EPTLife was great for the little guy back when no one could read, lol.
Warren Buffett - "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" - Page 48
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
Life was great for the little guy back when no one could read, lol. | ||
|
AdrianHealey
Belgium480 Posts
On September 20 2011 22:08 Haemonculus wrote: Oh man and we have people seriously calling for an end of public education? Life was great for the little guy back when no one could read, lol. Oh, I never thought about it that way. Thanks for the convincing argument. | ||
KwarK
United States41962 Posts
On September 20 2011 22:14 AdrianHealey wrote: Oh, I never thought about it that way. Thanks for the convincing argument. Did you know that literacy rates went down with the raise of public education? Care to back this up? | ||
|
AdrianHealey
Belgium480 Posts
Sure; Education and the State - G. E. West; especially part 3 talks about the available data. (Limited to England though.) John Taylor Gatto his work on the history of public education als has some data. He mostly talks about the decline of literacy and comprehension rates over the course of the last hundred years of public education. But the argument against public schooling does not rest on that particular data reference point. (Because it's both not general, nor necessary.) I prefer to argue along a different set of arguments. None of which are relevant for this topic. + Show Spoiler + Working Class Literacy Next consider some reports on working class literacy. As early as 1839 a special survey in Hull found that over 92 per cent could read. A similar survey in the mining districts of Northumberland and Durham in 1840 showed that four out of five miners - 80 per cent - could read and that more than half of them had learned to write. One authority on the subject, Mr R. K. Webb, believes that in the late 1830s over two-thirds of the working classes were already literate. The Registrar Generalʹs report for 1870 shows that 80 per cent of the men marrying in that year were able to write. (Since the average age of marriage at this time was about 28 years, these grooms had left school about 17 years before, in 1853. But a more appropriate figure to test the literacy rate of young school leavers in 1870 is the 1891 census report. This showed that 94 per cent of the males could write.) The introduction of the penny post in 1840 had of course been an obvious encouragement to ordinary people to develop the habit of letter writing -especially with their growing mobility in a new railway age. Consider next the evidence on schooling. According to Government returns the number of pupils in schools in England and Wales rose from about 11 millions in 1833 to 21 millions in 1858. Clearly the habit of schooling had penetrated all social classes by the mid-century. It is wrong to assume that before 1870 the mainspring of this education was private philanthropy inspired mainly by religious zeal. Charity and the Church played a significant part, of course; but individual family effort was the predominating force. Reports on the 1830s and 40s show that the fees paid by working-class families covered most of the school costs. It was not until 1870 that the Forster's Education act was enacted in England. This was not the first government involvement in schools - there was before. But before that there was simply just aid towards established private schools. This data comes from a paper I have on my laptop, written by G. E. West in the '70's. I'm unaware of where I got it from the internet. This is the full reference: "Forster and After: 100 Years of State Education"; Economic Age, Vol.2 No.5 - July/August 1970 This data doesn't proof the earlier point - that literacy has gone down on locations where public schools have been introduced. It does, however, undermine the idea that public education is necessary to provide education for the masses. Also; if you are interested: see the empirical research done by James Tooley about private quality education for profit for the poor in Sub-Saharan Africa. | ||
|
Brotkrumen
Germany193 Posts
On September 20 2011 22:26 AdrianHealey wrote: Sure; Education and the State - G. E. West; especially part 3 talks about the available data. (Limited to England though.) John Taylor Gatto his work on the history of public education als has some data. He mostly talks about the decline of literacy and comprehension rates over the course of the last hundred years of public education. But the argument against public schooling does not rest on that particular data reference point. (Because it's both not general, nor necessary.) Education of Mass Instruction Product description: + Show Spoiler + Product Description John Taylor Gatto’s Weapons of Mass Instruction, now available in paperback, focuses on mechanisms of traditional education that cripple imagination, discourage critical thinking, and create a false view of learning as a byproduct of rote-memorization drills. Gatto’s earlier book, Dumbing Us Down, introduced the now-famous expression of the title into the common vernacular. Weapons of Mass Instruction adds another chilling metaphor to the brief against conventional schooling. Gatto demonstrates that the harm school inflicts is rational and deliberate. The real function of pedagogy, he argues, is to render the common population manageable. To that end, young people must be conditioned to rely upon experts, to remain divided from natural alliances, and to accept disconnections from their own lived experiences. They must at all costs be discouraged from developing self-reliance and independence. [...] It's the Bilderburgs again! Also, care for data freely accessible on the web? | ||
|
AdrianHealey
Belgium480 Posts
On September 20 2011 22:30 Brotkrumen wrote: It's the Bilderburgs again! Also, care for data freely accessible on the web? Well, if it makes you feel any better, I do not believe that the Bilderbergs are taking over the world, do not believe 9/11 is an inside job, do not believe the world is run by Reptiles, do believe that Alex Jones is nuts and many, many more common sense ideas. I just don't think that public education is really educating our youth. I also don't accepts Gatto's big emphasis on 'it's just a way to control us' - although he does provide some interesting quotes and a relatively comprehensive narratives coming from the politicians who actually enacted those laws. But accepting that it is part of the explenation is not the same as accepting it as the whole explanation. But even if you don't accept that narrative, it doesn't follow that you should reject the idea that public education is bad itself. Gatto is more interesting when he talks about how he was thought to teach and how this relates to how he believes education ought to be. I think he's correct that the way education is visioned now is just fucked up. (This is not a direct argument against government schooling, but there is no real reason why the government should be the all encompassing overlord in that business. Saying that we need to watch out for child neglect and important issues like that is not the same as saying that the government should be the primary actor in running education.) | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
In recent years, Buffett's been more of a vulture swooping in for distressed assets. He's hugely benefited from the bailouts to financial firms by the US treasury and the Federal Reserve via his loans to GS & GE. Now he's advocating a tax increase that doesn't apply to himself at all. Here's Huffington Post calling Buffett out on it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/obama-buffett-rich-taxes_n_971388.html Not making the distinction between dividend/investment vs wages is deeply misleading. Using that to demagogue about a tax increase on those earning wages more than 1 million (who already pay the highest rates) is downright disgusting. | ||
|
Brotkrumen
Germany193 Posts
On September 20 2011 21:17 AdrianHealey wrote: You keep mentioning Rousseau in the classical liberal discussion; you are aware that he's not considered a classical liberal, right? And I'm not sure you can say that 'rights theory from to be able to acquire'. Take for instance Locke; he wasn't just providing an excuse for the rich - hence; the Lockean proviso. He was also saying that government needs to be justified into the consent of the governed. Well; it was very unfortunate that Adam Smith had large parts wrong - subjective value theory, market process theory, and so on. Thank God he was right on mercantilism though; a theory we still see as an excuse today for a lot of European union and American federal government policies. So we can interfere a little bit from there to begin with. Furthermore; given the way Adam Smith talks about rights and wealth, it seems not that unlikely to say that he would oppose the current welfare state as it exists, where people have definitive entitlements provided by government. It seems that would be in contrast to the way he rights about we should take care of the poor. He didn't, like Mill, advocated stuff like basic income or a seperation of distribution from production. Hayek isn't the only free market type though. (Mises, Rothbard and David Friedman also exist in a more modern sense.) The problem with Hayek is precisely because his theoretical framework doesn't support some of his more practical conclusions such as his suggestions in the third part of CoL. Or, at least, he has been heavily criticized on it. But even if one accepts a basic Hayekian point that there could be something as a minimal welfare state, it seems not that weird to say that what the Western world has today is pretty far off. If you look at the facts, the majority of the welfare state can not be defended in terms of 'well, we really need to take care of the deserving poor'. 1st: I am aware that Rousseau is not considered a classical liberal, but more communitarian and rightly so. His contractualism (first three books of the social contract) is highly influential in both utilitarian and duty-based systems of thought. His state of nature in particular are often used as an example of emerging peace and cooperation in a rule-free environment without crediting him directly. 2nd: The Lockean provisio circumvents the main issue limited resource based economy and is thus inapplicable. I've only read secondary texts about him so my knowledge of his work isn't the best. What I've read though and what his contemporaries wrote was that even though "Government is based on the consent of the governed" never means that "If I don't like it, I can opt out." Government is, as he says "to promote the general good". If you as a minority have to subjugate your will to the general will, it must be so, because you are most likely wrong. If the majority disagrees with government, they revolt (I don't particularly agree that "if against the general will, you are wrong, but those were the intuitive fallacies of the time) 3rd: So we are picking the parts we like from our authors and ignore the rest? From the communist propaganda I usually read, he has been applauded for introducing exactly these requirements for free agency. He is about efficiency of markets and regards any outside force as disruptive and inefficient. Hunger would be such a force. 4th: Agreed. We don't just lob off an infected limb, we try to heal it. | ||
|
AdrianHealey
Belgium480 Posts
On September 20 2011 22:30 Brotkrumen wrote: Also, care for data freely accessible on the web? Most of the data I'm using is either from books or gated articles - none of which i have access too because I'm on a trip in vienna, in bed in the hostel with an injury. I have some articles on my laptop, but they don't talk about that kind of specific data. I'll be happy to retract the statement that literacy rates sometimes have gone down with the introduction of private education - because I lack the possibility to proof it at this time. Just don't treat me as some sort of complete and utter moron with no data, arguments, theory or relatively non-absurd view on the world just because I have a strong antipathetic feeling against the current public educational system. Or do treat me that way. I can only state my preference. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On September 20 2011 22:08 Haemonculus wrote: Oh man and we have people seriously calling for an end of public education? Life was great for the little guy back when no one could read, lol. you're right. because if it's not public it's not affordable. | ||
|
Brotkrumen
Germany193 Posts
On September 20 2011 21:36 TanGeng wrote: So where in that Smith excerpt, does Smith say that society must guarantee such wage rates. It is by his analysis the bargaining principle of the worker. Their lowest acceptable wage is approximately twice sustenance below which they look for another job. Stewart Mills, if I recall correctly, focused on the conflict between liberty and authority, in other words, individual rights and autocratic rule. Mills proposed that the individual is free to do as he wishes until he harms other. Given that statement, there is a symmetrical duty to do no harm, but nothing to suggest that everyone must provide for each other. Fourierism is a decent idea for 2000 people, but even at 2000 people it will show signs of strain since social pressure won't be strong enough to enforce the social contract well. I don't care so much about his admiration for Fourierism. They're quite insubstantial compared to his Principles of Political Economy. For that I refer you to Book 2 Chapter 12, where he discusses Low Wages including the exclusionary effects of minimum wage laws. BTW he's Mills' closer for the chapter: + Show Spoiler + No remedies for low wages have the smallest chance of being efficacious, which do not operate on and through the minds and habits of the people. While these are unaffected, any contrivance, even if successful, for temporarily improving the condition of the very poor, would but let slip the reins by which population was previously curbed; and could only, therefore, continue to produce its effect, if, by the whip and spur of taxation, capital were compelled to follow at an equally accelerated pace. But this process could not possibly continue for long together, and whenever it stopped, it would leave the country with an increased number of the poorest class, and a diminished proportion of all except the poorest, or, if it continued long enough, with none at all. For "to this complexion must come at last" all social arrangements, which remove the natural checks to population without substituting any others. Smith states the minimum acceptable wage. If the worker has not other employment opportunity, then what? Because + Show Spoiler + “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” What if that happens? + Show Spoiler + “It is but equity … that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerable well fed, clothed and lodged.” But how the heck does he think the state should pay for that? + Show Spoiler + “The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, IN PROPORTION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ABILITIES; THAT IS IN PROPORTION TO THE REVENUE WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY ENJOY UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE. As for today, he might agree with his mentor and friend David Hume + Show Spoiler + “Every person, if possible, ought to enjoy the fruits of his labour, in a full possession of all the necessaries, and many of the conveniences of life. No one can doubt, but such an equality is most suitable to human nature, AND DIMINISHES MUCH LESS FROM THE HAPPINESS OF THE RICH THAN IT ADDS TO THAT OF THE POOR.” Mills harm principle is his definition of liberty. His work does not end there though and we are best advised to include his feminism and also his utilitarianism. Remember? He is the poster child of utilitarianism. Maximization of happiness for the greatest number. While taking 1$ from a rich person does not diminish his happiness, giving that dollar to someone without, will increase his happiness tremendously. If we follow Mill, we would redistribute heavily until the taking of the $ is as painful as it is increasing the happiness of the receiver. While he is right that minimum wages suck ass, base income would effect the change minds and habits he talks about. On September 20 2011 21:55 TanGeng wrote: I find this reply hilarious. First point, abolishing the army has happened in Costa Rica. But the closer about being wary of social engineering is highly ironic since everything that is being defended is exactly that, social engineering. The only plausible difference I can think of is invasive social engineering through psychological conditioning and brainwashing verse minimally invasive social engineering through tweaked incentives. Yet, public schools are already a mild to moderate form of the former. It misses contention that personal responsibility is both the least invasive and the most powerful form of "social engineering" in effect on human behavior. You almost had it there. Redistribution of money is the least forceful form of social engineering. Changing culture on the other hand is harder to accomplish by painless methods. Your claim that schools indoctrinate people is just silly, so I will just snicker at you. I know it is hard when people come out of an education system and are on the left of you politically, but maybe the causation runs differently: Higher degree of education increases the probability of being right. Costa Rica has no army? Wake me up when a major country with no military alliance has abolished the military. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10596 Posts
On September 20 2011 19:09 Brotkrumen wrote: .............. but maybe the causation runs differently: Higher degree of education increases the probability of being right. I doubt that, i think i actually know that it's the other way around... | ||
|
AdrianHealey
Belgium480 Posts
On September 20 2011 23:02 Brotkrumen wrote:Smith states the minimum acceptable wage. If the worker has not other employment opportunity, then what? Because + Show Spoiler + “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” What if that happens? + Show Spoiler + “It is but equity … that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerable well fed, clothed and lodged.” But how the heck does he think the state should pay for that? + Show Spoiler + “The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, IN PROPORTION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ABILITIES; THAT IS IN PROPORTION TO THE REVENUE WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY ENJOY UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE. As for today, he might agree with his mentor and friend David Hume + Show Spoiler + “Every person, if possible, ought to enjoy the fruits of his labour, in a full possession of all the necessaries, and many of the conveniences of life. No one can doubt, but such an equality is most suitable to human nature, AND DIMINISHES MUCH LESS FROM THE HAPPINESS OF THE RICH THAN IT ADDS TO THAT OF THE POOR.” Mills harm principle is his definition of liberty. His work does not end there though and we are best advised to include his feminism and also his utilitarianism. Remember? He is the poster child of utilitarianism. Maximization of happiness for the greatest number. While taking 1$ from a rich person does not diminish his happiness, giving that dollar to someone without, will increase his happiness tremendously. If we follow Mill, we would redistribute heavily until the taking of the $ is as painful as it is increasing the happiness of the receiver. While he is right that minimum wages suck ass, base income would effect the change minds and habits he talks about. You relate the first quote to Adam Smith supporting minimumwage, if I'm reading you correctly. Could you back this up a bit more? Because that quote merely talks about private companies trying to cartelize - and if you would read the next two sentences, he just says that this is not that harmful, provided the state doesn't support it. Furthermore; the second quote is also not necessarily an endorsement of a minimum wage. It could also just state a confidence that there would be certain economic or moral forces to assure that this is the case. I don't see any endorsement of him saying that the state should be involved in providing these means. The third quote is also entirely not connected to the second quote, even though you portray it like that. The third quote is definitely out of context. It is true that Adam Smith talks about proportional taxation - a flat tax would be amongst the possibilities because people who earn more, still pay more - but it doesn't mean that he is in favour of redistributionist measures. Smith lays out 3 duties for the sovereign; providing means to the poor isn't one of them. To be sure; the third duty is this one: erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be the interest of any individual or small number of individuals to erect and maintain. (Smith 1976a pp. 687–88) But this is not a proof that Smith supports any kind of welfare state measure; he clearly talks about public works and funding buildings where education could happen. (Adam Smith is a bit ambigious on education, but it's clear that he favors some kind of consumer sovereignty in paying the professors, but the government could have some role in education.) Also; the fourth quote is not an argument for government intervention per se. Merely stating that this would be desirable, is not the same as saying that the government should step in. furtheremore; I hope you do realize that Mill argued heavily against this idea: While taking 1$ from a rich person does not diminish his happiness, giving that dollar to someone without, will increase his happiness tremendously. If we follow Mill, we would redistribute heavily until the taking of the $ is as painful as it is increasing the happiness of the receiver. Mill explicitly states that this is a non sequitur. That it does _not_ follow. He even called this kind a 'mild kind of robery'. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 20 2011 23:02 Brotkrumen wrote: Smith states the minimum acceptable wage. If the worker has not other employment opportunity, then what? Because + Show Spoiler + “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” What if that happens? + Show Spoiler + “It is but equity … that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerable well fed, clothed and lodged.” But how the heck does he think the state should pay for that? + Show Spoiler + “The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, IN PROPORTION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ABILITIES; THAT IS IN PROPORTION TO THE REVENUE WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY ENJOY UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE. As for today, he might agree with his mentor and friend David Hume + Show Spoiler + “Every person, if possible, ought to enjoy the fruits of his labour, in a full possession of all the necessaries, and many of the conveniences of life. No one can doubt, but such an equality is most suitable to human nature, AND DIMINISHES MUCH LESS FROM THE HAPPINESS OF THE RICH THAN IT ADDS TO THAT OF THE POOR.” Shout as you may, but on those points Smith was either incorrect in his assessment of economics or not as much of a classic liberal as a proponent of the English system. And there's a gulf between a statement of distributional justice and enacting a redistribution system that accurately achieves it. Reading back on these points, Smith's quotes aren't even applicable. Way to go off on a tangent. On September 20 2011 23:02 Brotkrumen wrote: Mills harm principle is his definition of liberty. His work does not end there though and we are best advised to include his feminism and also his utilitarianism. Remember? He is the poster child of utilitarianism. Maximization of happiness for the greatest number. While taking 1$ from a rich person does not diminish his happiness, giving that dollar to someone without, will increase his happiness tremendously. If we follow Mill, we would redistribute heavily until the taking of the $ is as painful as it is increasing the happiness of the receiver. While he is right that minimum wages suck ass, base income would effect the change minds and habits he talks about. Well, then for you, the salient question is "Have minds changed?" Because if they haven't then Mills's conclusion is that it is counterproductive and fosters even more poverty. However, I seriously question if you even read the arguments of Book 2 Chapter 12. Mills systematically argues that taking money from the rich to give to poor may improve their lot in the short run but is damaging in the long run. On September 20 2011 21:55 TanGeng wrote: You almost had it there. Redistribution of money is the least forceful form of social engineering. Changing culture on the other hand is harder to accomplish by painless methods. Your claim that schools indoctrinate people is just silly, so I will just snicker at you. I know it is hard when people come out of an education system and are on the left of you politically, but maybe the causation runs differently: Higher degree of education increases the probability of being right. Just because you don't think of it as indoctrination doesn't mean it isn't. Radical islamists are indoctrinated in schools. Communism in my native country of China used schools as its most powerful tool. Some Christians uses Christian schools to indoctrinate their children to their beliefs. None of this crosses over into social engineering until it's a public school whereby bureaucrats set up the "standard" curriculum to which the children of all others are indoctrinated. Public schools are the most powerful form of cultural transformation. Laughing at me only exposes your own ignorance on this matter. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10596 Posts
So Public Schools indoctrinate children... "ok". And private ones don't for some random reason? And homeschooling/parents don't for some random reason? That argument makes like 0 sense... Actually i would call it a blatant lie. An organisation funded by certain interest groups is more likely to indoctrinate it's "customers" to their believe than the goverment. At least in a free country... | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 20 2011 23:54 Velr wrote: Ahm... So Public Schools indoctrinate children... "ok". And private ones don't for some random reason? And homeschooling/parents don't for some random reason? That argument makes like 0 sense... Actually i would call it a blatant lie. An organisation funded by certain interest groups is more likely to indoctrinate it's "customers" to their believe than the goverment. At least in a free country... It's social engineering... I've already posed private examples of indoctrination... Allow me to substitute some words: The public school (an organization) funded by the government (a conglomeration of politically influential interest groups) is more likely to to indoctrinate its children ("customers" is really apt since the parents have no choice to hand over their children") to their beliefs. Now tell me why the government/public schools/compulsory public school attendance is so special. At least in a free country... you'll have the choice not to send your kids there and thankfully we do in a limited respect. | ||
|
Sumsi
Germany593 Posts
On September 20 2011 23:54 Velr wrote: So Public Schools indoctrinate children... "ok". And private ones don't for some random reason? And homeschooling/parents don't for some random reason? Right, its basically a struggle about who has the right to "indoctrinate" children in the first place: a) The parents and/or the social community children are born into or b) the state and its bureaucrats So you see cleary that abolishing public education is one of the first steps towards a free society. By the way ... I never got why there is a need for compulsory school attendance when the blessings of public education for the common man are that obvious. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10596 Posts
Because private funded "companies (schools)" are way moer likely to be influenced by a lower multitude of organisations/"voters" than a public organisation? Yeah, you have to chose "who" indoctrinates your children... You don't trust the goverment, i get it. But everything you say is also fact in the private sector and most probably worse. | ||
|
kuriz
Denmark141 Posts
| ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 21 2011 00:16 Velr wrote: @TangEng Because private funded "companies (schools)" are way moer likely to be influenced by a lower multitude of organisations/"voters" than a public organisation? Yeah, you have to chose "who" indoctrinates your children... You don't trust the goverment, i get it. But everything you say is also fact in the private sector and most probably worse. This is my main reason for getting involved in this discussion. 1. Public schools is social engineering. (If social engineering is creepy, you should be careful of public schools.) It is not: 1. Public schools should be abolished. I'll explain certain other nuances to my opinion. If large corporations like Walmart or Goldman Sachs funded our public schools, I'd be more worried about the curriculum. Some public schools reach out to these private corporations for supplemental funding. I'd be more worried about those public schools, too. What I am not doing is making a fundamental distinction between a private corporation, which we know to have private interest, and the government, which we know to be a mixture of influential political interest groups. Just because the government has the "mission statement" of general welfare doesn't make them deserving of my absolute trust. It's not fundamentally different, and the danger of corruption of the curriculum and bias in the teaching is still there. Case in point, is it really better that children were fed biased nationalistic versions of histories in many countries around the world? Is that not a corruption of the curriculum? As for public schools on an individual basis, those with strong parental involvement, organization, and influence are good. This translates into parents having great influence and a "choice" in how their own children are taught. Public schools with weak parental organizations are usually terrible. In concise terms local influences by parents are better those organized from without local feedback or under the arbitrary rule of a bureaucracy. In the area, I'd advocate communities take control of their schools back from distant governments if control has been transferred away. For the worst public schools, when they become really horrible or when curricular get really warped, giving parents and students the option to not go, or making education non-compulsory, is a absolute positive check on its corruption or its poor quality. | ||
| ||
