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

[RandFan]

Government is always legitimate, according to the government. Government actors define "legitimate".

Not at all an artful dodge. I did NOT ask about government actors or what is legitimate according to the government. I'm trying to get you to answer a direct question.

Do YOU call the government's activities "legitimate" when it comes to "some" police, military, etc.?

I would just like a straight answer. Is government legitimate when it does what YOU think is a good thing? Yes or no?

Y - O - U, "YOU", the person reading this right now. Your cogito, your ego, your personal opinion. What you think.

I can't think of anyway to make the question anymore clear? I'm talking about what you think. Do you even know?

 

[RandFan]

The topic is the effect of the State's contribution, organized violence, to the education industry, not national defense.

It's critical to the discussion. You have made contradictory claims about the government. BTW: No one has conceded to your "organized violence" premise. Parents make their children go to school. Not too many children wake up in the morning afraid that government officials are going to arrest them, rape them and infect them with aids. Most children worry about disappointing their parents and/or punishment from their parents.

I never worried about the government arresting me, raping me and infecting me with aids. I wanted a career and I didn't want to disappoint my mother. So, you can keep repeating "interpersonal violence" but few if any are going to buy it.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Not at all an artful dodge. I did NOT ask about government actors or what is legitimate according to the government. I'm trying to get you to answer a direct question. Y - O - U, "YOU", the person reading this right now. Your cogito, your ego, your personal opinion. What you think. I can't think of anyway to make the question anymore clear? I'm talking about what you think. Do you even know?

The government defines "legitimate". To ask if I think the government is legitimate is like asking if I think the metal cylinder that the Bureau of Standards calls a "kilogram" really weighs a kilogram. Yes, by definition.

If the question is "do you approve of government spending on ___ (defense, environmental protection, bank auditing, etc.)?" then the answer will depend on the details. By analogy with standard measures of weight (mass) and length, the sensible question is whether some other standards would be more convenient.

I believe that students, parents, real classroom teachers, and taxpayers would get more of what we want (reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, mathematical and scientific literacy and vocational preparation) and less of what we don't want (juvenile and adult crime, suicide, drug abuse) from an unsubsidized, minimally-regulated market in education services than from the current legal/institutional environment.

 

[RandFan]

The government defines "legitimate". To ask if I think the government is legitimate is like asking if I think the metal cylinder that the Bureau of Standards calls a "kilogram" really weighs a kilogram. Yes, by definition.

This is vacuous and not at all helpful. You've stated your deep seated contempt for government and taxation. You called it extortion and kidnapping. Last I checked neither are legitimate regardless of what anyone called them.

If the question is "do you approve of government spending on ___ (defense, environmental protection, bank auditing, etc.)?" then the answer will depend on the details. By analogy with standard measures of weight (mass) and length, the sensible question is whether some other standards would be more convenient.

Tim: Rick is an extortionist and kidnapper.
Bob: So you think Rick is a bad person.
Tim: Depend on the details.
Bob: The details are extortion and kidnapping.
Tim: Well, yeah, but I mean other details.

I believe that students, parents, real classroom teachers, and taxpayers would get more of what we want (reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, mathematical and scientific literacy and vocational preparation) and less of what we don't want (juvenile and adult crime, suicide, drug abuse) from an unsubsidized, minimally-regulated market in education services than from the current legal/institutional environment.

You have yet to demonstrate this at all. Prior to child labor laws many poor children were forced to do hard labor for little money. These children often had short miserable lives. You've yet to demonstrate how your conclusions (increased education) is even possible given how easy it is for private industry to sell worthless crap to poor people.

 

[jhunter1163]

Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

This is vacuous and not at all helpful. You've stated your deep seated contempt for government and taxation. You called it extortion and kidnapping. Last I checked neither are legitimate regardless of what anyone called them.

Randfan's question was vacuous and not at all helpful. Holding people against their will (kidnapping) is legitimate if State actors do it. That assertion implies neither approval nor disapproval. Demanding ransom (bail, fines) is legitimate if State actors do it. That assertion implies neither approval nor disapproval. Demanding money as the cost of keeping one's property is extortion if non-State actors do it. It's taxation if State actors do it. That assertion implies neither approval nor disapproval. What makes the State special is simply that it's the largest extortion racket in the neighborhood. That assertion implies neither approval nor disapproval. The State contributes to social well-being when it suppresses competitors in the extortion business and reduces the total interpersonal violence in society. I approve. I reserve my contempt for people who promote interpersonal violence where it degrades society, such as in the market for education services.

You have yet to demonstrate this at all. Prior to child labor laws many poor children were forced to do hard labor for little money. These children often had short miserable lives. You've yet to demonstrate how your conclusions (increased education) is even possible given how easy it is for private industry to sell worthless crap to poor people.

Prior to child labor laws, Hawaii was thirty or forty feet farther south-east of Japan than it is now. Do you expect Hawaii to lurch back to its previous position if legislatures repeal child labor laws? I'll pray for the sun to rise tomorrow. If I get someone to record that prayer, would that establish that my prayer caused sunrise? Parents will invest in human capital ("education"). As society got wealthy, people invested more in education, broadly conceived. The State no more caused this than Pharaoh caused the sun to rise. State actors also sell worthless crap to poor people (the government-approved middle-school Social Studies, Math, and Language Arts curriculum, for example).

 

[Amazer]

Randfan's question was vacuous and not at all helpful. Holding people against their will (kidnapping) is legitimate if State actors do it. That assertion implies neither approval nor disapproval. Demanding ransom (bail, fines) is legitimate if State actors do it. That assertion implies neither approval nor disapproval. Demanding money as the cost of keeping one's property is extortion if non-State actors do it. It's taxation if State actors do it. That assertion implies neither approval nor disapproval. What makes the State special is simply that it's the largest extortion racket in the neighborhood. That assertion implies neither approval nor disapproval. The State contributes to social well-being when it suppresses competitors in the extortion business and reduces the total interpersonal violence in society. I approve.

I think that I understand what you're saying here. I think the wording employed by you is a little awkward and makes it unnecessarily hard for people to agree with you. If you're contention is however that government is a necessary evil, whose role should be limited to a number of fields where the benefits outweigh the costs; Well, I expect that there won't be too many people who disagree with that.

I reserve my contempt for people who promote interpersonal violence where it degrades society, such as in the market for education services.

As is your right. However, I don't think you have made the case that a free-market approach towards education will lead to better services then what is currently being achieved by the government operated system. From this thread it's clear the arguments you have presented so far have not convinced many to change their views. I think that's because you fail to address the concerns those people have expressed.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan's question was vacuous...

Try civility.Your 3rd party patronizing is obnoxious and rude.

and not at all helpful. Holding people against their will (kidnapping) is legitimate if State actors do it.

Then is does not meet the definition of kidnapping. Just because two things are similar does not mean they are the same.

That assertion implies neither approval nor disapproval.

You neither approve nor disprove of the most heinous of activity.

Parents will invest in human capital ("education").

But this is not true. Poor parents often cannot send their children to post-education. When you have no money you cannot invest.

 

[RandFan]

I think that I understand what you're saying here. I think the wording employed by you is a little awkward and makes it unnecessarily hard for people to agree with you. If you're contention is however that government is a necessary evil, whose role should be limited to a number of fields where the benefits outweigh the costs; Well, I expect that there won't be too many people who disagree with that.

I That was my impression also.

This is what I think the idea is.

• Taxation to pay for military, police, and perhaps firemen and some other civil servants are the equivalent of extortion and kidnapping but in this instance they are necessary evils.
• Taxation to pay for education is the equivalent of extortion and kidnapping, and unnecessary.

 

[RandFan]

FTR: I actually have an answer to the question as to how much should we tax and spend. Enough to ensure the welfare of the nation. Bearing in mind diminishing returns. We should as a nation decide how much we should tax and spend. No more than is needed to meet our obligations and provide safety nets for the poor. Somewhere between what Denmark spends and what America spends. Please note that the generous social programs of Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Denmark, does not reduce the nation's overall Economic Freedom rating.

Rank | Nation | Rating
1|Hong Kong |89.3
2|Singapore |88
3|Australia |82.6
4|New Zealand |81.4
5|Switzerland |81
6|Canada |79.4
7|Chile |79
8|Mauritius |76.9
9|Denmark |76.0
10|United States |76

Points to keep in mind.

• This index is compiled by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation.
• The index is published every year in the conservative publication, The Wall Street Journal.

Why is this true? Humans are an evolved social species. It has been scientifically demonstrated that the most successful species as well as the most successful societies are those where individuals give up some fitness for the overall fitness of the group.


Contempt for social programs is just biting one's nose to spite one's face. Significantly reducing social programs would significantly reduce the wealth of a nation.

I think it fair to note that on this side we have the following.

1. A consensus of experts.
2. A robust scientific model.
3. A theory with explanatory and predictive power.
4. The theory claims that social species will reduce individual fitness for the over all fitness of the group.
5. We have sociological research that confirms the model.
6. We have laboratory and field research that confirms the predication made my the model.
7. The model has explanatory power, namely that there is a synergistic effect when humans cooperate and are willing to reduce their fitness to improve over all fitness.
8. The theory explains why humans have what would otherwise be wasted traits like empathy and compassion. IOW: Humans could have evolved primarily to be sociopathic. But killing people from one's own tribe has a deleterious effect on survival of the group.

On the other side we have philosophical argument and invalid appeals to authority. Oh, and we got govt violence. The violence is "legitimate".

 

[Belz...]

Government is always legitimate, according to the government. Government actors define "legitimate".

Wow, that's completely meaningless.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I think that I understand what you're saying here. I think the wording employed by you is a little awkward and makes it unnecessarily hard for people to agree with you. If you're contention is however that government is a necessary evil, whose role should be limited to a number of fields where the benefits outweigh the costs; Well, I expect that there won't be too many people who disagree with that.

Thanks.

As is your right. However, I don't think you have made the case that a free-market approach towards education will lead to better services then what is currently being achieved by the government operated system. From this thread it's clear the arguments you have presented so far have not convinced many to change their views. I think that's because you fail to address the concerns those people have expressed.

People do not abandon long-held and deeply-seated views easily. On top of that, many entirely normal humans worship power and celebrity. Government structures provide both.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan's question was vacuous and not at all helpful. Holding people against their will (kidnapping) is legitimate if State actors do it.

If it is legitimate then why do you worry about it?

I reserve my contempt for people who promote interpersonal violence where it degrades society, such as in the market for education services.

Begging the question. Your premise explicitly assumes the conclusion. It's not evidenced in fact that this "interpersonal violence" has much of anything to do with education. You keep ignoring the point but children don't lie awake at night worrying that government agents will kidnap them, rape them and infect them with aids. They don't because as a rule it simply doesn't happen. There are some exceptions like the "Kids For Cash" program but A.) those people typically go to jail. B.) The prison facility was private.

So, instead of repeating trite phrases like "interpersonal violence" perhaps you could provide a mechanism for how this "interpersonal violence" degrades education. If you want to be compelling you need to do more than argue ad nauseam using nothing but rhetorical device. Give us an example of interpersonal violence degrading education. Then, tell us why the example is representative of the normal distribution. IOW: Avoid a hasty generalization.

Prior to child labor laws, Hawaii was thirty or forty feet farther south-east of Japan than it is now.

Again, your example is not at all apt. My father would have loved to make money from me rather than sending me to school. Many poor people would prefer to make money from their children sending them to the coal mines or working in factories like the children in India and China. Human nature isn't the same as plate tectonics. The genetic precursors that led to children working in dangerous jobs and not getting an education are the same today as they were then.

 

[A'isha]

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/19/indescribably_insane”_philadelphias_public_school_nightmare/

The pattern has become clear: defund the schools, precipitate a crisis and use that as an excuse to further attack the schools, pushing them closer and closer to a point of no return. The $50 million to open the schools this year is just the latest and most immediate example of three years of brinkmanship.

The district was hit with a double whammy in 2011, when stimulus funds that it had idiotically been using for operating expenses dried up, and incoming Gov. Tom Corbett took office eager to prove his reactionary bona fides by enacting massive budget cuts to public education to the tune of $1 billion statewide, disproportionately hitting Philadelphia. The result was an absurd $629 million shortfall, which was filled by a mix of cuts and city tax hikes.

[...]

Leering over the whole mess is the controversial charter school movement, which siphons $675 million from district schools. The charter experiment has been a mixed bag, with some performing well, others proving mere vehicles for graft and corruption. Critics see them as a way to divert public money into politically connected private hands, and even more important, a way to break the teachers union because they aren’t bound by district collective bargaining rules.

And how did Philly schools reach that low point?

http://www.alternet.org/dont-be-fooled-investors-charter-schools-are-cash-cows

Charter schools are cash cows feeding at the public trough. Oh, there are a few good ones here and there, to be sure. But if there was ever any doubt that charter schools have become Big Business, take a look at the list of the largest campaign contributors in Pennsylvania. Three of the top ten on a new “Power Players” report are throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars into state politics to gain favorable legislation for charter schools and we need to be asking why.

Weighing in at #5 is Van Gureghian, who founded Charter School Management Inc. back in 1999 to run a school in Chester, PA, a struggling former industrial town near Philadelphia. Today Gureghian’s company operates 150 charter schools in nine states, and that first school now has half of the district’s student enrollment and is the state’s largest charter school. Gureghian was Gov. Corbett’s single largest campaign donor and served on his education transition team. This is the same guy who is fighting the state’s Right to Know laws to keep from disclosing his salary – which is public knowledge for other public school administrators – while he recently bought two Florida beachfront lots for $28.9 million. He and his wife, another Charter School Management Inc. employee, plan to build a 20,000 square foot “French-inspired Monte Carlo estate.”

[...]

For those of you keeping track, that makes four of Pennsylvania’s biggest campaign donors so far this year with school privatization at the top of their to-do lists. Why? Lest you think these men are dabbling in education for the sake of students, take a closer look at the Big Business of charter schools. Back in August, CNBC interviewed the CEO of a major investment company who clearly explained why charter schools are such a great moneymaker. David Brain heads Entertainment Properties Trust, which owns movie theaters, destination recreation sites, and charter schools in 34 states.

When the interviewer asked why people should add charter schools to their investment portfolios, he replied:

“Well I think it’s a very stable business, very recession-resistant. It’s a very high-demand product. There’s 400,000 kids on waiting lists for charter schools … the industry’s growing about 12-14% a year. So it’s a high-growth, very stable, recession-resistant business. It’s a public payer, the state is the payer … if you do business with states with solid treasuries, then it’s a very solid business.”

[...]

Brain also told a nice whopper when the anchor asked him if there was any investment risk due to some public backlash against using taxpayer money to pay for charter schools. He claimed, “Most of the studies have charter schools at even or better than district public education.” Actually, most of the studies have shown the opposite: charter schools consistently rank at even or worse – sometimes much worse – than traditional public schools. For example, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found that students in every single Pennsylvania cyber charter school performed “significantly worse” in reading and math than their peers in conventional public schools. That’s a 100% failure rate.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

If it is legitimate then why do you worry about it?

Because "legitimate" means "legal" (i.e., government policy). Government policy can be stupid, abusive, and corrupt. "Legitimate" does NOT mean "wise" or "decent".

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Begging the question. Your premise explicitly assumes the conclusion.¹ It's not evidenced in fact that this "interpersonal violence" has much of anything to do with education.² You keep ignoring the point but children don't lie awake at night worrying that government agents will kidnap them, rape them and infect them with aids.³ They don't because as a rule it simply doesn't happen. There are some exceptions like the "Kids For Cash" program but A.) those people typically go to jail. B.) The prison facility was private.

So, instead of repeating trite phrases like "interpersonal violence" perhaps you could provide a mechanism for how this "interpersonal violence" degrades education. If you want to be compelling you need to do more than argue ad nauseam using nothing but rhetorical device.⁴ Give us an example of interpersonal violence degrading education. Then, tell us why the example is representative of the normal distribution.⁵ IOW: Avoid a hasty generalization.

1. Which premise? Which conclusion?
2. Please rephrase this. Does this mean "no evidence supports the assertion that the State's threat of interpersonal violence degrades the performance of the education industry"? Abundant evidence supports this assertion.
3. Educational neglect statutes apply to parents. Truancy laws apply to students. Young children do not see the State's hand (fist, actually); they see betrayal by their parents.
4. If Randfan wants a civil discussion s/he will need to drop words like "trite", "ad nauseam" and "rhetorical".
5. How does the Gaussian (normal) distribution relate to our discussion? Please elaborate.

 

[A'isha]

Does this mean "no evidence supports the assertion that the State's threat of interpersonal violence degrades the performance of the education industry"? Abundant evidence supports this assertion.

Post some.

3. Educational neglect statutes apply to parents. Truancy laws apply to students. Young children do not see the State's hand (fist, actually); they see betrayal by their parents.

My parents did not let me stay home and watch TV instead of going to school because they were afraid of the State. They made me go to school because they wanted me to get an education.

 

[RandFan]

Because "legitimate" means "legal" (i.e., government policy). Government policy can be stupid, abusive, and corrupt. "Legitimate" does NOT mean "wise" or "decent".

But you are are not simply attacking the policy. You seem to be okay with the state kidnapping and raping people so long as it isn't connected with education. Further you fail again to provide an example of how the interpersonal violence degrades education. You keep repeating something that isn't even in evidence as if it is axiomatic.

Your arguments simply do not justify your claim that society would be better off without state run compulsory education.

 

[RandFan]

4. If Randfan wants a civil discussion s/he will need to drop words like "trite", "ad nauseam" and "rhetorical".

In other words I cannot address your arguments.

Look, I'm not attacking you. I'm not smugly dismissing you. You are.

• "Rhetorical" is an attack against your argument.
• "Trite" is an attack against your argument.
• Ad nauseam" is an attack against your argument.

I don't mind at all if you attack my arguments. I have not once that I can recall ever complained about my arguments being attacked. I have only complained about the smug, air of authority, condescending nature of your use of 3rd person reference.

So, read up on your membership agreement. Understand that your arguments are fair game. If engage in fallacy, cliche, ad hominem or vacuous rhetoric then that is ripe for attack. I've said I am willing to stop using the word "vacuous". But I can't get rid of every adjective when talking about your arguments.

 

[elbe]

My parents did not let me stay home and watch TV instead of going to school because they were afraid of the State. They made me go to school because they wanted me to get an education.

It reads a lot like the people who argue that all that keeps normal people from going out and killing anyone they want is the law.