|
Posted by Kris Krieger on November 29, 2007, 1:19 am
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Amy Blankenship"> wrote
>>>>>>>> I disagree. I think the system we have is FAR better than what
>>>>>>>> we would have if we had NO public education system. Again I
>>>>>>>> say look to countries that do not offer public education and
>>>>>>>> ask if that is what we want for this country.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why look to other countries?
>>>>>>> Just look at your own country and how it was BEFORE public
>>>>>>> education.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, lets. Most people didn't live far past 40.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh please.
>>>>> THINK Amy, THINK!
>>>>> Every one of the framers of this country lived well into their
>>>>> 60's, 70's and eighties as did many other people.
>>>>> All you're doing is passing on some silly media rumors and have
>>>>> not taken the time to even think it through.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> People were short due to
>>>>>> poor nutrition.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's still short people.
>>>>> They're called dwarfs.
>>>>> Maybe the gov't should steal more of your earnings and force feed
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Children worked in coal mines. Utopia!
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite?
>>>>> Another silly assed rumor.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its sort of unbelieveable that you are defending public
>>>>>>> education so ardently considering how wasteful and inefficient
>>>>>>> it is not to mention damaging to society as a whole as well as
>>>>>>> the multitudes of individuals mulched up in the machine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ....and contrast that with today where untold billions of
>>>>>>> dollars are spent each year and the students keep coming out the
>>>>>>> other side even more stupid than the year before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More money = more stupid students, more waste, more bureacracy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And thats what you're in favor of?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't suggested more money. I HAVE suggested that if we had
>>>>>> no public education, no matter how ineffectual, we'd be even more
>>>>>> of a third world country than we are.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how this country developed, and flourished like no other
>>>>> place on the planet thoughout history, without public education.
>>>>
>>>> THey had public education is at least some communities - but it was
>>>> community/public, not state/public or federal/public. Even when
>>>> states had standards, schools were still part and parcel of,
>>>> "owned", if you will, by, the local community.
>>>>
>>>> But it did exist.
>>>
>>> That was NOT public education, it was private.
>>> A group of citizens paid a teacher and therefore the citizens had
>>> vested interest in the thing and urged their kids to learn.
>>
>> GROUP. Community. People voting to act as a unit.
>
> ??
> What does voting have to do with it?
> I have a book lying right here with black and white photographs of a 1
> room school house right here in Brown county, one of which is showing
> 18 students of various ages, maybe from about 6 up to 16, pot belly
> stove, some tables/chairs, chalkboard and this classroom was built by
> some church folks right next door to the church.
> (When I write a contract with a client, or group of clients, we don't
> *vote* on it.)
>
> My point here is that when people decide on their own to do something
> then have a vested interest in seeing that something succeed.
What confuses me is that you say you don't understand what I mean when I
say group/community, but right there, you use the plural: people.
I use the word "voting", so maybe it'd be more clear if I say "a bunch of
people decide that somehting is good for all of them, and decide to take a
certain action". You can have a group of clients - in a sense, that group
of poeple have formed a "community", albeit a temporary one, because they
have conme together out of a shared interest (they will benefit from the
building you design).
That's why I get confused by how strongly you reject words like
"community". It is possible for a group of individuals to live in
proximity to one another, live their lives independently, yet come together
when they share a common interest, when there is something that could
benefit them all. A community *can* be a stifling mob, but it doesn't
*have* to be.
> The current public school system has no such thing, thus its been
> failing for decades, and will continue to do so.
I certainly don't disagree on that.
> If the Pats and Amys in this country had to pay for their charges
> education directly they would be more interested in seeing their
> expenditure return the value they expect.
I don't want to bring specific people into it, because I'm not the type who
easily remembers much of the social stuff. ANd if someone has managed to
to do enough for me to actually remember that I find them annoying, I don't
want to bring them into it becuase I try to avoid being annoyed <G!>
As a general principle, though, one of the big problems with socialist
systems in general is that people start thinking of it as being "free",
and/or "paid for by the governemnt". People treat things and services and
goods much differntly when those thing s are free, or are perceived as
being free, than when the tings are paid for outright. THat's just human
psychology - something paid for with "hard-earned income" is valued mroe
highly than is something which is perceived as something that, so to speak,
"falls out of the sky".
You know that as a business person (as do all business people) - freebies
are quickly taken for granted.
> The current cannibal pot procedure rewards behavior good and bad and
> gives it regular raises.
THat falls under the above-mentioned "problems with socialized systems".
Same goes for the following:
> People being the naturally lazy and conniving sort they are, cause the
> whole thing to worsen over time.
> Typical with most things the gov't is involved in: lack o | 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
