Socioeconomic Theories

[resodko]

reinstitutionalize a form of slavery for those who can't or won't succeed? :idunno:

I am thinking that indentured servitude would work out well for helping out the parents that are too poor and too uneducated to be able to raise their children.

:think:


:thumb:

Education should be paid for at the local, state, and federal level because education has a direct effect on the quality of business, society, and government at all these levels.

Transportation and communication systems should be paid for at the local, state, and federal levels because they directly effect the functionality of business, society, and government at all these levels.

A public health care system should be paid for at the local, state, and federal levels because it directly effects the quality of life of everyone at every level of the societal system.

why stop there?

the same argument could be made for providing me with housing, food and clothing

We are very, very far from a real disaster. A real disaster is when the whole system collapses and the most ruthless criminals rise to power by brute force, and take whatever they want from whomever they want.

I agree that our nation is failing, and that there are criminals running things.

you're a retard

 

[The Berean]

A
Ah, colonial times....the good ole days *staring wistfully at the sea*

When men were MEN!

(Ok, technically this was not during "Colonial" times)

 

[genuineoriginal]

How many could afford to pay for private school? If there were no public school and they couldn't home school and they cannot afford private school, how will their children be educated?

Don't you really mean to ask, "Why should their children be educated"?
Or are you ignoring that question?

See the disconnect between what I actually said and what you're saying that I said? Many not most.

So, you believe most people parents are capable of properly educating their children?
In a Democracy, that is all that is needed.
In a Republic, you don't even need most.

That's going to work for all children? Is there any exchange of money between master and apprentice or his/her family?

The master could request payment from the parents.
Typically, the master expects the apprentice to cover the costs of food, clothing, shelter, and education through work.
If the apprentice refuses to work, the master returns him/her to his/her parents and takes on an apprentice that is willing to work.

 

[genuineoriginal]

All we need to do is stop thinking and behaving like ignorant spoiled children, and start taking responsibility for what we have allowed to happen to our businesses and government. As yet, no violence is required. With just some real common sense and responsibility we can easily change the course of the nation and begin moving toward the kind of systems that increase freedom and independence instead of decreasing them, as we are doing, today.

 

[Christian Liberty]

genuineoriginal has a point. We have no idea how exactly education would structure itself in a free-market structure. Maybe not everyone goes through grade school, some become apprentices and learn a trade, which they can then make money off later on. That's not necessarily a question that needs to be answered.

Here's what I can say.

We should all agree that for as many people as possible to live a productive and fulfilling life is an admirable goal.

We should all agree that stealing (ie. "taxes") are an unacceptable means of fulfilling said goal. What isn't OK for me and you isn't OK for government either.

We should all agree that all children are different and that they don't need the same type of education. It is impossible for the state to recognize and deal with this.

We should acknowledge that according to basic economic law, consensual economic exchanges are utility positive for both parties, while coercion is likely utility positive only for the aggressing party. We should thus accept that a free-market, using only voluntary, mutually utility-positive exchanges, will be better able to solve this issue than coercive force.

 

[genuineoriginal]

How many could afford to pay for private school? If there were no public school and they couldn't home school and they cannot afford private school, how will their children be educated?

There are many people currently drawing a salary from the government for doing nothing that could be conscripted into positions as teachers.

Spoiler

 

[PureX]

genuineoriginal has a point. We have no idea how exactly education would structure itself in a free-market structure.

All you need do is look to the era of feudalism, and you will see exactly how education works in a "free market" economy.

Here's what I can say.

We should all agree that for as many people as possible to live a productive and fulfilling life is an admirable goal.

We should all agree that stealing (ie. "taxes") are an unacceptable means of fulfilling said goal. What isn't OK for me and you isn't OK for government either.

Taxes are not "stealing". Until you let go of this idiotically selfish idea, you will continue to think and speak as an ignoramus.

Taxes are nothing more than a method of societal reinvestment. Just as any business enterprise needs to expend a portion of it's profits on facility maintenance, security, operations, and expansion to stay viable, so does the society as a whole. And that's what taxes are: that percentage of profit that gets reinvested back into the structures and systems that were and are responsible for generating it.

We should all agree that all children are different and that they don't need the same type of education. It is impossible for the state to recognize and deal with this.

That's complete nonsense. All humans are unique, yet all humans are strikingly similar. In fact, we are all a whole lot more alike than we are different. And the success of all sorts of standardized public service systems bear that out in spectacular fashion every single day.

We should acknowledge that according to basic economic law, consensual economic exchanges are utility positive for both parties, while coercion is likely utility positive only for the aggressing party. We should thus accept that a free-market, using only voluntary, mutually utility-positive exchanges, will be better able to solve this issue than coercive force.

Where is this "voluntary, mutually utility-positive exchange" market? Because it's clearly not on this planet.

On this planet a "free market" is a market that seeks to exploit everything and everyone for maximum profit by any and every means possible. Simply put, a "free market" is greed run amok. It's exploitation masquerading as commerce; that rewards ruthlessness while literally destroying anything and anyone who gets in the way of it's one and only goal of collecting as much wealth as possible.

A "free market" is a lawless market. And lawless markets cannot be tolerated any more than a lawless society can. As both result in a state of constant human suffering, animosity, and social collapse.

 

[WizardofOz]

Don't you really mean to ask, "Why should their children be educated"?
Or are you ignoring that question?

It is in everyone's best interest to educate our youth. It lowers crime and boosts the economy.

Being poor shouldn't restrict a child's ability to be educated.

So, you believe most people parents are capable of properly educating their children?

Capable? Yes.
Able? Likely not as many seeing as how many households depend on two household incomes. Teaching is a full-time job.

It just isn't feasible to expect the majority of households to home-school. Add this to the economic realities of how few can afford private school, without public education, what options are children left with?

The master could request payment from the parents.
Typically, the master expects the apprentice to cover the costs of food, clothing, shelter, and education through work.

Which shuts out many of the poor, perpetuating the poverty that family will likely face generation after generation.

There are many people currently drawing a salary from the government for doing nothing that could be conscripted into positions as teachers.

Spoiler

What about those elderly unfit for teaching?
Soup kitchens?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I lean toward minarchism where courts, law enforcement and military are still legitimate government functions.

I know from the last GOP primaries we were both Ron Paul supporters. I am all for any move in that direction...

Yet Ron Paul (like yourself) is a social anarchist (someone who doesn't believe in a society's invaluable institutions such as marriage, strong families, etc.).

How would it be possible Aaron to have a strong economy when the nucleus of society (the traditional family) is in shambles due to social anarchy?

 

[WizardofOz]

Yet Ron Paul (like yourself) is a social anarchist (someone who doesn't believe in a society's invaluable institutions such as marriage, strong families, etc.).

That's a lie...Shock coming from you

How would it be possible Aaron to have a strong economy when the nucleus of society (the traditional family) is in shambles due to social anarchy?

If you're here to fight battles you've long lost, go away. If you want to address socioeconomic theories (the thread topic) then welcome :e4e:
Start with this; should there be a public education system in the United States?

 

[The Barbarian]

The problem isn't government; it's culture. If government falls apart, the vacuum will be filled by one or more strong men who will impose their own. Hence Beruit, after that government fell. Various neighborhoods were then taken over by militias of different types, who imposed their own rule.

This was not good for anyone but the militias and criminals, who saw government as a way for people to keep them from doing as they wished.

This theme is really the theme of Atlas Shrugged which argues that government is a way for the weak to keep the strong from having their way with the weak. In that novel, whatever is imposed by a vote of the people was evil, in Rand's view, but whatever was imposed by a strong man was good.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet Ron Paul (like yourself) is a social anarchist (someone who doesn't believe in a society's invaluable institutions such as marriage, strong families, etc.).

That's a lie...Shock coming from you.

My bad: Ron Paul who amongst other things is for the legalization of all recreational drugs is a staunch social conservative.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
How would it be possible Aaron to have a strong economy when the nucleus of society (the traditional family) is in shambles due to social anarchy?

If you're here to fight battles you've long lost, go away. If you want to address socioeconomic theories (the thread topic) then welcome
Start with this; should there be a public education system in the United States?

The Public Education System here in the US is in the terrible shape that it's in because of your Libertarian social policies Aaron.

I see that you don't want to talk about the realities of what your mini-anarchist policies have brought, so I'll leave you to talk about make believe "theories".

 

[resodko]

... should there be a public education system in the United States?

yes, there should


and is, in many districts


in many others, what is assumed to be, isn't

 

[WizardofOz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet Ron Paul (like yourself) is a social anarchist (someone who doesn't believe in a society's invaluable institutions such as marriage, strong families, etc.).

My bad: Ron Paul who amongst other things is for the legalization of all recreational drugs is a staunch social conservative.

Now you've moved the goal posts. You said he is "someone who doesn't believe in a society's invaluable institutions such as marriage, strong families, etc"

That is just another acw lie.

should there be a public education system in the United States?

The Public Education System here in the US is in the terrible shape that it's in because of your Libertarian social policies Aaron.

Not what I asked now, is it?

 

[The Barbarian]

How would it be possible Aaron to have a strong economy when the nucleus of society (the traditional family) is in shambles due to social anarchy?

Ironically, when society and government fall apart, one of the few things that don't fall with it, is family. That continues in almost all cases.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Start with this; should there be a public education system in the United States?

No.

Now what?

 

[WizardofOz]

No.

Now what?

Post 68

 

[genuineoriginal]

Start with this; should there be a public education system in the United States?

No.

Now what?

Post 68

Post 68 didn't say anything significant to change my answer, so maybe you are unclear on what you actually asked (as opposed to what you thought you asked).

It is in everyone's best interest to educate our youth. It lowers crime and boosts the economy.

Yes, this is true.

Being poor shouldn't restrict a child's ability to be educated.

No, this is not true.

Being poor restricts a child's ability to be fed, clothed, and sheltered.

That is what being poor is all about, so of course being poor should also restrict a child's ability to be educated.

You asked, "should there be a public education system in the United States?"

Your question realy asks, "should there be only one public education system that is implemented in all of the individual sovereign nations that collectively form the United States?"
My answer is "no, the Federal government should not overstep the boundaries set forth in the constitution and implement a system such as the Common Core system currently being implemented across the nation, which is more of a brainwashing program than it is an educational program."

Maybe you thought you asked, "should public education be the primary system of education for children in the United States?"
Again my answer is "no, we do not need a forced schooling system designed to destroy individual thought".

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

To continue a discussion about various socioeconomic theories that started around here.

I invite any of those interested in continuing this discussion...

:e4e:

See:
http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Economics-Commonsense-Guide-Daily-ebook/dp/B003ZDO2HQ

AMR

 

[The Barbarian]

Being poor restricts a child's ability to be fed, clothed, and sheltered.

That is what being poor is all about, so of course being poor should also restrict a child's ability to be educated.

Nope. If we take that approach, we will fall behind other nations that seek to educate every child, knowing that many of them will become the engineers, scientists, inventors and innovators of the next generation.

There are nations that don't have a public education system. Do us a favor and name them, telling us which of them you'd like us to emulate.

You asked, "should there be a public education system in the United States?"

Your question realy asks, "should there be only one public education system that is implemented in all of the individual sovereign nations that collectively form the United States?"

There should be local school boards and state standards. States, however, are not sovereign nations, being unable to regulate commerce between them, make treaties, declare war, and so on.

My answer is "no, the Federal government should not overstep the boundaries set forth in the constitution and implement a system such as the Common Core system currently being implemented across the nation, which is more of a brainwashing program than it is an educational program."

It's actually best practices, taken from those states with high-achieving students. And it's not federally-mandated. You've been misled about that.

Might be useful for you to actually learn what it is and what it says.
Texas, for political reasons didn't adopt it. But the high-performing districts do pretty much the same thing as Common Core. Since it's a set of targets, not hard standards, a district can implement better educational practices without arousing the ire of reactionaries.