Agreed, but also including government, industry and markets and so forth-- whatever's part of the world and beyond.
'Open-Door Education'.
Education turned inside-out:
*_INVERSITY_*
If students are brought _way_ more beyond the classroom (and/or reinventing what a "classroom" and "school" are and can be), then those areas that they visit, study-- and, yes, even apprentice, co-op and work in, etc., will also learn and teach-- and have more to answer for. There will be more transparency by necessity.
Currently, students seem hardly allowed to go anywhere. That's not community or how close-knit, successful tribes worked, or anything else. It's built-in ignorance, failures and disasters waiting-to-happen. More eyes see more, even if they're still learning-- or maybe especially so.
If, as I've read this week here, education is supposed to prepare one for the real world, then I think we're going about it the wrong way.
I propose that the very act of seeding students throughout (which is where they should rightfully be) could change our systems/world for the better-- government, industry, markets, education-- everything.
I'd be surprised if you needed a paper to teach in many contexts. It might be just a question of getting it going, a la grass-roots.
For example, rather that just setting up a garage only for himself, Don could easily create a "one-room schoolhouse" for drafting and building.
Sometimes you have to do something you know to be stupid because that is the way it is. And I don't think it hurts anyone to at least be familiar with the concept.
If a worker can only knot carpets, he/she is not a good worker in the current climate. One of the many reasons child labor is a bad thing is that it does not provide sufficient time for a child to learn the skills to be really successful.
Some. I wouldn't say even the majority.
Knowing when to keep your head down and not make waves is a very valuable skill in an employee. If you do it because you were taught just to follow authority blindly or if you do it because you have learned that sometimes you just have to suck it up and do stupid stuff, the actual behavior is the smae. And the older I get, the more times I look back and see times I was _so sure_ I was right where, if I'd been able/allowed to do what I thought was right it would have been a total disaster.
Do you really think you're happier because you haven't learned when to "go with the flow"?
Good manners in children largely consists of respecting adults.
If the situation you need to adapt to is a job where you are expected to act within rules, absolutely obedience is a very good adaptation. By your own admission you are maladapted in this regard, so you don't really have much to say about it.
If their parents don't provide them any framework for questioning authority, yes, that is what you get. But the vast majority of people are happier that way, just as many people are uncomfortable with the idea of international travel.
Don has not suggested replacing the current system with anything that would guarantee at least minimal education to all children.
You've consistently disavowed any fellow feeling for the rest of the country, as well as any responsibility to other individuals in it. If you think that you have the resources to make it on your own outside the infrastructure generations of citizens of this country have spent generations building, don't let the door hit you in the back.
Depends on what you mean by "education". If you mean teaching children about rights and responsibilities, then yes. If you mean teaching children about something else, say the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", then no...
Plenty of *authentic* people vote with their feet when they dislike the government the inherit. A close (white) friend of mine left South Africa in the 60's as a young man because he couldn't stand the system there. Many of my father's generation left eastern Europe before the iron curtain came down and never saw their native lands, or families, ever again.
Others commit themselves to transforming their countries by political engagement within their native lands. They get together with like-minded people and try to remedy the flaws in their systems. Both these routes take guts.
Maladjusted, self-centered misanthropes, surrounded by caches of Spam and ammo, should consider their options and grow a pair. They won't of course, neither will they take their happy meds, but "I Can Dream, Can't I?"
I think you need to see that there are two ways of looking at the issue.
1) I am required, by the use of force, to "help" others. I have little say in who, what or how I'm going to help. Nor do I have any ability to ensure that my "contribution" will be used efficiently and/or effectively. If I don't "help", my property is taken from me, by force. I have no recourse, no appeal and no way to rectify the problem.
2) I give, of my own choice, to those who need help. I can be sure that my help is used efficiently and effectively. I know that it will be used to help those truly needing the help, and not those who are working the system, lazy or simply take it because it's available.
There are those that argue there aren't enough people who will do #2, so we must do #1. I am convinced that by doing #1, in *any* degree will dissuade many from doing #2. I also know that if #2 was the only option, we would be in no worse situation with regard to the number of people requiring help and be in a better situation with regard to the economic circumstances of everybody in general.
The only successful long-term answer is to eliminate all forms of government welfare and provide it privately. Those who say it's not possible simply want to shift the guilt, and the burden, to somebody else. YOU should pay to help him, rather than, I will pay to help him. Government social programs are now, and always have been, a way to make yourself feel better buy stealing somebody's money to give a little of it to somebody else.
I have not and will not argue that I don't have a personal moral obligation to help those in need. I will argue until I die that nobody has the right to take my money without my consent regardless of how noble the purpose might be.
What? Can't handle the fact that I can have a reasoned discussion without getting shrill? Didn't you know? People who _actually_ value independent thought don't have to launch into that kind of attack when someone has a contrary opinion. You say you value thinking for yourself, but you only value the thoughts of people whose independent thoughts mirror your own. News flash: that's exactly what you've been criticizing.
You're looking at it the wrong way. We, as a society, decided that there are certain things that are worth paying for. To pay for it, we as a country have chosen to allow ourselves to be taxed.
Education is not welfare, and students do not get money in the process. You might as well call the military welfare, or the highway system.
You do consent by choosing to live in a country where voters have chosen to be taxed for purposes that are to everyone's benefit. You can always go and live in Donselvania.
Voting isn't in the same category. Tyranny of the masses is no different than the tyranny of a dictator. Just because "everyone" agrees to steal from the rich guy doesn't mean it's moral. It just means everyone has lost their morals.
It also means that people have, because of indoctrination, poor reasoning and emotional manipulation, lost their ability to understand the proper role and function of governments. Governments have changed from protecting and defending rights to pandering to the wants of the masses. Once government has moved to giving away money and power, it ceases to be a government that will protect rights. It becomes something different where favors are traded for power and money. If the government had no welfare system--and it wasn't possible for it have one--then what would the politicians be about? Today its all about how much the government can give away. That money comes at a price--votes, favors, whatever. In order to have any influence, you have to buy your way in (and it's not always money that is the price).
I wholeheartedly disagree. In the past, "we" were conned into thinking taking money and redistributing it is "worth paying for". Yet nothing has changed. We're not better off, we're worse off. There are the same number of poor and the amount of money taken is ever increasing.
I don't think we allowed ourselves to be taxes as much as we fooled ourselves into thinking somebody else would be taxed and that's OK with me because it won't affect me personally. We allowed ourselves to be fooled into thinking that 1 or 2% of our income is a reasonable amount, not realizing that we'd let the horse out of the barn (or a better analogy, we poked a small hole in the dike to get a drink of water, not realizing that the force of water would eventually erode away the entire dike).
Do you not have any sense of history? The first "public" schools were created by groups of families getting together to provide a space for their children to learn and then paying the teacher. Most people knew that they didn't have the time, ability or education to do it properly. They created a "public" school...without "government" involvement. Unfortunately, that has grown into a monster that is more about the educational system than it is about education. This system insists that we must pour more money into it every year, and we turn a blind eye to the abysmal results. When did the changes take place? Not at once, but slowly as governments got involved--imposing standards, rules, whatever in exchange for money. Again, trading favors for power & money. Once that happened, the education system became about the system, not about education.
So, no "education" isn't welfare, but our current system isn't "education". How would I change it? Cut all federal funds (returning them to the tax payers) and make the local groups responsible educating the kids. There isn't "fairness" now, so let's stop pretending and just have a system that is the natural outgrowth of individual families banding together. It was this system that created the vast wealth and prosperity of the country. Clearly, the current system is taking us in the opposite direction.
Federal involvement in the education system is simply unconstitutional.
First, I don't consent by living here. I disagree and acquiesce (because to protest illegal taxation is a sure ticket to incarceration). I fight against it (quite unsuccessfully because most people have stuck their heads in the sand). The voters no longer have any choice in being taxed or not. The system is stacked against putting people into office that can't be bought. People trade money for access and favors. It's not a reasonably "free" system anymore. I vote--and I never vote for an incumbent when given the choice. So you cannot tell me I consent.
Second, and more importantly, there isn't a place left on the planet that hasn't been contaminated by this socialist stupidity. Everywhere on earth people have been convinced that taking from the "rich" will make their lives better, never considering that it simply gets rid of the rich giving everyone the opportunity to remain poor. There cannot be success if failure doesn't exist.
There have been several studies that show people would rather make more money than their neighbors than be equally wealthy. It is human nature that we're fighting against. I admire and marvel at those who can "make it" and have no jealously of them, just enough envy to want to figure it out. Unfortunately, I've met many people who would rather see the rich guy torn down even it means their position in life doesn't improve.
This is what socialism, in any degree, causes--misery distributed as broadly as possible. When we are forced to be "charitable", we are not. We become resentful of those who have more to be taken from, resentful of those who receive the charity and more poor ourselves. When we give of our own will none of those things follow. Instead, we're more grateful for what we have, realize we could probably live with less, and may are even more motivated to be successful so they can help more people.
Why not spend this week reading the Federalist Papers
formatting link
and get a better understanding of the proper role and functions of government. It's just a little more education--and free at that...
Ok, since you feel that way, you and Don can go form a nation somewhere where you'll all be moral.
How can you say we are not better off? The way people lived before public education wouldn't even be conceivable to us now. I would love to see some statistics comparing the number of poor in 1850 to now, but I don't know how you could, since the definition of "poor" has changed so radically. The number of people who actually don't have enough to eat most days is almost zero now.
I'd agree with you that there is far too much waste. However, you live in a country which, like most countries, has decided that taxes at some level are necessary to support services we consider essential.
Which was capable of producing at best an eighth grade education. Do YOU not have a sense of history?
OK, obviously you don't have a sense of history. The United States was a complete backwater by world standards until about 1940 or so. Most people were barely scraping by until about 1910 at least. Both of these dates were well after the institution of the public education system.
Yet, oddly, many of the founding fathers, notably Jefferson, advocated it. If they had intended that it be unconstitutional, don't you think they'd have advocated AGAINST it?
Yet you drive on roads paid for by taxpayer money, use subsidized electricity, etc. You actually do have a choice as to whether to pay taxes, even if you don't choose to go off with Don and found your own nation. It is completely possible to live a decent life on an income so low that not only do you not pay taxes, you get a tax credit back. And I'm not talking about welfare. I'm talking about simply arranging your life so it is not very expensive. Most of us find that inconvenient to do, so we _do_ consent to be taxed.
I suspect you can find an island somewhere that is uninhabited. Maybe you could take a cruise to New Zealand and mutiny near the Pitcair Islands...
You know, I know many people who both pay taxes and contibute to charity. Render to Caesar and all that.
How about instead calling it 'ethical coercion'?
Well maybe you might want to consider stopping yourself from using our networks, roads, currencies, resources, etc., and go live as a hermit and independent. (To quote you: "Everybody wants a cellphone but nobody wants a tower.") Then, if you're still taxed (how?), we might agree that it's theft. Otherwise, one could consider you to be stealing from us if you don't pay your taxes, but still benefit from our cake.
"Advocates of minimal government contend that the so called 'coercion' of taxes is essential for the market's survival, and a market free from taxes may lead to no market at all. By definition, there is no market without private property, and private property can only exist while there is an entity that defines and defends it."
formatting link
Don wrote: > Govt is an insult to human dignity.
"Martin J. Whitman... writes, '... in no way does it follow... that government is per se bad and unproductive while the private sector is, per se good and productive."
"He [Whitman] believes that an apparently 'free' relationship-that between a corporation and its investors and creditors-is actually a blend of 'voluntary exchanges' and *_'coercion'_* [my highlights]."
"Pareto originally used this distribution to describe the allocation of wealth among individuals, since it seemed to show rather well the way that a larger portion of the wealth of any society is owned by a smaller percentage of the people in that society. This idea is sometimes expressed more simply as the Pareto principle or the '80-20 rule' which says that 20% of the population owns 80% of the wealth."
formatting link
"Because no national economy in existence fully manifests the ideal of a free market as theorized by economists, some critics of the concept consider it to be a fantasy-outside of the bounds of reality in a complex system with opposing interests and different distributions of wealth."
formatting link
Don wrote: > I have no cure for societies ailments.
Fair enough, and of course... I've already suggested, perhaps outright, that I value your "online forum" side(s). The many things you know that I don't is in part what brings me here-- architecture, building, ACAD, framing with balloons...
(joking with the last bit ;)
I love reading what you guys have to say in that area, even if I don't always completely understand it. Hopefully, our public sides, though, or the main sides others see, are fair to our sides unseen, that what-is and who-is behind the scenes is not somehow undermined or devalued, if only through the eyes of others.
If you feel you're not being read properly or fairly, perhaps it might be a good time to consider avoiding some topics that you think might put you in the mire... Not that that's necessarily a big deal if you can handle it, or that we'll all invariably end up there from time to time! :)
Very cool and commendable, and glad you shared it-- it's inspirational.
Hypothetically, an iceberg, brimming with clear pristine fresh ice, can float by an industrial town and get its above-surface portion coated with a thin brownish-gray film of industrial pollutants. ;)
Makes me think of sci-fi films where one goes back to the past, and the very act of going back changes who they are-- even rendering them non-existent.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.