Slashdot Mirror

Which party is telling us what we can and cannot think? Which party is telling us what we can say and listen to?. Which party, rather than actually doing something to actuallly help people out of poverty is instead keeping them from that end state?

You misunderstand the notion of Republicanism in its purest sense (i.e. I'm talking about the conservative core of the Republican Party, not RINO's who's only goal is to grow government slighly more slowly than the other guys). It is intended to create an environment where equal opportunity exists for all; it does not guarantee equal outcomes for all, nor should it. That's been tried, and it has failed dismally where ever it's been tried.

Right, because we all know the Republican party stands for "Republicanism in its purist sense." Regardless of what a few members of the party may think, the party itself promises to keep the rich, rich, and uses their ultra-religious members to pull in the poor that have nothing left other than God.

Socialist systems are meant to give everyone equal opportunity, not this de facto caste system the Republican version of an economy puts in place.

Not that the Democrats are shining examples of saintly behavior either, but, I digress.

BTW not to crazy about him getting the peace prize either. But we all know its a farce anyway, so get over it.

Which party is telling us what we can and cannot think? Which party is telling us what we can say and listen to?. Which party, rather than actually doing something to actuallly help people out of poverty is instead keeping them from that end state?

You misunderstand the notion of Republicanism in its purest sense (i.e. I'm talking about the conservative core of the Republican Party, not RINO's who's only goal is to grow government slighly more slowly than the other guys). It is intended to create an environment where equal opportunity exists for all; it does not guarantee equal outcomes for all, nor should it. That's been tried, and it has failed dismally where ever it's been tried.

Yes, interesting stuff indeed...

Perhaps there really is more mobility in Europe. Maybe it's because the corporate state is more entrenched over here. I tend to think more and more that corporations who are the most successful in lobbying the state for benefits that their competitors do not get end up stifling that mobility. But the question of mobility doesn't solve everything either. It doesn't answer whether the poor here are better off than the poor there.

The health insurance situation is a very tough one here. I often point people to this article to begin understanding why health care has gotten so out of control. Again it has to do with an obvious lack of competition and the leading providers being entrenched in the state.

Perhaps rising education costs can also be attributed to much higher demand due to government subsidies. The idea of having free markets in education have been kicking around for some time as you will see here: http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/fm.htm

I'm convinced that education is in a such deplorable condition in this country precisely because of just how much the state has managed to get control of it. The homeschool movement and private vouchers seem to be the best weapon we have against the crushing weight of public education...

I have a hard time attributing the concentration of wealth to unregulated capitalism because we have hardly had that, despite popular belief. It seems easy to complain about how much wealth individuals have accumulated while not realizing the extent to which the state aggregates wealth to itself and gives it to politically well-connected contractors, defense orgs and the like. If corporations try to corrupt the state's simple regulation of contracts, perhaps the best thing to ultimately do is get rid of the state all together. If that's ultimately impossible, then we should try to approach that goal as much as we can. When it comes down to it, companies are beholden to consumers. If they don't provide services that people need they will cease to exist.

I would hope envy is the least important reason, because it seems to fall flat upon any examination. The common theme here seems to be that the power of the state is used by corporations to abuse people. The goal then, should be to limit state power as much as possible (if not completely) and let people decide which goods are most important to them. The more regulating power the state has, the more scales are tipped in favor of corporate interests. It seems foolish to say that a much larger state apparatus wouldn't be as easily corrupted as the one we have now.

BTW - I graduated from BYU in 2002. The mountains are probably the only thing I miss about Utah, hehe...

At present, educational choice is concentrated among wealthier families, who can opt for private schooling, and who can more easily relocate to areas with better quality schools. Poor inner city children, by contrast, are frequently stuck in dilapidated government school buildings and offered an abysmally poor education compared with their suburban counterparts. This is the baseline to which alternative forms of school governance must be compared.
          The question is thus, would vouchers or some other form of scholarships for low-income families reduce or enlarge the educational gap between rich and poor that exists in public schools.

we could remove the people in school who dont want to be in school, and give parents a choice as to where to send their kids. here is a review of an excellent book about it. http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/market.htm

I think the "problem" (if you or I call it that) that many people are facing is that liberal (massive) amounts of interactive and uncencsored media is significantly different than liberal (political belief).

My parents' generation has been subconciously indoctrinated on many issues, from nuclear power, to use of environmental resources, to validity of unions, to educational policies, etc. Now we know that nuclear plants put out less radiation into the atmosphere than coal, that logging and oil drilling are good policies for public land, that the unions don't always represent their constituents, that educational systems are failing and alternatives exist, etc. Only with the internet and bottom-up media distribution can the public hope to see differing philosophies and alternative policies... which is partly why the conservative (commercial) and libertarian (political) parties have fluxed so strongly towards the internet.

That's not surprising news, since the public schools quickly picked up the insane ``Look-say'' method, which teaches that words are ideograms, rather than that words are collections of sounds. This left children who didn't get phonics instruction at home out in the cold, and may have kept some children from learning to read who would have learned to read if left to themselves. Furthermore, the children were entirely dependent on their teachers, since Look-say provides no tools for learning on your own.

You can find some practical information on phonics and Look-say on my web site.

The official statistics show that white school enrolment had essentially no affect on white literacy, while black literacy tracked black school enrolment fairly closely. That is, whites learned to read whether they went to school or not, while blacks learned to read at school, only. That may be because white parents were able to provide their children with phonics instruction at home, while black parents more often couldn't.

If you want a good history of the public school movement, I'd suggest starting with Gatto's book Undergound History of American Education and Richard Mitchel's Graves of Academe. Market Education: the Unknown History is another excellent resource, but unfortunately isn't available online.

• Homeschool isn't a viable option. Not everybody has the time, much less the qualification, to teach their children. When both parents work full-time to bring in a decent amount of money, somebody else has to educate the kids.
• Private school isn't a choice for everyone. (Vouchers? I don't have a problem with my tax dollars funding public schools that are open to all. I DO have a problem with funding private/religious schools that are selective with my tax money. Paying for public schools, that's for the greater good. Paying for private schools is only paying for the good of those the school chooses to accept.)
• Charter schools are in most cases a joke. Here in Ohio, (suprise, suprise) they're all screwed up. There was one in Coloumbus that had no electricity and only a single Port-O-Potty. There was one in Cleveland that built a brand new, multi-million dollar facility...that never got finished becuase they ran out of state money.

So what do we replace the broken public schools with? We don't. We fix the damned things. The first step to fixing them is making the kids want to learn. The problem is that most of them are some of the laziest people you will ever see. Then there are the average kids that are brought down be the lazy ones. "If they don't give a shit, why should I?" Flawed logic? Definately. But it is what's going on inside their heads. Then there are the above-average kids. They are very bright, but get by being lazy because (1) they're good test takers and (2) lowered expectations from their teachers.

How to get them to want to learn and not be lazy is left as an exercise to the reader. You can bet your ass that the good teachers have been trying for years unsuccessfully. A good first step is getting the parents to care. If those kids know that bringing home a report card full of Ds and Fs will result in a very unpleasant experience, they'll be a little bit more motivated. (Which is why private schools don't have the problems public ones do -- the parents care enough to spend the cash to send them to private school, and they're gonna care enough to make sure that their money is "well-spent," meaning the kids bring home good grades.

What we really need to do is stop looking at schools as big business. Public schools do not exist solely to sell routers and T1s to. It's a side note to what they are there for -- providing a quality education. And DAMNIT, stop taking their money away to pay for these novelty solutions that DON'T WORK!

Mitchell [a charter school principal] worries that his school will be judged not by the citizens it nurtures, but by the bottom-line performance standards it meets. "It's not a business at all," he continues. "We deal with human beings, not products."

Funny, because that's what public schools have been saying all along.

You can argue Open Source and not lose. It can be like the argument for Democratic, Free Market, Open Societies; these are things that can not be easily contended, when debated in a forum open to Peer Review. It is difficult to overcome the fact that even Microsoft has gone Open Source with its largest clients. Microsoft Operating Systems ARE Open Source to NATO, the Chinese, British, & Russian governments; governments demand it -- there are reasons for this.

Trust & Security:
The principle of Trust Services is based on Peer Review. You cannot be Secure without Trust in your Systems. Peer Review is an incarnation of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. Without Peer Review, what kind of Government do you have ? What kind of System do you have ?

Flexibility:
Milton Friedman's theories on "The Role of Government in Education" & how to introduce flexibility into school systems, could be employed to solidify the point that there is merit in Systems designed with Flexibility in mind. The fact that Open Source solutions run across all levels of computing, from PDA to Supercluster, should be sufficient to quell any questions regarding its Flexibility. [ref: YOPY & SGI Altix 3000]

Support:
Peer Review & Peer Support are very similar.

Cost:
IT'S FREE !!!

You may ask your foe: Why would you want to implement a System model based on central planning & subject yourself to countless regulations, restrictions & licenses ? [ref: MS EULA & how it changes] What would Hayek say about that ? Is that not "The Road to Serfdom" ?

This may also be a good time to reference Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society".