As a person who was just in public schools 2 years ago, I can say it was absolutely horrible. I had no interest in learning while there. Everyone was (including me) was interested only in sex, violence, drugs, rebellion. There was NO incentive to actually learn something. Before I left to be home schooled, the teachers were actually told that you can’t give anyone F’s. At that point everyone I knew didn’t care at all about learning. And every-time I tell this story to a socialist, it’s always literally the same response. “You probably just lived in poor area, and your school was poor too.” Absolute non-sense. I was in a very wealthy part of NC as well as Cali and both were horrendous. Plus I doubt if I were still in public schools that I would’ve learned about Mises.
David Esler is stupid.
I recently had an argument with a Democrat about public education. He argued in an article for our school newspaper that pumping money into public education should be our first priority, because “education is the ultimate economic stimulus. Without major public education reform — on the federal, state or local level — any other measure we take to shore up our economy is merely a band-aid.”
I responded with a typical Rothbardian argument, and he said, “I think you have an interesting point. I’ve always had a lot more respect for Libertarians than the “cut taxes and spend” Republicans that we saw with the Bush administration.” Then I gave up when he said, “The bottom line here is that we differ in our idea of what is right and what most benefits society and the individual. I doubt either of us is going to convince the other, but I appreciate your thoughtful feedback all the same.”
A Democrat with respect for libertarians? Is there hope?
You can read the argument here, and I’d appreciate any advice on arguing with lefties, since Middlebury is absolutely crawling with them.
I think private education would handle a lot of the problems, especially considering how the private schools would change and adapt with the times rather than sticking to the same tired method we’ve had for so long now (and which is obviously not working).
Regarding Liberte’s remarks, I only half agree. Sure, most humanity is and always will be a bunch of dullards, but a lot of the stupidity of today is thanks to the indoctrination and incompetence of public schooling. I have one friend who is completely and utterly without any sort of intellectual curiosity (I, myself, went to a private Christian school until 6th grade, when my parents switched me to public). He pretty much claims himself that the boringness and incompetence of public schooling killed his desire to learn. I’m willing to bet that same thing holds for all those who are taught in public schools.
All these college students and academics only exist because of government subsidies and enlightenment glorification of formal education.
I agree. Are you a college student?
Many argue that human beings susceptibility to propaganda might actually be an effect of public schooling itself.
No, their susceptibility is why public indoctrination is so effective.
I agree. Are you a college student?
No. I went for a couple months. It was easy and pointless.
No. I went for a couple months. It was easy and pointless.
I made it through freshman year, but didn’t get much out of it. All of my academic motivation had been sapped up in high school, and I had no real interests or passions. During the fall of my sophomore year, I left school on a medical leave of absence, and I’ve spent the last two years at home regaining my health. Now I want to be a doctor, so I am incredibly frustrated by the ridiculous amount of higher education this requires. And then if I ever got a license, the type of medicine I would practice would not be “approved” by the FDA because it actually works, unlike the drug-based care we have under medical fascism. So…should I just forge some fancy certificates to put up on the wall? The only other option is spending 7 years or so appeasing the tyrants at the American Medical Association.
You’ll probably just say, “Don’t be a doctor.” 
No, their susceptibility is why public indoctrination is so effective.
Their susceptibility is a result of limited time and resources. When you need plumbing work done, do you…
A. Go to the tech school and become a master plumber yourself… or
B. Trust a professional who has years of experience and training.
Same with economics, politics, or morality. The vast majority of people choose not to become well read or experts. They choose to trust professionals who have years of experience and training.
And… you entirely missed Liberte’s point on how whether a “lack of limited time & resources” is due to lack of personal initiative, responsibility, & discipline (i.e. spending too much time in entertainment activities, recreational drugs, or extraenoues activities that do not go towards school work etc.), or due to insurmountable circumstances that stand in the way of even the most ardent & capable student, assuming they aren’t capable enough of improving their circumstances (i.e. moving out of a poor or crime ridden area, getting out of an abusive relationship, etc.).
I won’t argue against the state not being one of the biggest obstacles, but it’s not always only the state keeping the person back (i.e. You are your worst enemy). I figured this out the hard way when I realized I could’ve not waste my time in high school (which I did, beyond the 9th grade), scored out with the GED, could’ve been working & saving money, then maybe going on early to start some sort of trade or career, by the time I was 18 (instead of only just getting started now, at 24).
It was my adolescent apathy & ignorance that prevented me from advancing further. It certainly wasn’t the state or public indoctrination making me lazy, & those already lazy, having lack of self control, etc. will be further affected that those who do not.
If there wasn’t any state, I’m sure I would’ve been just as a lazy layabout as I was in high school, despite having much more options in the marketplace available to me, in a more free-market or even stateless society. The State sometimes has nothing do with things, such as an individual’s own will to jump from “thinking about action” to “actually carrying out the action”.
It certainly doesn’t help in pretty much every area (and I would agree that to a large extent, the state is dysgenic, & for some it’s probably encouraging problems that would not otherwise exist), but it would an egalitarian error to assume everyone woul succeed if weren’t force into public ‘indoctrination’ schools.
It (suceeding, passing school, working, whatever) would still be “too much work” for some, to just go out there, learn on the job without needing state credentials or some sort of silly inflated Bachelor’s Degree, & getting paid accordingly for their labor.
Agreed. I’ve discussed my pet theory here before: collectivism genetically trumps individualism. Hordes of mindless automatons – blindly devoted to a flag, cause, or a leader – have been running over (by definition) non-synchronized, pondering (thus, weaker) individualist villages and territories. It’s much easier to bring 100 automatons than 100 individualists under one flag, one cause. The humanity’s gene pool reeks of this legacy. Public education, intellectual laziness, blind faith, gullibility, and finally, the state are inevitable expressions of this evolutionary tsunami.
Z.
you entirely missed Liberte’s point on how whether a “lack of limited time & resources” is due to lack of personal initiative, responsibility, & discipline
In no post did Liberte cite initiative, responsibility, or discipline. She did however state:
Most people lack the genetic predispositions to do anything beyond absord ideology.
Your typical person is incapable of thinking for himself. ‘Educate’ him and you just get a religious devotee with a bunch of muddled nonsense bouncing around in his head.
Genetic predisposition is something beyond our control to correct. If they were born dumb then no amount of education can change that. An ideology is simply a set of beliefs, no comprehsion or understanding neccessary to have an ideology. Trying to teach dumb people complex things only yeilds religious devotees who have empty heads. Typically empty head is used to describe someone who is stupid.
Basicly she has said that most lack the intellegence to understand all of these heady subjects. And if you do try and “educate” them that they would be incapable of understanding; only to believe what they are told without questioning. Because of understanding is beyond thier comprehension.
Maybe im wrong about her point of veiw. If I am, my appologies. But maybe she could clarify.
Even if there is genetic susceptibility to be indoctrinated, one thing is for sure. There are currently far too many people without such susceptibility that are also indoctrinated. They are such because they are too busy being brilliant in other areas of interest. Remember that it takes great effort, time, and courage, to actually overcome the statist myths.
I would imagine that this view of people as inherently incapable of thinking for themselves is less the result of objective observation and more the result of frustration at being able to persuade so few combined with the natural superiority one would feel as the result of being able to directly observe one’s own mind functioning while only indirectly experiencing that of others. Furthermore, it seems quite possible that while in the domains of economics and political theory most people seem woefully ignorant and incapable of thinking properly, the same can be said for everyone in most nearly every other domain except for one’s speciality.
Possibly. Though your proposition fails to explain instances – rare as they may be – of acknowledging other (not one’s own) minds with superior intellects. Moreover, it would be easy to neutralize your effect (bias) by simply excluding one’s mind (self) from the observed sample.
It may be that one is able to recognize superior intellects through rare incidents that allow one to percieve in some manner the superiority of another’s mental functioning even though it can only be perceived indirectly. For example, I might read a very complicated paper about quantum mechanics completely above my mental level. Being aware that it is likely that the author himself understood the paper, the logical conclusion is that when it comes to quantum mechanics the author is clearly of a superior intellect. The vast majority of observations one makes about others’ mental processes, however, will reveal only the “base” elements of the mind–that is, the eating and the screwing and the sitting on subways with a blank look on one’s face and so on.
While excluding oneself from the sample might eliminate feelings of superiority in theory, in practice it would be difficult to accomplish. Furthermore, it would only serve to eliminate the feelings of superiority, not the belief that people are incapable of independent thought, which is more what I take issue with (some feelings of superiority, after all, can hardly be avoided by one who thinks he knows better than 99.9% of the human race relative to questions of the merits of a free order).
Do you take issue with people’s incapability of independent thought or with their belief that such incapability is prevalent?
The latter.
I’ve heard of people getting away with lying about degrees on the resume and getting away with it. I would heavily advise against that though.
Try chiropractor - less school, own business, ability to help people and make a good living.
The amount of information I’ve learned in public school in comparison to what I’ve taught myself is a statistical anomaly. I think you’ll find it’s the same with most intelligent people. The end of public schooling would be everything but bad for our world.
As Mark Twain once said, “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”
I wrote in the Op-Ed section of my (public) school newspaper last year, and I was actually able to write a piece about privatizing education. Besides the people who outright dimissed it (or asked how poor people could afford it), I got similar answers to what was quoted from the article in the original post, i.e. without the “high standard” set by public schools, children wouldn’t learn the basic prerequisites for having a proper democracy, etc.
It never seems to bother the advocates of public education that the standards currently set by the public schools are often abysmal, not to mention the problem with having government teach the populace about the proper role of government. No matter how well the market provides other goods, it simply doesn’t work for education? Why? …it just doesn’t.