4 ms·

As these things tend to do, the issues balloon and it becomes impractical to respond to every point. The idea that parents who don't care are penalized is simp

As these things tend to do, the issues balloon and it becomes impractical to respond to every point. The idea that parents who don't care are penalized is simply a fact of life. Should we make the same argument about diet— that the state has the resources to appoint Top Dietitians and mandate a uniform State Diet? In fact, the experts that the state has hired have been corrupted by players like the corn and dairy lobbies and the nutritional advice they've given in the past has been roundly derided as terrible. Further, obesity has gotten worse since that advice has been given. Why would we think that the same state mandating institutional assignment would produce better results? Apparently, according to you, because other State education departments in other cultures and parts of the world have had comparatively more success by state-reported metrics? Again, I'm unimpressed at this justification for property taxes. "What you're suggesting is that it's okay to have a system where parents and students make the decision about whether or not schools are good or bad by spending time at them" In part, Yes! The way every other cooperative voluntary arrangement works! Do you even have children? I do. I have had babysitters that have made me uncomfortable on the first day. Yes, I have fired them and made the necessary decisions for my children. Why you think I should be legally prevented from doing that in the case of decades of dubious-quality education is a complete mystery to me at this point. Experiential data are extremely useful on individual bases. Children who enjoy school because they don't have to do anything have been taught that education is painful. Anyone without that supposition would simply be bored, which would be a negative complaint rather than a positive review. The fact that we culturally accept common utterances like "school sucks" should tell you everything you need to know about a one-size-fits-all approach to educating a population. The argument here is to walk back the do-this-or-lose-your-house force-based approach and move toward a competitive and innovative approach toward improving individuals' quality of life. Your argument against this seems to be that, while it hasn't worked here, it theoretically (under some theory you've yet to elucidate) could, because infinite resources by fiat magically translate to infinite productivity and efficiency in real life. I don't think you've just done a poor job at defending that claim, I think you've simply done the best job you could of defending a bad idea. Now what's that they say about ideas being so good the have to be mandatory?

swivelmaster 7y ago
Look, I can see that this is coming down more to an ideological and theoretical argument than a fact-based one. You dismissed any evidence that other countries have done this better out of hand because in theory those statistics can be corrupted, and you've dismissed the idea that state experts could make the system better because they could also be corrupted. This is the core conservative argument for abolishing just about every government service: "We screwed it up in the past. Rather than trying to fix our past mistakes, we should instead give up." And I am well aware of the problems with the "food pyramid." Your example here ignores the fact that the government has since acknowledged that the original recommendations were wrong, and has been updating them over time to reflect the best research. The argument that "the process can be corrupted therefore we should give up" ignores that it can also be improved over time, and that governments are accountable. "Your argument against this seems to be that, while it hasn't worked here, it theoretically (under some theory you've yet to elucidate) could, because infinite resources by fiat magically translate to infinite productivity and efficiency in real life." I did provide evidence that it could work, which was that it has worked in numerous other countries. You just chose to dismiss that evidence out of hand because you'd rather come up with an excuse to disbelieve it rather than accept that a system you fundamentally disagree with can work. Whether you mean it to or not, it comes off as utterly and completely bad-faith argument to dismiss the evidence I provided out of hand and then tell me several paragraphs later that I haven't adequately described how it can be done. I pointed you in the direction of a perfect example, and yet apparently you haven't even checked to see if it's a valid example. The short version is this: Finland had a crappy education system, and they made a decision as a country to fix it. They approached it with open minds, willing to throw out any ideas that were outdated and not backed up with evidence. What they ended up with was little to no homework, fresh-made school lunches, and the abolition of private schools. (The reason for the last bit is that as long as wealthy people can use private schools as an escape hatch for their own kids, they have zero political incentive to fix the public schools.) You mentioned in another comment that you would absolutely accept a system that rewarded parents who spent more time researching schools, and I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. You want a system that allows people succeed if they have the time and resources to do so. I want a system that does its best for all people, even though that takes a lot more work and coordination. Now, I'm not exactly sure what your motivation for this is. Pessimistically, it looks like a very selfish line of reasoning: Since you have the time and resources and think you're smart enough to choose wisely, you want the choice to do so, and if other people don't have the same opportunities then too bad for them. Or, more optimistically, you just can't imagine a system that works adequately the way I describe, so you just think your way is safer.

swivelmaster 7y ago

Look, I can see that this is coming down more to an ideological and theoretical argument than a fact-based one. You dismissed any evidence that other countries have done this better out of hand because in theory those statistics can be corrupted, and you've dismissed the idea that state experts could make the system better because they could also be corrupted. This is the core conservative argument for abolishing just about every government service: "We screwed it up in the past. Rather than trying to fix our past mistakes, we should instead give up." And I am well aware of the problems with the "food pyramid." Your example here ignores the fact that the government has since acknowledged that the original recommendations were wrong, and has been updating them over time to reflect the best research. The argument that "the process can be corrupted therefore we should give up" ignores that it can also be improved over time, and that governments are accountable. "Your argument against this seems to be that, while it hasn't worked here, it theoretically (under some theory you've yet to elucidate) could, because infinite resources by fiat magically translate to infinite productivity and efficiency in real life." I did provide evidence that it could work, which was that it has worked in numerous other countries. You just chose to dismiss that evidence out of hand because you'd rather come up with an excuse to disbelieve it rather than accept that a system you fundamentally disagree with can work. Whether you mean it to or not, it comes off as utterly and completely bad-faith argument to dismiss the evidence I provided out of hand and then tell me several paragraphs later that I haven't adequately described how it can be done. I pointed you in the direction of a perfect example, and yet apparently you haven't even checked to see if it's a valid example. The short version is this: Finland had a crappy education system, and they made a decision as a country to fix it. They approached it with open minds, willing to throw out any ideas that were outdated and not backed up with evidence. What they ended up with was little to no homework, fresh-made school lunches, and the abolition of private schools. (The reason for the last bit is that as long as wealthy people can use private schools as an escape hatch for their own kids, they have zero political incentive to fix the public schools.) You mentioned in another comment that you would absolutely accept a system that rewarded parents who spent more time researching schools, and I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. You want a system that allows people succeed if they have the time and resources to do so. I want a system that does its best for all people, even though that takes a lot more work and coordination. Now, I'm not exactly sure what your motivation for this is. Pessimistically, it looks like a very selfish line of reasoning: Since you have the time and resources and think you're smart enough to choose wisely, you want the choice to do so, and if other people don't have the same opportunities then too bad for them. Or, more optimistically, you just can't imagine a system that works adequately the way I describe, so you just think your way is safer.