Thanks you guys for all of the intelligent posts. As a formerly homeschooled student, this is an extremely important issue to me. Thanks!
“We ought to obey God rather than men.” -Acts 5:29.
"Slaves before God, free before all others." -Boer Motto.
SouthernHero: Thanks you guys for all of the intelligent posts. As a formerly homeschooled student, this is an extremely important issue to me. Thanks!
If you just wanted to feel good about yourself at least take solace in knowing that pretty much everyone would have prefered being homeschooled. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
I'll be honest, the United States education system has gotten dumbed down. I've ran across a few exams from the late 1800's and I'll be honest I could not pass it for the lfie of me. At least not in the time alotted for the test. Bygeneral standards I've always been considered a bright person who has no trouble with exams. When I attempted this exam I did poorly. This was an 8th grade exam from 1894. I will say I learned at that point the education system has been dumbed down. I feel it's getting even worse each day, especially the No Child Left Behind joke. I will be honest I never learned grammar rules throughout my public school career. Thats the main thing that made English classes rough for me in college. What's even worse in my one college lab for measurement, we're required to have a calculator for simple mathematics, adding subtracting, and percentages. Yes education has been dumbed down and will continue to be. I am now a clear advocate for when I have kids, they will be home schooled.
I hate to take this off topic, but how did you find those exams? Were they online? I'd certainly like the opportunity to find out where I stand in relation to previous generations. I'd also like to the echo the sentiments of a previous poster. Go pick up a copy of Dumbing Us Down by John Gatto. I'm only about half way through it now, but it's been great so far. I'd certainly recommend urging you to get your neighbors and local school teachers to read this and other books on the history of public education and private education. The problem, in my mind, is that most people don't know how we got to where we are. While simply reversing the process probably wouldn't happen, it'd be good for people to know why we are where we are. At least then they wouldn't have any right to complain.
Yan Grenier:If you just wanted to feel good about yourself at least take solace in knowing that pretty much everyone would have prefered being homeschooled. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
But I think they actually mean
bowenj10:I hate to take this off topic, but how did you find those exams? Were they online? I'd certainly like the opportunity to find out where I stand in relation to previous generations.
I hate to take this off topic, but how did you find those exams? Were they online? I'd certainly like the opportunity to find out where I stand in relation to previous generations.
Google is your friend. But this one I know: http://www.barefootsworld.net/1895finalexam.html
Considering the number of Mises.org references on his page, Barefoot Bob might drop in himself. http://www.barefootsworld.net/
Yes this happened to be one of the exams I found. I beleive I found it on freedomdomain or a site similar to that. I also beleive education was controlled less by the government in that time.
Reasons of why public and private education is bad:
Homeschooling can be accomplished a lot cheaper than most people think. The Robinson Curriculum is one of the better ones out there, although there are several good ones. Robinson emphasizes that the student must be totally proficient in math prior to introduction of the sciences, a point which is very well taken.
Anyhow. Public schools do to children mentally, what child molesters do to children physically. And that is being about as NICE as I care to be, in regards to public schools.
This doesn't surprise me as much as it should, I think.
It's another logical step in the process of treating schools like assembly lines, where children are worked on by teachers. If there's a problem with a product, either throw it out, try to force a temporary band-aid on it and hope the end user doesn't notice the problem later on, or send it through the system again.
I don't fault the teachers so much, as they're just as much victims of the school system as are the children.
It's too bad many of these students will associate "school" with "education" and not continue learning after graduation. They'll just sit and eat up garbage news stories, never realizing that mainstream media is remarkably similar to school.
I was greatly appalled to read of the horrendous conditions prevailing in these conditioning shops known as schools, and illuminated in these fascinating posts. When I attended public schools, over two score ago, conditions were very different. We were placed in an "accelerated" class, and the contact with bright students, plus what I would now regard as generally excellent school teachers (this was in So.Ca.) made the experience mostly felicitous. There were negatives, of course. But I would put a big positive, one the homeschooler will not gain I fear, as being the massive number of people one came in contact with over the course of those 12 to 16 years, and the instinctive and general knowledge one gained from that contact about human nature. This far outweighs knowledge that can be learned from a book, or at home on a computer. And the internet has turned every computer, in effect, into a research library that will soon combine the libraries of Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, the NYPublic Library, UCLA and a few others into a super research library. And lectures by vibrant professors can be recorded and watched later. So attending campus just to sit and listen to a professor is a waste of time, with the big exception of the back and forth of question and answer and debate between a professor and students, and the post-lecture postmortems between the students down at the Red Lion friday night over a pitcher of dark.
So the social experience gained will be lost to the homeschooler who only comes in contact with his parents and siblings. This might be remedied by combining for part of the time several homeschooling "pods" (horrible term) who could jointly attend a stimulating lecture perhaps by a peripatetic educator. There might be a place for teachers on a sort of lecture circuit where they could tour parts of the country, giving lectures to a series of homeschoolers. The live contact would trump a mere video in that the students could questions, and therefore possible make a fool of, the professor.
Sounds to me like the solution is private schools, determined by the market place (this school has the best teachers, most aesthetic campus, reputation for well-behaved students, etc, so I'll pay to send my kids there) or value system (the teachers may not all be Mises Institute or Harvard material, but they're pretty good, and the main thing is that as a member of a certain ethical value system, this school espouses and conducts itself according to those values, for example, they only serve vegetarian food in there messhall and no junk, they teach Zoroastrian values, they only permit Norwegian to be spoken on campus, etc). I think there is a value too in having the children away from the parents for a certain time, say at a boarding school they liked, so they can gain independence, and a distance from their parents views and prejudices. If the educator isn't educated (has massive prejudices and distortions) how can he educate the child? And all parents will have some of these prejudices or distortions in thought. Also, there is such a strong psychological impact on a child from his parents, that if they are the sole school educators (excluding the passing on of a profession, like the old father-to-son trades) they will have a too strong influence on their children, which is not counteracted by hearing any dissenting views or critical debate.
However, the chilling descriptions of current education in our Leviathan State I read in these posts, makes me realize that collectivism has proceeded apace for a long time now until it has completely brainwashed countless children into the drivel of collectivism, and a teacher can laugh at a perceptive remark as to how this despicable regimentation, and the fear of rejection for non-compliance, is turning American society into a fascist society that hates individuality. Mr. Grenier's very informative remarks show us that this collectivist garbage is being spewed in a modern socialist "rich" society like Canada, just as I could have predicted. It almost reads like a caricature, and I would not believe it if Monsieur Grenier had not attested to its veracity. The quality teachers will leave, which is one reason why, as Hayek pointed out, the worst rise to the top in a collectivist society. Proved right again, Master Hayek.
The teachers in those days were far out too. Many of them made class so much fun, you couldn't wait for lunch to be over. Even in the 5th grade, I recall a teacher bringing in a comedy record for us to listen to on the day before a holiday when there was a festive feeling. It was Tom Lehrer's "Poisoning Pidgeons in the Park" and the class loved it. Imagine that happening nowadays. The teacher would probably have been shot in Mr. Grenier's Socialist Quebec for Perverting the Minds of Younsters with Aggression.
First, I will echo Paul's final comments. What are we really teaching children by using force to lock them up all day in a completely artificial environment, and calling that "normal"? The administrators I dealt with said that, no matter how bad it was for me, if I didn't come to school they would arrest my mother and put her in jail, then send me to "reform" school. So I'd better just put up and shut up. That is some lesson in "socialization" for a 12 year old. When I hear about a student going nuts and killing people, I remember how it was. If the presently available psychoactive drugs were available when I was in school, I would have been on the short list for them, just like all of the "school shooters".
Paul Grad:But I would put a big positive, one the homeschooler will not gain I fear, as being the massive number of people one came in contact with over the course of those 12 to 16 years, and the instinctive and general knowledge one gained from that contact about human nature. So the social experience gained will be lost to the homeschooler who only comes in contact with his parents and siblings.
But I would put a big positive, one the homeschooler will not gain I fear, as being the massive number of people one came in contact with over the course of those 12 to 16 years, and the instinctive and general knowledge one gained from that contact about human nature.
So the social experience gained will be lost to the homeschooler who only comes in contact with his parents and siblings.
This is called the "Socialization Myth". It is pushed pervasively by those endangered by any threat to the public school tax-funded monopoly.
I recommend a simple Google search for "socialization myth". It gave me enough articles to fill a bathtub. Just the first should be sufficient, but to quote them all would be crazy. They're there if you want them.
For my own, I will say simply that while another kid is locked in a room with one tyrant and 20-30 kids only their own age for 6 hours a day, mine is out with me interacting with the community, taking trips, running erands, buying and selling, researching and inquiring. Yes, we study, for a couple solid hours, but the rest of the time is spent socializing.
So are the ever increasing numbers of other homeschoolers.
Not sitting still, drugged and cowed, bullied and bored, being "socialized".
Of course there are some few way out on the bell curve who do nothing but study the bible in their room all day. There are also individuals way out on the bell curve in the other direction who come out of the public schools with an excellent education. What I don't try to do is justify either by the extremes.
From http://www.familyeducation.com/article/0,1120,58-17910,00.html
"The homeschoolers I know are out and about every day, enjoying museums, beaches, parks, and shows without the crowds. They travel often. The kids participate in Girl and Boy Scouts, 4-H, and sports. They take art, dance, drama, language, and music classes, to name a few."
Also, this year they removed the only economics class from the whole curriculum that was on the old program (yes, it taught Keynes', but at least they got to learn what words like offer and demand meant-in a way-) to replace it with a class called : Modern World: A class in which students will learn (told by the director of the ministry of education of Quebec) : population growth, environmental concerns and solutions, wealth redistribution, tension and conflicts, and theories of world government.
Time will tell
CurtHowland - For me personally it wasn't a socialization myth; it was a fact. Nor would I call it socialization, but acquiring human knowledge. But I think contact with 20-30 other children, say other homeschool cells, in social activities would be adequate to give children some experience of the variety of people.
There's no doubt there are countless other ways to achieve this socialization in any berg from a small town up to a big city. I fully concur on the damage done by forcing children into such a regimented situation so soon when they are full of ebullient life. Weighing the pros vs. the cons, homeschoolers come out way ahead. And public schools are poison for children's minds in how they force the children to comply, as is the junk food they are scandalously allowed to serve. Glenn Gould was taught piano by his mother.
Paul Grad:CurtHowland - For me personally it wasn't a socialization myth; it was a fact.
CurtHowland - For me personally it wasn't a socialization myth; it was a fact.
You presented it as an opinion, not fact.
Nor would I call it socialization, but acquiring human knowledge.
The unsupported opinion you posted, that a child who didn't attend public school would therefore be deprived of important social interaction, is called the "Socialization Myth". Just because you arrived at it independently doesn't make it any less a cliche'.
But I think contact with 20-30 other children, say other homeschool cells, in social activities would be adequate to give children some experience of the variety of people.
So if I did it your way, I would have your permission to teach my child myself? Hmm, I wonder why you think you have the power to determine for others what is or is not "adequate", to use your word above.
And public schools are poison for children's minds in how they force the children to comply, as is the junk food they are scandalously allowed to serve. Glenn Gould was taught piano by his mother.
People learn from everything they do, everything they see, everything they are exposed to.
I am far, far more worried about what is being taught by locking kids up by force for 6 hours a day in a dictatorial day-prison, than I am that they might not be taught "enough" math or "incorrect" history. Math and history can be picked up as people go through life, but the lesson of 12 years of forced labor for the crime of being young is never forgotten.
I am very saddened (really, no sarcasm at all) to say that this is the case.
Hello Mr.Paul, you can call me Yan for short hehe.
I should emphasize that education is a provincial matter and that Quebec is to my knowledge the only province that openly shuns knowledge as being useless and that anything a child has to learn must be useable RIGHT AWAY. This point cannot be stressed enough: teachers are overtly told to make sure that anything that is taught has to be re-useable in another subject or in a "right now" way. It is very difficult to explain and it is not because my first language is French: I can't properly explain this in French neither.
A couple of facts:
-During my last practicum I was told NOT to wear my trenchcoat because it reminds people of school shootings. It may not be the most delicate piece of clothing to wear there, but as an adult in a "free society", I should be allowed to wear it and others would then be allowed to not talk to me if they chose to.
-I gave a grade 9 exam for an English as a second language class. Students had to conjugate the verbs "to be" and "to have". It took the class 40 minutes to do this and 1/3 to 1/2 of the class failed. They began taking English classes in grade 1 btw!!! Too bad their teachers did not have the right to have them learn grammar but could only teach it by having them derive the rules through listenings and interaction with equally "non-native" speakers of the same level.
CurtHowland --- What to me is a fact, to you will always be an opinion, so we differ. And note I said human knowledge vs. the term socialization. I could gain great human knowledge and still want to live an unsocial life, like the great Taoist sages who dwelt in the forest alone, but had great insight into the human psyche. Being round people doesn't necessary mean your going to like being round people. And you will note I ceded that people could develop normally if they were exposed to the activities you mentioned the homeschoolers were doing above. So I am not saying they would be "deprived" at all. But I could easily see the case of a religious fanatic insisting that the only learning his children will have will be reading the bible in its original Hebrew and Greek, and he would be the only teacher they would ever have, and they would be (voluntarily) restricted to the families property compound, so they never had contact with any other humans outside the family. In that case I believe (and it is opinion) the children would be greatly missing out not only on practical knowledge that is essential to survival in America, or knowledge for the joy of learning like Science or Literature, etc, but also on that human contact that would make them easy pickens for the first used car salesman or stockbroker or conartist panhandler they meet when they first hit the city. But I certainly believe that man would have the right to homeschool them that way if he so chose since I believe in homeschooling rights. (And also under Right to Freedom of Religion).
I just think that there is no way that contact with 20-30 individuals for 12 years can equal contact with 2000 individuals of 20 different cultures. You disagree.
And you seem to think I claimed permission to tell you how to educate your children. I don't believe I said that anywhere. "I wonder why you think you have the power to determine..." you write about me. Did I ever claim such a right? All I did was give a view on certain aspects of right education from my empirical viewpoint. As a libertarian, I would not presume to tell you how to teach your children. I think it essential there are alternatives to public school prisons, and it is sad that so few take the opportunity to utilize this. In my state homeschooling is legal, but I understand there may be some other barbaric states that do not permit it.
All states in the U.S. permit homeschooling, although you will get a lot more harassment and barriers in some states than others. There are several foreign countries, Germany in particular, that prohibit homeschooling.
Monsieur Grenier --- oh, je me'excuse --- Yan,
Firstly, your epistle highlights the folly of teaching language sans grammar. Personally, I think one of the best ways of learning through the "absorption" method is by watching films one likes in the language one is attempting, over and over, until one understands every line and every word. But English grammar really isn't that hard, yet it gives a roadmap that is essential in correctly constructing sentences. Why is it every single thing the government does is so consistently wrong?
The insistence on practicality demanded by the Quebec collectivists is typical of modern corporate socialism. They want people who will contribute to the bottom line and the stockholders net worth of major corporations, so education must be only practical. What these morons have forgotton is the practicality of useless knowledge. It is characteristic of the materialistic Marxist that every function of people's lives must be of practical value to the state. "Group exercise will not only release pent-up social frustrations, but reduce obesity and generally lower public healthcare costs". "Chess as art for art sake or gaming for fun sake is a thing of the past in the modern Marxist state". The utilitarian outlook of the Benthamite. I wonder what the practical value of reading Balzac's "Peau de Chagrin" in French is for a native English-speaker? The Benthamite will scoff at such pursuits as a waste of time, because he is blinded by his need to be constantly moving ahead in a straight line.
I have thought in the past of what I would include in a "practical" education that would be offered to public school students, and I came up with the following necessities for life in America (or the West): 1) nutrition, health, and human anatomy and physiology, 2) English vocabulary augmentation and grammar, 3) Austrian economics and the philosophy (art?) of investing --- Tax Law too if we still have IRS when my views are implemented, 4) Automechanics, and 5)American History and Civics with emphasis on the American Revolution, Jefferson, Franklin, and the Constitution. That's about it.
Paul,
One question that goes unanswered: Are you for a system of government-run schools? Yes or No.
Also, a comment: Why the strawman, "But I could easily see the case of a religious fanatic ...?" It's ironic that many build strawmen cases against homeschooling while the indictment of government-run schools is real and evident.
So what we have is the debate of "I could conceive of" v. "I have experienced," with the former ruling the day. Does that make sense?
Paul Grad, I couldn't agree more on 'practical' education. The UK is a goldmine for studying how much the State can interfere via social engineering, and still fail in its aims. The government, IIRC, aims to have more than 50% of the population with degrees. What has happened? Now, it is necessary to have a degree to even get a job (nevermind the fact that many firms complain that what graduates come out with is totally useless to them a lot of the time, so they have to engage in their own training anyway, and that many people simply are not suited for degree work.) Corporations likely thought they could externalize their training costs. Now you have imbeciles (who are for public education) moaning about how commercialized it all is (even if it is a legitimate complaint.) Well, what did you expect, you bloody morons? Even in my philosophy degree there is a pervasive element of this training facility mentality, although fortunately it isn't too strong. In economics, on the other hand...
From what I'm told it's even worse elsewhere.
JFedako,
I think I would be against any compulsive attendance at a government school, but think it would be OK if those who wanted them for their children set them up through the government and payed all the costs associated with those schools, much like Dr. Paul's voluntary plan for social security. There is also the possibility of very short-term government schooling to teach reading and basic arithmetic, also on a non-compulsive basis. It might be only a few hours for a few weeks, not the long 12-year stretch at a basically tarted-up Borstal Institution most of us go through.
Considering Jefferson's emphasis on books and book learning, it's hard to conceive he didn't want some mechanism to insure everyone could read and write. This might be only be a testing requirement at a certain age, as one finds in my state. Homeschool your child, bring him in for a test, and if he can read street signs and do the four basic math functions, he passes. Of course, this brings in the compulsion of the state. But one is thus tested when one takes a driving test (read the signs, please). Considering that one must be able to read (or know language if one listens to oral arguments) to vote, or even read the street signs to get to the polls, it seems axiomatic that reading be an educational necessity for all. Whether the state can compel the acquisition of that knowledge on the basis of a public necessity is much more specious.
The strawman example you accuse me of is not a fantasy, but something that has probably happened in America many times in isolated cabin families. But whether it has or not, considering examples that show if a law violates the constitution or not is not a strawman, but something that must be done when a law is suggested for enactment or abolition. Do we have to wait for someone innocent to be executed to disprove those who claim that no such occurrence can or ever has happened in error-free America?
Paul Grad:I think I would be against any compulsive attendance at a government school, but think it would be OK if those who wanted them for their children set them up through the government and payed all the costs associated with those schools, much like Dr. Paul's voluntary plan for social security.
I think I would be against any compulsive attendance at a government school, but think it would be OK if those who wanted them for their children set them up through the government and payed all the costs associated with those schools, much like Dr. Paul's voluntary plan for social security.
What is the requirement that they be set up through government? Without compulsory attendence, without compulsory curricula, without compulsory funding... Without compulsion, which is the mechanism of government, why involve government at all?
Dr. Paul talks about a "voluntary" Social Security because right now Social Security is compulsory. It's a retraction of power, while making sure he still has an opportunity to get the "AARP" vote by not abolishing Social Security outright.
Considering Jefferson's emphasis on books and book learning, it's hard to conceive he didn't want some mechanism to insure everyone could read and write. This might be only be a testing requirement at a certain age, as one finds in my state. Homeschool your child, bring him in for a test, and if he can read street signs and do the four basic math functions, he passes. Of course, this brings in the compulsion of the state. But one is thus tested when one takes a driving test (read the signs, please).
Which inspires the question, "What is the State doing issuing driver's licenses?"
Using an example of state control as a justification for more state control is circular logic.
Considering that one must be able to read (or know language if one listens to oral arguments) to vote, or even read the street signs to get to the polls, it seems axiomatic that reading be an educational necessity for all. Whether the state can compel the acquisition of that knowledge on the basis of a public necessity is much more specious.
Justifying it on a poll pretext is, again, circular logic. The state "compells", and so long as it does so it will compell whatever it is it wants to.
Which is exactly what has gotten us into this problem in the first place.
So, I ask you, what was the literacy rate prior to coercive public school? There are several books on the subject you should be able to find. I would refer you specifically to the works of John Taylor Gatto, available through a Google search near you.
The strawman example you accuse me of is not a fantasy, but something that has probably happened in America many times in isolated cabin families.
You're still guessing. "Probably happened", "isolated cabin families". Sure, I saw the movie _Deliverance_ too, but I'm not going to set government policy based upon the far bottom end of the bell-curve.
But whether it has or not, considering examples that show if a law violates the constitution or not is not a strawman, but something that must be done when a law is suggested for enactment or abolition. Do we have to wait for someone innocent to be executed to disprove those who claim that no such occurrence can or ever has happened in error-free America?
If you do not want to set up a straw-man, then instead of demanding that it is a real situation that you are trying to deal with, present it as a hypothetical.
Say, "Gee, but what can we do if someone does something so completely out of what general society calls the 'main stream' such as locking their kids in their room until they have memorized version xyz of the christian bible, producing 4 kids through congress with their siblings, and butt-raping Ned Beaty?"
No one is denying that abuse could occur without coercive public school. But what you have not grasped is that such abuses occur with coercive public school. Mandatory attendence laws have not prevented abuse, but they have created a whole galaxy of additional abuses.
Tax funding has not prevented neglect, but it has created a whole galaxy of additional abuses.
Take "voluntary interaction" one step further than you have, please: What prevents you, an interested and motivated individual, from donating your time, your skills, your money, to educate those less fortunate? Nothing. You, and I for that matter because I agree with you, will ensure that there are educational opportunities for those who cannot afford them themselves. It may be through churches, it may be through civic societies, it may be through random involvement with one's neighbors.
Believing in individual responsibility also ensures that responsible individuals are not prevented from doing good.
CurtHowland: Paul Grad: But I would put a big positive, one the homeschooler will not gain I fear, as being the massive number of people one came in contact with over the course of those 12 to 16 years, and the instinctive and general knowledge one gained from that contact about human nature. So the social experience gained will be lost to the homeschooler who only comes in contact with his parents and siblings. This is called the "Socialization Myth". It is pushed pervasively by those endangered by any threat to the public school tax-funded monopoly. I recommend a simple Google search for "socialization myth". It gave me enough articles to fill a bathtub. Just the first should be sufficient, but to quote them all would be crazy. They're there if you want them. For my own, I will say simply that while another kid is locked in a room with one tyrant and 20-30 kids only their own age for 6 hours a day, mine is out with me interacting with the community, taking trips, running erands, buying and selling, researching and inquiring. Yes, we study, for a couple solid hours, but the rest of the time is spent socializing. So are the ever increasing numbers of other homeschoolers. Not sitting still, drugged and cowed, bullied and bored, being "socialized".
Paul Grad: But I would put a big positive, one the homeschooler will not gain I fear, as being the massive number of people one came in contact with over the course of those 12 to 16 years, and the instinctive and general knowledge one gained from that contact about human nature. So the social experience gained will be lost to the homeschooler who only comes in contact with his parents and siblings.
I recommend a simple Google search for "socialization myth". It gave me enough articles to fill a bathtub. Just the first should be sufficient, but to quote them all would be crazy. They're there if you want them. For my own, I will say simply that while another kid is locked in a room with one tyrant and 20-30 kids only their own age for 6 hours a day, mine is out with me interacting with the community, taking trips, running erands, buying and selling, researching and inquiring. Yes, we study, for a couple solid hours, but the rest of the time is spent socializing.
CurtHowland:
I think Curt gives a couple of arguments why the socialization argument is BS. In fact school is almost the only live situation you'd be exposed to same age people all the time. In any other activity be it work, business, leisure you'd be exposed to people of all ages. What the forced same age environment does, is prevent decent social structure, since either the teacher or most manipulative peer will be running the show.
CurtHowland --- Since I'm not sure how to cutandpaste separate segments, I'll respond to your points one by one..
"I think I would be against any compulsive attendance at a government school, but think it would be OK if those who wanted them for their children set them up through the government and payed all the costs associated with those schools, much like Dr. Paul's voluntary plan for social security." ---PG
"What is the requirement that they be set up through government? Without compulsory attendence, without compulsory curricula, without compulsory funding... Without compulsion, which is the mechanism of government, why involve government at all?
Dr. Paul talks about a "voluntary" Social Security because right now Social Security is compulsory. It's a retraction of power, while making sure he still has an opportunity to get the "AARP" vote by not abolishing Social Security outright." ---Curt Howland
You ask, why the requirement these government schools be set up through the government, and without compulsion, why bring in government?
Simply, if these schools were set up and funded on a private level, they would be private schools. All government schools are doing is giving those who do not want to homeschool, or do not have the time, or those who are too poor to send their children to private schools,the opportunity to obtain for their children the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, by themselves alone paying into a funding system through their taxes, which would not be assessed on those who homeschooled or sent their children to private school. No one would be forced to go to these schools. It would not cost non-users a cent. But then all citizens would have an opportunity to learn those few basic skills that are axiomatic for a free-market capitalist society. There may or may not be a correlation, but English prosperity rose precipitously after the introduction of public education, because everyone could now read a contract, and be able to figure out if the corner grocer was ripping them off. You may disagree.
So there would be government schools, but parents would only be sending their children to them if they chose to and were willing to pay for it. And if you like, I will cede the danger that perhaps a few children here and there may never learn to read or write or do math, and get thrown to the wolves when they finally come to LA or NYC.
But even on that point, I am reluctant to cede because I would say that it was Jefferson's clear intent that the ability to read was a feature that must be guaranteed to all by the government. Or at least to guarantee the opportunity to acquire that feature, even to the destitute orphan. I think he would have included that as part of his Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. You, I get the impression, would not agree with that. Perhaps because I am a Minarchist, and perhaps you are not. That is probably why we differ. I take a broader view of those Rights as including the opportunity to all to learn how to read. You, I suspect, would strongly differ with that view.
However, as long as there is the alernative possibility of legal Homeschooling, I see no reason why those who want public education for their children should not organize that activity through the (State) government if they pay for it and the whole cost of its administration, bonds, teachers salaries, etc.
CurtHowland --- So you don't want to set government policy at the "far-bottom end of the bell curve". Which means that you don't mind trampling on the rights of a few individuals if the vast majority benefit from it and a tiny tiny minority get their constitutional rights trashed. That sounds like the utilitarian view of Rights.
As for what prevents me from donating my time,etc. to those less fortunate, etc. How about the tax requirements and the billion regulations your society has imposed on me. You have not ended the nanny state. In fact the tax laws require me to support people who call themselves married, by giving them a tax break, for what I consider a religious practice. And a tax break for bringing children into this socialist hellhole. So I have to spend my time trying to overthrow the unconstitutional laws that you have stood by and tolerated for decades,while at the same time being coerced into an unfair, and unconstitutional, tax system . I certainly hope you've been voting Libertarian the last 15 years like I have. If you have, I obsolve you of any responsibility for this condition we're all in.
You also claim I "have not grasped that such abuses occur with coercive public schools" but I think I have made clear my dim view of public education in my comments, and that I consider it to have serious negative consequences on children, especially in teaching them to subject themselves to irrational authority. And I have written against mandatory government schools, although you apparently can't conceive the possibility of non-compulsive volutary government-run schools.
Public schools were very very different when I attended them. There was no violence, other than the compulsion to attend(which I agree is a form of violence) and an occasional fist fight that was treated very very seriously. No one would dare sass the teacher. The intense debates in class between leftists and Randians (Atlas Shrugged was all the rage amongst the Rightists}, between atheists and the preacher's daughter --- it was great. Now schools sound like they are right out of Orwell or Aldous Huxley, which makes me think that public schools would be the last place any parent would want to send their children.
Off topic, I do believe government has the right to require drivers licenses, as long as their are alternate thoroughfares where citizens can walk or ride a bike without being required to carry any kind of license. When you conduct a one ton piece of metal down a road at 65mph, surrounded by hundreds of people and pedestrians by the side of the road, I do believe, as a Minarchist, the state has a right to license your competence. But you should never need papers to walk on a public sidewalk.
Paul Grad:There was no violence, other than the compulsion to attend(which I agree is a form of violence)
What about the compulsion to fund?
I'm at a loss. You have defined a system of voluntary education where the provider is government. Why not drop government out of the equation?
Regarding England, public education, and prosperity: You are presenting are correlation/causation error.
Favorite T. Jefferson quote regarding government education: "It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father."
JAlanKatz: Paul Grad:There was no violence, other than the compulsion to attend(which I agree is a form of violence) What about the compulsion to fund?
Under my system, which would be voluntary there is no compulsion, either to attend or to fund. The people who wanted to use the public schools to educate their children would be the ones funding the schools. They could choose to not send them there, and not pay the tax. If the schools ran deficits, the users would have to raise taxes on themselves, or drop out of the system.
So there would be four choices: 1)Homeschool 2)Private School 3)Voluntary public school 4)No school.
JFedako: Paul, I'm at a loss. You have defined a system of voluntary education where the provider is government. Why not drop government out of the equation? Regarding England, public education, and prosperity: You are presenting are correlation/causation error. Favorite T. Jefferson quote regarding government education: "It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father."
The simple reason I cannot drop government out is because, under my interpretation of the Declaration, the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, a Right the government's sole function is to warrant to all individuals, would include the "Right to learn to read and the four basic math functions". So that is why I am so insistent on the government providing that Right as an alternative to nothing at all. And nothing at all would mean that only those who could and would homeschool, those who could afford tutors and private schools, and those who could arouse the sympathy of some charity, could have this Right. The poor destitute orphan or child of a single working parent could easily have no access to that Right if government didn't warrant the opportunity to it. All I'm doing is following my interpretation of the Constitution to the letter.
I have not researched extensively, but I do know there was much illiteracy in England before compulsive education; there was hardly any after it. It seems to me that to think widespread knowledge of how to read and write and do basic maths would not have had a hugely positive effect on the level of capitalistic activity and invention in 19th century Britain is very naive indeed. But I'm a theorist, not a historian. So if you want to believe that the widespread acquisition of the ability to read and write and figure would have no significant impact on capitalist trade levels, you're free to hold your view. Perhaps you are a British historian, and know far more about that era than I do.
And thank you for the quote from Jefferson which I did not know. It seems to vindicate my position concerning not interfering in the "isolated cabin with the religious fanatic teacher" we discussed above. Yes, the moral violence done to the child and parents by "forcible asportation" far outweighs any practical benefit; nor would it be morally defensible if it didn't.
It appears that we -- you and I -- are operating under different definitions of government. I use Mises's: government is the societal apparatus of coercion and compulsion. Please provide your definition.
Also, your reading of the Declaration claims positive and expansive rights to be enforced by government. Why stop at the "(r)ight to learn to read and the four basic math functions"? Don't you see that you are simply recreating our current mess.
JFedako: Paul, It appears that we -- you and I -- are operating under different definitions of government. I use Mises's: government is the societal apparatus of coercion and compulsion. Please provide your definition. Also, your reading of the Declaration claims positive and expansive rights to be enforced by government. Why stop at the "(r)ight to learn to read and the four basic math functions"? Don't you see that you are simply recreating our current mess.
Right,different definitions. I agree with Mises, but his is a praxeological definition good for all societies. When I speak of government, I refer to the U.S. Government set up at the time of the Revolution and using the U.S. Constitution. Of course, government would have to be coercive and compulsive if it is going to use a police force to enforce property rights. I feel sorry for the anarchist or anarcho-capitalist or international commune-ist who has to live within the borders of the USA, and must subject himself to the Constitution, and the police and coercive government that theoretically enforce the provisions of that document, against his will. Happily for me, I'm a Minarchist completely willing to live under the Constitution, and subject myself to its constitutional laws without feeling any dudgeon. I accept that government must have some coercive oomph since I'm willing to subject myself to the traffic laws, obtain a license as long as every other citizen is subject to the same standards, and willing to let myself be pulled over to the side of the road by a peace officer. But the range of these government services and functions I would permit would be severely limited to only those necessary to carry out the three Rights mentioned in the Declaration, broad though the interpretation might be. What I regard as inclusive, you regard as expansive.
What they might entail, and this would be wrangled out during debate in the legislatures, would be:
1) Right to Life --- abolition of the death penalty, abolition of the income tax, abolition of estate and inheritance taxes, possibly vegan soup kitchens and/or homeless shelters, either for free or in exchange for an equal quantity of labor or value to the government, abolition of controlled-substance laws, individual allowed to use any medicaments he so choosed, freedom of individuals to practice medicine without a license, ending of professional license requirements to gain a living, except for drivers, truck drivers, school bus drivers, airline pilots,train drivers. Could possibly be used to justify OSHA regulations, food quality standards and testing (no sawdust in the wheatflour).
2) Right to Liberty --- can use public pedestrian thoroughfares without needing papers, possibly Right to some minimal public transportation system like bus service if there is no current private or government provider. If this Right were funded at the State or County/local level, then the Feds would be absolved from any responsibility. So I suppose I see the Right to Liberty as including the Right to Roam, and once again, if the users of these systems are willing to cover all the costs, I see no reason why the government couldn't offer these services if there is no current private provider. This issue really hits rural elderly people living alone very hard, as when their eyes give out, or they suddenly can't drive or manage on their own, they are in effect forced out of their homes and have to suddenly move into the city. And all because the county has no bus service, though it can spend it's money on a thousand other unconstitutional forms of corporate welfare and pay the commissioners and head librarians absurdly bloated salaries. Also, if we still have public lands, the right to roam and perhaps squat on them indefinitely without charge. This would also fall under the other two Rights. Probably the right to sleep or squat on the sidewalk unless it completely blocked a public thoroughfare.
3) Pursuit of Happiness --- I think here is where I'd include the "Right to read" and that basic education I have been talking about. It would also fit in under the above two rights. The Right to do anything that doesn't fall under Rothbard's libertarian creed basis of aggression. Basically, the Right to do anything that doesn't violate another's property rights.
Outside of these, government would have no function in respect to guaranteeing Individual Rights.
Paul Grad: 3) Pursuit of Happiness --- I think here is where I'd include the "Right to read" and that basic education I have been talking about. It would also fit in under the above two rights. The Right to do anything that doesn't fall under Rothbard's libertarian creed basis of aggression. Basically, the Right to do anything that doesn't violate another's property rights.
I would hold that your "right to read" is not a human right, but both a claim and a act of aggression: a claim in so far that it 'needs' citizens' tax money to pay for it, and an act of aggression in so far that it uses the state's monopoly of violence (both in the instance of forcing the child to learn to read at a certain age and in the instance of forcing citizens to pay for this compulsory education). There is no analytic difference in 'the right to read' over 'the right to a swimming pool'.
Further, I would argue that there is no aggression needed to learn children how to read. If left to their own devices, with the possibility of assistance by a proficient reader, children at some point figure out how useful this skill really is and learn to read by themselves in a matter of weeks. This is a practice to be found in Sudbury schools for over 40 years, and never have they had a child that did not learn to read properly. Non coercive reading has also been promoted by Rudolf Steiner.
JAlanKatz: What about the compulsion to fund?
One must actually think about this, after one has shaken his head thoroughly.
Tuur: Paul Grad: 3) Pursuit of Happiness --- I think here is where I'd include the "Right to read" and that basic education I have been talking about. It would also fit in under the above two rights. The Right to do anything that doesn't fall under Rothbard's libertarian creed basis of aggression. Basically, the Right to do anything that doesn't violate another's property rights. I would hold that your "right to read" is not a human right, but both a claim and a act of aggression: a claim in so far that it 'needs' citizens' tax money to pay for it, and an act of aggression in so far that it uses the state's monopoly of violence (both in the instance of forcing the child to learn to read at a certain age and in the instance of forcing citizens to pay for this compulsory education). There is no analytic difference in 'the right to read' over 'the right to a swimming pool'. Further, I would argue that there is no aggression needed to learn children how to read. If left to their own devices, with the possibility of assistance by a proficient reader, children at some point figure out how useful this skill really is and learn to read by themselves in a matter of weeks. This is a practice to be found in Sudbury schools for over 40 years, and never have they had a child that did not learn to read properly. Non coercive reading has also been promoted by Rudolf Steiner.
You claim there is no analytic difference in the "right to read" over the "right to a swimming pool". Reading is necessary to understand the constitution; a swimming pool is not.
Evidently, the Steiner method of reading has not enabled you to comprehend what I have clearly and precisely stated over and over. And why that qualification "If left to their own devices, with the possiblity of assistance by a proficient reader,children at some point children figure out how useful this skill really is and learn to read by themselves in a matter of weeks."? So first, why are there any illiterates at all in literate societies? Why don't they all "at some point" (maybe when they're 80?) "figure out how useful this skill really is" and just melt away?
And why should there be any need for "the possibility of assistance by a proficient reader"? I see, so there are times where that is essential, yes or no? And if it is essential for the child, who pays the teacher? And isn't that violence, to force someone to assist, and who pays the assistant, or should they spontaneously donate their time? Seems like if your main premise, that the kid will figure it out himself, is true, then there should never be the need for an assistant.
Equating "right to read" to "right to a swimming pool". Must remember that one.
Torsten: JAlanKatz: What about the compulsion to fund? You mean the compulsion to receive funding. One must actually think about this, after one has shaken his head thoroughly. As a child you are forced to attend Your parents are forced to pay (taxes or school fees) If you don't do the labor, you may receive repercussions You've no real power about what is served You may suffer from moral conclusion, since the teachers views may differ from what you learn at home After you grow up, you will have to pay to continue this system That system is also institutionalized, because most people believe it to be OK.
In point of fact,Torsten, concerning your second point above, in the USA the local grammar schools are funded by local property taxes. So it is quite possible to attend public schools and not directly pay taxes for the education one receives. Indirectly, the tax comes through higher rents charged by the property owners to cover the extra tax they pay for education, so renters end up paying too. But not directly.