A History of Socialism in America

a reply to: Sremmos80

Well, there you have it, you can now dismiss everything I have said.

Not that you hadn't already.

originally posted by: Cabin
a reply to: greencmp

In my eyes, education up to certain point /certain age can be measurable. PISA is not rocket-science exercises, but basic math, reading and sciences. If a 15 year-old kid does not understand what an interest rate is or can not read well, there is a difference... Unfortunately vast majority of those who are unable to understand such basics at the age of 15 do not do well at life having to live end-to-end, often in debt. Some do well, but majority of such end up at some low-end job.


Education as a whole is a life-long process. The fact that one has education, does not mean he/she is educated and the opposite. Although I do believe kids should be given as strong horizon as possible, giving them access to all kinds of basic fields, so they would know where to go next. If one has no or very little experience with a field, they can make very wrong career choices in life, being unsatisfied, trying to find their call. High school for example is not about giving some practical advice for life. It is about giving basics how the world works not skills on what to do something. After that an 19 yo can do their own choices, what next.


So far in life, I have noticed, vast majority who went to vocal schools at the age of 17, chose the wrong field for themselves. Either they ended up at another field or just do the job they dislike so far. From my highschool year, majority already understood what they wanted from life or at least chose the right field.


About private school, Europe has too many nations who have different systems. The ones with higher private school rate usually dont do well. Public schools systems here give a variety of options, whether science-based, music, economical, language class etc, but every one of them just focuses on one field, while giving a glimpse of everything else.

Parents are not the ones to choose the field from their kids. Every child is different, has different interests. In the end, when someone dictates you what to learn, what to do in life, one just ends up miserable. Giving a glimpse of everything at first and then letting to choose oneself is the right thing in my eyes. In the end one needs to find the job they love, not just make a living on some field they dislike.

I certainly agree that education is important for children but, why must it be run by the state?

If independent pedagogy is your aim, how can you reconcile that outlook with uniform training?

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

-Frédéric Bastiat

who do you wish to run it?? the church? the pta? private businesses?
as it is now, I think that mostly it is run by elected school board members, ya, the federal and state gov't have mandates as to what is required as far as a basic education, but as far as I know, most of the power is held by locally elected officials of the school board.
In my opinion having a national standard of what is the minimal requirements to get that high school diploma is a valid need. some state might set their standard higher, but none can set it lower than that. this assures that kids aren't wasting 12 years of their lives learning crap and walking away with a diploma they can't read for the most part. to not have them would mean that no employer could take for granted that the person with that diploma can add 3+3 correctly, or write their name even.
personally, I kind of wonder if you don't want to plop the whole bit into the hands of private businesses and religious groups, with parents being charged a tuition to get them into school. and well, your griping about schooling being mandatory seems to indicate that you feel that those who couldn't afford the tuition, well, it's okay because well, it's not necessary or something, or hoping that some religious group will take up charity work in that area. but well, wouldn't that be more like indoctrination than what we have now?
we need well educated kids in order to remain competitive in the world economy, and although I admit that our educational system as it is today could stand to be improved, I don't see where removing the public school system wouldn't be a step in the opposite direction. every child, no matter how poor, needs to be educated.

originally posted by: dawnstar
if russia is none of our business, then why did we spend so much money to ensure that Ukraine swayed over to the european union instead of honoring their ties with russia?

or building up the resistance in afghanistan a few decades ago for that matter?

matter of fact, I would venture to guess that if we paid more attention to our own business and got our noses out of everyone else's business, we'd have more than enough money to ensure that everyone in the us had a roof over their heads and food on their table and still have money left over to give the taxpayers a cut.

Make sense to me. A booming economy keeps itself ahead of the socialists technologically and healthily.

All that Plutocratic central planning know-it-all foreign policy has been the custom since 1898. About the time that the elimination of the gold standard was in sight to the money powers. Only inflation can pay for foreign adventures.



Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.

Thomas Jefferson

Read more at www.brainyquote.com...

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Sremmos80

Well, there you have it, you can now dismiss everything I have said.

Not that you hadn't already.

Aw and you are calling me petty.

I am just asking why you want to base your idea on quotes that for all intents and purposes are being attributed to someone who never said them. And they playing this "well you won't believe me anyway" game when I challange you on it.

originally posted by: Sremmos80

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Sremmos80

Well, there you have it, you can now dismiss everything I have said.

Not that you hadn't already.

Aw and you are calling me petty.

I am just asking why you want to base your idea on quotes that for all intents and purposes are being attributed to someone who never said them. And they playing this "well you won't believe me anyway" game when I challange you on it.

I tried to find Dewey’s website but, I think his IT staff are dragging their feet.

Maybe you should write a conspiracy thread about the preponderance of its citation.

By the way, since you are basing your entire argument on it, exactly what was your point besides your abnegation of the quote?

a reply to: greencmp
I don't need a thread about it, there is no conspiracy, people falsely attribute quotes all the time. Appealing to authority is a very common tactic.

My point would be that you shouldn't use those quotes unless you are sure to make this statement that that is the foundation or purposes of public education. If you are fine with no one wanting to quote the origin of the quotes and just saying that he said it because some people on the Internet say so isn't a shining example of individual thought.

Hardly was the basis of my entire argument, save the strawman. I have just been asking about how it is mandatory and you brought up hewey, I just looked up the quotes to try and make sure the context was correct.

Still haven't shown how it is mandatory, at most just some statement about trying to not send your kid to public school.
But I stopped holding my breath for it.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: greencmp
I don't need a thread about it, there is no conspiracy, people falsely attribute quotes all the time. Appealing to authority is a very common tactic.

My point would be that you shouldn't use those quotes unless you are sure to make this statement that that is the foundation or purposes of public education. If you are fine with no one wanting to quote the origin of the quotes and just saying that he said it because some people on the Internet say so isn't a shining example of individual thought.

Hardly was the basis of my entire argument, save the strawman. I have just been asking about how it is mandatory and you brought up hewey, I just looked up the quotes to try and make sure the context was correct.

Still haven't shown how it is mandatory, at most just some statement about trying to not send your kid to public school.
But I stopped holding my breath for it.

The original source of the quote

Independent self-reliant people would be a counterproductive anachronism in the collective society of the future where people will be defined by their associations. - John Dewey, 1896

is a book by John Taylor Gatto, written in 1992 or so. I suppose it was communicated in a speech or correspondence while Dewey at the University of Chicago and associated with Hull House.

Have to buy the book or go to the library to know more specifically.

The sentence is not inconsistent with Dewey's philosophy, which is pragmatism.

a reply to: Sremmos80

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all.

Therefore, we demand an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education.

We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents.

The government must undertake the improvement of public health – by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor, by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

We combat the materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good."

-From the political program of the Nazi Party, adopted in Munich, February 24, 1920

a reply to: Semicollegiate

So the origin is from a book written by a guy in 92 quoting him from a speech in 1896???

That doesn't make any sense.
The origin would be from the speech he gave it and a transcript would be needed. Not a guy writing it in his book.

And green quote me stuff about nazis all day long, that still doesn't show how public school is mandatory, you know the thing you said that stared this all.

a reply to: greencmp


Every child needs proper education during childhood, I hope you agree with that.


There are good parents out there as well as bad parents. There are intelligent parents out there, who know how to teach, while there are unintelligent parents out there, who believe they can teach (but in reality are really bad at it) . There are many parents out there who believe they know what is best for their child (but actually do not, often due to low intelligence) etc etc.

The problem lies in there being too many variables out there. It is highly unlikely a person is expert at everything, that is the reason why I do not believe in homeschooling. I have yet to find a person, who remembers everything from their school time or is even able to recall it. If one did not succeed at all in certain fields in school time how are they able to teach that thing to their children? That is the reason why believe in schools rather than self-teaching /home school, where every teacher is a specialist at their field and can answer any question / inspire children to learn that field.

In one of my previous posts I told you, why I do not believe in private schools, but I will bring out some points (maybe even not made yet) again. I believe every child, wherever they are from, whomever their parents are, deserves the same opportunities, equal opportunities for their . Unfortunately private schools do not create that chance, these create elitism, where children from families, who are able to afford get different education due to schools being able to hire better teachers, while the poor kids are left with weaker teachers. Private education does not look at how bright the child is, they look at the wallets of their parents...

a reply to: Cabin

I do appreciate your admirable concern.

As you say, at least with this last generation of people with which we are familiar, very little of this pro forma primary education regimen is effective.

I don’t see that as a justification for curtailing independent solutions. Quite the opposite, I see that failure as undeniable evidence that alternatives must be found. Home schooling is only one of many such options.

Short of changing the federal, state and local taxes, we can begin to transition away from our current system to more effective ones with vouchers, one of the few policy proposals which promises to directly address this problem.

Private schools will be different from one another. They will not be uniform and that is desirable.

In my mind, the only complication is the inevitable dissolution of teacher’s unions, a consequence which I happen to advocate vociferously.


"Historically, much of the motivation for public schooling has been to stifle variety and institute social control."

-Jack Hugh

a reply to: greencmp

but if those vouchers ever managed to replace the public schools, we'd be about as screwed as we are with the healthcare system (and just about every other commodity that the gov't has taken upon itself to subsidize for the people). private, for profit businesses are in it for the profit, and well, once you add gov't subsidies to help offset the costs of those necessities that the gov't is subsidizing, well, it does seem to have an inflationary effect. we could probably find ourselves in the same position we are in with higher education, with middle class parents going so deep into debt trying to pay for education while the poorer students have theirs paid for by the gov't and well, the richer folks never do seem to have much problems anyways.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: greencmp

but if those vouchers ever managed to replace the public schools, we'd be about as screwed as we are with the healthcare system (and just about every other commodity that the gov't has taken upon itself to subsidize for the people). private, for profit businesses are in it for the profit, and well, once you add gov't subsidies to help offset the costs of those necessities that the gov't is subsidizing, well, it does seem to have an inflationary effect. we could probably find ourselves in the same position we are in with higher education, with middle class parents going so deep into debt trying to pay for education while the poorer students have theirs paid for by the gov't and well, the richer folks never do seem to have much problems anyways.

It would be an acceptable first step.

Ultimately, I think that the focus should be on repealing the 16th and 17th amendments.

The idea is to transfer the very same taxes from the federal government back to the states. Initially, the states will all have tremendous tax increases but, control of those funds will be more distributed. Each state, county, and town would have to work out competitive tax codes with each other.

A gradual transition could be achieved.

a reply to: greencmp

and the poorer states would stay poor forever since they wouldn't have the funds to be able to compete with the rest of the country....
as it is now, there is a pretty big difference between the school systems within a state...the poorer communities receive less quality in their education.

a reply to: dawnstar

People will be able to migrate to wherever they want once a substantial decrease in confiscated income becomes possible.

a reply to: greencmp

what substantial savings??
what state do you live in where your state representative aren't as corrupt and unwise in their spending as the federal gov't is? either way you look at it, it's gonna cost the same amount to educate the kids, regardless of who is teaching them...
and well, like I already said, I think private schools would probably cost more. I know the republicans seem to think that privatizing everything will be cheaper, but I do believe that reality proves otherwise.

a reply to: dawnstar

A typical individual's savings would start at around $5000+ annually.

The decentralization in and of itself would not achieve those "savings". It would procedurally change the revenue collection (and therefore its contro)l back to the states.

We would then have 50 environments with which to experiment with interventionist government policy or, as I advocate, the lack thereof.

I'm a libertarian and I am a republican but, not a Republican.

a reply to: greencmp

the only savings would come by the elimination of some of the federal employees who are responsible now for collecting and distributing that money, and well, that's only if the states don't have to hire them to do the job. meanwhile, you seem to be saying that if people want to have a decent education well they can just migrate out of those poorer states...which would cost money for the people who are migrating, but also for the businesses within those states who start seeing their employees flying the coop for better schools. then there would be housing surpluses in some areas, while housing shortages would plague others.... along with a mess of other problems that arise when people are forced to move for better jobs, or decent schools, or anything else.
heck, do you realize just how much better things would be if people could have just stayed in the area they were born in, where their families reside, the value of the extended family!!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: greencmp

the only savings would come by the elimination of some of the federal employees who are responsible now for collecting and distributing that money, and well, that's only if the states don't have to hire them to do the job. meanwhile, you seem to be saying that if people want to have a decent education well they can just migrate out of those poorer states...which would cost money for the people who are migrating, but also for the businesses within those states who start seeing their employees flying the coop for better schools. then there would be housing surpluses in some areas, while housing shortages would plague others.... along with a mess of other problems that arise when people are forced to move for better jobs, or decent schools, or anything else.
heck, do you realize just how much better things would be if people could have just stayed in the area they were born in, where their families reside, the value of the extended family!!!

Yes, utter economic and intellectual anarchy.