Obama Presidency

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I'm a bear of a bearer so I'm happy to bear with you.  Well of course people wouldn't like it. People wouldn't like any change I would like to see made. They would like the effects the changes would bring, but they would never agree to them.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I agree that overhauls can't be made overnight. However, the change I'm suggesting could mostly be implemented overnight.

But not to the majority's satisfaction.  At least I don't think. Most people would take issue to even the smallest amount of change without being shown first how and why the change(s) would be a good idea. That's all I mean when I speak about gradual change. 

Anyway, if I truly did simply fail to address what you were saying earlier, I am sorry. Wasn't intentional. But I tend to miss the point a lot, so hopefully you'll bear with me if that should happen again. 

It's the logic of his position.

The T wrote: What Llama describes might be a two-sided sword... Yes, we encourage the child to follow his interests. But maybe we're also teaching him that he'll always be able to do what he wants (a total falsehood in real life), and maybe, also, the child will not show any interests at all but play and play and have fun. Pure pleasure.  A more structured approach to home-schooling might sound much better... Llama's case might have worked, but I can't say it will work most of the times.

I've been away from my computer for a few days, so I'm sorry about replying to this so late.

First, I was never "able to do whatever I want." There was structure and discipline in my family life, just not very much in my schooling. Second, I do not believe that any child who is not developmentally disabled will not be interested in learning. Children's brains are giant sponges that are designed to absorb information. They are amazing learning machines. It's what they're built to do. The only cases I've ever seen of home schoolers being apathetic towards learning are ones who came to it after already experiencing compulsory education, where learning is treated like work instead of a natural by product of life. Of course they were soured on the experience.

Third, I agree with you that some childen might require more structure than I did. As I said before, I do not recommend my method in every case. I should add that I and my sister were always given the option of attending public school. Every year or so, my parents would have a conversation with us about what we wanted to do regarding our education going forward. I think as long as there is honest communication between parent and child a lot of potential problems never even arise.

I don't particularly enjoy movies. 

Slartibartfast wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: You appear to have missed every point I tried to make.  What was the middle part?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: You appear to have missed every point I tried to make.

What was the middle part?

Edited by Slartibartfast - September 11 2010 at 22:05

JLocke wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: JLocke wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: JLocke wrote:   Of course people were able to educate their children without schools in the past. And they are still able to do the same today, provided they would truly put the time and effort into it. But so many people don't want to do that these days. What part of that is so outrageous? Young parents especially have all too often shown just how uninterested they can potentially be in their child's education. You're telling me the amount of parents who could be competent teachers for their kids hasn't shrunk considerably in the past 50 to 100 years? I sure think it has. So while I know for a fact that schooling outside of government bounds is not impossible (I was home-schooled, and I think I turned out okay. Though, you may disagree), it's also not guaranteed to work for everyone in every situation.  I guess I'm ultimately saying that I think there is room for variety in the manner in which we educate our young. And what works for one person may not work for another. So how can I with a sound conscience recommend home-schooling as the preferred method to other people? That's all I ever said: I cannot recommend it. Other people will have to make that call for themselves.  I'm a libertarian as well, but I'm also a humanitarian, and I care very much about others. Education is a very important part of a person reaching his or her full potential, and until a better solution can be offered, I won't be voting to toss out public schools anytime soon. Even if it IS yet another government screw-up in many ways.  Public schooling is not guaranteed to work for everyone in every situation. What's the point of mentioning that? People are uninterested in their child's schooling now mostly because the state has claimed the rights to it. Parents don't really have a choice in the matter, so why would they take a great interest? Ultimately anyway, a child's education are most dependent on two things: the parents and the children. This will happen regardless of whether they attend a school or not. I've never recommended home schooling over anything else.  I don't know how you reconcile your stance as a libertarian with positions you've expressed in here. I also care about people. Caring about people, and recognizing that a service should be provided is not the same as advocating that the government provide it. Need doesn't justify force. I recognize the need for education. I often tutor struggling people for a greatly reduced price or even for free. I do not however support government theft to prop up schools for people.  First of all, I consider myself a libertarian. I couldn't care less what you or anybody else would rather consider me as. Frankly, I think you're a bit of a jerk, but then again, I've been called the same by others. So it's all in perception. If you want to think of me as a pseudo-libertarian or as an idiot who doesn't really know what a libertarian is, go ahead and think it.  Secondly, and most importantly . . . when did I ever say that I was advocating for the government's side of this at all? What I was trying to say is that it's an option available to people, and for many these days, it's the only option. I'm not anti-government. I'm small government. But the fact that government-funded schools are the norm right now simply means that we should all push to change that somehow. But while these schools remain the most practical option for people, I'm not going to start recommending one format of education over the other, because it wouldn't be realistic. If ever there was a time the government was justified in stepping in and providing, public education for all is certainly it. I'm not saying it's the way I would prefer things to go, but I certainly understand the reasoning behind the public school system and why it is so invaluable to many people, especially with very little money.  I do understand a good deal of what you are saying. I just don't agree with all of it. But feel free to keep explaining your position to me. It's very possible I'm just not smart enough to understand it all at once. Give me a practical alternative to public education, and I'm more than willing to listen. I'm not tickled pink at the fact that the government is the only means of education for many people, but I have yet to hear you propose something more effective, just as inexpensive, and practical for the busy parent. Not saying it doesn't exist, all I'm saying is I would like for our conversation to move in that direction, if you feel so inclined to elaborate.  You can consider yourself whatever you want, but you and I clearly have philosophically opposed beliefs.  I'm not advocating any particular kind of schooling; I'm advocating for the removal of government provided schools. Why is the government justified in stepping into education? We always here how a well educated populace is essential to a Republic. We allow the state to force this education upon us, and we don't see any conflict of interest.  I don't see much for me to elaborate. The alternative option would be one were parents chose what is most appropriate for their children. Hopefully, and probably, schools would start to be established for low income people as a means of charity. The market would be free to operate with regards to education. People could choose if education is appropriate for their child. The government could stop brainwashing kids, teaching them that they must go and unload a fortune on a college education. What do you want in terms of elaboration? Well, what you just described (as vague as it may have been) will suffice, I suppose. I guess I'm more concerned with what the alternative would be than anything else. If we can establish an affordable alternative to government schools, believe me, I'll be all for it. But it would have to be something practical;something most citizens could agree and vote on, and not just a system where only anti-tax libertarians are happy about it. There would be nothing democratic or fair about that scenario, either. As cool as it would be for a more responsible system to be in place, ''hopefully and probably'' isn't good enough for a country as concerned with equal opportunities as ours. There would have to be a ''definitely'' before I would completely take your stance on this.

Equality 7-2521 wrote:   It's irrelevant if they've done good.

Oh, of course. A fellow human being making something of herself isn't worth celebrating at all.

We have to also take account of its failures, cost, and how good the success stories would have been without it. Would the success stories have been successful without a public school?

In some cases, absolutely not. Some kids make their way strictly on what they learn from their public education. Of course, it's not every case, and if anything a more efficient system would offer even more success stories, not less. But all I'm saying is that unless a better system can be realistically proposed, I'm not going to condemn public schools. Nothing is ready to take its place just yet. When and if that day comes, I'll be on your side completely. On this issue, at least. 

How much money are these successes worth? What about the failures? How many kids could have been more successful in a different environment?

Well, I think my previous paragraph addresses tis question, as well. I'm not denying how much better it could potentially be, but nobody has convinced me such a perfect alternative exists, yet. Present that to me first, then we'll be having a discussion.

Part of this system of accreditation over skills is directly related to the public schooling system. To use the outgrowth of a government funded schooling system as a justification of its existence seems stupid.

I wasn't justifying it, I was merely pointing out that it exists. I'm not going to suggest a parent school his child without accredited assistance in a society like today's. Like it or not, you have to play by their rules if you want to make a living at a legitimate career. Do I think a piece of paper is more important than actually being able to prove your credentials legitimately? No. Just like I don't think a piece of paper should dictate whether or not you and your spouse get joint benefits.

But I don't aspire to be anything that a fancy university would necessitate. I don't aspire to get married. But plenty of people wish to do both, and just because I find the concept behind such things a little backwards from my personal perspective, I'm not going to push for it all to be wiped off the face of the earth with no superior alternatives already on the table.

Edited by JLocke - September 11 2010 at 19:17

When libertarians say taxes are bad because that money could work better in each person's hands and that will move the economy, I can see a point. That can start a conversation. People might be ready to agree given good arguments.