4 ms·

You're overlooking a couple of important things here: 1) Public education is shit anyway, and mostly just meant to indoctrinate us into the

You're overlooking a couple of important things here: 1) Public education is shit anyway, and mostly just meant to indoctrinate us into the Cult of Statism. 2) Private schools would do a vastly better job, for a small fraction of the price. I'm sure you agree on public schools being bad quality, to put it mildly. You might not agree on the indoctrination aspect, but hey, if we want to change things for the better, we can always write to our representatives and of course, vote! Vote the bums out! All hail The Land Of The Free! As for private schools doing a better job, you probably know how competition works. You get better stuff for lower prices.

sanoli 13y ago
But what are you saying should be done instead, a voucher system where families would decide which school to put their money into, or just abolish public funding for education altogether, and let each family fend for themselves?
- tokenizer 13y ago
  Well considering the cost of the Dept. of Education is 71.9 a year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budg...), that would work out to 20$ a year for a population of 360 Million. Adjusted for Youth, which is around 73.9 Million (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/01/census-number-of-youthful-americans-shrinks/1#.Uq9BjPRDuLQ http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012...), we're looking at about 972$ per youth per year. Thats what the governments pays now for the entire system. The teachers, the building costs, the supplies, etc. If we really wanted to have an alternative to public schooling, IMO (I'm an anarchist) it couldn't be done with a voucher system. The best solution is to question school as an institution. It was primarily for very young children and for reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Education_in_the_United_States#Growth_of_public_schools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Education_in_the_Uni... We need to rethink these institutions and consider the technological advantages. My solution would be to put half of that 70 billion into Libraries, and make the accomodable for children during the day. Make it completely optional.
  - sanoli 13y ago
    Make it completely optional, ok. What about the kids whose parents won't ever take them to one of these spaces/libraries? You know there will be thousands of kids growing up illiterate, not knowing any math, learning nothing but TV/youtube/Xbox if they are lucky to have that. Public education is shit, I agree with you on that. The problem is that for a percentage of children (varies by country, but quite high in the third world), handing the responsibility of their education to their parents is even shittier.
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      > What about the kids whose parents won't ever take them to one of these spaces/libraries? What about them? There are plenty of children growing up today that either don't go to school, get expelled, or refuse to learn anything. I don't see the difference. The percentage of children of going to these places? What about the last 5000 years of human progress? Surely they progressed without mandatory/forced state education. Would you agree with yourself if we were all in North Korea knowing what we know? That's the problem with hypotheticals, you can expound ad infinitum. > The problem is that for a percentage of children (varies by country, but quite high in the third world), handing the responsibility of their education to their parents is even shittier. Which doesn't matter. The question isn't what's more economically efficient or favourable to higher literacy rates. It's a matter of morality. If the state requires me to let them raise my children, and threatens me with force if I do not, then in your opinion, who's in the wrong? Now of course, things need to be in context. But you can't simply make an assertion that the state will always be better of a parent to a child than even a poor or illiterate or even neglectful parent. The problem with the ability to exert pressure on persons to send their children to public schooling is that it violates a natural and historical bond, and replaces it with "the monopoly on violence" in the name of justice. Always in the name of justice. Ask yourself this, if you're worried about children becoming illiterate, then surely you're worried about children joining armies to fight economic wars, children being locked in prison for nonviolent crimes, and children being used to scapegoat authoritarian measures right? What about the children -is not a defense between the DPRK threatening to take my child because I won't permit them to indoctrinate her.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  Private schools, that teach exactly what the market wants them to teach. This would not include Patriotic indoctrination though, for example. Besides, how many percent of everything you're taught at school do you actually find interesting? -We all learn what we want to learn, and that's about it. In a free society, people would just get exactly the kind of education they actually want.
  - sanoli 13y ago
    And if some children don't want to get any education, and their parents are ok with it, or just too poor to care or deem it important?
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      It's everyone's own personal choice what they want to learn, if anything. Everyone's responsible for their choices, and marketable skills can be acquired through experience and practice, even without any particular schooling.
      - tokenizer 13y ago
        Nope! You need this piece of paper you see? And, you'll need to give us $25,000 to get it. /s
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      > And if some children don't want to get any education, and their parents are ok with it, or just too poor to care or deem it important? I suppose YOU know what's better for them right? The argument is founded on the morals that people should be given freedom, along with the benefits and responsibilities that entails. Most of our 5,000+ years of known history had no public schooling and constant albeit slow progress. If you're trying to say you're morally obligated the threaten to take my children away from me because I/them decide their education is acceptable, even if YOU view it as none, then ask yourself if this exact same discussion would still be defended by yourself if we were living in the DPRK under harsh and oppressive control by our government. Thats the main difference really between individualists and collectivists thought. You think we're stupid, and we think you're evil. The government of the US or Canada ISN'T the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but to me, it could be. All we need are less individual rights, and more dependence on a nanny state that thinks it knows what's best for me. You may choose safety, but I'd rather choose Liberty. My option permits yours. Does your mine?

sanoli 13y ago

But what are you saying should be done instead, a voucher system where families would decide which school to put their money into, or just abolish public funding for education altogether, and let each family fend for themselves?

tokenizer 13y ago
Well considering the cost of the Dept. of Education is 71.9 a year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budg...), that would work out to 20$ a year for a population of 360 Million. Adjusted for Youth, which is around 73.9 Million (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/01/census-number-of-youthful-americans-shrinks/1#.Uq9BjPRDuLQ http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012...), we're looking at about 972$ per youth per year. Thats what the governments pays now for the entire system. The teachers, the building costs, the supplies, etc. If we really wanted to have an alternative to public schooling, IMO (I'm an anarchist) it couldn't be done with a voucher system. The best solution is to question school as an institution. It was primarily for very young children and for reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Education_in_the_United_States#Growth_of_public_schools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Education_in_the_Uni... We need to rethink these institutions and consider the technological advantages. My solution would be to put half of that 70 billion into Libraries, and make the accomodable for children during the day. Make it completely optional.
- sanoli 13y ago
  Make it completely optional, ok. What about the kids whose parents won't ever take them to one of these spaces/libraries? You know there will be thousands of kids growing up illiterate, not knowing any math, learning nothing but TV/youtube/Xbox if they are lucky to have that. Public education is shit, I agree with you on that. The problem is that for a percentage of children (varies by country, but quite high in the third world), handing the responsibility of their education to their parents is even shittier.
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    > What about the kids whose parents won't ever take them to one of these spaces/libraries? What about them? There are plenty of children growing up today that either don't go to school, get expelled, or refuse to learn anything. I don't see the difference. The percentage of children of going to these places? What about the last 5000 years of human progress? Surely they progressed without mandatory/forced state education. Would you agree with yourself if we were all in North Korea knowing what we know? That's the problem with hypotheticals, you can expound ad infinitum. > The problem is that for a percentage of children (varies by country, but quite high in the third world), handing the responsibility of their education to their parents is even shittier. Which doesn't matter. The question isn't what's more economically efficient or favourable to higher literacy rates. It's a matter of morality. If the state requires me to let them raise my children, and threatens me with force if I do not, then in your opinion, who's in the wrong? Now of course, things need to be in context. But you can't simply make an assertion that the state will always be better of a parent to a child than even a poor or illiterate or even neglectful parent. The problem with the ability to exert pressure on persons to send their children to public schooling is that it violates a natural and historical bond, and replaces it with "the monopoly on violence" in the name of justice. Always in the name of justice. Ask yourself this, if you're worried about children becoming illiterate, then surely you're worried about children joining armies to fight economic wars, children being locked in prison for nonviolent crimes, and children being used to scapegoat authoritarian measures right? What about the children -is not a defense between the DPRK threatening to take my child because I won't permit them to indoctrinate her.
anoncowherd 13y ago
Private schools, that teach exactly what the market wants them to teach. This would not include Patriotic indoctrination though, for example. Besides, how many percent of everything you're taught at school do you actually find interesting? -We all learn what we want to learn, and that's about it. In a free society, people would just get exactly the kind of education they actually want.
- sanoli 13y ago
  And if some children don't want to get any education, and their parents are ok with it, or just too poor to care or deem it important?
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    It's everyone's own personal choice what they want to learn, if anything. Everyone's responsible for their choices, and marketable skills can be acquired through experience and practice, even without any particular schooling.
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      Nope! You need this piece of paper you see? And, you'll need to give us $25,000 to get it. /s
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    > And if some children don't want to get any education, and their parents are ok with it, or just too poor to care or deem it important? I suppose YOU know what's better for them right? The argument is founded on the morals that people should be given freedom, along with the benefits and responsibilities that entails. Most of our 5,000+ years of known history had no public schooling and constant albeit slow progress. If you're trying to say you're morally obligated the threaten to take my children away from me because I/them decide their education is acceptable, even if YOU view it as none, then ask yourself if this exact same discussion would still be defended by yourself if we were living in the DPRK under harsh and oppressive control by our government. Thats the main difference really between individualists and collectivists thought. You think we're stupid, and we think you're evil. The government of the US or Canada ISN'T the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but to me, it could be. All we need are less individual rights, and more dependence on a nanny state that thinks it knows what's best for me. You may choose safety, but I'd rather choose Liberty. My option permits yours. Does your mine?