The Case for Public Education - Part 2 in the Ed. Series

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by 7960

At first I was like but then the more I thought about it the more sense it made. This family was going to ask "the town" (meaning "everyone else") to hire a nurse and at least two extra aides and all the other shit that goes along with putting a severely handicapped kid in public school. It's not fair.

Anyway, sorry to get off topic a bit.

How is this off topic at all?

This is about the most perfect example of the immorality of forcing people to finance the education of other peoples' children.


Also....

Joe and Mary Strawmon realized that despite their deep wish to do so, they were not financially able to have children. Instead, they lived with their regret and managed to live financially responsible lives.

What makes the unemployed unwed mother down the street and her deadbeat ex-boyfriend entitled to take Joe and Mary Strawmon's hard earned money to pay for their own spawns education?

[7960]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

How is this off topic at all?

This is about the most perfect example of the immorality of forcing people to finance the education of other peoples' children.

What's immoral is using 19th century examples of home schooling to "prove" that we'd be fine today if everyone educated their kids at home. We don't live in an agrarian society any more so unless you want everyone to go back to farming their own food your ideas are about 100 years out of date.

Joe and Mary Strawmon realized that despite their deep wish to do so, they were not financially able to have children. Instead, they lived with their regret and managed to live financially responsible lives.

What makes the unemployed unwed mother down the street and her deadbeat ex-boyfriend entitled to take Joe and Mary Strawmon's hard earned money to pay for their own spawns education?

Because everyone benefits from educating our youth.

I really wish you'd stop replying to my posts. If I don't point out what's wrong in your posts then it's almost a tacit agreement, and there's very little I agree with you on.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Basically it's saying if your poor, and have enough money for a healthy child, you must abort your planned baby if the doctor tells you he might be handicapped, because the community won't help you

that's fucking cruel and immoral on every conservative and liberal's compass...libertarians...i know several who'd say 'fuck it, i want low taxes'

Wait a sec! Who asked the poor people to have kids? Who says that the community wouldn't help?

First, I can tell you for a FACT that 'the community' is very generous with their help. Look into the Shriner's Hospital and Ronald McDonald house. People take care of each others needs despite the claims of state worshipers.

As far as providing non-essentials like financing education, why should it be my responsibility to pay to have a third party educate your kid? Why can't you do it yourself if you can't afford your share of providing third party education?

The one-room schoolhouses were very effective and very efficient, providing modest families a low cost service to educate their children while giving the parents COMPLETE control of their children's schooling. The teacher was directly accountable to the parents, and the parents were directly responsible for approving all materials and policies.

Why do you think that people are no longer capable of taking responsibility for their children's education?

[bheld]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Wait a sec! Who asked the poor people to have kids? Who says that the community wouldn't help?

First, I can tell you for a FACT that 'the community' is very generous with their help. Look into the Shriner's Hospital and Ronald McDonald house. People take care of each others needs despite the claims of state worshipers.

As far as providing non-essentials like financing education, why should it be my responsibility to pay to have a third party educate your kid? Why can't you do it yourself if you can't afford your share of providing third party education?

The one-room schoolhouses were very effective and very efficient, providing modest families a low cost service to educate their children while giving the parents COMPLETE control of their children's schooling. The teacher was directly accountable to the parents, and the parents were directly responsible for approving all materials and policies.

Why do you think that people are no longer capable of taking responsibility for their children's education?

Go to the first thread if you want to debate this. This thread is operating under the assumption that publicly-funded education is a necessity. That's not up for debate here.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by 7960

What's immoral is using 19th century examples of home schooling to "prove" that we'd be fine today if everyone educated their kids at home. We don't live in an agrarian society any more so unless you want everyone to go back to farming their own food your ideas are about 100 years out of date.

There is a difference between home schooling and community schooling, and what does this have to do with an agrarian society!? The problem with home schooling today is that most families have to have both parents work to make ends meet.

[/quote]Because everyone benefits from educating our youth.[/quote]

But they are not 'our' youth!? But my neighbors kid doesn't pay for my retirement. Children are not community property. The only benefit I can think of in public education is in keeping delinquents off of the streets... but that is a 'day prison' function, not an educational one.

I really wish you'd stop replying to my posts. If I don't point out what's wrong in your posts then it's almost a tacit agreement, and there's very little I agree with you on.

Izums scared? Does the mean man make you feel bad? Does it cause you pain to have your beliefs challenged?

Seeking only to hear your own beliefs echoed back at you is a pretty pathetic state to be in. It is something that public schools are quite good at instilling in the proles.

Don't worry Dilbert, I won't bother that tangled mess of contradictions you call a mind any longer.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by bheld

Go to the first thread if you want to debate this. This thread is operating under the assumption that publicly-funded education is a necessity. That's not up for debate here.

You framed this thread as a public vs. private model discussion.

Public, as it has come to be understood, means government owned, so I am going by that definition for the purposes of this discussion.

Private, meaning provided by members of the public.

Private school can then be a school whose funding, from physical plant to hiring educators, is provided by a 'community' of people.

A neighborhood funded, or village funded school that is not under government administration, does not have to be 'for profit'.

What is wrong with a group of families getting together to plan, fund and execute a school system of their own design. Teachers could then be interviewed by the parents before hire and be directly accountable to the parents for the delivery of services and day-to-day operations.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Private school can then be a school whose funding, from physical plant to hiring educators, is provided by a 'community' of people.

Because the community value of education is so obvious. It has nothing to do with some "right" to take money from some people to educate the children of others. The best government is where a good solid majority can see the benefit. A "community" who can see the benefit and not just taxpayers paying for another round of failure.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by bheld

In the first thread most of us agreed that society has a big role to play in the education of our children.

Hmm, I guess most of the people on this board must be socialists then. Interesting this forum is called "The Liberty Lounge".

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Hmm, I guess most of the people on this board must be socialists then. Interesting this forum is called "The Liberty Lounge".

Most of the world is socialist by your definition. Reality is sort of biased against your views like that.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by bheld

Most of the world is socialist by your definition. Reality is sort of biased against your views like that.

I never said people are socialist, just that government provided education is. Plus it is not my definition, it is the definition as contained in the dictionary.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

I never said people are socialist, just that government provided education is. Plus it is not my definition, it is the definition as contained in the dictionary.

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Hmm, I guess most of the people on this board must be socialists then. Interesting this forum is called "The Liberty Lounge".

Looks like calling people socialist to me. Your dictionary must be off, because public education doesn't have anything to do with the abolition of private ownership of means of production.

[7960]

Originally Posted by bheld

Your dictionary must be off, because public education doesn't have anything to do with the abolition of private ownership of means of production.

I've tried this. Don't bother.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by bheld

Looks like calling people socialist to me.

Hmm, well, I guess I cannot really call everyone socialists just for believing in one socialist program.

Originally Posted by bheld

Your dictionary must be off, because public education doesn't have anything to do with the abolition of private ownership of means of production.

If the state owns schools, and provides education, how is that the state not owning the means of production?

Even the USSR allowed farmers to own some of their land and sell it privately. It was still socialism.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Because the community value of education is so obvious....The best government is where a good solid majority can see the benefit.

Saying something is obvious is not proof of anything. I understand that you have a collectivist viewpoint.... that is obvious.

I have not seen a clear demonstration of how taxpayer funded education of MANY of the people I have grown up with his benefited society in any DIRECT way.

It kept them off of the street, which may have saved lives and prevented property damage, but putting them in a day prison would have accomplished the same thing without the pretense of educating them in the conventional sense.

They would have been FAR FAR better off in apprenticeships, and the economy would have been served well by doing so.

[7960]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Saying something is obvious is not proof of anything. I understand that you have a collectivist viewpoint.... that is obvious.

I have not seen a clear demonstration of how taxpayer funded education of MANY of the people I have grown up with his benefited society in any DIRECT way.

fuckin-a.......go after him for an observation and then throw one in yourself whydoncha?

Saying "I have not seen a clear demonstration" is not proof of anything either.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by 7960

fuckin-a.......go after him for an observation and then throw one in yourself whydoncha?

Saying "I have not seen a clear demonstration" is not proof of anything either.

Yes. You are correct. That was the point of throwing in my own observation.

BTW... I failed to see that this was part 2 in the series.... or I would not have responded.