Well, in my statement, I refer to people who aren't able to school their
own kids. I do think that all children should be taught a certain level
of reading, writing, and math. How this is done is up to local
groups/communities/people to decide.
THe interesting thing is that, when you ask "how should this be handled",
you aer, by implication, suggesting that a given person (the one whom
you're asking) can make that decision for other people.
All one can do is suggest possible solutions to any given group of
people. One suggestion might be a local/community school for kids who
can;t be home schooled, anotehr suggestion is that maybe otehr parents
will offer to teach the kids with their own kids in certain subjects or X
number of days a month. THere are lots of possibilities.
I have never claimed that I have "The Answer", because what works in one
area or subculture or otehr sort of group or community simply will not
work in another.
All I say is that
(1) all children who are capable of doing so should be taught up to a
certain achievement level of reading, writing, and math, tho' I also
think history is useful, and enrichment studies encourage creative
thinking, which is also useful, and can be just plain enjoyable;
(2) children should be able to shoose whether to enter an appretiseship,
go "tech track", go college prep, or do whatever else is a good way to
learn to do what they want to do, or at the very least, to develop their
abilities so that they can figure out what sorts of things they might
enjoy, whether it be fixing motors, cutting hair, doing scientific
research, being and nurse, being a doctor, or whatever;
(3) there should be some sort of "grade" or "achievement level"
designation, only because employers have to be able to know that an
applicant who has reached this grade or that level *will* have a certain
set of skills and a certian level of knowledge.
As to "how", again, that should be up to the local community. Once a
standard exists (i.e., "by grade 6, tehchild will be able to read and
understand X, Y, and Z"), it should be up to the local group/community
how to achieve that. If they want to join with otehr groups an dset up a
school, fine, let them; if other people want to home-school, let them do
that. And so on. I think the main thing is avoiding these massive and
ever-growing bureaucracies - those amophous beasts are what demand
fancyass signs and mega-stadiums an dso on, and end up turning education
into little more than empire-building by bureaucrats, and/or the wish-
fulfillment of frustrated adults.
No! Arrgh... What the saying means is that parents need the support of
the village - the instance in which I'd first heard it was in a program
about a village of Natives in Brazil; the mother was ill and the father
was off hunting with a bunch of the other men, so the women of the
village were looking after the ill mother's children, and that's what one
of them was quoted (by the translator) as having said.
THe family is the primary unit, but the point of th esaying is that a
family is not *the only* unit. Sometimes parents run into difficulties,
and then the village (or analogous sociocultural group) pitches in to
help them out.
Your focusing on one slice of the orange and not seeing that there is an
entire fruit on the table.
You know darn good and well that I'm not saying or even implying any such
thing. The standards are set, yes, by the community, because the
community is also where the jobs are. If the community needs its
blacksmith to be able to shoe all sorts of horses and ponies, as opposed
to specializing is racehorses, then the "standard" for general
blacksmithing includes the ability to deal with all sorts of horses and
ponies. In a town consisting only of rich people, maybe the blacksmith
can specialize in shoing racehorses or carriage horses, but that also
narrows the blacksmith's job opportunities.
It's not illogical. If 85% of the jobs available require that a person
be able to read and write at a certain level for teh job to be doen
adequatelty, that's all there is to it. It's a matter of numbers
(population) and available jobs.
But whatever. I think that you like to be argumentative. I'm not a
socialist, and it irks me when you argue as though I am. What I am not
is a proponent of "let the parents do whatever the hell they want to the
Additionally, the reason I'd been asking about parameters is your
accusation of illogic/emotionalism. You say that what ahppens to kids is
nobody's damn business but the parents, and I wanted to know preciselty
to what degree that is true. Does a aprent have a right to deny a child
food and shelter? Does a parent have a right to lock a child in a room,
denying that child any contact whatsoever with the outside world (which,
yes, does happen)? Does a parent have a right to deny a child the
education that would help that child be a productuive person? You talk a
lot about individual rights, the rights to "life, liberty, and th
epursuit of happiness", and I want to know the parameters you place upon
those individual rights - do only "adults" have those rights, and if so,
who gets to define what makes on an adult? DO children have *any* rights
as individuals whatsoever?
I already know what you beleive *your* rights to be, but that's the
simplist, and really the most simplistic, aspect of the question of
rights - what is difficult, what takes a lot fo though, is the inquiry
into the rights of *all* individulas, which by definition means the
rights of others in addition to oneself.
And the inquiry becomes even more complex when one is discussing
children, percisely because children are completely vulnerable especially
in infancy, and because human children do *not* have the same instincts,
meaning inborn survival behaviors, as do other animals - for example, a
young couger is born with an instinct to hunt which is revealed in its
"play". Humans have drives, but not instincts - hunger is a drive, but
an instinct is an innate, "preprogrammed" behavior an individual uses to
satisfy that drive. Sex is a drive in humans, but the Kama Sutra alone
proves that sexual *behavior* is not pre-programmed. The desire to be
dry in a rainstorm and warm in a cool spell is a drive, but humams are
not like the weaver-bird, born with all the behaviors needed to build an
intricate nest safe from snakes. IOW, the point, once again, is that
human children are vulnerable - lacking instincts, humans more than any
other animal rely upon *learning* in order to cope with their
environment. THere *have* been cases of feral or nearly-feral children,
and what these cases have shown is that (1) there are critical periods
for learning language and various social skills, and (2) a human living
without the benefit of language and/or the ability to rely upon and learn
from other humans can survive, *but just barely*, and for such people,
the entire notion of rights is both foreign, and irrelevant - such people
are slaves to whatever is occurring in their surroundings, they cannot
choose to go to better surroundings or plan ways to improve their
Ergo, for human children, it is not at all illogical to say that children
have a right to education - given that humans are not creatures of
instinct, but rather creatures of learning/society/culture, it is simply
a truth that, in the most fundamental way, one cannot be human without
some from of teaching/education. Going back to the example of the
Brazilian jungle tribe, a child's education includes learning the
identities of the plants and animals in the area, learn which are
dangerous and which are not, learn how to weave palm fronds to make a
roof to keep off the rain, how to build a fire, and other practical
things. In our society, such knowledge would not help one to survive.
This society requires different skills.
So stop going on and on as though this is nothing more than a simplistic
choice between individual rights OR complete socialism/slavery - *that*
is what is illogical because, if one considers even the *barest*
fundamentals of scientific understanding of biology, andthropology,
psychology, and so on, it becomes glaringly obvious that the matter is
leaps and bounds beyond such simplistic reductionism.
Basically, what you do is think and talk about your own individual desire
to be left alone and not have to be bothered by, or with, anyone else
unless its on your terms. The topic of rights is something different,
because the true recognition/understanding of rights is that they are
things which aplly not only to oneself, but also to others - it is a
regognition that, unless one lives in the middle of nowhere with zero
contact of any sort, one cannot have rights unless one also recognizes
that others also have rights. ANd thsi, in turn, brings about the
realization tha trights need to be balanced - does my next-door neighbor
(next door, as in, about 40 feet away) have the "right" to pursue
happiness by blasting his stereo so loudly that it interferes with my
right to pursue happiness by writing music or reading or working on
graphics or whatever. Granted, you don't have to worry about such things
any moer, but the issue of rights goes beyond your personal circumstance.
If it does not, then the topic is not "rights", but rather, your personal
You can *claim* that all of this is illogical, sorry, but that claim
would merely be a matter of your personal opinion.
There's a kid with that in some of my daughter's (gifted) classes. The kids
are generally really good with her....way better that she would have got if
she was of my generation. In my day she would have been the endless target
of some bully for sure.
That is thesis material - one could write hundreds of pages about it. Any
method, however, woudl requir that poeple agree that (1) education will be
provided to all children, and (2) critical thinking skills are as important
as basics like reading comprehension, also arithmetical skills so that
people can create and balance budgets for themselves.
Yes, taxes would probably be involved, but the taxes needed for a low-to-
zero-bureaucracy "old style" school would be *much* lower than the taxes
taken for mega-bureauracies and mega-campuses and mega-stadiums.
Well maybe you might want to consider stopping yourself from using our
networks, roads, currencies, resources, etc., and go live as a hermit
(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."
> Govt is an insult to human dignity.
> With or without govt, there would be good people doing good things and
> evil people doing evil things.
> But for good people to do evil things, that takes govt.
> Govt is the root of all evil.
"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."
"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
> I have no cure for societies ailments.
Sorta like the thought of everyone walking around with their own nukes being
far worse (but more fleeting) than the worst government that the framers
could have imagined when they declared the right to bear arms to address
Ah, ok, I've seen the film. Wholesome family entertainment.
'Midnight Cowboy' with Voight, too, comes to mind.
The other day, I tried without success to find and download 'Ms.
Robinson', with Dustin Hoffman.
I think that's what I used, but I'll give it another try just in case,
BTW, as per your "suggestion", yesterday, I decided to have a can
sardines for some vitamin D... I don't feel any different... When's it
supposed to kick in?
According to the below, you'd have to eat at least two and a half cups of
them to hit the now often recommended 1000 units.
I'm taking 2000 units a day. With me the main (and first) effect is to
regularize the circadian clock, and I feel the effects within a day or two.
Do you sleep well in the winter?
Without it, I start to fall asleep earlier and earlier, and waking earlier
and earlier, which means I eventually start living like a vampire. Very bad
for the brain. Mood changes have followed the sleep cycle getting messed up
in the past. Now that's all history.
Definitely good points to consider, and, yes, sometimes I do have
trouble sleeping well in the winter.
I am aware of that vitamin, its importance and how to get it (Shitake
mushroom and salmon omelete, anyone?) but will admit that I generally
rely on getting it with sun exposure or through natural sources, which
of course can be very difficult during the winter...
Ok, I'll look into vitamin supplements then.
Not that I know of. You should be aware that I'm a pretty *big* specimen,
and that factors into my self-treatment. The other half of my regimen is to
walk the dog for half an hour or so in the morning to take in some of that
high-intensity blue light. These two are my ailerons.
Taxes are not theft when people decide through the democratic process
(which, yes, has been suborned, but I'm speaking theoretically, not
describing what exists). THat basically means "majority rule".
Remember the phrase "No taxation without representation".
WHat irritates me, really, is people wanting all the benefits fo being
connected to a society, yet simultaneously wash their hands of it. Don't
try to imply that I'm in any way against property rights, and certainly
do not imply I'm some sort of communist. WHat I am is realistic
regarding both human nature, the cost-benefit balance fo living in a
community/society, and the constant conflict between ideals and
practicalities when it comes to getting things done. I've presented many
examples of situations wherein communities would benefit by working
together - since I tend to type/write rather slowly, it takes a great
deal of time for me to do that, btu I have doen so because I do think
it's very improtant to balance individual rights with group benefit.
If you have ever used the highway system, you have to realize that it
could never have been built if each community were to build its own
little patch of the thing, and most certainly not if each owner of
frontage land was responsible for building their patch. Yes, I know, it
was built for military reasons. But don't try to tell me that people
haven't benefitted from the way it's increased commerce and personal
I won't say there are "many" examples like that, because I haven't tried
to think of them all. WHat I *am* saying is that, if communities vote to
fund a road or a schoolhouse or something elsedeemed to be a benefit,
that is democracy at work, hence *not* theft. You are so focused on that
idea that you forget the people can and do *choose* to fund some things.
Which is not to say that the current governmental bureaucracy is good or
fair or just or any of that. It's merely to poinjt out that, when choice
is involved, it's not "theft". Now, if you disagree with the community's
choice, you can choose to pay for the funding, protest, and/or move,
however, you can't legitimately call that choice "theft".
So, **if** you live in a community which does *choose* to fund a school
so that *all* kids have an equal opportunity to learn to read, write, do
basic math, and think critically, you can still home-school your kids,
and in a fair system, get a tax reduction, but you can't legitimately
*both* say you support democracy, yet also denounce a community's
democratic choice to give all children at least some sort of shot at an
What the uninsured are doing is letting the public pay for the risk.
Your hospital bill is about 33% higher than it should be because you are
paying for those like YOU who don't bother to pay. Some people die without
needing any medical care, some need a little, and a few quite a bit. A
national pool is the only way to average out costs. If you get sick with a
private policy, they drop you.
Overall the costs of insurance in the medical business is less than you
pay for your private life. It is not evenly distributed by area, however.
I have always kept health insurance myself. But if you get into an
accident, by law you must be helped at the hospital to which they take you,
until you are stabilized, even if you cannot pay. The rest of us will pay
for you. It is added to our bills. If you get cancer, you can run up bills
in excess of $250,000 in a few months. But we the public come out ahead on
that one: they won't treat cancer unless you have the cash. I hope you do.
Of course, you could always try a free clinic, but then that would make you
a sponge also.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.