3 ms·

1) Government-run schools are not free. 2) The educators' intentions may be good, but the results are much more important. 3) The politicians do not fund thin

by nickff 13y ago

1) Government-run schools are not free. 2) The educators' intentions may be good, but the results are much more important. 3) The politicians do not fund things, they appropriate money from tax receipts. 4) There are many defenders of the public school system who justify it on the basis of creating a 'shared experience' for the citizenry, which sounds quite collectivist. Why would singing national anthems and pledges of allegiance be so common in schools around the world, if not for statism? 5) The government schooling system has historically been used as a tool of oppression against minorities; it would be naive to believe that politicians and bureaucrats suddenly stopped using the schools to achieve their ends .

Nursie 13y ago
1) They are free at the point of access, we all pay for them. I'm not sure why you feel the need to point this out as it's a useless distinction 2) Not when we're talking about the subject we're actually talking about they're not. I quote from the OP - "the suppression of creativity and individualism is one of the key goals of the compulsory schooling system". That's what I dispute. It may well be an outcome, and that would be bad and should be changed, but it's disingenuous (to say the least) to ascribe this as a motive. 3) The politicians decide what to fund out of the public purse, yes. Again, useless distinction 4) Is collectivism evil in and of itself? I don't subscribe to this view in the slightest, in case you were wondering, and I've only ever heard a few left-wing talking heads claim that that is what we should be trying to do with schools. Personally I 'justify' it by observing that education is given to people who otherwise would not get it for a variety of reasons, and having a base level of education throughout society being a very Good Thing. 5) It's also verging on conspiracy to ascribe nefarious aims and goals to every person involved in education.
- nickff 13y ago
  1) "We" do not all pay taxes, and I want to point it out, because I am being forced to finance a system which I do not believe in. 2) The OP said that 'suppression' was a goal of the system, not of each individual actor; you were addressing the teachers, and I was saying that they are participating in a dangerous broader system. 3) It is not useless to point out that politicians pay for nothing; if they were paying, I would not care how the money was disbursed. 4) Please address the nationalism and statism which is evoked by the anthems and pledges at schools; how does this help the children better their lives? 5) If there have never been "nefarious aims" in the public education system, why did Brown sue the Board of Education? I am simply reciting history, do you disagree with the history? Or do you disagree with my conjecture that all "nefarious aims" may not have disappeared when Little Rock was desegregated?
  - Nursie 13y ago
    1 & 3) Oh noes! The evil taxman! We all pay for things we disagree with, but I prefer we do that than have no commons at all. Feel free to disagree with this but you're basically walking into "Public education is bad by definition" which is not something I'm here to argue. I'm really only saying that I don't think it's anyone's aim. And no, we do not all pay taxes, some do not because they are as poor as dirt. It's an awesome facet of modern society that they are not condemned to stay there by lack of access to education, nor by parental indifference to it. 2) I do not believe that it is the goal of educators, nor of others that operate or support the system. I do not believe that even if it was set up to do that by some bad evil people last century it is a key goal now. This is the root of my argument. It may be an outcome, it is not a goal. 4) We don't do that over here in communist UKia, because it's weird. 5) I have no idea who Brown is, or anything about Little Rock beyond it being where Bill Clinton came from, sorry. Not american.
ahomescu1 13y ago
For 1), I think the GP meant "free as in freedom", not "free as in beer". Taxpayers pay for school, but everyone is allowed in (I do agree with you in your interpretation).

by nickff 13y ago

Nursie 13y ago

1) They are free at the point of access, we all pay for them. I'm not sure why you feel the need to point this out as it's a useless distinction 2) Not when we're talking about the subject we're actually talking about they're not. I quote from the OP - "the suppression of creativity and individualism is one of the key goals of the compulsory schooling system". That's what I dispute. It may well be an outcome, and that would be bad and should be changed, but it's disingenuous (to say the least) to ascribe this as a motive. 3) The politicians decide what to fund out of the public purse, yes. Again, useless distinction 4) Is collectivism evil in and of itself? I don't subscribe to this view in the slightest, in case you were wondering, and I've only ever heard a few left-wing talking heads claim that that is what we should be trying to do with schools. Personally I 'justify' it by observing that education is given to people who otherwise would not get it for a variety of reasons, and having a base level of education throughout society being a very Good Thing. 5) It's also verging on conspiracy to ascribe nefarious aims and goals to every person involved in education.

nickff 13y ago
1) "We" do not all pay taxes, and I want to point it out, because I am being forced to finance a system which I do not believe in. 2) The OP said that 'suppression' was a goal of the system, not of each individual actor; you were addressing the teachers, and I was saying that they are participating in a dangerous broader system. 3) It is not useless to point out that politicians pay for nothing; if they were paying, I would not care how the money was disbursed. 4) Please address the nationalism and statism which is evoked by the anthems and pledges at schools; how does this help the children better their lives? 5) If there have never been "nefarious aims" in the public education system, why did Brown sue the Board of Education? I am simply reciting history, do you disagree with the history? Or do you disagree with my conjecture that all "nefarious aims" may not have disappeared when Little Rock was desegregated?
- Nursie 13y ago
  1 & 3) Oh noes! The evil taxman! We all pay for things we disagree with, but I prefer we do that than have no commons at all. Feel free to disagree with this but you're basically walking into "Public education is bad by definition" which is not something I'm here to argue. I'm really only saying that I don't think it's anyone's aim. And no, we do not all pay taxes, some do not because they are as poor as dirt. It's an awesome facet of modern society that they are not condemned to stay there by lack of access to education, nor by parental indifference to it. 2) I do not believe that it is the goal of educators, nor of others that operate or support the system. I do not believe that even if it was set up to do that by some bad evil people last century it is a key goal now. This is the root of my argument. It may be an outcome, it is not a goal. 4) We don't do that over here in communist UKia, because it's weird. 5) I have no idea who Brown is, or anything about Little Rock beyond it being where Bill Clinton came from, sorry. Not american.

ahomescu1 13y ago

For 1), I think the GP meant "free as in freedom", not "free as in beer". Taxpayers pay for school, but everyone is allowed in (I do agree with you in your interpretation).