A School banned Legos because the Free Market was not a Fair and Equal.

A School banned Legos because the Free Market was not a Fair and Equal. It's a long article, but a good read. It references Free Market vs. Controlled Market, Private Ownership vs. Public Ownership, and Individuality vs. Collectivity. What I question is the conclusion of the articles: -Collectivity is a good thing: "You get to build and you have a lot of fun and people get to build onto your structure with you, and it doesn't have to be the same way as when you left it.... A house is good because it is a community house." -Personal expression matters: "It's important that the little Lego plastic person has some identity. Lego houses might be all the same except for the people. A kid should have their own Lego character to live in the house so it makes the house different." -Shared power is a valued goal: "It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building. And it's important to have the same priorities." "Before, it was the older kids who had the power because they used Legos most. Little kids have more rights now than they used to and older kids have half the rights." -Moderation and equal access to resources are things to strive for: "We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes.... We should all just have the same number of pieces, like 15 or 28 pieces." Your thoughts?

What is the original source for this piece of (bad) news?

If real I found this astonishing. Lego is a Danish company (ie from one of the "happiest and most equal nations on earth" according to many Liberals) and has always been tremendously image-conscious. They've always refused to make anything that's even remotely military-related to the point that even drab-coloured blocks have never been made, they list the component sources on each one of their products so people will know they are not exploiting child-labour or buying from countries with bad human-rights record... I think that now they've even become carbon-neutral to keep the green crowd happy.

Yet this is still not enough. Lego has already been in financial troubles in the past (it's hard to offer a competitively-priced toy completely made in Europe), will this herald more troubles for the poor Danes? Will they be forced to make construction sets containing exactly the same number of blocks just to keep selling? Will they be forced into reducing offer (for example by eliminating the widely popular Technic series) just to stay on the market?

Hehe, read the article on the Mises blog. It's more to do with teachers playing god.

I read that article sometime back.

 Definately social engineering on the part of the indoctrinators...er...teachers.

Here is a link to the piece  

 

 i think its kinda disturbing bad,...

but theres another way to look at it (see the bright side of life...)

 

the teachers whilst explicity giving a lesson on collectivism are implicitly giving a lesson about private control..

e.g. teachers nag at the kids to play in a certain way with the lego , encouraging the kids to share their lego power and act collectively

this is really teaching kids that the owners of a good (teachers that own the lego) can determine what happens to it

(how the kids can play with it)

are the teachers arguing that collectivism is good so the kids should have a say  in how the class is run, + what time in the morning the teachers must get up, and where in the classroom everyone must sit, and who wears what coat when they go out for break, etc. blah, blah no.

 the kids know who has the power in the kids/teacher dynamic,  and what the heirarchy is....

 

jtucker:

Here is a link to the piece  

 

Thanks.

Mark B.:

I read that article sometime back.

Definately social engineering on the part of the indoctrinators...er...teachers.

I agree with Mark.  It appears that the teachers of this after school program are conducting a little social experiment--and a little reprogramming under the guise of education--by influencing the children's ideas and pushing the socialist-collectivist ideology.  I'm going to read the article again before I comment further.

    So, basically, the teacher's telling the children to express themselves by doing everything she says and acting like everyone else (how progressive). How about, instead of taking "rights" away from the older kids to give to the younger (somebody read Robin Hood a few to many times), they buy more damn Legos and let the kids use their imaginations for once, or would that stifle their "education". If this teacher really believes this then how would you think she'd feel if I built unto her home a cow pasture? After all, a house is good because it's a community house.

The ironic thing is that the teachers probably didn't ban lego straight away, they probably tried to manipulate the kids into giving up the higher valued lego, first voluntarily, then more coercively, and when this didn't work, the teachers simply give up! Like the movie-star or champagne socialist, if at the first you don't suceed... give up... not my problem... I'm still rich! The free-market is for life - not just for Christmas.

Ennio45:

taking "rights" away from the older kids to give to the younger (somebody read Robin Hood a few to many times)

This is kind of off-topic, but it reminds me how the Robin Hood story has been usurped to fit the collectivist mold. Isn't the story about the Sheriff applying high taxation on its people to the benefit of his noble friends, with Robin Hood robbing the money back to the people? I remember in the story I read, there were taxes on everything, including taxes on taxes. ;) I guess there are variants...

On a follow up, how would a libertarian/austrian teacher go about handling the situation. Hands off? Buy more legos? Have a discussion about the free market in terms the kids can understand? Assuming the kids came up with there own rules, wouldn't that suffice as free market?

I saw this on FARK a couple of years ago. I'm glad I'm not still in school, and I'm glad I don't have school-age children.

BlackSheep:

This is kind of off-topic, but it reminds me how the Robin Hood story has been usurped to fit the collectivist mold. Isn't the story about the Sheriff applying high taxation on its people to the benefit of his noble friends, with Robin Hood robbing the money back to the people? I remember in the story I read, there were taxes on everything, including taxes on taxes. ;) I guess there are variants...

Essentially, you're right. Robin Hood was merely "reclaiming" stolen property.  But don't forget that the Sheriff got his power from the King's brother who ruled evilly while the King himself was off fighting in the Crusades.  Robin Hood was simply trying to help people until the "good" king got back and put things right again.

So the story of Robin Hood was essentially a defense of monarchy (and tangentially of Christianity).