One third to one half of Texans are intellectual retards.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/public-education/texans-dinosaurs-hu...

But, then, one third to one half of southerners in general are intellectual retards. But you can pick out the Texas tards because of their big-ass hats.

That's not correct. Mental retardation affects only between 2-3% of the population.

I think you mean /doesn't affect/ only 2-3% of the population.

Some people believe in creationism despite evidence to the contrary. Others have faith in public schools... despite the above evidence to the contrary.

>5 And some people believe in unrestrained capitalism and privatization as a cure-all. Some people worship Ronald Reagan as the Greatest American President Ever.

Despite evidence to the contrary.

#5: Yeah, I've never understood people who can't tell the difference between corporate welfare and the free market. It's never about the evidence for such people. I think it's rather telling that both Democrats and Republicans buy into the myth of Ronald Reagan representing anything approaching capitalism.

Rick Tebow Perry.

It would be interesting (although I suspect disheartening) to do similar polls in other States in the Bible Belt. My suspicion is that the numbers would be roughly the same.

After all, the Creationist Museum is just 2 hours away from my house.

The 'free market' (as envisaged by Adam Smith) hasn't existed for 150+ years. Most countries have (whether they want to admit it or not) a 'managed economy', which is a polite term for government subsidies to certain businesses deemed 'essential' for the countries' economy. Reagan wasn't any exception to this rule. I support Erhrenreich's conclusion about the Reagan years. The Worst Years of Our Lives

I've tried to imagine myself as capable of believing the entire universe is only 10,000 years old, having been zapped into existence out of absolute nothingness by a super human guy named 'god".

I can't.

And I don't think it is because I lack imagination.

I think I have been blinded by science.

> 3

I meant what I said, said Rivera.

#1

Well, now we know two of your obsessive hatreds. But tell me, what would YOU think of someone who just destroyed the most fundamental liberty of Western Civilization? Personally, I'm a lot less worried about those who have their prehistory dead wrong than I am those who have their present realities dead wrong.

>11

Unfortunately, it's not just 'someone'; it's a lot of someones.

Yes, it is a lot of "someones" in each instance. The question is which group of the deluded or the malicious are more dangerous to the rest of us. Personally, I have never felt particularly threatened by the Flat Earth Society, but would feel considerably threatened by an equal mass revival of the Nazis.

The long-term threat of official sanction to unscientific, faith-based teachings in a basic science is not inconsequential. It's not that they believe; it's that they wish to teach their beliefs with the aura of official authority to impressionable minds.

I will concede that the immediate threat posed by a law sanctioning a police-state is far greater.

I will concede that the immediate threat posed by a law sanctioning a police-state is far greater.

===================

Really. How generous of you.

#14: The long-term threat of official sanction to unscientific, faith-based teachings in a basic science is not inconsequential.

Official sanction of unscientific teachings? Why is that the only alternative to beating superstitions out of people?

Consider the case of the 2nd grade teacher who was made to apologize for telling her class during a geography lesson that Santa wasn't at the north pole. Obviously the teacher should not be penalized for telling the truth and no one suggests that Santa be made part of the curriculum. But at some point the pro-science crowd has to grow up and stop pretending disaster is around the corner just because some people believe in Santa or creationism.

I don't think we'll be having any shortage of polar explorers or high school biology teachers any time soon, so why the concern?

Okay enough with the dumb Southern remarks. People in the South are just as intelligent as people in the North. I would tell you to Kiss my Grits but I think someone stole that line from us already. I have lived in the South, the North and overseas and I can tell you first hand that people are pretty much just people no matter where you go. I seriously had a person ask me if I had heat because I live in Alabama. Not only do I have heat, but I also have three ipads, two computers, four televisions, and probably know more about the internet than the majority of people that like to ask stupid questions LOL. So please even said in a joking manner Southern jokes are really in bad taste.

>1 Now, I'm bettin' you wouldn't say that to a Texan, to his face...

When I moved to Philadelphia for a brief time after college, from North Carolina, I met a woman who was born and raised there. We talked for a few minutes and then she asked if I would spend some time with her cousin, because he was having a really hard time. I was somewhat flattered that she thought I could help him, until she said, "He is from Alabama, you guys talk just alike."

Apparently she though that my accent, which not an Alabama accent, has a therapeutic effect.

And they think we are dumb.

>15

You were being dismissive of the possible problems posed by having religion taught as science in public schools. Although the threat of the NDAA is more immediate, the long-term consequences of bad science could be more severe, and certainly no less so.

>16

I really don't care if people believe in Jesus, Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And if people want to teach their children in their homes, or at their church, that the world is being supported by four elephants riding on a giant turtle, they have every right to do so.

But they don't (or shouldn't) have the right to teach such things with public funds.

>20 (referencing #16)
Oh really? Jesus was a historical person. And hundreds of millions believe that he is a divine being. Not referencing him in class is poor history, at the very least, not to mind poor sociology. And as for Santa Claus, give me a break. Santa is an almost universal conspiracy to bring cheer to children. Why is that a bad thing?

What is sad in the US is how "freedom of religion" has been hijacked to mean "freedom from religion". The US and the former USSR now have that in common.

>17

I'm from the south, dude. Thus, I get to tell the truth about the south. You don't like it, tough.

One-third to one-half of all southerners are intellectual retards. Check any scientific poll on the subject.

Same up north? OK. Maybe it is even worse. I have no evidence to the contrary.

> 18

Like Perry I am not a betting man. But I would say it to the face of most folks from Austin, and he/she would probably agree with me - and not to mention the one-third to one-half of Texans who aren't intellectual retards. Again, I would expect agreement.

> 21

Freedom from religion is a necessary part of freedom of religion or it isn't really freedom of religion. Americans are free to be atheists. Millions are. You don't like it? Tough.

And nice try at guilt by association with the atheism = communism. Crusades much? Inquisition much? catholic/protestant violence much? KKK much? Pat Robertson much?

I didn't think so.

>21

Hundreds of millions of people believe in the Hindu faith, with its stories of the origins of the world and development of humanity. Are we going to teach as factual whichever faith has the most adherents?

Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure may be correct, factually. Jesus as a divine being is faith and religion, since such a statement canot be tested.

How is saying that you may believe and freely teach any belief you feel is correct freedom FROM religion? Surely, if your beliefs are correct, they wouldn't need support from any mortal government or agency to bolster them.

> 22

Check any scientific poll on the subject.

Link to one.

> 24

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/public-education/texans-dinosaurs-hu...

Uh, I believe I posted this in the O.P. How'd you miss it?

But this is more definitive:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm

So, then, 40 per cent is between one-third and one-half. I give the benefit of the doubt to the believers in theistic evolution.

>22

Not an attempt at guilt by association, merely pointing out some facts.

>23

You missed the point, which is that it should be perfectly reasonable to teach about the historical evidence for figures who may have religious significance. Referring to the fact that a religion has adherents, and religious and sociological implications, doesn't require endorsing that religion.
I don't object to not proselytising for a religion; what I do object to is censorship and implying that religions don't exist.

Unfortunately, most 'faith-based' educations do not limit themselves to the (undeniable) facts of a religion and the collective impact of religion on society.

And yes, to avoid controversy schools avoid religious teachings. How can they not? If they limit themselves to strictly factual events and evidence, they'll be accused by some of 'pandering' to religion; and by the religious as 'concealing' the truths of their beliefs and reducing their faith to merely secular facts. (The latter group will be much larger and louder in most cases.)

It's a classice 'no-win' scenario. Teach religion on the basis of factual events and be condemned by both sides; teach religion as fact and be condemned for introducing faith with secular authority; or try to ignore religion altogether and be condemned for ignoring religion as a fact of history.

~17
I have lived in the South, the North and overseas and I can tell you first hand that people are pretty much just people no matter where you go.

=================================

My, what a uniquely reasonable perspective. You will find that such even handedness doesn't belong in these forums. Here you have to identify demons, villans, morons, etc., and PICK A SIDE. Kinda childish and stupid, but that is the way things are set up here.

But they don't (or shouldn't) have the right to teach such things with public funds.

================================

Perhaps you'd like this site: http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm But probably not........

~22

I'm from the south, dude. Thus, I get to tell the truth about the south. You don't like it, tough.

One-third to one-half of all southerners are intellectual retards.

==============================================

Which group do you fall in?

21> Oh really? Jesus was a historical person

Even that's disputable.

Those polls do not support your conclusion that "one third to one half of southerners in general are intellectual retards" (or is it "one-third to one-half of Texans who aren't intellectual retards"?). Retardation has a specific medical definition, and, as I pointed out earlier, 2-3% of the general population falls under that definition. It would be extraordinary if the percentages in Texas were so wildly different. http://www.aafp.org/afp/2000/0215/p1059.html

32> I highly doubt that JGL is using the clinical definition of "retard". In fact I don't believe that you believe that either. So what are you trying to pull?

2-3%?

I thought that an IQ of 70 was supposed to be roughly a 3 standard deviation move to the downside?

>29

Given your constant weighing in against non-professionals having an opinion about professional skills (let alone practicing them), I'm surprised you'd list a site dedicated to eliminating professionals from teaching altogether.

~35

Interesting. So apparently you equate eliminating state employees from teaching "altogether" from eliminating professionals from teaching. Who would have guessed.

33> I highly doubt that JGL is using the clinical definition of "retard".

=======================================

No, I'm certain you are right. As a famous court opinion concluded, the Plaintiff cannot have been defamed by being called a "bitch" by the Defendant. A bitch is a female dog, and the Plaintiff is clearly not a dog.

But I'm certain we all know what JGL means. Tell me, if he called you a retard would you flag him, whether or not he was using the classical definition of the term?

> 33

Well of course, and thanks.

If someone can come up with a phrase other than "intellectual retards" that adequately describes those who interpret Genesis 1 literally, then I will gladly switch over.

How about "Bronze Age Trepanned Zombies from Hell"?

Too much?

Well, then, what if we resurrect H.L. Mencken's term "Booboisie"?

http://www.achehtimes.com/wordwealth/a-z/b/booboisie.htm

I thought that an IQ of 70 was supposed to be roughly a 3 standard deviation move to the downside?

The normal standard deviation of IQ tests is 15 (sometimes 16 or 24), so 70 is 2 sigmas down.

But I'd argue that anything below 1 sigma up counts as "intellectual retard" :)

#20: But they don't (or shouldn't) have the right to teach such things with public funds.

This begs the question: How do you get the right to teach something with public funds?

f someone can come up with a phrase other than "intellectual retards" that adequately describes those who interpret Genesis 1 literally, then I will gladly switch over.

====================================

I don't think at this point that many of us are interested in providing you with alternative invectives. You seem to be doing very well in that department all by yourself.

>36

People don't want to pay for education. (They don't want to pay for anything, actually.) Now, some people understand that you have to pay for a service to get good service; hence private schools. But those schools survive solely because the educators are paid more than those in the public system. More money = better people (generally).

However, the State was tasked to provide a minimum level of education. Not the best education, because the general public won't pay for that; but a basic level required for citizens to function in a modern society. The State has not always succeeded in that task, but overall they've done a reasonable job.

Home schooling (the cheapest method of education) worked fine for thousands of years, because the general level of knowledge required to survive wasn't that high. And socialization (the hidden part of public education) was provided because the vast majority of people lived in small tribes/villages, where it's forced on you.

This is no longer how we live. And knowledge of how to survive in a hunter/gatherer or primitive agricultural society isn't enough anymore. States did not provide education out of altruism; they did so because you need an educated workforce to compete with other States.

Given how the average citizen regards school levies and increases in taxes for schools, what would make you think that the average citizen will be willing to pay enough voluntarily out of their own pocket to provide the basic education required today?

You latest fantasy goes on at some length. It is all wrong, but let me just respond to the first several points:

"People don't want to pay for education. (They don't want to pay for anything, actually.) Now, some people understand that you have to pay for a service to get good service; hence private schools. But those schools survive solely because the educators are paid more than those in the public system. More money = better people (generally).
========================================

Well, of course, that is not at all true in a noncompetive supply environment.

But let's say it was true. Would you suggest, equally, that people must be healthy, and therefore the state should require certain standardized exercises of everyone each morning and supply required gym facilities? Yes, these may not be the best exercises for everyone, but they are exercises, and some exercise is generally better than no exercise (generally). Right? After all, in our modern society we have needs we didn't have in those primitive precollectivist times.

=========================================

However, the State was tasked to provide a minimum level of education. Not the best education, because the general public won't pay for that; but a basic level required for citizens to function in a modern society. The State has not always succeeded in that task, but overall they've done a reasonable job.
========================================

My, what a series of totally undefined and ungrounded claims. So, ah, you would say that anyone who has spent, say, 6 years in a state school has certain basic skills? Really? Where have you been the past three or four decades?

And why, pray tell, do you think that something "necessary" has to be provided by the state? Does the state provide shoes, clothing, food, etc. to all of us? Why not? It might not be the best shoes, clothing, food, etc. (ask the former citizens of the USSR) but these things are necessary for people in a "modern society" are they not?

============================================

Home schooling (the cheapest method of education) worked fine for thousands of years, because the general level of knowledge required to survive wasn't that high.

===========================================

So home schooling is, ah, inadequate vs. state schooling? Again, have you actually looked at the statistics?

#42: Funnily enough, none of those falsehoods explain how you get the right to teach anything with public funds even if they were true.

People don't want to pay for education.

TANSTAAFL. People may send their kids to public school at no extra cost, but never for free. They're paying, but they don't have a choice since public education is tax-funded as a geographic monopoly. Nominally free education undercuts any form of private education of reasonable quality. If the government gave out "free" groceries, you'd settle for lower quality groceries than you currently buy just because it would be at no extra cost beyond the taxes you'd be paying anyway. School lunches are a perfect case study of this.

But those schools survive solely because the educators are paid more than those in the public system.

Maybe they are paid more at the college level. But not K-12. And that's certainly not the reason they survive. Private K-12 school is more cost-effective, but because public school undercuts private education, private education survives on customers who are either exceptionally wealthy or exceptionally motivated to opt out of the public schools system.

And socialization...

Or bullying and hazing, as the case may be. This idea that kids wouldn't learn to socialize if we didn't throw them into the Octagon is patently absurd. A kid who is bullied faces diminished educational options because of the government monopoly school system

If I were in the mood to be really dickish, I'd ask, "How do you get the right to ruin children's education with public funds?" but I think I'll just stick to the initial question of "How do you get the right to teach something with public funds?"

States did not provide education out of altruism; they did so because you need an educated workforce to compete with other States.

Hm. The people who introduced public education weren't shy about stating their reasons: to prevent education and (later) to inculcate socialism..."because you need an educated workforce to compete with other States" was never a reason for public education, and obviously would have been a miserable failure if it had been, but they've had great success with their actual goals.

> 45

So, then, Paul - that Holocaust of the Jews thingie - hoax, right? Ditto the "moon landings"?

And LBJ had JFK whacked, right? So who did old Lyndon get to do it - the CIA? FBI? KGB? the Mafia?

Which is it, Paul - are you a genius, or did someone slip crystal meth into your eggnog?

LOL.

Brilliant counterargument. If you will send me your mailing address, I have a "Dictionary of Invectives and Rants" that I want to send you as a, err, I was going to say Christmas gift, but that wouldn't be appropriate. How about simply as a gift that I know you'll use a lot.

IQ tests is 15

That explains it. I had been told it was 10...

46> what??

It has to do with the topic of this thread - "intellectual retards".

I do believe they think you mean intellectual to be a synonym for Mental,

for my part I think of intellect as a product of education, rather than being simply raw intelligence.
so I do not see it intellectually retarded as equivalent to mentally retarded.

And that a disbelief in evolution is a result not of a lack of intelligence. but of a lack of education.

It is not necessarily a case of a large number of Texans being incapable of intelligent thought. But rather a case of garbage in resulting in garbage out.

Indeed I can think of plenty of ill-educated people who's belief in evolution is every bit as simplistic as the belief of a young earth creationist or a child waiting for Santa.For myself I am of the opinion that a good standard of education will lead to more people understand and adopting evolutionary beliefs.

Yes, I'm certain that JGL didn't mean anything demeaning in the title of this thread. He just meant that certain Texans suffered from insufficient knowledge. One would have no reason for believing otherwise given his reasoned posts concerning other threads and topics.

Take Post ~38 in this thread, for instance, where JGL further clarifies his innocent intent.

> 51

Exactly. Thanks for your clarification. But sadly it will pass over the heads of individuals who lack sufficient ...... education in the relevant area: science.

Personally I am incapable of understanding how any individual can have any actual connection to science as a way of knowing if that individual rejects out of hand the evolutionary paradigm.

>38
If someone can come up with a phrase other than "intellectual retards" that adequately describes those who interpret Genesis 1 literally

How about "biblical literalists"?

It is short, simple, precise. Both sides can agree as to the accuracy of the usage. After which, , meaningful conversation or criticism might begin.

A term like "intellectual retards", however, pre-empts a discussion. (In addition to resorting to a cruel and sneering slur associated with a disability, something we ought to have outgrown, in 2011.) The phrase invites only a chorus. It's boring.

JGL, I suspect that I probably share many of your political positions, but your rhetoric is like standing next to someone who shouts all the time. It's actually harder to hear what you're saying, in such a situation. The volume distorts.

> 54

Well, in the OP I don't think I was offering an argument or an invitation to a reasoned debate here. I was mainly emoting, sort of like a Jew emoting about the Holocaust - i.e., neither my imagined Jew nor I are exactly seeking "dialogue" with Nazis and similar scum. But I think I have made some reasoned points in subsequent posts here.

And I also tend to interpret my occasional (seemingly) mere emoting as a form of tough love. Sometimes you have to hit people over the head - metaphorically speaking - to get their attention - to get them to perhaps reconsider their alleged god-given knowledge. Mahatma Gandhi was a swell guy, but his methods are not workable in all situations. Even Jesus once resorted to whipping the money-changers out of the temple - not exactly the best example of a reasoned interchange. I only whip people metaphorically. - But then I'm not a christian.

Gee, I suppose if all people were convinced lock-step pacifists then there would be no more war. And if all people were as committed to tapping down the assertive emotions and always being reasonable, soft-spoken and accommodating to any and all viewpoints as you allegedly are then argument would never be anything more than what the ancient Greeks held as the ideal - a disinterested search for a consensus regarding Truth. But that was their ideal. They generally settled their arguments with swords.

Fortunately for their peace of mind the ancient Greeks were never subjected to modern day republicans and fundamentalist christians. The gods know I envy them that.

LOL.

Well, in the OP I don't think I was offering an argument or an invitation to a reasoned debate here. I was mainly emoting, sort of like a Jew emoting about the Holocaust - i.e., neither my imagined Jew nor I are exactly seeking "dialogue" with Nazis and similar scum

================

Ah, yet another person who knows all about how Jews behave and react to this topic or that........ Yes, indeede......

But I guess that we'll never know about Jewish/nazi interaction in this group since the management just tossed a nazi out on her kister and was very critical of the one Jew who tried to engage her in passing for engaging her at all.

But I can't imagine why you would characterize a thread that you start out by characterizing a large portion of a group as "intellectual retards" as emoting. As Simon noted above, he detected no such implication, and had doubts about the perceptions of those who so interpreted your remarks.

Isn't that right, Simon?

I don't think you have as much cause to emote as a Jew remembering the Holocaust.

Most of the anti-public education arguments can be boiled down to 'amateurs can provide just as good an education as professionals' (home schooling) or 'the State shouldn't be in the business of education'.

Interesting how those who uphold the virtues of home schooling wouldn't dream of doing their own electronics repair, plumbing, medical care, legal defense, etc. Even though it would be possible for everyone to learn these plebian (but very necessary) skills. Specialization in tasks is how we got where we are today. And yet, somehow, by some miraculous process, basic education is the exemption to that general rule.

There are several basic problems with the 'the State shouldn't be...' approach. The first is the most practical. The State IS involved, and is highly unlikely to reliquinsh control just because someone asks them nicely. Another is that the State does indeed provide a great many of the public necessities of modern life. Build any roads recently? How about waste treatment plants? Sewage handling in general? There is a reason why these matters aren't in private hands.

Private education works for the parents who are involved in the education and future of their children. Unfortunately, this is not every parent; perhaps not even a majority of them. And saying, 'well, sucks to have chosen the wrong parents' doesn't cut it. We have to live in a society with people who don't value education as well as those who do. Uneducated people become a burden/cost to society in general, and the educated people in it. ("Pay now, or pay later.") Which is why the State involvement is necessary; if every parent valued education and wanted as much of it as they could afford for their children, perhaps a fully privately funded system might work. (Although the necessary discarding of the children of the poor seems callous, we are talking about a working society, not a nice society.) But we don't live in a such a world.

~57

I am not quite certain what the Holocaust has to do with Texans being "intellectual retards." But I guess any diversion in a storm is appropriate.

Interesting how those who uphold the virtues of home schooling wouldn't dream of doing their own electronics repair, plumbing, medical care, legal defense, etc. Even though it would be possible for everyone to learn these plebian (but very necessary) skills. Specialization in tasks is how we got where we are today. And yet, somehow, by some miraculous process, basic education is the exemption to that general rule.

===================================

I guess you are (once again) confusing home schooling and nonstate schooling. But those inconvenient alternatives really aren't worth considerating when one already knows THE ANSWER, are they?

================================

There are several basic problems with the 'the State shouldn't be...' approach. The first is the most practical. The State IS involved, and is highly unlikely to reliquinsh control just because someone asks them nicely.
=================================

Yes, as I recall there was the same problem with slaveholders.

===========================================

Another is that the State does indeed provide a great many of the public necessities of modern life. Build any roads recently? How about waste treatment plants? Sewage handling in general? There is a reason why these matters aren't in private hands.

==============================================

As a former economist I would love your highly informed observations on those reasons. Haven't had a laugh yet this morning.

> 57

Point taken. Some of my analogies do fall quite far from exactness, analogous to Gingrich's comparison of his being shut out from Virginia's primary to Pearl Harbor.

Let's just say that my imagined Jew and I are both emoting and not do any sliding scale comparison.

I'll just say at a minimum that when around 40 per cent of the people of a so-called first-world country, many of whom are college graduates, admit to believing in a 10,000 year old universe.... well, I find that rather disconcerting. It would be the biggest damn joke in the solar system if it weren't so sad.

Better?

Sewage Treatment and waste management? Very simple. The State can forcibly extract money to pay for this service (which is provided to everyone in a metropolitan area). Now, let's see what happens if we turn it over to private enterprise.

People in some neighborhoods don't pay their bills. Our private company can go through the time-consuming process of asking the State to force them to pay...except under many theories, the State shouldn't have that power. So, the company shuts off sewer and waste disposal to that area. Everything is fine...except waste and sewage continue to accumulate, and the residents simply dump the waste in empty lots, abandoned houses, garbage in neighborhoods that still pay their bills. (The latter are understandably unhappy, and call for enforcement. Assuming that the State still has the power to remove/arrest people, of course.)

Waste and sewage attract vermin and breed disease. Neither of these entities respect geographical boundaries. So, suddenly you have trash heaps near areas where people who DO pay their bills to have trash removed. These people don't want to pay for someone else's trash; that's the whole point of going to a cheaper private company, after all. So, they want these deadbeats to be made to pay for the removal. But that, alas, requires State use of force; which many theories disallow. So, our honest citizens are going to have to pay for their neighbors; or put up with the consequences. No matter if they pay the State to enforce payment, hire mercenaries to do the same thing, or pay our private company for the grasshopper nature of their neighbors, or live with disease and vermin...it still comes out of their pockets.

~61
Let's just say that my imagined Jew and I are both emoting and not do any sliding scale comparison.

=================================

So long as you understand that not all Jews "emote" over the holocaust. Many are coldly determined that it will not happen again and rationally study what happened to assure that it will not happen again.

Build any roads recently? How about waste treatment plants? Sewage handling in general? There is a reason why these matters aren't in private hands.

Yes...because they're in the state's hands. You couldn't sell groceries to willing buyers if the state was providing them at taxpayer expense, either.

Sewage Treatment and waste management? Very simple. The State can forcibly extract money to pay for this service (which is provided to everyone in a metropolitan area). Now, let's see what happens if we turn it over to private enterprise.....

Waste and sewage attract vermin and breed disease. Neither of these entities respect geographical boundaries. So, suddenly you have trash heaps near areas where people who DO pay their bills to have trash removed. These people don't want to pay for someone else's trash; that's the whole point of going to a cheaper private company, after all. So, they want these deadbeats to be made to pay for the removal. But that, alas, requires State use of force; which many theories disallow.

======================

Once again, and again, and again....you don't seem to be making elementary distinctions. Trash pickup and other forms of waste disposal and basic education MAY "require" legal mandate. That, however, has nothing to do with who provides these services. Had you ever read the most fundamental texts on political policy - such as J.S. Mill's On Liberty - you wouldn't make such a basic mistake.

" Were the duty of enforcing universal education once admitted, there would be an end to the difficulties about what the State should teach, and how it should teach, which now convert the subject into a mere battle-field for sects and parties, causing the time and labour which should have been spent in educating, to be wasted in quarrelling about education. If the government would make up its mind to require for every child a good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing one. It might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school fees of the poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school expenses of those who have no one else to pay for them. The objections which are urged with reason against State education, do not apply to the enforcement of education by the State, but to the State's taking upon itself to direct that education: which is a totally different thing. That the whole or any large part of the education of the people should be in State hands, I go as far as any one in deprecating. All that has been said of the importance of individuality of character, and diversity in opinions and modes of conduct, involves, as of the same unspeakable importance, diversity of education. A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation, in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body. "

"Were the duty of enforcing universal education once admitted...It might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they pleased"

There's your problem. The first part is not going to be admitted, and some parents will choose to not obtain education, either for themselves or their children. Which mean, if we allow force to enforce such education, that force has to be supplied by someone. By default, that will be the State.

"A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another..."

Not very successful at that, if that was the intent. Of course, that would require the State to handle the full education of the young. Which would mean taking them from the home, and treating every child as a ward of the State, to be raised, sheltered, and fully educated by the State, at State expense. As far as I am aware, no State has ever successfully done this; the vast majority haven't even tried. The above statement is inconsistent. If parents can sucessfully teach their children, then the State's ability to over-write the influence of the people you are directly dependent on is minimal at best. If parents cannot do this, then it's folly to allow them to teach their children at all.

Of course, the system Mill proposed would work fine for the established elites of a society. Their children would indeed receive the best education available, whereas the children of the working class would receive minimal education at best, and not be any competition for the proper jobs of the elite class.

Unfortunately, there are many jobs which require a greater-than-minimal education that the elites aren't going to do. The above system started failing during the Industrial Revolution, and is pretty much a recipe for a Third World country in the age of Electronics.

Legal mandate requires force. Either the company providing the service also has to pay for the use of force (which costs revenue, and is something they would prefer not to do), or the State provides that force. If the State has to enforce the rules, it's going to want authority over the implementation of the policies. Companies don't like that either; but it's more cost-effective for them.

Bruce, if you can get past Lawecon's arrogance and condescension it seems that he's conceding that parents may be forced to provide education for their children. What he's contesting whether the state must do the teaching or just require parents to send their children to a private school.

And if the parents can't afford such a thing? And who determines what is an acceptable course? The parents? Suppose the parents decide that a school that requires rote memorization of the Bible is all that is needed; no math, no science, no reading?

The problem with his proposal, even if he's willing to concede that the use of force is going to be required, both to make the parents send their children to a school and to extract money for said school, is that he's presuming that a private agency can and will do a better job without any other agenda other than teaching. He's also overlooking the need for oversight of such schools.

So, ultimately, under this idea, the State would be responsible for forcing the parents to send their children to school, keeping said children in school, and mandating what minimum courses need to be taught and to what level. At this point, the division between 'private' and 'public' is hair-thin anyway. When you add that since the State will be the ones getting the money, and allocating those funds, then you might as well cut out the 'middlemen' providing the education.

Do the terms of the discussion differ if we start talking about things like vaccinations?

Not really; again, some parents will refuse (for various reasons) to get their children vaccinated. Which puts uninvolved people at risk.

The idea of personal choice sounds fine; unfortunately, in a modern society many of those 'personal' choices involuntarily involve other people. I agree that it's a balancing act between personal freedom and common safety, and certainly there are times when the government over-reacts on the part of safety when freedom should be paramount.

There's nothing wrong with parents who, being actively involved in the education of their children, decide to spend their own money to get a better education than is available through public means. They should be respected for being concerned about their kid(s). But ignoring children who lack such parents is a recipe for a lot of problems.

"And if the parents can't afford such a thing? And who determines what is an acceptable course? The parents?"

Once again, the answer to that question is in the same source. You know, if I wanted to rant on a subject like this and someone pointed out to me a well respect source that "everyone" should have read addressing the subject of my rant, the least I'd do is go read it, before going on and on and on.........

But that is me, not you.

I did read the source; I don't agree with it.

Not agreeing is one thing. Wholly failing to address and acting as if the question you are posing doesn't have an answer is another thing.

"Interesting how those who uphold the virtues of home schooling wouldn't dream of doing their own electronics repair, plumbing, medical care, legal defense, etc. Even though it would be possible for everyone to learn these plebian (but very necessary) skills. Specialization in tasks is how we got where we are today. And yet, somehow, by some miraculous process, basic education is the exemption to that general rule."

Your knowledge of home-schooling seems deficient.

You appear to be confusing first- or second-level education with tertiary or vocational education. Although as someone who homeschools I would be quite happy performing electronics repair and plumbing. Would you? And providing your own medical care, legal defense, etc.?

While specialization in tasks is, in many cases, economically supportable, it has very little to recommend it for primary and secondary education. In the US, public schooling is little better than institutionalized daycare. Today, I suspect publicly educated students in the US are less well educated than their peers in previous generations. Statistically, homeschooled children perform better than their publicly schooled peers.

~74

I think that you are mistaking an argument for an article of faith. Nothing you have said or will say will have any effect on the firm conviction of some of the posters to this thread that their ideological opponents are "intellectual retards." But, of course, if you have no arguments and no evidence, what else can you do other than to throw some mud?

Statistically, homeschooled children perform better than their publicly schooled peers.

Maybe. Most of the information on this subject comes from homeschool advocacy organizations, which are not exactly an unbiased source. The one study I could find that wasn't from a homeschool advocacy organization gives a mixed picture: homeschooled children who are taught in a very structured way perform slightly better than their public school peers (although their public school peers also outperform the expected standards on average), but the gain is modest in math - a half grade level in math, although more substantial in reading - two grade levels. However, this is not the edge these children had over the public schooled kids, it is the edge they had over the standards, which as noted before, the public school kids also outperformed. Children with less structured homeschooling performed worse than public school students.

But none of the studies, even the ones touted by homeschool advocacy groups, seemed to account for factors like income level, parental education level, or a number of other variables when assessing the relative performance of home schooled and public schooled children. It seems to me that there just isn't enough data to say whether homeschooling is better or not.

This has been an interesting thread to read, although I suspect that very few of you have school age children attending public school. There's a huge disparity between schools. Some are fantastic and others are terrible -- which is what happens when you base support on how wealthy the area each school district is in. I work for a non-profit that works on literacy with schools in low income areas and, even beginning with a huge disadvantage that makes mockery of American ideals of equality, they are not doing a bad job. There are so many other factors at work, like whether a child has eaten that day, whether they are frightened that their parents will be deported before they get home, etc...

Sure, a dedicated parent with adequate resources and educational level will be able to homeschool reasonably well. A single parent working two minimum wage jobs may find that task impossible. Dedicated parents with good degrees also have the flexibility to move into a school district with a good program and the ability to work with the school to help their child do well.

Getting rid of public education would be a great way to help the US sink even faster in the global rankings.

You sure about that? I mean, just think. Only the people with the time and money to educate their children would end up contributing to the data.

#77: Getting rid of public education would be a great way to help the US sink even faster in the global rankings.

How so? I mean, it's not like homeschooling is the singular alternative to the government school monopoly, especially when you have economies of scale to consider. It's certainly not a question of money because private catholic schools get by with students from families of diverse income levels (though I imagine that the government's undercutting effect would skew their pricing too).

Catholic schools in NYC are cash strapped, not sure if that's true nation wide. Since we're all Austrians now, I foresee Big Mac Elementaries and Auto Zone High Schools popping up.

#80: Yeah, I don't know how far in the black they are nation-wide either, but I was able to find some info about private school tuition for the 2007-08 year along with a 2008 article about the per-pupil expense of DC public schools that bear comparison. I think it to be of some significance that the stats on secular private school tuition is higher than catholic, which could make sense as they'd be the most affected by the undercutting of nominally free secular public schools.

Little known fact: McDonald's is a franchise, so all those golden arches are actually locally owned.

~80

I am curious, do you see that as a bad prospect or a good prospect? Somehow these discussions always seem to get around to some proposition like "Well, yes, the quality of 'public education' is an abomination. The only thing public schools teach their 'students' is how to bored out of their minds, keep quiet, and hate learning. But, you know, the citizenry either doesn't want to pay for private schools or can't afford them." (See, e.g., Bruce's typical rants above.)

So let's assume that is true. (It probably isn't true, other than none of want to pay for anything ever. But when did facts start playing any role in these discussions?)

There is a model in traditional education and in current media distribution models, webpage services, much of "higher education," etc. that addresses that concern without invoking state provision and control. You mention that model, theoria, albeit perhaps in jest. The model is what is called various apprenticeships, third party payers or loans. The model is simply that I pay for your education now in return for being repaid, in kind or in money, later.

First, the quality of public education is not abysmal. Yes some schools are, and some districts are, but not as a whole. All three of my children attend or graduated from public schools, with the exception of their first three years when the were home schooled.

Public schools have the impossible task of educating EVERY child in America. People rave about how students in india or c
China excel at math, but only a third of the students are offered high school math. We offer it to everyone.

I will be the first to say that public schools have problems, which is why I am doing what I do for a living.

But look at it this way; how many of you would want your job performance to be evaluated by the work of adolescent boys?

I was unaware that adolescent boys graded and compiled the performance tests that measure educational achievement.

But, hey, I'm sure that you apply the same standards to the products of your profession. You're in the business of constructing oil lines, is that correct? So if, say, such a line breaks and spills a million gallons of crude on the Arctic tundra. Well, it could be imaginably worse, and it was the crude's fault. And (fill in every other conceivable excuse for neglect and failure to perform).........

I'd be interested in finding out how many people would be fine with their children being instructed in science with this textbook?

http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Eye-Opening_Highlights_From_a_Creationist_Scien...

Yept, that's a little problem with public schools. At best you have to make decisions about what your children AND OTHER PEOPLES' CHILDREN are going to learn and how they are going to learn it. Kinda like having a vote on what you and your neighbor and their neighbor and their neighbor and ...... are going to have for supper or when they should get up in the morning. (Of course, none of that really happens. Rather some "school board," or advisors to said school board, make those decisions for everyone else. So you'd better hope that those guys aren't fans of creation science.)

85> What's the problem? Excellent opportunity to teach your kids not to trust their teachers!