[Split topic from Education]

[MelloElf]

.:Edit: This topic has been split off from another thread. Oddness may exist near the beginning. --Alpaca:.

Greetings Alpaca, Good Folk!

But they represent what I think is the fundamental problem with out educational system today: lack of intelligence.
[...]
Meanwhile, your thoughts on education, siblings?

I can certainly agree that the American education system can sure give an appearance of lacking intelligence - I chafed at the very same symptom when I was in school.  I no longer think that that is case, however.

We tend to talk very casually about "educational systems", usually in reference to one established by a particular nation's central government.  When we discuss the American one, we should be clear that we are really discussing the Prussian school system:

The Prussian system proved to be a success for that government's purposes. By the late 1800's men in the United States including Horace Mann, Barnis Sears, and Calvin Stove heard about the successes of the Prussian system. They traveled to Germany to investigate how the educational process worked. Upon their return to the United States they lobbied heavily to have the Prussian model adopted.

Horace Mann was largely responsible for the introduction of compulsory public education, Prussian-style, in the United States.

• Wikipedia, Prussian education system

Of course this begs the question: what were "that government's purposes"? 

Seeking to replace the controlling functions of the local aristocracy, the Prussian court attempted to instill social obedience in the citizens through indoctrination. Every individual had to become convinced, in the core of his being, that the King was just, his decisions always right, and the need for obedience paramount.

The schools imposed an official language to the prejudice of ethnic groups living in Prussia. The purpose of the system was to instill loyalty to the Crown and to train young men for the military and the bureaucracy. As the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, a key influence on the system, said, "The schools must fashion the person, and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will."

• Wikipedia, Prussian education system

Just as the Prussian system was intended to unify Germany, the American educators' goal was to create a national culture out of the disparate subcultures that comprised the country in that period. (Catholic immigrants were a prominent target.) "To do that," writes [John Taylor Gatto, the New York State Teacher of the Year in 1991], "children would have to be removed from their parents and from inappropriate cultural influences."

The modern public school curriculum comes right out of the Prussian system. Gatto says the American educationists imported three major ideas from Prussia. The first was that the purpose of state schooling was not intellectual training but the conditioning of children "to obedience, subordination and collective life." Second, whole ideas were broken into fragmented "subjects," and school days were divided into fixed periods "so that self-motivation to learn would be muted by ceaseless interruptions." Third, the state was posited as the true parent of the children.

• Horrors! Maybe the Schools Are Working Just Fine

Now, one wouldn't expect reasons such as these to go over too well with the American people then or now.  Not to worry - governments have a couple tried & tested tools at their disposal: playing to people's fears, and harnessing their natural goodwill.  Particularly tragic is how state officials appeal to the desire that most people have to see others do well in order to get their policies accepted, turning the best intentions into an act of aggression.

Most people would like everyone to be well-fed, well-educated, healthy, & happy.  Some people are even willing & able to put their money where there mouth is.  But with government on your side, you can put other people's money where your mouth is.  In addition to being compulsory, the public school system is funded with stolen money - that is, money extracted from others under the threat of violence.  Now many people will have a hard time accepting the notion that taxes are a form of armed robbery.  If I were to refuse to pay the portion of my property taxes allocated to fund the public schools ($868.82), it won't be long before the government claims my house, and they will arrest me at gunpoint should I refuse to leave.  Note that the outcome would be the same even if I was unable to pay because I quit my job to volunteer full-time for that very same school system.

So, whether by playing up fears of an uneducated & impoverished mob or by plucking the heartstrings of those desiring opportunity for others, policy makers have successfully created an institution that is both empowering to them and virtually unthinkable to remove.

I find it ironic that one of the earliest lessons we learn is that "two wrongs don't make a right", yet here we are still justifying the initiation of force against others to "correct" the the perceived problems in education.

All in all, I find that I agree with Sheldon Richman when he writes:

So, judged by their purpose, how have the public schools performed?

Not bad, really. Unlike our ancestors' private schools, the public schools produce citizens who look to government to make important decisions for them — from whether to help the poor, to what drugs to take, to how to get an education — and solve societal problems.

• Horrors! Maybe the Schools Are Working Just Fine

One thing that I've noticed that is endemic to this discussion is the concept of "fairness".  Now, who in their right mind would take up a stance against fairness?!  Well, apparently I would - and I will leave it to the reader to decide whether I am, indeed, in my right mind.  Does this make me for "unfairness"?  Yes & no, I think - it all comes down to what one considers fair.

Is it fair that some of us are born into poverty, while others are born into wealth?  Is it fair that  some gazelles are eaten by lions, while other live to old age browsing the savanna?  Is it fair that some baby birds live to fly, while a gust of wind sends others to the ground to die of exposure?  These things just are.  "That's all well & fine", you say, "but humans are conscious & can affect their environment in unprecedented ways... it is incumbent  upon us to be fair & just - because we, alone, can".  Or maybe you don't say that, but some do!  I swear!  Besides, it gives me a perfect opening to ask:  "Is it fair to compel other conscious beings to act against their wishes, provided they are not injuring you?"  Schemes of fairness that rely on the forced reallocation of wealth seem to assert that that is, indeed, fair.  I beg to differ.

I bring this up only because fairness is so often used to justify the current educational system.  I don't want to see children raised in ignorance because their parents are poor.   I do know that I would have a lot more money to give to charity if nearly 50%of my income weren't being stolen from me "for the greater good".  I do know that there is nothing fair, in my estimation, about the current state of affairs.  And I do know that there is no "one size fits all" solution when it comes to education - or much else, for that matter.

I suspect that I've rambled on enough at this point.  There is so much to be said in relation to this topic....  If any of you have made it this far, I thank you for your patience & perseverance!

Alpaca, I'm sorry if this sounds like a harsh condemnation of an institution which you have to live with for the moment.  Life grants many opportunities to choose between the "red pill" and the "blue pill".  If any of this resonates with you, all you need do is look into it on your own & form your own opinion.  You seem to already be seeing the glitches in the matrix.  Pulling at the loose threads will allow you to inform yourself.  You may not find anything interesting, but you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you looked!

Cheers!

elf

[Sibling Chatty]

I do know that I would have a lot more money to give to charity if nearly 50%of my income weren't being stolen from me "for the greater good".

Would you care to elucidate on the nature of your ability to provide all your very own (roads, airports, fire, police and other protections, et cetera)  infrastructure, and how this 'theft' (and that of your school takes) should NOT be considered part of your repayment to the larger society that provided these thing far you as you were growing up, and until this point, where you're prepared to take over and provide all this for yourself?

You ARE prepared to forgo airports, streets, highways, hospitals, all educational systems, all manufactured or shipped in goods AND the services of technicians that were trained in any of the public financed systems OR that might arrive at your destination using them, are you not? No mail, UPS, DHL, etc either, as tax funding helped establish them, too, and they're users of the same infrastructure...and the funding for the development of the Internet and the WWW came from taxes as well, so--well, it's getting problematic now.

Hmmm.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Mellow Elf after reading your post I've been forced to re-evaluate my previous conceptions and have become a new convert. You see, I too pay property taxes in what would look like an exorbitant amount, in fact around U$500 monthly are set appart for that purpose.

Now, in the same way everybody wants fairness, no one likes taxes (you know, 'theft') so as every normal Joe I considered the amount of taxes outrageous.

But your post forced me to think and recall a conversation I had with the mother of a kid my son met at the museum, regarding the monthly fees of his private school, which were around $650 monthly.

Wait! What was that? The fee of a private school is $150 more a month than my taxes bill? And on top I get paved streets, police, firemen and a local hospital. Wow! What a deal!  Who would have thought that education could be that expensive...

But there is a lesson here, just on the economics of it the state wants me to have more children!

[Sibling Chatty]

Oh boy!  The irresistible force and the unmovable object meet.   I think I'll retire to my bomb shelter. 

No need.

Out of this.

[MelloElf]

Hello, Sibling Chatty!

I had already written the following when I noticed that you had recently posted that you were no longer interested in discussing this.  I'm posting this anyway, in the hope that you or somebody else would like to pick up where you left off.

Would you care to elucidate on the nature of your ability to provide all your very own (roads, airports, fire, police and other protections, et cetera)  infrastructure,

Heavens, no!  Why on earth would I want to do that?  I would, however, be more than happy to contract for any & all of the services that I desire or need, within the constraints of my budget - much as I already do for my cell phone, internet, insurance, pest control, a/c maintenance, car maintenance, vocational training, lawn service, checking account, etc.

and how this 'theft' (and that of your school takes) should NOT be considered part of your repayment to the larger society that provided these thing far you as you were growing up, and until this point, where you're prepared to take over and provide all this for yourself?

Ah, now we're getting down to the brass tacks.  The crux of your argument seems to be that taxes are not theft because they are the repayment of a debt to "the larger society".  So the taxes paid by my parents weren't enough?  Where is the contract for this debt?  What are the terms?  Who, exactly, constitutes this "larger society"?  Forgetting, for the moment, questions regarding the identity of this larger society and the absence of voluntary contracts for services, I still fail to see where I have a debt.  Lacking a written agreement to refer to, I can only surmise that my parents paid for the public services they received as they went.  As I have also paid my taxes ever since adulthood, I'm missing the part where I became indebted to anyone.  If I've carelessly overlooked something, please point it out.

You ARE prepared to forgo airports, streets, highways, hospitals, all educational systems, all manufactured or shipped in goods AND the services of technicians that were trained in any of the public financed systems OR that might arrive at your destination using them, are you not? No mail, UPS, DHL, etc either, as tax funding helped establish them, too, and they're users of the same infrastructure...and the funding for the development of the Internet and the WWW came from taxes as well

The rest of your argument is simply a list of goods & services that you presume that I must be willing to do without because tax money was used at some point in their production chains.  I see where you are coming from, but don't you think having to forgo "the services of technicians that were trained in any of the public financed systems" is a bit of a stretch?  Would you make it illegal for them to trade voluntarily with me because they learned their trade in an institution that was funded to one degree or another by taxes?  Or is that another obligation listed in every citizen's invisible social contract?

Are you arguing that everyone must continue to submit to robbery because everyone else is being robbed & that practically every corner of the economy is influenced by all this stolen money?  Or are you just pointing out the difficulties in progressing towards a freer social organization?  If the latter, I think we've put the cart before the horse here.  Before we get into an in-depth discussion of how to move towards a voluntary society - a topic deserving of a thread or twelve in its own right - perhaps we should establish the legitimacy & morality (or lack thereof) of taxation first. 

Towards that end, perhaps you would care to elucidate:

• how taxes are actually a repayment of a legitimate debt.
• when it is right & just to initiate force (directly, or via an agent) against the person or property of another human being.
• how the criteria that you provide in response to the above items can be uniformly & consistently applied to all human beings without contradiction.

I look forward to your (or anyone's) considered response.

Alpaca, Sibling Zono - Thanks for the responses... I'll reply as time permits!

Cheers!

elf

[Alpaca]

Hey, I've split up the Education topic and this topic, since the subjects are diverging somewhat. Mello, feel free to edit the topic title to make it accurately reflect the subject, which I'm having trouble defining.

I would, however, be more than happy to contract for any & all of the services that I desire or need, within the constraints of my budget - much as I already do for my cell phone, internet, insurance, pest control, a/c maintenance, car maintenance, vocational training, lawn service, checking account, etc.

Question. You mention the constraints of your budget. How are you going to personally fund a system of roads to get you everywhere you need to go?

[The Meromorph]

MelloElf,
I somewhat regret that this is (obviously) going to be a one-against-many' discussion, but not much, because you knew that when you started it. 
I'll start at the most basic level...
Would you be prepared to pay for a common 'Police Force' to enforce the rule of law?

[Griffin NoName]

That's my question too. Add in airports, fire, police and other protections, et cetera, -  infrastructure.

On a different note, perhaps it is different in the US, but we give out governement mandate to govern and tax us for services. If we don't agree, we can vote against the government in elections - or for some other government whichever way you want to look at it. If we feel our vote is wasted, we can go live in some other country. I may not agree with exactly how much I am taxed, or exactly how the money is spent, but to call it theft is not how I see it at all. If I am able I contribute; if I am unable I expect support; that is the nature of the agreement. This means it is not my decision how much I "donate". Seems sensible to me as most people are greedy and would not "donate" enough.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

On the same vein, how about 'homeland defense', an army and all the military complex required to sustain it? Is that theft too?

[ivor]

It would be funny to be waiting outside your flaming house with a credit card negotiating a deal to put it out.

Wasn't the Old West pretty much total anarchy? 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

It would be funny to be waiting outside your flaming house with a credit card negotiating a deal to put it out.

-Hey Jim, could you please swipe this credit card?
-What for, there is no signal out here
-The go drive wherever there's a signal, dammit!

25 minutes later

-I'm afraid your card has been declined...

[The Meromorph]

Followed by:--
- What! I have thousands of dollars in that account, they've stolen my money! Police!
- Yes sir, we can handle that - do you have a credit card?

[Bluenose]

It seems to me that the way the taxation system has evolved in the Western democracies is that now we collectively paytaxes  into a common fund (called Consolidated Revenue in Australia, I am sure there is some similar tern used in the US and elsewhere) and we elect people to administer those funds and not coincidentally, govern the country in the commoon good.

The system is not perfect but frankly MelloElf, your suggestion that you "contract" for only those services you need or want is not only IMO extremely selfish, but simply nonsensical.

Many (probably most) infrastructure items take years of planning and construction not to mention millions or even billions of dollars to execute.  Unless you are advocating a return to the hunter gatherer or perhaps a subsistence farming economy I don't see how you seriously think that things like dams, highways, hospitals and so on ad infinitum can possibly be built with your proposed "negotiation" process.

There appears to be nowhere in your scheme for someone to advance his or her place in life based upon effort and merit, only those who start out with the resources would be able to afford to improve their lot.

Some of your countrymen once famously made the statement "no taxation without representation"  this gets to the nub of the issue.  The reason why taxation is justified is because we as a society get to shape through our political processes how the taxation is used and even how much there is.  As one of my (former) countrymen once said "Democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried".

Your proposed "system" would simply be the law the of the jungle.  It is not a place I wish to live.

[MelloElf]

Most of the questions so far relate to my ability to step out of the existing tax-based society, how we would do without all the goods & services currently paid for with taxes, or the efficiency of private alternatives.  First, I never intended to make a case for my individual secession, so that question, as formed, becomes academic.  As there are others who share my desire for a free (referring to liberty, not cost) existence, I think it is reasonable to lump these types of questions under the heading: "How can we move towards a viable, voluntary (tax-free) society?". 

While I think that that would be an excellent topic for discussion, before we dive into the "how" of the matter, we must first address the "should".  This brings us back to the assertion I made in my original post that has seemed to rattle so many cages:  "Taxation is an act of robbery".  Unless this statement is shown to be false, arguments regarding "how to provide this or that" amount to arguing that theft is good when it appears to be the only practical or convenient way of getting what you want.

So is taxation robbery?  I arrive at the conclusion that is,indeed, with the following observations & reasoning:

• Robbery is the taking of another's property by use of force or fear.
• A tax is a charge against a citizen's person or property or activity for the support of government.
• Absent a voluntary (non-coerced) contract to the contrary, there can be no legitimate claim upon a person or their property.
• Non-payment of taxes is punishable by the use of force.

These are the fundamental aspects of my argument.  I understand that there is room for reasonable questioning of them.  If I have erred in my logic or made an assumption that isn't obvious or reasonable to you, please challenge me on it.

I am not trying to dodge or hand-wave issues of practicality, but it is very easy to get swept away by the volume of inevitable questions that are asked when something radically different is proposed.  I know that we're only discussing taxes at the moment, but I'm hoping that we can try to reach some sort of agreement on the basic moral principles that we should live by.

Finally, l would just ask that people pause before they rush to the conclusion that I am some sort of greedy, self-centered - perhaps even elitist - dolt that just wants to keep my precious property - everyone else be damned.  I am just a guy trying to find a guiding set of principles that will provide everyone with the opportunity to live their lives freely & prosperously.  While on that journey, I've questioned some basic tenets of society, and I fully realize that I will receive push-back as some sacred cows get tipped.

Let me know what you think...

elf

[Griffin NoName]

"Taxation is an act of robbery".  Unless this statement is shown to be false, arguments regarding "how to provide this or that" amount to arguing that theft is good when it appears to be the only practical or convenient way of getting what you want.

I didn't confuse the two. I said I don't agree with you that I am being robbed when I pay taxes. I don't need to prove it is false. For me it is false. That is my subjective opinion. You are also free to have your own opinion.

There's even a major difference between the agreement I think I have with my state for what those taxes fund and ones in other states. So the only point of overlap, is that I as a tax payer expect something in return for my tax payments.

I would still like to know how you would organise the funding, without taxation, of what are usually considered public services. I would more than like to know. I am interested. If you have a viable alternative, it won't persuade me taxation is theft, but it might persuade me to consider alternative ways of achieveing what I need in life.