Moderator: Community Team
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Funkyterrance wrote:So this is thread is exclusive to you two? Ooh, that'll be fun.
BigBallinStalin wrote:If we must subject ourselves to the government provision of public education, then I decree we must favor a polycentric approach instead of a "one-size-fits-all" approach--as provided by the federal government.
First, we will tackle the issue of States v. Federal Government provision.
Then, we will tackle the issue of States v. Market provision.
saxitoxin wrote:I know this doesn't vector to the underlying philosophical intent of this thread, but what if parents had to reimburse the state if their child didn't graduate from high school (exemptions if the child died or was of below-average intelligence). California spends $8,000 per student, per year K-12. IOW, if your child attended public school in California and didn't graduate, you'd be billed $104,000. If you don't pay, the state sues you, destroys your credit rating, puts a lien on your home and starts garnishing your wages.
DoomYoshi wrote:Tgd has me sold so far.
My main issue with public education is something I hope you could answer Tgd.
Being that the role of education is to make educated citizens, how can we educate children without indoctrinating them? Especially with teachers being public employees, they are usually brainwashing children to believe in leftist propaganda.
Another form of indoctrination I worry about is religious. Should public education be forcibly universal?
Do all people need education? For example, is it ok if I don't send my child sex slave to school?
saxitoxin wrote:I know this doesn't vector to the underlying philosophical intent of this thread, but what if parents had to reimburse the state if their child didn't graduate from high school (exemptions if the child died or was of below-average intelligence). California spends $8,000 per student, per year K-12. IOW, if your child attended public school in California and didn't graduate, you'd be billed $104,000. If you don't pay, the state sues you, destroys your credit rating, puts a lien on your home and starts garnishing your wages.
thegreekdog wrote:with the United States paying more poor student than any other country (by far) without a return on the investment.
Timminz wrote:thegreekdog wrote:with the United States paying more poor student than any other country (by far) without a return on the investment.
This is interesting. I recall hearing that this is true in health care as well.
Timminz wrote:Why is it that the American government is so much less effective in these areas (and probably others) than the governments of other countries?
Timminz wrote:thegreekdog wrote:with the United States paying more poor student than any other country (by far) without a return on the investment.
This is interesting. I recall hearing that this is true in health care as well.
Why is it that the American government is so much less effective in these areas (and probably others) than the governments of other countries?
saxitoxin wrote:The US Congress is twice as big as the Belgium parliament, but the US GDP is 30 times as big as the Belgium GDP. That means there's 1,500% more fat in the U.S. for the taking. In Belgium, there are no meaningful power opportunities inside government so wealth seekers don't pursue public service. In the U.S. there are meaningful power opportunities inside government so wealth seekers do pursue public service.
see: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184629
thegreekdog wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:So this is thread is exclusive to you two? Ooh, that'll be fun.
Is any thread exclusive to two people?
saxitoxin wrote:I know this doesn't vector to the underlying philosophical intent of this thread, but what if parents had to reimburse the state if their child didn't graduate from high school (exemptions if the child died or was of below-average intelligence). California spends $8,000 per student, per year K-12. IOW, if your child attended public school in California and didn't graduate, you'd be billed $104,000. If you don't pay, the state sues you, destroys your credit rating, puts a lien on your home and starts garnishing your wages.
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:If we must subject ourselves to the government provision of public education, then I decree we must favor a polycentric approach instead of a "one-size-fits-all" approach--as provided by the federal government.
First, we will tackle the issue of States v. Federal Government provision.
Then, we will tackle the issue of States v. Market provision.
I propose this order:
(1) What government body should fund education (federal, state, local)?
My response is all three.
(2) What government body should be responsible for specific educational requirements?
My response is all three, with the federal government mandating the basic minimum requirements (which would still be high standards).
(3) What government makes the "day-to-day" decisions?
My response is the local government.
In any event, I think your order should be reversed if we end up going with those questions.
BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:If we must subject ourselves to the government provision of public education, then I decree we must favor a polycentric approach instead of a "one-size-fits-all" approach--as provided by the federal government.
First, we will tackle the issue of States v. Federal Government provision.
Then, we will tackle the issue of States v. Market provision.
I propose this order:
(1) What government body should fund education (federal, state, local)?
My response is all three.
(2) What government body should be responsible for specific educational requirements?
My response is all three, with the federal government mandating the basic minimum requirements (which would still be high standards).
(3) What government makes the "day-to-day" decisions?
My response is the local government.
In any event, I think your order should be reversed if we end up going with those questions.
In other words, the current arrangement? Because I'm not seeing much of difference with today's system and your proposed system, which is very vague.
BigBallinStalin wrote:We're gonna have to take baby-steps before I get to that resolution.
Why must the federal government be involved in public education?
i.e. What is the proper role of the federal government in public education?
Whatever the stated goals, does the federal government on net positively contribute to these goals or negatively contribute?
thegreekdog wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:Tgd has me sold so far.
My main issue with public education is something I hope you could answer Tgd.
Being that the role of education is to make educated citizens, how can we educate children without indoctrinating them? Especially with teachers being public employees, they are usually brainwashing children to believe in leftist propaganda.
Another form of indoctrination I worry about is religious. Should public education be forcibly universal?
Do all people need education? For example, is it ok if I don't send my child sex slave to school?
These look like three main issues.
(1) Indoctrination
Generally (and I use the term loosely), indoctrination can only really happen in classes like history or politics or social studies. Perhaps English or literature classes. Science and mathematics are not really things where one can get indoctrinated. If we just take the "indoctrinatable (patent pending) classes" (history, social studies) and acknowledge that there is indoctrination happening at public schools, the question I would ask in return is this - why do you care? Parents generally have as much or more control over indoctrinating their children than teachers. I'm not suggesting we ignore the issue, I just think the issue is made way bigger than it is by creationist, revisionist historians, and the like.
(2) Forced Public Education
Public education should not be universally enforcible no. As I indicated in the past, if someone is educated in a Christian school that teaches creationism, for example, and that evolution is false, I would question the ability of that student to succeed in a realm like science. So ultimately, who cares? If your concern is that some people will be religious while others are not, I wonder what the problem is with that? All that being said, there would be a pretty interesting constitutional argument.
However, I think whatever the federal mandated minimum requirements are should be required to be met by home schools and private schools and religious schools. If that means evolution must be taught in schools, so be it. My brother and sister both went to Catholic schools (by far the highest number of private religious schools) and were taught evolution so I don't think that's much of an impediment to free religious practices, but I'm sure there are some that would disagree.
(3) Child Sex Slaves
I'm not addressing this.
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:We're gonna have to take baby-steps before I get to that resolution.
Why must the federal government be involved in public education?
i.e. What is the proper role of the federal government in public education?
Whatever the stated goals, does the federal government on net positively contribute to these goals or negatively contribute?
First, if the government is not involved in education, can the education be called "public education?"
Second, why are we starting with the proposition that the status quo must prevail when we are not certain what the change is?
But, in the interest of bypassing all the back and forth that could potentially occur over what issues we should discussion, I'll answer your questions on a very general basis.
(1) Why must the federal government be involved in education?
The federal government must be involved in education because, much like interstate commerce, the education of the citizens of a country affect each state individually and collectively. Additionally, there can be (and often are) minimum standards for education that are not state-specific and can be enforced by the federal government. Finally, the federal government has the ability to borrow and print money, which allows them to spend more, per capita, than any one state; therefore the federal government funding of education can be a greater boon to education than mere state or local funding.
(2) Why are we starting with the proposition that the status quo must prevail when we are not certain what the change is?
We are starting with that proposition precisely because we are not certain what the change is (at least for purposes of this debate). You have not indicated your position in this thread. I indicated what I believe your position to be, but you have not confirmed and have not denied my belief. Therefore, we must await your position before we can discuss. Otherwise, what we will do is discuss the problems with the status quo rather than discussing which option is better: status quo or change. That is not to say that I don't want change; it is to say that my opinion is that your change and my change are glaringly different.
BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:We're gonna have to take baby-steps before I get to that resolution.
Why must the federal government be involved in public education?
i.e. What is the proper role of the federal government in public education?
Whatever the stated goals, does the federal government on net positively contribute to these goals or negatively contribute?
First, if the government is not involved in education, can the education be called "public education?"
Second, why are we starting with the proposition that the status quo must prevail when we are not certain what the change is?
But, in the interest of bypassing all the back and forth that could potentially occur over what issues we should discussion, I'll answer your questions on a very general basis.
(1) Why must the federal government be involved in education?
The federal government must be involved in education because, much like interstate commerce, the education of the citizens of a country affect each state individually and collectively. Additionally, there can be (and often are) minimum standards for education that are not state-specific and can be enforced by the federal government. Finally, the federal government has the ability to borrow and print money, which allows them to spend more, per capita, than any one state; therefore the federal government funding of education can be a greater boon to education than mere state or local funding.
(2) Why are we starting with the proposition that the status quo must prevail when we are not certain what the change is?
We are starting with that proposition precisely because we are not certain what the change is (at least for purposes of this debate). You have not indicated your position in this thread. I indicated what I believe your position to be, but you have not confirmed and have not denied my belief. Therefore, we must await your position before we can discuss. Otherwise, what we will do is discuss the problems with the status quo rather than discussing which option is better: status quo or change. That is not to say that I don't want change; it is to say that my opinion is that your change and my change are glaringly different.
Well, I'm being Mr. Economist right now, so it doesn't matter what my position is ATM. One role of the economist is to examine the ends and the means, see if the means most efficiently lead to the ends, and if not, provide advice. In other words, does the federal government fulfill its goals? If not, are there better means? And what are the current benefits and costs? Do the benefits currently offset the costs, or would a different means be more 'profitable'?
I don't expect anyone in here to be able to answer these sufficiently, but answering those questions would be how we can make convincing arguments.
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: DirtyDishSoap, kentington