[Helmling]

I was just posting in reply to ebuddy about the left-right spectrum and it occurred to me--certainly not for the first time--that something else must explain the bizarre contradictions in our political spectrum.

After all, the American Left supports individual liberty and personal choice in terms of values and morality, but seeks to entrust government with control over economics.

The American Right, on the other hand, promotes ideas of economic freedom while promoting restrictions on personal behavior.

There are contradictions implicit in both belief systems. (And don't get me started on the contradictions of their behavior when actually in power.)

I typically get identified as a liberal, so I'll leave it to someone else to try to reduce American liberalism (because I think it's so important to differentiate between "liberals" in modern American politics and Liberalism, the underlying philosophy behind all democratic and open society), but I can say this confidently about conservatism:

Conservative thought is about fear.

So who wants to do liberals? (Be brief here people, we're trying to reduce these.)

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Conservative thought is about fear.

That'll explain all the conservatives running around screaming about the planet dying then.

Both sides engage in fear tactics. You've just done it yourself, by saying that conservatives are all about fear.

I'll post the correct left-right line after I've been for some food.

[nonhuman]

It's because neither party is 'left/liberal' or 'right/conservative'. They both hold positions on both ends of that spectrum. The true division here is by party, not by position on a spectrum.

It's also got to do with differing definitions of liberal and conservative. Do you mean liberal as in free? That's what it traditionally meant, and is the definition we use when we talk about liberalizing other countries, and is the definition that has lead to the term 'classical liberal' referring to a libertarian-like philosophy. In that case conservative, if it's the converse of liberal, would mean less free. And certainly this is sometimes the case on certain issues. Or do you mean liberal as in accepting of and/or encouraging change and conservative as in wanting to hold onto the old ways and/or go back to the old ways?

People throw around the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' as if it's obvious and straightforward what they mean when, in actuality, it's anything but. People also pretend that politics and philosophy are one-dimensional and that if you're 'liberal' on one position you must be 'a liberal' when in fact few to no people are liberal or conservative across the board. Hence the confusion.

[BRussell]

From the liberal perspective, the question I think is whether it's consistent to both promote a hands-off government in personal morality but government intervention in economics.

In my view, it's consistent if you believe that individual liberty can be harmed by both government (e.g., in the form of laws that undermine civil liberties) and private entities (e,g,m corporations that screw the little guy). For example, I think it's hard to argue that going without health insurance or education or basic retirement really enhances people's liberties, even though doing away with public funding of such things would lower people's taxes.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

From the liberal perspective, the question I think is whether it's consistent to both promote a hands-off government in personal morality but government intervention in economics.

In my view, it's consistent if you believe that individual liberty can be harmed by both government (e.g., in the form of laws that undermine civil liberties) and private entities (e,g,m corporations that screw the little guy). For example, I think it's hard to argue that going without health insurance or education or basic retirement really enhances people's liberties, even though doing away with public funding of such things would lower people's taxes.

The argument, though, is that our pursuit of happiness requires our economic freedom. Every tax is a limitation of that freedom.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

For example, I think it's hard to argue that going without health insurance or education or basic retirement really enhances people's liberties, even though doing away with public funding of such things would lower people's taxes.

And I, for example, think it's hard to argue that if the government doesn't provide these things they won't be available to those who want to avail themselves of them.

[lpkmckenna]

Pro-freedom and anti-freedom are the only terms that matter. And, people can disagree about how to implement the same values while being pro-freedom.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

That'll explain all the conservatives running around screaming about the planet dying then.

Both sides engage in fear tactics. You've just done it yourself, by saying that conservatives are all about fear.

I'll post the correct left-right line after I've been for some food.

You misunderstand me. The underlying beliefs are based on fear. Conservatives are looking to "conserve" some order they believe exists or restore one they believe existed in the past. It is all based on a fear of the erosion of this order.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

The argument, though, is that our pursuit of happiness requires our economic freedom. Every tax is a limitation of that freedom.

Yeah that's the argument, and I think most liberals don't buy it, at least not in such an extreme form that you arrive at the conservative position: that freedom is enhanced more by people having an extra $x but no public education, retirement, health care, etc. I think most liberals believe that those things enhance liberty more than people having more bucks.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And I, for example, think it's hard to argue that if the government doesn't provide these things they won't be available to those who want to avail themselves of them.

And are able to avail themselves of them.

Your perspective allows currently existing inequalities to be perpetuated in definitely. It's a rigged game. The poor stay poor.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And I, for example, think it's hard to argue that if the government doesn't provide these things they won't be available to those who want to avail themselves of them.

I think history shows pretty clearly that they won't. Before social security, how much old-age poverty was there compared to now? How many went without education prior to public education? Today in our country, how many people go without health insurance compared to countries where governments guarantee it?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

And are able to avail themselves of them.

Your perspective allows currently existing inequalities to be perpetuated in definitely. It's a rigged game. The poor stay poor.

Not necessarily. I do believe that education is important. Extremely important. Absolutely necessary, even. I think that everyone should have the opportunity to get an education. And I also think that our current system is a complete cluster-****, and that everything we're doing to try and fix it is ending up making things worse. Private schools spend far less per student than public schools and yet are generally acknowledged by all to confer a higher quality education.

If we're going to be taking people's money away from them and using it 'for their own good', don't you think we aught to be making the most efficient use of their money as possible? Public schools clearly are less efficient at turning money into education than private schools are.

But regardless of how we reform our education system, let's please stop funding it with property taxes. This is absolutely a contributory cause to the fact that rich people get better educations than poor people. Additionally, any system which makes use of property taxes is depriving people of their most basic of rights. No one in this country owns land, we (and yes, I 'own' property) merely rent it from the government. This is a system designed to ensnare people: you have to pay for the privileged of living in the US in the form of property taxes (if you rent, you're still paying those taxes through the landlord). In order to pay property taxes you need to make money. If you make money, you have to pay more taxes.

If there were one change, and one change only, that I could make to our political system it would be to abolish property taxes. Then, at least, it would be possible to actually be free.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I think history shows pretty clearly that they won't. Before social security, how much old-age poverty was there compared to now? How many went without education prior to public education? Today in our country, how many people go without health insurance compared to countries where governments guarantee it?

I don't dispute that education, health insurance, and pension benefits are good things. I do dispute that our current way of providing them is.

And as for your health insurance question, until very recently I was without health insurance in defiance of the law. Massachusetts mandates that I buy my own health insurance upon penalty of, well, tax penalties. And yet, I still didn't get myself health insurance, nor did many of my fellow young, healthy, less than affluent fellow citizens.

The problem is not that these services are provided or mandated, it's the way in which they're provided or mandated. Government monopolies are conservative and inflexible. They tend to just keep doing things the way they've always been done, even when that way is obviously causing problems and there are demonstrably superior methods.

The problem with government programs is that they, by their very nature, deprive people of freedom by restricting choice and therefore ensuring that no one gets the best possible care and instead the majority get merely adequate care while the edge cases are not well served at all.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You misunderstand me. The underlying beliefs are based on fear. Conservatives are looking to "conserve" some order they believe exists or restore one they believe existed in the past. It is all based on a fear of the erosion of this order.

It's never very interesting being told what conservative means by someone other than a conservative.

Conservatism is about promoting maximal freedom for all. Individual liberty, economic freedom, property rights.

People sometimes say that Conservatism is opposed to progress. These people forget or willfully ignore that America made its greatest progress under Conservative principles.

Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development.

If the Conservative is less anxious than his Liberal brethren to increase Social Security "benefits," it is because he is more anxious than his Liberal brethren that people be free throughout their lives to spend their earnings when and as they see fit.

[paul w]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

It's never very interesting being told what conservative means by someone other than a conservative.

Conservatism is about promoting maximal freedom for all. Individual liberty, economic freedom, property rights.

You've just described Libertarianism.

[vmarks]

That's because libertarianism is home to many conservatives. However, libertarianism also leaves itself open to anarchists. Conservatism as I defined it predates Libertarianism (you used the capital L). Capital L Libertarianism began in 1971. Conservatism as I've described it was really solidified in 1960.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

And are able to avail themselves of them.

Your perspective allows currently existing inequalities to be perpetuated in definitely. It's a rigged game. The poor stay poor.

If you're against Capitalism you've rigged the game to turn us all into indentured servants.

So, umm... Have you noticed the bullshit inherent in boiling an entire half of the American political spectrum to a single point?

[Uncle Doof]

OK, here's my line. Basically you take the political compass and rotate 45 degrees counter-clockwise.

Left <------------------------------------------> Right
Collectivism <-------------------------------------------> Individualism
Oppression <-------------------------------------------> Freedom
Communism <--------------------------------------------> Libertarianism

Everyone ends up on that line somewhere. Every political theory ends up on it somewhere. So called conservatives usually end up just off centre. Libs usually end up on the left somewhere.

It assumes that fiscal freedom is an important part of social freedom - since it's pointless having the freedom to go strut your stuff on the gay beach if you haven't got the money to pay for gas to get there.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

It's never very interesting being told what conservative means by someone other than a conservative.

Conservatism is about promoting maximal freedom for all. Individual liberty, economic freedom, property rights.

People sometimes say that Conservatism is opposed to progress. These people forget or willfully ignore that America made its greatest progress under Conservative principles.

Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development.

If the Conservative is less anxious than his Liberal brethren to increase Social Security "benefits," it is because he is more anxious than his Liberal brethren that people be free throughout their lives to spend their earnings when and as they see fit.

The other poster pointed this out, but I'd like to reiterate: What you describe is not conservatism in America.

Conservatives trying to impose their religiously-grounded standards upon education, women's rights, drugs, etc. has nothing to do with promoting maximal freedom. Quite the contrary.

I suspect you were responding to my later post and not the original message in the thread.

I am, by your definition here, pretty conservative, and I have voted Libertarian at times. I am probably more concerned about finding ways within a free society to combat economic inequality, but on liberty as the fundamental principle of politics, we agree.

The difference is that I don't see American "conservatives" as being even remotely dedicated to this principle. They often talk the talk on the economy, but in reality it is not free markets, but rigged markets that are promoted through favoritism and loopholes fought for by lobbyists. And on our personal freedoms, which frankly are more dear to me than my personal economic stake, their record is horrible.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

OK, here's my line. Basically you take the political compass and rotate 45 degrees counter-clockwise.

Left <------------------------------------------> Right
Collectivism <-------------------------------------------> Individualism
Oppression <-------------------------------------------> Freedom
Communism <--------------------------------------------> Libertarianism

Everyone ends up on that line somewhere. Every political theory ends up on it somewhere. So called conservatives usually end up just off centre. Libs usually end up on the left somewhere.

It assumes that fiscal freedom is an important part of social freedom - since it's pointless having the freedom to go strut your stuff on the gay beach if you haven't got the money to pay for gas to get there.

This shows how inadequate a line is. There's that one Internet quiz that at least gives two dimensions, but even that is simplistic.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Not necessarily. I do believe that education is important. Extremely important. Absolutely necessary, even. I think that everyone should have the opportunity to get an education. And I also think that our current system is a complete cluster-****, and that everything we're doing to try and fix it is ending up making things worse. Private schools spend far less per student than public schools and yet are generally acknowledged by all to confer a higher quality education.

Nonsense. Private schools have this halo by virtue of selection bias. They're not doing a better job, they're dealing with better kids and better families. Educational success and socioeconomic status are clearly linked.

If you think education is important then jettison this corrosive ideology that simply seeks to roll the clock back to the "good ole days" when only the elites were educated. Make no mistake, all this voucher stuff and the conservative celebration of private schools is a deliberate and calculated campaign to destroy the public schools.

Why? Because they are secular and because they promote social mobility, both of which strike fear into the conservative mindset.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

This shows how inadequate a line is. There's that one Internet quiz that at least gives two dimensions, but even that is simplistic.

My line is highly accurate. Yes, it's simplistic - but then not everything that's simplistic is wrong, inaccurate or flawed. And I have spent a few years studying it specifically in order to simplify it.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you're against Capitalism you've rigged the game to turn us all into indentured servants.

So, umm... Have you noticed the bullshit inherent in boiling an entire half of the American political spectrum to a single point?

There is some, to be sure, but perhaps that should just draw our attention to the bullshit (how are we suddenly able to type that word, btw?) of describing political ideas in terms of a single line.

I'm not against Capitalism, for the record. And also, let's note on that record that indentured servitude was very, very much a product of capitalism. In fact, you've raised a perfect example to prove that capitalism must be restrained by some regard for basic human dignity. Human beings should never be commodities, and therefore, their most basic needs should not be left to the cruel and inhuman calculations of the invisible hand of the market.

Thank you. In articulating my objection to your statement, you've helped advance my thinking about several issues related to this point.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

This shows how inadequate a line is. There's that one Internet quiz that at least gives two dimensions, but even that is simplistic.

How so?

Can you not place yourself accurately on the line?

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I am probably more concerned about finding ways within a free society to combat economic inequality

Until you find a way of making the poor work the 16 hour days that I'm used to instead of slobbing out in front of the idiot box, you cannot combat economic inequality. It's an impossibility.

Well, unless you want to force me to work 4 hour days, that is. Or oppress me in some other way.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

And also, let's note on that record that indentured servitude was very, very much a product of capitalism.

Though obviously not the way I intended it (I was talking about indentured servitude to the State), what you say above is exactly my point.

No one is proposing unrestrained Capitalism, so I think it's unfair of you to cite the effects of unrestrained Capitalism as a problem.

That's one of the benefits of Capitalism, it's honest about its faults. If X or Y happens your market is not free, hence the system will not work as advertised, and you get something like indentured servitude.

OTOH, with Socialism, those very same flaws are considered virtues.

As I've said on numerous occasions: Capitalism is flawed, Socialism is broken.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

OK, here's my line. Basically you take the political compass and rotate 45 degrees counter-clockwise.

I think one of the things the notion of "spectrum" omits is the idea of origin dependence.

People in general go towards the center, but I think there's a mistaken notion that you start there and freely mix the two sides. You can do that, but both sides are fundamentally incompatible, and what you get is a confused mish-mash.

Far more useful and insightful is to start at one of the ends.

Left -------+---------------------------- Right

Someone can occupy the same point on the spectrum (the "+"), but someone who gets to that point from the right end is going to have a vastly different attitude than someone who gets there from the left end.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

The other poster pointed this out, but I'd like to reiterate: What you describe is not conservatism in America.

Conservatives trying to impose their religiously-grounded standards upon education, women's rights, drugs, etc. has nothing to do with promoting maximal freedom. Quite the contrary.

I suspect you were responding to my later post and not the original message in the thread.

I am, by your definition here, pretty conservative, and I have voted Libertarian at times. I am probably more concerned about finding ways within a free society to combat economic inequality, but on liberty as the fundamental principle of politics, we agree.

The difference is that I don't see American "conservatives" as being even remotely dedicated to this principle. They often talk the talk on the economy, but in reality it is not free markets, but rigged markets that are promoted through favoritism and loopholes fought for by lobbyists. And on our personal freedoms, which frankly are more dear to me than my personal economic stake, their record is horrible.

Actually, this is absolutely American conservatism I described.

What you're describing are folks who cloak themselves in conservatism for their own benefit - but in fact have little to do with conservatism.

Seriously, do some reading. Look into the great American conservatives, like Goldwater, Walter Williams, you'll really benefit.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think one of the things the notion of "spectrum" omits is the idea of origin dependence.

People in general go towards the center, but I think there's a mistaken notion that you start there and freely mix the two sides. You can do that, but both sides are fundamentally incompatible, and what you get is a confused mish-mash.

Far more useful and insightful is to start at one of the ends.

Left -------+---------------------------- Right

Someone can occupy the same point on the spectrum (the "+"), but someone who gets to that point from the right end is going to have a vastly different attitude than someone who gets there from the left end.

Hmmm. Interesting. I'll see how it fits with the model.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Until you find a way of making the poor work the 16 hour days that I'm used to instead of slobbing out in front of the idiot box, you cannot combat economic inequality. It's an impossibility.

Well, unless you want to force me to work 4 hour days, that is. Or oppress me in some other way.

What about the poor who work 16 hours days and still can't afford healthcare? Screw 'em?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, this is absolutely American conservatism I described.

What you're describing are folks who cloak themselves in conservatism for their own benefit - but in fact have little to do with conservatism.

Seriously, do some reading. Look into the great American conservatives, like Goldwater, Walter Williams, you'll really benefit.

Where are they? Here boys...(whistles)...come out, come out whereever you are!

I've tried hard to differentiate that what I'm talking about is this entity which I'm calling "American conservatism." You may say this is just a cloak, but look at who's getting elected and who's casting those votes and tell me who really has the pulse of what "conservatives" in this country are about.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Hmmm. Interesting.

Thank you.

One of the things I like about it is that it accounts for the overwhelming number of people who are, to put it bluntly, politically confused.

People recoil from the extreme ends of the spectrum, but it's at those two ends where things stop becoming about real world policy and become philosophy.

Many think there is a third philosophy in the middle. There isn't. You have to pick a side and work from there. The ones who don't are doomed to confusion because there isn't any philosophical underpinning to their politics.

They just feel their way through it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You may say this is just a cloak, but look at who's getting elected and who's casting those votes and tell me who really has the pulse of what "conservatives" in this country are about.

People don't necessarily vote for who they want, they often vote against the other person.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

What about the poor who work 16 hours days and still can't afford healthcare? Screw 'em?

So what do you propose? Stealing from me to support them?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Where are they? Here boys...(whistles)...come out, come out whereever you are!

I've tried hard to differentiate that what I'm talking about is this entity which I'm calling "American conservatism." You may say this is just a cloak, but look at who's getting elected and who's casting those votes and tell me who really has the pulse of what "conservatives" in this country are about.

You haven't tried at all. Instead, you make attempts at jokes.

Here's a tip: When you hear someone prepend conservatism with another word, you know they're not a conservative.

Conservatism has never needed fiscal, social, neo, or compassionate to prepend it. Conservatism is compassionate by its very nature, and fiscally responsible as well - that's what comes as a result of holding to the principle of maximal freedom.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

So what do you propose? Stealing from me to support them?

Good question.

Let me ask this: do you owe anything to society?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You haven't tried at all. Instead, you make attempts at jokes.

Here's a tip: When you hear someone prepend conservatism with another word, you know they're not a conservative.

Conservatism has never needed fiscal, social, neo, or compassionate to prepend it. Conservatism is compassionate by its very nature, and fiscally responsible as well - that's what comes as a result of holding to the principle of maximal freedom.

In what way is conservatism compassionate by its very nature?

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Let me ask this: do you owe anything to society?

No, I don't.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

After all, the American Left supports individual liberty and personal choice in terms of values and morality, but seeks to entrust government with control over economics.

The American Right, on the other hand, promotes ideas of economic freedom while promoting restrictions on personal behavior.

That's because, deep in their hearts, liberals know they can't be trusted to run a business and conservatives know they can't be trusted with their morals.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

That's because, deep in their hearts, liberals know they can't be trusted to run a business and conservatives know they can't be trusted with their morals.

You may be on to something.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

No, I don't.

Good. Now, does society owe you anything?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You haven't tried at all. Instead, you make attempts at jokes.

Here's a tip: When you hear someone prepend conservatism with another word, you know they're not a conservative.

Conservatism has never needed fiscal, social, neo, or compassionate to prepend it. Conservatism is compassionate by its very nature, and fiscally responsible as well - that's what comes as a result of holding to the principle of maximal freedom.

Ok, I see then. Well, when I'm talking about conservatives, I'm not talking about you then and your version of conservatism (which actually sounds pretty much like Liberalism with that capital "L"). I'm talking about all those other people who go around calling themselves conservatives.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Good. Now, does society owe you anything?

Yes. Privacy.

Where are you going with this?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Yes. Privacy.

Where are you going with this?

Not sure yet. Do you mind indulging a line of questions?

When you say society owes you privacy, do you mean that individual people need to leave you alone or that society as a whole should act to protect your privacy?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Nonsense. Private schools have this halo by virtue of selection bias. They're not doing a better job, they're dealing with better kids and better families. Educational success and socioeconomic status are clearly linked.

Linked yes, there is a clear corrolation. But corrolation does not equal causation.

Certainly there is a potential that private schools merely appear to be better because only rich kids go to them, but I don't really think that's the case. I think it's far more likely that private schools appear better because only the children of parents who place extraordinary value on their children's education and are willing to make sacrifices for it go to them. To try and phrase that more clearly, I think that the most important factor that determines the academic success of a student is the attitude towards education and learning at home. Rich or poor, a child who has been raised in a house that values education will do better in school than a child who hasn't. There are other factors of course, but I believe this to be the biggest one.

For the record I went to mostly private schools, both secular and parochial, and of a fairly large variety of teaching philosophies (total of 5 private schools, counting college, and one public; we moved a lot). My experience has been that the students who do well, are the students who place value on learning. At my high school (a Catholic school in the SF Bay Area) I was, frankly, rather appalled at poor academics of most of the students. I would say that probably the majority of the students in my junior year English class were incapable of telling whether a particular word was a noun, verb, adjective, &c. without actually memorizing the part of speech of the word. This was something that I had learned to do in my first 2 or 3 years of schooling at public schools.

My experiences have led me to believe that, while private schools clearly show a strong corrolation between socioeconomic status and academic success, it is not money that makes a good student. Instead it is, as I've said, a strong motivation to learn based on a home life that emphasizes the value of education (or at least knowledge, I don't think that our traditional education is necessarily the only, or best, way to go). Households with such values are more likely to send their kids to private schools, even if they have to sacrifice to do so, and this, I think, is what causes private schools to, generally, perform better than public schools.

So, it's not that I think that private schools necessarily provide a higher quality of education. I don't think that scrapping the public school system and putting that money into vouchers will suddenly turn all our kids into straight A students. I do, however, think that it will save us a ton of money, because private schools have proven that they can provide an education that is at least equal to that of a public school for less money. The money that currently funds public schools would be more than would be needed to pay the private school tuition for all our students. As for what to do with the excess, obviously I'd like to see tax cuts, but that's a different discussion (and I wouldn't object too strongly to using it to continue trying to improve education).

If you think education is important then jettison this corrosive ideology that simply seeks to roll the clock back to the "good ole days" when only the elites were educated. Make no mistake, all this voucher stuff and the conservative celebration of private schools is a deliberate and calculated campaign to destroy the public schools.

Yes, it is a deliberate and calculated campaign to destroy the public schools. As I just explained this isn't an insidious or elitist thing to want to do. It's a logical and rational thing to want to do if your goal is to improve the American education system.

Why? Because they are secular and because they promote social mobility, both of which strike fear into the conservative mindset.

I don't really know what you're talking about here. Perhaps those things are the reasons that some oppose public education, but I oppose them for pretty much exactly the opposite reasons.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Do you mind indulging a line of questions?

No, fire away.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

When you say society owes you privacy, do you mean that individual people need to leave you alone or that society as a whole should act to protect your privacy?

I mean that the government should stay out of my life until such a time as I deem fit to invite it in. For example, here in the UK there's now something like a thousand ways that government officials can get into your house without a search warrant and under pain of a large fine for "obstructing an official".

I don't need protection from people - I need protection from government.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

No, fire away.



I mean that the government should stay out of my life until such a time as I deem fit to invite it in. For example, here in the UK there's now something like a thousand ways that government officials can get into your house without a search warrant and under pain of a large fine for "obstructing an official".

I don't need protection from people - I need protection from government.

Check. So if we must be protected from government, then why do we have it at all?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Linked yes, there is a clear corrolation. But corrolation does not equal causation.

Certainly there is a potential that private schools merely appear to be better because only rich kids go to them, but I don't really think that's the case. I think it's far more likely that private schools appear better because only the children of parents who place extraordinary value on their children's education and are willing to make sacrifices for it go to them. To try and phrase that more clearly, I think that the most important factor that determines the academic success of a student is the attitude towards education and learning at home. Rich or poor, a child who has been raised in a house that values education will do better in school than a child who hasn't. There are other factors of course, but I believe this to be the biggest one.

For the record I went to mostly private schools, both secular and parochial, and of a fairly large variety of teaching philosophies (total of 5 private schools, counting college, and one public; we moved a lot). My experience has been that the students who do well, are the students who place value on learning. At my high school (a Catholic school in the SF Bay Area) I was, frankly, rather appalled at poor academics of most of the students. I would say that probably the majority of the students in my junior year English class were incapable of telling whether a particular word was a noun, verb, adjective, &c. without actually memorizing the part of speech of the word. This was something that I had learned to do in my first 2 or 3 years of schooling at public schools.

My experiences have led me to believe that, while private schools clearly show a strong corrolation between socioeconomic status and academic success, it is not money that makes a good student. Instead it is, as I've said, a strong motivation to learn based on a home life that emphasizes the value of education (or at least knowledge, I don't think that our traditional education is necessarily the only, or best, way to go). Households with such values are more likely to send their kids to private schools, even if they have to sacrifice to do so, and this, I think, is what causes private schools to, generally, perform better than public schools.

So, it's not that I think that private schools necessarily provide a higher quality of education. I don't think that scrapping the public school system and putting that money into vouchers will suddenly turn all our kids into straight A students. I do, however, think that it will save us a ton of money, because private schools have proven that they can provide an education that is at least equal to that of a public school for less money. The money that currently funds public schools would be more than would be needed to pay the private school tuition for all our students. As for what to do with the excess, obviously I'd like to see tax cuts, but that's a different discussion (and I wouldn't object too strongly to using it to continue trying to improve education).



Yes, it is a deliberate and calculated campaign to destroy the public schools. As I just explained this isn't an insidious or elitist thing to want to do. It's a logical and rational thing to want to do if your goal is to improve the American education system.

I don't really know what you're talking about here. Perhaps those things are the reasons that some oppose public education, but I oppose them for pretty much exactly the opposite reasons.

You know, it's funny. I agree with almost everything you say. But after agreeing--in almost the exact same words I would use--that the selection bias in private schools comes from the fact that all the families of kids in private school are committed to education you somehow conclude that private schools deliver equal or better education for the dollar. Don't you see that the reason they can deliver a comparable education for less money is that they don't deal with the challenges the public schools do? They don't have to modify for special ed. They can expel students who are disruptive. They have families--only families--that care about education.

There's nothing logical about admitting that the comparisons between public and private school are flawed and then saying that the comparison shows we could save money by privatizing education.

So privatizing the schools would simply subject private schools to the same pressures that tax the public schools, while sacrificing the hard-won lessons and progress public education has made (and don't believe the anti-school propaganda, our education system is doing more than ever before). I guarantee you that mass "private" education would see far worse results than the public system has, but I pray we never get the chance to see how right I am because I pray our society won't engage in such a potentially disastrous experiment.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You know, it's funny. I agree with almost everything you say. But after agreeing--in almost the exact same words I would use--that the selection bias in private schools comes from the fact that all the families of kids in private school are committed to education you somehow conclude that private schools deliver equal or better education for the dollar. Don't you see that the reason they can deliver a comparable education for less money is that they don't deal with the challenges the public schools do? They don't have to modify for special ed. They can expel students who are disruptive. They have families--only families--that care about education.

There's nothing logical about admitting that the comparisons between public and private school are flawed and then saying that the comparison shows we could save money by privatizing education.

So privatizing the schools would simply subject private schools to the same pressures that tax the public schools, while sacrificing the hard-won lessons and progress public education has made (and don't believe the anti-school propaganda, our education system is doing more than ever before). I guarantee you that mass "private" education would see far worse results than the public system has, but I pray we never get the chance to see how right I am because I pray our society won't engage in such a potentially disastrous experiment.

I see what you're saying. But it sounds to me like you're just admitting that the public school system is essentially nothing but a dumping ground for hopeless students and those who, though they might have te drive, the intelligence, and the environment, simply lack the economic resources to achieve.

So perhaps a compromise would be in order: a voucher system that allows students who can benefit from it attend private schools, with a pared down public school system that's little more than minimum security juvie for those who get expelled from the privates.

Yes, I'm being less than serious about this, but it seems to me that you're basically saying that this is already the case except that there's no hope for those who could achieve but lack the resources.

Also, I would dispute that the needs of special ed kids couldn't/wouldn't be met under such a system. In fact, there's probably a pretty good chance that many of them would be better off. The current special ed system is a disaster, to the point that families have to uproot themselves, move thousands of miles from home, find new jobs, and all that just to get their special ed kid into a school district that can give them what they need. If all students, even special ed students, have a voucher for $X that would be good at any school that meets certain standards then special ed schools would become available anywhere that there's enough students to justify one because there is guaranteed to be tuition money available.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

So perhaps a compromise would be in order: a voucher system that allows students who can benefit from it attend private schools, with a pared down public school system that's little more than minimum security juvie for those who get expelled from the privates.

As a teacher I would not find that an acceptable compromise at all. Also, I think that you might misunderstand the current breadth of "special education" in this nation's schools. I agree that it is a "disaster," but the disaster is that too many kids are being flagged as special ed and it's hobbled education by forcing teachers to accomodate behavior that should instead be extinquished. Fortunately, NCLB makes strict provisions to limit the number of special education exemptions from testing so that school officials are less able to just label kids and let them drift.

That's one of many reasons that I have very mixed feelings about NCLB. Some of its provisions are addressing genuine problems in the system--that we let too many kids just coast for various reasons--but its overarching emphasis on standardized testing as the sole means of assessment is crippling in its reductionism and soul-crushing to those of us who are passionately committed to true education.

The real solution to the problems in education is to depoliticize it, foster a working professionalism for teachers and put these truly professional educators in charge of the process.