Conquer Club

Public Education: BBS v. TGD

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:34 pm

I'm in favor of public education. I think it should be the largest federal expenditure.

BBS is not in favor of public education.

Ready... set... go.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:50 am

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.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby Funkyterrance on Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:22 am

So this is thread is exclusive to you two? Ooh, that'll be fun.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby john9blue on Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:28 am

i'm crashing this party (read: subscribing to this topic) cuz i'm interested in this topic
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby Neoteny on Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:30 am

I'm drunk too weeee
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:13 am

Funkyterrance wrote:So this is thread is exclusive to you two? Ooh, that'll be fun.


Is any thread exclusive to two people?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:20 am

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.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby saxitoxin on Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:29 am

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.
Last edited by saxitoxin on Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImage
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 12041
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby DoomYoshi on Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:30 am

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?
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby DoomYoshi on Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:31 am

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.


Direct attack on the poor.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:39 am

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.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:41 am

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.


That may solve the issue with the United States paying more poor student than any other country (by far) without a return on the investment.

And that is really the issue where I have the biggest problem. The United States already pours a fuck-ton of money into public education. Schools are generally well funded. Teachers are generally well-paid (for working 9 months a year and 6 to 8 hours a day). So what's the deal?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby Timminz on Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:34 am

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?
User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby saxitoxin on Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:46 am

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.


Click image to enlarge.
image


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?


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
ImageImage
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 12041
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:57 am

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?


I think it's a combination parent/culture issue. It's pretty clear that money is not the issue, so it must be something else.

But you're asking about healthcare as well. My personal opinion is that it's a combination of government oversight and regulation and insurance company practices (and insurance company rent-seeking). Most unknowledgeable supporters of the Affordable Care Act will shout me down, but the ACA is just a continuation of that process. If we wanted to solve the problem of healthcare costs in the United States, we would either make healthcare (not insurnace, care) fully socialized and government-provided or unravel the tangled web of oversight, regulation, and the ability of insurance companies to influence said oversight and regulation.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby DoomYoshi on Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:26 pm

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


It isn't fair to accuse the US government of being inefficient. Belgium may have higher test scores, but do they know how to minimize the cost of writing reports?
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby Funkyterrance on Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:30 pm

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?

It sure sounded like it was intended that way. Is anyone allowed to belch in public? Sure, but it's considered rude.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:54 pm

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.


Sounds great--except that education is compulsory and that (I imagine) for most school districts, one must go to that school district--but not any other, unless the family moves or spends a lot of money and time arguing against the bureaucracy in charge.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:59 pm

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.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 pm

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.


Whatever Holocaust comedian... (Can I joke about issues involving Holocaust jokes? Alternatively, can I joke about the procedure by which some posters parachute out of arguments?)

Anyway, yes, the current arrangement. The proposition is not "TGD wants public education, which does not exist." If we use the old debate standard:

Resolved: Public education should be dissolved and education should be accomplished through the free market.

In that instance you are the advocate for the resolution above and I'm the advocate against the resolution above.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:17 pm

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?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:24 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby DoomYoshi on Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:02 pm

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.


I will take this step by step starting with (1)

"Science and Mathematics are not really ... indoctrinated"

Oh really? Perhaps it has been a while since you were in public school, but we do these things called Word Problems. Word Problem example: If Johnny makes $280 000 a year, and is supposed to pay 40% income tax, but he only pays 70% of what he is supposed to, how much money has he stolen from the poor and starving, the cute, cuddly animals that are no longer protected by the rangers who he purposely robbed of their jobs and etc. etc.

In Science, indoctrination happens all the time. For example, we were taught over and over and over again that white people and black people are genetically the same, even though this is bullshit, and may be harmful (since the difference is great enough that drugs can effect people of different races preferentially).

"why do you care?" This is a good question. I care because the point of a society is to make sure the members of the society are healthy and productive. Maybe you disagree with this terminology, but we (taxpayers who constitute society) are not paying for public education so that we get anarchists that commit suicide at 16, amirite?
As a society (I know you are American, but you really must believe me that Canada and United States are so similar in respect to what I am talking about that it doesn't matter), we have decided to ban many drugs. Some of these drugs have been proven to be better for people, and for society than alcohol (specifically, MDMA and LSD). However, they continue to be illegal. The effects of drugs are famous because they interact with the prefrontal cortex (actually, most of them non-specifically mess with all neurons, but that's not the point) and this is where addiction happens - at an epigenetic level. You know what else happens in the prefrontal cortex? Everything you know and value. My point is that if we block out bad substances as a society, we should also be able to block out bad ideas.

"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. "
That's not entirely my problem, although it is a rather potent example that unfortunately obfuscates the true issue. You may well ask "What indoctrination specifically is Yoshi worried about?". Well, the one I felt most throughout school was definitely the communist one. From a grade 5 class teacher describing the two political parties: "The Liberals want to help people out and the Conservatives don't".
However, the far worse problem is one level up from that. I want to end the indoctrination of American Ideals, specifically the ideal that people can hold whatever thoughts they want. Yes, personal freedom is a lovely concept, but it has a few MAJOR problems.

Case Study One: Polygamous Cults
Pick one, any one. You will find primarily women and children abuse. Yet, this form of living continues to thrive and every year or so I read about another "shocking" revelation of women and children being abused. Why is the right of men to abuse the f*ck out of women (remember, many of the leaders take new "wives" between the ages of 10-13) so protected by this American ideal of personal beliefs?

Case Study Two:Scientology
Case Study Three: Gun Violence
Now this is one that I don't have much evidence for, except for circumstantial. However, I hold it as a self-evident truth that the focus on allowing individuals to have the freedom to think "shooting is a way to get famous" actually encourages people to hold this belief.

(2) Answered the same way as (1)

(3) Intended as a joke.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:18 pm

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.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Public Education: BBS v. TGD

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:34 pm

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.


How can an economist determine if the means most efficiently lead to the ends without a comparison? When you use the phrase "most efficiently" by specifically including the word "most" that seems to indicate that there are other choices. I cannot say something the means are most efficient for the ends unless I have another means to compare it to.

Let's craft an example:

A boy is selling apple cider in front of his house. In order to make the apple cider he must squeeze the apples by hand, spending approximately 2 hours per apply and generating only 1 ounce of cider. Is his current method of apple cider making the most efficient method to lead to making the cider? If you answer the question "no," then you must provide a different method for the boy to make his cider. If you answer the question "yes," then you must show that other methods are not as efficient.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Next

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl