Here is my proposal - 10 Grand a year (adjusted for inflation) goes to each child to choose his or her own school require the basic k-8 but after that the children should be able to choose between technical schools or college prep. Not everyone needs college.
Public Education = Great intentions but terrible consequences.
Public Funding Education = Choice by vouchers would encourage education without monopolizing it.
Government is and always has been great at running things....into the ground.
The problem is not that the gov controls everything; it's that the gov forgets their role. The role being to serve people not to control them.
If we have direct control over the government, then the rules would be made for the direct benefit of the people since the people would be the ones who make up the rules; not gov bureaucrats.
Education under anarcho-capitalism wouldnt be as efficient as the solution above b/c a) monopolization could still occur and b) education quality would be different
Also, how do you explain the countless success stories coming from public education, millions of people have risen out of low-income housing, abusive parents and a bad-looking future, through the public education system teaching them the necessary skills sets needed to survive in the real world. I'm a student myself, and I even I, with my limited experience and small number of years can deduce this? Know why? Pubic education! :)
I have personally seen children attend classes where their potential is actualized through public school classes. And if the only way of keeping a population free and independent is through means of questioning and hell raising, why did you stop comments from being posted on the intro to this series?
The desire to dismantle public education is not to free it but to put it under the direct control of a capitalist plutocracy. Public schools are held responsible by the local communities which they serve. Private schools exist (they have scholarships for poor students who don't have money). Charter schools are wrong because they take public money and use it irresponsibly. I've gone to both public and private schools and I can tell you public schools are better in many ways.
@5150fob I went to public school. It is garbage. Have you ever notice how home-schooled kids are ten times smarter? People who go to academies are smarter because the parents pay for it and you bet their ass they're checking on the school's curriculum. How was he fear mongering? Convincing? It's common knowledge that our public schools are failing look at the likes/dislikes bar and national test scores. Students can't even remember the are our schools are teaching them. Stop watching Fox News
conformity only means the lowering of standards for people non of us know like bill gates and richard branson not of the lives of people you know like mrs jones next door or the young couple upstairs this movie is informative but far from subjective and verging on propaganda to help maintain the status quo
the government should have no right telling us when we have to wake up in the morning to avoid punishment. it's not about the choices of the perants or the education desired by the state to be forced upon it's young citizens. it's about the human rights of the individual student which always outweights good of the state.
(contd)... Call a friend. Get some help. And above all the majority of teachers are there day after thankless day because they really want to help their students, often under impossible odds, and even if you could just take one minute to send your kids' teacher a quick note to thank them for the work they do with your student, what a difference it would make in that teachers life. That person is probably still paying off ridiculous student loans so your child learns. Respect that.
@T900SD to stay in business. If there were competition, the best could be concentrated in certain schools and be able to have more of an effect on their pupils by working with more talented individuals.
3) He wasn't complaining about his child having trouble in school. He never even mentioned having a child. He was talking about the monopoly of public schooling and its detriment, and of how just a little INDOCTRINATION might be taking place when the schools are government-run.
Btw instead of complaining about your local schools, what have you done lately to help out? Do you see that your student completes assignments? Do you send your student to school well rested? Well fed? That's YOUR responsibility whether you want to hear it or not. If you are having trouble doing that get help. Call the school nurse if there is still one. Call your church. A frien
Wow what a load of total bullshit! I hope the intelligent people who come across this can see it for the propaganda it is. America is still the finest, most free country on earth and there is NO other comparison to her anywhere! She was built on an amazing PUBLIC education system that has now been forsaken by the wealthest 1% who benefited from her services but who now in their tremendous wealth and apparent 'down time' (Bill Gates etc) who wouldn't last a day in a room with 45 7th graders!
1)This country was built on private schooling & free speech. The public school system was set up in the 20th century. But I'm pretty sure this guy's Australian, anyway, so our arguments about America are irrelevant.
2)You seem to think he was criticizing all teachers. This shows your closed-minded group thinking. All teachers are individuals, & even though some of them are great, the majority aren't. The monopoly allows them all, good or bad, ...
Competition between schools will not improve education, it will only make good education more expensive, and bad education an always affordable option. By taking it out of the collective sector and putting it through the market system.
You want to go back to the European 1700's where everyone goes to school to learn a hobby. Instead of a schooling system that is woven in with the industrialized and prestigious capitalistic society that we enjoy in the western world.
@Chiszle Basically everything you said. I'm of the general opinion that public schools are terrible and immoral. Government are interfering in private affairs, something they should never do. And besides, the most intelligent nations spend half as much as we do on education or have no public education. Look at the Netherlands. That's how education should be done. Tie the money to the student, and then let them choose.
@hobbit2245 - In the Netherlands, unfortunately a lot of the money people pay into colleges that are privately run goes into the pockets of the ones who run the place. Dutch 'InHolland' colleges are in the news now for frauds. Because the longer a student takes to finish his degree, the more expensive he gets. And the school needs to push out as many students as quickly as possible to be efficient. The result is, lower entry standards, lower exam standards, easier re-exams.
@Chiszle - This also adds to incompatibility on the job market. A lot of people here do social studies or media studies. Whilst those two are arguably the smallest markets in the country. More and more people choose those over things such as research and development or medical studies. They are also training more teachers-assistants than actual teachers. All because that's what the schools offer for training, because those courses sell the best. Pay up, get a degree within 3 to 4 years, beat it.
@Chiszle - I find Dutch education to be alright, it's based on the old German education model of Bißmarck. But to bad some bad apples are ruining it for the majority. If only there was more control over the institutions. There probably is, but so far hardly any cases of fraud make it to the courts. And anyone can start a university, as it is not a protected title. These have been my observations, it might not be as bad as I present it.
@Chiszle I'm not entirely sure about that, but maybe I'm wrong. I heard that their test scores were miles above the Americans', and that their school was half the annual cost.
@Chiszle good? Finally a true European tells unlike some arrogant European i met online who thinks they are ten times smarter than us Americans. I agree, public education need to go away. Before the 1970s, USA had a highest education standards in the world but after the DOE was created under Jimmy Carter and years followed it, education standards in the USA was lower and becomes illegitimate. Even my friend in Canada said that it's getting worse too if not down the same path as us.
Local funding is unfair in that rich communities could afford more. Local rich families could afford better quality education than poor ones.
The answer should be a national library of resources ("NOT JUST FUNDING!!!!") would provide equal access to the same opportunities to all at the least cost. This would support "Local Autonomy" by parents instead of teachers.
Teacher unions support choices that support teacher jobs not learner job preparation. High unemployment seems inevitable.
What is glaringly missing from this presentation is the desirable benefit of government involvement.
Local control is expensive. It requires all communities to duplicate fundamental needs. Local schools do not look for competition from other countries(jobs lost to other countries that do a better job of preparing their future workers)a national agency would. A national educational resource including study materials(not just money) could cheaply provide choices that local communities could not..
we need to use and perfect mexico's public education system. in mexico each school is privately run; however, families are given grants of around $10,000 each year to enroll their kid in school. they then get to pick from any local school. since the schools have to compete to get students and thus money, they have to provide the best education, sports teams, and student happiness. Other than completly abolishing public education this is the only logical way to solve this problem.
@jacktheputrid It is still not an option for parents who have to work all day and/or don't have a cultural level to instruct their kids properly and can't afford to hire a tutor.
@jacktheputrid That's interesting, Jack. If you don't mind, would you answer some questions? Did you hire tutors or do you and your wife teach your kids?Is there any study that shows homeschooled kids have the same academic level of a kid who attends regular school? I'm from Brazil and homeschooling is illegal here, so I don't know much about it.
What about people who can't afford a good school? What would happen to them in a privatised, libertarian school system? Freedom of choice is a reality just for those who can afford it.
Public schools were fine, until complete integration, 40 years ago. Unqualified black teachers could not be fired under any circumstance. A friend of mine who was stuck in the public school system at this time, had no classwork or homework for 3 years. One of his black teachers could barely read.
"Unqualified black teachers could not be fired under any circumstance" Oh yeah, because the quality of an education at public schools were just so find and dandy before we integrated with those incompetent spooks. Oh wait, a large bulk of the public up until the 1950's ,most people before the 1960's didn't even graduate high school and since most americans received all their education from the public school system, most didn't advance their education beyond elementary school.
Can buy culligan water back of wallmart has carbon filters is 95% flouride free and take kelp tablets and eat cooked seaweed can get cooked hiziki at some Japanese restaurants if eat daily u will feeel difference.
All seeing eye on pyramid on one dollar bill
Means
"in the kingdom of the Blind the one eyed are Kings
@garciadelacadena removing ure kids from the lie of k-12 means they will now have a chance to be geniuses as the path of the Genius is homeschool and read 5 books a week
Forced memorization is path of imbecile
Homework is against 13th amendment
Only sheeple answer to a Bell
Our shadow govt want the herd the masses to be dumbed down and docile is why k-12 programming and flouride in water
We need to deplete the government schools of its customer so they no longer exist, and guess who the customer is, without them government schools wouldn't exist.... yes, it's our Kids, I myself have 3 at the failed government school system and I am feed up!!!
Beginning next year they no longer will go to the center of indoctrination, it's not just academically a failure, but they have become increasingly unsafe (drugs, bullying, peer pressure, etc).
If you start calling them what they really are, i.e., GOVERNMENT schools, you understand what is really going on and why they are such dismal institutions.
Modern public schools can only exist so long as children are not granted the status of personhood. In a free market of education, they wouldn't be forced to associate with abusive people while having their thoughts and actions micromanaged on a steady diet of behaviorist pedagogy, even though decades of research has proven it to be both naive and disasterous as a theory of knowledge acquistion, not to mention totally unempathetic.
In a free market, children don't get education. They work in sweatshops or as prostitutes, for less than an adult. This is because a sweatshop design is most profitable, because sex is a profitable commodity and children are in high demand for it, and because free market wages are so low that parents must send their kids to work rather than school. Meanwhile the wealthy receive an education because they can afford it, and are able to saturate politics so that the poor remain so.
@kDest Or you can remove feminism from society. And have women rear their children like they are supposed to. With the men properly caring for their families, with a society that has high values on marriage. But such ideas are considered "backward" by the totalitarian favoring leftists.
Oh, you mean the old days where wives were sold or traded as property to ensure an equitable alliance between families? Children back then died so often that it wasn't uncommon to have a dozen of them. Sometimes the mothers would call the littlest children "it" because until you reached about 5, you were very likely to die. You had to EARN your name. The men went to brothels, or paid for sex from poor adolescents.
@kDest Wow... talk about putting words in my mouth.
1. I am against arranged marriages.
2. Modern health care is much different from midwives and bloodletting.
3. Prostitution should be illegal, by punishing the ones seeking prostitutes, not punishing the prostitutes themselves. This has shown to be effective in Sweden for example.
I wasn't trying to put words in anyone's mouths. I was simply describing the old days of marriage a century and a half ago. You know, TRADITIONAL marriage. You complain about feminists but seem to be unaware of how it was back then, that family life was often hard, and callous by today's standards. The roles you suggested were not optional back then, they were expected, and it wasn't in the woman's favor.
It's hardly totalitarian to expect fair treatment of women.
@kDest What you are talking about a belief in innate destructive drives in humans that must be forced out of them by authority. Most people believe that without God or the State we cannot be good, but this is just an argument from apocalypse. Besides, schooling is not education. It is indoctrination. John Taylor Gatto's book the Underground History of American Education documents how the the rich sociopaths you fear so much were largely behind the forced schooling laws in the first place,
You lost coherency about half-way in your paragraph. There is no "argument from apocalypse." That is not an actual logical fallacy. As best I can tell it is a tract from anarchists.
Generally, most people lack skepticism and a sizable amount are greedy and callous to the affairs of others. What this means practically is that any unregulated system will be exploited, and twisted so that it serves of them. That is why we have government, it is a means to regulate society.
The rich have never wanted an educated public. You can test my hypothesis by following the politics of the public school system and associated interest groups. The religious want to teach magic to children, the oil companies want to teach that climate change is a myth, the conservative parties want to undermine the history of slavery.
They all work against education. Your indoctrination assertion is a spurious game of semantics. Everything is indoctrination, but you equivocate.
Private businesses are in the habit of working their employees 16 hours or more without weekends or holidays. Until unions were allowed to form, and government oversight favored workers, this was common practice. Are you lucky to live AFTER the industrial revolution, where you are protected from this kind of abuse though laws.
At the video author/poster: it's simple to dismantle your argument when you realize that not all monopolies are bad, because not all affairs of humanity are business transactions. When you think only in terms of capitalism, it becomes easy to to try and use it as a solution for topics that do not fit it. Try expanding your toolkit in order to appreciate complex and robust solutions to societal problems.
Speaking in party rhetoric does not make a case. Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists have hijacked the word "coercion" and redefined it so that it applies to all of their social obligations and responsibilities but omits their ethical behavior. It all rests on the instinctive abhorrence of these people towards taxes.
It is profoundly anti-social to threaten to throw someone in a cage if they don't go along with your plan (pay their taxes). I would personally rather not be forced to work for the rest of my life for the institution responsible for ruining my childhood (state schools). Dr. Kohlberg's final stage of moral development is when values are universalized. Statism only persists because any moral narrative about life that doesn't glorify the authoritarianism is crushed out of the young.
You can always move. You recite dogma "taxes are theft!" but won't move to a different nation or an anarchy that has no taxes. In other words you just like to whine. Governments take money to run. The services they provide require employees and resources. If you want no taxes, expect poor courts, poor infrastructure, etc.
Public schools have eliminated illiteracy, and have fostered our liberal society. Dismantling them would just steepen the divide between poor and wealthy.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
~ Norman Mattoon Thomas
Leading American socialist and six-time Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of America
Contrary to what your rich masters tell you, socialism is an attempt to apply science to the economy. It generally benefits everyone BUT the wealthiest small percentage of the nation. However, capitalism being what it is, the rich usually own around half the nation's private wealth, which means that every media outlet will demonize socialism because it is starkly against the interests of that group.
Do you medicine? A safety net? Clean water and land? Then you want socialism.
@kDest "BUT the wealthiest small percentage of the nation"
BUT 99.99% of the nation, except for those who control the Socialist Party at the top :)
"However, capitalism being what it is"
...The only sensible economic theory yet discovered, where voluntary exchange occurs between individuals so that they can willfully and mutually benefit from this exchange without having a government aiming a gun at their heads and telling them what to do...
It was a major improvement compared to mercantilism, feudalism, etc. Socialism eclipses capitalism now, since we understand it better, having had centuries of experience with it.
We now know that capitalism creates conditions of bondage, poverty, and wide-scale health and environmental hazards in addition to an unstable economy prone to crashes.
Socialism is the logical consequence of trying to prevent or minimize these problems. We now have no western capitalist economies.
@kDest Capitalism does not create conditions of bondage, poverty, and widespread health and environmental hazards, it responds to the demands of the consumer. It aims to improve the standard of living for the average individual by means of improving the production of food and shelter through technological innovations. If you looked closely, the reason why Capitalist economies fail was because there was government intervention in the free-market by subsidization or expansion of credit.
Your mistake is similar to the type made when people misunderstand Evolution by Natural Selection to think it directs animals towards strength. The person misunderstands that "Survival of the fittest" does not mean strength, but the best survivability to an environment.
Free-market capitalism selects that which is most profitable. In the case of industry, it means that sweatshops, toxic waste dumps, low wages, corporatism, etc. are solutions to the problem of profitability.
@kDest Species in wild nature are expected to act on their own self-interest, their own gain or profit. Without the latter behavior, there will be no way of measuring which species can acquire the most resources and therefore never know which species are most "fit" to survive in a particular setting, the worst species (businesses) will remain and evolution will cease. Toxic waste dumps are not always in the best interest of the business, if they injure people then the law will be exercised
Businesses are abstract, based on teams of leaders who do not even need to have a presence in the land that they are using. So for them, environmental concerns are just about nil because they can always (and usually do) live thousands of miles from the dumpsites or exploited zone. Taken further, consumer interests are often distanced from the consequences of their purchases, an example being that your clothes are nowhere near the children that made them.
@kDest Conditions prior to the industrial revolution in the early 18th century were much worse than what the industrial revolution offered later in the century. Famine and diseases were prevalent, and the overall standard living were reduced until the rise of Capitalism. We needed sweatshops, factories so we could produce our way out of poverty. The wealth of a society in a Capitalist economy is not determined by how much one earns or their wages, but how much they can produce.
Before the IR there was productivity in smaller guilds, shops, etc. workers had more space. Agriculture was a grueling task but it had always been until the advent of machines. The IR saw the advent of factories which by design removed the individuality of the workers, and paid them too little to be self-sufficient. These factories also dumped waste directly into the rivers, which contaminated the water supply. It didn't HAVE to be this way, it was simply most profitable.
@kDest "Individualism" is exactly what I'm defending here, individualism was still intact during the beginnings of the IR because workers and employers AGREED to terms and conditions that the workers had to face. "Paid them too little to be self-suficient." What if companies paid every worker extremely high wages but did not produce? Every worker will walk around loaded with cash in empty shops because nothing was ever produced. Employers pay the lowest to afford more workers (more production)
I'll put some figures for you to reflect on. In terms of financial wealth, 1% of our nation owns about 43% of the total. 80% (the working class) owns 7%. What that means is, the wealthy 1% owns (on average) about 490 times the financial wealth as compared to workers. This is how disproportionate the system is.
And yet you try to defend yourself with a false dichotomy between a wealthy elite and destitute working class or no productivity. Yet the working class is losing wealth now.
@kDest Look, I agree that there is a force deepening the gap between the rich and the poor, but this was not the result of Capitalism, look up how the Federal Reserve devalues our dollar by printing money so that people that first get it are artificially richer and higher prices ensue for middle class. To your figures, the real entrepreneurs that provide services and employment for society are creating wealth for the masses that was not already there. What if the super-rich 1% were gone?no jobs
This "force" is the positive feedback mechanism which capitalism creates. In plain English, the wealthier you are, the easier it is to acquire more wealth. Capitalism allows small groups to acquire wealth, which starts this spiral.
I suggest reading "Wealth, Income, and Power" by G. William Domhoff (do a web search) for figures. They suggest that the rift grew wider after the Reagan Era began. His policies were of deregulation. You are cheer-leading for these people.
@kDest Only 20% of millionaires today acquire their wealth from inheritance, the other 80% earned it because they were fiscally resonsible and provided services or goods that people needed. What if someone inherited a talent from their parents, would you take it away from them because it is not fair that they have an advantage over others? same ethics applies to inherited wealth. Plus why are you making the assumption that people will be wealthy forever if they inherit it?
Wealth inheritance is a way to maintain plutocracy. It makes the inheritors out of touch with life for everyone else, and so you have a ruling class who feel entitled to live in the greatest luxury while the poorest starve to death. Inherited wealth is not a talent, any more than it is a talent to be born a Lord or Prince. The wealthy are those with tens of billions of dollars. Most of them form a ruling dynasty, an elite class who destroy the principle of democracy.
Many of our modern billionaires are the grandchildren and great grandchildren of then men who actually earned that wealth. They are dynasties, groups of people who have no concept of the hardness of life, but that's not where it ends. Because they have this wealth, their ignorance of that hardness is extended immeasurably into politics, so that millions (or even billions) of people suffer because of them.
Why should anyone be able to amass billions or even millions of dollars?
Wealth cannot be created. Wealth comes from scarcity. Since we have finite resources it must come from somewhere else or more commodities are added to the system which devalues existing commodities of the same type. The big secret of capitalism is that our wealth comes from the hands of people in developing nations.
Capitalism is about profit; eventually all jobs will be performed by machines or slaves, since this maximizes profit. That is why jobs keep declining in the west.
@kDest "Capitalism is about profit; eventually all jobs will be performed by machines" Great! I can't wait till machines do the jobs for us. If machines produce everything for us, then nobody would need a job because everything would be so cheap, perhaps free in some cases due to their abundance. It would be in the best profit interest for a company in a competitve market to invest in avaliable technology to produce things more cheaply to outcompete their competitor by lowering prices.
If all labor is replaced by machines, that means no jobs, meaning that everyone but the business owners will be destitute; a collapsed economy where people have no money to live, except a minority who have all the wealth.
Artificial scarcity would rule because it is more profitable, and because acquiring rivals is easier than outcompeting them. In the internet we have limitless access to all media, but business tries to stop it with copyright; you pay for something otherwise free.
@kDest "Socialism eclipses capitalism now, since we understand it better, having had centuries of experience with it."
Uh-huh, just look at the countries that experience it: Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, East Germany, North Korea, China, Romania, Poland, Yugoslavia... all which had massive levels of poverty and oppression.
Ironically, it was when countries such as China and India adopted economic policies of free-market capitalism that the masses were uplifted from extreme levels of poverty.
Countries with some level of socialism: The United States, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.
China was communist (Maoist actually). The government there lacked industry and a coherent means to utilize it. Now it is starting to entertain free-market principles and the population works in sweatshops, and suffer poor health in the big cities from all the pollution.
Look at Brazil for an example of how to raise people from poverty.
@kDest "Now it is starting to entertain free-market principles and [mindless leftist ranting]"
Actually, if you got out of your stupid little bubble of ignorance for once, you would know that the economy of China has been increased by 9.5% a year, generating a huge increase in average LIVING STANDARDS. Based on household surveys, the poverty rate in China in 1981 was 64% of the population. This rate declined to 10% in 2004, indicating that about 500 million people have climbed out of poverty.
All I read is parroting from libertarian think-tanks without any deeper understanding of the social effects of this sweeping economic change.
Switching to market-based economic policies had the nasty side effect of cramming China's rural workers into conditions not unlike those of 19th century London. The environment there is so poor that cancer is the leading cause of death.
China is like a giant 19th century London, full of poorly paid workers and pollution. Progress!
@kDest "We now know that capitalism creates conditions of bondage, poverty, and wide-scale health and environmental hazards"
I see you've been gladly brainwashed by socialist propaganda. Capitalism creates conditions of FREEDOM to CHOOSE, the opportunity build WEALTH from WORK, and wide-scale ECONOMIC COMPETITION that lowers PRICES, increases QUALITY.
Capitalism is not primarily concerned with freedom, or fair compensation for labor. Capitalism is primarily concerned with PROFIT. That is the "fitness" quantifier for capitalist systems. Health, freedom, fair wages, environment, are all auxiliary.
Your lack of understanding analogous to saying evolution must produce stronger, more intelligent, more attractive species. It doesn't have to do any of that in order for something to be fit. Take a look at guinea worms.
@kDest "Capitalism is not primarily concerned with freedom"
It's concerned with making your decision without having the government decide what you can and cannot trade with other people, who can both benefit from the exchange.
"or fair compensation for labor"
Fair compensation? Both individuals involved in a free exchange know what their compensation is. What's "fair" is up to them and their agreement, not to YOU or the GOVERNMENT, fool.
It's not even concerned with that. It's concerned with MAKING PROFIT. That is all capitalism is. If freedom can come from a profitable transaction, it will. If slavery can come from profit, it will. That is what the IR taught us, if nothing else: sweatshops, children being whipped, people being caught in unsafe machines and ripped up into confetti, poison sold as medicine, waste dumped in rivers. These are all profitable activities. Thank god we fought back and won some liberty.
@kDest "Capitalism is primarily concerned with PROFIT."
You socialists are truly FUCKING IDIOTS. What's WRONG with profit? Both people in the free trade exchange what they WANT to trade, why should YOU decide those terms?
"That is the "fitness" quantifier for capitalist systems."
That's what increases quality and lowers prices. I don't want the government controlling exchanges and controlling it from a state MONOPOLY, idiot.
What's wrong with profit? Nothing, if you remember that it is not a means to achieve a free, ethical, healthy society. When profit is the sold criterion of fitness, then ethics, human life, our children, our dreams, nothing else matters.
I have two questions for you: how is a society, where less than 1% of the population owns 37% of all private wealth and 15% of all private wealth is divided amongst 85% of the population, healthy? How can democracy function in such a society?
@kDest "Nothing, if you remember that it is not a means to achieve a free, ethical, healthy society."
This is what I most despite of you liberals. Who's going to create a free, ethical, and healthy society? You? The bureaucrats you pay in Washington? You think I would trust YOU by handing over MY liberty so that you can use it however you see fit, or how the government sees fit?
@kDest "Health, freedom, fair wages, environment, are all auxiliary."
Health, freedom, fair wages, and environment come AS A RESULT of free trade. From socialism comes extreme levels of poverty, pollution (just look at countries that have adopted socialism), and government ABUSES.
Looking at the IR in Britain, where free trade was at its peak, none of those points were true. Health was so poor that the population had to drink beer and cider, because the "drinking water" (environment) was basically lethal. The rich could import water for themselves. Wages were so low that people sent their kids to work in factories that had a high rate of death and personal injury.
Then look at Northern Europe, socialized medicine, etc and they are doing better than us.
@kDest "Your lack of understanding analogous to saying evolution must produce stronger, more intelligent, more attractive species. It doesn't have to do any of that in order for something to be fit. Take a look at guinea worms."
What does this have to do with our discussion? Are you mad?
Now you're just breaking into a rant. Way to stay on-topic.
I assumed you accepted evolution as true, so I used it as an analogy so as to highlight your flawed reasoning. In evolution, fitness just means survivability. Everything else is a mean to that end. That's why we have guinea worms and primates. Totally different solutions to the same problem. Now look at capitalism: sweatshops are the solution to factory profitability, who cares about worker abuse? It's all about profit.
@kDest "in addition to an unstable economy prone to crashes."
You know who caused the crisis? The Government. That's right: THE GOVERNMENT gave bailouts to big corporations in Washington. That's called PROTECTIONISM, not Capitalism, and has NOTHING to do with free trade. Learn the difference. Guess who's fault it was then? The Government, AGAIN.
The free market had NOTHING to do with the financial crisis. Wake up.
Up until the great depression market crashes were not uncommon. They happened every few decades. FDR implemented the New Deal and alleviated this problem. Then Reagan came in and deregulated the stock market. What followed were bubbles in housing and debt trading, and in part because government did not adapt regulations to newer things like shadow banking, it all culminated in a financial crisis. You should get your facts from elsewhere than evangelical libertarianism.
@kDest "FDR implemented the New Deal and alleviated this problem."
REALLY? Hmm... I wonder why we had this government-sponsored financial crisis then? Market adjustments that occur every few decade were not crashes and did not have a critical effect in the economy, unlike the blown-up crises that came as a result precisely of those government policies.
"What followed were bubbles in housing and debt trading"
I just told you WHY we had it: Reagan DEREGULATED the market. Reagan undid much of the New Deal. Then all this risky, ill-advised banking, trading, etc. could happen because they were not prohibited or even monitored. We lost our safety net.
Then, thanks to the bubble popping and threatening to take down a handful of our corporations which would cause major unemployment and social turmoil, our government had to bailout unsuccessful businesses and take partial ownership.
@kDest "Socialism is the logical consequence of trying to prevent or minimize these problems."
Socialism is the result of REPLACING these problems with WORSE ones.
Socialism is COERCION. It is the attempt to stop free and voluntary exchanges between individuals that benefit the economy. It is the attempt to hand a MONOPOLY to the government, which ALWAYS results in higher prices and reduced quality.
Question: How many Cholera and consumption outbreaks have afflicted London the past decade? How many Americans are living on dollars a day? What is the prevalence of child labor in the developed world? How many children work as prostitutes compared to 150 years ago here? What is the incidence of factory accidents, maiming? Are we able to sue companies that dump toxic waste into rivers? Do you work 16 hours?
All thanks to "socialism" these have been reduced or fixed.
@kDest "How many Cholera and consumption outbreaks have afflicted London the past decade?"
Well, unemployment, teenage pregnancy, and underage drinking are rampant if that's what you mean.
"How many Americans are living on dollars a day?"
I don't know. How many?
"What is the prevalence of child labor in the developed world?"
Not very high, since the developed world consists mostly of free capitalism. The socialist countries like Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are the ones with poverty.
The correct answer is that these problems (living on dollars a day, Cholera and consumption deaths, child labor and prostitution, et al.) have been largely dispelled due to government intervention which holds businesses accountable for these acts (consumption and Cholera being due to poor city development and unclean water).
In other words, the government corrected a society which the free market fostered.
@kDest "How many children work as prostitutes compared to 150 years ago here?"
30% of shelter youth and 70% of homeless youth are victims of CVE in the United States. The report also estimates that one third of street-level prostitutes in the U.S. are under 18 years old while fifty percent of off-street prostitutes are less than 18 years old. According to Estes and Weiner, 12 to 14 is the average age of entry into prostitution for girls under 17 years old in the United States.
Good. You did your homework now. Did you dig deeper to learn that this was a common practice in the IR? Sex is a profitable business, after all. In fact, until only recently it was common practice for Thai rural girls to sell their bodies to pay for family debts. Now we can prosecute those who abuse minors, and have programs out there to better help the homeless (which didn't exist in the IR, only charity did).
In free market capitalism, a child's body is a commodity.
In the IR it was not uncommon to work 16 hour shifts, every day. There were no weekends. There was no unemployment, no insurance, no sick days. In fact early sweatshops sometimes operated much like slave pits, with an overseer whipping those who broke company rules (including children). In other cases an infraction simply meant that your pay was docked. Unions were illegal and violently suppressed (of course, since the rich have a bigger voice in politics).
Wealth is a zero-sum gain. Any gain comes from someone else's loss. Free-market capitalism contains a positive feedback system, known as economy of scale, which favors concentrating wealth in the hands of a severe minority. This means that less than 1% will own in excess of half of available wealth. Everyone else must divide the remainder.
Socialism is an attempt to apply our insight of economics to this problem, so that the remaining 99% have a more comfortable life.
Stupidest thing ever parroted in history over and over again by you socialists.
Valuable goods and services can be created, destroyed, or badly allocated. Any of these WILL create a net gain or loss. Any commercial exchange is a non-zero-sum activity, because each party must consider the goods it receives as more valuable than the goods it delivers. Economic exchanges must benefit both parties to overcome transaction costs.
@kDest "Any gain comes from someone else's loss."
And what is the net gain/loss? Say a tribe lived near a river and had a lot of water, and say another tribe lived near the forest and had a lot of wood. They decide to exchange the resources most available and abundant to each of them with each other. They would BOTH benefit from such an exchange, since BOTH of them obtain resources that are scarce to one of them but abundant to the other.
@kDest Economies of scale refers to the cost advantages that a business obtains due to expansion. There are factors that cause a producer's average cost per unit to fall as the usage levels of other inputs and the scale of the output is increased.
The positive feedback system of free-market capitalism is that it encourages economic competition and a greater number of options, which improves QUALITY, reduces COSTS, and increases EFFICIENCY. That's why monopolistic socialism fails.
You second paragraph has it backwards. The positive feedback system reduces options because a larger size of the same thing is more profitable than dozens of different, little businesses.Consider: if a small business (say a haberdasher) is competing with a franchise, who will win? It doesn't matter how many rare buttons or well-priced frilly objects the small business offers, because the franchise is pulling money from dozens of locations. Now call the franchise Wallmart.
@kDest That's the oldest joke from socialists in history: mises*org/daily/621
If the small business offers lower prices than Walmart, then people will go to the small business. If Walmart offers lower prices than the small business, then people will go to Walmart. In both situations, they get the best of what's available, with lowest prices and highest quality.
If, in any case, Walmart were to raise prices, then people would look for alternatives.
@kDest "Socialism is an attempt to apply our insight of economics to this problem"
Socialism is an attempt to make the GOVERNMENT take control of all GOODS and SERVICES. Since the people cannot obtain these goods and services from somewhere else, they must CONFORM to the level of that provided by the GOVERNMENT. Government control turns into a MONOPOLY, which reduces QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, and increases COSTS over time.
Get a lesson on economics and economic competition, will ya?
@kDest If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved ... We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better.
Ben Chavis is a former public school principal. He laughs at the public schools' complaints about money. "That is the biggest lie in America. They waste money," he said.
@kDest It is an unambigious fact of reality that if I don't go along with your plan, you will not hesitate to have me thrown into a cage. At least religious zealots will leave it up to god to punish me for having different beliefs. But you have no problem with committing violence against peaceful people. If the people really liked the services the government provides they would pay for them on the free (peaceful) market. But we aren't having a discussion, you have a gun, I have only words.
I'll clarify your terms. Not going along with "my plan" means taking the benefits of our society for yourself but giving nothing back in return for it. Throwing you into a "cage" means that you will be put through a trial for your theft, with the presumption of innocence on your part. Did I mention that it was the (peaceful) free market where businesses butchered union protesters with hired thugs? They also peacefully dumped toxic waste into our drinking water. Ignorance is bliss.
This laughable, but for the fact that the illiterate may believe it. It is the "Reefer Madness" of the dangers of public education. Please watch this with a critical eye, and you can enjoy the humor in it.
This laughable, but for the fact that the illiterate may believe it. It is the "Reefer Madness" of the dangers of public education. Please watch this with a critical eye, and you can enjoy the humor in it.
My school experience sucked. Basically from the moment I entered the chant: "CONFORM!" was drilled into me. Since I couldn't, I was punished. I graduated public school crippled & unprepared 4 the world. The system needs serious overhaul.
I also like my government funded education, because it keeps the religious right out of our classrooms. A large percentage of private schools are religious institutions. (Catholic schools, etc). In my area, that's especially the case. Thanks but no thanks, I'll take my separation of church and state. I'd rather religion stay out of the classroom. Privatizing education seems like we would lose that protection we currently have under the law.
@BrannigansL4W Privatizing puts the choice in YOUR hands... simple concept? What you said really only proves public education wrong, and trust me, I agree with what you said. In my area, public education is dominated by the catholic school board, the best scoring school year after year here is public and has been forced to shut down, whilst my highschool is second lowest year after year, only a kilometre away from the other one, and remains open. Private industry is choice.
@ned262626 No, not in Canada at least. In Ottawa Catholic school board dominates all, with the worst scores year after year, they only talk about closing public schools.. one which had to fight to survive scored #2 in the whole city year after year.
I would like to add, there is absolutely nothing stopping us from raising the standards in public schools. If private schools standards are higher, then why can't we apply the same standards to public schools? I find it hard to believe that the notion that it's "difficult to fire bad teachers" is the real problem, and yes, there are problems with the educational system. But we can make it better. Dismantling it instead of fixing it is not the correct approach.
@BrannigansL4W I agree on raising the standards in publick schools, at my old high school one could graduate with little knowledge in math, history, and only had to take one semester of PE. Also if you were on a sports team, band, orchestra, or theatre, you were aloud two Fs! Even then people complained about the difficulties in school!
I'm just not buying it. Getting rid of public education seems ridiculous. Claiming that private schools out perform public schools seems like cherry picking data. I've looked into private schools. I make decent money but it would be very difficult to send more than one child to a school. The private schools (what few there are) in my local area do *not* outperform the public schools. There are 3 or 4 public schools that are far better than the few private ones where I live.
I have trouble believing that this is true. I am a teacher in Canada, and here I can tell you that the public education system, although far from perfect, is staffed by dedicated, motivated, trained professionals who endeavour to instill in their students a sense of self and arm them with the ability to raise and answer their own questions, not to brainwash them into becoming ideas to feed a hungry state. Private schooling os only for religious zealots who want to insert lies and brainwashing.
Im deeply upset that school was only a system created to brain wash me from K-12.
generations upon generations have gone to school only to find out after what the system was really aiming for. k-12 I will never get those years back that couldn't been used for critial thinking, or simply enjoying my child hood.
NOW I understand completely The reason why childrens parents would be arrested if they didn't attend school!! school is a system of ignorance.. that is slowly but surely fading away.
but cuz u are forced to pay many times over into a garbage system, it becomes unaffordable for many parents and families
And if u can increase competition, variety, and open up the market, and kick out the govt bureaucrats, then prices will be able to plummet and innovation will be able to grow.
without competition, prices remain high, quality plummets, and basically there exists no variety or choice
So if u actually abolish this monopoly, u will tend to have enough money to send ur kid somewhere that is actually good. Moreover, schools will be forced to compete with one another, thus inciting excellence in quality, performance and variety while simultaneously lowering costs. In fact, even right now many private schools are many times cheaper than the public school counterparts-
Its near impossible for any monopoly to exist without govt intervention. Practically EVERY monopoly is reliant on the brute criminal force of govt to limit its competitors. Monopolies are the byproduct of fascism which we have here in the US
This was insightful and inspiring. I can't wait to learn more. I am keenly interested in the opportunities surrounding a new era of adaptive education models. I recently submitted an idea through Toyota's idea for good campaign and created this video atlantis-llc.blogspot.com
It is a fallacy to substitute what teachers do with "government". Minimum gov't standards are like the lines in a coloring book and teachers fill in the color when they teach, sometimes brilliantly and sometimes not so much. Achieving excellence beyond class level (however simplified it may be) is the responsibility of PARENTS. Just as many poor people cannot afford a mobile phone, they likewise will not be able to afford a private school, esp. one with decent materials/food/play equip.
well firstly do u know HOW much money is being spent per student in each class? give u a hint, its more than $1 a student!
more like 100,000 per classroom in many state schools. Now, half the reason why its so impossible to afford good private schools is caus u are forced to pay like 100x into the system for a shitty product which u dont like or need. On top of that, there is very little competition in the schools- thats what monopolies do- limit competition
But you know, we should have mandatory 4 year military service for everyone, though that does sound authoritarianistic it is necessary. After those 4 years in the military extra service is completely voluntary. Every man and women should know how to fight, should know our constitution by heart, and should realize that we have taken on a false sense of security and that America is vulnerable.
People say that public education is better, because it is inexpensive. But if public education did not exist then the private schools would compete with each other for students and it would drive prices down significantly, canceling out the problem. In order to achieve parental trust they would try to compete by offering better learning programs and increase the knowledge children receive. Quite simply public education is...pointless, low quality, and ultimately counterproductive.
This'd ensure that parents of only those children who're doing well academically will want take those non-interest-bearing education loans & money & resources would be better utilized for those who children who're excelling in studies while those parents whose children has an interest in a particular subject then they could spend that loan on a school that specializes in whatever vocational studies their children are interested in; this'd ensure maximization of potential of every child. [2]
I'm ok with vouchers but they'd still do the same thing that public schools do since everyone'd want to put their child in best possible school which would drive the prices up & quality down since it's "free" gov money
I'd propose that gov offer non-interest-bearing education loans to be paid at a later date or when student starts earning which means that parents'd still look for a good school but won't necessarily go for the most expensive one since they'll be liable to repay the amount [1]
Join the fight for true freedom, equality & justice for all. video started great but then went wrong. history & the bible is also a historic book, that teaches a lot of lessons for life. Schools must be financed by taxes, but no control by government. Religious schools better teach all religions & tolerance. Government takes advantage of children who's parents don't care about them. As all evil prays on the unprotected & weak. Start using your brains. Visit website MayaBell (dot com)
With the risk of becoming unpopular (not a stretch), the ideas in this video are pure crap. The success of an education system is not depending on how private or public is, but on the involvement of people in and around it, from teachers to parents. Is not an issue of "monopoly", but one of "care", "listening", "attention", and, of course, "parenting". We need more time with the kids, not more private schools.
"success of an education system is not depending on how private or public is, but on the involvement of people in and around it"
Yup & video is merely arguing that privatization of schools will ensure that only those schools in which better people are involved will be able to perpetuate themselves; it'll ensure that best teachers in the teaching profession, discarding others & that too at the lowest possible price, public schools only raise costs while providing bad service
"Is not an issue of "monopoly", but one of "care", "listening", "attention", and, of course, "parenting""
And how would public schools would do that? No, as apparent as it is, they CAN'T. BUT private schools would necessarily have to ensure that they employ teachers that "care","listen","pay attention" to children & their learning needs otherwise they'll go out of business, only those teachers & schools who serve the needs of parents & children would survive at the lowest cost
What I was trying to say was that the problem is framed wrong. Labeling schooling a "monopoly" doesn't help, what would help would be better salaries for teachers (also more teachers with smaller groups); more attention to good students, not only bad ones; raising the difficulty of most disciplines, not dumbing them down; focusing on the "why", not "what"; losing the religion stuff altogether; dropping the idea of "low cost" when it comes to education, which should be most important
Again, you're completely missing the obvious that throwing more money at teachers does NOT solve these problems, the problem is lack of competition & gov monoply IS an issue, you can pay $1 million to every teacher all you want, it's not going to solve anything until gov gets out of the education & let teachers & schools compete; then only the best schools & teachers that meet the demands of the parents/students will stay in business, others will go out of business.
Here is my proposal - 10 Grand a year (adjusted for inflation) goes to each child to choose his or her own school require the basic k-8 but after that the children should be able to choose between technical schools or college prep. Not everyone needs college.
Public Education = Great intentions but terrible consequences.
Public Funding Education = Choice by vouchers would encourage education without monopolizing it.
Government is and always has been great at running things....into the ground.
StupidCommentsMademe 1 week ago
Public education allows all the opportunity for some basic skills....It is not such a bad idea/concept.
apjames 2 weeks ago
The problem is not that the gov controls everything; it's that the gov forgets their role. The role being to serve people not to control them.
If we have direct control over the government, then the rules would be made for the direct benefit of the people since the people would be the ones who make up the rules; not gov bureaucrats.
Education under anarcho-capitalism wouldnt be as efficient as the solution above b/c a) monopolization could still occur and b) education quality would be different
ImAznnn 1 month ago
Also, how do you explain the countless success stories coming from public education, millions of people have risen out of low-income housing, abusive parents and a bad-looking future, through the public education system teaching them the necessary skills sets needed to survive in the real world. I'm a student myself, and I even I, with my limited experience and small number of years can deduce this? Know why? Pubic education! :)
Mytholgylove 2 months ago
I have personally seen children attend classes where their potential is actualized through public school classes. And if the only way of keeping a population free and independent is through means of questioning and hell raising, why did you stop comments from being posted on the intro to this series?
Mytholgylove 2 months ago
1. Homeschool your kids
2. Vote Ron Paul
AynRandFanJG 3 months ago
Public schools are most definitely NOT held accountable..by anyone. It is a sad statement on America.
drwsdavis 3 months ago
The desire to dismantle public education is not to free it but to put it under the direct control of a capitalist plutocracy. Public schools are held responsible by the local communities which they serve. Private schools exist (they have scholarships for poor students who don't have money). Charter schools are wrong because they take public money and use it irresponsibly. I've gone to both public and private schools and I can tell you public schools are better in many ways.
perdondaris 4 months ago
@5150fob correction: "the are our" ---> that our
goatnuts8288 5 months ago
@5150fob I went to public school. It is garbage. Have you ever notice how home-schooled kids are ten times smarter? People who go to academies are smarter because the parents pay for it and you bet their ass they're checking on the school's curriculum. How was he fear mongering? Convincing? It's common knowledge that our public schools are failing look at the likes/dislikes bar and national test scores. Students can't even remember the are our schools are teaching them. Stop watching Fox News
goatnuts8288 5 months ago
conformity only means the lowering of standards for people non of us know like bill gates and richard branson not of the lives of people you know like mrs jones next door or the young couple upstairs this movie is informative but far from subjective and verging on propaganda to help maintain the status quo
CASLUVR 5 months ago
the government should have no right telling us when we have to wake up in the morning to avoid punishment. it's not about the choices of the perants or the education desired by the state to be forced upon it's young citizens. it's about the human rights of the individual student which always outweights good of the state.
agent12803 5 months ago
(contd)... Call a friend. Get some help. And above all the majority of teachers are there day after thankless day because they really want to help their students, often under impossible odds, and even if you could just take one minute to send your kids' teacher a quick note to thank them for the work they do with your student, what a difference it would make in that teachers life. That person is probably still paying off ridiculous student loans so your child learns. Respect that.
T900SD 6 months ago
@T900SD to stay in business. If there were competition, the best could be concentrated in certain schools and be able to have more of an effect on their pupils by working with more talented individuals.
3) He wasn't complaining about his child having trouble in school. He never even mentioned having a child. He was talking about the monopoly of public schooling and its detriment, and of how just a little INDOCTRINATION might be taking place when the schools are government-run.
iceomthinhlaford 5 months ago
Btw instead of complaining about your local schools, what have you done lately to help out? Do you see that your student completes assignments? Do you send your student to school well rested? Well fed? That's YOUR responsibility whether you want to hear it or not. If you are having trouble doing that get help. Call the school nurse if there is still one. Call your church. A frien
T900SD 6 months ago
Wow what a load of total bullshit! I hope the intelligent people who come across this can see it for the propaganda it is. America is still the finest, most free country on earth and there is NO other comparison to her anywhere! She was built on an amazing PUBLIC education system that has now been forsaken by the wealthest 1% who benefited from her services but who now in their tremendous wealth and apparent 'down time' (Bill Gates etc) who wouldn't last a day in a room with 45 7th graders!
T900SD 6 months ago
@T900SD Wow, what a load of total bullshit!
1)This country was built on private schooling & free speech. The public school system was set up in the 20th century. But I'm pretty sure this guy's Australian, anyway, so our arguments about America are irrelevant.
2)You seem to think he was criticizing all teachers. This shows your closed-minded group thinking. All teachers are individuals, & even though some of them are great, the majority aren't. The monopoly allows them all, good or bad, ...
iceomthinhlaford 5 months ago
Competition between schools will not improve education, it will only make good education more expensive, and bad education an always affordable option. By taking it out of the collective sector and putting it through the market system.
You want to go back to the European 1700's where everyone goes to school to learn a hobby. Instead of a schooling system that is woven in with the industrialized and prestigious capitalistic society that we enjoy in the western world.
This video is flaud.
Chiszle 6 months ago
@Chiszle You can't spell "flawed" and you're saying that the public school system is doing a good job? No. Just.... no.
hobbit2245 5 months ago
@hobbit2245 - I stand corrected, on spelling. Anything else you disagree on?
Chiszle 5 months ago
@Chiszle Basically everything you said. I'm of the general opinion that public schools are terrible and immoral. Government are interfering in private affairs, something they should never do. And besides, the most intelligent nations spend half as much as we do on education or have no public education. Look at the Netherlands. That's how education should be done. Tie the money to the student, and then let them choose.
hobbit2245 5 months ago
@hobbit2245 - In the Netherlands, unfortunately a lot of the money people pay into colleges that are privately run goes into the pockets of the ones who run the place. Dutch 'InHolland' colleges are in the news now for frauds. Because the longer a student takes to finish his degree, the more expensive he gets. And the school needs to push out as many students as quickly as possible to be efficient. The result is, lower entry standards, lower exam standards, easier re-exams.
Chiszle 5 months ago
@Chiszle - This also adds to incompatibility on the job market. A lot of people here do social studies or media studies. Whilst those two are arguably the smallest markets in the country. More and more people choose those over things such as research and development or medical studies. They are also training more teachers-assistants than actual teachers. All because that's what the schools offer for training, because those courses sell the best. Pay up, get a degree within 3 to 4 years, beat it.
Chiszle 5 months ago
@Chiszle - I find Dutch education to be alright, it's based on the old German education model of Bißmarck. But to bad some bad apples are ruining it for the majority. If only there was more control over the institutions. There probably is, but so far hardly any cases of fraud make it to the courts. And anyone can start a university, as it is not a protected title. These have been my observations, it might not be as bad as I present it.
Chiszle 5 months ago
@Chiszle I'm not entirely sure about that, but maybe I'm wrong. I heard that their test scores were miles above the Americans', and that their school was half the annual cost.
hobbit2245 5 months ago
@Chiszle good? Finally a true European tells unlike some arrogant European i met online who thinks they are ten times smarter than us Americans. I agree, public education need to go away. Before the 1970s, USA had a highest education standards in the world but after the DOE was created under Jimmy Carter and years followed it, education standards in the USA was lower and becomes illegitimate. Even my friend in Canada said that it's getting worse too if not down the same path as us.
Hperman09 3 months ago
Local funding is unfair in that rich communities could afford more. Local rich families could afford better quality education than poor ones.
The answer should be a national library of resources ("NOT JUST FUNDING!!!!") would provide equal access to the same opportunities to all at the least cost. This would support "Local Autonomy" by parents instead of teachers.
Teacher unions support choices that support teacher jobs not learner job preparation. High unemployment seems inevitable.
FlashToso 7 months ago
@FlashToso
"Local funding is unfair in that rich communities could afford more. Local rich families could afford better quality education than poor ones."
That is the whole concept of being "RICH". What part of that don't you understand?
AGeekWithAShotgun 6 months ago
What is glaringly missing from this presentation is the desirable benefit of government involvement.
Local control is expensive. It requires all communities to duplicate fundamental needs. Local schools do not look for competition from other countries(jobs lost to other countries that do a better job of preparing their future workers)a national agency would. A national educational resource including study materials(not just money) could cheaply provide choices that local communities could not..
FlashToso 7 months ago
the more i think about it, the more i dislike the idea of public education
goPistons06 7 months ago
we need to use and perfect mexico's public education system. in mexico each school is privately run; however, families are given grants of around $10,000 each year to enroll their kid in school. they then get to pick from any local school. since the schools have to compete to get students and thus money, they have to provide the best education, sports teams, and student happiness. Other than completly abolishing public education this is the only logical way to solve this problem.
26FanMusic 7 months ago
@jacktheputrid It is still not an option for parents who have to work all day and/or don't have a cultural level to instruct their kids properly and can't afford to hire a tutor.
luizcadu 7 months ago
@jacktheputrid That's interesting, Jack. If you don't mind, would you answer some questions? Did you hire tutors or do you and your wife teach your kids?Is there any study that shows homeschooled kids have the same academic level of a kid who attends regular school? I'm from Brazil and homeschooling is illegal here, so I don't know much about it.
luizcadu 7 months ago
What about people who can't afford a good school? What would happen to them in a privatised, libertarian school system? Freedom of choice is a reality just for those who can afford it.
luizcadu 7 months ago
Public schools were fine, until complete integration, 40 years ago. Unqualified black teachers could not be fired under any circumstance. A friend of mine who was stuck in the public school system at this time, had no classwork or homework for 3 years. One of his black teachers could barely read.
castletriglav 8 months ago
"Unqualified black teachers could not be fired under any circumstance" Oh yeah, because the quality of an education at public schools were just so find and dandy before we integrated with those incompetent spooks. Oh wait, a large bulk of the public up until the 1950's ,most people before the 1960's didn't even graduate high school and since most americans received all their education from the public school system, most didn't advance their education beyond elementary school.
Pentazoid111 7 months ago
The United States has been an Oligarchy since the big scam of Federal reserve went in in 1913
2 party system is a sham a false left right paradigm both owned by elite few our shadow govt
We are an armed oligarchy . Armed as citizens can have guns due to 2nd amendment
Homeschool, don't drink the water until we can get the sociopaths out of control don't be their puppets
janityy 8 months ago
Can buy culligan water back of wallmart has carbon filters is 95% flouride free and take kelp tablets and eat cooked seaweed can get cooked hiziki at some Japanese restaurants if eat daily u will feeel difference.
All seeing eye on pyramid on one dollar bill
Means
"in the kingdom of the Blind the one eyed are Kings
THE SLAVES SHALL SERVE
K-12 is a lie
janityy 8 months ago
@garciadelacadena removing ure kids from the lie of k-12 means they will now have a chance to be geniuses as the path of the Genius is homeschool and read 5 books a week
Forced memorization is path of imbecile
Homework is against 13th amendment
Only sheeple answer to a Bell
Our shadow govt want the herd the masses to be dumbed down and docile is why k-12 programming and flouride in water
janityy 8 months ago
We need to deplete the government schools of its customer so they no longer exist, and guess who the customer is, without them government schools wouldn't exist.... yes, it's our Kids, I myself have 3 at the failed government school system and I am feed up!!!
Beginning next year they no longer will go to the center of indoctrination, it's not just academically a failure, but they have become increasingly unsafe (drugs, bullying, peer pressure, etc).
Enough is enough!!!!
AMDG
garciadelacadena 9 months ago
@garciadelacadena your kids are retarded. lol.
blunty6feetunder 8 months ago
If you start calling them what they really are, i.e., GOVERNMENT schools, you understand what is really going on and why they are such dismal institutions.
carcabe 9 months ago
Modern public schools can only exist so long as children are not granted the status of personhood. In a free market of education, they wouldn't be forced to associate with abusive people while having their thoughts and actions micromanaged on a steady diet of behaviorist pedagogy, even though decades of research has proven it to be both naive and disasterous as a theory of knowledge acquistion, not to mention totally unempathetic.
Fathoms2004 9 months ago
@Fathoms2004
In a free market, children don't get education. They work in sweatshops or as prostitutes, for less than an adult. This is because a sweatshop design is most profitable, because sex is a profitable commodity and children are in high demand for it, and because free market wages are so low that parents must send their kids to work rather than school. Meanwhile the wealthy receive an education because they can afford it, and are able to saturate politics so that the poor remain so.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest Or you can remove feminism from society. And have women rear their children like they are supposed to. With the men properly caring for their families, with a society that has high values on marriage. But such ideas are considered "backward" by the totalitarian favoring leftists.
TheMedievalMan 9 months ago
@TheMedievalMan
Oh, you mean the old days where wives were sold or traded as property to ensure an equitable alliance between families? Children back then died so often that it wasn't uncommon to have a dozen of them. Sometimes the mothers would call the littlest children "it" because until you reached about 5, you were very likely to die. You had to EARN your name. The men went to brothels, or paid for sex from poor adolescents.
Our times are terrible indeed...
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest Wow... talk about putting words in my mouth.
1. I am against arranged marriages.
2. Modern health care is much different from midwives and bloodletting.
3. Prostitution should be illegal, by punishing the ones seeking prostitutes, not punishing the prostitutes themselves. This has shown to be effective in Sweden for example.
Your argument has no bases.
TheMedievalMan 9 months ago
@TheMedievalMan
I wasn't trying to put words in anyone's mouths. I was simply describing the old days of marriage a century and a half ago. You know, TRADITIONAL marriage. You complain about feminists but seem to be unaware of how it was back then, that family life was often hard, and callous by today's standards. The roles you suggested were not optional back then, they were expected, and it wasn't in the woman's favor.
It's hardly totalitarian to expect fair treatment of women.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest What you are talking about a belief in innate destructive drives in humans that must be forced out of them by authority. Most people believe that without God or the State we cannot be good, but this is just an argument from apocalypse. Besides, schooling is not education. It is indoctrination. John Taylor Gatto's book the Underground History of American Education documents how the the rich sociopaths you fear so much were largely behind the forced schooling laws in the first place,
Fathoms2004 9 months ago
@Fathoms2004
You lost coherency about half-way in your paragraph. There is no "argument from apocalypse." That is not an actual logical fallacy. As best I can tell it is a tract from anarchists.
Generally, most people lack skepticism and a sizable amount are greedy and callous to the affairs of others. What this means practically is that any unregulated system will be exploited, and twisted so that it serves of them. That is why we have government, it is a means to regulate society.
kDest 9 months ago
@Fathoms2004
The rich have never wanted an educated public. You can test my hypothesis by following the politics of the public school system and associated interest groups. The religious want to teach magic to children, the oil companies want to teach that climate change is a myth, the conservative parties want to undermine the history of slavery.
They all work against education. Your indoctrination assertion is a spurious game of semantics. Everything is indoctrination, but you equivocate.
kDest 9 months ago
Comment removed
Pdrum2 10 months ago
@MrThiefykern You wouldn't have to work 12 hours a day if it was private :0
Pdrum2 10 months ago
@Pdrum2
Private businesses are in the habit of working their employees 16 hours or more without weekends or holidays. Until unions were allowed to form, and government oversight favored workers, this was common practice. Are you lucky to live AFTER the industrial revolution, where you are protected from this kind of abuse though laws.
kDest 9 months ago
Decent vid, but the premise of the video hinges entirely on parents not taking an active role in their children's education.
TheRealCadaver 10 months ago
At the video author/poster: it's simple to dismantle your argument when you realize that not all monopolies are bad, because not all affairs of humanity are business transactions. When you think only in terms of capitalism, it becomes easy to to try and use it as a solution for topics that do not fit it. Try expanding your toolkit in order to appreciate complex and robust solutions to societal problems.
kDest 10 months ago
@kDest No coercive monopolies are.
Pdrum2 10 months ago
@Pdrum2
Speaking in party rhetoric does not make a case. Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists have hijacked the word "coercion" and redefined it so that it applies to all of their social obligations and responsibilities but omits their ethical behavior. It all rests on the instinctive abhorrence of these people towards taxes.
kDest 9 months ago
It is profoundly anti-social to threaten to throw someone in a cage if they don't go along with your plan (pay their taxes). I would personally rather not be forced to work for the rest of my life for the institution responsible for ruining my childhood (state schools). Dr. Kohlberg's final stage of moral development is when values are universalized. Statism only persists because any moral narrative about life that doesn't glorify the authoritarianism is crushed out of the young.
Fathoms2004 9 months ago
@Fathoms2004
You can always move. You recite dogma "taxes are theft!" but won't move to a different nation or an anarchy that has no taxes. In other words you just like to whine. Governments take money to run. The services they provide require employees and resources. If you want no taxes, expect poor courts, poor infrastructure, etc.
Public schools have eliminated illiteracy, and have fostered our liberal society. Dismantling them would just steepen the divide between poor and wealthy.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest /watch?v=WtzrqvPfnE0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
~ Norman Mattoon Thomas
Leading American socialist and six-time Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of America
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
Contrary to what your rich masters tell you, socialism is an attempt to apply science to the economy. It generally benefits everyone BUT the wealthiest small percentage of the nation. However, capitalism being what it is, the rich usually own around half the nation's private wealth, which means that every media outlet will demonize socialism because it is starkly against the interests of that group.
Do you medicine? A safety net? Clean water and land? Then you want socialism.
kDest 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kDest "Contrary to what your rich masters tell you"
I have no "rich masters" but perhaps you do?
"socialism is an attempt to apply science to the economy"
HA! Biggest political joke I've heard yet. Thanks for making my day :)
"It generally benefits everyone"
I suppose that's why all the countries that applied socialism ended up in massive levels of poverty and abuse from the government?
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@kDest "BUT the wealthiest small percentage of the nation"
BUT 99.99% of the nation, except for those who control the Socialist Party at the top :)
"However, capitalism being what it is"
...The only sensible economic theory yet discovered, where voluntary exchange occurs between individuals so that they can willfully and mutually benefit from this exchange without having a government aiming a gun at their heads and telling them what to do...
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
It was a major improvement compared to mercantilism, feudalism, etc. Socialism eclipses capitalism now, since we understand it better, having had centuries of experience with it.
We now know that capitalism creates conditions of bondage, poverty, and wide-scale health and environmental hazards in addition to an unstable economy prone to crashes.
Socialism is the logical consequence of trying to prevent or minimize these problems. We now have no western capitalist economies.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest Capitalism does not create conditions of bondage, poverty, and widespread health and environmental hazards, it responds to the demands of the consumer. It aims to improve the standard of living for the average individual by means of improving the production of food and shelter through technological innovations. If you looked closely, the reason why Capitalist economies fail was because there was government intervention in the free-market by subsidization or expansion of credit.
jimmyt3411 9 months ago
@jimmyt3411
Your mistake is similar to the type made when people misunderstand Evolution by Natural Selection to think it directs animals towards strength. The person misunderstands that "Survival of the fittest" does not mean strength, but the best survivability to an environment.
Free-market capitalism selects that which is most profitable. In the case of industry, it means that sweatshops, toxic waste dumps, low wages, corporatism, etc. are solutions to the problem of profitability.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest Species in wild nature are expected to act on their own self-interest, their own gain or profit. Without the latter behavior, there will be no way of measuring which species can acquire the most resources and therefore never know which species are most "fit" to survive in a particular setting, the worst species (businesses) will remain and evolution will cease. Toxic waste dumps are not always in the best interest of the business, if they injure people then the law will be exercised
jimmyt3411 9 months ago
@jimmyt3411
Businesses are abstract, based on teams of leaders who do not even need to have a presence in the land that they are using. So for them, environmental concerns are just about nil because they can always (and usually do) live thousands of miles from the dumpsites or exploited zone. Taken further, consumer interests are often distanced from the consequences of their purchases, an example being that your clothes are nowhere near the children that made them.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest Conditions prior to the industrial revolution in the early 18th century were much worse than what the industrial revolution offered later in the century. Famine and diseases were prevalent, and the overall standard living were reduced until the rise of Capitalism. We needed sweatshops, factories so we could produce our way out of poverty. The wealth of a society in a Capitalist economy is not determined by how much one earns or their wages, but how much they can produce.
jimmyt3411 9 months ago
@jimmyt3411
Before the IR there was productivity in smaller guilds, shops, etc. workers had more space. Agriculture was a grueling task but it had always been until the advent of machines. The IR saw the advent of factories which by design removed the individuality of the workers, and paid them too little to be self-sufficient. These factories also dumped waste directly into the rivers, which contaminated the water supply. It didn't HAVE to be this way, it was simply most profitable.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest "Individualism" is exactly what I'm defending here, individualism was still intact during the beginnings of the IR because workers and employers AGREED to terms and conditions that the workers had to face. "Paid them too little to be self-suficient." What if companies paid every worker extremely high wages but did not produce? Every worker will walk around loaded with cash in empty shops because nothing was ever produced. Employers pay the lowest to afford more workers (more production)
jimmyt3411 9 months ago
@jimmyt3411
I'll put some figures for you to reflect on. In terms of financial wealth, 1% of our nation owns about 43% of the total. 80% (the working class) owns 7%. What that means is, the wealthy 1% owns (on average) about 490 times the financial wealth as compared to workers. This is how disproportionate the system is.
And yet you try to defend yourself with a false dichotomy between a wealthy elite and destitute working class or no productivity. Yet the working class is losing wealth now.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest Look, I agree that there is a force deepening the gap between the rich and the poor, but this was not the result of Capitalism, look up how the Federal Reserve devalues our dollar by printing money so that people that first get it are artificially richer and higher prices ensue for middle class. To your figures, the real entrepreneurs that provide services and employment for society are creating wealth for the masses that was not already there. What if the super-rich 1% were gone?no jobs
jimmyt3411 9 months ago
@jimmyt3411
This "force" is the positive feedback mechanism which capitalism creates. In plain English, the wealthier you are, the easier it is to acquire more wealth. Capitalism allows small groups to acquire wealth, which starts this spiral.
I suggest reading "Wealth, Income, and Power" by G. William Domhoff (do a web search) for figures. They suggest that the rift grew wider after the Reagan Era began. His policies were of deregulation. You are cheer-leading for these people.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest Only 20% of millionaires today acquire their wealth from inheritance, the other 80% earned it because they were fiscally resonsible and provided services or goods that people needed. What if someone inherited a talent from their parents, would you take it away from them because it is not fair that they have an advantage over others? same ethics applies to inherited wealth. Plus why are you making the assumption that people will be wealthy forever if they inherit it?
jimmyt3411 9 months ago
@jimmyt3411
Wealth inheritance is a way to maintain plutocracy. It makes the inheritors out of touch with life for everyone else, and so you have a ruling class who feel entitled to live in the greatest luxury while the poorest starve to death. Inherited wealth is not a talent, any more than it is a talent to be born a Lord or Prince. The wealthy are those with tens of billions of dollars. Most of them form a ruling dynasty, an elite class who destroy the principle of democracy.
kDest 9 months ago
@jimmyt3411
Many of our modern billionaires are the grandchildren and great grandchildren of then men who actually earned that wealth. They are dynasties, groups of people who have no concept of the hardness of life, but that's not where it ends. Because they have this wealth, their ignorance of that hardness is extended immeasurably into politics, so that millions (or even billions) of people suffer because of them.
Why should anyone be able to amass billions or even millions of dollars?
kDest 9 months ago
@jimmyt3411
Wealth cannot be created. Wealth comes from scarcity. Since we have finite resources it must come from somewhere else or more commodities are added to the system which devalues existing commodities of the same type. The big secret of capitalism is that our wealth comes from the hands of people in developing nations.
Capitalism is about profit; eventually all jobs will be performed by machines or slaves, since this maximizes profit. That is why jobs keep declining in the west.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest "Capitalism is about profit; eventually all jobs will be performed by machines" Great! I can't wait till machines do the jobs for us. If machines produce everything for us, then nobody would need a job because everything would be so cheap, perhaps free in some cases due to their abundance. It would be in the best profit interest for a company in a competitve market to invest in avaliable technology to produce things more cheaply to outcompete their competitor by lowering prices.
jimmyt3411 9 months ago
@jimmyt3411
If all labor is replaced by machines, that means no jobs, meaning that everyone but the business owners will be destitute; a collapsed economy where people have no money to live, except a minority who have all the wealth.
Artificial scarcity would rule because it is more profitable, and because acquiring rivals is easier than outcompeting them. In the internet we have limitless access to all media, but business tries to stop it with copyright; you pay for something otherwise free.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest "It was a major improvement compared to mercantilism, feudalism, etc."
Which had nothing to do with free-market capitalism.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@kDest "Socialism eclipses capitalism now, since we understand it better, having had centuries of experience with it."
Uh-huh, just look at the countries that experience it: Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, East Germany, North Korea, China, Romania, Poland, Yugoslavia... all which had massive levels of poverty and oppression.
Ironically, it was when countries such as China and India adopted economic policies of free-market capitalism that the masses were uplifted from extreme levels of poverty.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
Countries with some level of socialism: The United States, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.
China was communist (Maoist actually). The government there lacked industry and a coherent means to utilize it. Now it is starting to entertain free-market principles and the population works in sweatshops, and suffer poor health in the big cities from all the pollution.
Look at Brazil for an example of how to raise people from poverty.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest Perhaps, you forgot the definition of socialism?
so·cial·ism (\ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\) NOUN: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
None of those countries are socialist. Laos, Cuba, and Vietnam are.
"China was communist (Maoist actually)."
That is a form of Marxist communist theory. Communism is a theory advocating elimination of private property. That was China.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@kDest "Now it is starting to entertain free-market principles and [mindless leftist ranting]"
Actually, if you got out of your stupid little bubble of ignorance for once, you would know that the economy of China has been increased by 9.5% a year, generating a huge increase in average LIVING STANDARDS. Based on household surveys, the poverty rate in China in 1981 was 64% of the population. This rate declined to 10% in 2004, indicating that about 500 million people have climbed out of poverty.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
All I read is parroting from libertarian think-tanks without any deeper understanding of the social effects of this sweeping economic change.
Switching to market-based economic policies had the nasty side effect of cramming China's rural workers into conditions not unlike those of 19th century London. The environment there is so poor that cancer is the leading cause of death.
China is like a giant 19th century London, full of poorly paid workers and pollution. Progress!
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest "We now know that capitalism creates conditions of bondage, poverty, and wide-scale health and environmental hazards"
I see you've been gladly brainwashed by socialist propaganda. Capitalism creates conditions of FREEDOM to CHOOSE, the opportunity build WEALTH from WORK, and wide-scale ECONOMIC COMPETITION that lowers PRICES, increases QUALITY.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
Capitalism is not primarily concerned with freedom, or fair compensation for labor. Capitalism is primarily concerned with PROFIT. That is the "fitness" quantifier for capitalist systems. Health, freedom, fair wages, environment, are all auxiliary.
Your lack of understanding analogous to saying evolution must produce stronger, more intelligent, more attractive species. It doesn't have to do any of that in order for something to be fit. Take a look at guinea worms.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest "Capitalism is not primarily concerned with freedom"
It's concerned with making your decision without having the government decide what you can and cannot trade with other people, who can both benefit from the exchange.
"or fair compensation for labor"
Fair compensation? Both individuals involved in a free exchange know what their compensation is. What's "fair" is up to them and their agreement, not to YOU or the GOVERNMENT, fool.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
It's not even concerned with that. It's concerned with MAKING PROFIT. That is all capitalism is. If freedom can come from a profitable transaction, it will. If slavery can come from profit, it will. That is what the IR taught us, if nothing else: sweatshops, children being whipped, people being caught in unsafe machines and ripped up into confetti, poison sold as medicine, waste dumped in rivers. These are all profitable activities. Thank god we fought back and won some liberty.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest "Capitalism is primarily concerned with PROFIT."
You socialists are truly FUCKING IDIOTS. What's WRONG with profit? Both people in the free trade exchange what they WANT to trade, why should YOU decide those terms?
"That is the "fitness" quantifier for capitalist systems."
That's what increases quality and lowers prices. I don't want the government controlling exchanges and controlling it from a state MONOPOLY, idiot.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
What's wrong with profit? Nothing, if you remember that it is not a means to achieve a free, ethical, healthy society. When profit is the sold criterion of fitness, then ethics, human life, our children, our dreams, nothing else matters.
I have two questions for you: how is a society, where less than 1% of the population owns 37% of all private wealth and 15% of all private wealth is divided amongst 85% of the population, healthy? How can democracy function in such a society?
kDest 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kDest "Nothing, if you remember that it is not a means to achieve a free, ethical, healthy society."
This is what I most despite of you liberals. Who's going to create a free, ethical, and healthy society? You? The bureaucrats you pay in Washington? You think I would trust YOU by handing over MY liberty so that you can use it however you see fit, or how the government sees fit?
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@kDest "Health, freedom, fair wages, environment, are all auxiliary."
Health, freedom, fair wages, and environment come AS A RESULT of free trade. From socialism comes extreme levels of poverty, pollution (just look at countries that have adopted socialism), and government ABUSES.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
Looking at the IR in Britain, where free trade was at its peak, none of those points were true. Health was so poor that the population had to drink beer and cider, because the "drinking water" (environment) was basically lethal. The rich could import water for themselves. Wages were so low that people sent their kids to work in factories that had a high rate of death and personal injury.
Then look at Northern Europe, socialized medicine, etc and they are doing better than us.
kDest 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kDest "Your lack of understanding analogous to saying evolution must produce stronger, more intelligent, more attractive species. It doesn't have to do any of that in order for something to be fit. Take a look at guinea worms."
What does this have to do with our discussion? Are you mad?
Now you're just breaking into a rant. Way to stay on-topic.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
I assumed you accepted evolution as true, so I used it as an analogy so as to highlight your flawed reasoning. In evolution, fitness just means survivability. Everything else is a mean to that end. That's why we have guinea worms and primates. Totally different solutions to the same problem. Now look at capitalism: sweatshops are the solution to factory profitability, who cares about worker abuse? It's all about profit.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest "in addition to an unstable economy prone to crashes."
You know who caused the crisis? The Government. That's right: THE GOVERNMENT gave bailouts to big corporations in Washington. That's called PROTECTIONISM, not Capitalism, and has NOTHING to do with free trade. Learn the difference. Guess who's fault it was then? The Government, AGAIN.
The free market had NOTHING to do with the financial crisis. Wake up.
reason*com/archives/2008/09/24/corporatism-not-capitalism
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
Up until the great depression market crashes were not uncommon. They happened every few decades. FDR implemented the New Deal and alleviated this problem. Then Reagan came in and deregulated the stock market. What followed were bubbles in housing and debt trading, and in part because government did not adapt regulations to newer things like shadow banking, it all culminated in a financial crisis. You should get your facts from elsewhere than evangelical libertarianism.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest "FDR implemented the New Deal and alleviated this problem."
REALLY? Hmm... I wonder why we had this government-sponsored financial crisis then? Market adjustments that occur every few decade were not crashes and did not have a critical effect in the economy, unlike the blown-up crises that came as a result precisely of those government policies.
"What followed were bubbles in housing and debt trading"
[citation needed]
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
I just told you WHY we had it: Reagan DEREGULATED the market. Reagan undid much of the New Deal. Then all this risky, ill-advised banking, trading, etc. could happen because they were not prohibited or even monitored. We lost our safety net.
Then, thanks to the bubble popping and threatening to take down a handful of our corporations which would cause major unemployment and social turmoil, our government had to bailout unsuccessful businesses and take partial ownership.
kDest 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kDest "and in part because government did not adapt regulations to newer things like shadow banking, it all culminated in a financial crisis."
[citation needed]
"You should get your facts from elsewhere than evangelical libertarianism."
You should get your facts from somewhere else than your imagination.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@kDest "Socialism is the logical consequence of trying to prevent or minimize these problems."
Socialism is the result of REPLACING these problems with WORSE ones.
Socialism is COERCION. It is the attempt to stop free and voluntary exchanges between individuals that benefit the economy. It is the attempt to hand a MONOPOLY to the government, which ALWAYS results in higher prices and reduced quality.
Socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
All socialism involves slavery.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
Question: How many Cholera and consumption outbreaks have afflicted London the past decade? How many Americans are living on dollars a day? What is the prevalence of child labor in the developed world? How many children work as prostitutes compared to 150 years ago here? What is the incidence of factory accidents, maiming? Are we able to sue companies that dump toxic waste into rivers? Do you work 16 hours?
All thanks to "socialism" these have been reduced or fixed.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest "How many Cholera and consumption outbreaks have afflicted London the past decade?"
Well, unemployment, teenage pregnancy, and underage drinking are rampant if that's what you mean.
"How many Americans are living on dollars a day?"
I don't know. How many?
"What is the prevalence of child labor in the developed world?"
Not very high, since the developed world consists mostly of free capitalism. The socialist countries like Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are the ones with poverty.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
The correct answer is that these problems (living on dollars a day, Cholera and consumption deaths, child labor and prostitution, et al.) have been largely dispelled due to government intervention which holds businesses accountable for these acts (consumption and Cholera being due to poor city development and unclean water).
In other words, the government corrected a society which the free market fostered.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest "How many children work as prostitutes compared to 150 years ago here?"
30% of shelter youth and 70% of homeless youth are victims of CVE in the United States. The report also estimates that one third of street-level prostitutes in the U.S. are under 18 years old while fifty percent of off-street prostitutes are less than 18 years old. According to Estes and Weiner, 12 to 14 is the average age of entry into prostitution for girls under 17 years old in the United States.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
Good. You did your homework now. Did you dig deeper to learn that this was a common practice in the IR? Sex is a profitable business, after all. In fact, until only recently it was common practice for Thai rural girls to sell their bodies to pay for family debts. Now we can prosecute those who abuse minors, and have programs out there to better help the homeless (which didn't exist in the IR, only charity did).
In free market capitalism, a child's body is a commodity.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest All thanks to FREE MARKET these could be reduced or fixed. Thanks to socialism, countries such as Laos, Cuba, and Vietnam live in poverty.
Thank goodness I'm not working 18 hours for the socialist state.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
In the IR it was not uncommon to work 16 hour shifts, every day. There were no weekends. There was no unemployment, no insurance, no sick days. In fact early sweatshops sometimes operated much like slave pits, with an overseer whipping those who broke company rules (including children). In other cases an infraction simply meant that your pay was docked. Unions were illegal and violently suppressed (of course, since the rich have a bigger voice in politics).
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest "which means that every media outlet will demonize socialism because it is starkly against the interests of that group."
...Because it is starkly against the interests of EVERYONE, and to anyone who has a head firmly placed on their necks and has learned from HISTORY.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
Wealth is a zero-sum gain. Any gain comes from someone else's loss. Free-market capitalism contains a positive feedback system, known as economy of scale, which favors concentrating wealth in the hands of a severe minority. This means that less than 1% will own in excess of half of available wealth. Everyone else must divide the remainder.
Socialism is an attempt to apply our insight of economics to this problem, so that the remaining 99% have a more comfortable life.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest "Wealth is a zero-sum gain."
Stupidest thing ever parroted in history over and over again by you socialists.
Valuable goods and services can be created, destroyed, or badly allocated. Any of these WILL create a net gain or loss. Any commercial exchange is a non-zero-sum activity, because each party must consider the goods it receives as more valuable than the goods it delivers. Economic exchanges must benefit both parties to overcome transaction costs.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@kDest "Any gain comes from someone else's loss."
And what is the net gain/loss? Say a tribe lived near a river and had a lot of water, and say another tribe lived near the forest and had a lot of wood. They decide to exchange the resources most available and abundant to each of them with each other. They would BOTH benefit from such an exchange, since BOTH of them obtain resources that are scarce to one of them but abundant to the other.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@kDest Economies of scale refers to the cost advantages that a business obtains due to expansion. There are factors that cause a producer's average cost per unit to fall as the usage levels of other inputs and the scale of the output is increased.
The positive feedback system of free-market capitalism is that it encourages economic competition and a greater number of options, which improves QUALITY, reduces COSTS, and increases EFFICIENCY. That's why monopolistic socialism fails.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
You second paragraph has it backwards. The positive feedback system reduces options because a larger size of the same thing is more profitable than dozens of different, little businesses.Consider: if a small business (say a haberdasher) is competing with a franchise, who will win? It doesn't matter how many rare buttons or well-priced frilly objects the small business offers, because the franchise is pulling money from dozens of locations. Now call the franchise Wallmart.
kDest 9 months ago
@kDest That's the oldest joke from socialists in history: mises*org/daily/621
If the small business offers lower prices than Walmart, then people will go to the small business. If Walmart offers lower prices than the small business, then people will go to Walmart. In both situations, they get the best of what's available, with lowest prices and highest quality.
If, in any case, Walmart were to raise prices, then people would look for alternatives.
What's your problem?
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@kDest "Socialism is an attempt to apply our insight of economics to this problem"
Socialism is an attempt to make the GOVERNMENT take control of all GOODS and SERVICES. Since the people cannot obtain these goods and services from somewhere else, they must CONFORM to the level of that provided by the GOVERNMENT. Government control turns into a MONOPOLY, which reduces QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, and increases COSTS over time.
Get a lesson on economics and economic competition, will ya?
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kDest "Do you medicine?"
Sorry, I don't medicine. I'm not sure if that verb's in the dictionary, either.
"A safety net?"
I got plenty of nets at home :D
"Clean water and land?"
Hurrah!
"Then you want socialism."
No, then I DON'T want socialism.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@kDest If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved ... We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better.
Ben Chavis is a former public school principal. He laughs at the public schools' complaints about money. "That is the biggest lie in America. They waste money," he said.
abcnews*go*com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@kDest It is an unambigious fact of reality that if I don't go along with your plan, you will not hesitate to have me thrown into a cage. At least religious zealots will leave it up to god to punish me for having different beliefs. But you have no problem with committing violence against peaceful people. If the people really liked the services the government provides they would pay for them on the free (peaceful) market. But we aren't having a discussion, you have a gun, I have only words.
Fathoms2004 9 months ago
@Fathoms2004
I'll clarify your terms. Not going along with "my plan" means taking the benefits of our society for yourself but giving nothing back in return for it. Throwing you into a "cage" means that you will be put through a trial for your theft, with the presumption of innocence on your part. Did I mention that it was the (peaceful) free market where businesses butchered union protesters with hired thugs? They also peacefully dumped toxic waste into our drinking water. Ignorance is bliss.
kDest 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This laughable, but for the fact that the illiterate may believe it. It is the "Reefer Madness" of the dangers of public education. Please watch this with a critical eye, and you can enjoy the humor in it.
JohnnyB2951 10 months ago
This laughable, but for the fact that the illiterate may believe it. It is the "Reefer Madness" of the dangers of public education. Please watch this with a critical eye, and you can enjoy the humor in it.
JohnnyB2951 10 months ago
@JohnnyB2951 iliterate that's fantastical claim.
Pdrum2 10 months ago
Comment removed
JohnnyB2951 10 months ago
Comment removed
JohnnyB2951 10 months ago
Anyone else thinking of 1984 and A Brave New World during/after this film?
LazyFilmMaker 10 months ago
This video is bullshit.
Mangalaiii 11 months ago
My school experience sucked. Basically from the moment I entered the chant: "CONFORM!" was drilled into me. Since I couldn't, I was punished. I graduated public school crippled & unprepared 4 the world. The system needs serious overhaul.
Gahuki44 11 months ago
Excellent video.
nocoercion 11 months ago
I also like my government funded education, because it keeps the religious right out of our classrooms. A large percentage of private schools are religious institutions. (Catholic schools, etc). In my area, that's especially the case. Thanks but no thanks, I'll take my separation of church and state. I'd rather religion stay out of the classroom. Privatizing education seems like we would lose that protection we currently have under the law.
BrannigansL4W 11 months ago
@BrannigansL4W All you say you like, you could fund yourself without coercing others into that scheme.
Any monopoly makes prices go artificially higher and lowers quality.
That why you don't have government in the food, PCs, clothing, etc business.
You're just taught into it, that's why you "don't buy it". When you do, it'll hurt.
darkr0astedblend 11 months ago
@BrannigansL4W Privatizing puts the choice in YOUR hands... simple concept? What you said really only proves public education wrong, and trust me, I agree with what you said. In my area, public education is dominated by the catholic school board, the best scoring school year after year here is public and has been forced to shut down, whilst my highschool is second lowest year after year, only a kilometre away from the other one, and remains open. Private industry is choice.
excelinferno123 10 months ago
@excelinferno123 i think you mean private school ed is dominated by the catholic school board. catholic schools are private schools after all.
ned262626 10 months ago
@ned262626 No, not in Canada at least. In Ottawa Catholic school board dominates all, with the worst scores year after year, they only talk about closing public schools.. one which had to fight to survive scored #2 in the whole city year after year.
excelinferno123 10 months ago
I would like to add, there is absolutely nothing stopping us from raising the standards in public schools. If private schools standards are higher, then why can't we apply the same standards to public schools? I find it hard to believe that the notion that it's "difficult to fire bad teachers" is the real problem, and yes, there are problems with the educational system. But we can make it better. Dismantling it instead of fixing it is not the correct approach.
BrannigansL4W 11 months ago
@BrannigansL4W I agree on raising the standards in publick schools, at my old high school one could graduate with little knowledge in math, history, and only had to take one semester of PE. Also if you were on a sports team, band, orchestra, or theatre, you were aloud two Fs! Even then people complained about the difficulties in school!
LazyFilmMaker 10 months ago
I'm just not buying it. Getting rid of public education seems ridiculous. Claiming that private schools out perform public schools seems like cherry picking data. I've looked into private schools. I make decent money but it would be very difficult to send more than one child to a school. The private schools (what few there are) in my local area do *not* outperform the public schools. There are 3 or 4 public schools that are far better than the few private ones where I live.
BrannigansL4W 11 months ago
The government is too busy killing innocent people all over the world.
AZLuvV 11 months ago
monopolies are a threat to democracy. WE need extreme competition.
lvll138inrs 1 year ago
I have trouble believing that this is true. I am a teacher in Canada, and here I can tell you that the public education system, although far from perfect, is staffed by dedicated, motivated, trained professionals who endeavour to instill in their students a sense of self and arm them with the ability to raise and answer their own questions, not to brainwash them into becoming ideas to feed a hungry state. Private schooling os only for religious zealots who want to insert lies and brainwashing.
AtheistdotEDU 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
close all public schools.. its wrong to rob people to fund the education of someone else's kid
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
Im deeply upset that school was only a system created to brain wash me from K-12.
generations upon generations have gone to school only to find out after what the system was really aiming for. k-12 I will never get those years back that couldn't been used for critial thinking, or simply enjoying my child hood.
NOW I understand completely The reason why childrens parents would be arrested if they didn't attend school!! school is a system of ignorance.. that is slowly but surely fading away.
MagicalOillusions 1 year ago
but cuz u are forced to pay many times over into a garbage system, it becomes unaffordable for many parents and families
And if u can increase competition, variety, and open up the market, and kick out the govt bureaucrats, then prices will be able to plummet and innovation will be able to grow.
swu880 1 year ago
without competition, prices remain high, quality plummets, and basically there exists no variety or choice
So if u actually abolish this monopoly, u will tend to have enough money to send ur kid somewhere that is actually good. Moreover, schools will be forced to compete with one another, thus inciting excellence in quality, performance and variety while simultaneously lowering costs. In fact, even right now many private schools are many times cheaper than the public school counterparts-
swu880 1 year ago
Comment removed
swu880 1 year ago
Its near impossible for any monopoly to exist without govt intervention. Practically EVERY monopoly is reliant on the brute criminal force of govt to limit its competitors. Monopolies are the byproduct of fascism which we have here in the US
swu880 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This was insightful and inspiring. I can't wait to learn more. I am keenly interested in the opportunities surrounding a new era of adaptive education models. I recently submitted an idea through Toyota's idea for good campaign and created this video atlantis-llc.blogspot.com
atlantismarketingsol 1 year ago
It is a fallacy to substitute what teachers do with "government". Minimum gov't standards are like the lines in a coloring book and teachers fill in the color when they teach, sometimes brilliantly and sometimes not so much. Achieving excellence beyond class level (however simplified it may be) is the responsibility of PARENTS. Just as many poor people cannot afford a mobile phone, they likewise will not be able to afford a private school, esp. one with decent materials/food/play equip.
saucey2427 1 year ago
@saucey2427
well firstly do u know HOW much money is being spent per student in each class? give u a hint, its more than $1 a student!
more like 100,000 per classroom in many state schools. Now, half the reason why its so impossible to afford good private schools is caus u are forced to pay like 100x into the system for a shitty product which u dont like or need. On top of that, there is very little competition in the schools- thats what monopolies do- limit competition
swu880 1 year ago
I agree, but we can't forget that privatizing to education system would also be no good. Privatizing meaning a large company controls the education.
Zachdudeio2 1 year ago
But you know, we should have mandatory 4 year military service for everyone, though that does sound authoritarianistic it is necessary. After those 4 years in the military extra service is completely voluntary. Every man and women should know how to fight, should know our constitution by heart, and should realize that we have taken on a false sense of security and that America is vulnerable.
davedavedaveannoy1 1 year ago
People say that public education is better, because it is inexpensive. But if public education did not exist then the private schools would compete with each other for students and it would drive prices down significantly, canceling out the problem. In order to achieve parental trust they would try to compete by offering better learning programs and increase the knowledge children receive. Quite simply public education is...pointless, low quality, and ultimately counterproductive.
davedavedaveannoy1 1 year ago
This'd ensure that parents of only those children who're doing well academically will want take those non-interest-bearing education loans & money & resources would be better utilized for those who children who're excelling in studies while those parents whose children has an interest in a particular subject then they could spend that loan on a school that specializes in whatever vocational studies their children are interested in; this'd ensure maximization of potential of every child. [2]
lomocan 1 year ago
I'm ok with vouchers but they'd still do the same thing that public schools do since everyone'd want to put their child in best possible school which would drive the prices up & quality down since it's "free" gov money
I'd propose that gov offer non-interest-bearing education loans to be paid at a later date or when student starts earning which means that parents'd still look for a good school but won't necessarily go for the most expensive one since they'll be liable to repay the amount [1]
lomocan 1 year ago
Join the fight for true freedom, equality & justice for all. video started great but then went wrong. history & the bible is also a historic book, that teaches a lot of lessons for life. Schools must be financed by taxes, but no control by government. Religious schools better teach all religions & tolerance. Government takes advantage of children who's parents don't care about them. As all evil prays on the unprotected & weak. Start using your brains. Visit website MayaBell (dot com)
candygir7 1 year ago
Comment removed
candygir7 1 year ago
With the risk of becoming unpopular (not a stretch), the ideas in this video are pure crap. The success of an education system is not depending on how private or public is, but on the involvement of people in and around it, from teachers to parents. Is not an issue of "monopoly", but one of "care", "listening", "attention", and, of course, "parenting". We need more time with the kids, not more private schools.
ranjix 1 year ago
@ranjix
"success of an education system is not depending on how private or public is, but on the involvement of people in and around it"
Yup & video is merely arguing that privatization of schools will ensure that only those schools in which better people are involved will be able to perpetuate themselves; it'll ensure that best teachers in the teaching profession, discarding others & that too at the lowest possible price, public schools only raise costs while providing bad service
lomocan 1 year ago
@ranjix
"Is not an issue of "monopoly", but one of "care", "listening", "attention", and, of course, "parenting""
And how would public schools would do that? No, as apparent as it is, they CAN'T. BUT private schools would necessarily have to ensure that they employ teachers that "care","listen","pay attention" to children & their learning needs otherwise they'll go out of business, only those teachers & schools who serve the needs of parents & children would survive at the lowest cost
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan
What I was trying to say was that the problem is framed wrong. Labeling schooling a "monopoly" doesn't help, what would help would be better salaries for teachers (also more teachers with smaller groups); more attention to good students, not only bad ones; raising the difficulty of most disciplines, not dumbing them down; focusing on the "why", not "what"; losing the religion stuff altogether; dropping the idea of "low cost" when it comes to education, which should be most important
ranjix 1 year ago
@ranjix
Again, you're completely missing the obvious that throwing more money at teachers does NOT solve these problems, the problem is lack of competition & gov monoply IS an issue, you can pay $1 million to every teacher all you want, it's not going to solve anything until gov gets out of the education & let teachers & schools compete; then only the best schools & teachers that meet the demands of the parents/students will stay in business, others will go out of business.
lomocan 1 year ago