US Government- Expand or Decrease?

Fewer educated people but with a higher degree of education would make things much worse. Just think about how many jobs require a basic grasp of English and math. What would these people who never had any education at all do with their lives? Like it or not, society is obligated to support them in some way.

Edited by Henry Plainview - May 14 2009 at 01:33

The T wrote: hawkcwg wrote: I like how was done in ancient times, children would voluntarily meet up and listen to philosophers speak and really take in the subjects they were interested in.   Do you really want American youngster to be even more stupid than they're right now? If schools were made voluntary, most youngster will prefer to try to get some "quick cash money" instead of trying to better themselves and actually making much more money in the future... (as money is the only thing that matters for some).   American high-schools are so atrocious... Now make them voluntary... Damn....   About the question, I want the government out of my life in private issues as abortion (allow it), drugs (legalize them), gay marriage (allow it) and so.... I want government in issues like economy regulation, healthcare system, workers rights, etc....   Gun control is the only so-called private issue where I want the government to step in and impose it. Actually, it's not private: it c eases to be private when you can use your gun to kill...

MovingPictures07 wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: hawkcwg wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: hawkcwg wrote: I think the central government is a big mess, and a lot of money is being thrown around, and i really don't like the fact that it is our money being put into schools, prisons and abortion clinics. I think those kinds of things should be donation, and volunteer and not affiliated with the central government. I think the public school systems would also be a lot better if the students could volunteer to go to school, i mean you set yourself up for disaster when you stick kids in a prison and tell them they can't talk to eachother haha. And I was just reading an article about Obama wanting to make the school day even longer and even have it on Saturdays. Kids don't learn anything in highschool, they learn to be "obiedent maybe, and but all they do is cram for tests and then forget all the information. Then they are put into social caste systems and try and not escape from reality with drugs and other resources. I've been in favor of a complete redo of the schooling system for a while now; and I think if we trimmed ALL the crap in the government and truly opened up schools to compete in the private sector: not only would schools be more pressured to hire better teachers and meet better standards (or they would be out of business in no time), but tuition would be cheaper and parents could send children to schools that they personally felt met their standards at a much more affordable price. I like how was done in ancient times, children would voluntarily meet up and listen to philosophers speak and really take in the subjects they were interested in. Problem is that education is vital in reducing crime rates, increasing prosperity and giving people any sort of potential equal opportunities. So, by that system, essentially, poor people would be screwed. That said, I'm just finishing a privately education myself, but you can see that the school is obviously more interested in attracting customers than it is in genuinely benefitting its pupils - which really isn't the way it should be... its benefits seem to me to derive from concentrating a number of relatively smart pupils who have a lot of parental expectations on them into a small space. Additionally, this school has a mostly unlimited power over pupils, I can't even have long hair, or wear a black shirt, or something else which is a liberty which shouldn't be effectively lost to a private corporation for no reason at all other than the chap in charge thinks it looks neater and possibly thinks potential parents would be put off by all the 2 or 3 hippies there would be (just an edit about the 'you're free to leave' argument... well, yes, but it's damn awkward to do so if you're in the middle of an exam-driven year, it's inconvenient if your parents working days are based around getting you to school and you have a sibling there, too, and more importantly, these are guaranteed liberties... it'd be like saying 'don't get ill if you want free healthcare' or 'you have the right to not get a job at that place if you're a woman and you care about equal pay rates'). In short, I'd prefer a good state-driven education system. Unfortunately, I think the government are too nervous about specific incidents and too press-driven these days to try to make general improvements. The problem with the philosophers thing is a) it was pretty expensive, there's a Plato dialogue I was reading the other day which at least suggests this. b) there's no consistency, and I don't think you can really qualify someone without consistency, and I think private companies need qualifications to help them judge candidates. Honestly, I don't think there is any perfect schooling system possible because people are too corrupt to pull it off, regardless of the format. The U.S. public schooling system, however, is a complete disaster---and the only way we can even begin to fix it is by completely re-structuring it instead of throwing money at public schools who are controlled by idiots who don't know how to effectively spend money. Unfortunately, sometimes it comes down to: who do you want---a completely corrupt government or just alot of corrupt people in the private sector? Either the system that I proposed in theory would be more effective, or you could have some state control in the way of establishing institutions for schooling similarly to the complete private sector... only with a schooling system more like Belgium's where each school costs $3,000 a year (which is pretty affordable, especially if the government isn't taxing you as much and more money is kept in the hands of people) and you can pick which one to go because there are however many schools within a certain area and they would be driven to provide a better education or else they would be forced to lose revenue. If parents didn't feel comfortable (or students) in the education, then they could very easily move the child somewhere else the following semester or what not. The problem is that people aren't educated enough to make smart decisions. We don't need a government showing or telling people what to do; we need people to make their own decisions and carve their own paths. There are plenty of job opportunities (or usually, unless the economy is made corrupt as it has been lately by corrupt government officials and corrupt organizations, but that's for another topic) in a completely free market economy for people to make money off of nearly anything. It's the fact that people piss their money away and AREN'T held responsible for the consequences that we run into problems... because the government just bails you out if you don't make smart business decisions. In that way, my views on education are still not perfect. The one thing I know for sure though is that we need a better system that will truly be effective and at the same time not lose any of the freedoms of people to get a good education. I think that schools can't do everything for the person though, and the person has to show initiative in learning if the person wants to earn the most out of education---and that's the same in ANY situation. You can always go to the library or learn on the internet nowadays too. There are infinite possibilities; people are just misinformed and lazy.

I agree 100% this is my view as well.

MovingPictures07 wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: Again, the schools are then competing for parental opinion, not for more learning or better results. I think education is one of the things that should always be run with an altruistic aim. But wouldn't an informed parent want their child to be learning? I know most do. So if there is more learning evidenced by the child, the parents will be happy and continue to support the school. Again though, I said no plan was perfect and my views on education aren't actually as solid as many other issues I care about. I'm not entirely sure what would be best for it, because I think education is very important. The main problem now is that our education isn't educating people. It's a waste of time and money on both parts. Problem is- what the parents see, primarily, is what the school presents to them, and the schools tend to input resources into things that look impressive more than the things which matter... essentially, the students do all the learning anyway, and get grades roughly correlative to what they'd get anywhere else - at least, the resources available to them are hardly better. Mine, in particular, is ruthless about haircuts, but, frankly, hardly cares about bullying or plain lack of discipline (it's gotten to the point that the idiots in one class of fifteen year olds or so have on a couple of occasions tried to stop the school's chess team taking the school's chess sets from their room to use for chess training, which is offered by the school complete with an instructor brought in, and, frankly, that's an obvious problem in discipline, but because it's difficult to manage/doesn't appear to the outside world, it has no effect on 'sales' and nothing is done about it)... also, I think changing schools is pretty difficult for most people already, (have to admit, I'm sort of sketchy about how the American qualification system works, but if you're doing modules which stretch over the term boundaries, relocating tends to put you at a disadvantage), and when you've prepaid a term/semester, financially discouraging. Even more so if the schools which are obviously better at teaching will be at a higher price range. And I don't really know about the second bit, but I think education will always serve, in part, to train people to be able to take the sh*t a bit better and get on with others... education is important, but I don't think it's the only aim of schooling. I'm non-American, so I see this only from a political philosophy perspective, I admit. Problem is that what I think you'd see from voluntary education is a lot of people dropping out without thought about the long term, and I think general education is pretty important. Well, I disagree there. I think we can achieve more as a united people with a socially-driven government than we can as separate individuals. And I think that the problem is that without a regulatory government, A) individuals get screwed through no fault of their own sometimes, and B) you need a government to protect people's rights, and prevent exploitation. I disagree here, and it again comes down to personal beliefs and observations. I think government and regulating bodies restrict freedoms of individuals to truly live and be free of being screwed. I honestly have seen the effects of government screwing people over more than individuals screwing other individuals over. I'm not for total anarchy, but I think a legal system that actually protects people's rights is needed. The one we have right now is ridiculous, allowing for ridiculous lawsuits that don't make any sense (like the ones you hear all the time---the lady suing McDonalds for thousands of dollars because she spilled coffee on her lap while driving). I think those are cases in point that regulations can be just as corrupt, if not more--than if reason and common sense are crowned instead of the good will of the collective. People who choose to be stupid and don't educate themselves and don't care about anyone else should not be put on the same level as an honest, hard-working individual who never steps on anyone to get what he wants. I think a united force doesn't work; the latter people get screwed in favor of helping the former. About the McDonald's case... it's not as ridiculous at it sounds (+she wasn't driving at the time, I think... arguably makes it even more stupid, though). She had third degree burns because McDonalds were heating up the coffee to the point where it would, when served, be too hot to be drinkable, and the overwhelming majority of the awards were either punitive damages against McDonalds or covering legal costs. Plus, lots of it was taken away on the appeal. I also think the papers tend to leap on the 2 or 3 ridiculous cases a year rather than the number of decent ones. Can a child, aged 11 or whenever it is they enter secondary schooling, be considered capable of 'choosing' at what level they can educate themselves, or even really appreciate the value of education? Again, I think it'd create an inequality of opportunity... I'm not someone who's for the whole everyone-must-be-completely-equal thing, but I think you need to give people at least the possibility of achieving something no matter how poor their parents are, or whether their parents care about their education. The free market intrudes into all aspects of many lives, I think, and occasionally you have to sacrifice the principles of the free market - that you suffer for getting something wrong - in order to protect the general electorate from something much worse. I think the problem here was that greed and competition was allowed to get in the way of the main idea... making money to support yourself securely. Problem is, I think, these companies haven't learned from that and are still trying to milk the 'bailout' system. I reckon what we need to do is try to make people think about the purpose of work a bit more. Well... this is a whole topic in of itself, but the financial bailout system is entirely corrupt---I agree. The companies heedlessly thought they could blindly make decisions and then expect people to bail them out, and they shouldn't. They should file for bankruptcy, restructure, and then successfully rebuild their companies on the basis of honesty and diligence. It's no coincidence that Ford, who didn't take any bailout money, sold more cars than Toyota last month---whereas GM and Chrysler will suffer. I could expand here infinitely, but that's for another discussion. I can understand where you're coming from on this, and yeah, it's for another discussion. I don't think that those companies ever expected to need to be bailed out, though. They just lost touch with the security aspect of making money. 'In that way, my views on education are still not perfect. The one thing I know for sure though is that we need a better system that will truly be effective and at the same time not lose any of the freedoms of people to get a good education. I think that schools can't do everything for the person though, and the person has to show initiative in learning if the person wants to earn the most out of education---and that's the same in ANY situation. You can always go to the library or learn on the internet nowadays too. There are infinite possibilities; people are just misinformed and lazy.' Great paragraph , I think that what countries need to establish from an educational point of view is a reasonable balance between qualifications and encouraging learning. Also, exams are fairly silly as a primary yardstick. Well, we agree here.

Hey, it happens sometimes. And Tangerine Dream rule.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Honestly, I don't think there is any perfect schooling system possible because people are too corrupt to pull it off, regardless of the format.

Mm... possibly, I like to try to have faith in people nowadays, though. It's trying sometimes, but I think we're setting humanity up for failure if we say people are too bad anyway. Yeah, I agree there's no perfect option.

'The U.S. public schooling system, however, is a complete disaster---and the only way we can even begin to fix it is by completely re-structuring it instead of throwing money at public schools who are controlled by idiots who don't know how to effectively spend money. Unfortunately, sometimes it comes down to: who do you want---a completely corrupt government or just alot of corrupt people in the private sector?'

The thing is, the people in the private sector are by definition in it for the money... with private schools, people spend money by definition as an investment in their own future... governments are pretty feeble nowadays, but I think they'd at least try to get the money spent in accordance with an ideal and for the better of the people.

'Either the system that I proposed in theory would be more effective, or you could have some state control in the way of establishing institutions for schooling similarly to the complete private sector... only with a schooling system more like Belgium's where each school costs $3,000 a year (which is pretty affordable, especially if the government isn't taxing you as much and more money is kept in the hands of people) and you can pick which one to go because there are however many schools within a certain area and they would be driven to provide a better education or else they would be forced to lose revenue. If parents didn't feel comfortable (or students) in the education, then they could very easily move the child somewhere else the following semester or what not. '

Again, the schools are then competing for parental opinion, not for more learning or better results. I think education is one of the things that should always be run with an altruistic aim.

'The problem is that people aren't educated enough to make smart decisions. We don't need a government showing or telling people what to do; we need people to make their own decisions and carve their own paths. There are plenty of job opportunities (or usually, unless the economy is made corrupt as it has been lately by corrupt government officials and corrupt organizations, but that's for another topic) in a completely free market economy for people to make money off of nearly anything. '

Well, I disagree there. I think we can achieve more as a united people with a socially-driven government than we can as separate individuals. And I think that the problem is that without a regulatory government, A) individuals get screwed through no fault of their own sometimes, and B) you need a government to protect people's rights, and prevent exploitation.

'It's the fact that people piss their money away and AREN'T held responsible for the consequences that we run into problems... because the government just bails you out if you don't make smart business decisions.'

The free market intrudes into all aspects of many lives, I think, and occasionally you have to sacrifice the principles of the free market - that you suffer for getting something wrong - in order to protect the general electorate from something much worse. I think the problem here was that greed and competition was allowed to get in the way of the main idea... making money to support yourself securely. Problem is, I think, these companies haven't learned from that and are still trying to milk the 'bailout' system. I reckon what we need to do is try to make people think about the purpose of work a bit more.

'In that way, my views on education are still not perfect. The one thing I know for sure though is that we need a better system that will truly be effective and at the same time not lose any of the freedoms of people to get a good education. I think that schools can't do everything for the person though, and the person has to show initiative in learning if the person wants to earn the most out of education---and that's the same in ANY situation. You can always go to the library or learn on the internet nowadays too. There are infinite possibilities; people are just misinformed and lazy.'

Great paragraph , I think that what countries need to establish from an educational point of view is a reasonable balance between qualifications and encouraging learning. Also, exams are fairly silly as a primary yardstick.




Edited by TGM: Orb - May 13 2009 at 13:49

hawkcwg wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: hawkcwg wrote: I think the central government is a big mess, and a lot of money is being thrown around, and i really don't like the fact that it is our money being put into schools, prisons and abortion clinics. I think those kinds of things should be donation, and volunteer and not affiliated with the central government. I think the public school systems would also be a lot better if the students could volunteer to go to school, i mean you set yourself up for disaster when you stick kids in a prison and tell them they can't talk to eachother haha. And I was just reading an article about Obama wanting to make the school day even longer and even have it on Saturdays. Kids don't learn anything in highschool, they learn to be "obiedent maybe, and but all they do is cram for tests and then forget all the information. Then they are put into social caste systems and try and not escape from reality with drugs and other resources. I've been in favor of a complete redo of the schooling system for a while now; and I think if we trimmed ALL the crap in the government and truly opened up schools to compete in the private sector: not only would schools be more pressured to hire better teachers and meet better standards (or they would be out of business in no time), but tuition would be cheaper and parents could send children to schools that they personally felt met their standards at a much more affordable price. I like how was done in ancient times, children would voluntarily meet up and listen to philosophers speak and really take in the subjects they were interested in.

Problem is that education is vital in reducing crime rates, increasing prosperity and giving people any sort of potential equal opportunities. So, by that system, essentially, poor people would be screwed. That said, I'm just finishing a privately education myself, but you can see that the school is obviously more interested in attracting customers than it is in genuinely benefitting its pupils - which really isn't the way it should be... its benefits seem to me to derive from concentrating a number of relatively smart pupils who have a lot of parental expectations on them into a small space. Additionally, this school has a mostly unlimited power over pupils, I can't even have long hair, or wear a black shirt, or something else which is a liberty which shouldn't be effectively lost to a private corporation for no reason at all other than the chap in charge thinks it looks neater and possibly thinks potential parents would be put off by all the 2 or 3 hippies there would be (just an edit about the 'you're free to leave' argument... well, yes, but it's damn awkward to do so if you're in the middle of an exam-driven year, it's inconvenient if your parents working days are based around getting you to school and you have a sibling there, too, and more importantly, these are guaranteed liberties... it'd be like saying 'don't get ill if you want free healthcare' or 'you have the right to not get a job at that place if you're a woman and you care about equal pay rates'). In short, I'd prefer a good state-driven education system. Unfortunately, I think the government are too nervous about specific incidents and too press-driven these days to try to make general improvements.

The problem with the philosophers thing is a) it was pretty expensive, there's a Plato dialogue I was reading the other day which at least suggests this. b) there's no consistency, and I don't think you can really qualify someone without consistency, and I think private companies need qualifications to help them judge candidates.


Edited by TGM: Orb - May 13 2009 at 12:57

Padraic wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Hey, I gotta an idea, let's excrese the US gorvenment. At first I read that as "excrete" - which, while painful, isn't a bad idea

Maybe that's why Bush always looked like he was suffering from hemorrhoidal discomfort.

Slartibartfast wrote: Hey, I gotta an idea, let's excrese the US gorvenment.

At first I read that as "excrete" - which, while painful, isn't a bad idea 

The T wrote: hawkcwg wrote: I like how was done in ancient times, children would voluntarily meet up and listen to philosophers speak and really take in the subjects they were interested in.   Do you really want American youngster to be even more stupid than they're right now? If schools were made voluntary, most youngster will prefer to try to get some "quick cash money" instead of trying to better themselves and actually making much more money in the future... (as money is the only thing that matters for some).   American high-schools are so atrocious... Now make them voluntary... Damn....   About the question, I want the government out of my life in private issues as abortion (allow it), drugs (legalize them), gay marriage (allow it) and so.... I want government in issues like economy regulation, healthcare system, workers rights, etc....   Gun control is the only so-called private issue where I want the government to step in and impose it. Actually, it's not private: it c eases to be private when you can use your gun to kill...

Hey, I gotta an idea, let's excrese the US gorvenment.