Am I Becoming a Paultard? [Amerikan Politics]

[Loki]

I read it as something deeper (the English leaves something to be desired), that without a working knowledge of how the world, ie. the market operates, one cannot function within the market. Leaving education to the markets alone would soon produce a class of helots without the ability to read or write, that sort of thing. Conversely, and this was not in the original argument, leaving information to the free markets alone would only produce the most desired information, not the most factual. Which may or may not be in anyone's best interests

That makes no sense. The provider of information about the quality of education is not the same as the provider of the education itself. The former has no incentive to "serve" the latter. And you're seriously going to claim that one needs extensive schooling to understand that a school or college ranked 100 or worse than one ranked 10? Or that higher tuition is more expensive than lower tuition? Give people some credit here.

Furthermore, I don't see the relevance of this argument to natural monopolies. There certainly isn't just one provider of education.

[earthJoker]

Give people some credit here.

Ironically giving credit to people who don't have the slightest idea of to make a budget is a major problem.

[Nessus]

That makes no sense. The provider of information about the quality of education is not the same as the provider of the education itself. The former has no incentive to "serve" the latter.

I am confused, where did I argument anything pertaining to this?

And you're seriously going to claim that one needs extensive schooling to understand that a school or college ranked 100 or worse than one ranked 10? Or that higher tuition is more expensive than lower tuition? Give people some credit here.

Ostensibly one would need some edumacation to be able to gauge which ranking lists are relevant and when, for instance. If your pastor says Christian Fuck-Face College of Fuckmuppetry provides the best possible education, what are you gonna do?

Furthermore, I don't see the relevance of this argument to natural monopolies. There certainly isn't just one provider of education.

The point was, if I understood Earth Joker correctly, that one of the axioms of the free market system, ie. agents acting in their best interests at all times, requires a base-line of education, information, before said agents have capacity to function as the axiom assumes. Corporations are people, my friend, and sometimes people do things that undermine the capabilities of other people.

[Nessus]

Actually, never mind pastor Fuckface over there, let's look at the potentials of a free market on basic education. If the only tuition-free middle schools taught that Apple was founded by the Founding Fathers, that Microsoft put a man on the Moon, that the most nutritional and well-balanced meal is sold in a McDonalds, how are these kinds supposed to operate in the free market post-graduation? Of course there will be alternatives available, but if you can't afford the alternatives, go fuck yourself. Isn't that right? Isn't that the basic principle of the free market?

What, are you gonna bring in Big Government, gonna bring the nanny state in to regulate education? What kind of liberal-communist Nazi are you? In short, why do you hate freedom? Why are you so racist, that you wouldn't trust corporations, who are people, my friend, to act with absolute altruism?

[Enoch the Red]

Actually, never mind pastor Fuckface over there, let's look at the potentials of a free market on basic education. If the only tuition-free middle schools taught that Apple was founded by the Founding Fathers, that Microsoft put a man on the Moon, that the most nutritional and well-balanced meal is sold in a McDonalds, how are these kinds supposed to operate in the free market post-graduation? Of course there will be alternatives available, but if you can't afford the alternatives, go fuck yourself. Isn't that right? Isn't that the basic principle of the free market?

What, are you gonna bring in Big Government, gonna bring the nanny state in to regulate education? What kind of liberal-communist Nazi are you? In short, why do you hate freedom? Why are you so racist, that you wouldn't trust corporations, who are people, my friend, to act with absolute altruism?

Wait, you are trying to argue that corporation will, or are at a greater risk of rewriting history than governments?

A government trying to rewrite its own history, or cast the motherland in a more favorable light? Now there's a novel concept!

And if you don't like it, go fuck yourself - in a gulag! Isn't that right?

In general professionals tend to do better than amateurs, in any field. Of course, some parents will outperform the average teachers.

Unless we are talking about a subject that requires a lot of specialization, in general a child will learn a lot better with one-on-one interaction, a personalized curriculum and teaching style, and in-depth tutoring, than they would in a class room with an overworked teacher who is juggling thirty other students.

The concept of charter schools is new to me, from reading into it, it doesn't look like private or free market at all. Neither are FAFSA scholarships a form of free market.

I think you are going to have to define your terms, because I think we are working with two very disparate definitions. If you are defining a free market as one in which the

Secondly, FAFSA has nothing to do with scholarships, it's federal financial aid, and I'm not sure what relevance you think that has on our conversation. Scholarships are something else entirely.

[earthJoker]

Unless we are talking about a subject that requires a lot of specialization, in general a child will learn a lot better with one-on-one interaction, a personalized curriculum and teaching style, and in-depth tutoring, than they would in a class room with an overworked teacher who is juggling thirty other students.

As if this has to be the alternative. If you take a bad example, you would need a bad example on both sides of the scale. So that would be a full working single mom trying to teach her two kids compared to a overworked teacher. Or we compare a well working class with a well working family.

I think you are going to have to define your terms, because I think we are working with two very disparate definitions. If you are defining a free market as one in which the

A private company which gets its profit manly through state programs payed by tax payers has nothing to do with free market.

[Nessus]

Wait, you are trying to argue that corporation will, or are at a greater risk of rewriting history than governments?

A government trying to rewrite it's own history, or cast the motherland in a more favorable light? Now there's a novel concept!

And if you don't like it, go fuck yourself - in a gulag! Isn't that right?

I can see that this sounded very clever in your head, and I'm really not sure whether I should bother replying; you will think what I say is kak no matter what, and so it goes.

My point, dear Enoch, was that one of the fundamental axioms of the free market system is that the agents operating within the system must possess both faculty and information enough to be able to act in their best interests. If the free markets are involved in generating the base-line of information and faculty, the already-informed members of the market can skew the emerging market-goers towards their favour and the junior's disfavour.

I am very much familiar with how nations have re-branded their own history for selfish reasons; I only this week learned that I work next to a street named after the man who was Finland's Lebensraum expert. But I am not so certain participating in a nation-state requires the same thing as participating in the free market, that one must be a complete chauvinist to be patriotic. This division, which I now find hard to put into words, is what separates my earlier argument from your no doubt witty riposte. To function in the free markets in a fashion which guarantee the optimization of the out-come, one must be capable of knowing which decisions provide the most desired out-comes. To function as a patriot, or even as a non-patriot member of a nation-state, one needs not a very high base-line of information or faculty; conversely, nor does one need be bathed in patriotic false propaganda to be patriotic. I hope you see what I mean. I also hope you are able to see that not all nations with non-free-market educational systems have in place systems such as the gulag. (FYI, one does not visit "a gulag", the term is a blanket for the system, not individual camps. You're better off saying Lager to convey your meaning.)

[Nessus]

So long as corporations are people, my friend, we must admit also their capacity to function as you allured people "in government" do, that governments composed of people produce gulag systems. If corporations are people, cannot corporations as well behave in this manner? Cannot IBM create machines that benefit the Holocaust?

[earthJoker]

You don't even have to search that far, the disinformation campaign of the tobacco industry is already prove enough that tricking the clients in to believing wrong things is not only possible but also in the very interest of companies.

[Enoch the Red]

As if this has to be the alternative. If you take a bad example, you would need a bad example on both sides of the scale. So that would be a full working single mom trying to teach her two kids compared to a overworked teacher. Or we compare a well working class with a well working family.

Typically parents who don't have the time or ability wouldn't choose to homeschool, no?

A private company which gets its profit manly through state programs payed by tax payers has nothing to do with free market.

However, being able to choose your school and move your children to one that is performing better is a free market principle.

My point, dear Enoch, was that one of the fundamental axioms of the free market system is that the agents operating within the system must possess both faculty and information enough to be able to act in their best interests. If the free markets are involved in generating the base-line of information and faculty, the already-informed members of the market can skew the emerging market-goers towards their favour and the junior's disfavour.

And this differs from a government setting the base-line of information how? My point was not that the markets are incapable of erring, rather in a world where information wants to be free, and is easily obtainable, there is very little to be gained from big, obvious lies. That will only engender hostility and distrust. And in a world where subtle - and pernicious, small lies and half truths are capable of swaying the thoughts and opinions of the populace, the more sources and avenues for information there are, the less likely you are to have egregious, unchecked misinformation. Is there a single curriculum that does not whitewash, or gloss over history, be it publicly or privately taught? Are lies told by corporations more evil than lies told by governments?

Is it better to be able to pick your curriculum, faulty though it may be, or have one forced upon you?

I'm not trying to say there aren't problems with this line of reasoning. Education is at its worst when it no longer challenges, but instead panders. I just don't happen to believe that all market based educational systems would pander - or that all government based educational systems don't.

I also hope you are able to see that not all nations with non-free-market educational systems have in place systems such as the gulag.

Certainly. Do you see that not all proponents of the free market are openly, or secretly thinking, "Fuck you, I've got mine?"

...you will think what I say is kak no matter what, and so it goes.

Very rarely, (I'm hesitant to say never, but it's asymptotically close to that) do I think your thoughts are kak, but I also think you rarely give the same thoughtful consideration to opinions that run contrary to your own. That's not damnable, it's human.

[earthJoker]

Typically parents who don't have the time or ability wouldn't choose to homeschool, no?

Typically a class should not be overcrowded and a teacher not overworked. At least in countries with proper public schools.

However, being able to choose your school and move your children to one that is performing better is a free market principle.

If they pay for it themselves, yes. Otherwise, no.

[Enoch the Red]

If they pay for it themselves, yes. Otherwise, no.

...

Okay, I'm fairly certain we are not on the same page, and I'm not sure how valuable this discussion is for either of us. Unless we take steps to define our terms we will get nowhere.

For instance, a principle of the free market is not the synecdoche you seem to think it is.

[earthJoker]

A free market is a market where prices are determined by supply and demand. Free markets contrast with controlled markets in which governments actively regulate prices and/or supplies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

If you don't pay for the things you consume yourself (i.e. by taxes) than prices won't be defined by supply and demand. You won't even fulfill the very core definition of a free market.

[Nessus]

And this differs from a government setting the base-line of information how? My point was not that the markets are incapable of erring, rather in a world where information wants to be free, and is easily obtainable, there is very little to be gained from big, obvious lies. That will only engender hostility and distrust. And in a world where subtle - and pernicious, small lies and half truths are capable of swaying the thoughts and opinions of the populace, the more sources and avenues for information there are, the less likely you are to have egregious, unchecked misinformation. Is there a single curriculum that does not whitewash, or gloss over history, be it publicly or privately taught? Are lies told by corporations more evil than lies told by governments?

Is it better to be able to pick your curriculum, faulty though it may be, or have one forced upon you?

I'm not trying to say there aren't problems with this line of reasoning. Education is at it's worse when it no longer challenges, but instead panders. I just don't happen to believe that all market based educational systems would pander - or that all government based educational systems don't.

Okay, we've reached an important point in the conversation, where our Weltanschauung differences make manifest our inability to communicate.

I understand your fear (I mean "your" in an abstract sense) of an authocrat dictating what we teach our children. It has happened before, and it will happen again. What I wanted to high-light was both how corporations, being people my friend, could behave in the self-same manner as these authocrats, and that the axioms of the free market demand agents be able to behave in manner most serving to themselves.

Of course some governments have brain-washed people. I do not deny that. I would, however, wish for some review on the possibility of the free markets, the corporations, that are people, my friend, to do the same.

Certainly. Do you see that not all proponents of the free market are openly, or secretly thinking, "Fuck you, I've got mine?"

I hope you will not mentally strike me in the teeth for this, but I must per my ideology and my thinking surmise these are people who've not thought the thing through I do not attribute malice to what you purport, only misinformation. It seems condescending rather than offensive, but hopefully you can forgive the best intentions of one who has but the best of intentions?

Very rarely do I think your thoughts are kak, but I also think you rarely give the same thoughtful consideration to opinions that run contrary to your own. That's not damnable, it's human.

I honestly, deeply, wish I have not given you this impression, you of all people. We view the world in polar opposite, I know, and therefore can never reach out hand and ask for friendship, but especially with you (as with Wiggin) I have tried to maintain a tenor which further invites discussion. I value what you say, and I wish to know the extent of your thoughts. I realize I am a faulted, jagged shard of a human being and it is not easy to commune with me, but it has been my profound hope that I could be accessible at least to you. For it is the reasonableness of your discourse and the dichotomy with my views that make your contributions so valuable to me. What I said there, about the kak, I had read your response as mostly an emotional one, lashing out at what I inherently pose as an opponent. Now that we've opened that up some, perhaps we can attempt discourse. It is likely we cannot, but at least now there is possibility where prior lay none.

[LittleFuzzy]

I don't think your conclusion logically follows from your argument. In fact, I'll go so far as to say your non sequitur contradicts itself. If education would benefit from being a state monopoly, as you seem to be suggesting, then it follows from your earlier line of reasoning that it would likely do so because it is a natural monopoly. And yet, there is very little in education that seems to suggest it would benefit from the economics of scale. Likewise, there is little evidence to support the fact that a free market educational system would not be as successful in meeting your stated metrics. A home schooled child could, theoretically, receive as good an education as a child in the public school systems, at a much lower cost per student. By the same token Charter Schools, private schools, and parochial schools have all, at one time or another, provided excellent educations to children, often in situations where the public school system has failed that child.

It seems to me that education is one of the areas that no such monopoly can, or should exist, because there is rarely a single educational solution that will work in every case. To say that public education is the best, or only way to teach our children is to willfully ignore tried and true alternatives.

Can an effective education be provided without the government? Absolutely. Examples all over the place. And while we can't truly compare a purely market-provided educational system with a public one, there is evidence to suggest that private education will be higher quality. But what the market will not do, which the government has a strong interest in, is making sure that education is provided to everyone. In ensuring the entire population is educated. There's very little market pressure for that goal even though there are some pretty massive returns on it. Because a good portion of those returns are harnessed by the people receiving that education themselves, and ALL of it is delayed for decades.

[Enoch the Red]

Okay, we've reached an important point in the conversation, where our Weltanschauung differences make manifest our inability to communicate.

I understand your fear (I mean "your" in an abstract sense) of an authocrat dictating what we teach our children. It has happened before, and it will happen again. What I wanted to high-light was both how corporations, being people my friend, could behave in the self-same manner as these authocrats, and that the axioms of the free market demand agents be able to behave in manner most serving to themselves.

Of course some governments have brain-washed people. I do not deny that. I would, however, wish for some review on the possibility of the free markets, the corporations, that are people, my friend, to do the same.

I absolutely recognize that parents, businesses, corporations, religious institutions, et al. could have a vested interest in providing a stunted, limited, or otherwise hobbled education to students. I don't think I have quite the same trepidation about whether or not they would, or that they would get away with it, but I fully admit that the possibility exists.

What is missing from a government operated monopoly of education is choice.

Disclaimer: I, of course, recognize that you likely don't support a complete government monopoly on education, and it is not my intent to imply otherwise.

I hope you will not mentally strike me in the teeth for this, but I must per my ideology and my thinking surmise these are people who've not thought the thing through I do not attribute malice to what you purport, only misinformation. It seems condescending rather than offensive, but hopefully you can forgive the best intentions of one who has but the best of intentions?

I don't think that's it at all. I think many people simply place a higher value on freedom than they do safety, security, or even utilitarian results. I'll readily admit that what I propose is likely not as safe, or outcome orientated as other proposals, because for me, the outcome and utility are not the deciding factors.

That doesn't mean that I don't care about others, (in fact, in my own mind it becomes a personal responsibility to take care of those in need, and that's a charge I take very seriously) or want them to thrive, instead I think the means and authority to do so don't stem from government and its largesse.

I honestly, deeply, wish I have not given you this impression, you of all people. We view the world in polar opposite, I know, and therefore can never reach out hand and ask for friendship, but especially with you (as with Wiggin) I have tried to maintain a tenor which further invites discussion. I value what you say, and I wish to know the extent of your thoughts. I realize I am a faulted, jagged shard of a human being and it is not easy to commune with me, but it has been my profound hope that I could be accessible at least to you. For it is the reasonableness of your discourse and the dichotomy with my views that make your contributions so valuable to me. What I said there, about the kak, I had read your response as mostly an emotional one, lashing out at what I inherently pose as an opponent. Now that we've opened that up some, perhaps we can attempt discourse. It is likely we cannot, but at least now there is possibility where prior lay none.

If I can be perfectly honest, I sometimes have trouble discerning what constitutes a reasonable expectation of involvement as far as conversation is concerned. I know that I typically have a limited amount of time to read and post, so often I can't dedicate the amount of time necessary to form a proper, or cogent response. I think that's probably generally true for most of us. So, when one snide comment made in passing begets another, it's easy for what could otherwise be a productive conversation to deteriorate quickly. It would not be just to say that you have been in the habit of treating me with anything other than respect. I also don't see any reason why we can't or shouldn't be friends, (if participation in this online community can be put in those terms, and I see no reason why it could not) because I have nothing but respect for you and your ideas, even when I don't necessarily agree with them.

With that being said, I don't see why you couldn't apply that same courtesy and consideration to other posters here. I'm not sure if it's a matter of hurt feelings, bruised egos and toes, or simply a function of our lengthy histories with one another, but there's got to be a better way for us to interact.

Can an effective education be provided without the government? Absolutely. Examples all over the place. And while we can't truly compare a purely market-provided educational system with a public one, there is evidence to suggest that private education will be higher quality. But what the market will not do, which the government has a strong interest in, is making sure that education is provided to everyone. In ensuring the entire population is educated. There's very little market pressure for that goal even though there are some pretty massive returns on it. Because a good portion of those returns are harnessed by the people receiving that education themselves, and ALL of it is delayed for decades.

I think that's a fair and reasonable assessment. I'm not sure what a world would look like where the government were not involved in education, but if I were to indulge in a Gedankenexperiment, I believe it is conceivable that technology will quickly make it possible. Already, schools are distributing vast quantities of high quality educational materials, (including lectures, coursework, course materials, etc...) at a fraction of the current educational costs. In college I took a couple distance learning courses, and each was fairly good, and cost the university virtually nothing, (besides the initial setup costs and bandwidth) to proctor. I can only see the quality and interactivity for the future student increasing in the years to come.

I guess what I'm driving at, is that I'm not sure it wouldn't be possible for a Wikipedia, or other institution, to provide a decent online education that could be widely available, and comparatively inexpensive. I think Stanford has done this very thing with several of its engineering courses. This style of teaching probably skews towards autodidacts, but it's an exciting development nevertheless.

Whether or not it can match the flexibility, authenticity, and, perhaps most importantly, inspiration of an excellent teacher, I wouldn't want to say. I will say that throughout my educational career, I can count on one hand the number of teachers that have had that kind of impact on me though.

[Nessus]

I absolutely recognize that parents, businesses, corporations, religious institutions, et al. could have a vested interest in providing a stunted, limited, or otherwise hobbled education to students. I don't think I have quite the same trepidation about whether or not they would, or that they would get away with it, but I fully admit that the possibility exists.

What is missing from a government operated monopoly of education is choice.

Disclaimer: I, of course, recognize that you likely don't support a complete government monopoly on education, and it is not my intent to imply otherwise.

And as I said above, I too am all too keenly aware of what totalitarian governments have done in the name of some greater good or another, educating their children as they did. If anything, this conversation high-lights the specialty of my own education, being provided by a de-facto government monopoly yet not bent on ideological brain-washing. Of course you are free to disagree on that point But what I meant to say, originally, was simply that market-based solutions have inherent problems, and you are perfectly right in that governments may in other ways abuse rights given to them in this regard.

I don't think that's it at all. I think many people simply place a higher value on freedom than they do safety, security, or even utilitarian results. I'll readily admit that what I propose is likely not as safe, or outcome orientated as other proposals, because for me, the outcome and utility are not the deciding factors.

That doesn't mean that I don't care about others, (in fact, in my own mind it becomes a personal responsibility to take care of those in need, and that's a charge I take very seriously) or want them to thrive, instead I think the means and authority to do so don't stem from government and its largesse.

Isn't this the very heart of our fundamental disagreement? If I may be so bold, the thing you and I have most in common, aside from the admiration of the beauty of the female form, is our deep-set emotion of responsibility for those less "blessed" than ourselves. That is to say, I do not recall you blaming me for being jealous as a motivation for being a socialist; no matter how misguided said socialism is, you've seemed to me to acknowledge the sentiment behind it. We cannot agree on the form we wish help upon others, but I think there is much common ground in how we perceive the world right before the interface where you choose the freedom of markets and I choose the bondage of socialism.

My original tut-tut at Loki was simply to say that there lies a possibility of abuse in market-driven education, and furthermore that this has inherent within a contradiction on the working of markets. As you say, I don't propose that a government-driven monopoly of ideas is inherently awesome, either, I simply wanted to point out what the markets desire on one hand and what they are capable of producing on the other.

If I can be perfectly honest, I sometimes have trouble discerning what constitutes a reasonable expectation of involvement as far as conversation is concerned. I know that I typically have a limited amount of time to read and post, so often I can't dedicate the amount of time necessary to form a proper, or cogent response. I think that's probably generally true for most of us. So, when one snide comment made in passing begets another, it's easy for what could otherwise be a productive conversation to deteriorate quickly. It would not be just to say that you have been in the habit of treating me with anything other than respect. I also don't see any reason why we can't or shouldn't be friends, (if participation in this online community can be put in those terms, and I see no reason why it could not) because I have nothing but respect for you and your ideas, even when I don't necessarily agree with them.

With that being said, I don't see why you couldn't apply that same courtesy and consideration to other posters here. I'm not sure if it's a matter of hurt feelings, bruised egos and toes, or simply a function of our lengthy histories with one another, but there's got to be a better way for us to interact.

And a million bros shouted out, "no homo!"...

The perception I have of you, the way you have presented your self outside the ideas we so disagree upon, has given me the deep-felt notion whereupon I would have no hesitation, were the situation such, to reach out my hand and offer to you the bounds of brotherhood. Admittedly, I am awash in Holocaust literature, I have been in awe of the new tee-vee series Spartacus, so these things are in my mind perhaps needlessly. But what I wished to convey to you was an open hand of recognition, that you are a person I see as someone to trust in a fight-or-flight scenario. Of course you need not see me as such, but that is immaterial, as we'll likely never be in that situation. The way I conduct myself with you hopefully gives cause to this sentiment; I say "lolbertarian" a lot but I do so with the trust that you can stomach that kind of childish insult. As I can in turn stomach the inherent insult in the label of socialist. And so on. I suppose in short you're the kind of person I enjoy disagreeing with, and were the situation such I would gladly turn those disagreements aside because I recognize what utility, for a better word, we could be to one another. Of course it need not be a question of utility alone, but let us work in baby steps

[GGT]

Can an effective education be provided without the government? Absolutely. Examples all over the place. And while we can't truly compare a purely market-provided educational system with a public one, there is evidence to suggest that private education will be higher quality. But what the market will not do, which the government has a strong interest in, is making sure that education is provided to everyone. In ensuring the entire population is educated. There's very little market pressure for that goal even though there are some pretty massive returns on it. Because a good portion of those returns are harnessed by the people receiving that education themselves, and ALL of it is delayed for decades.

I'd say there IS some "market pressure" and profitable returns for 'harnessing' uneducated labor. Especially in agriculture, but any minimum wage field. Heavily politicized by the immigration debate and spending on public health and education.

What is missing from a government operated monopoly of education is choice....

I think many people simply place a higher value on freedom than they do safety, security, or even utilitarian results. I'll readily admit that what I propose is likely not as safe, or outcome orientated as other proposals, because for me, the outcome and utility are not the deciding factors....

That doesn't mean that I don't care about others, (in fact, in my own mind it becomes a personal responsibility to take care of those in need, and that's a charge I take very seriously) or want them to thrive, instead I think the means and authority to do so don't stem from government and its largesse....

I guess what I'm driving at, is that I'm not sure it wouldn't be possible for a Wikipedia, or other institution, to provide a decent online education that could be widely available, and comparatively inexpensive. I think Stanford has done this very thing with several of its engineering courses. This style of teaching probably skews towards autodidacts, but it's an exciting development nevertheless....

<Sorry for chopping your post into manageable pieces.>

The "choice" and ultimate freedom you want would likely turn our progress back a century or two, and mean millions would drop out after 8th grade in order to work (in those minimum wage manual labor areas). It's not good for any civilized society to have huge numbers of illiterate. Just look at Afghanistan, where over half of their 'military' can't read beyond a 2nd grade level, or sign their own name.

Outcome and utility DO matter, for the very freedoms you want. No society or culture can survive very long as a fiefdom, with severe and drastic inequality of opportunities. Education is supposed to freee people from being trapped by ignorance, and give everyone the same basic chances for getting out of poverty.

From a practical matter, using the internet or libraries (thanks to that "largesse" of government?) to become self-educated isn't how people get employed in higher paying positions. There are diploma mills though, and different international standards for things like MDs and teachers. It seems your complaint is more about teaching techniques, or standardized methods and testing, than gov't involvement itself. Pretty much everyone agrees on that these days.

[earthJoker]

I get more and more the impression that Enoch actually wants to have freedom of choice of schools and not free markets schools. Two very different things.

[Enoch the Red]

And as I said above, I too am all too keenly aware of what totalitarian governments have done in the name of some greater good or another, educating their children as they did. If anything, this conversation high-lights the specialty of my own education, being provided by a de-facto government monopoly yet not bent on ideological brain-washing. Of course you are free to disagree on that point But what I meant to say, originally, was simply that market-based solutions have inherent problems, and you are perfectly right in that governments may in other ways abuse rights given to them in this regard.

Any education, including self-education, can foment the warts we've been considering. I suppose an argument can be made that certain entities might have more to gain from subverting the educational process, but any decent education involves a critical thinking component, which would hopefully give some perspective on knowledge gained.

This criticism is also more limited, and is especially applicable to subjective fields and studies. The soft sciences and history are what I consider most at risk. There is less to gain from manipulations in hard sciences and mathematics, (barring, of course, religious objections, which I suppose should not be overlooked).

Isn't this the very heart of our fundamental disagreement? If I may be so bold, the thing you and I have most in common, aside from the admiration of the beauty of the female form, is our deep-set emotion of responsibility for those less "blessed" than ourselves. That is to say, I do not recall you blaming me for being jealous as a motivation for being a socialist; no matter how misguided said socialism is, you've seemed to me to acknowledge the sentiment behind it. We cannot agree on the form we wish help upon others, but I think there is much common ground in how we perceive the world right before the interface where you choose the freedom of markets and I choose the bondage of socialism.

I haven't once doubted your sincerity, or your willingness to help those around you. I definitely agree with your motivations, even if I may disagree with the implementation.

<Sorry for chopping your post into manageable pieces.>

The "choice" and ultimate freedom you want would likely turn our progress back a century or two, and mean millions would drop out after 8th grade in order to work (in those minimum wage manual labor areas). It's not good for any civilized society to have huge numbers of illiterate. Just look at Afghanistan, where over half of their 'military' can't read beyond a 2nd grade level, or sign their own name.

Outcome and utility DO matter, for the very freedoms you want. No society or culture can survive very long as a fiefdom, with severe and drastic inequality of opportunities. Education is supposed to freee people from being trapped by ignorance, and give everyone the same basic chances for getting out of poverty.

From a practical matter, using the internet or libraries (thanks to that "largesse" of government?) to become self-educated isn't how people get employed in higher paying positions. There are diploma mills though, and different international standards for things like MDs and teachers. It seems your complaint is more about teaching techniques, or standardized methods and testing, than gov't involvement itself. Pretty much everyone agrees on that these days.

I reject your premise, as you clearly have rejected mine. We are at a rhetorical impasse.

I get more and more the impression that Enoch actually wants to have freedom of choice of schools and not free markets schools. Two very different things.

I don't believe you understand, (perhaps it's because of a language barrier) the point I'm trying to make. Free market principles can be applied to systems that are not strictly speaking markets in the financial sense of the word. I've tried to make this point at least three times now, and I don't know how to be more clear about it. I'm happy to participate in a discussion with you but echolalic repetition is not my idea of a productive use of either of our time.

Now, that's not to say I don't see some value in an actual free market for education, (one where the parents/interested party pays out of pocket for tuition) but I don't think it's very likely, and certainly not as likely as modifying our existing educational system to adopt the core principles of the free market.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm happy to participate in a discussion with you but echolalic repetition is not my idea of a productive use of either of our time.

Thank you. I don't often encounter new words I have to look up. You have expanded my vocabulary.

[earthJoker]

I don't believe you understand, (perhaps it's because of a language barrier) the point I'm trying to make. Free market principles can be applied to systems that are not strictly speaking markets in the financial sense of the word. I've tried to make this point at least three times now, and I don't know how to be more clear about it. I'm happy to participate in a discussion with you but echolalic repetition is not my idea of a productive use of either of our time.

The problem is not between English and German, because "free market" is a well defined concept of economy and is taught all over the world with little variance. There might be a problem between Enochish and the Economical definition of "free market".

Now, that's not to say I don't see some value in an actual free market for education, (one where the parents/interested party pays out of pocket for tuition) but I don't think it's very likely, and certainly not as likely as modifying our existing educational system to adopt the core principles of the free market.

You want a system working by the core principles of free market but that system won't include the very core principle of free market? So you want free market, but as you see it politically not very likely you could live with some pseudo free market system, right?

[Enoch the Red]

The problem is not between English and German, because "free market" is a well defined concept of economy and is taught all over the world with little variance. There might be a problem between Enochish and the Economical definition of "free market".

Then I would think you would have no problem understanding the difference between individual principles of the free market, (things like supply and demand, competition, choice, and limited barriers to entry) and the plenary free market. Each of these free market values could play a positive role in the educational system. For instance, if we are looking at an educational system funded by tax dollars, allot a static dollar value per child and let the parents then use that money to take their children to the school of their choice. This would give school systems an incentive to vie competitively for funding, and for students.

Would that be creating a free market in education? No, not exactly, but it would be implementing specific elements of the free market that are geared towards increasing efficiency, lowering costs, and promoting educational diversity.

You want a system working by the core principles of free market but that system won't include the very core principle of free market? So you want free market, but as you see it politically not very likely you could live with some pseudo free market system, right?

I'd be interested in seeing how a truly free market educational system would perform, and what the results would be. I doubt, however, that I would ever see such a thing in my lifetime. Thus, working within the boundaries of the realm of possibility, I'd rather an educational system that utilized valuable components of the free market, than one that ignored it entirely.

[earthJoker]

Then I would think you would have no problem understanding the difference between individual principles of the free market, (things like supply and demand, competition, choice, and limited barriers to entry) and the plenary free market.

I have no problem understanding the concept, but I rather call it what it is then.

Just an example: A square is a shape with four straight lines and four corners, all lines have the same length and all corners have right angle.
If I have a shape with right angles but different length of lines, I call it a rectangle not a quasi square. If the lines have the same length but the angles are not 90° I call it a rhombus not a quasi square.

Each of these free market values could play a positive role in the educational system. For instance, if we are looking at an educational system funded by tax dollars, allot a static dollar value per child and let the parents then use that money to take their children to the school of their choice. This would give school systems an incentive to vie competitively for funding, and for students.

Would that be creating a free market in education? No, not exactly, but it would be implementing specific elements of the free market that are geared towards increasing efficiency, lowering costs, and promoting educational diversity.

This kind of system is not news to me, I will have to read into it more anyway because I (or actually all citizens of the canton Zürich) will vote on a proposal which is very much the same as yours within 2012 or early 2013.
I haven't decided yet, just do let you know.

[Being]

Shopping around for schools only works for people who can afford it (transportation and such). Those people who can't afford it will be stuck with the school down the street. Should the school down the street be less important to the task of educating our young than the one accross town that only the affluent can afford transportation and such for? Or maybe you guys are saying that everybody gets transportation to the school of their choice paid for by the school of their choice?

[GGT]

...
I reject your premise, as you clearly have rejected mine. We are at a rhetorical impasse.

No, we're not. We're both <all> acknowledging the crucial importance of education. Your dialogue with Nessie validates differences between "fields of study", and how the US hasn't done a very good job at academic tracking, or allocating resources.

We stopped: offering 'shop' classes; guiding kids into fields according to their ability/personality; funding trade schools and community colleges; fostering apprenticeships with the business community.

We also saw the private/corporate sector de-couple from our educational systems in general. Favoring productivity/efficiency and profits they could find by off-shoring, while ignoring the importance of a healthy middle-class consumer group right here at home. That would mean funding public education, skills and jobs-training, using tax dollars.

When the private/corporate sector can avoid paying taxes, that means there's less money to fund the very skilled/educated employees they're needing. In turn, they look off-shore for labor, or try to import Visa applicants who can engineer their product and deliver profit. The CEOs and executives of these companies either live in fantastic school districts (with fantastic property taxes), or send their own kids to private/parochial schools.

Complaints abound regarding our "poor school districts" <urban, suburban, or rural> because US Education is tied to property ownership, property value, and property taxes. It's circular, bubble-building, suicidal madness to fund......or value public Education in this way.

[earthJoker]

Shopping around for schools only works for people who can afford it (transportation and such). Those people who can't afford it will be stuck with the school down the street. Should the school down the street be less important to the task of educating our young than the one accross town that only the affluent can afford transportation and such for? Or maybe you guys are saying that everybody gets transportation to the school of their choice paid for by the school of their choice?

Good point, transportation is actually one of my biggest in this concern. Primary schools who are in walking distance to the people are a big plus. It is good for the environment and it is good for the children's health and their learning of independence.

[GGT]

Good point, transportation is actually one of my biggest in this concern. Primary schools who are in walking distance to the people are a big plus. It is good for the environment and it is good for the children's health and their learning of independence.

No offense, EJ, but you don't seem to have a clue how the US operates on state or local school district levels. Kids in poor neighborhoods can't walk their way to a better school.

[Enoch the Red]

I have no problem understanding the concept, but I rather call it what it is then.

Just an example: A square is a shape with four straight lines and four corners, all lines have the same length and all corners have right angle.
If I have a shape with right angles but different length of lines, I call it a rectangle not a quasi square. If the lines have the same length but the angles are not 90° I call it a rhombus not a quasi square.

In short, you want to play a semantic shell game. Somehow I get the feeling you are trying to make a distinction without a difference, and I have no interest in pursuing that further. Have fun with that.

A more accurate take on your example is to acknowledge that both objects are quadrilateral polygons.

No, we're not. We're both <all> acknowledging the crucial importance of education. Your dialogue with Nessie validates differences between "fields of study", and how the US hasn't done a very good job at academic tracking, or allocating resources.

We stopped: offering 'shop' classes; guiding kids into fields according to their ability/personality; funding trade schools and community colleges; fostering apprenticeships with the business community.

We also saw the private/corporate sector de-couple from our educational systems in general. Favoring productivity/efficiency and profits they could find by off-shoring, while ignoring the importance of a healthy middle-class consumer group right here at home. That would mean funding public education, skills and jobs-training, using tax dollars.

When the private/corporate sector can avoid paying taxes, that means there's less money to fund the very skilled/educated employees they're needing. In turn, they look off-shore for labor, or try to import Visa applicants who can engineer their product and deliver profit. The CEOs and executives of these companies either live in fantastic school districts (with fantastic property taxes), or send their own kids to private/parochial schools.

Complaints abound regarding our "poor school districts" <urban, suburban, or rural> because US Education is tied to property ownership, property value, and property taxes. It's circular, bubble-building, suicidal madness to fund......or value public Education in this way.

Yes, we really are. You can try to talk around it, but you seem to believe education is the responsibility of everyone but the individual. That somehow the failures we are seeing are the fault of the private sector, corporations, and a seeming lack of governmental intervention in education, but that runs contrary to the reality, which is as follows: governments have never been more involved, at the local, state and federal level, in education than they are now. The Department of Education has seen its budget and its power grow year after year since its establishment, yet somehow we have failed to see a corresponding growth* in educational quality.

To me, that says we have deeper, more systemic problems that aren't being addressed, and that all the feng shui of the Titanic's deck chairs won't a working system make. It's wrongheaded to place the blame on corporations and companies, and the only reason I can see for doing so is to fit the square peg of our educational problems into the round hole of your narrative worldview . That's not solely a criticism directed at you - I'm sure I do the same thing, it's just another example of what I said at the outset. We are both starting from very different - and mutually exclusive - premises.

*Growth being defined as increases above and beyond general educational trends in this country.

[GGT]

It's neither logical nor pragmatic to hold a five year old responsible for their own education. It's also worth noting the reality we have now can't be solely "blamed" on government, but is influenced by progress itself---moving into the high-tech age, along with globalization.

We agree, that we have fundamental/foundational/systemic problems in education. I 'blame' lack of coordination between private-public, but I also understand some of the Why's. Our private, for-profit business sector focuses more on quarterly or yearly profits, and sometimes willingly sacrifices the longevity or quality of their company just to get short-term gains. Our government is tasked with long-term goals and vision that benefit everyone in our Union...a choice private entities can choose to embrace or ignore. Governments don't have that same "luxury". Well, unless they follow the examples of failed nations.