Opinions?
Reader Commentaries Saving Public Education is Crucial By David Esler Saturday June 12, 2010 I reading the Planet’s report on the failure of Measure C to rehab Berkeley’s public swimming pools, a phrase in Measure C supporter Robert Collier’s statement jumped out at me, to wit: “...will we also allow our public education to crumble and decay?” I have fervently believed for many years that universal public education is one of the greatest achievements of the American experiment, however, it has become painfully obvious over the last 30 years that public education -- especially a system that promotes enlightened, independent-thinking citizens -- is anathema to the right wing, since the last thing it wants is a truly educated electorate. Why? Because educated people figure things out -- like how the political system really functions and who (or what) controls the nation. Enlightened people are much more difficult to manipulate, as well. I’m sure that the same forces that defeated Measure C with a palette of lies would just as soon be happy to see our public education system “crumble and decay,” as it most certainly will if its funding is strangled. Such is the case right now on the state level, as our Republican governor slashes the education budget in favor building more prisons and in lieu of raising taxes for the wealthiest Californians. (Meanwhile, one of the wealthiest residents of the state just spent $71 million to buy her nomination as Republican candidate for governor -- imagine what $71 million [added to the $28 million her opponent spent on his campaign] could have done for higher education in the Golden State.) Dumbing down ‘Merica (pardon the Bush-speak) has long been a goal of the political and religious right, and I give you Texas, with its recent move to inculcate fundamentalist religious principles and Orwellian revisionist history into its text books, as an example. Teaching students Creationist claptrap and that the Civil War was fought over “states rights” and not the issue of slavery may fulfill a fundamentalist right-wing goal of controlling young minds,but it doesn’t produce incisive intellects versed in the scientific principles necessary to compete in a globalized economy or independent thinkers able to decipher the political dialogue and make decisions in the best interest of the nation. And it does nothing to ease ongoing race tensions or address the stain of slavery on our national tapestry, all of which begins with enlightened education. But I digress.... Cutting funding for education on the local level is the first step down the road of institutionalized ignorance, and our democracy -- and the ultimate abilities of our youth to make their way in a changing world -- will be the poorer for it. The fundamentalist political right may endorse home schooling as the ultimate means of controlling its childrens’ minds, but the lack of both an objective curriculum and the peer socialization that public education provides and is based on is a deficit from which they -- and our country -- may never recover. Yes, taxes are a pain in the wallet, but nothing is free -- or a greater and more productive investment than the objective education of our youth. Thank you, Mr. Collier, for your observation.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
This article makes the fallacy of assuming governmeny schools have anything to do with education, that the masses are educatable and that minimal literacy is anything but a new open wound for propagandistic sores which can be infected in those without the intellectual independence to resist such social microbes.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
I agree with Liberté's colorful comment.
I will also add that, in the following passage, the author seems to confuse the fact that institutionalized ignorance is already upon us, and is indeed the product of public education (particularly since the Dept. of Education has assumed an increasing amount of authority). I wonder what "objective curriculum" the author has in mind, and what effect the "peer socialization" these zoos that are public schools provide has on children. One would think that children should be socialized with adults and not their equally clueless peers.
Cutting funding for education on the local level is the first step down the road of institutionalized ignorance, and our democracy -- and the ultimate abilities of our youth to make their way in a changing world -- will be the poorer for it. The fundamentalist political right may endorse home schooling as the ultimate means of controlling its childrens’ minds, but the lack of both an objective curriculum and the peer socialization that public education provides and is based on is a deficit from which they -- and our country -- may never recover. Yes, taxes are a pain in the wallet, but nothing is free -- or a greater and more productive investment than the objective education of our youth. Thank you, Mr. Collier, for your observation.
maybe Liberte just has ridiculous standards
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Ridiculous standards in what respect?
their height
Your typical person is incapable of thinking for himself. 'Educate' him and you just get a religious devotee with a bunch of muddled nonsense bouncing around in his head. All these college students and academics only exist because of government subsidies and enlightenment glorification of formal education. Most real intellectuals have nothing to do with these institutions of iniquity.
You take elitism to exciting new places
That's not even elitism, it's realism. Most people lack the genetic predispositions to do anything beyond absord ideology.
"Your typical person is incapable of thinking for himself."
Agreed. At least in terms of higher thinking. I think the typical person knows when they're hungry, when they're horny, when they're tired etc.
LRC had an article on it yesterday relating to this. Link.
It was in reference to the following book: Link.
Aside: Liberté, are you a fan of Plato by any chance?
I'm stickin' with public education is cruel imprisonment.
Individualism Rocks
This article makes the fallacy of assuming governmeny schools have anything to do with education, that the masses are educatable and that minimal literacy is anything but a new open wound for propagandistic sores which can be infected in those without the intellectual independence to resist such social microbes. Your typical person is incapable of thinking for himself. 'Educate' him and you just get a religious devotee with a bunch of muddled nonsense bouncing around in his head. All these college students and academics only exist because of government subsidies and enlightenment glorification of formal education. Most real intellectuals have nothing to do with these institutions of iniquity.
Wiser words have never been spoken.
seconded.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
It's crucial to the fastfood industry, mind numbing managerial capitalism, and maintaining a hierarchical and unquestioned state and authoritarianism. As well as the increasingly 'naturalized' police and security state -- many of the schools acquaint children to the function of state property (as not being theirs, even if they pay taxes for it) as well as the system that maintains it. Through security cams and police officers in constant state of watchfulness. Many of the people who are spokespeople for these causes teach in the institutions, but have no connections to what the institutions produce. All they know is that the institutions produce something. Ergo, the need for them. I think it is because left-liberals believe that Republicans love capitalism that they believe that these 'externalities' and subsidies to corporate training that produce a type of super-capitalism are unquestionably a good. There is no question of what should be the goal of people's lives, but what should be the goal of the state-capitalist machine.
That is what it has produced. The idea that ignorance and near non-literacy is coming in the future is false. It is already the case. The system where all the kids know what is going on and understand social life fully is a fantasy. I think the leftist philosopher/psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek said it best that when someone says they are 'objective' or 'no bullshit' or 'not ideological'; you should immediately suspect it is a mask for ideology.
@ Liberte:
Most people lack the genetic predispositions to do anything beyond absord ideology.
Many argue that human beings susceptibility to propaganda might actually be an effect of public schooling itself. Wouldn't you agree?
Most people support public schools because they believe that their children need an education to get a good job. Generally speaking they are correct. Without a formal education there are many doors that will not be opened for you.
The mistake people make is when they confuse the value of the degree with the value of the knowledge acquired. Most of what is taught today is of little to no economic value, however there is value in the degree or diploma.
Also, all this talk of most people being incapable of thinking for themselves, may be misguided.
I'm mostly in agrteement with Liberte', but I wonder if it's more of a case of most people being too lazy and distracted to think for themselves. This is where our school "system" has taken them. For instance, there are quite a few bright people at my place of work, most of whom go home and plunk themselves down in front of the toob and watch a ball game (ANY ball game - they'd probably watch tether-ball if it were telecast), rather than do something constructive, or at least interesting or intellectually challenging.
but I wonder if it's more of a case of most people being too lazy and distracted to think for themselves.
or perhaps they choose to invest their limited time and energy into pursuits other than economic, political and moral theory. After all if you talk to people about the right subjects many will possess an intimate knowledge and understanding.
Most people lack the genetic predispositions to do anything beyond absorb ideology.
As a person who was just in public schools 2 years ago, I can say it was absolutely horrible. I had no interest in learning while there. Everyone was (including me) was interested only in sex, violence, drugs, rebellion. There was NO incentive to actually learn something. Before I left to be home schooled, the teachers were actually told that you can't give anyone F's. At that point everyone I knew didn't care at all about learning. And every-time I tell this story to a socialist, it's always literally the same response. "You probably just lived in poor area, and your school was poor too." Absolute non-sense. I was in a very wealthy part of NC as well as Cali and both were horrendous. Plus I doubt if I were still in public schools that I would've learned about Mises.
David Esler is stupid.
I recently had an argument with a Democrat about public education. He argued in an article for our school newspaper that pumping money into public education should be our first priority, because "education is the ultimate economic stimulus. Without major public education reform — on the federal, state or local level — any other measure we take to shore up our economy is merely a band-aid."
I responded with a typical Rothbardian argument, and he said, "I think you have an interesting point. I’ve always had a lot more respect for Libertarians than the “cut taxes and spend” Republicans that we saw with the Bush administration." Then I gave up when he said, "The bottom line here is that we differ in our idea of what is right and what most benefits society and the individual. I doubt either of us is going to convince the other, but I appreciate your thoughtful feedback all the same."
A Democrat with respect for libertarians? Is there hope?
You can read the argument here, and I'd appreciate any advice on arguing with lefties, since Middlebury is absolutely crawling with them.
I think private education would handle a lot of the problems, especially considering how the private schools would change and adapt with the times rather than sticking to the same tired method we've had for so long now (and which is obviously not working).
Regarding Liberte's remarks, I only half agree. Sure, most humanity is and always will be a bunch of dullards, but a lot of the stupidity of today is thanks to the indoctrination and incompetence of public schooling. I have one friend who is completely and utterly without any sort of intellectual curiosity (I, myself, went to a private Christian school until 6th grade, when my parents switched me to public). He pretty much claims himself that the boringness and incompetence of public schooling killed his desire to learn. I'm willing to bet that same thing holds for all those who are taught in public schools.
All these college students and academics only exist because of government subsidies and enlightenment glorification of formal education.
I agree. Are you a college student?
Many argue that human beings susceptibility to propaganda might actually be an effect of public schooling itself.
No, their susceptibility is why public indoctrination is so effective.
No. I went for a couple months. It was easy and pointless.
I made it through freshman year, but didn't get much out of it. All of my academic motivation had been sapped up in high school, and I had no real interests or passions. During the fall of my sophomore year, I left school on a medical leave of absence, and I've spent the last two years at home regaining my health. Now I want to be a doctor, so I am incredibly frustrated by the ridiculous amount of higher education this requires. And then if I ever got a license, the type of medicine I would practice would not be "approved" by the FDA because it actually works, unlike the drug-based care we have under medical fascism. So......should I just forge some fancy certificates to put up on the wall? The only other option is spending 7 years or so appeasing the tyrants at the American Medical Association.
You'll probably just say, "Don't be a doctor." :)
Their susceptibility is a result of limited time and resources. When you need plumbing work done, do you....
A. Go to the tech school and become a master plumber yourself... or
B. Trust a professional who has years of experience and training.
Same with economics, politics, or morality. The vast majority of people choose not to become well read or experts. They choose to trust professionals who have years of experience and training.
Souther: Their susceptibility is a result of limited time and resources.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Liberté :Your typical person is incapable of thinking for himself. 'Educate' him and you just get a religious devotee with a bunch of muddled nonsense bouncing around in his head.
Agreed. I've discussed my pet theory here before: collectivism genetically trumps individualism. Hordes of mindless automatons -- blindly devoted to a flag, cause, or a leader -- have been running over (by definition) non-synchronized, pondering (thus, weaker) individualist villages and territories. It's much easier to bring 100 automatons than 100 individualists under one flag, one cause. The humanity's gene pool reeks of this legacy. Public education, intellectual laziness, blind faith, gullibility, and finally, the state are inevitable expressions of this evolutionary tsunami.
Z.
you entirely missed Liberte's point on how whether a "lack of limited time & resources" is due to lack of personal initiative, responsibility, & discipline
In no post did Liberte cite initiative, responsibility, or discipline. She did however state:
Most people lack the genetic predispositions to do anything beyond absord ideology. Your typical person is incapable of thinking for himself. 'Educate' him and you just get a religious devotee with a bunch of muddled nonsense bouncing around in his head.
Your typical person is incapable of thinking for himself. 'Educate' him and you just get a religious devotee with a bunch of muddled nonsense bouncing around in his head.
Genetic predisposition is something beyond our control to correct. If they were born dumb then no amount of education can change that. An ideology is simply a set of beliefs, no comprehsion or understanding neccessary to have an ideology. Trying to teach dumb people complex things only yeilds religious devotees who have empty heads. Typically empty head is used to describe someone who is stupid.
Basicly she has said that most lack the intellegence to understand all of these heady subjects. And if you do try and "educate" them that they would be incapable of understanding; only to believe what they are told without questioning. Because of understanding is beyond thier comprehension.
Maybe im wrong about her point of veiw. If I am, my appologies. But maybe she could clarify.
Even if there is genetic susceptibility to be indoctrinated, one thing is for sure. There are currently far too many people without such susceptibility that are also indoctrinated. They are such because they are too busy being brilliant in other areas of interest. Remember that it takes great effort, time, and courage, to actually overcome the statist myths.
I would imagine that this view of people as inherently incapable of thinking for themselves is less the result of objective observation and more the result of frustration at being able to persuade so few combined with the natural superiority one would feel as the result of being able to directly observe one's own mind functioning while only indirectly experiencing that of others. Furthermore, it seems quite possible that while in the domains of economics and political theory most people seem woefully ignorant and incapable of thinking properly, the same can be said for everyone in most nearly every other domain except for one's speciality.
Coase:I would imagine that this view of people as inherently incapable of thinking for themselves is less the result of objective observation and more the result of frustration at being able to persuade so few combined with the natural superiority one would feel as the result of being able to directly observe one's own mind functioning while only indirectly experiencing that of others.
Possibly. Though your proposition fails to explain instances -- rare as they may be -- of acknowledging other (not one's own) minds with superior intellects. Moreover, it would be easy to neutralize your effect (bias) by simply excluding one's mind (self) from the observed sample.
It may be that one is able to recognize superior intellects through rare incidents that allow one to percieve in some manner the superiority of another's mental functioning even though it can only be perceived indirectly. For example, I might read a very complicated paper about quantum mechanics completely above my mental level. Being aware that it is likely that the author himself understood the paper, the logical conclusion is that when it comes to quantum mechanics the author is clearly of a superior intellect. The vast majority of observations one makes about others' mental processes, however, will reveal only the "base" elements of the mind--that is, the eating and the screwing and the sitting on subways with a blank look on one's face and so on.
While excluding oneself from the sample might eliminate feelings of superiority in theory, in practice it would be difficult to accomplish. Furthermore, it would only serve to eliminate the feelings of superiority, not the belief that people are incapable of independent thought, which is more what I take issue with (some feelings of superiority, after all, can hardly be avoided by one who thinks he knows better than 99.9% of the human race relative to questions of the merits of a free order).
Coase:Furthermore, it would only serve to eliminate the feelings of superiority, not the belief that people are incapable of independent thought, which is more what I take issue with
Do you take issue with people's incapability of independent thought or with their belief that such incapability is prevalent?
The latter.
I've heard of people getting away with lying about degrees on the resume and getting away with it. I would heavily advise against that though.
Try chiropractor - less school, own business, ability to help people and make a good living.
Be responsible, ease suffering; spay or neuter your pets.
We must get them to understand that government solutions are the problem!
The amount of information I've learned in public school in comparison to what I've taught myself is a statistical anomaly. I think you'll find it's the same with most intelligent people. The end of public schooling would be everything but bad for our world.
As Mark Twain once said, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
I wrote in the Op-Ed section of my (public) school newspaper last year, and I was actually able to write a piece about privatizing education. Besides the people who outright dimissed it (or asked how poor people could afford it), I got similar answers to what was quoted from the article in the original post, i.e. without the "high standard" set by public schools, children wouldn't learn the basic prerequisites for having a proper democracy, etc.
It never seems to bother the advocates of public education that the standards currently set by the public schools are often abysmal, not to mention the problem with having government teach the populace about the proper role of government. No matter how well the market provides other goods, it simply doesn't work for education? Why? ....it just doesn't.