@UltraConservative298 We need a student voucher system so that students can spend them whereever they want. Just as we have food stamps and not public grocery stores.
@RobertMOdell Vouchers are no different than any other involuntary transfer of wealth. Welfare is nothing more than theft and has the opposite affect of its intention. School vouchers would be a huge burden on the economy and would cause school prices to rise. What we need is a complete hands off approach so that private schools are not burdened with unnecessary costs and can keep tuitions low. School vouchers would be as destructive as any other welfare program.
@UltraConservative298 Oh, I agree that vouchers are a social welfare program. Can we agree to put aside the question of welfare for now? My point is simply that currently, government both PAYS for education and IMPLEMENTS education. A voucher system would replace public schools with a private education economy. Public school teachers could be re-hired and then face competative employment like everyone else and this would lower the overall cost to society and increase quality.
Just a little remark. “Of the father and mother who created that child”? (2:53) No offense, but with this phrase you created the potential to offend adoptive parents, and especially gay adoptive parents, who are obviously not “mother and father”.
It amazes me how these mindless free market dupes continuously yank from Ayn Rand's dusty utters. This morally bankrupt hypocrite secretly applied for social security and used medicare to pay for her cancer treatments.
This argument is ridiculous. The government DOES have the right to set standards of education, because we voted for them. They have legitimacy to choose a curriculum that we all deem suitable for the advancement of children's minds.
How can any parent decide what to teach their children. What if they wanted to teach their children that Jews were evil, or that black people are inferior?. There has to be a regulated educational framework for children so they get the best education possible.
@markgg1 The argument that homeschool parents might indoctrinate their kids could equally well be used against private schools - they might indoctrinate as well. So it seems that your solution to the potential problem of parental indoctrination is to have all children sent off to institutions run by the government... because, presumably, that is not a recipe for indoctrination!
@StudentOfObjectivism I also agree the government could indoctrinate children, but we need to have a system of education, and again the current school system is the best I can propose. It must be regulated by elected government with a principle that children are taught the truth and given skills so they can succeed individually, which in turn allows them to succeed for the benefit of everyone. In a weird way cooperation is selfish, because if we corporate it improves the individuals life
My cousin home-schooled all 4 of her kids in Long Beach up to HS age, then put them in private school. They are probably the most intelligent, moral, thoughtful, loving, well rounded people I have ever met.
If the concern is about individual rights then the whole argument presented is misguided. Shouldn't the claim be rather that children have an individual right to the best education that can be afforded them? Don't children have a right to associate with their peers and to be exposed to the ideas and concepts current in the larger society. This whole argument, as presented , depicts children as the property of their parents and not as possessing their own rights.
@ColBrokov If a child has a right to autonomy then they also have the right to self preservation. And if the society you live in permits this then you would live in a chaotic state. The parents should protect the child until such time as that child can self preserve. And when that happens the child is no longer a child. Would you have the state raise the children of that state? Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini all protected the children from their parents. The states are not too far from this.
@etcharrison When did I say they had a right to autonomy? You don't think children have a right to self preservation, i.e. to protect their own lives if threatened? How do you get from public education to the state raising our children? Isn't that a bit of a leap? Here in New England we have had public education for 300 years and practically invented direct democracy in America.
Unlessa a parent is a expert in Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Maths, English, Art, History, Geography, Sociology, Politics, Media, Geology, Psychology, and any other ology I havent named, the idea of homeschooling is stupid.
What next: Give our children Heart Bypass surgery so Doctors dont 'own them'?
Just ridiculous.
The point of society is that people of all talents coorporate so we can all live happy lives.
@markgg1 I don't think you have to be an expert in any particular discipline to be able to teach children the basics. For example, I'm not a highly trained mathematician by any stretch of the imagination, but I could certainly instruct a child on how to do basic arithmetic and most mathematical topics up to calculus.
@StudentOfObjectivism But who would regulate it? How can the government know you can teach maths? They can only ensure kids get a proper education if people are educated in school. otherwise, the parents will need to satisfy a criteria, and then someone from education would have to ensure they were getting a sufficient education.
Its in all our interests that children are educated in schools. It has worked for hundreds of years, and Im glad it is compulsory.
@markgg1 There is a massive non-sequitur in your argument: you are saying a particular result (basic level of education) needs to be enforced and therefore the method of achieving that result (government sanctioned schools) must also be enforced. One might equally say that not starving your kids to death needs to be enforced and therefore all kids must have their meals at government sanctioned dining halls, which I hope you will agree is a revolting proposition.
@StudentOfObjectivism Hey. We all agree educating children is an almost essential component of society. If this is true we collectively via government create a system whereby the best method we know of is used to educate them, and this is legally sanctioned. We all agree that we pay for this via the fairest system possible, being taxation If you dont agree, you vote the party that doesnt support this idea.
If they win an election, then schools can be torn down, or funding stripped.
@markgg1 'We all agree educating children is an almost essential component of society.' Is it? The thought never occurred to me. I'd say educating a child is in the essential interests of the child and that the child has a basic right to a certain level of education - a right that imposes a responsibility on the parents, not on 'society'. The effects on 'society', whoever that is (every time I've heard that word used it has meant an amorphous group that disagrees with me) is not my concern.
@StudentOfObjectivism Yes but most people do think society is their concern as a functional society means functional individuals. Dysfunctional societies such as African 3rd world disasters are terrible for human flourishing. It is not the individuals fault they have no sanitation, healthcare etc.. it is the fault of the society at large. If those individuals moved to Europe, their lives would drastically improve, not because they did something to improve it, but because their society improved
@markgg1 All those factors that make life better in developed countries are the product of the industrial revolution, which itself was a consequence of the relative freedom (recognition of individual rights) of individuals living in those countries. i.e. the political fact the gave rise to this 'functional society' is precisely the thing that you are arguing against.
@markgg1 'we collectively via government create a system whereby the best method we know of is used' and we collectively decide what s the best method do we?... How? There is no 'collective mind' by which to 'collectively decide' anything. What you mean is that we have a majority vote and the most popular method is declared to be the best. I think the Objectivist term for what you are doing is 'social metaphysics' - the opinions of others,not reality itself, is your standard of truth.
@StudentOfObjectivism Most people think murder is wrong, so therefore we collectively decide to ban it, via our legal systems. If a large group of people agree on certain issues then we sanction them.
There of course is the risk of a tyranny of the many, so we set up a constitutional and legal framework protecting our human rights and freedoms. The collective entity works via government, but has got limits to what it can do. This is liberal democracy, and it is the best system humanity has
@markgg1 I've got news for you: Murder isn't wrong because the majority oppose it; it's wrong because it is a violation of individual rights; individual rights being the factors necessary for successful human life in a social context. i.e. there are objective facts of reality that make a society of murderers untenable - regardless of majority opinion or social custom.
@StudentOfObjectivism I agree murder is objectively immoral. But this fact does not necessarily mean murder will become illegal. It only becomes illegal when human beings are allowed to use their own moral views to sanction laws. Democracy allows us to decide what moral standards are set down via law as it gives us the right to express what we feel is immoral via our elected representatives.
@markgg1 Well that is one way of deciding laws - and some of the time the laws so decided will be good (as a broken clock sometimes points at the right digits). The way to consistently decide good laws is by having a rational philosophy and basing laws in moral principles. The principle I advocate is individual rights... to which you apparently object because you think the law should all be down to majority opinion. I think your position is morally reprehensible and philosophically bankrupt.
@StudentOfObjectivism In principal Id love to able to impose what I think is a perfect system of laws and values, but we have to be realistic. We live in a society of millions, so the only practical method of deciding laws is via democratic decisions (majority opinion). I completely agree it isnt perfect (Hitler elected and Iranian president) but there must be a system, and this is the best one I can think off. If it is constrained by a constitution enshrining human rights then it can work
@markgg1 'the best method we know of is used to educate them, and this is legally sanctioned'... so what if there is a better method not yet discovered? Every kids is being educated in what 'society' deems the best method... where is the variation and innovation? If someone does conceive of a better method who's permission would he have to get in order to put it into practice? Yours is a formula for stagnation, for standing still and never seeking to improve.
@markgg1 'We all agree that we pay for this via the fairest system possible, being taxation' Fair by what standard? I don't have a kid, why should I have to pay for people that do? How is it fair to threaten me with physical force (I can be dragged off to jail for refusing to pay my taxes) to make me pay for something from which I personally derive no benefit? What is your standard of 'fair' that justifies an initiation of force?
@markgg1 'If you dont agree, you vote the party that doesnt support this idea. If they win an election, then schools can be torn down, or funding stripped.' This is your social metaphysics rearing up again - as though my rights as an individual (as well as all truth and matters of justice) are subject to a majority vote!
He puts it particularly well at the end; when he points out that mandatory public education requires the parents to feed their children, provide them with housing, and pay their medical bills while the states legally own them. It's monstrous. I plan to educate my own children. I've been through public schooling, so I know the horrible inadequacies of the system first hand. Once my gifted program was cut I was bored out of my mind in class, and I pretty much educated myself in a public library.
I'm having trouble accepting the premise he presents. Total sovereignty of parents over their children's intellectual development... He kinda compares it to nutrition but then shrinks back from the comparison. I agree that no blanket ban on homeschooling is reasonable, but to say that only physical neglect can be the domain of state action is asinine.
What if a parent elects to teach their child that gravity doesn't exist? They are doing REAL harm and government does have a right to step in.
See how these Progressive Hit and Run Weenies are? Someone always comes along and beats them into a quick submission. What a joke Fede2 is. He says that in essence parents are Authoritarian Bodies just like the State is. That to me shows just how far out there these people are. The literally think think a child at any age should be seperate from the parents as if they are fundamentally ready for that. Parents brought you into this world and should be able to get you ready for the real world.
No, but this law presumes that until they are 18, the bill of rights does not apply to them. Under the 13th amendment, the government cannot enlist you into compulsory service of any kind. And if you think the public schools are a safe environment for children, I'd suggest you talk to the victims of Columbine or Kip Kinkel.
"Under the 13th amendment, the government cannot enlist you into compulsory service of any kind."
that doesn't make whatever happens to them under their parents' care irrelevant.
"And if you think the public schools are a safe environment for children, I'd suggest you talk to the victims of Columbine or Kip Kinkel."
that you expect to make a point against their safety with such broad brushing is laughable. i'm a product of public education and i haven't had those experiences.
The parents have nothing to answer for, unless they have been charged with a crime, and convicted with due process. To seize them because some parents have been found to have abused them in the past, is no better than assuming all schools are potential columbines.
i'm not suggesting all parents are potentially abusive. i'm saying that a parent's rights do not include a subjective definition of their children's well-being.
And the government's and public school's definitions aren't subjective? Very well, what do you consider an OBjective definition of a child's well-being? I mean, next thing you know, parents will be prohibited from raising their children in the religion of their (the parents') choosing- with the conspicuous exception of islam, I'm sure. Is that what you're driving at?
no. i suggest you leave your impertinent assumptions of me to yourself.
i never explicitly aknowledged an allegiance with any particular side. nor do i claim to hold a univocal objective understanding of the matter. all that i've ever said is that a kid is not better off with their partents SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF NOT BEING UNDER THE CARE OF THE GOVERNMENT.
And having had friends who were abused in the foster care system, I say a kid is not better off with their government simply by virtue of not being under the care of its parents. And your statement? Parents who have done nothing wrong have nothing to answer for.
And I'll tell you something else, too. No school teacher, no government official, or social worker, is EVER going to love a child like its real parents do. Thinking they could is the kind of deluded thought of pedophile planning to kidnap someone else's kids. And, hey, we got the "safe school czar" teaching our kids about fisting, so that comparison might not be too far the truth. It's just like it's a democrat joke to think anyone's gonna care about money more than the people who earned it.
it's as simple as this: the principles by which you reject the government care of children ought to apply to parents as well. if you dislike public schools teaching kids to adore the state, by the same token you ought to reject homeschooling when it involves teaching intelligent design, for example. in both cases, the child's intellectual vulnerability is being taken advantage of. it's not kosher simply because it's done by one authoritarian body and not another.
The government does not have an equal claim to that relationship. Say whatever marxist crap you want, but the relationship between a child and its parents is natural. The government can never take its place, and children are not stupid- they don't care about presumptuous government nannies- they care about and love their parents, naturally. So, in your vacuum of theory it may sound very wise to assume they both have an equal claim, but no, parents have a right the government does not.
And for all the talk you leftists have about "multiculturalism", you sure don't seem to mind destroying and disrupting culture- a thing which starts in the home, being taught by parents and families. Culture is simply the accumulation of the ideas and customs that parents pass on to their children within a community. And then you turn around and talk about how Europeans are superior, because Americans have little to no culture of their own. Of course not- you're destroying it.
i don't think the government or parents have a "right" to children. chidlren have their own rights and should be in the care of whoever respects them the most adequetely.
i never made a refference to culture, so i don't know what your point is there.
ID is not science, but thats not the point. more often than not, parents who homsechool and teach it are not scientsts nor provide a scientific validation for it. i'd be more than happy to debate it but not here or now unless we burry this.
Oh, so you DO believe the 13th amendment applies to children, then? You won't debate me on ID, because you'll lose. Here and now. The fine-tuning of the universe, irreducible complexity, the mathematical absurdity of macro-evolution. Let's go, man. I was homeschooled in it, and guess what: we learn the SAME math, the SAME chemistry, the SAME anatomy, the SAME physics. Origins is a separate and more advanced issue, because it's a separate question to observation. ID teaches the SAME things.
Intelligent Design curricula teach the SAME scientific observations and disciplines. It's the INTERPRETATION of those observations (using the SAME disciplines) which differs. A child learning Intelligent Design in a homeschooled setting will learn Algebra, chemistry, physics, the laws of thermodynamics (which support ID, yet blow holes in Darwinism), and unlike their public school counterparts we are taught HOW to think. You are taught WHAT to think. We outscore your public schoolers by FAR.
Look at the test score differences. They put your unfounded accusations about homeschooling to shame. Our public schools are the laughingstock of the developed world, yet you think it should be criminal for parents to withhold their children from them? You people are pathetic control-freaks. Your public schools are pathetic failures. You are the ones whose competence and child-rearing should be called into question- not us. History bears that out.
Your vote doesn't change the test-score discrepancies, sorry. See, the mistake most people seem to make these days is thinking the truth is a matter of votes.
@fede2 If you have children invariably you will piss them off and being children will demand to be with the other parent or grandma, aunt, uncle or anyone other than you. So, the right of the child, your child, will trump what you want for your child. It won't matter that you love and care for the child even enough to discipline them. They will scream you don't love them and don't respect them, and you will be faced with your own words.
@sorenkierkegaard2008 I was too tired, but I am now far too hungover. I suppose I will make a response to this half-wit at some point in the next week or two.
@Not2Sane The state should protect you from yourself. you're hungover, tired, and probably hungry. We the state can fix all your problems; do this and this and this or we will punish you only to protect you. Or, would you rather have the freedom to self regulate? Put the shoes on that you demand others wear. Do you really want the state to regulate everything?
@etcharrison I don't think the state should regulate everything; However, I do believe education, health care, and the economy (amongst some others) should be. This is because self-regulation is a damn joke, it takes just a few greedy people in a position of power (reference the recent financial bust) to screw it up for millions of others.
@etcharrison But we vote the government, so it is us in an organised unit. the government in theory (though not always) works in the interests of everybody at large. If you dont like it, then you vote for the other guy. I agree this system is not perfect, but as Churchill once said; Democracy is the worst system, until you compare it to all the others.
I am a high school senior who dropped out for 1 year and in the one year of "being a flunkie" or "being stateless madman" I learned more than anyone at the school where I am made to attend now. I read philosophy, Psych, Sociology, participated in philosophic debates with middle aged college grads.
is it the interest of children to stay in the education camps?
NO! if you have middle school or high school aged children, please take it from my advise you should home school :)
Judgements like this are why I always damage state property when I think I can get away with it.
Every minute a policeman spends dealing with the smashed window of his car is a minute he won't be spending arresting innocent people for so called victimless "crimes".
It is rare that collectivists are as straight-forward in their promotion of statist supremacy and the idea of "ownership" of its citizens. Let us hope they continue to be so "honest" regarding the other aspects of their ideologies- it will make it so much easier to defeat them.
In my personal life experience when I was young believe it or not I lived in Beverly Hills. Corrupt divorce laws and a horrible public education made me a slave to the stupitity of my parents and the whims of the public education system. I was enslaved by homework assignments that had nothing to do with my life. My time energy and creativity was also stolen by the evil public education system and there unhumanitarian doctrine of college worship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do schools kill creativity? If creativity was a person schools would be it's concentration camp! I think that young people are going through a creativity holocaust perpetrated by teachers especially ones who hate their jobs. Everyone who agrees this is a disgusting inconvenient truth give me a thumbs up. BTW I'm only twenty years old and I understand this.
I think that after 5th grade everything I learned after that was basically a repeat. Not only that but, school was meant for education not for boredom and depression. Bored and depressed was my whole life in middle school!!
I am with you 100% brother! I was extremely bored. Same stuff everyday. Think about it most kids spend 13 years in these institutions and then have to take "remedial" classes in college? Everyone knows that public schools are really a day care center.
public education and college idolization is making the American people into brainless conformist zombies that are tearing the economy apart!!! We are living in a collegetatorship. By the way I am a community college student and I deduce this from my experiences I don't need anyone to tell me this.
In my experience home educated individuals display a higher social, academic, and intellectual aptitude, confidence, and maturity than their public schooled counterparts.
Moreover, both were successful after highschool. The young woman attended the prestigious Clark University. The young man joined the United States Marine Corps.
You are correct. Studies have been conducted which do in fact indicate homeschooled children generally have higher scores, and better social skills. Homeschoolers won the national spelling bee for several years in a row, and shortly after that homeschooled chidren were no longer allowed to participate!
Ayn Rand Institute would have us privatize ALL education and leave the gifted/talented among poor children to fend for themselves and rely on charity--which, in turn, is also DISCOURAGED ("the value of selfishness"). This madness would lead to a de facto generational caste system of vast disparities. At the same time, Randites laud rich industrialists under the false premise that they've somehow earned their status when the majority were born w/ vast (material, NOT innate) advantages
Look up Sir Ken Robinson school does not understand gifted and talented children at all. It wants to make all children conform I should know I was a victim!!
I'm dubious about the motives of homeschoolers, which I suspect mainly involve racial paranoia, classism, etc. And I do think it stunts a child's socialization to deprive him/her of interaction w/ diverse peers, h/e, I have to agree that parents should have homeschooling rights, as long as they conform to a core curriculum dictated by the State and, yes, the SOCIETY which its gov represents. What if the parents only want to teach math/science and not bother with lit or civics? Unacceptable
"I'm dubious about the motives of homeschoolers, which I suspect mainly involve racial paranoia, classism, etc."
Its ironic you accuse homeschoolers of paranoia, while it is you who is truly paranoid. You suspect the homeschoolers motives based on nothing but your imagination.
Meaningful & constructive dialogue must be founded in truth and built with logic. In the future please supply evidence of facts to substantiate your argument, not just your imagination.
Technically, the government does NOT have the right to dictate what a parent teaches their children. That violates the bill of rights and the constitution of this country. The government was designed to serve VERY limited purposes - and education was never supposed to be one of them.
No one should be subjected to the "irrationality, violence, and mediocrity that have come to characterize government education in California and elsewhere."
"The child has a right to go to someone for help. Why would you assume that objectivism differs from that? he says it at 3:37"
LOL he spends the previous 3 minutes DERIDING "the state" then he says "then the state must step in"
how should the state "step in"? who will FUND this intervention? who makes the decision?
what agency would exist to do this? and if an agency does NEED to exist to ensure the rights of a child, does it not call into question the entire objectivist ideal?
He spends the previous three minutes saying that a parent has the right to chose the type of education that they want their child to have. I'm pretty sure no one is advocating child abuse. Besides, im not too hip to the objectivist political game, im more in the ethical portion.
The state should serve the rights of the citizen. Not the other way around, as the arrogant state of California suggests by this ruling.
The powers of government must be and rightly ought to be specifically limited to predefined constitutional limits. The arrogant state court is making up the rules with no respect to the rights of parents nor children.
THAT IS RIDICULOUS! california wants to say its illegal for u to set standards in ur own home yet in the deep south kkk members freely influence their children to be racists.
As to those parents who chose to indoctrinate their children with religion or some other form of irrationality, there is a rational way to deal with it. First off, there is no cause for government intervention of any kind here. It is the job of civilian society to pressure individuals, but not to force them, to stop any actions seen as inappropriate. They may boycott, attempt to reason with, or simply use social stigma. They may just ignore it, having their own children to worry about.
"It is the job of civilian society to pressure individuals, but not to force them, to stop any actions seen as inappropriate."
hmmm..."pressure" without "force" how exactly does society "boycott" or "reason with" an irrational, brainwashed home school child? is it right for the child to be stigmatized because of the choices of the parent? "ignoring" problems is usually a recipe for disaster.
we do not live in an insular world where our actions do not affect others.
If any person is truly irrational, then there is nothing to be done to help them. It is true that irrationality will likely not end well. However, before there is any indication of disaster, ignoring such people if fine. Once they do give such an indication, such that they pose a significant threat, they must be apprehended before they cause harm to others and infringe upon their rights.
At any rate, the number of unreasonable people would be so small as to not be a major concern to society.
The idea is NOT that homeschooling is superior to public education by nature and therefore, public education should be abolished. The idea is rather that in the absence of the government imposed monopoly on education, competition between various privately owned systems would produce a greater quality of education on all levels, including price, safety and success. This is the benefit freedom provides.
blind trust in market forces in light of the recent wall st. debacle is simply not "rational". you assume that the intent of a private school is to provide a product i.e. a "good" education; but history and recently, wall st have shown us that business often puts PROFIT before quality of product. the other thing we have seen with the "free market" is that it often leads to LESS choices not more.
government is ALREADY in "competition" with any number of private schools.
blujesus -- the recent Wall Street debacle was caused by the government, not market forces. The government forced and/or provided incentives for banks to hand out risky loans, because they wanted everyone to own a house. This was the problem.
You don't understand how markets work! It is the profit motive in a free market that will make schools superior in quality and service to the public shcools. In a free market, the school has to earn your business. Unlike the governement coerced monopoly of the public school, the marekt actually has to compete for your child. So it has every incentive to meet your needs and improve. It can't take you for granted. As for Wall Street, You got it backwards, The banking system is not a free market!
if the you think ANY markets are "free" then it is you that does not understand. markets ALWAYS favor those with more capital and they are manipulated by the same.
deregulating the market often LEADS to the kind of monopolies you mention. there are any number of ways unscrupulous business owners can cut corners to appear to be competitive. often in business the bottom line is making a PROFIT not providing a service.
"If you think you can make money by cutting corners..."
bad comparison. what does one have to do with the other?
if you are telling me that businesses NEVER turn a profit by cutting corners, I have a bridge in alaska I'd like to sell you.
you miss my point- the individuals participating in the market themselves are the people that game the system. GOV did not invent short selling, or derivatives, or any of the other shady practices of wall st.
as to cutting corners, sure a buisness may make a short term profit by cutting corners. However, the consumer may take this experince into account when making their next desision. In short, cutting corners hurts a company in the long run, if its consumers are wise.
"...cutting corners hurts a company in the long run, if its consumers are wise"
one of the problems with your (rands) hypothesis is that for some companies, there is no "long run" some go into business with the sole motivation of making X amount of dollars and then getting out
failed companies commonly re-brand themselves. how is the public to know the new name for the same company?
some global corporations are so huge that it is virtually impossible to do business without them
"some global corporations are so huge that it is virtually impossible to do business without them"
If business is impossible without a certain company then its net impact is good. As to cutting corners, a company will do less business if its consumers try their best not to do business with them. It will therefore make less money than if it strived to make the best product it could.
It is possible that a company with a bad reputation may disguise itself with a new name. However, this is a clearly inferior business practice compared to building a good name which may be trusted by consumers. Instead of spending its time keeping the consumers in the dark, it spends it time working on ways to improve efficiency, which certainly makes more money than multiple short-term business ventures which the consumers may or may not catch on to.
Deregulating the market leads to the kind of monopolies you mention
Actually, severing the government from the economy ends government enforced monopolies. This is quite different from corporations which attain a dominant market share, as a result of the free market, more commonly referred to as monopolies. The difference is that a government monopoly does not have to compete in order to stay in business, because it is in business by government decree.
First of all, it was government interference which caused this financial crisis. The housing market and the banking industry are the most regulated industries. The government controls interest rates, gives incentives for bad loans and bails out failing businesses.
"The government controls interest rates, gives incentives for bad loans and bails out failing businesses."
INCORRECT. the GOV does NOT control interest rates. that is done by the FEDERAL RESERVE which is a PRIVATELY owned corporation. in fact, this corporation has a great deal of control of the US GOV, even to the point of influencing policy. so again, blaming ONLY GOV is a bit silly.
The Federal Reserve is a government entity, and it was created by something called the "Federal Reserve Act" this means it was created by government action. There would be no place for any such "privately owned corporation" in a free market. Corporations would ACTUALLY be privately owned, instead of being government entities with supposedly "private" components.
"There would be no place for any such "privately owned corporation" in a free market"
if we are dealing in currency, then some organization needs to issue the currency. that organization then has undue influence on the alleged "free market" and GOV
the FED is "private" in the most important way
-it's shareholders MAKE A PROFIT from the system. these unknown shareholders control the Govs money
In a free market, individuals would be free to choose what means of exchange they wanted to use to purchase goods. The government has no place enforcing a currency such as the US dollar. In doing so, the government has a precedent to manipulate its currency and print money to pay off its depts. This causes a devaluation of the dollar which may eventually lead to an economic collapse. The government may also use this power to increase its size.
Despite the amount of time objectivism has existed, there are no examples of any significance successful or otherwise of a society based on objectivism. Where would such a society have come from? If an objectivist society appears, it will come out of the country which most closely represents the objectivist principles: The U.S.
Also, what does it matter if a form of society is proper, when one cant accept change in society? The whole idea is flawed.
"attempting to establish an objectivist system in an existing society, is immoral because it would incur the theft of the existing infrastructure"
How do you suppose this change happens?
The only way to change a society is to change the culture. The only way to do that is to spread and promote the ideas in question until they are accepted. It is impossible to stop a society from changing itself no mater what previous infrastructure was built by some previous collective.
(2/2) The idea that a society should be prevented from making improvements to itself is evil. One could say that the infrastructure of America changed when slavery was abolished, or when womens rights were granted. How could this be seen as immoral?
A free country is one which adequately protects the individual rights of its citizens. It has institutions for police and justice/courts as well as military for defense. It acts in retaliation only, and the initiation of physical force/coercion is not tolerated
Also, the government of a free country lacks institutions which initiate the use of force for any reason.
A country is free to the extent that it follows these principles.
the US is FAR from the standards that you previously stated:
"It acts in retaliation only, and the initiation of physical force/coercion is not tolerated..."
I would say that countries like monaco or dubai that have ZERO income tax, NO standing armies, and do not engage in war, are MUCH closer to the stated objectivist ideal.
so does that mean that the citizens of dubai are "more free" than americans?
(2/2) This moral system denounces the individual as a sovereign entity and the concept of individual rights. Though it will take time for the people to give up their rights, without a moral basis in their minds, they will give them up on moral grounds. Public education will never be the cause of the loss of freedom in a society. The danger is that the logical extrapolation of the ideas of altruism and collectivism is not only public schools, but also a totalitarian state (no rights).
Americans have strong, although incomplete support for individual rights. This largely stems from the fact that America was largely founded on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It will take, therefore, a long time before these ideas are broken down by a bankrupt moral system. The fact is that another set of beliefs is intermingled with these. This is the morality of Altruism and Collectivism.
(1/4)I agree that any action taken by the government can be considered as force. That is why it must be used with such caution. The government can be a powerful instrument for the infringement of individual rights. The proper role of government is to protect the individual rights of its citizens. It has no place setting up institutions to provide any other service to them.
(2/4) I am in fact currently enrolled in the free k-12 public education system (the profile says age 20 because I am using my brothers account). I am extremely fortunate to not have to deal with many of the problems of most public schools. However, I am certain that if the institution of public education were non-existent, I would be even better off.
(3/4) First of all, institutions which run the risk of failure when they dont operate at the optimum level have a greater incentive to do so. Therefore, the government enforced monopoly over education will be unlikely to yield systems which are even close to the level of those produced by fairly competing privately owned systems.
(4/4) After all, if a countrys public education system does poorly, it will often receive more funds, not less. In addition, successful privately owned schools are more efficient and therefore less costly than public ones. Proof of this is that many private schools are able to stay in business, despite the government enforced monopoly in education.
the cost of education to society pales in comparison to the cost of NOT educating children.
Keep in mind that public education has an additional cost besides the cost of educating the children. This is the acceptance of the idea that it is acceptable to force people to give up their property for the sake of society. The cost is Freedom. As a society accepts the loss of freedom for the good of the state, it leads to disaster. For example, Nazi Germany.
"As a society accepts the loss of freedom for the good of the state, it leads to disaster"
this is a bait and switch. we don't educate children for the "good of the state" we educate children for OUR OWN GOOD. it is MUCH easier to "enslave" the uneducated.
lastly, in the US, unlike the USSR, NO ONE is forcing you to stay "at the barrel of a gun". you are free to go to another country that closer to the objectivist ideal.
LOL- why does everyone attempt to invoke the nazi boogyman?
Also, it is unclear that the public education system is beneficial to any individual in any manner considering the problems cited by the video: violence, mediocrity, irrationality (6:04).
Also, even if it were beneficial to every individual to support public education, it is never beneficial for a man to give up his rights. As stated in my post 7 hrs ago, the use of government force is not the answer to solve such problems. Education is not the enemy, public education is.
"the use of government force is not the answer to solve such problems. Education is not the enemy, public education is"
ANY action taken by GOV can be construed as "force". in all honesty, did YOU go to a publicly funded school at some point in your life? I did, and almost every person I know did. the fact that we are even having this discussion is evidence that the influence of the "enemy" (public ed) is not a direct pathway to nazism or whatever other boogyman you choose to mention
"...considering the problems cited by the video: violence, mediocrity, irrationality"
so far, I have seen no data that suggest those problems (save violence) would be any less with home schooled children. in fact, MANY people that choose to home school do so for "irrational" religious reasons. what recourse does the child have from the "force" of the parent teaching religious dogma?
The point is that the Objectivist ideal is the proper system. It is not a mater of preference. Indecently, the U.S. is still the freest country in the world.
objectivism has been around for quite some time. if it were indeed "the proper system" I would think that someone could point to successful example of an objectivist society.
attempting to establish an objectivist system in an existing society, is immoral because it would incur the theft of the existing infrastructure that was built collectively.
"the U.S. is still the freest country in the world."
a child is also not the "Property" of his or her parent. the child has rights, and unfortunately not every parent is capable of providing that child with an education.
it is in the "rational self interest" of any society to educate all children-
even the children who's parents can not do so themselves.
A society does not have a rational self intrest, only those individuals who make it up. Is in my RSI to have my hard-earned wealth used to educate someone I've never met? I would say no, but even if the answer is yes, then let me do it myself andthe government should keep their guns out of it.
Education is not a right. Being entitled to education means being able to demand that someone else provide it for you. They would be obligated to give up their property to do this. There can be no such thing as a right to infringe upon anothers property rights.
educating children is ABSOLUTELY essential for having any kind of society
If providing free education is so essential, the answer is for individuals in the society to freely contribute to the cause of free education. The use of government force to attain this goal however is indefensible. If there are actions which society must take to continue to exist, and it is unwilling to, there is nothing to be done which can protect it from its own stupidity.
ill tell you why its cause people are too busy distracted by american idol and other bullshit media in fact since the supposed war on terror most of your rights have been taken away but its ok keep watching tv
I honestly cannot understand why the people of our country are even wasting time and money supporting government officials who are trying to undermine the right of the people and our constitution.before "public education" parents were successfully educating their children at home with alot less curriculum choices than we have now.has anyone done any research on homeschooling here.the presidents that began runnning this country were homeschooled.I wonder what albert einstein would say about this!
Why is that, exactly? I can cite references to tell you why she'd be pissed that somebody would make a claim without citing reasons, like you just did. Why would she be opposed? Why is it responsible? You sound like Jim Taggart from Atlas Shrugged. Next thing you know, you're going to be calling this video "impractical" and "unfeeling."
If this is the kind of material given by an analyst from the Institue, well in my college Logic class, it would be shred to pieces in a second. Please, before posting long monolgues on tthems such as education, etc. check out your logic throughly and perhaps you should chec, at least in the dictionary, the meaning of OBJECTIVE. But don't take it personal. : )
It's not logical because he is not taking into consideration the results of his theory if put into practical use. It took a long fight to secure access to education for children of all races and economic background. This was an achievement. Bowden proposes parents being able to teach their kids and to not take them to schools, and protest that parents are required to get credentials in order to do so. His protesting shows his short sightedness. You want to teach your kid, get QUALIFIED.
JuanBosco clearly has no argument of his own thats why he is hiding behind a college logic class. Good luck worshiping your professor. Their are others among us who choose to think for ourselves and not get indoctrinated by their colleges and their altruistic ethic which is nothing less then a morality of slavery and death.
Obviously, written by a fool, who does not have a clue of today's college environment. The cummulative of Community Colleges and Universities, hold a extensive community of lectures, professors and students. No two need coincide on any opinions. In classes with debatable topics, Philosophy, Anthropology, History, Literature, etc. the debate is constant. Debate is not just allowed, but it's ENCOURAGED. So, your own narrowmindness is far worse than the reality in Colleges and Universities.
Talking just like Bertram Scudder and Balph Eubank in Atlas Shrugged. Continuously appealing to somebody else's arguments and credentials instead of providing one's own rational, logical arguments is an epistemic injustice. You've called it illogical, but not explained WHY it's illogical. How about using reason instead of epithets to prove your point? Stop being an armchair philosopher until you have some information and logic of your own to support your arguments.
Jonathan swift said that parents themselves should not be allowed to raise their children, because they acquire the parent's faults. Imagine if he were to listen to your theory. Parents teaching their children. Schools are a small version of society, where he child learns how to respond to it. Parents should compliment their children's education. In modern society the problem has always been, children, especially if poor and unpriviledge, not receiving the benefit of a formal education.
I learned more in my GD class than I did in Public School!
rehwr 1 week ago
@rehwr GED damn keyboard!
rehwr 1 week ago
Government run education is an inherently corrupt system. It must be abolished. We need separation from education and state.
UltraConservative298 3 months ago 2
@UltraConservative298 We need a student voucher system so that students can spend them whereever they want. Just as we have food stamps and not public grocery stores.
RobertMOdell 2 days ago in playlist public schooling
@RobertMOdell Vouchers are no different than any other involuntary transfer of wealth. Welfare is nothing more than theft and has the opposite affect of its intention. School vouchers would be a huge burden on the economy and would cause school prices to rise. What we need is a complete hands off approach so that private schools are not burdened with unnecessary costs and can keep tuitions low. School vouchers would be as destructive as any other welfare program.
UltraConservative298 2 days ago
@UltraConservative298 Oh, I agree that vouchers are a social welfare program. Can we agree to put aside the question of welfare for now? My point is simply that currently, government both PAYS for education and IMPLEMENTS education. A voucher system would replace public schools with a private education economy. Public school teachers could be re-hired and then face competative employment like everyone else and this would lower the overall cost to society and increase quality.
RobertMOdell 2 days ago
Just a little remark. “Of the father and mother who created that child”? (2:53) No offense, but with this phrase you created the potential to offend adoptive parents, and especially gay adoptive parents, who are obviously not “mother and father”.
xXvolhvXx 7 months ago
It amazes me how these mindless free market dupes continuously yank from Ayn Rand's dusty utters. This morally bankrupt hypocrite secretly applied for social security and used medicare to pay for her cancer treatments.
logtype47 9 months ago
@logtype47 Yes, she did. So what? That's a not-so-mature example of argumentum ad hominem.
xXvolhvXx 7 months ago
This argument is ridiculous. The government DOES have the right to set standards of education, because we voted for them. They have legitimacy to choose a curriculum that we all deem suitable for the advancement of children's minds.
How can any parent decide what to teach their children. What if they wanted to teach their children that Jews were evil, or that black people are inferior?. There has to be a regulated educational framework for children so they get the best education possible.
markgg1 9 months ago
@markgg1 The argument that homeschool parents might indoctrinate their kids could equally well be used against private schools - they might indoctrinate as well. So it seems that your solution to the potential problem of parental indoctrination is to have all children sent off to institutions run by the government... because, presumably, that is not a recipe for indoctrination!
StudentOfObjectivism 9 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism I also agree the government could indoctrinate children, but we need to have a system of education, and again the current school system is the best I can propose. It must be regulated by elected government with a principle that children are taught the truth and given skills so they can succeed individually, which in turn allows them to succeed for the benefit of everyone. In a weird way cooperation is selfish, because if we corporate it improves the individuals life
markgg1 9 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism Anyway Im off to the pub, will reply tomorrow. Interesting talk for sure.
markgg1 9 months ago
Comment removed
xXvolhvXx 7 months ago
The only thing government is good at is killing people.
disclosurenow9 1 year ago
My cousin home-schooled all 4 of her kids in Long Beach up to HS age, then put them in private school. They are probably the most intelligent, moral, thoughtful, loving, well rounded people I have ever met.
Our government assumes a helluva lot.
rubbersole79 1 year ago
If the concern is about individual rights then the whole argument presented is misguided. Shouldn't the claim be rather that children have an individual right to the best education that can be afforded them? Don't children have a right to associate with their peers and to be exposed to the ideas and concepts current in the larger society. This whole argument, as presented , depicts children as the property of their parents and not as possessing their own rights.
ColBrokov 1 year ago
@ColBrokov If a child has a right to autonomy then they also have the right to self preservation. And if the society you live in permits this then you would live in a chaotic state. The parents should protect the child until such time as that child can self preserve. And when that happens the child is no longer a child. Would you have the state raise the children of that state? Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini all protected the children from their parents. The states are not too far from this.
etcharrison 11 months ago
@etcharrison When did I say they had a right to autonomy? You don't think children have a right to self preservation, i.e. to protect their own lives if threatened? How do you get from public education to the state raising our children? Isn't that a bit of a leap? Here in New England we have had public education for 300 years and practically invented direct democracy in America.
ColBrokov 11 months ago
Unlessa a parent is a expert in Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Maths, English, Art, History, Geography, Sociology, Politics, Media, Geology, Psychology, and any other ology I havent named, the idea of homeschooling is stupid.
What next: Give our children Heart Bypass surgery so Doctors dont 'own them'?
Just ridiculous.
The point of society is that people of all talents coorporate so we can all live happy lives.
markgg1 1 year ago
@markgg1 no abstract thought is needed before the age of ten. all your ologies are useless to most
billytrack 1 year ago
@markgg1 I don't think you have to be an expert in any particular discipline to be able to teach children the basics. For example, I'm not a highly trained mathematician by any stretch of the imagination, but I could certainly instruct a child on how to do basic arithmetic and most mathematical topics up to calculus.
StudentOfObjectivism 9 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism But who would regulate it? How can the government know you can teach maths? They can only ensure kids get a proper education if people are educated in school. otherwise, the parents will need to satisfy a criteria, and then someone from education would have to ensure they were getting a sufficient education.
Its in all our interests that children are educated in schools. It has worked for hundreds of years, and Im glad it is compulsory.
markgg1 9 months ago
@markgg1 There is a massive non-sequitur in your argument: you are saying a particular result (basic level of education) needs to be enforced and therefore the method of achieving that result (government sanctioned schools) must also be enforced. One might equally say that not starving your kids to death needs to be enforced and therefore all kids must have their meals at government sanctioned dining halls, which I hope you will agree is a revolting proposition.
StudentOfObjectivism 9 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism Hey. We all agree educating children is an almost essential component of society. If this is true we collectively via government create a system whereby the best method we know of is used to educate them, and this is legally sanctioned. We all agree that we pay for this via the fairest system possible, being taxation If you dont agree, you vote the party that doesnt support this idea.
If they win an election, then schools can be torn down, or funding stripped.
markgg1 9 months ago
@markgg1 'We all agree educating children is an almost essential component of society.' Is it? The thought never occurred to me. I'd say educating a child is in the essential interests of the child and that the child has a basic right to a certain level of education - a right that imposes a responsibility on the parents, not on 'society'. The effects on 'society', whoever that is (every time I've heard that word used it has meant an amorphous group that disagrees with me) is not my concern.
StudentOfObjectivism 9 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism Yes but most people do think society is their concern as a functional society means functional individuals. Dysfunctional societies such as African 3rd world disasters are terrible for human flourishing. It is not the individuals fault they have no sanitation, healthcare etc.. it is the fault of the society at large. If those individuals moved to Europe, their lives would drastically improve, not because they did something to improve it, but because their society improved
markgg1 9 months ago
@markgg1 All those factors that make life better in developed countries are the product of the industrial revolution, which itself was a consequence of the relative freedom (recognition of individual rights) of individuals living in those countries. i.e. the political fact the gave rise to this 'functional society' is precisely the thing that you are arguing against.
StudentOfObjectivism 9 months ago
@markgg1 'we collectively via government create a system whereby the best method we know of is used' and we collectively decide what s the best method do we?... How? There is no 'collective mind' by which to 'collectively decide' anything. What you mean is that we have a majority vote and the most popular method is declared to be the best. I think the Objectivist term for what you are doing is 'social metaphysics' - the opinions of others,not reality itself, is your standard of truth.
StudentOfObjectivism 9 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism Most people think murder is wrong, so therefore we collectively decide to ban it, via our legal systems. If a large group of people agree on certain issues then we sanction them.
There of course is the risk of a tyranny of the many, so we set up a constitutional and legal framework protecting our human rights and freedoms. The collective entity works via government, but has got limits to what it can do. This is liberal democracy, and it is the best system humanity has
markgg1 9 months ago
@markgg1 I've got news for you: Murder isn't wrong because the majority oppose it; it's wrong because it is a violation of individual rights; individual rights being the factors necessary for successful human life in a social context. i.e. there are objective facts of reality that make a society of murderers untenable - regardless of majority opinion or social custom.
StudentOfObjectivism 9 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism I agree murder is objectively immoral. But this fact does not necessarily mean murder will become illegal. It only becomes illegal when human beings are allowed to use their own moral views to sanction laws. Democracy allows us to decide what moral standards are set down via law as it gives us the right to express what we feel is immoral via our elected representatives.
markgg1 9 months ago
@markgg1 Well that is one way of deciding laws - and some of the time the laws so decided will be good (as a broken clock sometimes points at the right digits). The way to consistently decide good laws is by having a rational philosophy and basing laws in moral principles. The principle I advocate is individual rights... to which you apparently object because you think the law should all be down to majority opinion. I think your position is morally reprehensible and philosophically bankrupt.
StudentOfObjectivism 9 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism In principal Id love to able to impose what I think is a perfect system of laws and values, but we have to be realistic. We live in a society of millions, so the only practical method of deciding laws is via democratic decisions (majority opinion). I completely agree it isnt perfect (Hitler elected and Iranian president) but there must be a system, and this is the best one I can think off. If it is constrained by a constitution enshrining human rights then it can work
markgg1 9 months ago
@markgg1 'the best method we know of is used to educate them, and this is legally sanctioned'... so what if there is a better method not yet discovered? Every kids is being educated in what 'society' deems the best method... where is the variation and innovation? If someone does conceive of a better method who's permission would he have to get in order to put it into practice? Yours is a formula for stagnation, for standing still and never seeking to improve.
StudentOfObjectivism 9 months ago
@markgg1 'We all agree that we pay for this via the fairest system possible, being taxation' Fair by what standard? I don't have a kid, why should I have to pay for people that do? How is it fair to threaten me with physical force (I can be dragged off to jail for refusing to pay my taxes) to make me pay for something from which I personally derive no benefit? What is your standard of 'fair' that justifies an initiation of force?
StudentOfObjectivism 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@markgg1 'If you dont agree, you vote the party that doesnt support this idea. If they win an election, then schools can be torn down, or funding stripped.' This is your social metaphysics rearing up again - as though my rights as an individual (as well as all truth and matters of justice) are subject to a majority vote!
StudentOfObjectivism 9 months ago
when in doubt, consider whether you would be raised by a bunch of true objectivists or true kantians
TruthObeysNobody 1 year ago
He puts it particularly well at the end; when he points out that mandatory public education requires the parents to feed their children, provide them with housing, and pay their medical bills while the states legally own them. It's monstrous. I plan to educate my own children. I've been through public schooling, so I know the horrible inadequacies of the system first hand. Once my gifted program was cut I was bored out of my mind in class, and I pretty much educated myself in a public library.
Skepsikyma 1 year ago
I'm having trouble accepting the premise he presents. Total sovereignty of parents over their children's intellectual development... He kinda compares it to nutrition but then shrinks back from the comparison. I agree that no blanket ban on homeschooling is reasonable, but to say that only physical neglect can be the domain of state action is asinine.
What if a parent elects to teach their child that gravity doesn't exist? They are doing REAL harm and government does have a right to step in.
KeyserX 1 year ago
well since i can teach "him" at home, then surely this guy wont care is california mandates public schooling for girls.
astviskavon 1 year ago
See how these Progressive Hit and Run Weenies are? Someone always comes along and beats them into a quick submission. What a joke Fede2 is. He says that in essence parents are Authoritarian Bodies just like the State is. That to me shows just how far out there these people are. The literally think think a child at any age should be seperate from the parents as if they are fundamentally ready for that. Parents brought you into this world and should be able to get you ready for the real world.
roofer10 1 year ago
The parents are responsible for children, not the state.
mjd001 2 years ago
children are not their parents' property either.
fede2 2 years ago
No, but this law presumes that until they are 18, the bill of rights does not apply to them. Under the 13th amendment, the government cannot enlist you into compulsory service of any kind. And if you think the public schools are a safe environment for children, I'd suggest you talk to the victims of Columbine or Kip Kinkel.
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
"Under the 13th amendment, the government cannot enlist you into compulsory service of any kind."
that doesn't make whatever happens to them under their parents' care irrelevant.
"And if you think the public schools are a safe environment for children, I'd suggest you talk to the victims of Columbine or Kip Kinkel."
that you expect to make a point against their safety with such broad brushing is laughable. i'm a product of public education and i haven't had those experiences.
fede2 2 years ago
The parents have nothing to answer for, unless they have been charged with a crime, and convicted with due process. To seize them because some parents have been found to have abused them in the past, is no better than assuming all schools are potential columbines.
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
i'm not suggesting all parents are potentially abusive. i'm saying that a parent's rights do not include a subjective definition of their children's well-being.
fede2 2 years ago
And the government's and public school's definitions aren't subjective? Very well, what do you consider an OBjective definition of a child's well-being? I mean, next thing you know, parents will be prohibited from raising their children in the religion of their (the parents') choosing- with the conspicuous exception of islam, I'm sure. Is that what you're driving at?
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
"Is that what you're driving at?"
no. i suggest you leave your impertinent assumptions of me to yourself.
i never explicitly aknowledged an allegiance with any particular side. nor do i claim to hold a univocal objective understanding of the matter. all that i've ever said is that a kid is not better off with their partents SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF NOT BEING UNDER THE CARE OF THE GOVERNMENT.
fede2 2 years ago
And having had friends who were abused in the foster care system, I say a kid is not better off with their government simply by virtue of not being under the care of its parents. And your statement? Parents who have done nothing wrong have nothing to answer for.
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
And I'll tell you something else, too. No school teacher, no government official, or social worker, is EVER going to love a child like its real parents do. Thinking they could is the kind of deluded thought of pedophile planning to kidnap someone else's kids. And, hey, we got the "safe school czar" teaching our kids about fisting, so that comparison might not be too far the truth. It's just like it's a democrat joke to think anyone's gonna care about money more than the people who earned it.
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
it's as simple as this: the principles by which you reject the government care of children ought to apply to parents as well. if you dislike public schools teaching kids to adore the state, by the same token you ought to reject homeschooling when it involves teaching intelligent design, for example. in both cases, the child's intellectual vulnerability is being taken advantage of. it's not kosher simply because it's done by one authoritarian body and not another.
fede2 2 years ago
The government does not have an equal claim to that relationship. Say whatever marxist crap you want, but the relationship between a child and its parents is natural. The government can never take its place, and children are not stupid- they don't care about presumptuous government nannies- they care about and love their parents, naturally. So, in your vacuum of theory it may sound very wise to assume they both have an equal claim, but no, parents have a right the government does not.
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
And for all the talk you leftists have about "multiculturalism", you sure don't seem to mind destroying and disrupting culture- a thing which starts in the home, being taught by parents and families. Culture is simply the accumulation of the ideas and customs that parents pass on to their children within a community. And then you turn around and talk about how Europeans are superior, because Americans have little to no culture of their own. Of course not- you're destroying it.
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
By the way, intelligent design is scientifically accurate. Want to debate it? Bring it on.
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
i don't think the government or parents have a "right" to children. chidlren have their own rights and should be in the care of whoever respects them the most adequetely.
i never made a refference to culture, so i don't know what your point is there.
ID is not science, but thats not the point. more often than not, parents who homsechool and teach it are not scientsts nor provide a scientific validation for it. i'd be more than happy to debate it but not here or now unless we burry this.
fede2 2 years ago
Oh, so you DO believe the 13th amendment applies to children, then? You won't debate me on ID, because you'll lose. Here and now. The fine-tuning of the universe, irreducible complexity, the mathematical absurdity of macro-evolution. Let's go, man. I was homeschooled in it, and guess what: we learn the SAME math, the SAME chemistry, the SAME anatomy, the SAME physics. Origins is a separate and more advanced issue, because it's a separate question to observation. ID teaches the SAME things.
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
Intelligent Design curricula teach the SAME scientific observations and disciplines. It's the INTERPRETATION of those observations (using the SAME disciplines) which differs. A child learning Intelligent Design in a homeschooled setting will learn Algebra, chemistry, physics, the laws of thermodynamics (which support ID, yet blow holes in Darwinism), and unlike their public school counterparts we are taught HOW to think. You are taught WHAT to think. We outscore your public schoolers by FAR.
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
Look at the test score differences. They put your unfounded accusations about homeschooling to shame. Our public schools are the laughingstock of the developed world, yet you think it should be criminal for parents to withhold their children from them? You people are pathetic control-freaks. Your public schools are pathetic failures. You are the ones whose competence and child-rearing should be called into question- not us. History bears that out.
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
fede2 wins this, sorry.
theclockstickin 1 year ago
Your vote doesn't change the test-score discrepancies, sorry. See, the mistake most people seem to make these days is thinking the truth is a matter of votes.
sorenkierkegaard2008 1 year ago
calm down ok. even if you are right, you're making a real bitch out of your self.
theclockstickin 1 year ago
I don't remember putting any exclamation points in those sentences, but some people just read whatever tone they want into a comment.
sorenkierkegaard2008 1 year ago
@fede2 If you have children invariably you will piss them off and being children will demand to be with the other parent or grandma, aunt, uncle or anyone other than you. So, the right of the child, your child, will trump what you want for your child. It won't matter that you love and care for the child even enough to discipline them. They will scream you don't love them and don't respect them, and you will be faced with your own words.
etcharrison 11 months ago
Okay, I accept. You are making the claim for intelligent design, so support it.
CipherMind117 1 year ago
I am far too tired to rebuttal the flaws in his argument.
Not2Sane 2 years ago
Too tired, or too incorrect?
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
@sorenkierkegaard2008 I was too tired, but I am now far too hungover. I suppose I will make a response to this half-wit at some point in the next week or two.
Not2Sane 2 years ago
@Not2Sane The state should protect you from yourself. you're hungover, tired, and probably hungry. We the state can fix all your problems; do this and this and this or we will punish you only to protect you. Or, would you rather have the freedom to self regulate? Put the shoes on that you demand others wear. Do you really want the state to regulate everything?
etcharrison 11 months ago
@etcharrison I don't think the state should regulate everything; However, I do believe education, health care, and the economy (amongst some others) should be. This is because self-regulation is a damn joke, it takes just a few greedy people in a position of power (reference the recent financial bust) to screw it up for millions of others.
Not2Sane 11 months ago
@etcharrison But we vote the government, so it is us in an organised unit. the government in theory (though not always) works in the interests of everybody at large. If you dont like it, then you vote for the other guy. I agree this system is not perfect, but as Churchill once said; Democracy is the worst system, until you compare it to all the others.
markgg1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am a high school senior who dropped out for 1 year and in the one year of "being a flunkie" or "being stateless madman" I learned more than anyone at the school where I am made to attend now. I read philosophy, Psych, Sociology, participated in philosophic debates with middle aged college grads.
is it the interest of children to stay in the education camps?
NO! if you have middle school or high school aged children, please take it from my advise you should home school :)
444DeanMachine 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Maybe it is a way of protecting the child´s rights by placing them in a regular school?
BeHereNow21 2 years ago
Judgements like this are why I always damage state property when I think I can get away with it.
Every minute a policeman spends dealing with the smashed window of his car is a minute he won't be spending arresting innocent people for so called victimless "crimes".
richardcadbury 2 years ago
It is rare that collectivists are as straight-forward in their promotion of statist supremacy and the idea of "ownership" of its citizens. Let us hope they continue to be so "honest" regarding the other aspects of their ideologies- it will make it so much easier to defeat them.
Objectivist2112 2 years ago 12
Read "Weapons of Mass Instruction" - John Taylor Gatto
EsotericThrone 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In my personal life experience when I was young believe it or not I lived in Beverly Hills. Corrupt divorce laws and a horrible public education made me a slave to the stupitity of my parents and the whims of the public education system. I was enslaved by homework assignments that had nothing to do with my life. My time energy and creativity was also stolen by the evil public education system and there unhumanitarian doctrine of college worship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
74u73hjd 2 years ago
Do schools kill creativity? If creativity was a person schools would be it's concentration camp! I think that young people are going through a creativity holocaust perpetrated by teachers especially ones who hate their jobs. Everyone who agrees this is a disgusting inconvenient truth give me a thumbs up. BTW I'm only twenty years old and I understand this.
74u73hjd 2 years ago
I think that after 5th grade everything I learned after that was basically a repeat. Not only that but, school was meant for education not for boredom and depression. Bored and depressed was my whole life in middle school!!
74u73hjd 2 years ago 3
I am with you 100% brother! I was extremely bored. Same stuff everyday. Think about it most kids spend 13 years in these institutions and then have to take "remedial" classes in college? Everyone knows that public schools are really a day care center.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
public education and college idolization is making the American people into brainless conformist zombies that are tearing the economy apart!!! We are living in a collegetatorship. By the way I am a community college student and I deduce this from my experiences I don't need anyone to tell me this.
74u73hjd 2 years ago
It's a conspiracy.
brit2125 2 years ago
In my experience home educated individuals display a higher social, academic, and intellectual aptitude, confidence, and maturity than their public schooled counterparts.
Moreover, both were successful after highschool. The young woman attended the prestigious Clark University. The young man joined the United States Marine Corps.
benfranklinsghosty 2 years ago 2
You are correct. Studies have been conducted which do in fact indicate homeschooled children generally have higher scores, and better social skills. Homeschoolers won the national spelling bee for several years in a row, and shortly after that homeschooled chidren were no longer allowed to participate!
p1ut0nium 2 years ago
Ayn Rand Institute would have us privatize ALL education and leave the gifted/talented among poor children to fend for themselves and rely on charity--which, in turn, is also DISCOURAGED ("the value of selfishness"). This madness would lead to a de facto generational caste system of vast disparities. At the same time, Randites laud rich industrialists under the false premise that they've somehow earned their status when the majority were born w/ vast (material, NOT innate) advantages
hatchbx 2 years ago
Look up Sir Ken Robinson school does not understand gifted and talented children at all. It wants to make all children conform I should know I was a victim!!
74u73hjd 2 years ago
I'm dubious about the motives of homeschoolers, which I suspect mainly involve racial paranoia, classism, etc. And I do think it stunts a child's socialization to deprive him/her of interaction w/ diverse peers, h/e, I have to agree that parents should have homeschooling rights, as long as they conform to a core curriculum dictated by the State and, yes, the SOCIETY which its gov represents. What if the parents only want to teach math/science and not bother with lit or civics? Unacceptable
hatchbx 2 years ago
hatchbx states:
"I'm dubious about the motives of homeschoolers, which I suspect mainly involve racial paranoia, classism, etc."
Its ironic you accuse homeschoolers of paranoia, while it is you who is truly paranoid. You suspect the homeschoolers motives based on nothing but your imagination.
Meaningful & constructive dialogue must be founded in truth and built with logic. In the future please supply evidence of facts to substantiate your argument, not just your imagination.
benfranklinsghosty 2 years ago 11
Technically, the government does NOT have the right to dictate what a parent teaches their children. That violates the bill of rights and the constitution of this country. The government was designed to serve VERY limited purposes - and education was never supposed to be one of them.
p1ut0nium 2 years ago
I went two a st8 skool
fomastephanovitch 3 years ago 2
I'm sorry to hear that.
No one should be subjected to the "irrationality, violence, and mediocrity that have come to characterize government education in California and elsewhere."
herbs814 3 years ago 2
"Your Child Is Not State Property"
neither is the child the "property" of the parent.
question-
according to objectivism; what recourse does the the child of a abusive parent have?
blujesus 3 years ago
The child has a right to go to someone for help. Why would you assume that objectivism differs from that? he says it at 3:37.
seamagnet 3 years ago
seamagnet
"The child has a right to go to someone for help. Why would you assume that objectivism differs from that? he says it at 3:37"
LOL he spends the previous 3 minutes DERIDING "the state" then he says "then the state must step in"
how should the state "step in"? who will FUND this intervention? who makes the decision?
what agency would exist to do this? and if an agency does NEED to exist to ensure the rights of a child, does it not call into question the entire objectivist ideal?
blujesus 3 years ago
He spends the previous three minutes saying that a parent has the right to chose the type of education that they want their child to have. I'm pretty sure no one is advocating child abuse. Besides, im not too hip to the objectivist political game, im more in the ethical portion.
seamagnet 3 years ago
The state should serve the rights of the citizen. Not the other way around, as the arrogant state of California suggests by this ruling.
The powers of government must be and rightly ought to be specifically limited to predefined constitutional limits. The arrogant state court is making up the rules with no respect to the rights of parents nor children.
herbs814 3 years ago 3
THAT IS RIDICULOUS! california wants to say its illegal for u to set standards in ur own home yet in the deep south kkk members freely influence their children to be racists.
themuse55555 3 years ago
As to those parents who chose to indoctrinate their children with religion or some other form of irrationality, there is a rational way to deal with it. First off, there is no cause for government intervention of any kind here. It is the job of civilian society to pressure individuals, but not to force them, to stop any actions seen as inappropriate. They may boycott, attempt to reason with, or simply use social stigma. They may just ignore it, having their own children to worry about.
StarKyte 3 years ago
StarKyte
"It is the job of civilian society to pressure individuals, but not to force them, to stop any actions seen as inappropriate."
hmmm..."pressure" without "force" how exactly does society "boycott" or "reason with" an irrational, brainwashed home school child? is it right for the child to be stigmatized because of the choices of the parent? "ignoring" problems is usually a recipe for disaster.
we do not live in an insular world where our actions do not affect others.
blujesus 3 years ago
If any person is truly irrational, then there is nothing to be done to help them. It is true that irrationality will likely not end well. However, before there is any indication of disaster, ignoring such people if fine. Once they do give such an indication, such that they pose a significant threat, they must be apprehended before they cause harm to others and infringe upon their rights.
At any rate, the number of unreasonable people would be so small as to not be a major concern to society.
StarKyte 3 years ago
The idea is NOT that homeschooling is superior to public education by nature and therefore, public education should be abolished. The idea is rather that in the absence of the government imposed monopoly on education, competition between various privately owned systems would produce a greater quality of education on all levels, including price, safety and success. This is the benefit freedom provides.
StarKyte 3 years ago
StarKyte
competition
blind trust in market forces in light of the recent wall st. debacle is simply not "rational". you assume that the intent of a private school is to provide a product i.e. a "good" education; but history and recently, wall st have shown us that business often puts PROFIT before quality of product. the other thing we have seen with the "free market" is that it often leads to LESS choices not more.
government is ALREADY in "competition" with any number of private schools.
blujesus 3 years ago
blujesus -- the recent Wall Street debacle was caused by the government, not market forces. The government forced and/or provided incentives for banks to hand out risky loans, because they wanted everyone to own a house. This was the problem.
ORagnar 3 years ago
ORagnar
"The government forced and/or provided incentives for banks to hand out risky loans"
-this is like the blaming the gun store owner for selling a gun that was used in committing a murder.
in truth, there are many factors including GREED and mismanagement. simply blaming "the government" is frankly a bit silly.
the banks themselves spent MILLIONS lobbying for the changes in the rules. so the problem is the COLLUSION of GOV and business.
blujesus 3 years ago
You don't understand how markets work! It is the profit motive in a free market that will make schools superior in quality and service to the public shcools. In a free market, the school has to earn your business. Unlike the governement coerced monopoly of the public school, the marekt actually has to compete for your child. So it has every incentive to meet your needs and improve. It can't take you for granted. As for Wall Street, You got it backwards, The banking system is not a free market!
DDD522 3 years ago
DDD522
"You don't understand how markets work!"
if the you think ANY markets are "free" then it is you that does not understand. markets ALWAYS favor those with more capital and they are manipulated by the same.
deregulating the market often LEADS to the kind of monopolies you mention. there are any number of ways unscrupulous business owners can cut corners to appear to be competitive. often in business the bottom line is making a PROFIT not providing a service.
blujesus 3 years ago
blujesus
"if you think ANY markets are "free" then it is you that does not understand."
you cannot equate the power of government force with the power of economic production.
If you think you can make money by cutting corners then good luck the next time you lie on your resume.
If you think the government doesn't cut corners you are sadly mistaken.
StarKyte 3 years ago
StarKyte
"If you think you can make money by cutting corners..."
bad comparison. what does one have to do with the other?
if you are telling me that businesses NEVER turn a profit by cutting corners, I have a bridge in alaska I'd like to sell you.
you miss my point- the individuals participating in the market themselves are the people that game the system. GOV did not invent short selling, or derivatives, or any of the other shady practices of wall st.
blujesus 3 years ago
as to cutting corners, sure a buisness may make a short term profit by cutting corners. However, the consumer may take this experince into account when making their next desision. In short, cutting corners hurts a company in the long run, if its consumers are wise.
StarKyte 3 years ago
StarKyte
"...cutting corners hurts a company in the long run, if its consumers are wise"
one of the problems with your (rands) hypothesis is that for some companies, there is no "long run" some go into business with the sole motivation of making X amount of dollars and then getting out
failed companies commonly re-brand themselves. how is the public to know the new name for the same company?
some global corporations are so huge that it is virtually impossible to do business without them
blujesus 3 years ago
blujesus
"some global corporations are so huge that it is virtually impossible to do business without them"
If business is impossible without a certain company then its net impact is good. As to cutting corners, a company will do less business if its consumers try their best not to do business with them. It will therefore make less money than if it strived to make the best product it could.
StarKyte 3 years ago
StarKyte
"If business is impossible without a certain company then its net impact is good"
it is virtually impossible not to buy nationalized mid-east oil, does that mean that
the "net impact" of doing so is "good"?
there are PLENTY of companies that make a superior product that can not compete with companies that make a lessor product
you also ignore the power of advertising and PR. companies spend billions on misleading and coercing consumers.
blujesus 3 years ago
It is possible that a company with a bad reputation may disguise itself with a new name. However, this is a clearly inferior business practice compared to building a good name which may be trusted by consumers. Instead of spending its time keeping the consumers in the dark, it spends it time working on ways to improve efficiency, which certainly makes more money than multiple short-term business ventures which the consumers may or may not catch on to.
StarKyte 3 years ago
Blujesus
Deregulating the market leads to the kind of monopolies you mention
Actually, severing the government from the economy ends government enforced monopolies. This is quite different from corporations which attain a dominant market share, as a result of the free market, more commonly referred to as monopolies. The difference is that a government monopoly does not have to compete in order to stay in business, because it is in business by government decree.
StarKyte 3 years ago
First of all, it was government interference which caused this financial crisis. The housing market and the banking industry are the most regulated industries. The government controls interest rates, gives incentives for bad loans and bails out failing businesses.
StarKyte 3 years ago
StarKyte
"The government controls interest rates, gives incentives for bad loans and bails out failing businesses."
INCORRECT. the GOV does NOT control interest rates. that is done by the FEDERAL RESERVE which is a PRIVATELY owned corporation. in fact, this corporation has a great deal of control of the US GOV, even to the point of influencing policy. so again, blaming ONLY GOV is a bit silly.
blujesus 3 years ago
The Federal Reserve is a government entity, and it was created by something called the "Federal Reserve Act" this means it was created by government action. There would be no place for any such "privately owned corporation" in a free market. Corporations would ACTUALLY be privately owned, instead of being government entities with supposedly "private" components.
StarKyte 3 years ago
StarKyte
"There would be no place for any such "privately owned corporation" in a free market"
if we are dealing in currency, then some organization needs to issue the currency. that organization then has undue influence on the alleged "free market" and GOV
the FED is "private" in the most important way
-it's shareholders MAKE A PROFIT from the system. these unknown shareholders control the Govs money
without money the state has no "power"
bullets are not free
blujesus 3 years ago
blujesus
"without money the state has no "power""
This is perfectly true, however, that does not mean that money is, by its nature, an instrument of force.
StarKyte 3 years ago
In a free market, individuals would be free to choose what means of exchange they wanted to use to purchase goods. The government has no place enforcing a currency such as the US dollar. In doing so, the government has a precedent to manipulate its currency and print money to pay off its depts. This causes a devaluation of the dollar which may eventually lead to an economic collapse. The government may also use this power to increase its size.
so actually, no one needs to issue currency.
StarKyte 3 years ago
StarKyte
"so actually, no one needs to issue currency"
huh?
are you saying that:
in a perfect world there would be no currency?
or that an (ACTUALLY) private company issuing currency would be immune from the market manipulation that you mention?
or that we need to switch to a global barter system?
no offense, but any one of these scenarios is a utopian fantasy
blujesus 3 years ago
blujesus
"the government does NOT control interest rates."
How do you suppose the Federal Reserve "controls" interest rates without the help of government force.
StarKyte 3 years ago
blujesus
"government is ALREADY in "competition" with any number of private schools"
It is not competition of everyone has to pay for it whether or not they want or receive the good/service.
StarKyte 3 years ago
Despite the amount of time objectivism has existed, there are no examples of any significance successful or otherwise of a society based on objectivism. Where would such a society have come from? If an objectivist society appears, it will come out of the country which most closely represents the objectivist principles: The U.S.
Also, what does it matter if a form of society is proper, when one cant accept change in society? The whole idea is flawed.
StarKyte 3 years ago
(1/2)
Blujesus
"attempting to establish an objectivist system in an existing society, is immoral because it would incur the theft of the existing infrastructure"
How do you suppose this change happens?
The only way to change a society is to change the culture. The only way to do that is to spread and promote the ideas in question until they are accepted. It is impossible to stop a society from changing itself no mater what previous infrastructure was built by some previous collective.
StarKyte 3 years ago
(2/2) The idea that a society should be prevented from making improvements to itself is evil. One could say that the infrastructure of America changed when slavery was abolished, or when womens rights were granted. How could this be seen as immoral?
StarKyte 3 years ago
Blujesus
Please define free
A free country is one which adequately protects the individual rights of its citizens. It has institutions for police and justice/courts as well as military for defense. It acts in retaliation only, and the initiation of physical force/coercion is not tolerated
Also, the government of a free country lacks institutions which initiate the use of force for any reason.
A country is free to the extent that it follows these principles.
StarKyte 3 years ago
StarKyte
"If an objectivist society appears"
the US is FAR from the standards that you previously stated:
"It acts in retaliation only, and the initiation of physical force/coercion is not tolerated..."
I would say that countries like monaco or dubai that have ZERO income tax, NO standing armies, and do not engage in war, are MUCH closer to the stated objectivist ideal.
so does that mean that the citizens of dubai are "more free" than americans?
blujesus 3 years ago
(2/2) This moral system denounces the individual as a sovereign entity and the concept of individual rights. Though it will take time for the people to give up their rights, without a moral basis in their minds, they will give them up on moral grounds. Public education will never be the cause of the loss of freedom in a society. The danger is that the logical extrapolation of the ideas of altruism and collectivism is not only public schools, but also a totalitarian state (no rights).
StarKyte 3 years ago
(1/2)
Blujesus
(public ed) is not a direct pathway to Nazism
Americans have strong, although incomplete support for individual rights. This largely stems from the fact that America was largely founded on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It will take, therefore, a long time before these ideas are broken down by a bankrupt moral system. The fact is that another set of beliefs is intermingled with these. This is the morality of Altruism and Collectivism.
Cont.next
StarKyte 3 years ago
(1/4)I agree that any action taken by the government can be considered as force. That is why it must be used with such caution. The government can be a powerful instrument for the infringement of individual rights. The proper role of government is to protect the individual rights of its citizens. It has no place setting up institutions to provide any other service to them.
Continued on next
StarKyte 3 years ago
(2/4) I am in fact currently enrolled in the free k-12 public education system (the profile says age 20 because I am using my brothers account). I am extremely fortunate to not have to deal with many of the problems of most public schools. However, I am certain that if the institution of public education were non-existent, I would be even better off.
continued on next
StarKyte 3 years ago
(3/4) First of all, institutions which run the risk of failure when they dont operate at the optimum level have a greater incentive to do so. Therefore, the government enforced monopoly over education will be unlikely to yield systems which are even close to the level of those produced by fairly competing privately owned systems.
Continued on next
StarKyte 3 years ago
(4/4) After all, if a countrys public education system does poorly, it will often receive more funds, not less. In addition, successful privately owned schools are more efficient and therefore less costly than public ones. Proof of this is that many private schools are able to stay in business, despite the government enforced monopoly in education.
StarKyte 3 years ago
blujesus
the cost of education to society pales in comparison to the cost of NOT educating children.
Keep in mind that public education has an additional cost besides the cost of educating the children. This is the acceptance of the idea that it is acceptable to force people to give up their property for the sake of society. The cost is Freedom. As a society accepts the loss of freedom for the good of the state, it leads to disaster. For example, Nazi Germany.
StarKyte 3 years ago
starkyte
"As a society accepts the loss of freedom for the good of the state, it leads to disaster"
this is a bait and switch. we don't educate children for the "good of the state" we educate children for OUR OWN GOOD. it is MUCH easier to "enslave" the uneducated.
lastly, in the US, unlike the USSR, NO ONE is forcing you to stay "at the barrel of a gun". you are free to go to another country that closer to the objectivist ideal.
LOL- why does everyone attempt to invoke the nazi boogyman?
blujesus 3 years ago
LOL- I dont know, it was the scariest totalitarian regime I could think of.
Also did you read my other post? because you didnt comment on it. (7hrs ago)
StarKyte 3 years ago
Also, it is unclear that the public education system is beneficial to any individual in any manner considering the problems cited by the video: violence, mediocrity, irrationality (6:04).
Also, even if it were beneficial to every individual to support public education, it is never beneficial for a man to give up his rights. As stated in my post 7 hrs ago, the use of government force is not the answer to solve such problems. Education is not the enemy, public education is.
StarKyte 3 years ago
starkyte
"the use of government force is not the answer to solve such problems. Education is not the enemy, public education is"
ANY action taken by GOV can be construed as "force". in all honesty, did YOU go to a publicly funded school at some point in your life? I did, and almost every person I know did. the fact that we are even having this discussion is evidence that the influence of the "enemy" (public ed) is not a direct pathway to nazism or whatever other boogyman you choose to mention
blujesus 3 years ago
StarKyte
"...considering the problems cited by the video: violence, mediocrity, irrationality"
so far, I have seen no data that suggest those problems (save violence) would be any less with home schooled children. in fact, MANY people that choose to home school do so for "irrational" religious reasons. what recourse does the child have from the "force" of the parent teaching religious dogma?
blujesus 3 years ago
The point is that the Objectivist ideal is the proper system. It is not a mater of preference. Indecently, the U.S. is still the freest country in the world.
StarKyte 3 years ago
StarKyte
"the Objectivist ideal is the proper system."
objectivism has been around for quite some time. if it were indeed "the proper system" I would think that someone could point to successful example of an objectivist society.
attempting to establish an objectivist system in an existing society, is immoral because it would incur the theft of the existing infrastructure that was built collectively.
"the U.S. is still the freest country in the world."
please define "free"
blujesus 3 years ago
Very well said.
lstdy 3 years ago
Most homeschooling parents are better qualified than some of these "teachers" in public schools.
StoogeWatcher 3 years ago
StoogeWatcher
"Most homeschooling parents are better qualified than some of these "teachers" in public schools."
I would like to see the data to back up this claim.
blujesus 3 years ago
a child is also not the "Property" of his or her parent. the child has rights, and unfortunately not every parent is capable of providing that child with an education.
it is in the "rational self interest" of any society to educate all children-
even the children who's parents can not do so themselves.
blujesus 3 years ago
That is true. But society is not the government. Is it?
FmmpbBC 3 years ago
A society does not have a rational self intrest, only those individuals who make it up. Is in my RSI to have my hard-earned wealth used to educate someone I've never met? I would say no, but even if the answer is yes, then let me do it myself andthe government should keep their guns out of it.
shamgar001 3 years ago
Education is not a right. Being entitled to education means being able to demand that someone else provide it for you. They would be obligated to give up their property to do this. There can be no such thing as a right to infringe upon anothers property rights.
StarKyte 3 years ago
StarKyte
"Education is not a right. Being entitled to education means being able to demand that someone else provide it for you"
please explain how it is in societies RSI to have millions of uneducated children running around.
not providing education is long-term suicide for society.
blujesus 3 years ago
Blujesus
not providing education is long-term suicide for society
Just because universal education is desirable, doesnt mean that there is any moral basis for imposing it.
StarKyte 3 years ago
StarKyte "Just because universal education is desirable, doesnt mean that there is any moral basis for imposing it."
saying that education is "desirable" is like saying breathing oxygen is "preferable"
educating children is ABSOLUTELY essential for having any kind of society.
the cost of education to society pales in comparison to the cost of NOT educating children.
blujesus 3 years ago
blujesus
educating children is ABSOLUTELY essential for having any kind of society
If providing free education is so essential, the answer is for individuals in the society to freely contribute to the cause of free education. The use of government force to attain this goal however is indefensible. If there are actions which society must take to continue to exist, and it is unwilling to, there is nothing to be done which can protect it from its own stupidity.
StarKyte 3 years ago
ill tell you why its cause people are too busy distracted by american idol and other bullshit media in fact since the supposed war on terror most of your rights have been taken away but its ok keep watching tv
joshkat29 3 years ago
I honestly cannot understand why the people of our country are even wasting time and money supporting government officials who are trying to undermine the right of the people and our constitution.before "public education" parents were successfully educating their children at home with alot less curriculum choices than we have now.has anyone done any research on homeschooling here.the presidents that began runnning this country were homeschooled.I wonder what albert einstein would say about this!
lilacmoon68 3 years ago 2
Credentialism (thinking a parent must have teaching certification)is a logical fallacy related to "Appeal to Authority".
RodCornholio 3 years ago
I doubt Ayn Rand would be in concert with this confortable and irresponsable monologue.
juanbosco31 3 years ago
Why is that, exactly? I can cite references to tell you why she'd be pissed that somebody would make a claim without citing reasons, like you just did. Why would she be opposed? Why is it responsible? You sound like Jim Taggart from Atlas Shrugged. Next thing you know, you're going to be calling this video "impractical" and "unfeeling."
GeekIsTheNewCool 3 years ago
Well said, Mr. Bowden, well said! Thanks for posting this video.
RoninTXBR549 3 years ago
Great editorial. The amount of statism and collectivism that fills this state is truly deplorable.
UnhealthySalad 3 years ago 4
If this is the kind of material given by an analyst from the Institue, well in my college Logic class, it would be shred to pieces in a second. Please, before posting long monolgues on tthems such as education, etc. check out your logic throughly and perhaps you should chec, at least in the dictionary, the meaning of OBJECTIVE. But don't take it personal. : )
juanbosco31 3 years ago
How is what he said not logical?
shovelcharge 3 years ago 2
It's not logical because he is not taking into consideration the results of his theory if put into practical use. It took a long fight to secure access to education for children of all races and economic background. This was an achievement. Bowden proposes parents being able to teach their kids and to not take them to schools, and protest that parents are required to get credentials in order to do so. His protesting shows his short sightedness. You want to teach your kid, get QUALIFIED.
juanbosco31 3 years ago
JuanBosco clearly has no argument of his own thats why he is hiding behind a college logic class. Good luck worshiping your professor. Their are others among us who choose to think for ourselves and not get indoctrinated by their colleges and their altruistic ethic which is nothing less then a morality of slavery and death.
MtnDwarf 3 years ago
Obviously, written by a fool, who does not have a clue of today's college environment. The cummulative of Community Colleges and Universities, hold a extensive community of lectures, professors and students. No two need coincide on any opinions. In classes with debatable topics, Philosophy, Anthropology, History, Literature, etc. the debate is constant. Debate is not just allowed, but it's ENCOURAGED. So, your own narrowmindness is far worse than the reality in Colleges and Universities.
juanbosco31 3 years ago
Talking just like Bertram Scudder and Balph Eubank in Atlas Shrugged. Continuously appealing to somebody else's arguments and credentials instead of providing one's own rational, logical arguments is an epistemic injustice. You've called it illogical, but not explained WHY it's illogical. How about using reason instead of epithets to prove your point? Stop being an armchair philosopher until you have some information and logic of your own to support your arguments.
GeekIsTheNewCool 3 years ago
Jonathan swift said that parents themselves should not be allowed to raise their children, because they acquire the parent's faults. Imagine if he were to listen to your theory. Parents teaching their children. Schools are a small version of society, where he child learns how to respond to it. Parents should compliment their children's education. In modern society the problem has always been, children, especially if poor and unpriviledge, not receiving the benefit of a formal education.
juanbosco31 3 years ago