Ahh, I agree about that. They had some world region class in in my old high school a long time ago, and people would do well to learn more about the world around them.
However I think what Der Trihs was on about was the type of parents who want religion taught in schools as an alternative to things like evolution or the Big Bang. Rereading, maybe I’m wrong.
Ok
Really? That’s not what he said, and that’s not what the poster he responded to was talking about.
On what basis do you make that claim?
The example of the U.K. would indicate otherwise. Not only have we had a thriving private sector, but we already have a schools inspectorate which monitors the state sector as well.
This did not happen when vouchers were tried for primary schools in the U.K. Further - and I appreciate that this may well be different in America - private schools here are charities and have to operate as such, so they can’t just put up fees.
I like your cynicism.
However, while I agree that careful control is required, this has been tried before, and it was successful.
Hi everyone
I am the libertarian friend, being discussed. I have begun to respond on my blog (Izgad: The Straight Dope on Libertarianism). I look forward to continuing this discussion on either of these forums.
Many here aren’t going to click on your link. Post your argument here. I’ll start by saying that the first two of your premises are flawed. Not all government action is necessarily coercive: it can be protective, as in defence of the realm. And ‘all human actions cause some form of non-physical harm’ simply doesn’t fly: think of charity. You also fail to carry these premises through the rest of your argument.
I’ll let others shred the rest your argument.
Not true; there is also the option of home schooling and private schools.
Which doesn’t negate what Der Trihs said. We know there are these options, but, in the absence of public education, we did in the past, and would again, see massive public ignorance.
It doesn’t mean no one would be educated, just that many would not.
This has nothing to do with public education, but is a matter of educational philosophy and differentiation. When I was in a public high school in New York I was always challenged, since our school was big enough to sort kids by tested ability. This seems to be unpopular now, though the teachers in our district are supposed to teach in a way to differentiate the different levels of kids in one classroom. Nice theory, but hard in practice.
I’d guess that a small private school would have the same problem, since they would not have the resources to teach different levels of students in different ways. My graduating class was about 1500, and I think it actually worked very well for me and everyone in my school - it was the highest rated school you didn’t need to take a test to get in when I was there.
I’m not sure that’s correct. I can’t find a cite, but I remember being told that in the U.K., literacy rates at the end of the 19th century were higher than at the end of the 20th.
America may well have been different, of course. And Britain’s population is now vastly higher than 100 years ago.
Well, an 1876 Registrar General Report in the UK showed 16% of men and 22% of women unable to write their name. Literacy rates, to the extent of reading, have not seemed to change much over the 20th century in the UK. Reading was always seen as an important skill, not least because of the emphasis placed on Bible reading. Writing rates on the other hand were lower.
Also remember that compulsory primary education came to England in 1870 with the Forster Elementary Education Act. Parliament had been voting money for education spending on the poor since 1833, and in Scotland state funding for universal education goes back to 1561.
So it isn’t really fair to look at 1900 as a point with a libertarian type solution in place in England.
The usual counter-argument to any Libertarian claim like this: the government is not some alien force. We live in a democracy - we are the government. The limit on government action is we won’t do things to ourselves we don’t want done.
But see, you’re not looking at this like a libertarian. To you and me, that statement makes sense. To a libertarian, that statement just shows how deluded you are for being a statist willing to bend your knee to the will of the majority.
That’s because literacy has been broadly redefined since the end of the 19th century. It used to mean simply that a person was able to write his or her own name, as villa alludes to.
I think you’d have a rather difficult time finding anyone who thinks that’s a reasonable definition today.
ETA: There was also hardly anyone in the UK in 1900 who didn’t speak English as a first language, relative to today.
That’s because the libertarians don’t realize that the first thing the rest of us would do in Libertopia is form tribes and then we’d oppress all the libertarians who think they can get by on their own.
Quartz
What is the difference between how you and I can go about solving a problem and how the government solves a problem? You and I, as private citizens, do not have the right to engage in coercive actions such as drafting people into our “private security force” or lock them in our basements because we think they are terrorists even though we are acting “in defense of the realm.” Charity can certainly cause non-physical harm. How would you feel if I donated money to Sarah Palin’s presidential campaign and because of that you had to see her face and hear her voice every time you turned on your television? The moment I have to take into account your personal feelings and mental health then all of a sudden the government gains the power to interfere with Sarah Palin and I as we engage in certain consensual activities between adults (me giving her money and she spending that money). I am sure conservative Christians would be very hurt by your charity dollars building an abortion clinic next door.
No is, except for maybe Ayn Rand, is claiming that libertarians could get by on their own without society. The issue here is building a non-coercive society for all, liberals, conservatives, communists, nazis and libertarians. Why is it so important to you to have the government push your way of life onto other people?
It isn’t. But given the fact that you ‘libertarians’ are quite happy to use the coercive powers of the state to protect your property interests, despite (or often because of) the fact that the existing distribution of property is the result of coercive government action, makes me think there is a little tad of hypocrisy going on.
Were we to be starting completely from scratch, I might concede you had somewhat of an argument. But given that you want to use the state to preserve the advantages capitalism has stolen for its chosen few, while preventing the state being used to correct any of those injustices, forgive me for thinking that modern ‘libertarians’ are full of it.
Me too. One thing I think we can all agree on is that religion has a major impact on the people of the world. While the government should never endorse or discourage any one of them it does seem odd that our educational system just pretends like religions don’t even exist.
Could you provide a list of religions you think such a course should cover?
When my kids were in high school, they had a fairly major section of their history class on world religions. The text listed all the major ones, their range, and the claims of the religions. It was quite nicely done. I suspect most schools do something similar.