For my Libertarian friends

I suppose, although if you wanna get real crazy you could say that involves some trust. Some liberals could still argue they don't think it will run well for whatever reason.

And I was trying to say I dont see trust as a major point.
While I dont have the trust in people to step up and fund/run a private healthcare system...thats not the #1 reason I oppose it. I oppose it because I just dont think it's practical. #2 is I dont trust people to do so

And this is all social anyway. With foreign policy, at least generally, it is liberals who put trust in people.
In theory: It was realists who saw people has only for self interest, wanting power no real allies/enemies, willing to do whatever...
While idealists tend to believe in the common goods in people and that we all want peace and all that.

Also liberals have in the past put their faith in laws, and failure to comply with them was one reason for WWII. A realist would've said "no one will follow those laws if left to do so"
Likewise, liberals also support supra national bodies, and intergration. All taking power out of your hands and putting trust in everyone.
woooo political science nerd


Edited by JJLehto - July 31 2010 at 19:21

manofmystery wrote: The T wrote: I think that system is interesting but can't be for everybody. Children with less-than-bright public school teachers or less-than-willing public school teachers should have an option to be put in a education system where they can learn.     Fixed that for ya.   be back later perhaps, gotta catch my tee time right now

Look, I went to US public schools and the teachers were mostly decent and I didn't turn out too bad.  Quit snickering.

Equality 7-2521 wrote:   4) Every kid naturally has the chance to pursue an education. For one self-education is the most beneficial and very cheap.  It is not freedom to force people to give away their property so that the state can educate them. That seems like the antithesis of freedom to me.

Try getting a good job with a self education degree.

Slartibartfast wrote: manofmystery wrote: The T wrote: I think that system is interesting but can't be for everybody. Children with less-than-bright public school teachers or less-than-willing public school teachers should have an option to be put in a education system where they can learn.     Fixed that for ya.   be back later perhaps, gotta catch my tee time right now Look, I went to US public schools and the teachers were mostly decent and I didn't turn out too bad.  Quit snickering.

 

Slartibartfast wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote:   4) Every kid naturally has the chance to pursue an education. For one self-education is the most beneficial and very cheap.  It is not freedom to force people to give away their property so that the state can educate them. That seems like the antithesis of freedom to me. Try getting a good job with a self education degree.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Even still, I liked my high school experience, even if it was very wasteful and the teachers weren't allowed to bitch slap ignorant people across the classroom, which they should have.   Oh comeone psychological torture and humilation is much more effective.

Most people stop being humiliated by their own retardation by high school. I agree that it is super fun to humiliate small children, though, those f**kers.

thellama73 wrote: A kid in one of my music class has given me nothing but trouble for months. Yesterday he finally crossed the line when he wrote on my clothing with a magic marker. He will not be in my class again.

Slartibartfast wrote: manofmystery wrote: The T wrote: I think that system is interesting but can't be for everybody. Children with less-than-bright public school teachers or less-than-willing public school teachers should have an option to be put in a education system where they can learn.     Fixed that for ya.   be back later perhaps, gotta catch my tee time right now Look, I went to US public schools and the teachers were mostly decent and I didn't turn out too bad.  Quit snickering.

Seriously, public/private/home school.

None are perfect, none are terrible, every person will take to it how it is.
Like I said, oh so libertarianly.....up to the parent to do what they want, and obviously part of it is on them for guiding their child through whatever they choose.
Yeah, I went to public school K-12 and of course there were a few bad ones, but all teachers I've had/seen were fine, and a few really inspired me to become interested in politics in the first place, and hopefully become a teacher in the future.

The T wrote: ^You are describing a horde of monsters, over-spoiled brats who think they can do anything. No wonder you hate the education system. . I see a problem here: kids with bright parents would get a decent education. Kids with stupid parents won't. Most people are not really that bright. Your sysem would generate a nation of fools (more than it already is).

I'm just conveying why I don't want to teach children. A lot of the time children don't want to be in a particular class, and I don't have any desire to force kids to do so.

I'd love to teach history (parts of it), psychology, and then I would subliminally embed messages pro-communism in my lectures. I would do powerpoint slides, and in-between them i would put some with red flags with sickles and hammers transitioning at less than 1/20 second, plus messages anti-capitalism and images of Che Guevara, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Trostky, JJLehto and Slartibartfast. At the end of the semester I would take a test, add all the scores and then divide by the number of students so all of them have the exact same, EQUAL grade. Any opposition to my methods would imply expelling the offender and if a student ever disagrees with my messages I would make him... disappear. I would indoctrinate some of them and enlist them to infiltrate libertarian schools (ergo, private houses) and promote revolution from within.