What does it mean to be "liberal"

[gnome]

I disagree. The first instance (that I am aware of) of the "welfare state" was the public dole in Imperial Rome. That was instituted to control the mob. The poor houses of the 19th century were similarly a supposed antidote to the creation of a starving rebellious underclass.

Personally I think "welfare" is probably the "tax" for having a large, unemployable class of people. Welfare doesn't do anything to change the conditions and, in fact, it helps perpetuate them.

I think it is paternalistic - not egalitarian.

Calling a nation a "welfare state" ties its entire identity to its public assistance budget. It doesn't seem very accurate for the US if one actually looks at what percentage of the national budget goes to public assistance.

 

[Mickey1215]

Hey guys. I'm totally new to these boards and being a soon-to-be college student, I certainly don't pretend to know much about anything except for muwsic and movies (Roxy Music and the Big Lebowski).

It seems to me though that issues of religion in public school, sex education in public school, gay issues in public school, and other school-related issues all involve a common demonimator: public schools.

These issues are so volitile because we as taxpayers fund public school and we don't want our tax dollars funding thinks we believe are immoral. Understandable.

But these issues become moot when the American taxpayer has no stake in the matter. We don't have heated discussions about prayer in religious schools because they are privately owned.

I seem to be beating around the bush. The solution is: Get rid of public schools.

With the school system completely privatized, these arguments disappear. Athiests don't have to worry about prayer in school becasue they will send their kids to secular schools. Christians won't have to worry about sex education and "Heather Has Twoo Mommies" because they will send their kids to religious schools.

A privatized school system creates competition among schools and education would be open to much more experimentation. Parents would be able to vote with their feet and take their kids out of a school that they feel is inferior. It seems to logical because we are surrounded by open markets in the rest of our lives. There isn't one public restaurant system where people have to battle over the menu. People spend their money at whichever restaurant fits their needs, and so it should be with schools.

And by the way, an open market in education would be a liberal idea. In the classical sense of the word and not the pro-teacher uniona and anti-student approach modern US liberals have.

 

[Elind]

In the United States, the Democratic Party is generally considered "liberal" while the Republicans are generally "conservative". These two words are often used as if they were opposites, but are they? I like to think of myself as liberal, but I frequently find myself on the opposite side of many other liberals.

You read the news too literally. If a Republican talk show host disagrees with you you are a liberal (or maybe a secularist), if a Democrat disagrees with you you are a right wing conservative, or worse.

 

[Elind]

I seem to be beating around the bush. The solution is: Get rid of public schools.

Hi,

I like your getting-down-to-the-basics parts, but for all smart solutions there are usually stupid problems. Who pays for the schooling of those who don't want to spend money on their kid's school, for example? What if all the "religious" schools are full, and the non religious are unacceptable to the parents, or vv? What if the parents can't afford the tuition, or pretend they can't?

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

 

[Tony]

Hey guys. I'm totally new to these boards and being a soon-to-be college student, I certainly don't pretend to know much about anything except for muwsic and movies (Roxy Music and the Big Lebowski).

It seems to me though that issues of religion in public school, sex education in public school, gay issues in public school, and other school-related issues all involve a common demonimator: public schools.

These issues are so volitile because we as taxpayers fund public school and we don't want our tax dollars funding thinks we believe are immoral. Understandable.

But these issues become moot when the American taxpayer has no stake in the matter. We don't have heated discussions about prayer in religious schools because they are privately owned.

I seem to be beating around the bush. The solution is: Get rid of public schools.

With the school system completely privatized, these arguments disappear. Athiests don't have to worry about prayer in school becasue they will send their kids to secular schools. Christians won't have to worry about sex education and "Heather Has Twoo Mommies" because they will send their kids to religious schools.

A privatized school system creates competition among schools and education would be open to much more experimentation. Parents would be able to vote with their feet and take their kids out of a school that they feel is inferior. It seems to logical because we are surrounded by open markets in the rest of our lives. There isn't one public restaurant system where people have to battle over the menu. People spend their money at whichever restaurant fits their needs, and so it should be with schools.

And by the way, an open market in education would be a liberal idea. In the classical sense of the word and not the pro-teacher uniona and anti-student approach modern US liberals have.

How would industry/universities measure whether or not someone was educated? They have a degree, sure, but how can the integrity of that degree be guaranteed? Why should a child with loony parents be forced to endure a life of ignorance because his parents made him attend "Bob's School of Flat Earth Studies"? I think your solution give too much power to parents.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I like Mickey's idea, although it isn't original. Has anyone here read "Jennifer Government?"

In that book, the corporations actually educate people. Of course, one corporation decides to kill people to up the marketing hype of their product as well.

 

[Meadmaker]

And by the way, an open market in education would be a liberal idea. In the classical sense of the word and not the pro-teacher uniona and anti-student approach modern US liberals have.

Agreed.

Although, your approach is a bit simplistic, but you're young. It's supposed to be. I think publicly financed education is liberal, but with parent choice. I'm a voucher guy, myself. However, you're still stuck with public money going to fund things that makes people angry. I don't think there's any way to get away from that. I, personally, think vouchers are the best compromise, with parochial schools required to make an honest effort to separate out specifically religious teaching from other teaching, and not allowing discrimination in enrollment. To me, that's liberal.

ETA: Oh,yeah. you also need to have some sort of performance monitoring and regulation. Otherwise, you won't end up actually educating people, and that is the liberal reason for funding the schools in the first place.

 

[Mickey1215]

Good issues, though I'm not sure what me being young has anything to do with it. Maybe it's because I tend to be pretty disillusioned with public education. As for simplicity, the basic idea is simplistic, but so is the basic idea of freedom. People have the right to live their lives the way they want without hurting anyone else.

Now down to the criticisms. Elind: As for unaffordable tuition, I'm no economics expert, though I hope to be one, but this all comes down to supply and demand. Same thing with the amount of religious vs. non-religious schools. It a lot of parents want to send their kids to religious schools, there will be a lot of religious schools, and vise versa. If there is no demand for a secular school in say, rural Alabama (not to pick on Alabama), no secular school will spring up. There will be as many seats in schools as there is demand from parents.

As for tuition, there is a pretty valid misconception that all private schhols are expensive and only rich parents can send their kids to private schools. that seems to be the case today, with the near government monopoly on education. But in a market environment, schools would have to cater to their clients (parents and students) both curricularly (?) and financially. A school in the Hamptons could have high titon costs, but not out of the price range of the residents there.

A school with a very high tuition obviously couldn't stay in business in downtown Detroit (not to pick on Detroit, ok maybe a little bit), since no one could afford the tuition. The tuitiion at that school would be at whatever price parents would be willing to pay. Most people in inner-city Detroit can't afford to buy giant yachts, so there isn't a thriving yacht business in Detroit.

As for judging the merits of a high school diploma (if it has any merit at all), you can look at the ABA or the AMA, or any professional organization. Colleges look at test scores, grades and other activities in deciding whom to admit. They don't need the government to decide for them.

Tony, if Ave Maria Law School can't be approved by the ABA, what is the likelihood that "Bob's School of Flat Earth Studies" would be licensed by anyone? People should certainly have the choice to go to BSFES (Gotta find a better acronym), but they will need to realize that people will think that they are crazy. And a school might deicde that getting accreditated might be better for the school and it might attract more students. Businesses always work in their own best interests, and in this case, a school would want to work in the best interest of it's students.

And thaiboxerken, I haven't read Jennifer Government, but in this system you wouldn't have 2 or 3 corporations running the show. You would have many competing schools vying for students. And why would a corporation kill off it's customers? Seems like a bad business move.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And thaiboxerken, I haven't read Jennifer Government, but in this system you wouldn't have 2 or 3 corporations running the show. You would have many competing schools vying for students. And why would a corporation kill off it's customers? Seems like a bad business move.

You would probably have many corporations teaching kids to become employees of the corporation. McDonald's schools, for example, wouldn't teach kids too much about rocket-science. Basically, it would lock families into the corporation for generations.

 

[Mickey1215]

That's true, McDonalds wouldn't teach rocket science, but why would they need to? A degree in rocet sceince isn't exactly a prerequisite for work at McDonalds. And I don't see why families would be locked into McDonalds. unlike the governemnt, McDonalds can't force people to go to their school. You seem to be thinking of the Pullman0esque railroad towns of olde, where one corporation controlled the town and everyone worked for the corporation. You mean to tell me that McDonalds or Wal-Mart would gobble up whole cities and force everyone to to to their schools? Ricidulous.

And by the way, McDonalds does have their own college, Hamburger University. It is outside of Chicago and have about 6000 students. And they have a course in Hamburgerology, which is sweet.

 

[Earthborn]

Most people in inner-city Detroit can't afford to buy giant yachts, so there isn't a thriving yacht business in Detroit.

So you are basically saying that if no school can educate children for a price their parents can afford, those children won't be educated?

you can look at the ABA or the AMA, or any professional organization.

You'll have to explain which organisations you refer to with those accronyms. There are many different organisations that use those.

You seem to be thinking of the Pullman0esque railroad towns of olde, where one corporation controlled the town and everyone worked for the corporation. You mean to tell me that McDonalds or Wal-Mart would gobble up whole cities and force everyone to to to their schools? Ricidulous.

Explain how that is ridiculous, even though you admit that it has happened in the past.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And I don't see why families would be locked into McDonalds. unlike the governemnt, McDonalds can't force people to go to their school.

Because McDonald's probably won't want to give out scholarships to people from Burger King. In otherwords, McDonald's might make it part of an employee contact to educate their children, but only at a McDonald's school.

You seem to be thinking of the Pullman0esque railroad towns of olde, where one corporation controlled the town and everyone worked for the corporation.

This seems to be the type of society you are pulling for. I think it would be a nice society, as long as I was upper management.

You mean to tell me that McDonalds or Wal-Mart would gobble up whole cities and force everyone to to to their schools?

Not at all. They just would encourage their employees to attend only their schools and hospitals and parks and such.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Personally, I think the public education system should be based on a meriticracy system. Children should all start out in the same system, regardless of upbringing. Rich parents shouldn't be able to buy their kids into college and presidency. Everyone should start out at the same spot and their success based only on merit, not color, skin, family status or religion.

But, that's about as unrealistic as corporations funding all eduation.

 

[gumboot]

I like to think of myself as liberal, but I frequently find myself on the opposite side of many other liberals.

No doubt someone has already mentioned this, apologies if it has already been addressed.

Liberal and Conservative aren't really absolutes, they're a sliding scale. I'm not an American, but based on other democratic countries dominated by two major opposing parties, you'll probably find that Democrats aren't really that far along the "liberal" scale and Republicans aren't really that far along the "conservative" scale. Both are probably somewhat off-centre.

However people supporting each group may be further along the scale than their party, especially in particular issues. There is no doubt extremist liberals and extremist conservatives.

The problem with extremism is it becomes very hard to distinguish differences in the scale.

An extreme leftist cannot distinguish between somone slightly left of centre, someone slightly right of centre, and an extreme rightist.

In that regard, while yourself being left, other people who are more extreme in their leftist views may perceive you as being right wing.

This is typical of ALL extremists - hence why Islamic terrorists will as readily attack muslims as they will Jews - because in their mind there's little difference between a moderate muslim, a moderate Jew and an extremist Jew.

It is a part of man that makes life pretty miserable for more moderate people such as myself. You are forever attacked by both extreme camps for being part of the other extreme camp.

Is so frustrating to enter a discussion, for example, about Palestine/Israel and get tagged a murdering Islamic Terrorist by one side and a Zion-loving "Jew-dog" by the other, for a single comment!

*sigh*

-Andrew

 

[Darat]

...snip...

And by the way, an open market in education would be a liberal idea. In the classical sense of the word and not the pro-teacher uniona and anti-student approach modern US liberals have.

Why do you say it is a "classical" liberal idea?

 

[Meadmaker]

Gumboot,

When I say, "I'm a liberal", what I mean is that when confronted with a difficult issue, where I'm conflicted on what to support, I try to steer toward what I think is the more liberal position. I try to use it as a guiding philosophy.


Mickey,
About Earthborn's question. What would you do for kids in the City of Detroit? If there were no public funding for the private schools, they simply wouldn't go to school. Is that what you are advocating? Some radical Libertarians think that's a good idea. I don't, but some people do.

Earthborn,

ABA=American Bar Association. AMA=American Medical Association. They set standards for doctors and lawyers, respecitively.

 

[drkitten]

I seem to be beating around the bush. The solution is: Get rid of public schools.

With the school system completely privatized, these arguments disappear.

As does the idea of an educated population.

The United States has enough problems with school attendance and pupil achievement levels already, without making education itself optional.

To every problem, there is an easy, obvious "solution" that will actually make things much, much worse. You just found one.

 

[drkitten]

And thaiboxerken, I haven't read Jennifer Government, but in this system you wouldn't have 2 or 3 corporations running the show.

How would you guarantee that? Corporations naturally seek a monopoly -- that's why Wal-Mart and McDonalds exist in the first place.

 

[Mickey1215]

Wal-Mart and McDonalds exist to make a lot of money. But so do Burger King and Costco. Monopolies don't exist with out the help of governments (federal and local) that impinge upon the marketplace. There would be schools to tteach kids in inner city Detroit because there would be demand.

thaiboxerken- I guess I don't understand the idea of "people from Burger King." Are these Burger King employees? Why would McDonalds not want their business? And McDonalds might put in a contract that someone would need to send their kid to a McDonalds school, but that person could obviously turn down the contract. Not the case with government schools.

thaiboxerken- I think you are misunderstanding the idea of Hamburger University. This isn't a "school" in that it educated students on the 3 R's. It is a school for wannabe McDonalds managers to get training. In that sense, I think it is a good thing. People go there to get job training and it is likely that with training from HU you would be able to rise in the McDonalds corporate ladder. An actual McDonalds school wouldn't seem to work becasue most middle-class parents would not want their children to be stuck in a McDonalds system.

And for truancy, I think (and this is speculation) that in a market environment, more kids would be likely to go to school. Under the one-size-fits-all public school policy, the studnets hurt most are the poor ones. they get the worst facilities and teachers and students have no reason to go to school. I really think that im my system, school would have the incentive to get kids to go to their school, by offering scholarships, interesting classes, and good facilities. Public schools don't have this incentive.

Maybe I'm too optimistic about the human race, but I think that every person has the capability to be educated. Most aren't. Soe people are easy learners and these people are successful.

Other people, people that need an extra push, are that ones who are destroyed by public schools. 27% of all freshmen in Detroit school end up getting diplomas. 27%! the 27% that do graduate get a worthless diploma that won't help them at all. The solution to this problem can't be more funding, because public schools on average spend more money per student than private schools. The reason public schools don't work as well as private schools is that private schools are run like businesses and public schools are run like bureaucracies.

 

[Mickey1215]

According to Wikipedia (not the most valid source)- is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy.

Des that sound like the Democratic Party platform? These are the ideas that influenced the American and French revolutions.

I would consider a market education system a classically liberal idea.