest that thinking in terms of that aggregate encourages people (both voters and policy makers) to attempt to deal with that aggregate. The State (government, generally) cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". The State cannot subsidize attendance at school without a definition of "school". The State cannot employ people to teach, say, Social Studies, without a definition of "teach Social Studies". Centralized promulgation of these definitions then binds students, real classroom teachers, and taxpayers to the State's definitions. Administrative convenience will then determine how rule-bound State schools will operate. This leads to a one-size-fits-all curriculum and pace and method of instruction that guarantees a poor fit for most children. What size shoes should all 14-yeaar-olds wear? Brains are more variable than feet.

The future of the nation rests in the hands of a nation's children. You are suggesting that on one hand politicians care sufficiently enough about their children (the nations children) to expend resources to fight childhood disease, and on the other the hand, these politicians harbor malign intent or apathy and choose to harm the children to enrich educators.

That concern ("care") does not produce beneficial results. Given twentieth century history, informed concern for, say, the nutrition of "the nation's children" would argue against State operation of collective farms and cafeteria.

... childish patronization ...

Go patronize yourself,

by referring to me in the 3rd person, this is not about you. It's about your arguments.

100% agreement. It's not about "you". Parties to this argument have names.

 

[RandFan]

¹No fallacy. I object to the incessant barrage of insults.

²And nearly nation low in economic freedom also.

³There's another word (for another theory of the observed events): "interest group politics".

⁴Right. And that's a fundamental difference between us. I suggest that thinking in terms of that aggregate encourages people (both voters and policy makers) to attempt to deal with that aggregate. The State (government, generally) cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". The State cannot subsidize attendance at school without a definition of "school". The State cannot employ people to teach, say, Social Studies, without a definition of "teach Social Studies". Centralized promulgation of these definitions then binds students, real classroom teachers, and taxpayers to the State's definitions. Administrative convenience will then determine how rule-bound State schools will operate. This leads to a one-size-fits-all curriculum and pace and method of instruction that guarantees a poor fit for most children. What size shoes should all 14-yeaar-olds wear? Brains are more variable than feet.

⁵That concern ("care") does not produce beneficial results. Given twentieth century history, informed concern for, say, the nutrition of "the nation's children" would argue against State operation of collective farms and cafeteria.

⁶Go patronize yourself

⁷100% agreement. It's not about "you". Parties to this argument have names.

1. You claim that the UN and nearly every modern liberal democracy have conspired separately or jointly to harm children. The attack is against your argument and not you.
2. If we were to grant you your premises then malign intent could be explained. What you don't address is why nations high in freedom have conspired to harm children (enslave them)?
3. Calling it interest group politics doesn't change anything nor does it explain why a nation would collude with educators to harm children.
4. I've no idea how this addresses the fact that modern liberal democracies expend resources to protect the future by protecting young citizens but they then collude with educators to harm children (enslave them). Hand waving won't make the question go away.
5. A.) That concern is the reason small pox, polio and other diseases have been largely eradicated. B.) No one is arguing for collectivization. I'm fine with more choices for parents.
6. Try civility.
7. How often do you have conversations in which you refer to the person you are talking to in the 3rd person. That people have names is not an excuse to patronize.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

How often do you have conversations in which you refer to the person you are talking to in the 3rd person. That people have names is not an excuse to patronize.

This discussion is "with" everyone who read its. Use of "you" invites personalization.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I've no idea how this addresses the fact that modern liberal democracies expend resources to protect the future by protecting young citizens but they then collude with educators to harm children (enslave them). Hand waving won't make the question go away.

Eduardo Zambrano
"Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications"
Rationality and Society, May 1999

Aside from the important issue of how it is that a ruler may economize on communication, contracting and coercion costs, this leads to an interpretation of the state that cannot be contractarian in nature: citizens would not empower a ruler to solve collective action problems in any of the models discussed, for the ruler would always be redundant and costly. The results support a view of the state that is eminently predatory, (the ? MK.) case in which whether the collective action problems are solved by the state or not depends on upon whether this is consistent with the objectives and opportunities of those with the (natural) monopoly of violence in society. This conclusion is also reached in a model of a predatory state by Moselle and Polak (1997). How the theory of economic policy changes in light of this interpretation is an important question left for further work.

 

[RandFan]

This discussion is "with" everyone who read its. Use of "you" invites personalization.

No. You are addressing me. No one in this forum treats others so impersonal. It's patronizing and rude.

 

[Mister Earl]

c) Besides, the style in which defenders of the cartel conduct the discussion discredits their voice, seems to me.

No fallacy. I object to the incessant barrage of insults.

Frankly, you're getting precisely what you've earned. You've been throwing out insults and accusations this whole while. Cartel indeed. If you don't like being called out for making ridiculous arguments, then the quickest path to resolution is in not making ridiculous arguments. That you are unwilling or unable to do so is an issue you need to resolve. The onus is not on us to navigate around your own self imposed minefield.