are you left,right or centre?

[ib.me.ub]

May I ask why Government control of schools maybe a bad idea?

[Tiberius]

Just look at China.

Governments don't have the power on truth, and they never should. If schools were run as private organisations, there would be a lot of competition to have the best results, since the customers are looking for the best schools to send their children. Plus, the better the results, the more likely the customers will pay more to get their child to attend.

People forget that with Libertarianism, the government releases its hold on your money. You would have more money to spend (given lower taxes), and thus private charity becomes more attractive for people to use. Instead of the government secretly spending your money on various projects you may not agree with, you can give certain amounts of your money to charities designed to be open about how it is spent. Ergo, charities providing education for families at the lower end of the class system become investments for businesses who are looking for future employees.

[Rhizomorph13]

Adrian,

What about the default situation where the parents lack the wisdom to spend their money correctly? Shouldn't there be a mandated public school system to protect children from their foolish parents? I agree with what you are saying in theory, I just don't think it would work in practice. I would want a public option that was paid for by taxes and if you choose to use private schools you would get a tax credit. I would hate to see children denied an education because their parents fail at budgeting.

Rhizo

[Tiberius]

The government shouldn't have any say over how parents decide to bring up their children, as long as they don't violate human rights. A parent has as much right to homeschool their child as another has to pay for the very best education.

If a parent wants their child to succeed, they should think about putting money aside for their children. Why should taxpayers have to pay for the lazy or the stupid? Same reason why welfare is such a disgusting system.

[Rhizomorph13]

Homeschooling would be a private option but there would have to be standardized tests to prove that the parents were not just trying to save a buck. I see where you are coming from Adrian, I just know far too many people who would allow their children to fail through their own inaction. So, you can have YOUR country allow people to completely fail at life and my country will be stronger for having protected the interests of children and the health of the nation through mandated education.

Back when I was in school I thought I was too smart for it and would have opted out if I could have so the fact that school was mandatory saved me from myself.

Should we allow people to avoid school altogether? I don't think so, because I think everyone should have at least a baseline education. What do you think?

Rhizo

[Violet]

The government shouldn't have any say over how parents decide to bring up their children, as long as they don't violate human rights. A parent has as much right to homeschool their child as another has to pay for the very best education.

If a parent wants their child to succeed, they should think about putting money aside for their children. Why should taxpayers have to pay for the lazy or the stupid? Same reason why welfare is such a disgusting system.

So a parent has the right to brainwash their children, or condition them however they please, so long as it doesn't interfere with 'human rights'? Do parents have the right to not educate their children at all as well then? Or are we holding a double standard in this case, where the best is allowed, and a little is allowed, but nothing is not allowed?

What are 'human rights' in this case? Parents do not own a child... they are the assigned guardians for the child until the child no longer needs such a guardian, or the guardians have failed in their duty. To suggest that a child is legal property of another (and is forced to obey that other as a result of this ownership) is literally slavery, unless a child is not a person? A guardian's purpose is to keep those they are assigned to safe whilst they do what they do, and to provide counsel to the assigned individual so that unnecessary danger can be avoided (assignee willing).

I do not see why a person should be the property of anything or anyone. Can you explain to me why slavery should be supported in any case at all?

[Rhizomorph13]

Sae,

Your case would be better without the plea to emotion that the buzzword, "slavery" causes. It certainly creates a strawman argument. Adrian is not supporting slavery but rather supporting parents rights to decide their own way to handle the stewardship of their child. Under his system I would worry that many children would get zero education which would widen the rift between the wealthy and the poor.

Maybe he is ok with a lower to middle class that just learns specific trades? It could work, I had a high school teacher who was a firm believer that some children would be better off learning a practical skill. However, he wanted to incorporate that within the framework of mandatory basic education. His idea was to have half the day be classic education with the other half consisting of an apprenticship style. It would work for both the college bound AND the laborer because it would provide insight for the college bound into the life of workers and work experience for the laborer.

I hope he can provide some insights into his plan that would assuage my concerns. I see no path forward for a society that does not include mandatory education to at least a basic level.

Rhizo

[Meatball]

Sae,

To keep within your extreme logic, should a parent be allowed to leave a newborn baby in a dumpster? It's not their property, they shouldn't be responsible for it. Right?

[Tiberius]

Homeschooling would be a private option but there would have to be standardized tests to prove that the parents were not just trying to save a buck.

I never argued against standardised tests, although I would still privatise that system, much like the UK has different exam boards (OCR being the most respected, EdExcel and AQA being others).

I see where you are coming from Adrian, I just know far too many people who would allow their children to fail through their own inaction. So, you can have YOUR country allow people to completely fail at life and my country will be stronger for having protected the interests of children and the health of the nation through mandated education.

The government doesn't have a say in what children have to learn. Doing so would mean a government that had an effective hold on business, which I am very much against given free market capitalism ideals. If a family have a business, why can't they teach their child the business rather than waste their money on an education that for the most part (a) the child won't ever need, and (b) the child can get the basics of at home.

Same with apprenticeships, which have died out over the years, but should be an option, especially for working class families. Apprenticeships have turned some of the poorest classes into entrepreneurs.

Back when I was in school I thought I was too smart for it and would have opted out if I could have so the fact that school was mandatory saved me from myself.

Attending school was mandatory; doing well in the tests and actually learning stuff wasn't. You *chose* to do that, and however much you think it helps your argument, I put to you that your adolescent self knew how important a good education was despite your claim. I don't know what you were like back then, but I thought similar. However despite me hating school, I knew that an education was important, so I stuck with it.

Should we allow people to avoid school altogether? I don't think so, because I think everyone should have at least a baseline education. What do you think?

As I've argued, it depends on the person. For me, I would have preferred to attend a school that focussed on my strengths. This is the problem with a mandatory education; the only plausible way of doing it is with public school, and public school is useless for a few reasons:

1) The intelligent children are held back as the rest of the class "catches up".
2) The less intelligent children find themselves less interested in various parts of their education, and this lack of interest leads to more of (1).
3) Every child is taught the same stuff, regardless of their abilities. You learn math, english, french, history, geography and aren't able to do anything about it till much later.

Watch this very interesting TED talk on how school kills creativity if you want to know more: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_ro...ivity.html

A private system would see the smarter kids in a classroom with other smarter kids (or indeed, in 1 on 1 tuition), the less intelligent kids being taught basics and finding out where their true skills lie. Finally, all students are treated as individuals rather than a pack, and they are taught according to their abilities, rather than some government doctrine.

So a parent has the right to brainwash their children, or condition them however they please, so long as it doesn't interfere with 'human rights'? Do parents have the right to not educate their children at all as well then? Or are we holding a double standard in this case, where the best is allowed, and a little is allowed, but nothing is not allowed?

I think you'd be hard pushed to find some form of "brainwashing" that didn't interfere with human rights. Parents shouldn't have to educate their children, no. In the case of the family business, I doubt a family would want to fork out money when they could teach the child how to run the family business. In other cases, it might very well be the case that a child is left without a proper education, but the same thing happens now with public school systems.

I put to you though, (and this comes from talks with a geneticist friend I have) that if a child has a high IQ, they will succeed in life, educating themselves. The information is out there, uncensored (well...it would be in Libertarianism), and nobody is stopping a child from spending a few hours in a local library.

If a family is too poor to afford education but wants their child to learn, there is no reason why private charity could not provide the funds, or the classes for the less fortunate. As I have argued before, with less taxes and a free market, people have more money to spend on charitable organisations (and more incentive to do so). Libertarianism shouldn't be seen as a complete scrapping of government programs, but a relocation of them from the public to the private sector.

What are 'human rights' in this case? Parents do not own a child... they are the assigned guardians for the child until the child no longer needs such a guardian, or the guardians have failed in their duty. To suggest that a child is legal property of another (and is forced to obey that other as a result of this ownership) is literally slavery, unless a child is not a person? A guardian's purpose is to keep those they are assigned to safe whilst they do what they do, and to provide counsel to the assigned individual so that unnecessary danger can be avoided (assignee willing).

Parents have some ownership over a child; to argue otherwise is ridiculous, and a denial of nature itself. Not all human ownership is slavery. Parents own their children in as much as they pay for them, care for them, keep them out of danger. However, at the same time, having a child is a privilege, not to be taken lightly. If a parent puts a child in danger, their parenting needs to be called into question. Discipline is an important lesson to learn in life, and children have to accept that there are people to be obeyed in this society, and that starts with your parents when you are young (less so when you reach maturity).

I do not see why a person should be the property of anything or anyone. Can you explain to me why slavery should be supported in any case at all?

Scenario for you. Parents A & B have a child C. Child C doesn't like his parents that much, as they don't give him sweets that often. Man across the street D promises child C lots of sweets, and child C decides to move in with man D because of this.

In your society, what would you do? Parents A & B have no legal claim over child C, since you don't believe in any form of human "ownership". Child C has a "right" to do what he likes, you argue, and if that means moving in with another person, so be it? What is man D proved to be legit, or if man D was actually woman E, and simply wanted a child to care for? Would you really want to live in a society where children can be "stolen" from their parents?

I put to you that children are not rational, nor are they mature enough to make tough decisions. They may not like their parents all the time, they may hate them at some points, but they cannot be expected to make rational decisions such as who to live with at such a young age. This is why courts make decisions for children in cases of abusive relationships and divorces.

[ib.me.ub]

Excellent dabate, I went to a public school.

Just look at China.

Governments don't have the power on truth, and they never should. If schools were run as private organisations, there would be a lot of competition to have the best results, since the customers are looking for the best schools to send their children. Plus, the better the results, the more likely the customers will pay more to get their child to attend.

I think if you were to give an example you should keep it to our sphere of understanding, in regards to the China comparison.

The thing with private schools is a majority of them are religious based, well they are here in Australia. I still don't understand why you would not want a democratiaclly 'elected' government in control (in a loose sense). If the government is elected by the majority, should not that government be allowed to impose some of their ideas?

The government shouldn't have any say over how parents decide to bring up their children, as long as they don't violate human rights. A parent has as much right to homeschool their child as another has to pay for the very best education.

The problem with society though is many people do violate human rights. History has shown and continues to show that people must be governed and rules must be imposed to sustain civil order, in regards to the western world and the democracies we live under.

So a parent has the right to brainwash their children, or condition them however they please, so long as it doesn't interfere with 'human rights'? Do parents have the right to not educate their children at all as well then? Or are we holding a double standard in this case, where the best is allowed, and a little is allowed, but nothing is not allowed?

What are 'human rights' in this case? Parents do not own a child... they are the assigned guardians for the child until the child no longer needs such a guardian, or the guardians have failed in their duty. To suggest that a child is legal property of another (and is forced to obey that other as a result of this ownership) is literally slavery, unless a child is not a person? A guardian's purpose is to keep those they are assigned to safe whilst they do what they do, and to provide counsel to the assigned individual so that unnecessary danger can be avoided (assignee willing).

I do not see why a person should be the property of anything or anyone. Can you explain to me why slavery should be supported in any case at all?

Interesting, but understandable considering your age (no disrespect intended). All I mean is you are at a very interesting point in your life, as you are becoming an adult.

Sae,

To keep within your extreme logic, should a parent be allowed to leave a newborn baby in a dumpster? It's not their property, they shouldn't be responsible for it. Right?

Talking about extreme logic, I think you are fighting fire with fire here. Of course when a person is a baby, they need looking after, but when they reach a certain point they become their own person and deserve recognition as such.

As I've argued, it depends on the person. For me, I would have preferred to attend a school that focussed on my strengths. This is the problem with a mandatory education; the only plausible way of doing it is with public school, and public school is useless for a few reasons:

1) The intelligent children are held back as the rest of the class "catches up".
2) The less intelligent children find themselves less interested in various parts of their education, and this lack of interest leads to more of (1).
3) Every child is taught the same stuff, regardless of their abilities. You learn math, english, french, history, geography and aren't able to do anything about it till much later.

This I can understand. Certain parts of the system need looking at, but in my scholl we had levels. i.e Lower, middle, and upper depending on the childs ability.

But, in the end, considering the number of children in schools and the wide varience in beliefs, what is the right answer in terms of the right type of school?