What's the purpose of education? Part 1 in a continuing series.

[Ardentfrost]

I don't know how it's not socialism since it's the government owning the means of a product (the product being an educated child).

But it's a piece of socialism that most libertarians aren't even going to fight that much. I want to see a better system in place, but it's pointless to push for all forms of government to abandon it. I'd like the federal government out of it, and I'd like the local governments to support something like a voucher system to promote more competition and parents to take a more active role in their child's development... I'd like more freedom in the education itself, so that kids who want to be a car mechanic aren't forced to waste time taking trig or 1800's English literature (unless they want to, of course).

But as far as going all capitalist on it and going out there making a big fuss that gov't needs to be 100% out of the education process... it's just a waste of time. I think the free market could handle it, but there are plenty more worrisome things happening to make a huge deal out of that.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't know how it's not socialism since it's the government owning the means of a product (the product being an educated child).

if you want to define socialism that way then you're right

but an educated child is not a product...or at least not in the way socialism is traditionally talked about. Public education is a service...if you want to say educated kids are a product of that service then you're changing the definition and saying "I'm right because it's my definition."

I'd like more freedom in the education itself, so that kids who want to be a car mechanic aren't forced to waste time taking trig or 1800's English literature (unless they want to, of course).

My kid wants to be a cowboy. I guess he should be allowed to only take roping and riding classes.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by bheld

The problem is that not all parents are capable of making that decision for their children.

So do you have proof of this? Also, do you have proof that putting it in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats is better?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by bheld

Assume away, it doesn't change this argument. I don't really see how an argument I use in favor of public education could be used to promote the idea of nationalized potato chip production, but whatever.

Ok, well, go ahead and try. So, why do you think the state should provide education?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't know how it's not socialism since it's the government owning the means of a product (the product being an educated child).

But it's a piece of socialism that most libertarians aren't even going to fight that much. I want to see a better system in place, but it's pointless to push for all forms of government to abandon it. I'd like the federal government out of it, and I'd like the local governments to support something like a voucher system to promote more competition and parents to take a more active role in their child's development... I'd like more freedom in the education itself, so that kids who want to be a car mechanic aren't forced to waste time taking trig or 1800's English literature (unless they want to, of course).

But as far as going all capitalist on it and going out there making a big fuss that gov't needs to be 100% out of the education process... it's just a waste of time. I think the free market could handle it, but there are plenty more worrisome things happening to make a huge deal out of that.

No, education is the crux of all of our problems. It is the indoctrination tool for the globalist agenda.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

My kid wants to be a cowboy. I guess he should be allowed to only take roping and riding classes.

As a parent, that should be your decision.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Ok, well, go ahead and try. So, why do you think the state should have control of education?

The state does not have control of education. You are free to educate your child in any school you choose or even at home if you wish.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

No, education is the crux of all of our problems. It is the indoctrination tool for the globalist agenda.

So do you have proof of this?

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

As a parent, that should be your decision.

asked and answered:

So in short, let's face it. Public education's goal is to keep stupid people from dooming their kids to be stupid, too.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

The state does not have control of education. You are free to educate your child in any school you choose or even at home if you wish.

I am sorry. I meant to ask, "why do you think the state should provide education?" I have re-phrased it in my other post as well.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

So do you have proof of this?

I am not talking about a conspiracy theory. What I am saying is that most people think globalism is the way to go, and so that is what ends up getting taught in schools. And since schools do not encourage free thought, but the exact opposite, people come out of education thinking globalism is the best way to go.

bheld is a teacher, and I am sure he believes a strong central government is the way to go, and probably pushes that philosophy in his classes. I wouldn't doubt that he thinks a strong world central government would be even better.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

asked and answered:

So in short, let's face it. Public education's goal is to keep stupid people from dooming their kids to be stupid, too.

Then you must not know anything about the current education system. It has been shown that the kids that "succeed", generally are those that have their parents support. Those that "fail" or drop out are generally those that do not. So if this is the goal of public education, than it fails miserably. The poorest neighborhoods have the highest drop out rates.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

I am not talking about a conspiracy theory. What I am saying is that most people think globalism is the way to go, and so that is what ends up getting taught in schools.

So do you have proof of this?

And since schools do not encourage free thought, but the exact opposite,

So do you have proof of this?

people come out of education thinking globalism is the best way to go.

So do you have proof of this?

Yes, I'm trolling your line but it's because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. "Most people" don't think globalism is the way to go. "Most people" recognize that we rely on other countries just like they rely on us so "most people" recognize it's probably a good idea to have some clue about the rest of the globe.

Maybe you had a teacher who didn't encourage free thought, or maybe you're not capable of it so you came away believing that, but you're wrong. Schools do encourage free thought.

bheld is a teacher, and I am sure he believes a strong central government is the way to go, and probably pushes that philosophy in his classes. I wouldn't doubt that he thinks a strong world central government would be even better.

I love how you assign labels and shit to people without having any idea if you're right or wrong. All you know is he disagrees with you about one thing so all the sudden he must disagree with you about everything and he wants a world government and the UN should be our police and drug companies want to keep us sick and the EPA is the reason we still have pollution.

Go you

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Then you must not know anything about the current education system.

You keep believing that.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

So do you have proof of this?

Ron Paul is the only non-globalist candidate, and hardly anyone is voting for him.

Originally Posted by 7960

So do you have proof of this?

All k-12 schools as far as I know just teach kids to parrot back what they are told.

Originally Posted by 7960

So do you have proof of this?

I am pretty sure all Democrats think government is the solution. My guess is most Republicans do too, since both parties are increasing the size of government, not reducing it.

And no, I did not assign a label to him. It is just my guess, and he is obviously free to refute it.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

You keep believing that.

I will until you prove me wrong.

[Spideynw]

Would it make you happier if I said most people probably believe big government is the answer instead of globalism?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

if you want to define socialism that way then you're right

but an educated child is not a product...or at least not in the way socialism is traditionally talked about. Public education is a service...if you want to say educated kids are a product of that service then you're changing the definition and saying "I'm right because it's my definition."

An educated child is most certainly the product, despite considering the education a service or not. That is exactly how colleges view their systems. And the business plan is to increase the value of the product so they can charge more for the service.

Service is not exempt from a socialist definition. And it's not some definition I made up out of my head, it's the definition for the term. Socialism is collective control of the means for production. Collective, in this case, is through our various levels of governments.

I dunno what other way to define it... it's exactly how Marx defined it.

My kid wants to be a cowboy. I guess he should be allowed to only take roping and riding classes.

Sorry, I forgot that people like to bring up how young children can't make decisions for themselves, which is so obvious I didn't feel it was needed to outline that specifically.

Since I've never known a 6 year old to take trig or 1800's English Literature, let me further qualify the statement by saying a student nearing graduation (be it high school or a bit earlier, but certainly not 1st grade).

And certainly there should be some sort of basic understanding of the world around them that should be the goal of those early years. But to better optimize the system, do 17 year olds need to be taking Human Phisiology or whatever other classes seniors in HS take if they plan on not going to college, but to do more blue collar work? If they had the option to spend those last few years learning their trade at a school known for producing a good product giving them the opportunity to make more money straight from school, wouldn't that be better for the teenager and society as a whole?

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

I will until you prove me wrong.

You aren't willing to accept anything other than what you already believe. So I'll use what I learned at my substandard public re-education indoctrination facility and reason that it's no use trying.