NCLB = No Corporation Left Behind.

This post has been removed from the News channel by channel owner NetRunner. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

^Though not taken from a television show, I still consider this news.

^ It is a close case, and I'm certainly willing to reconsider.

I considered it "not news" because it's not a news report (amateur or otherwise), nor is it a commentary on the media (not even a "this is a topic you won't hear about from the corporate media..."), nor an analysis of a current media meme (if Palin had spent 50% of her speech talking about NCLB, it'd be news for sure), and it's already in documentaries and politics.

I consider it important (so I upvoted), but I wouldn't call it news.

I've been thinking of widening the scope to include "things that should be news", but that seemed like it'd invite too much overlap with politics.

North Carolina! Woo Hoo! My state! Lowest functioning level! Woo Hoo!

Further proof the government needs to get out of our schools.

^Bush would agree with you, but you're both wrong. The problem with NCLB is too much private involvement and not enough public involvement. Deregulate schools and you can expect more of this kind of bulshit, and it would also effectively silence our voices on the subject.

Vouchers and 'school choice' are embezzlement scams.

^Too much "corporate involvement", you mean. Giving parents a choice of how they want to educate their children is the pure definition of public involvement. I never said I wanted Walmart or McDonalds teaching our kids; just that I didn't want Washington bureaucrats deciding what's best for our education.

^ private = corporate.


This guy is awesome.

Either give the federal government full reigns or let the states take complete control of their public schools. A national curriculum is one thing, and it's the best safeguard for equality in education aswell as a safeguard from individual schools starting to teach misinformation and falsehoods, but having two governmental bodies set conflicting policies is just counterproductive.

this is what happens when:

1. you elect leaders with severe developmental disorders
2. one or more persons attempt to subvert a free society

>> ^Kreegath:
Either give the federal government full reigns or let the states take complete control of their public schools. A national curriculum is one thing, and it's the best safeguard for equality in education aswell as a safeguard from individual schools starting to teach misinformation and falsehoods, but having two governmental bodies set conflicting policies is just counterproductive.


How about neither? Also, can you defend your reasoning for educational equality? By the way, my defition of educational equality is that everyone is free to pursue any form of education they wish (which is very different from the idea that everyone is entitled to an equal education)

NCLB is a great example of bad centralized regulation. Bush & co. specifically pushed NCLB, and thousands of similar regulations, to try to make a point to the American people that big government is always bad, therefore you should always vote for the party who wants to make government smaller -- even if that party is the one that made big government work badly.

It's that stupid, petty, arrogant, ideology-trumps-everything kind of thinking that pervades the entire Republican party that makes me want to fight everything they propose. They simply are not a small-government party at all; that's the Libertarian party. Instead, they're just an American Royalist party -- a party whose goals are to create a government of the people that's run by the rich, for the benefit of the rich.

It's why I say you should never elect someone to run government who thinks that government can't succeed at doing anything. They will always prove themselves right.

McDonalds and WalMart are two of the most successful business models in the history of business. What makes you think these models wouldn't 'succeed' in the education business too? Business only understands value in terms of money, and once turning a profit becomes the goal of education, McSchool and Kinder*Mart will be inevitable. That's how business works blankfist.

School choice would only benefit those who attend private school. Their tuition fees would be subsidized by the government, but would see no real educational improvement. Those who don't attend private school would get the shaft. Without the bargaining power of big bucks, these kids would get McSchool and Kinder*Mart. Cheap, fun and completely devoid of educational value.

You complain about Washington bureaucrats, but seem to see no potential problems with business bureaucrats. The Washington bureaucrats answer to us, business bureaucrats do not. It seems like you are saying the best way to make education more democratic is by making education less democratic.

Um, no one is disputing the singular goal of business is to turn and increase profit. I have quite a bit of experience with business, so feel free to save the lesson for someone else. Let me repeat this once more because apparently it was lost in the conversation somehow: I never said I wanted Walmart or McDonalds teaching our kids; just that I didn't want Washington bureaucrats deciding what's best for our education.

Why is it that you keep bringing up corporate education as the only option to NOT having a federally funded public school system? Surely you're capable of understanding and imagining more options for education than just that it will slip into the netherworld of profit margins, no? It's not an either/or argument. There are options other than either we accept federal funding or else we have to hand it over to corporations. That's a very narrow perspective.

Standardized tests are created with producing a bell curve in the test taking population. A bell curve is very informative as to where the limitations lie in a population. A standardized test that produces a decaying exponential is not. Either the wrong test was administered to the students or the teachers at whatever school are that good. He never mentioned appealing or having the students independently tested. I don't know that much about the "No Child Left Behind Act," but if neither of those avenues exist then it is fucked.

As to whether or not a privatized educational system is preferable, I feel I'm a mixed bag. I do think having a diversification of educational options for children is beneficial for the populace, however I also feel that the Federal Gov. should guarantee and ensure a base level education for the populace. I'm still young so I remember being taught by the tired short-tempered bigot as well as I remember the wonderful teachers that truly inspired me. The inspiring teachers were definitely on short supply. The criticism is always launched that professional athletes make more than elite teachers. Perhaps with a more privatized education system this could be alleviated.

As I stated earlier i would not endorse giving corporations free reign to indoctrinate the next generation. I'm in favor of amendment or law requiring a separation of corp. and state with regards to education. I would require a federal base minimum of educational requirements for all schools (sorry creationists). I would like more options. Instead of St. Jude's or St. Mary's, I would like a Sir Newton's.

Sure, I can imagine a wonderful privately run national school system. I can also imagine unicorns and the Yeti.

There are always fanciful dreams of utopian deregulated futures, but they never pan out when future becomes today. After California's disastrous deregulation of energy, you'd be insane to think that deregulation of education is a good idea. It would be awesome to have the Minotaur as a history professor or the Griffin for Phys. Ed, but I'd just assume not gamble education on wild flights of fancy.

Education is too important to deregulate.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You complain about Washington bureaucrats, but seem to see no potential problems with business bureaucrats. The Washington bureaucrats answer to us, business bureaucrats do not. It seems like you are saying the best way to make education more democratic is by making education less democratic.


What in my comments makes you think I don't scrutinize corporatism? Business bureaucrats can and should be held accountable if they break the law, but when you have a strong, large federal government then you are opening the door to corporatism influencing that government and the people's rights become incidental. A smaller limited federal government means the business interests (as with bank interests, military industrial interests, prison industrial interests etc.) would have influence on our legislation.

That has always been my stance, though you and NR seem to want to paint me as pro-corporate, which is ridiculous. Being pro-free market and anti-large government does not make me Newt Gingrich any more than your welfare state ideas makes you Karl Marx.

As a former special needs teacher, this guy is my new hero!

Spread this video around to all teachers you know. I guarantee the majority of them feel just like this guy and would love to have his courage!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Sure, I can imagine a wonderful privately run national school system. I can also imagine unicorns and the Yeti.
There are always fanciful dreams of utopian deregulated futures, but they never pan out when future becomes today. After California's disastrous deregulation of energy, you'd be insane to think that deregulation of education is a good idea. It would be awesome to have the Minotaur as a history professor or the Griffin for Phys. Ed, but I'd just assume not gamble education on unrealistic flights of fancy.


Now you're just being childish. I, too, can imagine a world where people believed their big brother government would take care of them from cradle to grave because that cwuddly-wuddly gwuvenment wuvs you and wants you to be safy-wafy.

Here's the deal - and before I tell you, let it be known that I think you are a super cool dude, one of my favorite people on the sift and well intentioned with your libertarian philosophy - but the push for 'school choice' and vouchers is uninformed hysteria.

-There isn't any meaningful research or evidence to suggest that vouchers are even a vaguely good idea.
-There are no countries of note that use vouchers.
-There are practical suggestions for how this could or would be done.
-There is no need for deregulated schools in the first place.
(let the frantic googling commence)

Support for vouchers comes from the unlikely triumvirate of creationists, libertarians - who will sign on to anything that's vaguely anti-government - and opportunist businessmen (God, Fear and Money with all due respect to MeShell Ndegeocello). Do you believe in this? Well, then justify it. Slogans and Orwell quotes don't aren't enough. Just like proponents of 'intelligent design', the voucher folks have no science to support their hypothesis. Just empty sanctimonious slogans.

It's trendy to bash public schools, but think of the shear volume of students that are educated every year. (over 76 million) A large majority do well, pass their classes and go on to live decent lives. Unlike private schools, public schools accept everyone, including poor students, handicapped students, non-english speaking students,mentally challenged students, emotionally disturbed students, etc.

Libertarians look at private schools and wonder why public schools can't be the same. Here's why:
1) Private schools generally limit their attendance to smarter, well behaved students.
2) Private schools can flush students they don't like out of the system.
3) Pay to play (parents who spend money on private school are going to be damned sure their money isn't wasted).
4) Wealth. Wealthy kids get private tutoring sessions while poor kids flip burgers.

Expert in business that you are, have you begun to think of the implications of subjecting education to the dark side of business? What do students do when their school goes out of business mid year, or declares bankruptcy, or has to fire the custodial staff in order to stay afloat. School systems need to be stable and reliable. To think that some rag tag band of plucky entrepreneurs could even begin to tackle this system better than people who have been doing it for decades is beyond naive.

Here is how we fix education:

-Cancel all the expensive gimmicky shit and let the teachers teach.
-Teacher assessment, not school assessment. Weed out the bad ones, but don't punish the ENTIRE SCHOOL.
-Free up teachers to teach how they like. Allow them to pick their own texts and change up their approach according to student needs.
-Disband the textbook commission. (read Lies My Teacher Taught Me for more on this one)
-Competitive pay for teachers, you get what you pay for.
-Build enough schools. Have enough materials, don't skimp on students.
-The Option of skill/trade programs for any student who desires it.
-Limit the higher grades to students who meet a certain grade/dedication threshold (controversial, yes, but it is done in many parts of Europe).
-Less testing, more learning.
-Reading, reading, reading. Along with the classics, include fun books like Harry Potter, Goosebumps, etc. Developing a love for reading is IMPORTANT.


There is no need to reinvent the wheel, we just need to build on what we already have. We need more ideas and more than just lip service from our politicians about education.

Why the fuck did I spend all this time arguing against a fringe concept that will never even come close to getting off the ground you ask?

Well, I've never argued this position in any depth before and had to finally let it all out. Arguing with you, blankfist, is fun. You are a smart, funny, passionate guy and no one in town gives a better rim job.

Considering how long this is, I know that blankfist, Netrunner and kronos are the only people still reading. Thanks guys.

Lost me at 'deep spiritual rtard lessons'

Vagina monologue alert! Kidding. But seriously, I never said I was for vouchers, DFT. It seems you're repeatedly trying to put words in my mouth, or more accurately claim certain policies to be mine that I never laid claim to. Let's stick to what I say when grouping me with other political opinions, please.

Just like marriage, religion and other areas of free choice, I believe education to be something the federal government should not manage. Furthermore, they have no constitutional right to do so. I want every child to have a decent education, because it sounds good and right, and it makes me feel good to say and believe in that. It still doesn't make it right to extend the federal government in such a way to forcefully (and arguably unconstitutionally) take money from everyone to pay for a welfare program. To do so means the government is entitled to your money, therefore owns you.

Pardon my tangent: This sort of overreach is why presidents like JFK have been entitled to write Executive Orders extending their powers, especially in the name of doing good with it when the time comes. JFK wrote EOs giving him the right to seize communications in the media, electric power and fuel, transportation (seaports, highways, airports, airspace, etc); seize all health, education and welfare facilities; force registration of all men, women and child; seize all housing and finance authorities to establish "Relocation Designated Areas"; force abandonment of property and areas; and (the most egregious of all) seize any and all American people and divide up families in order to create work forces to be transferred to any place the gov. sees fit.

You can argue the president would never use this sort of power unless a national crisis necessitated it, but that's too much power for a ruling body to have, especially one that is supposed to be a limited branch. This is why I think it's important to ensure we don't allow our government to overstep their limited power, lest we suffer martial law (see Katrina) or worse a complete loss of Rights. Even if it makes you feel good, that doesn't mean it's right. I care about people individually, and I've given thousands for AIDS projects here in LA, but I do it because I choose to do it, and I wouldn't think it fair to force my neighbor to do it even if I think it's the right thing to do. [/vagina monologue]

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Here is how we fix education:
-Cancel all the expensive gimmicky shit and let the teachers teach.
-Teacher assessment, not school assessment. Weed out the bad ones, but don't punish the ENTIRE SCHOOL.
-Free up teachers to teach how they like. Allow them to pick their own texts and change up their approach according to student needs.
-Disband the textbook commission. (read Lies My Teacher Taught Me for more on this one)
-Competitive pay for teachers, you get what you pay for.
-Build enough schools. Have enough materials, don't skimp on students.
-The Option of skill/trade programs for any student who desires it.
-Limit the higher grades to students who meet a certain grade/dedication threshold (controversial, yes, but it is done in many parts of Europe).
-Less testing, more learning.
-Reading, reading, reading. Along with the classics, include fun books like Harry Potter, Goosebumps, etc. Developing a love for reading is IMPORTANT.


I think you missed your calling in life, DFT. You should've been a teacher. All great ideas. All of them. If only you had the freedom to teach that way without bureaucratic laws stopping you. But that kind of common sense talk is probably all Yetis and unicorns, right?

blankfist, even though there are always more than two sides to an argument, people can usually only see the two most obvious. When you argue one side of a debate, people will assume you share the opinions of the others on your side unless you explicitly speak against them.

Pray tell what do you think would happen if we privatized the education system? I'm all for moderating the power of specific offices and maintaining checks and balances, but where does that leave us in this case?

All I can see is the wealthy getting educated and the poor getting shafted. I'm talking about fast-food education that would quickly become nothing more than babysitting. At that point we might as well lift the laws against child labor, because they won't be doing anything useful anyway.

So if not the vouchers (that would do nothing more than create a rush of unreliable "schools"), and not trying to reverse the decay of our current system, then what?

being a teacher of students with special needs in ohio, i feel this mans pain. this is what i wanted to do my whole life, and now i no long er teach curriculum, IEP goals, or general skills my students need, but things that might be on a test. i currently teach 3rd grade in a district where 78% of our students are at or below the poverty level. 3rd grade is the first year that our students take tests. in ohio, each student takes the SAME test. i have many students who are unable to read, but are required to take the SAME test as the general ed. students. i have had many students cry, get frustrated, ED students who throw the biggest fits. and i am told that with the right accommodations my students can pass. the only accommodation that i can think of that would help my students pass is for me to give them the answers (which i dont). NCLB is the biggest crock and for me, the main reason i may not stay all that much longer in special education.

I actually am a teacher sometimes, though not currently. I bounce between freelance musician, band director, drum instructor, film composer, arranger and substitute teacher to pay the bills.

bf, you are talking about giving federal funds to private schools, right? If so, then that is closely related to vouchers and I'm generally against it.

If by choice you mean charter schools, home schooling, private schools, religious schools and whatever other types of schools available that I'm leaving out, then your wish has already come true and I have no gripe with you.

Citizens (mainly parents) hold a lot of sway for change and choice at the local level. A hand full of organized parents (or concerned citizens) can do some pretty amazing things (and occasionally some horrible things). Unhappy parents will make a principal's life a living hell.

There are more options for influencing education than going to the polls each year, if you are not opposed to getting your hands dirty. If you want to make positive change in your local school system, attend your local weekly school board meeting. If there is something you don't like, speak up about it. If you don't act like the crazy guy in the vid you just submitted, they will take you seriously. If they don't, then turn up the heat, after all these meetings are televised. These elected official don't have a lot of money and can be easily toppled if proven ineffective or corrupt. You could even run for school board yourself.

No, no, no. No federal funds for any school, private or public. I'm saying it's not fair to think the government knows better how to spend our money than we do, so I don't believe they have the right to forcefully take our money and decide through bad policy the sort of homogenized NCLB education our children should be taught. Or to give vouchers. It's all terrible policy.

I think parents should have the choice how they want their child educated. I'm sick of the Washington bureaucrats regulating and restricting choice in the name of good intentions. I wish teachers could privately teach children out of their homes, or parents could teach them from home, or someone is more than welcome to start a large chain of schools if that's what people want. Some may think that's a bad idea, but here's an analogy. Currently, to get your teeth cleaned you have to visit a Dent Tech at the Dentist's office. The cost per visit is prohibitive to patients without insurance, and the Dentist only looks at your teeth for a couple minutes and sometimes he doesn't look at them at all.

What if Dent Techs could do private teeth cleanings from their homes? Or from making house visits? All they need, really, are a couple dental picks, floss and teeth polish. The visits would be attainable to the poor. But, with regulations and restrictions, such a good private community service becomes prohibitive. Now, imagine that same example for most things we feel we must regulate because people are too irresponsible to do for themselves: education, health, etc. Remove the bureaucrats and you open an industry up to more people willing to help. Dent Techs sure could use the money!

As for the public school board meetings: no thanks. I don't have children in school, so it's not something I'm interested in.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Education is too important to deregulate.


You can't have your cake and eat it too. It is neither logical or moral to argue for the regulation of some markets, and at the same time, for the deregulation of others--for the decision is arbitrary and depends on the whims on one or more persons--i.e. it is autocratic.

How can you or others make a rational argument for the regulation of education, but at the same time make a rational argument for the deregulation of say, the production of food? Is food less important than education? How about transportation (i.e. the production of cars, trains, planes, boats) is that more or less important than education? Or healthcare (not insurance, but the actual labor and technology), shouldn't we have government regulations forcing a number of people to be doctors, so that we have adequate health care--if the argument is that importance necessitates regulation?

There are many arguments for or against the regulation of education, many stemming from economics and morality, but forsaking those--the punchline is that your stance depends only on an opinion. And the only reason your opinion is different is your life experience was different than anothers--it was not an opinion formed with reason, as your logic is demonstratively inconsistent.

Make the masses well-educated is the best way to loose control over them.
Ignorant masses are easier to manage for leaders. Otherwise, who'll need leaders ?

(BTW, this guy is great and i love/approve his message)

Let me try and break it down for you, imstellar.

Educating students, fighting fires, policing neighborhoods, a functioning highway system, safe food and drugs, clean water, a just court system, preserving our national parks, the registration of automobiles (to name a few) are all systems that transcend capital. Make profit the goal of any of these systems and they will lose their focus and fail.

The private sector isn't equipped to deal with social issues, because they only see value in terms of dollars. Thus, cars, hamburgers, gourmet coffee and other products are fine in corporate hands, but let's not put McDonalds or Pfizer in charge of the Food and Drug Administration.

So to answer your question, yes, it is both logical and moral to keep corporate hands off of important systems.

¿Comprende, amigo?

^dystopianfuturetoday
1. Educating students (disagree)
2. fighting fires (agree)
3. policing neighborhoods (agree)
4. a functioning highway system (disagree)
5. safe food and drugs, clean water (disagree)
6. a just court system (agree)
7. preserving our national parks (agree)
8. the registration of automobiles (disagree)

My answers are a result of the evaluation of this single axiom:
the most fundamental human right is the freedom to think and act, free of coercion--physical or otherwise.

What are your answers the result of?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The private sector isn't equipped to deal with social issues, because they only see value in terms of dollars. Thus, cars, hamburgers, gourmet coffee and other products are fine in corporate hands, but let's not put McDonalds or Pfizer in charge of the Food and Drug Administration.


Corporate fraud is illegal whether we have regulation or not, so why is that an argument against the free market? Whatever problems you have with McDonalds, Pfizer, and Walmart are clearly not a commonly held sentiment, or else these businesses would go bankrupt. They have grown in size because there was a growing demand for their product.

If you are going to condemn anyone or anything, it should be the moral or cultural values of the consumer. It is the consumer who controls the market, not the business owners...

blankfist, oops (sheepishly looks at feet)

Many libertarians want to deregulate schools and I wrongly lumped you in with that crowd, so I apologize for my prejudiced assumptions. I'm all for the private sector offering alternatives to those who want them, and if someday we can manage to get our ed system running smoothly and efficiently, I'd be cool with bringing private programs of merit into the system where they might be useful. Can we fuck now?

I never mentioned fraud. If putting words in my mouth is the only way you feel you can stay afloat in this conversation, then please don't waste my time. I've got much less important things to do.

^my mistake. I thought you were insinuating that if McDonalds/Pfizer were in control of an important market, such as Education, they would have unethical business practices. If that is not your charge, what exactly is the problem?

Is your argument that profit would somehow corrupt the system? I am not convinced of this, but lets assume its true. Then, if we deregulate education and a non-profit organization (like the Red Cross or the Salvation Army) sprang up, would there be an issue with that?

(Sorry in advance, i'll certainly be off-topic, and my english will be awful. And this is only my opinion, which i don't mean to impose, even if I'll employ directive sentences and stuff that looks like factual speech)

First of all, human beings may have rights (freedom, etc ...) but they have one duty : preserve our species. Human rights should be a corrolary of this duty, or, a result of the way we've managed to acheive this duty. Education should be the first step to learn our children how to achieve this duty. If it can lead to the acquisition to some rights like 'freedoms', it's a bonus. Some will say that's a necessity (maybe the two - rights and duty - are interdependant). Some fights for their own preservation, just like corporations, acting for their own good. Well, it's a way to preserve the human race after all. But is it better than keeping the whole humanity on track ? I don't know. This question deserves deeper analysis.

For my part, I think that the more important is to anwser some fundamental questions and build a good understanding of mankind issues, before looking at the current political system (whatever country i'm in and from) and searching how to deal with it.

(Wow, that was cryptic ... sorry. I should have done better in french )

^animals might have a biological "duty" but I don't agree that a sentient being has any "duty" to procreate or to preserve our species. The evolution of consciousness has enabled us to choose our own motivations in life, rather than be slaves to our DNA.

One argument against the derivation of human rights from the duty to preserve the species would be this: if every woman in the world decided to be abstinent, how could you preserve the species without supporting rape? (artificial insemination aside)

You know, the "species preservation duty" assumption is a personal statement. I won't try to make you accept this point of view. If I evoke this thing, it is because I've though a lot about all of this. About what can be our motivation in life for example (I fully understand that it's not confortable to feel like a "DNA slave", especially when you're used to live with 'freedom' concept). I could develop my though all night long about ones or other people motivation in life, and possibly make a connection with the concept of preserving our species, through a way or another (reproduction is only a -primitive but pleasant- way to do it after all).

Ok, i agree that "derivation of human right from this duty" is a bit harsh or brutal concept which can't be accepted as is. After all, you make a point : If every woman in the world decided to be abstinent, there's only few issues :
1. Peaceful : no birth, humanity disappears, no more duty
2. Brutal : supporting rape (or forced insemination), which (appart from being beyond my preformated imagination) will be a sign that humanity is in a terrible shape and near to extinction
3. Artificial : cloning, which, again, should lead to the end of mankind as we know it.

One question is : why should all the ladies decide to not breed ? I mean, why should 3 billions of women would stop breeding ? (and why only women ? It could be men that decide to stop ... ok, it's even less realistic ).

By the way, aren't we a bit offtopic given the actual sift we're commenting ? It's not that don't want to speak about that, but i don't want to do spam/pollution ...

Red Cross and the Salvation Army do not have the institutional might, experience or resources to handle education.

You two are freaking me out with this bizarre sci-fi rape fantasy. I'd have to go with option. 4) Go to the gym and do some serious tongue exercises.

I see both good and bad in standardized testing. It is hard to improve what you do not measure, and standardized testing in critical areas like math and reading exposes holds schools accountable to a known standard. It also keeps kids from being promoted out of grades simply due to their age and having kids graduate high school without being able to read or function in mathematics at least at a basic level. I'd also like to see more free market type incentives applied to the education system through school choice and a voucher system. Kids who are serious about education should have the opportunity to transfer to a higher performing school.

Standardized testing has created some very real negative unintended consequences. Teaching to the test is a real problem and I get frustrated at the amount of classtime that is devoted specifically toward raising the students performance on these tests. I'd like to see the tests broadened into science and history so that the teaching emphasis would broaden as well. Also, as a father of kids that are in many ways considered 'gifted' I've seen resources and focus shift away from creating an enriching and challenging scholastic experience for kids like mine, while more emphasis, classtime, and resources are spent on bringing those that are struggling up to the test standard. So while the NCLB act and standardized testing has been good for kids that are struggling, more needs to be done to ensure an enriching educational environment where all kids can grow and be challenged.

This is not a Bush conspiracy, nor is it an evil program. It's a well intended program, started with bipartisan support, that continues to have some problems and should be improved upon.

why don't they just teach?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Red Cross and the Salvation Army do not have the institutional might, experience or resources to handle education.


It wouldn't have to be a nationwide non-profit. They could exist at the state or county level. You happened to grow up in a governmentally run education system. Out of the three options: state-run, private, and non-profit, don't you think its a coincidence that the one you support happens to be the one you grew up with?

thousands of americans receive a private education from preschool to phd, so I don't see how you can argue that its not a viable option.

i just dont see how you can make an argument for forcing me to pay for your childs education. if you cant afford private school, or don't have the time to home school your child, maybe you shouldn't be having a child? how did your child become my responsibility? it seems easy to justify when you are just taking money out of my paycheck--because the reality of the situation is hidden--but it is equivalent to walking into my workplace, putting a gun to my head, driving me to your house, and forcing me to teach your child algebra.

i support the separation of school and statistics.

^I'll second that.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Vouchers and 'school choice' are embezzlement scams.


How can they be embezzlement scams? There are no vouchers and "school choice" now..unless you just plain pull your kid out and go to a private school or homeschool. Even then we still pay taxes for public schools.

I hope you aren't saying I want to embezzle my own money when I want my tax money back since I'm not using the public school.

ok, back to read the whole thread now

Alright, halfway through this thread.. damn, I wish I had more time for Sift these days....

Ok, fellas... I'm an average joe parent here. So here's a thought from one:

I am not happy w/ what policies like NCLB have done to our school systems. It only made the schools worse. My kids needs weren't being met, so I pulled them out. We could not afford private school sooooo.... most of you know we home school.

Alright, why in all fairness should we be taxed for the public school system? We do not use it.

^Exactly, and should those without children be taxed for public schools? Or those who do not wish to have children?

Cause you're part of the village it takes to raise all the kids, Blankfist.

[deleted, redundant...]

>> ^swampgirl:
Cause you're part of the village it takes to raise all the kids, Blankfist.


Haha. Fairness is a oneway street.

That is essentially the question. When public schools were started, it was because of the principle that an educated citizenry was better for everybody in the long run, including those who have no children. Of course I am talking about a real education, not the memorization of unrelated factoids for a standardized test.

Let's have a hypothetical. What if public schools were shut down at the end of this year, and the tax money earmarked for it was taken off the books, and everybody paid proportionally less in taxes?

First, the existing private schools would be overwhelmed with demand. They would be able to charge much more, and being good capitalists they certainly would. So that means the rich would get all the best that is currently available.

Of course, a massive number of private schools would begin appearing, with no history of stability and no oversight. At least they would be somewhat more affordable. All the good public school teachers would go to these new schools. And the parents who are smart and put all of their newly returned taxes (and probably much more since the burden isn't shared anymore) into their children's education would send their kids there. Hopefully the schools will be well run and won't fold up in the middle of a year taking all your money with it. Of course, after some growing pains, the quality competitive schools would stabilize, and those families who put a massive percentage of their resources into their children's education (think college-level investment here) would have good places to send their kids.

Of course there would still be a demand in the lower portions of the economic scale. Since children aren't allowed to work until age 16, they would have to do something during the day. The cheapest of the schools would get the teachers that the other schools didn't want, and with the lower pay scale and lower expectations these schools would be little better than day care centers.

Since most of our current population has no sense of personal financial management, the sticker shock of what good schooling actually costs would push more lower income parents to stick with the bargain basement level.

This is where comparisons to WalMart and McDonalds come in. They are cheap, so they are successful. Most people who support them don't know or care that their products are crap, they treat their employees like crap, and they are directly contributing to the destruction of the American economy and/or state of health. I don't buy their products, because I know better. But they are still wildly successful because they know how to work the capitalist system.

So what do you think would happen to the education level of the average citizen twenty years after some big corporate chain of bargain basement schools became the most successful school system? What kind of lessons will be taught by teachers who earn the minimum wage? Let's face it, those kids wouldn't even be qualified to work at WalMart or McDonalds. And there will be a LOT of them.

Well, hell, they're not your kids, why should you care?

My mother is a high school math teacher in the Detroit Public School System. She teaches the students that listen and whoever shows up, but it isn't easy. NCLB does absolutely nothing to help her school or its students. All it does is waste time and resources on standardized testing that takes three whole days and drives everybody insane.

Now her school might be closed and all those students and teachers will have nowhere to go unless they go on longer commutes, which will be hard because of vehicle unavailability, gas prices, and Detroit's nonexistent mass transit system.

How does NCLB help these kids? Or anyone? It doesn't.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and I consider education to be in part a public good, and thus grouped with firefighting and military defense. Most libertarians agree that the government does have a role in providing public goods.

^MaxWilder

you are not demonstrating a clear understanding of market forces, nor are you demonstrating a clear understanding of our educational system.

currently the bulk of our educational system is paid for by state property taxes. the argument in this thread is about relinquishing federal control--namely over curricula and standards. if federal regulation and funding were dropped--we wouldn't incinerate the existing infrastructure--the states would simply take over control and your property taxes would rise and your income taxes would fall. no matter what you do, the money has to come from somewhere-whether it is federal taxes, state taxes, or private donations/tuition makes no difference on the quality of education received.

when you leave it to the market, you let people determine how much education is worth for them--if its worth a lot, they will pay a higher price. if the price rises, supply will be expanded to meet demand, and the price will fall. to force a person to a accept a higher or lower price is to walk into a supermarket with a gun, and force them to pay $8 for a gallon of milk--just because you think it is worth that much. maybe i dont even like milk, or enjoy milk but only at a reasonable price--say $2 a gallon?

the beauty of the free market is that the price of milk, for example, is set by the millions of "votes" made every second worldwide. when someone buys milk, or doesn't buy it, or buys less or more, they are transmitting how much milk is worth to them. to bypass this process, is to turn a democratic system into an autocratic one--instead of a million votes from people all around the world--you have one person, or a small group telling everyone how much milk should be worth. if you believe in democracy, how can you not believe in the free market? even worse, when you have a small group, say a bureaucracy, dictating the prices of a commodity you hide really important information--if the price is fixed, how can a business know when to increase supply to meet demand? or to reduce supply as a result of reduced demand? furthermore, in a free market the price changes on a daily basis based on an incomprehensible amount of data--to reduce this price adjustment to once a year, or once a quarter--and to think that one person can possibly improve on this process is ludicrous. that is why the free market will always be the best solution.

if i choose to home school my children, or pay a private tutor, or use online education such as dvds and video lectures in order to reduce the cost and/or increase the quality of education my child receives--who are you to tell me otherwise?

another argument worth considering: do you really want the government to hold a monopoly on what your child is taught? the government has a vested interest in teaching your child policies which conform to its own--for example nobody is taught austrian economics in high school because that would go against just about everything the government does. likewise, creationalist leaders aren't going to want to teach evolution in schools. you can't possibly expect to receive an honest and objective education when government policy depends on a biased education.

the consequence of which, is precisely why we find ourselves in this debate

>>the beauty of the free market is that the price of milk (or gas), for example, is set by the millions of "votes" made every second worldwide.

LOL oh i get it now, it was really ME and the millions of US who WANTED $4.00/gal gas and "voted" to make it so, not a cabal of greedy corporate thugs and politicians who artificially manipulated the price and entrapped us in a war to terrorize the markets.

Textbook Economic Theory capitalism and the real-world free-market gang-rape capitalism practiced by corporations are two very different things.

Now your statements are approaching conspiracy theories. And the beauty of your claim that public schools are propaganda outfits is that we can't prove you wrong.

>> ^Memorare:
>> the beauty of the free market is that the price of milk (or gas), for example, is set by the millions of "votes" made every second worldwide.
LOL oh i get it now, it was really ME and the millions of US who WANTED $4.00/gal gas and "voted" to make it so, not a cabal of greedy corporate thugs and politicians who artificially manipulated the price and entrapped us in a war to terrorize the markets.
Textbook Economic Theory capitalism and the real-world free-market gang-rape capitalism practiced by corporations are two very different things.


again, you are showing the sheer magnitude of your ignorance. when i spoke of "voting" where in my post did i mention voting directly for the price you wish to pay? you "vote" by choosing the amount of product you buy at a particular price. debating with you is pointless as you lack the prerequisite ability of critical reading...

if everyone in america chose to not buy gas and instead chose to ride their bikes/commute to work...you had better believe the price of gas is going to drop. when the price went from $1.00 to $4.00 did you reduce your consumption by 1/4? if you didn't, then you are "voting" for higher gas prices.

>> ^imstellar28:
if the price rises, supply will be expanded to meet demand, and the price will fall. to force a person to a accept a higher or lower price is to walk into a supermarket with a gun, and force them to pay $8 for a gallon of milk--just because you think it is worth that much. maybe i dont even like milk, or enjoy milk but only at a reasonable price--say $2 a gallon?
the beauty of the free market is that the price of milk, for example, is set by the millions of "votes" made every second worldwide. when someone buys milk, or doesn't buy it, or buys less or more, they are transmitting how much milk is worth to them. to bypass this process, is to turn a democratic system into an autocratic one--instead of a million votes from people all around the world--you have one person, or a small group telling everyone how much milk should be worth. if you believe in democracy, how can you not believe in the free market? even worse, when you have a small group, say a bureaucracy, dictating the prices of a commodity you hide really important information--if the price is fixed, how can a business know when to increase supply to meet demand? or to reduce supply as a result of reduced demand? furthermore, in a free market the price changes on a daily basis based on an incomprehensible amount of data--to reduce this price adjustment to once a year, or once a quarter--and to think that one person can possibly improve on this process is ludicrous. that is why the free market will always be the best solution.

To quote Wikipedia on a commodity: A commodity is anything for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.

Education isn't a commodity. It's a service, with a ton of "qualitative differentiation across the market".

Also, education is not elastic, like milk. If milk costs $8/gal, I'll probably cut back on it, or stop buying it. If sending my hypothetical kids to grade school cost me %50 or more of my income, I'd find a way to do it, but you can be damn sure I wouldn't be voting for a Libertarian in the next election.

There's probably some price elasticity in education, though I hope there aren't many parents telling their kids "sorry, even though I can afford to send you to MIT, your future isn't worth enough to me, how about a nice state school?" Student loans create a different situation, with kids having to decide how much individual debt they're willing to take on, but is that really superior to a system that places students in colleges based on desire & ability, with the costs spread amongst the society in the form of progressive taxes?

Also, a free market isn't a democracy. In any form of democracy I'm familiar with, everyone gets an equal number of votes (generally speaking, just 1). I'm pretty sure I have a smaller number of dollar-votes than Bill Gates.

As for taking a gun and forcing people to pay $8 for milk, it's more like taking a gun to people and saying "provide your share to the community or else," though usually they just send paperwork in the mail and say "we already took your share out of your paycheck, fill this out to make sure we got the right amount."

The "or else" is only implied to people who think of law as something imposed by a gang of thugs called "the government" or "the Police", forcing people to bow to their will through violence. Then it's "don't kill people, or else", "don't steal, or else", and all kinds of other democratically created circumscriptions on your freedom imposed artificially by others, tragic as that is.

if i choose to home school my children, or pay a private tutor, or use online education such as dvds and video lectures in order to reduce the cost and/or increase the quality of education my child receives--who are you to tell me otherwise?

I agree with you there, you should have the right to choose those things, I just don't think it excuses you from having to contribute to the education of people who can't afford those choices.

As someone said, sarcastically, you're part of the village that's needed to raise the kid -- and part of the economic system the kid's future works will help drive.

>> ^imstellar28:
another argument worth considering: do you really want the government to hold a monopoly on what your child is taught? the government has a vested interest in teaching your child policies which conform to its own--for example nobody is taught austrian economics in high school because that would go against just about everything the government does. likewise, creationalist leaders aren't going to want to teach evolution in schools. you can't possibly expect to receive an honest and objective education when government policy depends on a biased education.
the consequence of which, is precisely why we find ourselves in this debate


Government can't hold a monopoly on what children are taught unless they forbid children from interacting with their parents.

If kids wind up listening to or respecting their teachers more, isn't that a parenting failure, not a government monopoly?

That said, I'm somewhat torn on the topic of subject control, and your two examples highlight both of my conundrums: I think creationism should never be taught to any child under the banner of "science", ever, anywhere. Churches can tell anyone they want what they believe about the workings of the world, but they shouldn't be allowed to call it science.

I think Austrian economics would be a good topic for an advanced economic class, but even microeconomics is usually a college-level subject matter. I think kids should be taught non-mainstream, non-debunked theories within a subject, once they've reached the point where they've learned real critical thinking (how you figure that out is beyond me, I'm no teacher).

Before that, they kinda need to be put into sync with mainstream concepts within the subject, since the outside world is enmeshed with it.

To some degree I think the nature of schooling should spend more time on critical thinking, research, logic, etc. before it ever starts with real subject matter...but that's a whole other can of worms.

>> ^imstellar28:
you are not demonstrating a clear understanding of market forces, nor are you demonstrating a clear understanding of our educational system.

Feel free to tell me what part of my prediction is inaccurate when you make slurs against my intelligence.

>> ^imstellar28:
currently the bulk of our educational system is paid for by state property taxes. the argument in this thread is about relinquishing federal control--namely over curricula and standards.

I'm pretty sure we've been arguing about the place of any government in the education system. Otherwise this discussion is pointless (a distinct possibility). I'd be perfectly happy to get rid of the federal government's influence and go back to state controlled education. That was when it was the best education available in the world. I was fortunate enough to catch the tail end of that educational system, as the federal government was starting to interfere. Since that time I've listened to the horror stories of my parents (who were both grade school teachers) and friends who have become teachers after college. Nothing but contempt for the rapidly degenerating system.

>> ^imstellar28:
the beauty of the free market is that the price of milk, for example, is set by the millions of "votes" made every second worldwide. when someone buys milk, or doesn't buy it, or buys less or more, they are transmitting how much milk is worth to them.

Did you even read my post? That is exactly the basis for my prediction. Some people will place a high value on education, and allocate their resources accordingly, but far too many will either not value it at all, or be unable/unwilling to pay what is sure to be a much higher cost than parents currently pay in taxes. The current price per student in the US is somewhere around $10,000 per year, but the price per taxpayer is much less because the burden is spread. We do that because the education of the nation's youth benefits everybody (assuming we can repair the system so that our students actually begin to learn again).

>> ^imstellar28:
if i choose to home school my children, or pay a private tutor, or use online education such as dvds and video lectures in order to reduce the cost and/or increase the quality of education my child receives--who are you to tell me otherwise?

I am a single white male with no children. I have an average job and receive average pay. I cannot afford to purchase a house in the current market. Despite this, I will happily pay my share in taxes with the hope that it will increase the intelligence of the people I share this planet with. Who are you?

And just so we're clear, if milk went up to $8 per gallon, I'd stop drinking it. That's a lousy analogy.

^NetRunner:
>> To quote Wikipedia on a commodity: A commodity is anything for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.
Education isn't a commodity. It's a service, with a ton of "qualitative differentiation across the market".
Also, education is not elastic, like milk. If milk costs $8/gal, I'll probably cut back on it, or stop buying it. If sending my hypothetical kids to grade school cost me %50 or more of my income, I'd find a way to do it, but you can be damn sure I wouldn't be voting for a Libertarian in the next election.
There's probably some price elasticity in education, though I hope there aren't many parents telling their kids "sorry, even though I can afford to send you to MIT, your future isn't worth enough to me, how about a nice state school?" Student loans create a different situation, with kids having to decide how much individual debt they're willing to take on, but is that really superior to a system that places students in colleges based on desire & ability, with the costs spread amongst the society in the form of progressive taxes?


Education isn't a commodity like milk, because it has varying levels of quality. However, the analogy with milk is still valid. I can sustain myself in many ways--be it mcdonalds, frozen dinners, milk, vegetables, fruit, or gold-laced packages of caviar. To force an education on me which is more or less expensive, or of higher or lower quality than I would have chosen is economically inefficient. You don't make everyone eat the same food, or live in the same size house, so why would you make everyone learn the same way? If I can teach my children with online video lectures, .pdf class notes, and electronic text books--why would you deny me this cost-saving option? Likewise, if I aspire to be a manual laborer--say a carpenter--because it runs in my family--why would you force me to achieve a higher level of education than is economically relevant? If I want to be a doctor, why are you sending me through economics, calculus, and chemistry? Shouldn't I be free to learn these things on my own time--and focus on advancing the skills relevant to my career?

Also, a free market isn't a democracy. In any form of democracy I'm familiar with, everyone gets an equal number of votes (generally speaking, just 1). I'm pretty sure I have a smaller number of dollar-votes than Bill Gates.

It is true you have less "dollar-votes" than Bill Gates, but do you think Bill Gates is going to be buying that much more milk than a typical family? Or that many more loaves of bread? He will be spending money--perhaps on luxury items which you wouldn't buy anyways--but he will also be investing the largest portion of his income in small business--like the grocer, shoemaker, or car salesman who just opened business in your neighborhood. That is because all those millions of his dollars aren't just sitting in his closet--they are in a bank, which is giving out loans to business owners like your neighbor, or maybe even yourself.

As for taking a gun and forcing people to pay $8 for milk, it's more like taking a gun to people and saying "provide your share to the community or else," though usually they just send paperwork in the mail and say "we already took your share out of your paycheck, fill this out to make sure we got the right amount."
The "or else" is only implied to people who think of law as something imposed by a gang of thugs called "the government" or "the Police", forcing people to bow to their will through violence. Then it's "don't kill people, or else", "don't steal, or else", and all kinds of other democratically created circumscriptions on your freedom imposed artificially by others, tragic as that is.

There is no such thing as a community. Can you go outside and touch the community? Can you tell me where it is, or what it is currently doing? The community is an illusion--the only thing that exists is the individual. It is individuals that make up the community, and to forsake the individual for the sake of the community is to lose all bearing of what really exists.

^NetRunner:
>>To some degree I think the nature of schooling should spend more time on critical thinking, research, logic, etc. before it ever starts with real subject matter...but that's a whole other can of worms.


I agree 100%. I think this is one of the most sorely lacking subjects in public education. I would like to see a 9th grade class on critical thinking. There is actually a textbook on this subject "The Art of Thinking" by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero which I think would do an exceptional job.

I actually think high schoolers should be pushed a lot harder. The step from high school to college is really an immense one, yet I'm not sure theres a physiological basis for this. I'd really like to see a college-style education in grades 10-12--that is, one which necessitates 2-4 hours of out-of-school work.

^MaxWilder
Some people will place a high value on education, and allocate their resources accordingly, but far too many will either not value it at all, or be unable/unwilling to pay what is sure to be a much higher cost than parents currently pay in taxes. The current price per student in the US is somewhere around $10,000 per year, but the price per taxpayer is much less because the burden is spread. We do that because the education of the nation's youth benefits everybody (assuming we can repair the system so that our students actually begin to learn again).

If thats true, give me 20 kids right now. I will quit my job tomorrow and give them the best damn education any K-12 kids ever received. $10,000? thats just insane. That means my K-12 education was "worth" $130,000! Who, in the absence of force, would pay $10,000 a year for our current public education?


I am a single white male with no children. I have an average job and receive average pay. I cannot afford to purchase a house in the current market. Despite this, I will happily pay my share in taxes with the hope that it will increase the intelligence of the people I share this planet with. Who are you?
And just so we're clear, if milk went up to $8 per gallon, I'd stop drinking it. That's a lousy analogy.

If there was no public education, what would stop you from donating to charities which provide education to low-income families? Its nice you hold that ideal-but how can you justify forcing me to donate? Charities operate on the free market as well--if society derives value from a common education--then the individuals which make up that society will donate money, in proportion to this value, which establishes a common education.

You would stop drinking milk--but would you stop drinking? My guess is you'd drink something else which is more affordable. Same thing goes for education.

>> ^imstellar28:
Education isn't a commodity like milk, because it has varying levels of quality. However, the analogy with milk is still valid. I can sustain myself in many ways--be it mcdonalds, frozen dinners, milk, vegetables, fruit, or gold-laced packages of caviar. To force an education on me which is more or less expensive, or of higher or lower quality than I would have chosen is economically inefficient.

Ahh, see, that's the problem. I don't want to force you to buy something more expensive, I want to force everyone to pay "their share", and get everyone something as close to gold-laced caviar as I can. People like Bill Gates will pay a lot, people like me will pay a moderate amount, and people who're scraping by pay nothing.

Bill Gates and I are both still capable of spending additional money, out of our after-tax income to buy fancier platinum-laced caviar from an exotic fish, but it doesn't excuse us from our responsibility to others.

You don't make everyone eat the same food, or live in the same size house, so why would you make everyone learn the same way?

I wouldn't, within reason. I'd do my best to make it impossible for people to choose diseased or spoiled food, indigestible items, toxins, and some forms of particularly unhealthy foods (trans-fats, say).

Dropping the metaphor, I think gifted children, children with mental disorders, children from broken homes and "average" children all need different environments -- and while I think parents should be driving that choice, I don't think the costs should be the determining factor.

If I can teach my children with online video lectures, .pdf class notes, and electronic text books--why would you deny me this cost-saving option?

...because they're only cost-saving if you already own a computer and internet connection. If the cost of providing that, plus the license fee for electronic books is cheaper than buying the printed book, I'd happily make it mandatory.

Bureaucracies get a bum rap, but there's no reason they can't be organized in such a way that they encourage cost-savings, or even decentralized cost-savings (e.g. only the "gifted" school uses them). Corporations are able to do this at least some of the time.

Likewise, if I aspire to be a manual laborer--say a carpenter--because it runs in my family--why would you force me to achieve a higher level of education than is economically relevant? If I want to be a doctor, why are you sending me through economics, calculus, and chemistry? Shouldn't I be free to learn these things on my own time--and focus on advancing the skills relevant to my career?

As a student, I often said "I know I want to be a programmer, why do I have to learn history?"

What do you think my teacher said to me? "Because the damned Department of Education forces us, at gunpoint, to teach you things we know will be irrelevant to your life?"

There's a value to educating people in a broad range of subjects, because it makes them more well-rounded individuals, and you never know what might come in handy in your life.

They might even change their mind about carpentry, and decide they want to be a doctor.

It is true you have less "dollar-votes" than Bill Gates, but do you think Bill Gates is going to be buying that much more milk than a typical family? Or that many more loaves of bread? He will be spending money--perhaps on luxury items which you wouldn't buy anyways--

That's why I'm happy to take a big share of his income in taxes...

but he will also be investing the largest portion of his income in small business--like the grocer, shoemaker, or car salesman who just opened business in your neighborhood. That is because all those millions of his dollars aren't just sitting in his closet--they are in a bank, which is giving out loans to business owners like your neighbor, or maybe even yourself.

Sure, but why should he get to choose not to help pay for the education of the people in his community/state/nation? He benefited from it, and benefits from the labors of those educated employees he hires, or those educated entrepreneurs he loans money to.

Doesn't he have a debt to society, since society has given him so much?

There is no such thing as a community. Can you go outside and touch the community? Can you tell me where it is, or what it is currently doing? The community is an illusion--the only thing that exists is the individual. It is individuals that make up the community, and to forsake the individual for the sake of the community is to lose all bearing of what really exists.

I can't touch happiness either...or libertarianism.

Here's the real separation of our beliefs: you hold the individual supreme, I hold the good of society supreme.

There are many different "societies" or "communities" to choose from, families, neighborhoods, nations, book clubs, sports teams, political activist groups, armies, gangs, companies, online communities, etc., but I think people are most moral when they put the needs of the group above their own.

That's why I so happily support judicious trampling of "individual rights" when I think it's truly for the good of the whole (though I don't think "the right to never pay taxes" is really a "right"). I think certain individual rights are vital to the functioning society (e.g. freedom of speech, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, protection from illegal search & seizure, etc.), but I think certain restrictions of behavior, above and beyond the libertarian triumvirate of stealing life, stealing money, and breaking contracts are vital too.

In the case of schooling, I think it's a vital part of society, and we all have an obligation to provide for it, whether we "choose" to or not.

NCLB sucks but...
Scores falling on a bell curve and the vast majority of students passing are not mutually exclusive. The score distribution that the guy showed was truncated at the high end because the test was too easy. BUT, giving students a harder test doesn't mean that a large number of students have to fail... just lower the passing score.
..Now that is, of course, a horrible solution.

I don't know the US system (other than it seems to be failing the US in a huge way based on your education levels), and I don't know the issues at hand.

But I do know this guy rocks.

This guy has the RIGHT idea of teaching kids, the right ideas of what we should be teaching kids and how to make GOOD children with ROUNDED educations.

Hoo bloody ray for him.

Democracy is a political system.

Capitalism is an economic system.

Democracy and capitalism, being two different types of systems are in no way related, and can exist in absence of one another.

Free Marketism is the process by which corporations rape poor people. (see China)

It's time to wake up from your programmed nightmare of a worldview.

Reality. History. Consensus. Logic. Common Sense. Evidence. Reason. Any of these should do.

Huge contradiction in your argument: Forcing me to pay the fire department to put out your fires is forced coercion. Let the motherfucker burn.

Your logic needs retooling.

>> ^imstellar28:
^dystopianfuturetoday
1. Educating students (disagree)
2. fighting fires (agree)
3. policing neighborhoods (agree)
4. a functioning highway system (disagree)
5. safe food and drugs, clean water (disagree)
6. a just court system (agree)
7. preserving our national parks (agree)
8. the registration of automobiles (disagree)
My answers are a result of the evaluation of this single axiom:
the most fundamental human right is the freedom to think and act, free of coercion--physical or otherwise.
What are your answers the result of?

Our system isn't ala carte. Schools, like roads or any other public works are available to you whether you want to use them or not. If you don't like public roads, you may build your own, but it's not the responsibility of the government to pave custom roads for you. Public priority lies with the public system. If you want to improve or extend the road (school) system, then get involved in local politics. (school board, city council, initiative system, etc.)

Also, the embezzlers would be McSchool, not you.

>> ^swampgirl:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Vouchers and 'school choice' are embezzlement scams.

How can they be embezzlement scams? There are no vouchers and "school choice" now..unless you just plain pull your kid out and go to a private school or homeschool. Even then we still pay taxes for public schools.
I hope you aren't saying I want to embezzle my own money when I want my tax money back since I'm not using the public school.
ok, back to read the whole thread now

^dystopianfuturetoday
" Huge contradiction in your argument: Forcing me topay the fire department to put out your fires is forced coercion. Let the motherfucker burn."

Arson is a violation of property rights just like vandalism. Thus, similar to police, firefighters act to ensure property rights, and by extension, individual rights.