Paul,
Wrong! I know of no state that does not supplement local tax dollars with state-level taxes. And, in Ohio at least, school districts can adopt income taxes or share in county sales tax. The Ohio redistribution system is pernicious, only 7 cents of each income tax dollar is returned to my local district as a form a state school supplement. In many districts, the state kicks back 2 or 3 dollars for each dollar of state income tax.
And, do not forget the feds. While they return little, they consume a lot.
Everyone is forced to pay for this wasteful and harmful system.
By the way, take some time to learn about the effects of taxation on rental property. Someone always pays (whether renter, property owner, investor, etc., or some mix of all). To believe otherwise is to believe in the benign tax that exists just over the rainbow.
Tuur - You should try reading complete arguments before you respond. You claim I demand compulsory education when you say "violence ....(in the instance of forcing citizens to pay for this compulsory education)", yet I have clearly stated several times in several posts that this education would not be compulsory and the only tax money would be from those "citizens" tax monies that were using the program. Voluntary does not mean compulsory in my dictionary.
Paul, my apologies. I have to admit that I jumped in without reading your prior posts. If I understand you correctly you are proposing a system where people voluntary contribute for the production of a certain service (i.e. schooling) and where there are some criteria for people wanting to make use of that service. I would be all for that!
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.
Sorry if I was a bit brief here. What I mean to say is that they are both so called 'positive liberties' and therefore utopian and not morally defendable. This in the sense that they are impossible to defend without violating negative freedoms as the right for property and the right for individual decision-making.
I'm not shure if I fully understand your argument that reading is a right because it enables people to read the constitution. My understanding of Rights is that they are not the product of a particular person in a particular timeframe, but that rather they are reasonably undeniable postulates embedded in nature, allowing humans to live a life that is virtuous and providing the basic framework for avoidance and resolution of conflict.
I see both reading and swimming pools as commodities, obtainable by putting to use ones scarce resources in a certain direction. I think all people should be free in their choice to obtain ànd provide these goods.
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?
My theory on this is that force-teaching creates the psychological effect of revulsion. Imagine if you will a moment in the near future, where a number of dietists come together, share their disgust for the eating habits of the youth, and decide to lobby for a national programme of force feeding. They succeed, and all children are forced into a routine of three perfectly balanced dishes a day, fed to them on very precise moments of the day. It's my suspicion that very soon, people would be amazed to find out that some children refuse to eat. "How can this be?" people would wonder. "Isn't eating something vital to life?" It is in my opinion the exact same questions educators ask themselves when looking at teens who are tired of academic learning: "how can this be? Isn't learning something vital to life?"
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.
I'm a bit confused on what exactly you are after here. I was trying to illustrate my argument against public schooling for by pointing out that even schooling itself is not a necessary prerequisite for learning R&R. What I tried to get at was that if children (and people in general) are allowed to experience the usefulness of a certain skill, and have possiblity to engage in interaction with people who posess this skill - they are perfectly able to decide for themselves wether or not it will serve them.
Equating "right to read" to "right to a swimming pool". Must remember that one.
LOL - thanks !
JFedako: Paul, Wrong! I know of no state that does not supplement local tax dollars with state-level taxes. And, in Ohio at least, school districts can adopt income taxes or share in county sales tax. The Ohio redistribution system is pernicious, only 7 cents of each income tax dollar is returned to my local district as a form a state school supplement. In many districts, the state kicks back 2 or 3 dollars for each dollar of state income tax. And, do not forget the feds. While they return little, they consume a lot. Everyone is forced to pay for this wasteful and harmful system. By the way, take some time to learn about the effects of taxation on rental property. Someone always pays (whether renter, property owner, investor, etc., or some mix of all). To believe otherwise is to believe in the benign tax that exists just over the rainbow.
Yes, you got me there. I was thinking of mentioning to Torsten the fact that Federal Grants also contributed to school budgets, and that of course is payed by the Income Tax which the parents of the child might pay, but I wanted to keep it simple. I wanted to emphasize to him the importance traditionally placed on funding public schools through local property taxes, which I think is pretty outrageous, but didn't want to bring in the various other Fed and State fundings.
In theory, though, if someone didn't own property, and their income was too low to pay federal and state tax, and that state had no sales tax, and their landlord decided for whatever reason not to pass one cent of his property tax on to the renters costs, then one could in effect go through the whole system without paying a cent for your education. The education of obeying in a Borstal Prison.
You have to pay a county income tax in Ohio? They're really getting desperate for their pelf.
In Ohio: School districts can pass an income tax (by vote of residents). Counties have the ability to pass sales taxes (with or without a vote -- depending on the use of the tax.
Paul Grad: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.
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.
Well, there you are. Since Social Security is warranted to all individuals, the government can do it.
Since roads are warranted to all individuals, the government can do it.
Since everyone is getting a chip implant, the government can do it.
After all, it's for the children.
Paul, I do not doubt your decency and good intentions. What I believe has happened is that you have allowed your desire for literacy to overcome your "libertarian" instinct that given any power, government will abuse that power.
You cannot grant that power to government without having someone else, who does not agree with you, get their rights trampled.
If it is 100% completely voluntary, then it's NOT government. The only way such a voluntary situation can occur is if government has nothing what so ever to do with it.
To government, "voluntary" is defined like the IRS: You may fill out the forms using any means you wish. It's voluntary.
I am back to being confused. I defined government using the words of Mises: the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion. You have created a very different definition.
You have groups of people voluntarily coming together in order to provide schools for their children. Once formed, this group appeals to "government" to run these schools. But, what is government other than a system of coercion and compulsion? Even today, groups of homeschooling families form cooperative "schools" in order to take advantage of the division of labor; one mother teaches science, another father math, etc. Purely voluntary organizations.
What is the role of government here? Keep in mind that government only exists to force people to act other than they choose.
I think hidden in your system is coerced taxation. You expect others to pay in order to protect the "right to read" of those lacking funds or wherewithal. You are simply recreating the public education.
Here is a quote and additional background. (I did not write the background). Note the incrementalism of helping just a few ...
Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery. — Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874
Background:
Disraeli was speaking 4 years after the Forster Act, which was passed merely as a means to ensure that there was provision for the few children in remote rural districts as still were not receiving the benefits of systematic primary education (in rural parishes, the vicar was responsible for education, but in most parishes there were proper schools by this time, almost always church schools). Forster himself explicitly stated that it was not his intention to replace the fine system of private and voluntary education which had proved adequate to usher in the scientific and industrial revolutions, and establish Britain as the world's greatest power. Of course, Forster was naive: as Disraeli spoke, even then the tentacles of state control were sprouting. He would be horrified to know that today, the state is usurping the last freedom of 'voluntary controlled' schools, the right to select pupils of their own religious faith. The freedom of church schools in England has slowly been eroded ever since Disraeli's speech--as recipients of state funding, this was inevitable. A caution to those who believe that vouchers will liberate parents from the state.
Paul Grad: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.
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.
Non-sequiter. Your "government" school is nothing but another private school. To wit: No one pays into it that does not wish to, those who cannot afford it must have their costs offset by extra _voluntary_ contributions by those who wish to use or just fund the system, since the system is incapable of being funded coercively.
Therefore, your use of the term "government" is illogical. Government is coercion. If there is no coercion, there is no government.
I believe this is why your continued protestations that "government" must provide schools is being shot down every time you say it. It is illogical, it is unsupportable, it is a contradiction in terms.
I read elsewhere that you have done no investigation about literacy rates prior to compulsory schooling. Too bad, they were quite spectacular.
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.
Then, (GASP!) Thomas Jefferson was _wrong_. Imagine that!
However, I don't read his writings the same way you do. I don't think he said the government must do anything. As I read it, he said a good government would only remain if the people were generally educated. Since good government has not remained, even with compulsory government schooling, obviously either government schooling sucks or, (GASP!) Jefferson was wrong again.
Jefferson was an optimist. He chickened out of making that one final leap that the only good government is no government at all.
Tuur: Tuur - You should try reading complete arguments before you respond. You claim I demand compulsory education when you say "violence ....(in the instance of forcing citizens to pay for this compulsory education)", yet I have clearly stated several times in several posts that this education would not be compulsory and the only tax money would be from those "citizens" tax monies that were using the program. Voluntary does not mean compulsory in my dictionary. Paul, my apologies. I have to admit that I jumped in without reading your prior posts. If I understand you correctly you are proposing a system where people voluntary contribute for the production of a certain service (i.e. schooling) and where there are some criteria for people wanting to make use of that service. I would be all for that! 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. Sorry if I was a bit brief here. What I mean to say is that they are both so called 'positive liberties' and therefore utopian and not morally defendable. This in the sense that they are impossible to defend without violating negative freedoms as the right for property and the right for individual decision-making. I'm not shure if I fully understand your argument that reading is a right because it enables people to read the constitution. My understanding of Rights is that they are not the product of a particular person in a particular timeframe, but that rather they are reasonably undeniable postulates embedded in nature, allowing humans to live a life that is virtuous and providing the basic framework for avoidance and resolution of conflict. I see both reading and swimming pools as commodities, obtainable by putting to use ones scarce resources in a certain direction. I think all people should be free in their choice to obtain ànd provide these goods. 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? My theory on this is that force-teaching creates the psychological effect of revulsion. Imagine if you will a moment in the near future, where a number of dietists come together, share their disgust for the eating habits of the youth, and decide to lobby for a national programme of force feeding. They succeed, and all children are forced into a routine of three perfectly balanced dishes a day, fed to them on very precise moments of the day. It's my suspicion that very soon, people would be amazed to find out that some children refuse to eat. "How can this be?" people would wonder. "Isn't eating something vital to life?" It is in my opinion the exact same questions educators ask themselves when looking at teens who are tired of academic learning: "how can this be? Isn't learning something vital to life?" 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. I'm a bit confused on what exactly you are after here. I was trying to illustrate my argument against public schooling for by pointing out that even schooling itself is not a necessary prerequisite for learning R&R. What I tried to get at was that if children (and people in general) are allowed to experience the usefulness of a certain skill, and have possiblity to engage in interaction with people who posess this skill - they are perfectly able to decide for themselves wether or not it will serve them. Equating "right to read" to "right to a swimming pool". Must remember that one. LOL - thanks !
Tuur --- You touch on several important points here. First, remember that I am not exactly talking about the Right to Read, but the Right to the Opportunity to Learn to Read, which can be turned down, so there is no coercion. It's not like I'm saying everyone MUST read, or receive compulsive instruction in reading. Nor did I mean exactly the 'Right to Read' (don't like that phrase) was only necessary to read the Constitution. I meant that it was axiomatic to and included in both Right to Life and (more directly) Right to Pursuit of Happiness. Now, you say that "positive liberties" are utopian and therefore not morally defensable. And that would be so under any theoretical government. But here, I am dealing solely with the U.S. Constitution. Now that constitution puts forth 3 "positive liberties", and if you consider them such, you would have to say, under your definition, that the U.S. Constitution was not morally defensable. But I feel it is moral, even though I acknowledge that it gives government certain coercive powers ( fund and obey police, call to jury duty). Now I would include that opportunity to read in the " Right to Pursuit of Happiness" clause, although Right to Life would also apply if you needed to consult the Merck Manual in a medical emergency.
Now you admit that rights are "reasonably undeniable postulates embedded in nature, allowing humans to live a life that is virtuous ...", an interesting def and one I would pretty much concur with at first think. Now if these Rights allow for a virtuous human life, how can they at the same time be "not morally defensable" as you say positive rights are above. I also realize that the positive rights Jefferson is positing approach freedom from the Via Negativa, instead of La Strada Fascistica of big government, one large paving stone of which is the Public School Industries. It is in the restraints imposed on Big Brother, that Jefferson delineates our freedoms and rights.
Your theory of forced-feeding revulsion is interesting, but ignores two points. One is that once someone learns to read, and practices a while, they aren't going to forget how to do it in the normal course of events. Children might not like to read because of the method and that may turn them off to books, but I doubt once a child starts enjoying reading books, he will suddenly revulse at the remembered coercion that went into learning it. But it is possible.
The other point is that it overlooks all the illiterates in pre-mandatory education England who were surrounded by literates, worked in areas with signs and print everywhere, but never learned how to read. Probably, they did learn those signs meant something, and I imagine many many did go on to self-educate themselves into literacy. But observers of the time would not have noted illiteracy frequently if it almost always disappeared spontaneously under the conditions you posit. I think illiteracy and its costs to commerce were probably some of the main reasons Britannia instigated compulsory education in the 19th century.
However, I think you are probably right that if children were around people who needed to read to function, and they gently helped them, explaining what a sign is, or words or sentences are when the child seems interested in the subject, it would achieve the same results or better than our current prisons-for-children. Spontaneous interest is the best interest. However, I'd refer you to the Monsieur Grenier's earlier posts on the effects of teaching language without a grounding in grammar.
My point on the rapid cross-exam was that if your spontaneous method depended on a teacher, it differed little from the government program. Either that or you were willing to possibly have a good percentage of children remain illiterate, unless some good Samaritan stepped in to help them. And that willingness to let many remain illiterate would violate my understanding of Jefferson's intent in his Right to Pursuit of Happiness, backed up by his personal love of books, and his strong view on the inestimable value of reading a wide variety of literature, including poetry and fiction. I can't help but feel that Jefferson would have feared that widespread illiteracy would make tyrannical takeover of government and the subversion of the Constitution very easy, as we are seeing currently, so that he would have been in favor of virtually guaranteeing near 100% literacy, though not by the "forcible asportation" of the child as discussed in earlier posts. And the very high literacy rate in America has obviously not stopped, though it may have hindered, that ossification of Liberty. But as I said, I think your method may well be sound as far as practical results.
JFedako: Paul, I am back to being confused. I defined government using the words of Mises: the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion. You have created a very different definition. You have groups of people voluntarily coming together in order to provide schools for their children. Once formed, this group appeals to "government" to run these schools. But, what is government other than a system of coercion and compulsion? Even today, groups of homeschooling families form cooperative "schools" in order to take advantage of the division of labor; one mother teaches science, another father math, etc. Purely voluntary organizations. What is the role of government here? Keep in mind that government only exists to force people to act other than they choose. I think hidden in your system is coerced taxation. You expect others to pay in order to protect the "right to read" of those lacking funds or wherewithal. You are simply recreating the public education. Here is a quote and additional background. (I did not write the background). Note the incrementalism of helping just a few ... Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery. — Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874 Background: Disraeli was speaking 4 years after the Forster Act, which was passed merely as a means to ensure that there was provision for the few children in remote rural districts as still were not receiving the benefits of systematic primary education (in rural parishes, the vicar was responsible for education, but in most parishes there were proper schools by this time, almost always church schools). Forster himself explicitly stated that it was not his intention to replace the fine system of private and voluntary education which had proved adequate to usher in the scientific and industrial revolutions, and establish Britain as the world's greatest power. Of course, Forster was naive: as Disraeli spoke, even then the tentacles of state control were sprouting. He would be horrified to know that today, the state is usurping the last freedom of 'voluntary controlled' schools, the right to select pupils of their own religious faith. The freedom of church schools in England has slowly been eroded ever since Disraeli's speech--as recipients of state funding, this was inevitable. A caution to those who believe that vouchers will liberate parents from the state.
Right. You are dealing with Mises universal concept of government; I am dealing with the U.S. Constitution concept. Different meanings.
You are right; just as I create a system of forced taxation to pay for the police force, so the cost of providing this reading and maths basic education would fall on the tax payer if the revenues of voluntary public education (schools) didn't match expenditures. One solution would be to deny that public education to those who couldn't afford it. That would take away the coercive tax on non-users. The other solution would be to regard it as equally vital to the carrying out of the U.S. Constitution, and fund its deficits through the tax system. This would indeed establish public education.
My idea was similar to Ron Paul's plan for Soc.Sec. reform. Make it volutary, with all costs born by those who use it, and people can opt out if they don't want to pay in or benefit by it.
I could easily conceive of people demanding to send their children to this voluntary government school (assuming the users must cover cost or not use it) because they always thought government did things best, or because they didn't want them homeschooled (I want accredited teachers teaching my children) or didn't like private schools (they're religious, their atheistic, they're elitist, I'm a Commie and refuse to pay for my children's education as a human right). Maybe someone wants their kid to be brow-beaten and bored silly, strapped to a chair for five hours, and learning blind obedience because they feel that will be the only way for their child to learn to survive in the coming Orwellian Age.
As a practical matter, these courses of instruction in reading and maths would only have to run a month or two to accomplish their goals. The parents could even be in attendance during class to make sure their children aren't abused. They could be held in pre-existing buildings or public squares or parks, so there would be none of the huge infrastructure costs that eat up most of the money extorted to run the present corrupt and shoddy system. It's deficit cost might be a fraction of 1% on the income, sales, or ? tax, although I realize that is immaterial to the argument. It would still be coercion.
But I'm curious to know, since you feel government is so wicked, how you could then justify maintaining a police force and a tax to pay for the police? Or do you feel that that is a terrible evil too, to have to pay and maintain a police force, and you think we should all be responsible for our own protection and form vigilante groups and courts?
If you do not believe in right to read, but do believe in a police force, how can you guarantee the police can read the laws and file legal papers? And what of the case where you cannot find enough literate cops to enforce the laws because they cannot read the posted restrictions? Do you abandon the police force, or teach them to read through the wickedness of government coerced reading classes? Seems to me the coercive taxation you would have to employ to teach the illiterate cops to read would be no different than the coercive taxation I might have to employ to teach reading and addition to children.
"I'm a Commie and refuse to pay for my children's education as a human right" is an interesting hypothetical comment in light of plank 10 of the Communist Manifesto, which reads, in part: "Free education for all children in public schools."
You tend to mix things up. You create a voluntary school system that is funded through coercive taxation because we need (inter alia) government police to be literate. And here I thought your system was voluntary. So, what is guaranteeing literate police? Sounds more and more like mandatory schooling with set learning objectives.
Don't you realize that the market could enforce a policy of literate protection service personnel, if such was desired by consumers?
It's like you have no concept of incrementalism, or politics in general. If you can derive a positive "right to read," why can't someone else derive a similar "right to cipher?"
JFedako: Paul, "I'm a Commie and refuse to pay for my children's education as a human right" is an interesting hypothetical comment in light of plank 10 of the Communist Manifesto, which reads, in part: "Free education for all children in public schools." You tend to mix things up. You create a voluntary school system that is funded through coercive taxation because we need (inter alia) government police to be literate. And here I thought your system was voluntary. So, what is guaranteeing literate police? Sounds more and more like mandatory schooling with set learning objectives. Don't you realize that the market could enforce a policy of literate protection service personnel, if such was desired by consumers? It's like you have no concept of incrementalism, or politics in general. If you can derive a positive "right to read," why can't someone else derive a similar "right to cipher?"
No, I don't see how the market could enforce a policy of literate protection service personnel, if such was desired by consumers, because whether they desired it or not would be immaterial to whether they could pay for it. If they couldn't pay for it, there would be no police force in your society, and possibly no one able to read the laws, unless they became literate by chance. Sounds like we'd be back to a state of Nature. Waiting for the market to develop enough literate police while the barbarians are looting the neighborhood sounds like no warranty of property rights at all.
Specifically, what Rights would you have under the generic government of Mises, and how would you warrant those Rights under the U.S.Constitution without using coercive taxation, or is coercive taxation and government fine when it is only providing a police force. And who pays, runs, and tests the bullion at the mint? Not the government I hope.
I would say that if you have a concept that there is a Right to have a police force, you could use that as a form of incrementalism to end up with the right to public education. In fact this policy of "security" has been used to spread government into areas it has no business being in, like farm subsidies, or federally insured bank deposits, subsidies through the tax code to marrieds.
Also, I did not say we needed a government education system to have literate police, but to guarantee the Right to Pursuit of Happiness. I merely pointed out that under your system the literacy of the police and their ability to carry out the law could not be guaranteed, and it must be guaranteed to have a police force which is the basis of all property rights societies. Without my Right to learn to read(Pursuiit of Happiness Right), the competency of your police force cannot be warranted.
CurtHowland: Paul Grad: 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. Non-sequiter. Your "government" school is nothing but another private school. To wit: No one pays into it that does not wish to, those who cannot afford it must have their costs offset by extra _voluntary_ contributions by those who wish to use or just fund the system, since the system is incapable of being funded coercively. Therefore, your use of the term "government" is illogical. Government is coercion. If there is no coercion, there is no government. I believe this is why your continued protestations that "government" must provide schools is being shot down every time you say it. It is illogical, it is unsupportable, it is a contradiction in terms. I read elsewhere that you have done no investigation about literacy rates prior to compulsory schooling. Too bad, they were quite spectacular. 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. Then, (GASP!) Thomas Jefferson was _wrong_. Imagine that! However, I don't read his writings the same way you do. I don't think he said the government must do anything. As I read it, he said a good government would only remain if the people were generally educated. Since good government has not remained, even with compulsory government schooling, obviously either government schooling sucks or, (GASP!) Jefferson was wrong again. Jefferson was an optimist. He chickened out of making that one final leap that the only good government is no government at all.
Paul Grad: 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.
In point of fact, what I actually said was "While I have not done extensive investigation..." Is it really necessary to blatantly distort people's positions to try to prove a point?
Some of us who have read a few general histories of 18th and 19th cent Britiain, and who have read some Dickens novels, don't have to rush to Google to re-learn what we garnered with our government-provided reading instruction years ago and can remember.
Not having done extensive investigation is not the same as "you have done no investigation", which is a clear distortion of what I said. Your evident surpise at discovering through Google what is generally common knowledge well illustrates the current educational paucity.
"The only good government is no government at all." The anarchist's hatred of Jefferson, and his Rights enforcement.
Paul Grad:Well, I would still like an answer to my question of how you would maintain a police force and pay for it without setting up government, unless you believe there should only be private militias and private courts? Or are you an anarchist who believes there should be no police, no laws, no government at all?
Paul Grad:No, I don't see how the market could enforce a policy of literate protection service personnel, if such was desired by consumers, because whether they desired it or not would be immaterial to whether they could pay for it. If they couldn't pay for it, there would be no police force in your society, and possibly no one able to read the laws, unless they became literate by chance.
Paul Grad: Sounds like we'd be back to a state of Nature. Waiting for the market to develop enough literate police while the barbarians are looting the neighborhood sounds like no warranty of property rights at all.
Paul Grad:Some of us who have read a few general histories of 18th and 19th cent Britiain, and who have read some Dickens novels, don't have to rush to Google to re-learn what we garnered with our government-provided reading instruction years ago and can remember.
{queue John Cleese} Ah, Dickens!
Thank you, Paul, I'd forgotten how Scrooge had to constantly correct Cratchet's math.
However, with your repeated citations of Jefferson, I had thought you were referring to the state of American education, to which I referred you to sources which directly refute your comments.
Not having done extensive investigation is not the same as "you have done no investigation", which is a clear distortion of what I said. Your evident surpise at discovering through Google what is generally common knowledge well illustrates the current educational paucity. "The only good government is no government at all." The anarchist's hatred of Jefferson, and his Rights enforcement.
Let's see, how many errors in two sentenses? I didn't use Google. I am not surprised. It's not common knowledge, and you're only demonstrating your own lack of intellectual honesty. Next, "anarchists" don't hate Jefferson, and he didn't invent the idea of government protecting people's rights.
After watching your arguments slayed over and over, Paul, by many different people, maybe you need to re-think your position? Especially since you consider my public education to have been wasted. Where's your "universal quality of government education" now?
Torsten --- You say "I doubt barbarians will try to loot a place with armed citizens and without a state police force protecting their "human rights".
The examples of Genghis Khan, the Japanese warlords, and the German Army in WWII spring to mind. I doubt barbarians wouldn't loot a place without a state police force, even if the citizens were armed.
CurtHowland: Paul Grad: Some of us who have read a few general histories of 18th and 19th cent Britiain, and who have read some Dickens novels, don't have to rush to Google to re-learn what we garnered with our government-provided reading instruction years ago and can remember. {queue John Cleese} Ah, Dickens! Thank you, Paul, I'd forgotten how Scrooge had to constantly correct Cratchet's math. However, with your repeated citations of Jefferson, I had thought you were referring to the state of American education, to which I referred you to sources which directly refute your comments. Not having done extensive investigation is not the same as "you have done no investigation", which is a clear distortion of what I said. Your evident surpise at discovering through Google what is generally common knowledge well illustrates the current educational paucity. "The only good government is no government at all." The anarchist's hatred of Jefferson, and his Rights enforcement. Let's see, how many errors in two sentenses? I didn't use Google. I am not surprised. It's not common knowledge, and you're only demonstrating your own lack of intellectual honesty. Next, "anarchists" don't hate Jefferson, and he didn't invent the idea of government protecting people's rights. After watching your arguments slayed over and over, Paul, by many different people, maybe you need to re-think your position? Especially since you consider my public education to have been wasted. Where's your "universal quality of government education" now?
Paul Grad: Some of us who have read a few general histories of 18th and 19th cent Britiain, and who have read some Dickens novels, don't have to rush to Google to re-learn what we garnered with our government-provided reading instruction years ago and can remember.
The Diffusion of Knowledge. Section 6: "At every of these schools shall be taught reading, writing, and common arithmetick, and the books which shall be used therein for instructing the children to read shall be such as will, at the same time, make them acquainted with Graecian, Roman, English and American history. At these schools, all the free children, male and female, resident within the respective hundred, shall be ENTITLED to receive tuition gratis for the term of three years, and as much longer, at their private expense, as their parents, guardians, or friends shall think proper." --- Thomas Jefferson
What a wicked, immoral, looting Communist that Jefferson was!
The story below popped in my head when I read this post... Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home.As far as I know the German army (barbarians, if you will), never invaded Switzerland. Furthermore, I wonder, with no taxes or inflation as income, where will a large private army get their money from? From looting, one may argue... But in what way does a private army, looting together its' income, significantly differs from a government army? I guess one can say that the goverment army has no competition within its' territory, as it is backed by the state's power to disarm all citizens. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.html
Tuur: The story below popped in my head when I read this post... Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home.As far as I know the German army (barbarians, if you will), never invaded Switzerland. Furthermore, I wonder, with no taxes or inflation as income, where will a large private army get their money from? From looting, one may argue... But in what way does a private army, looting together its' income, significantly differs from a government army? I guess one can say that the goverment army has no competition within its' territory, as it is backed by the state's power to disarm all citizens. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.html
I doubt they didn't invade Switzerland because they were afraid of the militia. They needed Switzerland to fence the gold they were looting from their victims teeth and safe deposit boxes in a respectable way, to raise hard currency to buy oil from the Arabs and iron ore from Sweden. If they looted every other country in Europe and Russia, they wouldn't have respected Swiss sovereignty, with all those riches just across the border. And Switzerland knew that if the Germans lost, they'd get to keep all the assets in the bank accounts of those the *** murdered. A looters contract that worked to the advantage of both. But we're off topic.
Paul Grad:What a wicked, immoral, looting Communist that Jefferson was!
Paul, you're contradicting yourself again. You said it was "anarchists" who hated Jefferson. You have made it very clear you are no anarchist.
I've already stated that I don't treat Jefferson as an infalable saint, while I do see him as having contributed to the advantage of Liberty. If you want to read into a single word that Jefferson wrote a justification for the entire Leviathan State, you are welcome to do so. Just don't expect anyone else who isn't a rabid statist to agree with you, or anyone to agree that just because Jefferson said something it is therefore sacrosanct and beyond question.
Now please, isn't there something better you have to do with your time than try to rationalize government-controlled schools on a free-market message board?
Paul Grad: Torsten --- You say "I doubt barbarians will try to loot a place with armed citizens and without a state police force protecting their "human rights". The examples of Genghis Khan, the Japanese warlords, and the German Army in WWII spring to mind. I doubt barbarians wouldn't loot a place without a state police force, even if the citizens were armed.
Concerning what you say about Switzerland you are basically parroting Anti-Swiss propaganda. The swiss militia maybe a sufficient measure against an invading force, but it wasn't effective against that well organized effort to milk the Swiss banks and economy. The Swiss state has grown more intrusive over the years, but that didn't protect them from that campaign to get ransom money from them, which was I must note merely an effort by private organisations. This is however another matter and you should start a special thread on the subject.
For further reading on the subject I recommend :
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=8