>I consider it driven by a nasty, Platonic impulse I wouldn't say it's necessarily nasty. There's always been a wish (possibly romantic) for children to be rai

>I consider it driven by a nasty, Platonic impulse I wouldn't say it's necessarily nasty. There's always been a wish (possibly romantic) for children to be raised in common. e.g. "It takes a village to raise a child". e.g. from Assemblywomen by Aristophanes, as summarised in Wikipedia: >She proposes banning all ownership of private wealth and establishing equal pay for all and a unified standard of living. She further explains that people will no longer have a need for personal wealth as all basic needs will be met by the common fund. She further adds that men and women will be free to sleep with anyone they want, so long as they first sleep with the uglier members of the opposite sex. Parental responsibilities will be shared by the community as children will no longer know their fathers There's also the fact that we made it through the Stone Age and other prehistoric times in small roving bands with presumably no formal education. Yet the scraps of knowledge of how to hunt and survive were passed down effectively. People lived more intuitively then and in some sense there was more equality. Yet that isn't the alternative that's being proposed. What is being proposed is a top-down bureaucratically-controlled system applied to all children regardless of their or their families' wishes. It would inevitably be the most expensive option quite apart from being a giant zombie factory and propaganda machine for the future powers-that-be.