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

[Nova Land]

I see that on 7 occasions in this thread Malcolm has presented a second Einstein snippet. For instance:

Here's Einstein on schooling:
Albert Einstein
"Force and Fear Have No Place in Education"

To me the worst thing seems to be for a school principally to work with methods of fear, force and artificial authority. Such treatment destroys the sound sentiments, the sincerity and self-confidence of the pupil. It produces the submissive subject. . . It is comparatively simple to keep the school free from this worst of all evils. Give into the power of the teacher the fewest possible coercive measures, so that the only source of the pupil's respect for the teacher is the human and intellectual qualities of the latter.

Albert Einstein
"Autobiographical Notes"
Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Paul Schilpp, ed. (1951)

It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe it would be possible to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour continuously, even when not hungry, especially if the food, handed out under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly.

The first one dishonestly misrepresents Einstein's views by omitting the sentences where Einstein makes clear that when he talks about methods of "fear, force, and artificial authority" he is referring to methods used at that time in Germany and Russia and not (then or now) in countries such as the US, Britain or Switzerland.

The second snippet is equally dishonest, because it omits the passage which immediately precedes the quoted part in which Einstein explains what he is talking about. When Einstein referred to "modern methods of instruction [strangling] the holy curiosity of inquiry" and to "coercion and a sense of duty", he was referring to the practice of basing grades largely on the results of 2 tests which physics students were required to take and which consisted largely of memorizing and repeating back standardized facts and figures rather than allowing students to explore and learn why things work as they do.

Einstein had left Germany out of frustration with the German education system, and gone to school in Italy and then Switzerland. Here there was no problem with "fear, force, and artificial authority", but there were still things about the education system which frustrated him. He was fascinated by physics and wanted to explore in the laboratory why things behaved as they did. But instead of being able to do this, he was constantly having to take time to memorize material the teacher's intended to test the students on. This is what he disliked so much, and what he is referring to when he speaks of compulsion and coercion.

Here's the quotation in context, with the portions immediately preceding it restored so that it's clear what Einstein is talking about:

... I soon learned to scent out that which was able to lead to fundamentals and to turn aside from everything else, from the multitude of things which clutter up the mind and divert it from the essential. The hitch in this was, of course, the fact that one had to cram all this stuff into one's mind for the examinations, whether one liked it or not. This coercion had such a deterring effect [upon me] that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific problems distasteful to me for an entire year.

In justice I must add that in Switzerland we had to suffer far less under such coercion, which smothers every truly scientific impulse, than is the case in many another locality There were altogether only two examinations; aside from these, one could just about do as one pleased. This was especially the case if one had a friend, ad did I, who attended the lectures regularly and who worked over their content conscientiously. This gave one freedom in the choice of pursuits until a few months before the examination, a freedom which I enjoyed to a great extent and have gladly taken into the bargain the bad conscience connected with as as by far the lesser evil.

It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wreck and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe it would be possible to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour continuously, even when not hungry, especially if the food, handed out under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly.

So when Einstein refers to modern methods of instruction, he is referring to teaching to the test (which is indeed still a problem -- moreso in recent years, since No Child Left Behind). He is not referring to requiring children to attend school, or to public schools in general.

Malcolm:

(1) When you posted that snippet, had you actually read for yourself the pages you claimed to be quoting?

(2) When you posted that snippet, were you aware that Einstein was not referring in it to required attendance at school -- and that nothing in this passage or his other writings indicates that Einstein had any objection to required attendance at school?

(3) Were you the person who chose to delete the section in which Einstein introduces the term coercion and makes it clear that what he is referring to is the kind of testing being done at the school he was attending? Or is this another example of a passage you cribbed from a source other than the one you claimed, without realizing that the passage when read in full said something very different from the point you were trying to make?

 

[Nova Land]

Slave owners in America did not believe blacks were human...

Unlikely. Some freed blacks owned slaves, according to Thomas Sowell.

As someone who reads with a desire to understand what other people are saying, I had no trouble understanding that what RandFan was saying in that post is that Slave owners in America, in general, did not believe blacks were human. You, in contrast, chose to read it as All slave owners in America did not believe blacks were human.

Yes, there are various ways one can construe the sentence. There almost always are. But if one has to continually load ones sentences with qualifiers it tends to make them much longer and less pleasant to wade through.

So it makes sense, when conducting discussions, to try to listen to the meaning others are trying to communicate and to construe their words in the most sensible way, rather than considering the possible interpretations and selecting less sensible ones.

Read my way, RandFan's sentence makes perfect sense and is -- according to what I've read about the history of slavery -- a true statement. And it is one which is not contradicted by the example you presented. Yes, there may have been some slave owners (such as freed blacks) who were quite aware they and other blacks were as human as whites. That doesn't change the fact that in general slave owners did not consider blacks to be human. It is a sentiment which, sadly, continued well into the 20th century -- although it was, thankfully, much less common by the 1950s than it was in the 1850s. But I knew a number of people, in the 1950s and 1960s, who held and openly expressed that belief.

 

[Nova Land]

Slave owners in America did not believe blacks were human...

Ownership of human beings by other human beings is the key part of slavery.

Maybe you two should argue.

Here's another good example of the advantage of reading to understand rather than reading to misunderstand. Again, I have no trouble understanding what RF and BR are saying, and can see easily that there is no contradiction. You, in contrast, seem unable to follow their meaning and see a contradiction where there is none.

Both RF and BR are aware that blacks are human beings, and their posts clearly reflect this if one reads to understand rather than to misunderstand.

RF is saying -- correctly -- that slave owners, in general, mistakenly believed that blacks were not human.

BR is saying -- correctly -- that ownership of human beings by other human beings is the key part of slavery. Virtually every dictionary, encyclopedia, and other reputable source agrees with this. (Even Walter Williams acknowledges this. I'll address what Walter Williams says in a subsequent post, since you have cited him but failed to provide his actual text.)

A contradiction would only exist if RandFan were saying that slaves aren't human. He's not. He's saying slave owners held that belief.

I don't understand why you had trouble reading it that way in the first place, but hope this helps makes those posts clearer to you and helps you in reading future posts.

 

[RandFan]

Oh, I have a computer and internet connection -- at home in Tennessee.

But my main source of income is harvesting blueberries, so each year at this time I'm up in Maine tented out on the edge of a blueberry field with no electricity for PC and no phone line for internet connection.

It's funny: you and I are sort of mirror images. You grew up in a farming family, did farm work when growing up to please your father, and wound up doing computer programming. I grew up in an academic family, learned Fortran and other programming languages when growing up to please my father, and wound up doing farm work.

I love raking blueberries. (Here's a picture of a blueberry rake, since it's probably nothing like what you're picturing.)

But I also love learning. One of my favorite recreations is spending time in a good library, looking up things on microfilm, bound volume journals, and old books. I love reading primary sources, rather than relying on other people's filtered interpretations of that information.

My philosophy of education is very similar to Einstein's (whose philosophy of education bears little resemblance to how Malcolm portrays it in the misleading snippets he has posted). Einstein had nothing against requiring young people to attend school and get an education; but he wanted the education to provide students with freedom to explore the areas of subjects which intrigued them most, rather than being forced to memorize and regurgitate a standardized set of facts and figures. Unfortunately the schools in Germany didn't operate that way. He was very frustrated that there were all these interesting things he wanted to explore and he didn't have time because of all the required class work which consisted largely of memorizing things that would be on the tests. (I believe, although my memory may be wrong on this, that German schools of his time required students to take part in military exercises, and that this was another thing Einstein strongly objected to.)

I also preferred to explore the questions which caught my attention rather than simply memorize the things in the textbooks; but my school experience was much more enjoyable than Einstein's because rather than butting heads with the teachers I was able to give the teachers what they wanted with minimal effort on my part and thus free to spend much of my time on the things I was interested in. Of course, I was lucky enough to grow up in the US where that was possible, and even luckier to attend university in England, where a degree program took only 3 years and I was free to spend most of the day browsing at second-hand bookstores, reading fiction I checked out of the public library, and going from greengrocer to greengrocer picking up food treats to cook up for myself; if I'd grown up in Germany in the late 19th century I'd likely have been as frustrated as he was.

Thanks for that.

 

[Nova Land]

Yes, it's the English word for the singular 2nd person, used when addressing someone.

"12. “Address the argument, not the arguer." Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer."

You're the first person I'm aware of on this forum who has misunderstood Rule 12 this way. Again the problem seems to stem from being unable to select the sensible definition of a word with multiple definitions and instead selecting one which leads to a nonsensical rule.

There are several meanings to the word address. One (the one which you've chosen to assign the word in this sentenced) is a manner of speaking to someone. For example: Hey, Selina, how are ya doing? In the example I am addressing (i.e. speaking directly to) Selina.

That meaning makes no sense when inserted into rule 12. If you go over to Forum Management, you will find that mods (and even admins) very often address a user by you or by their username when replying to posts, and no one shouts Hey! How come you guys get to violate the rules? To my knowledge no one has ever received an infraction for respectfully addressing another poster by you or by their username -- even though plenty of rule 12 infractions have been handed out over the years. (Using a derisive version of a poster's username can get you an infraction -- but for rule 0, incivility, not for rule 12, addressing the arguer.)

The sensible choice of definition for address in rule 12 is deal with. The rule is saying that the content of one's post should focus on the arguments being presented by other posters -- not on the character (or character failings) of the posters themselves.

For instance, if I were to post: Malcolm, I disagree with your definition of slavery. I think it means... I would not receive an infraction even though I had directly addressed (i.e. talked directly to) you, because in the relevant sense of the word the post addressed (dealt with) an argument related to the thread topic.

In contrast, if I were in a discussion with someone and I were to post, in reply to a post they made: Typical stupidity! But that's exactly what I expected. Some people are completely incapable of posting intelligently. then the post would likely be edited and I'd receive a warning, AAHing or infraction even though the post does not use the word you or the person's username because while the post avoids addressing the user (i.e. speaking directly to them) it does not avoid addressing the user (i.e. dealing with the user rather than dealing with their arguments).

I hope this helps make the rule clearer to you. If not, it might be helpful to you to start a thread in the Questions section of Forum Management asking for an explanation of rule 12 since this is a FM topic. I'm making this single post about it here because it exemplifies a problem I see in a number of the posts you are making in this thread.

I'll get to one of the most important ones in my next post.

 

[Nova Land]

We need to distinguish between two very different meanings of compulsory education which are being used in this thread.

Compulsory education-1: requiring students to attend school.

Compulsory education-2: the use of methods as part of the teaching process which compel or coerce the student to say or do certain things.

Einstein had no objection to the former. He (and many others, including me) do have objections to the latter. But in many posts in this thread it appears to me that snippets in which Einstein is objecting to type-2 are being inappropriately used to make it sound like Einstein opposed type-1. If he did, he never expressed this publicly.

My wording on the definition of type 2 is not clear, and I don't have time to improve it now. (Perhaps someone else can provide a better wording.) But here are some examples of what I'm referring to in the hope that these will clarify what I'm saying.

I believe in Einstein's time students were required to take part in military exercises -- put on uniforms, march around, salute the flag of the country or pictures of the leader, etc. This kind of thing occurs in many authoritarian countries, and is an example of coercing behavior rather than educating. (Similarly, in my opinion, the forced recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or prayers is coercive and should not be done.)

Requiring students to voice certain opinions in order to pass a course is compulsory. For instance, if the class were studying affirmative action, it would be wrong to force students to voice the opinion that affirmative action is essential to democracy, and equally wrong to force students to voice the opinion that affirmative action is a form of fascism. In contrast, a discussion in which students are permitted to present their own opinions on the subject -- and to discuss with each other strengths and weaknesses of these opinions -- would be non-compulsory behavior.

If a teacher were to say to a class: Otto von Bismarck was a great man! Here is a chapter about him. I want you all to read this, then write a 500-word essay describing his greatness -- and in order to get a good grade, the students needed to repeat all the points made in the chapter assigned to them -- that would be coercive or compulsory education. (That, I believe, is one of the kinds of practice Einstein was complaining about when he referred to compulsory education.) If, in contrast, the teacher were to say to a class: I want you to select someone you admire and write a 500-word essay describing who they were, what they accomplished, and why you admire them, that would be non-compulsory.

(Yes, the student is being compelled to write an essay -- but that's not the kind of compulsion being referred to by people like Einstein. It's being directed what the content of the essay is that he was primarily objecting to.)

 

[Nova Land]

Think I still have time to address one more point: Walter Williams and the definition of slavery which Malcolm has been using.

Malcolm has stated several times that his somewhat unusual definition of slavery -- "compulsory unpaid labor" -- comes from Walter Williams. But as far as I can tell he has never posted the text of Williams' opinion piece in which he expresses this. (This, in stark contrast to the Einstein, Harber, etc. snippets which he keeps posting over and over and over.)

Once you read Williams, it's easy to see why. Even Williams admits his definition is contrary to the standard definition and is one that most people will disagree with. And (as far as I can tell) Williams only uses it in one piece; in a different opinion piece of his which I found in searching for the one Malcolm is using, he uses the conventional definition without blinking an eye.

Here's the opinion I believe Malcolm is using as a basis for throwing out the standard definition and replacing it with his alteration: "Are Americans Pro-Slavery?"

In this article, Williams behaves like the ancient sophists: he tries to 'prove', regardless of the truth of the proposition, through clever manipulation of language. The point he's trying to prove is that Social Security, Medicare, and other social welfare programs are the equivalent of slavery because

As in slavery, one person is being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person.​

Williams starts the piece by saying:

To get started, we might find a description that captures the essence of slavery. A good working description is: slavery is a set of circumstances whereby one person is forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person and has no legal claim to the fruits of his labor.​

Note that he doesn't say that's the definition of slavery; he says it's a description which captures the essence. And he's close enough to correct to be convincing if you're not paying attention.

Compulsory unpaid labor is closely connected to slavery: it's the activity most slaves are forced to engage in, so there's a high correlation between people who are forced to do unpaid labor and slaves. But the two are not synonymous. A key element of slavery is that of ownership: that one person is not simply compelled to do work, they are actually the property of another. Most slaves engage in compulsory unpaid work; but not all compulsory unpaid work is slavery. (Numerous people in this thread have already pointed out good examples of this.)

Williams continues:

You might ask, “Williams, aren’t you a bit off base? Slavery means that you are owned by another person.”​

Yes, exactly.

Williams then dismisses this with the assertion:

Who owns a person is not nearly important as who has the rights to use that person. In other words, a plantation owner having the power to force a black to work for him would have been just as well off, and possibly better off, not owning him.​

Williams offers what I consider to be unconvincing arguments in support of this assertion. If Malcolm wants to defend this definition, it might be good to start a new thread in which he can quote the Williams article (an article which, unlike the Einstein essays he 'cited', he probably actually has read) and attempt to defend Williams' logic.

But I see no evidence that even Williams believed the argument he was making. On the contrary. I"ll address that in my next post (and hope the library doesn't close before I get it up...)

 

[A'isha]

Can I just say that you are awesome, Nova Land?

 

[Nova Land]

Here's a previous Williams post about slavery: Black Slavery is Alive in 2001. This was 7 years before he decided to argue that social welfare programs are the same as slavery -- and in this piece he seems perfectly content with the standard definition that slavery is the ownership of one person by another.

He begins the article by saying:

Black slaves are still available — just not in the United States. To make a purchase, you’d have to travel to the Sudan...​

So purchase is the first thing that he thinks to mention when arguing that slavery is alive. I agree with his choice.

In the next paragraph he says

... They shoot the men and enslave the women and children. Women and children are kept as personal property or they’re taken north and auctioned off.​

The next paragraph begins ...

In Sudanese slave markets, a woman or child can be purchased for $90.​

... and continues

An Anti-Slavery International investigator interviewed Abuk Thuc Akwar, a 13-year-old girl who, along with 24 other children, was captured by the militia, marched north and given to a farmer.​

Next paragraph:

... CSI, as well as the Boston-based American Anti-Slavery Group (AASG), have a stopgap mission of buying, at a cost of $85 each, Christian African women and children whom Muslims capture and enslave. AASG’s purchase emancipates them.​

Next paragraph:

Williams’ trip freed, through purchase, these two boys and 20 other slaves.​

Next paragraph includes this ...

The U.S. State Department estimated that as of 1994 there were 90,000 blacks living as property of Berbers.​

... and this:

Slave offspring become the property of the master.​

His last two paragraphs are mainly devoted to accusing black leaders and groups of ignoring all these instances of slavery because, according to Williams, they are only interested in condemning atrocities committed by whites and not in condemning injustices committed by Blacks or Muslims:

... maybe it’s because Africans instead of Europeans are the perpetrators; Europeans are held accountable to civilized standards of behavior, while Africans aren’t. ​

So those two paragraphs don't address slavery directly, the way the previous six do. But in those first six paragraphs describing the existence of 21st century slavery, every paragraph is focused on the property aspect of slavery...

... which shows even Williams can get things right on occasion, unless sticking to reality gets in the way of promoting his agenda.

 

[Amazer]

Can I just say that you are awesome, Nova Land?

Seconded. Awesome posts Nova Land!

 

[Minoosh]

I honestly don't think it is defensible. Is it okay for a parent to neglect a child? Is it okay for a parent to withhold medical treatment for religious reasons?

I didn't mean the practice was defensible; I mean that under Malcolm's scheme of things, usurping parents' right to force their children to do certain things was being commandeered by the state, and perhaps that was his key objection.

Malcolm is capable of engaging on a non-personal, practical level. As when I presented the scheme in my state, which provides alternatives to mainstream districts. Although still funded by taxpayers, charter schools can fire teachers at will, thus eroding the power of the "cartel."

He acknowledged this might be an acceptable compromise, for the moment abandoning the loaded (IMO) "slavery" argument.

I was personally interested in having a more meaningful conversation about state-funded education, so I engaged with Malcolm, who has some interesting ideas, though the form in which they are expressed (and the perceived dishonesty of the argument) drew a lot of justifiable (IMO) flak.

There really is a problem if huge quantities of taxpayer money are spent on a sort of public-works baby-sitting program, with no accountability as to what kids learn. As far as I can tell, this was the system until about 12-15 years ago. There really was no bar to graduate from high school. Bush (junior) advocated "No Child Left Behind," but the standards movement went back to Bill Clinton.

So. I had little patience for "slavery" rhetoric but a lot of interest in a more nuanced discussion. I favor universal and compulsory education, with added accountability.

ETA: I second, or third, kudos for the insights of Nova Land ...

 

[RandFan]

I didn't mean the practice was defensible; I mean that under Malcolm's scheme of things, usurping parents' right to force their children to do certain things was being commandeered by the state, and perhaps that was his key objection.

Malcolm is capable of engaging on a non-personal, practical level. As when I presented the scheme in my state, which provides alternatives to mainstream districts. Although still funded by taxpayers, charter schools can fire teachers at will, thus eroding the power of the "cartel."

He acknowledged this might be an acceptable compromise, for the moment abandoning the loaded (IMO) "slavery" argument.

I was personally interested in having a more meaningful conversation about state-funded education, so I engaged with Malcolm, who has some interesting ideas, though the form in which they are expressed (and the perceived dishonesty of the argument) drew a lot of justifiable (IMO) flak.

There really is a problem if huge quantities of taxpayer money are spent on a sort of public-works baby-sitting program, with no accountability as to what kids learn. As far as I can tell, this was the system until about 12-15 years ago. There really was no bar to graduate from high school. Bush (junior) advocated "No Child Left Behind," but the standards movement went back to Bill Clinton.

So. I had little patience for "slavery" rhetoric but a lot of interest in a more nuanced discussion. I favor universal and compulsory education, with added accountability.

Okay, I understand. I agree very much with you and I would very much like to see a practical discussion without loaded rhetoric and people simply trying to score debating points. I'm open to ideas. I think there are a number of problems with public education and I think there are some good ideas to improve public education and increased choices.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Okay, I understand. I agree very much with you and I would very much like to see a practical discussion without loaded rhetoric and people simply trying to score debating points. I'm open to ideas. I think there are a number of problems with public education and I think there are some good ideas to improve public education and increased choices.

Okay. I object to the loaded term "public education". We are all public citizens and private individuals. Students in St. Andrew's Priory are as much "the public" as are students in W.E.B. DuBois high.Teachers in St. Andrew's Priory are as much "the public" as are teachers in W.E.B. DuBois high. Unions, even "public sector" unions like the NEA, AFT, and AFSCME, are private 501-c(5) corporations. Why restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy to institutions whose staff work under direct employment contracts with the State?

 

[A'isha]

I see no reason to exempt US schools from the general criticism. The observation that cramming generated an allergic reaction even in his chosen major indicates that the anti-motivational effect of compulsory methods is strong and generalizes.

Then it would be far less dishonest and misleading to reproduce Einstein's quote unedited in its entirety and to explain that your own conclusion differs from his.

Okay. I object to the loaded term "public education".

Why should we have to redefine "public education" and argue about some new, nonstandard meaning when it already has a common, useful definition? It does nothing to forward this discussion, and indeed serves to do nothing more than derail it and bog it down.

Why restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy to institutions whose staff work under direct employment contracts with the State?

Because institutions other than the ones in question are not all held to the same curricular and educational standards as the ones in question, and therefore are worse options.

 

[RandFan]

Okay. I object to the loaded term "public education". We are all public citizens and private individuals. Students in St. Andrew's Priory are as much "the public" as are students in W.E.B. DuBois high.Teachers in St. Andrew's Priory are as much "the public" as are teachers in W.E.B. DuBois high. Unions, even "public sector" unions like the NEA, AFT, and AFSCME, are private 501-c(5) corporations. Why restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy to institutions whose staff work under direct employment contracts with the State?

Malcolm, I've worked very hard to accommodate you. When speaking to you I use the term "state run compulsory school". The term public is the correct term but I'm not interested in debating semantics. So, I'm happy to work with you. I wasn't talking to you in that post. The person I was communicating with understood perfectly well what I meant. There is nothing pejorative or emotive of the term "public school" and most people understand "public school" to be state run education.

You could possibly accuse me of an equivocation but to what end did I equivocate the word "public"? "Slavery" is loaded. "Cartel" is loaded. Public school is not.

To accommodate you I will continue to use the term "state run compulsory school" but when I speak to others I will use common every day parlance. See Public vs Private Schools.

 

[Border Reiver]

Nova,
Yes, I had read the Einstein essays in question. I see no reason to exempt US schools from the general criticism. The observation that cramming generated an allergic reaction even in his chosen major indicates that the anti-motivational effect of compulsory methods is strong and generalizes.

If you are using Einstein's essay to bolster your position, when the essay itself espouses a counter view, you need to provide a bit more than "I see no reason to exempt US schools" to explain how you've arrived at your conclusion. What exactly in the US state-funded schools methods of instruction is it that fits Einstein's observations on compulsion.

 

[Border Reiver]

2. The point, about the de-motivational effects of compulsion, applies. There's nothing dishonest about the edited version. To say that US and British schools do not exhibit the worst of the evil is not to say that they are immune.

How then is the compulsion employed in non-state funded schools different?

Unless I preemptively address Ant's objection, Ant will observe that TIMSS indicates that those countries which subsidize parent choice impose a centralized (operational) definition of "education". The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". There is no magic in State employment. There is magic in local knowledge and local control. Markets and federalism institutionalize humility on the part of State actors.

What magic are you talking about? When you look at what is being taught in both public and private schools the subjects are broadly similar and both use similar methods of instruction. Unless parents/guardians are prepared to individually tutor their children, students will be compelled to fit in with a group of other children with differential learning rates etc and be compelled to learn at a pace other than their own.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The point, about the de-motivational effects of compulsion, applies. There's nothing dishonest about the edited version. To say that US and British schools do not exhibit the worst of the evil is not to say that they are immune. They aren't.

How then is the compulsion employed in non-state funded schools different?

I could search through this thread and demonstrate that we've discussed this several times already, but I'll spare myself the time and answer straight (again). This thread might have some new readers, after all.
Again: "compulsion" is a matter of degree (as in, the inverse, "degrees of freedom"). The more options available to parents of young children and the more options available to students, the less compulsion.

... There is no magic in State employment. There is magic in local knowledge and local control. Markets and federalism institutionalize humility on the part of State actors.

What magic are you talking about? When you look at what is being taught in both public and private schools the subjects are broadly similar and both use similar methods of instruction. Unless parents/guardians are prepared to individually tutor their children, students will be compelled to fit in with a group of other children with differential learning rates etc and be compelled to learn at a pace other than their own.

We addressed this issue several times earlier in this thread. Again, I'll spare myself the trouble of going back and finding instances and just answer straight.
The government of __A__ (locality) is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber).
A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest) assault (subdue) and to forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstances (yes, even litter laws are backed ultimately by the threat of State violence).
__B__ (individual) has a right to engage in __X__ (activity) within the territory __A__ if the government of A has promised not to interfere with B when B attempts to engage in __X__ and if, further, has promised to interfere with individuals C, D, etc. if they attempt to interfere with B when B engages in X.
Within __A__ (locality) individual B has title to __Y__ (resource) if the government of A recognizes a right of B to control Y that includes the power to transfer control of Y to any individual C, D, etc. on terms mutually agreeable to B, C, etc.
The system of markets (title and contract law) combines local knowledge with the incentive to use resources in socially beneficial ways. In general, when two parties exchange goods and/or services, both benefit (or why would they have traded?). Centralized control of commercial activity must destroy information, in the same way that aggregate statistics destroy some information contained in raw data. From raw data you can compute the mean. You cannot derive the raw data from the mean.

Markets in education services allow parents to use their local knowledge of their own children's interests and abilities to match children to curricula and methods of instruction.

Consider the current argument over Common Core. To me, the question "What History curriculum should all 14-year-olds study?" makes as much sense as "What size and style of shoes should all 14-year-olds wear?" Imagine the outcome of a nationwide vote on that question. Brains are more variable than feet.

 

[RandFan]

The government of __A__ (locality) is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber).
A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest) assault (subdue) and to forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstances (yes, even litter laws are backed ultimately by the threat of State violence).

Go ask a school child how often he or she worries about the state kidnapping them and raping them. We've dealt with this and I've not seen a single person accept your premises. Parents force their children to go to school. Children only know that their parents expect them to go to school be it private/parochial/home schooling or state run compulsory school.

Kidnapping, raping, and infecting children with aids has been debunked over and over in this thread. No one is kidnapping, raping and infecting children with aids. I would ask you for data but you and I both know you are making this all up out of thin air.

 

[RandFan]

I would ask you for data but you and I both know you are making this all up out of thin air.

I've changed my mind. I am going to ask you for the information because you are lying bald face.

Malcolm, sir, of the 55.5 million children enrolled in K-12 last year, how many did the states kidnap, rape and infect with aids last year? I'm guessing that you can't tell us because you are lying. You don't for one moment believe your own nonsense.