PDA

View Full Version : What a Weird World BEP and TJ Live In


Pages : 1 [2]

patteeu
03-24-2008, 11:26 AM
Defense spending is enumerated in the Constitution though as something that belongs under the general welfare.

That is not the type of thing TJ and I mean. That's a different category of thing and a point of illogic. Apples and oranges.

Once again, you redefine the argument on your own terms to claim you won it.

My argument is that the constitution authorizes some socialistic measures. You can agree and say that you are OK with certain types of socialism (which calls into question the whole "there is no gray area, a child molester is a child molester" argument), but you can't credibly say that I'm wrong.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 11:29 AM
You also might want to read the first sentence of the Constitution.

They don't even like the "We the people" part. They think it should say "We the people through the States" or somesuch (a prior post of BEP's).

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 11:30 AM
I've already backed it up by pointing out that the constitution really did say what I said it said. Let's face it, you don't really have a good grip on your argument. You don't like the socialistic measures that you don't like (e.g. food stamps) but you ignore those that you don't have as much problem with (e.g. those authorized by the drafters of the constitution).

No you didn't. I asked for a legislative act not what you feel are the clauses that back up such an act. You're passages are out of context as well. Those aren't the correct applicable ones either. So what specific example of redistributing wealth for the good of the society as passed by the actual early Framers once in office? I am not asking for things the nation needed as a whole and which is enumerated as legitimate spending in the actual document either.

patteeu
03-24-2008, 11:30 AM
The illogic occurred when the ridiculously overbroad blanket statements were made by you and TJ. Point out how overly broad the statements are isn't illogic.

Exactly. Being fairly extreme in my libertarian/conservative views myself, I hate to be on the side of people as prone to socialistic solutions as you and Amnorix in a debate like this, but Taco and BEP make it impossible to defend their position.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 11:32 AM
I've already backed it up by pointing out that the constitution really did say what I said it said. Let's face it, you don't really have a good grip on your argument. You don't like the socialistic measures that you don't like (e.g. food stamps) but you ignore those that you don't have as much problem with (e.g. those authorized by the drafters of the constitution).


I'd still like to see a defense of the George Washington's sanctioned First Bank of the United States, especially in light of their Constitutional issues with the Federal Reserve Act.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 11:34 AM
Exactly. Being fairly extreme in my libertarian/conservative views myself, I hate to be on the side of people as prone to socialistic solutions as you and Amnorix in a debate like this, but Taco and BEP make it impossible to defend their position.

I simply asked for a narrow and specific example of those who helped frame our Constitution on giving money out for the general good of society (meaning for individuals that need it) the way we do today. That was not overly broad. Your answer, however, was overly broad as well as not an answer to the question asked.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 11:35 AM
Exactly. Being fairly extreme in my libertarian/conservative views myself, I hate to be on the side of people as prone to socialistic solutions as you and Amnorix in a debate like this, but Taco and BEP make it impossible to defend their position.


No, you're a SOCIALIST. Welcome to the club. C'mon in, the water's fine.

patteeu
03-24-2008, 11:35 AM
No you didn't. I asked for a legislative act not what you feel are the clauses that back up such an act. You're passages are out of context as well. Those aren't the correct applicable ones either. So what specific example of redistributing wealth for the good of the society as passed by the actual early Framers once in office? I am not asking for things the nation needed as a whole and which is enumerated as legitimate spending in the actual document either.

Technically, I wasn't responding to your question, I was responding to Taco. But your question was off the point anyway because it missed the argument I was making by a considerable degree. Why ask for proof of legislation when I was claiming that something existed in the constitution, not in legislation. Not that I don't think legislation exists, but I see no reason to get to that level of proof since the constitution is clear on the point.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 11:38 AM
Technically, I wasn't responding to your question, I was responding to Taco. But your question was off the point anyway because it missed the argument I was making by a considerable degree. Why ask for proof of legislation when I was claiming that something existed in the constitution, not in legislation. Not that I don't think legislation exists, but I see no reason to get to that level of proof since the constitution is clear on the point.


Perhaps in their view any act not passed within X number of years after the ratification of the Constitution is automatically unconstitutional because no founding father approved of it?

I mean, that's why they had an amendment process you know...










ROFL

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 11:44 AM
Technically, I wasn't responding to your question, I was responding to Taco. But your question was off the point anyway because it missed the argument I was making by a considerable degree. Why ask for proof of legislation when I was claiming that something existed in the constitution, not in legislation. Not that I don't think legislation exists, but I see no reason to get to that level of proof since the constitution is clear on the point.

You mean this:
Were the drafters of the constitution socialists? Even pre-16th amendment, the constitution authorized the central government to take money from one group of people for the benefit of society (even though the authorized ways in which the government was allowed to benefit society were much more restrained at that point in our history).


Your post implies due to context that they were socialist.
Your answer to this with clauses from the Constitution do not address the issue when other parts of the constitution are ignored which qualify such clauses even more.

So my question, which is related to the implication that the Framer's were socialist, applies. That is unless you think rigidity is necessary as opposed to fluidity when topics touch upon other aspects of an issue. Which they do...including the Constitution being interpreted as a whole.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 11:46 AM
When the founders taxed a whiskey maker's product and gave the money to a marine who was defending US interests off the Barbary Coast in an undeclared war against muslims, they were doing so for the good of our society (even though some paleo-isolationists might have objected and blamed it all on our own imperialistic merchant ships who had no business sailing in such far flung seas).



Good grief... :rolleyes:

I even bolded it.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 11:50 AM
I'd still like to see a defense of the George Washington's sanctioned First Bank of the United States, especially in light of their Constitutional issues with the Federal Reserve Act.



I'd still like to get your answer on how many socialist programs a person has to support before they can be called a socialist...

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 11:52 AM
who was defending US interests off the Barbary Coast in an undeclared war against muslims,


What interests were being defended then?
Not wanting to pay a tribute to have access to the Mediterranean when all other nations paid it? That's not an interest per se. It may be considered an insult or the pov of a cheapskate...but interest?

And how is that a war? Very arguable imo.


Section 8 - Powers Delegated to Congress
10) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.

patteeu
03-24-2008, 11:53 AM
Good grief... :rolleyes:

I even bolded it.

Is a marine not an "other"? Are you limiting your opposition to socialism to cases of welfare?

Taco John
03-24-2008, 11:53 AM
When the founders taxed a whiskey maker's product and gave the money to a marine who was defending US interests off the Barbary Coast in an undeclared war against muslims, they were doing so for the good of our society...


Am I to believe that you are of the opinion that taxing for the sake of defense is socialism?

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 11:56 AM
Is a marine not an "other"? Are you limiting your opposition to socialism to cases of welfare?

Good grief! I can't believe that's a question here.
Do you not know the definition of socialism?
Or its defining traits?

Govt is a sort of collective group but what it's allowed to address for the group was defined in our system. That doesn't it make it socialist per se. The Framers tried to establish a balance between the needs of the group ( central govt here) and the individuals/states. So they defined what the federal govt was allowed to do. Socialism puts much more emphasis on the group, in fact the group is all.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 11:57 AM
I'd still like to get your answer on how many socialist programs a person has to support before they can be called a socialist...

I already told you. 42. Not more and not less.

The question is absurd. If you wisht o view yourself as some kind of "pure" capitalist, and everyone else as socialists, you have fun with that.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 11:57 AM
Exactly. Being fairly extreme in my libertarian/conservative views myself, I hate to be on the side of people as prone to socialistic solutions as you and Amnorix in a debate like this, but Taco and BEP make it impossible to defend their position.


The funny thing is, he's on your side, Banyon... But he more or less called you a socialist. He phrased it much more PC though: "people prone to socialistic solutions." ROFL

Does that phraseology make you feel better? I'll adopt it if we can get past this silly "I'm not a socialist, I just think socialists have some good ideas" argument.

patteeu
03-24-2008, 12:02 PM
Am I to believe that you are of the opinion that taxing for the sake of defense is socialism?

It is socialized defense, yes.

A lot of the industry run by the central governement in China is run through their military. Does that change it's nature to something other than socialism?

But if you want a different example, how about the early US government taxing the people and using the money to pay for lighthouses, roads and canals (http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/St-Tr/Taxation-Public-Finance-and-Public-Debt.html). Socialized maritime safety and transportation infrastructure.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 12:03 PM
I'll be back later. I actually created a pie chart to show how many of Marx's Ten Planks are part of our govt today which shows we are beyond the halfway mark today. Yet some are pushing for more. I'll put it up. Picture is worth a thousand words. This'll give banyon and amn, time to get their meds ready.

patteeu
03-24-2008, 12:04 PM
Good grief! I can't believe that's a question here.
Do you not know the definition of socialism?
Or its defining traits?

Govt is a sort of collective group but what it's allowed to address for the group was defined in our system. That does it make it socialist per se. The Framers tried to establish a balance between the needs of the group ( central govt here) and the individuals/states. So they defined what the federal govt was allowed to do. Socialism puts much more emphasis on the group, in fact the group is all.

This new definition is at odds with the "just one drop" definition of socialism you and Taco were espousing earlier in the thread.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 12:04 PM
I already told you. 42. Not more and not less.

The question is absurd. If you wisht o view yourself as some kind of "pure" capitalist, and everyone else as socialists, you have fun with that.


On what basis is the question absurd? You insist that you're not a socialist, though you support socialist programs. Why would it be absurd to try and determine a threshold?

Here's the real question: What TF is a "socialist?" You guys know, apparently what it isn't. What I'm not hearing from you is what it is.

This argument isn't about how "pure" I am. It's about how oblivious everyone else is to the socialism that has crept into our system, and continues to creep in.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 12:05 PM
It is socialized defense, yes.

A lot of the industry run by the central governement in China is run through their military. Does that change it's nature to something other than socialism?

But if you want a different example, how about the early US government taxing the people and using the money to pay for lighthouses, roads and canals (http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/St-Tr/Taxation-Public-Finance-and-Public-Debt.html). Socialized maritime safety and transportation infrastructure.

You haven't a clue what socialism is then.:eek:

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 12:06 PM
This new definition is at odds with the "just one drop" definition of socialism you and Taco were espousing earlier in the thread.

Where did I say that?
What is this "new" definition?

Taco John
03-24-2008, 12:07 PM
It is socialized defense, yes.

Ok. You call it socialized defense. I can accept that. So you believe that our defense system is a socialist system, correct?

patteeu
03-24-2008, 12:09 PM
Ok. You call it socialized defense. I can accept that. So you believe that our defense system is a socialist system, correct?

Yes.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 12:17 PM
On what basis is the question absurd? You insist that you're not a socialist, though you support socialist programs. Why would it be absurd to try and determine a threshold?

Here's the real question: What TF is a "socialist?" You guys know, apparently what it isn't. What I'm not hearing from you is what it is.

This argument isn't about how "pure" I am. It's about how oblivious everyone else is to the socialism that has crept into our system, and continues to creep in.


Socialism, generally, is a socio-economic system in which the government (or workers, in some cases) controls either or both of property and the distribution of wealth within a society. A socialist is one who supports such an socio-economic system.

There are, however, degrees of socialism -- the way from Communism to social democrats as exemplified in Britain early this century.

Ultimately, however, if you don't advocate nationalizing certain industries, and/or truly pervasive socialist doctrines relating to the redistribution of wealth and/or central planning, then you're probably not a socialist. You may support certain socialist programs and not be a socialist, just as a Democrat may support certain Republican candidates (or vice versa) and not be a member of the opposing party.

Pure capitalism has never existed in the hsitory of the world, so the definition that you adopt as socialism is meaningless -- EVERYBODY would be socialist. What's the point of htat. You might as well say "all non-Libertarian humans" or something.

I would argue that a socialist is someone who

Taco John
03-24-2008, 12:18 PM
Yes.


So then what are you finding disagreement with me on then? I'm confused.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 12:19 PM
Yes.

I would disagree. Defense isn't socialism, although it has some socialistic asepcts (government directed central planning being a big one). The reason I take it outside socialism is because government doesn't own the means of production, and I don't view national military defense as being either an economic system unto itself.

I suppose you could argue that defense is "nationalized" to the extent it has central planning and the government decides, through the awarding of military contracts, the distribution of wealth, but it doesn't really fit within my concept of socialism very well.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 12:20 PM
This new definition is at odds with the "just one drop" definition of socialism you and Taco were espousing earlier in the thread.

Please post my "one drop" definition.
And point out where I used it considering my full archive not one post out of context.
Get to work. I'll be back to grade it.

patteeu
03-24-2008, 12:25 PM
So then what are you finding disagreement with me on then? I'm confused.

I pointed out that the drafters of the constitution contemplated and authorized some level of socialism in response to what I perceived to be your "one drop" definition of "socialist". By "one drop" I'm referring to your analogy to the child molester. If one molested child makes you a child molester and by analogy favoring any socialism makes you a socialist, then the drafters of the constitution must have been socialists (even if they were against the vast majority of socialistic practices). That's all. I just thought you were going too far with your definition.

patteeu
03-24-2008, 12:32 PM
I would disagree. Defense isn't socialism, although it has some socialistic asepcts (government directed central planning being a big one). The reason I take it outside socialism is because government doesn't own the means of production, and I don't view national military defense as being either an economic system unto itself.

I suppose you could argue that defense is "nationalized" to the extent it has central planning and the government decides, through the awarding of military contracts, the distribution of wealth, but it doesn't really fit within my concept of socialism very well.

That's a reasonable argument, although aren't the military's soldiers, seamen and marines the labor that produces the intangible product of defense and isn't control over that labor force the same as controlling the means of production for the defense product to a large degree? I freely acknowledge, of course, that much of the equipment used by the military is produced by private enterprise though.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 12:38 PM
I pointed out that the drafters of the constitution contemplated and authorized some level of socialism in response to what I perceived to be your "one drop" definition of "socialist".

So then... How many "drops" does it take? I can't get a straight answer from anyone on that. I'm more than happy to yield that it takes more than socialized defense and roads to make one a socialist. Though at least we agree on principle that these things *are* in fact, socialist. FOr my part, though, I see them as legitimate functions of government.

But that's not the issue. The issue is where the line is drawn.

For me, its the programatic "SPREADING" of the wealth under the auspices of security and equality... Welfare. Social Security. Socialized Medicine. I would say that if you support two of these three, you can reasonably be considered a socialist.

Would you disagree?

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 12:40 PM
That's a reasonable argument, although aren't the military's soldiers, seamen and marines the labor that produces the intangible product of defense and isn't control over that labor force the same as controlling the means of production for the defense product to a large degree? I freely acknowledge, of course, that much of the equipment used by the military is produced by private enterprise though.

Yes. I do see your argument, and it's not a bad one. Especially in the context of the US military, which is massive and relates to an impressive amount of American GDP.

Given the centralized planning of our military-defense industry, and the fact that the Pentagon effectively controls the distribution of wealth, your argument isn't without some validity.

I just can't seem to square my brain around the military as being a socialistic enterprise, however. Perhaps because it's not designed as an economic system primarily, but rather has an entirely different purpose altogether.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 12:41 PM
For me, its the programatic "SPREADING" of the wealth under the auspices of security and equality... Welfare. Social Security. Socialized Medicine. I would say that if you support two of these three, you can reasonably be considered a socialist.

Would you disagree?


I know this is pointed more at Pat, but I'll answer anyway (for myself at least). Yes, I would disagree.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 12:49 PM
I know this is pointed more at Pat, but I'll answer anyway (for myself at least). Yes, I would disagree.


Indeed. You've yet to give any sort of standard in which a person could reasonably be called a socialist.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 12:56 PM
Indeed. You've yet to give any sort of standard in which a person could reasonably be called a socialist.

Not everything in the world is subject to a bright-line test.

I would say that you are clearly a socialist if you argue for complete governmental control (i.e. government ownership) over the means of production, or extensive nationalization of key industries.

You are also a socialist if you argue for pervasive government control (i.e. regulation) over the means of production or the distribution of wealth within society (this is effectively where teh Nazis were -- personal property rights and individual ownership of the means of production, but subject to massive and overwhelming governmental controls.

After that, it falls into shades of gray. France is pretty socialist, as are the Scandanavian countries. Britain was fairly socialistic, but has lightened up. America has never been socialist, although it's had some socialist programs.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 12:57 PM
Further to my last -- I am not a socialist because I do not support the nationalization of any industry, pervasive government controls over industry, or the distribution of wealth within society. I do advocate some programs that have socialistic aspects to offset the harshness of capitalism, which has many benefits, but is also a very unforgiving system.

patteeu
03-24-2008, 01:00 PM
So then... How many "drops" does it take? I can't get a straight answer from anyone on that. I'm more than happy to yield that it takes more than socialized defense and roads to make one a socialist. Though at least we agree on principle that these things *are* in fact, socialist. FOr my part, though, I see them as legitimate functions of government.

But that's not the issue. The issue is where the line is drawn.

For me, its the programatic "SPREADING" of the wealth under the auspices of security and equality... Welfare. Social Security. Socialized Medicine. I would say that if you support two of these three, you can reasonably be considered a socialist.

Would you disagree?

I would rather talk about whether a person is trying to take us in a direction of increased socialism (e.g. President Bush's prescription drug program) or decreased socialism (e.g. President Bush's modest proposal to redirect an almost trivial portion of SS to personal accounts) than establish a test for exactly when a person officially becomes a socialist (which is probably an impossible task anyway). But I don't want to be too much of a hypocrite here; I know I've called people (like penchief) socialists before too.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 01:03 PM
I would rather talk about whether a person is trying to take us in a direction of increased socialism (e.g. President Bush's prescription drug program) or decreased socialism (e.g. President Bush's modest proposal to redirect an almost trivial portion of SS to personal accounts) than establish a test for exactly when a person officially becomes a socialist (which is probably an impossible task anyway). But I don't want to be too much of a hypocrite here; I know I've called people (like penchief) socialists before too.

As an aside, Pat, your sig, which amuses me and I hadn't noticed before, is pretty good, but hwo in the HELL does Mitt Romney get off saying that when he has no more experience than Obama/Hillary?

If McCain said it, I'd have a far different outlook on it.

I also note, of course, that Hillary/Obama (and Romney for that matter) have as much national defense, etc. experience/knowledge as George Bush did prior to becoming POTUS.

banyon
03-24-2008, 01:08 PM
I'd still like to get your answer on how many socialist programs a person has to support before they can be called a socialist...

How many government programs do you have to oppose before you can be called an anarchist?

patteeu
03-24-2008, 01:08 PM
As an aside, Pat, your sig, which amuses me and I hadn't noticed before, is pretty good, but hwo in the HELL does Mitt Romney get off saying that when he has no more experience than Obama/Hillary?

If McCain said it, I'd have a far different outlook on it.

I also note, of course, that Hillary/Obama (and Romney for that matter) have as much national defense, etc. experience/knowledge as George Bush did prior to becoming POTUS.

Two things:

1. Mitt Romney doesn't have foreign policy experience, but he's an insightful observer, and

2. Let's hope that the democratic nominee, whether Obama or Hillary, picks a VP with the foreign policy gravitas of Dick Cheney. :thumb:

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 01:09 PM
Two things:

1. Mitt Romney doesn't have foreign policy experience, but he's an insightful observer, and

2. Let's hope that the democratic nominee, whether Obama or Hillary, picks a VP with the foreign policy gravitas of Dick Cheney. :thumb:

1. he could just as easily been observing what he saw in a mirror...

2. Yes, except, you know, smarter and with fewer axes to grind....

mlyonsd
03-24-2008, 01:11 PM
How many government programs do you have to oppose before you can be called an anarchist?

Hold on, let me check. Nine, yes definitely nine.

This is an interesting conversation btw.

Donger
03-24-2008, 01:29 PM
How many government programs do you have to oppose before you can be called an anarchist?

666, of course.

banyon
03-24-2008, 01:30 PM
666, of course.

ROFL

Taco John
03-24-2008, 02:26 PM
How many government programs do you have to oppose before you can be called an anarchist?

All of them.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 02:29 PM
I would say that you are clearly a socialist if you argue for complete governmental control (i.e. government ownership) over the means of production, or extensive nationalization of key industries.

That's communism.

banyon
03-24-2008, 02:34 PM
That's communism.

Communism requires central planning.

Logical
03-24-2008, 02:45 PM
666, of course.
Now that was a genuinely funny answer.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 02:45 PM
I use the writings of Marx as a guide for how much socialism we have.
It can be applied directly in outright ownership by the state of the major means of production or indirectly. This chart, based on Marx's Ten Planks, shows how many planks we have. But this doesn't show all. It doesn't show cultural Marxism. Anyhow, it shows quite a bit more than being socialist lite or just agreeing with some points of it. That and the fact that the left is pushing for more. Oh and btw, Stalin used supply-side economics at one point too.

banyon
03-24-2008, 02:55 PM
All of them.

Heh, you want different standards to apply to you I guess. No kidding. Why isn't it all or nothing like you want for socialism? Either you support government programs or you are an anarchist. You know, those kinds standards.

patteeu
03-24-2008, 02:59 PM
Oh and btw, Stalin used supply-side economics at one point too.

Jesus advocated a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" way of life.

So what?

You know, I'm not even sure you know what supply-side economics is.

banyon
03-24-2008, 03:03 PM
I use the writings of Marx as a guide for how much socialism we have.
It can be applied directly in outright ownership by the state of the major means of production or indirectly. This chart, based on Marx's Ten Planks, shows how many planks we have. But this doesn't show all. It doesn't show cultural Marxism. Anyhow, it shows quite a bit more than being socialist lite or just agreeing with some points of it. That and the fact that the left is pushing for more. Oh and btw, Stalin used supply-side economics at one point too.

LOL at "this chart" It's just a pie chart with 10 pieces.

You keep saying that, but it was debunked quite some time ago in this forum (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=168849&highlight=planks+manifesto&page=3).

Taco John
03-24-2008, 03:04 PM
Communism requires central planning.


I know.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 03:05 PM
Jesus advocated a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" way of life.

So what?
Christ was talking about personal acts for salvation. He was not talking about govt because of his render under to Caesear what is Caesars line. No comparison there. But I find it interesting that a lefty on another board used the same argument to defend socialism.

You know, I'm not even sure you know what supply-side economics is.
I do. I used to be one. However, I got the Stalin tid-bit from the Mises site. Do they not know what it is too? No. Stalin had to adjust communism to make it work. Just as we adjust socialism to make it work too. Hence supply-side. We live in the Third Way today.

banyon
03-24-2008, 03:06 PM
I know.

Try to get those neurons to connect with the other neurons then that read Amnorix's definition.

patteeu
03-24-2008, 03:18 PM
Christ was talking about personal acts for salvation. He was not talking about govt because of his render under to Caesear what is Caesars line. No comparison there. But I find it interesting that a lefty on another board used the same argument to defend socialism.

Like I said, so what? Neither Jesus' communistic approach to life, nor Stalin's economic policies (some of which you claim, without explanation, to have been supply-side based) are reasons to endorse or reject communism or supply-side theories.

I do. I used to be one. However, I got the Stalin tid-bit from the Mises site. Do they not know what it is too? No. Stalin had to adjust communism to make it work. Just as we adjust socialism to make it work too. Hence supply-side. We live in the Third Way today.

I can't take your word for these things because you've been so wrong so often. I still don't know what you mean by supply-side because you refuse to offer specific critiques. I don't have an opinion about whether unidentified contributors to the Mises site understand supply-side or not.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 03:19 PM
Heh, you want different standards to apply to you I guess. No kidding. Why isn't it all or nothing like you want for socialism? Either you support government programs or you are an anarchist. You know, those kinds standards.


That's pretty simple to answer. The definition of anarchy is the absence of *any* government. So in order to be an anarchist, you would have to favor the absence of *any* government.

But if you want to call me an anarchist, feel free. I would absolutely love to live in a society where government wasn't necessary, and all problems were dealt with by locals. I don't think that it's practical, though, as I don't believe our consiousness has evolved to the point where that environment would be stable. Likewise, I don't think our consiousness has evolved enough to give individuals in government the amount of power that socialist progressives have given, without seeing a system rife with corruption.

This is why I'm a small government guy. Anarchists see me as a posuer because I'm happy to go along with things like voucher programs, and privatized compulsory social security. I'd just as soon see these programs left in the hands of parents altogether, but progress is progress... I'll take what I can get.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 03:30 PM
That's communism.

Communism is the ultimate end result of total socialism. But if you have nationalized certain key industries, that's not communism. Heck, that's 1970 Britain.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 03:31 PM
I use the writings of Marx as a guide for how much socialism we have.
It can be applied directly in outright ownership by the state of the major means of production or indirectly. This chart, based on Marx's Ten Planks, shows how many planks we have. But this doesn't show all. It doesn't show cultural Marxism. Anyhow, it shows quite a bit more than being socialist lite or just agreeing with some points of it. That and the fact that the left is pushing for more. Oh and btw, Stalin used supply-side economics at one point too.

Where did you get the 10 planks?

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 03:32 PM
Like I said, so what? Neither Jesus' communistic approach to life, nor Stalin's economic policies (some of which you claim, without explanation, to have been supply-side based) are reasons to endorse or reject communism or supply-side theories.You don't explain everything either. You never explained, let alone show a quote, how Mises acknowledge the Laugher-curve. Now don't project again. I was just trying to make a brief post not a long academic one at that moment and here on Stalin. If you want I can get you the article. I have no problem with that. You think everyone has all day to screw off and do research and collect data for a freekin' mb.

Oh and Christ wasn't a communist. That's liberation theology.

I can't take your word for these things because you've been so wrong so often. I still don't know what you mean by supply-side because you refuse to offer specific critiques. I don't have an opinion about whether unidentified contributors to the Mises site understand supply-side or not.
I am not wrong. I just read more libertarian economics than you do. But you're entitled to your opinion. Fact is I have done specific critiques with you in the past on it. I just get tired of rehashing the same points. Then again my post in the other thread about Mises was only about whether Mises endorsed the Laffer curve. That was very specific. You just wanted someone to argue the specifics of the Laffer curve when my post was specifically and only addressed to your claims about Mises stand on it. I wasn't interested in debating the Laffer curve. That's my choice. But don't let your baiting attempts and ego get in the way too much on that or your straw man claims.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 03:34 PM
LOL at "this chart" It's just a pie chart with 10 pieces.

You keep saying that, but it was debunked quite some time ago in this forum (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=168849&highlight=planks+manifesto&page=3).


Wow. You destroyed this whole line of argument before. 6/10 my ass.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 03:48 PM
Communism is the ultimate end result of total socialism. But if you have nationalized certain key industries, that's not communism. Heck, that's 1970 Britain.


Yes, I know. That's what I've said. Socialism isn't the end. It's the means to an end, that end being communism. You're taking the stuff that I've said and presenting them to me as if you are telling me anything new. What you're not telling me is why someone who advocates for socialism cannot be reasonably called a socialist.

Nationalized health care for example. You've stated in this very thread that nationalizing an industry is socialism. So why is it unreasonable to call someone who calls for the nationalization of health care a socialist (i.e. someone who advocates socialism)? If you're advocating for the nationalization of the health care system, you are advocating for socializing it, no? So what's the problem here?

I contend that it's not unreasonable at all.

It's like a thing with the left. Just today in the news you can find stories about how Barack Obama is trying to escape the term "liberal" in favor of the term "progressive." Sure, sure sure... You're not socialists... You're just in favor of "progressing" down that path... which leads to what again? Oh, that's right:

Communism is the ultimate end result of total socialism.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 04:07 PM
Yes, I know. That's what I've said. Socialism isn't the end. It's the means to an end, that end being communism. You're taking the stuff that I've said and presenting them to me as if you are telling me anything new. What you're not telling me is why someone who advocates for socialism cannot be reasonably called a socialist.

*sigh*

Nationalized health care for example. You've stated in this very thread that nationalizing an industry is socialism. So why is it unreasonable to call someone who calls for the nationalization of health care a socialist (i.e. someone who advocates socialism)? If you're advocating for the nationalization of the health care system, you are advocating for socializing it, no? So what's the problem here?

First, I don't advocate for the nationalization of health care. For that matter, neither did Hillary Clinton in 1993. The Clintons universal health care proposal was a market based proposal. Yes, there was more governmental involvement, but it was NOT nationalized health care.

Further, I'm not entirely sure that suggesting the nationalization of ONE industry would qualify you as a socialist, but it would put you on the path, no doubt about it.

P.S., I don't advocate the nationalization of ANY industry, FWIW.

It's like a thing with the left. Just today in the news you can find stories about how Barack Obama is trying to escape the term "liberal" in favor of the term "progressive." Sure, sure sure... You're not socialists... You're just in favor of "progressing" down that path... which leads to what again? Oh, that's right:

Your slippery slope argument is weak, IMHO, though I'm not about to make this an argument about Obama's policy initiatives, about which I know relatively little.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 04:46 PM
The Clintons universal health care proposal was a market based proposal.

Her proposal was compulsory insurance. Insurance by force. You WILL pay for insurance, and your local healthcare providers WILL have to abide by a fee schedule as centrally planned by our task force here in DC. And if you can't afford it by standards that are determined centrally here in DC, then you will be getting it all for free.

It's the American way of nationalizing an industry. Put a market face on compulsory participation, and then regulate the hell out of the industry that the public is now invested in. Marxism isn't the only brand of socialism there is. In America, our central planners set up the rules of the game, and then force our markets to compete in a heavily regulated framework. When they come back complaining that they can't make it now, government bails them out with more of the people's money. Don't tell me that there is no nationalized industries when government is subsidizing and heavily regulating every one of them that they can possibly sink their hooks into.



Yes, there was more governmental involvement, but it was NOT nationalized health care.

Maybe not nationalized, but definitely socialized. Damn near nationalized when you consider the amount of regulation that has to go into such a program. And that's without factoring the regulation that comes in order to "fix" the problems that the original regulation caused.


Further, I'm not entirely sure that suggesting the nationalization of ONE industry would qualify you as a socialist, but it would put you on the path, no doubt about it.

That's why I conceeded that you'd have to support 2 out of 3 major socialist programs in order to be reasonably termed a socialist.


P.S., I don't advocate the nationalization of ANY industry, FWIW.

No liberal does. They're just in favor of "regulating" the hell out of them. Same difference, IMO. Over-regulation = government ownership



Your slippery slope argument is weak, IMHO, though I'm not about to make this an argument about Obama's policy initiatives, about which I know relatively little.

The slippery slope argument couldn't be weak. You said yourself that communism is the end goal of socialism. That statement is all I need to keep the argument afloat.

Logical
03-24-2008, 04:50 PM
Jesus advocated a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" way of life.

So what?

You know, I'm not even sure you know what supply-side economics is.
I am guessing that this thread has made the baby Jesus cry.

a1na2
03-24-2008, 06:48 PM
I am guessing that this thread has made the baby Jesus cry.

You don't believe in Jesus, why would you worry about something like that?

Taco John
03-24-2008, 10:10 PM
P.S., I don't advocate the nationalization of ANY industry, FWIW.


I take it, then, that you are a proponent of private schooling and the abolishment of the Department of Education?

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 10:51 PM
I know you're having a discussion with Amnorix TJ but I saw this over at Lew's about socialism and free-market capitalism. I've said this before myself. So I think he's right.


he Anti-Capitalistic Mentality
Posted by Lew Rockwell at March 24, 2008 08:48 PM

Writes Randy R. Davila: "I have come to the conclusion that my generation has lost complete hope for free market capitalism. I'm 20 years old and I have friends from 30 years to 18 years old, and not but one, maybe two has agreed in the power of free markets.

This, I believe, is in direct response to public schools. For as long as I can remember, my teachers in high school praised centralized government - socialism, I even had a two teachers who believed in communism. Communism! They would defend it saying that the Russians didn't do it right, the U.S. could make it work. Oh and FDR, the greatest president ever in their minds. I honestly think that in my entire schooling that not one teacher talked negatively of FDR. The New Deal apparently was god's gift to the U.S. And I think it's just getting worse, our public schools are raising generations of socialist. Does capitalism stand a chance? Oh, and I credit Professor Christopher Scott for helping straighten me out. See his blog.

a1na2
03-24-2008, 11:09 PM
I take it, then, that you are a proponent of private schooling and the abolishment of the Department of Education?

I wouldn't abolish the department of education, I'd hold them responsible for doing their farking jobs!

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 07:08 AM
I take it, then, that you are a proponent of private schooling and the abolishment of the Department of Education?

As far as I know, public schooling is a state-level program which has some national supervision or something by the Department of Education. I'm not at all sure what the DoE does, to tell you the truth.

I think our public school system is more or less a disaster. I would be in favor of dramatic reform -- and since I don't really know what the DoE does I can't say whether I'd support abolishing it but it's entirely possible. Universal schooling in some form or fashion still needs to be on the table.

Do you seriously suggest eliminating free schooling in America? What is your plan for educating poor children in that event?

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 07:10 AM
I know you're having a discussion with Amnorix TJ but I saw this over at Lew's about socialism and free-market capitalism. I've said this before myself. So I think he's right.


I don't recall any of my public school teachers advocating any particular economic system at all.

And, unfortunately, neither did they praise or denigrate FDR much -- because we almost invariably ended US history BEFORE World War II, which I remember vividly as it's my favorite historical subject. They did discuss the depression and the New Deal to some relatively minimal extent (they were rushing at that point), but their praise or criticism is lost to me now.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 07:10 AM
I wouldn't abolish the department of education, I'd hold them responsible for doing their farking jobs!


You have no idea if they're doing their jobs or not, and neither do I. I suspect most here, like me, have no clue what the DoE is really supposed to be doing in the first place.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 07:20 AM
All the prior stuff (re healthcare) -- agree to disagree.


No liberal does. They're just in favor of "regulating" the hell out of them. Same difference, IMO. Over-regulation = government ownership

I generally favor minimal regulation where possible, but certainly recognize that national regulation can be alot better for companeis than a hodgepodge of state regulations. A company with manufacturing facilities in 4 states probably prefers one set of regulations to 4.

I also recognize that companies are in business to make a profit for their shareholders, and that the limits on thier conduct are basically law and liability and not much else. Read The Jungle if you want to know how companies used to act before there was regulation.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 07:23 AM
The slippery slope argument couldn't be weak. You said yourself that communism is the end goal of socialism. That statement is all I need to keep the argument afloat.

No, I said communism is one end of the socialist spectrum. One edge (or end) of a continuum of possibilities along the socialist chart of possibiltiies.

If (1) you advocate that Communism is the end goal of socialism, and (2) we all agree that socialists are people that advocate socialism, and (3) you advocate that Pat, Banyon, I and probably everyone on here other than BEP is a socialist, then aren't you also saying we're communists?

(sorry to show how silly your logic is when you put the pieces together and take it to its final conclusion).

patteeu
03-25-2008, 07:24 AM
I don't recall any of my public school teachers advocating any particular economic system at all.

And, unfortunately, neither did they praise or denigrate FDR much -- because we almost invariably ended US history BEFORE World War II, which I remember vividly as it's my favorite historical subject. They did discuss the depression and the New Deal to some relatively minimal extent (they were rushing at that point), but their praise or criticism is lost to me now.

Yeah, most of my public school history focused on the Revolutionary War and the Civil War with a healthy dose of the westward expansion. We barely talked about 19th century history at all.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 07:38 AM
Yeah, most of my public school history focused on the Revolutionary War and the Civil War with a healthy dose of the westward expansion. We barely talked about 19th century history at all.


Right, though you meant 20th century history.

I covered the Revolutionary War and Civil War every year of my public school life, I think, and I **KNOW** for a fact that we never, ever got to Vietnam. I think we hit WWII once.

And people wonder why kids don't know modern US history -- because it's NOT TAUGHT!

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 07:46 AM
This is from the DoE's website:


ED was created in 1980 by combining offices from several federal agencies. ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. ED's 4,500 employees and $71.5 billion budget are dedicated to:
• Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
• Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research.
• Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
• Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.

http://www.ed.gov/about/landing.jhtml?src=gu

Based on this, I note:

1. it's budget is fairly small (about 2.3% of the federal budget). Not sure if the $71 billion includes amounts to be disbursed pursuant to the funding initiatives they oversee.

2. I generally support the goals they cite as their own, and see these as properly within the federal government's duties to ensure our global competitiveness.


Frankly, if you want better school systems, we should revamp everything about public schools, starting with de-unionizing teachers.

patteeu
03-25-2008, 07:47 AM
Right, though you meant 20th century history.

I covered the Revolutionary War and Civil War every year of my public school life, I think, and I **KNOW** for a fact that we never, ever got to Vietnam. I think we hit WWII once.

And people wonder why kids don't know modern US history -- because it's NOT TAUGHT!

Doh! Right. :redface:

ChiefaRoo
03-25-2008, 07:58 AM
Just for the record. I still think this thread is not only boring but innacurate. It's obvious that Peanut lives in a world much different than any member of Chiefs Planet.... I'm just sayin' :)

banyon
03-25-2008, 08:33 AM
As far as I know, public schooling is a state-level program which has some national supervision or something by the Department of Education. I'm not at all sure what the DoE does, to tell you the truth.

I think our public school system is more or less a disaster. I would be in favor of dramatic reform -- and since I don't really know what the DoE does I can't say whether I'd support abolishing it but it's entirely possible. Universal schooling in some form or fashion still needs to be on the table.
Do you seriously suggest eliminating free schooling in America? What is your plan for educating poor children in that event?

They want abolishment, but when asked which countries' kids are testing better than ours, ones with nationalized education or ones with "decentralized unfunded education", all you get is *crickets*

pikesome
03-25-2008, 08:51 AM
Just for the record. I still think this thread is not only boring but innacurate. It's obvious that Peanut lives in a world much different than any member of Chiefs Planet.... I'm just sayin' :)

I think it's safe to say that there are a bunch of people in the DC like that.

pikesome
03-25-2008, 09:06 AM
Frankly, if you want better school systems, we should revamp everything about public schools, starting with de-unionizing teachers.

In my experience school's are screwed at the local level. Every time I've had or seen a problem it's been local. Throw in the intellectual arrogance teachers seem to get upon graduation... I wonder how anyone learns anything.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 09:29 AM
Just for the record. I still think this thread is not only boring but innacurate. It's obvious that Peanut lives in a world much different than any member of Chiefs Planet.... I'm just sayin' :)



Just for the record. I still think that you're a simpleton who couldn't hold his own in a real political discussion if one of the raisins you call testicles depended on it. The best part is that you think that you're some sort of universally respected contributor around here.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 09:31 AM
As far as I know, public schooling is a state-level program which has some national supervision or something by the Department of Education. I'm not at all sure what the DoE does, to tell you the truth.

Central planning...

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 09:58 AM
Central planning...


See my subsequent post. I don't believe public schools are subject to central planning based on the DoE's website, but I'm not sure how pervasive the regulations are.

Nor am I sure that central planning is bad in this regard either. Certain if it said something like "high school students upon graduation should have received education with respect to geometry, trigonometry, chemistry, biology" etc., then that's hardly objectionable.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 10:10 AM
See my subsequent post. I don't believe public schools are subject to central planning based on the DoE's website, but I'm not sure how pervasive the regulations are.

Nor am I sure that central planning is bad in this regard either. Certain if it said something like "high school students upon graduation should have received education with respect to geometry, trigonometry, chemistry, biology" etc., then that's hardly objectionable.



I didn't imagine that you'd think central planning in this regard (or actually any) would be bad. The rationalization of it is pretty weak though. Apparently the belief here is that independent schools are too stupid not to teach geometry, trigonometry, chemistry, biology, etc. Only public schools with nationally planned cirriculums can achieve this.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 10:18 AM
I didn't imagine that you'd think central planning in this regard (or actually any) would be bad.

Central planning for economic output or the means of industry are proven bad. Don't be an idiot, and never put words in my mouth, thankyouverymuch.

The rationalization of it is pretty weak though. Apparently the belief here is that independent schools are too stupid not to teach geometry, trigonometry, chemistry, biology, etc. Only public schools with nationally planned cirriculums can achieve this.

I'm hypothesizing that a low-level, general statement or requirement as to meeting basic requirements would not be harmful.

What type of educational system do you support?

Taco John
03-25-2008, 10:36 AM
What type of educational system do you support?


A completely decentralized free-market educational system.

pikesome
03-25-2008, 10:41 AM
A completely decentralized free-market educational system.

So if you're poor you get shit?

I don't like the Ed system either, hate it in fact, but the idea of, at least, a basic education for everyone is good. We're just screwing up the implementation.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 11:01 AM
A completely decentralized free-market educational system.


Great. Could you describe that a little bit?

And confirm for me that in your view, children of the poor will be left on the streets to their own devices, which I'm sure won't have any societal costs at all....

Taco John
03-25-2008, 11:19 AM
So if you're poor you get shit?

I don't like the Ed system either, hate it in fact, but the idea of, at least, a basic education for everyone is good. We're just screwing up the implementation.



Yeah. I think we should round up all the poor and piss on them... :rolleyes:

Taco John
03-25-2008, 11:25 AM
Great. Could you describe that a little bit?

And confirm for me that in your view, children of the poor will be left on the streets to their own devices, which I'm sure won't have any societal costs at all....



Why don't we just kill the children of poor people? Wouldn't that make things so much easier... :rolleyes:

It's incredible to me how brainwashed you people are on this subject. If government isn't providing, then the streets will surely be littered with diseased or dumb children! Oh my!

pikesome
03-25-2008, 11:26 AM
Yeah. I think we should round up all the poor and piss on them... :rolleyes:

That's not a good idea, IMHO.

Oh, you were being sarcastic? It might serve your argument better if you explained how people from poor families who don't shoulder the cost of their education now would get said education under your "free-market" plan. Or you could argue that we don't need to educate the people who would fit in to the category of "can't afford it if the Gov doesn't pay for it". All that seems to be a more fruitful tact than asinine sarcasm.

pikesome
03-25-2008, 11:27 AM
Why don't we just kill the children of poor people? Wouldn't that make things so much easier... :rolleyes:

It's incredible to me how brainwashed you people are on this subject. If government isn't providing, then the streets will surely be littered with diseased or dumb children! Oh my!

If the government isn't providing where is it coming from?

A simple question.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 11:45 AM
That's not a good idea, IMHO.

Oh, you were being sarcastic? It might serve your argument better if you explained how people from poor families who don't shoulder the cost of their education now would get said education under your "free-market" plan. Or you could argue that we don't need to educate the people who would fit in to the category of "can't afford it if the Gov doesn't pay for it". All that seems to be a more fruitful tact than asinine sarcasm.


Asinine sarcasm is merited when asinine assertions are made.

If local people don't want to see uneducated kids loitering their streets, what do you suppose they might do? Oh, I see... You want me to come up with a "one size fits all" solution. Well here it is: if you're all that concerned about it, then get involved. There is an infinite amount of solutions to ensure that everyone in America has access to education. They range everywhere from scholarships, to special needs programs, to charity, and on...

"One size fits all" education does nothing but homogenize it, and ultimately drag the quality of the education down. When you lower the educational standards through the mechanism of a dysfunctional system, you do a disservice to everybody involved.

Nobody who wants an education is going to be left on the streets without one.

banyon
03-25-2008, 11:59 AM
Nobody who wants an education is going to be left on the streets without one.

What's to ensure this?

Before there was free public education, children in the streets or laboring was exactly what we had.

pikesome
03-25-2008, 12:02 PM
Asinine sarcasm is merited when asinine assertions are made.

If local people don't want to see uneducated kids loitering their streets, what do you suppose they might do? Oh, I see... You want me to come up with a "one size fits all" solution. Well here it is: if you're all that concerned about it, then get involved. There is an infinite amount of solutions to ensure that everyone in America has access to education. They range everywhere from scholarships, to special needs programs, to charity, and on...

"One size fits all" education does nothing but homogenize it, and ultimately drag the quality of the education down. When you lower the educational standards through the mechanism of a dysfunctional system, you do a disservice to everybody involved.

Nobody who wants an education is going to be left on the streets without one.

What's "one size" about our current system? Most of the major choices are made at the local level. Monies budgeted, curriculum planned, teachers hired. The Feds kick in cash and set limits/rules on it's use (which I'm not big on either). They don't hire a football coach as the Superindent of Special Ed so he can get max pay, a coach who, besides not winning the state championship he was brought in for, got caught giving horse tranqs to players. Or what about the "no black kids in our schools" mess. It wasn't the Feds that ended up as the problem. They were the solution to a local problem.

It's not perfect, what we have, but providing everyone with at least a basic education is far superior than a system that guarentees a significant number of people won't or can't get something. I'd love to have more choice, better/less whinny teachers, a whole host of things but universal school isn't something I'm ready to kill.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 12:22 PM
Why don't we just kill the children of poor people? Wouldn't that make things so much easier... :rolleyes:

It's incredible to me how brainwashed you people are on this subject. If government isn't providing, then the streets will surely be littered with diseased or dumb children! Oh my!


You scoff, but you are also avoiding the question. WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER.

This isn't 1850 where 80% or whatever of Americans worked on farms. With all the two parent working families and the lack of ability to home parent, and given the economic situation of most families, I would like to hear your SERIOUS proposal about how the hell you plan to educate future Americans.

And feel free to mention even ONE industrialized country that uses whatever system you propose...so we can consider it a serious possibility and not the diseased imaginings of your fringe political views.

banyon
03-25-2008, 12:36 PM
Asi
If local people don't want to see uneducated kids loitering their streets, what do you suppose they might do? Oh, I see... You want me to come up with a "one size fits all" solution. Well here it is: if you're all that concerned about it, then get involved. There is an infinite amount of solutions to ensure that everyone in America has access to education. They range everywhere from scholarships, to special needs programs, to charity, and on...

"One size fits all" education does nothing but homogenize it, and ultimately drag the quality of the education down. When you lower the educational standards through the mechanism of a dysfunctional system, you do a disservice to everybody involved.
.


Also, nearly all public education in this country is done and paid for on the county level (through property taxes), RIGHT NOW. Are you proposing that we let smaller units than counties make these decision? Some counties only have 1 school or share with other counties. Should it be decided on a "per street" or "quarter square mile" or "city block" level?

ChiefaRoo
03-25-2008, 12:38 PM
Just for the record. I still think that you're a simpleton who couldn't hold his own in a real political discussion if one of the raisins you call testicles depended on it. The best part is that you think that you're some sort of universally respected contributor around here.

Taco,

1) I'm smarter than you
2) I have a better education than you
3) I have done and seen stuff you most likely have not experienced yet and most likely never will do.
4) I don't care what you think
5) If you said that to my face, I might just break some part of your nasal cavity. No on second thought I take it back. What I would do is have a guy do it for me as I don't want to get your blood on my shirt.

By the way I know who my friends are on this board. Guess what, they're smarter than you as well.

Now, hit the gym and run some of that baby fat off boy.

banyon
03-25-2008, 12:39 PM
And feel free to mention even ONE industrialized country that uses whatever system you propose...so we can consider it a serious possibility and not the diseased imaginings of your fringe political views.

Heh,i tried to tell you what to expect on that question:

They want abolishment, but when asked which countries' kids are testing better than ours, ones with nationalized education or ones with "decentralized unfunded education", all you get is *crickets*

Taco John
03-25-2008, 12:54 PM
And feel free to mention even ONE industrialized country that uses whatever system you propose...so we can consider it a serious possibility and not the diseased imaginings of your fringe political views.


Oh please... :rolleyes:

I'm an American. An innovator. I don't GAF what other industrialized countries do. I care about innovating so that we are better than they are.

I'll leave the hand wringing about how France operates its schools to you.

pikesome
03-25-2008, 12:58 PM
Oh please... :rolleyes:

I'm an American. An innovator. I don't GAF what other industrialized countries do. I care about innovating so that we are better than they are.

I'll leave the hand wringing about how France operates its schools to you.

How about mentioning circumstances where these ideas have worked? Large, small scale, it doesn't matter. How do other countries do it compared to us? Do they get it right? Wrong? Why?

We need a bit more than "'cause Taco says it'll work".

Taco John
03-25-2008, 01:00 PM
Taco,

1) I'm smarter than you
2) I have a better education than you
3) I have done and seen stuff you most likely have not experienced yet and most likely never will do.
4) I don't care what you think
5) If you said that to my face, I might just break some part of your nasal cavity. No on second thought I take it back. What I would do is have a guy do it for me as I don't want to get your blood on my shirt.

By the way I know who my friends are on this board. Guess what, they're smarter than you as well.

Now, hit the gym and run some of that baby fat off boy.


You need to hug the little boy inside and tell him that it's all ok. There's no need to overcompensate the way you do if all of this is true...

Taco John
03-25-2008, 01:01 PM
Are you proposing that we let smaller units than counties make these decision?

Yes. They're called "parents."

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 01:01 PM
Oh please... :rolleyes:

I'm an American. An innovator. I don't GAF what other industrialized countries do. I care about innovating so that we are better than they are.

I'll leave the hand wringing about how France operates its schools to you.


Ok, innovate. Give me your proposal. Any kind of details will do, since they'd be more than the broad-brush "market-based solution" or whatever useless phrase you threw at us before.

Unless France has had some kind of revival lately, I wouldn't consider them to be a particularly good model for us to follow.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 01:03 PM
Yes. They're called "parents."


As in at-home teahcing, or letting the parents pick the schools, because public education will no longer exist.

And if the latter, how do you propose that they will pay for this, even fi they wish to.

And what do you propose to do about parents who CHOOSE not to fund their kids educations, for whatever reasons (let's say, hypothetically, because they're as financially stupid as most Americans, or they'd rather spend the money on drugs, or whatever).

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 01:04 PM
Yes. They're called "parents."


I'm a parent. Are you?

P.S., I do get choice in education. I can move to whatever city I want so that my kids become part of THAT city's public schools. Or I pay for private schooling.

Don't tell me I have no choices. It's not true.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 02:04 PM
Maybe amnorix is older than 30 perhaps?

I've seen it 15 years ago even— but more so today.
I have two friends one from the net who is a Buc fan and and old bf....both self-admitted communists; both school teachers. Another gal, young 27, with a Masters who says she's a conservative Dem but is left-wing as heck. Loves Obama. Then a couple of in-laws who are very liberal Dems so they lean socialist but probably don't know it's that because it's not labelled that anymore. NewPhin's former sig admits to Marxism and Hamas claims to be an anarchist-socialist. Both teachers. Kotter is a teacher and embraces the status quo even if it's a more restrained conservative version;believes the old notion that FDR saved us from the depression. Socialism is supposed to be dead, but everywhere it's in power.

Then NEA has been controlled by the left for at least 30 years. Most of the economics taught in college is based on socialist principles. It's called Keyenesianism. This is mainstream economics today. Played by the left and the right.
Luckily, since the 1980's the Austrians are teaching in more and more colleges and universities. It's time for ideas to come to fruition. The Progressive movement did not get it's ideas implemented much when it first began either.

Kids in school are not taught much about money, finance or capitalism and how to be successful in it or entreprenuers.
They are dumb-downed to be woiker's and proletariats as unquestioning sheep who cannot live without the state doing as much as they are made to do. Sad! This is no way to make leaders.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 02:28 PM
That's not a good idea, IMHO.

Oh, you were being sarcastic? It might serve your argument better if you explained how people from poor families who don't shoulder the cost of their education now would get said education under your "free-market" plan. Or you could argue that we don't need to educate the people who would fit in to the category of "can't afford it if the Gov doesn't pay for it". All that seems to be a more fruitful tact than asinine sarcasm.

Well, you might want to pick up the book "Is public education necessary?" by Sam Blumenfeld. It's either in that book or one of his others where he gives the facts on poor people not getting an education before we had public schools and what the literacy rates are. Is a real eye-opener. He is an educator, one of the creators of the HomeSchool movement ( how poor people were educated before) and repairs damaged kids from the public system and does a good job. He was also a guest in the Regan WH too.

Believe me they got an education in literacy at least. Then there's the issue of teacher training needing an overhaul.
The ed book industry then follows all these trends and discontinues really sound books. They don't even sell the Heath Math program anymore—a solid math program. My kid's school buys them from old discontinued book suppliers. There's a whole network out there to track down more successful programs.

At the very least, local education should NEVER be nationalized which is slowly happening under a Dept of Ed. That's socialistic as it's centralizing things to a national education. It's one of the ten planks under Marx. People argue that it's only something like 7% of the budget, but that amount is used to control local schools because they all want the money.

The schools are being turned into to full-service social engineering health clinics and day-care so parents have less control over child-raising now and encourages both of them to remain in the workforce. It encourages feminism and destroys the traditional family—another goal of Marx. This is what Sweden has done with regular visits by govt patrols to homes over spanking and other rearing subjects. That's the whole idea of our ed system these days. You can get a copy of the behind the scenes writings of Tucker and Hillary for Bill's Goals 2000. Bush is not much different.

It's a Brave New World we're living in.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 02:32 PM
I'm a parent. Are you?

P.S., I do get choice in education. I can move to whatever city I want so that my kids become part of THAT city's public schools. Or I pay for private schooling.

Don't tell me I have no choices. It's not true.



Yes, I'm a parent.


And no, that's not what I call choice. Having to relocate your entire family in order to find acceptable schooling isn't much of a choice.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 02:40 PM
The thing is Amn, if you go private you pay twice.
Why can't both parties agree on a tuition tax credit for us parents that pay twice?
Or a deduction?

Answer: They want as many kids in the public system to they can control what ideas they learn. It's a self-perpetuating system and a monopoly.

Adept Havelock
03-25-2008, 02:45 PM
It's a Brave New World we're living in.

If that's the case, By Ford I demand my Soma and Feelies!

I won't knock the Solidarity Services though. :D

Taco John
03-25-2008, 02:48 PM
Ok, innovate. Give me your proposal. Any kind of details will do, since they'd be more than the broad-brush "market-based solution" or whatever useless phrase you threw at us before.

Unless France has had some kind of revival lately, I wouldn't consider them to be a particularly good model for us to follow.



My proposal? Who needs to approve it? Certainly not you.

I want a market based solution. I want people to submit to ME their proposals, and I'll determine if I like it or not by either sending my kid to their school or not. I don't give a damn if YOU approve the choices that I'm making for MY child.

What I don't want is to be forced to send my kid to whatever public school happens to be in my district. What I don't want is to have to be taxed for education, and then pay ever more out of my pocket in order to ensure that my kid GETS one.

My proposal is simple: give me back my money and let me spend it. If people want to participate in education co-ops, then I say let them. If people want to give their kids specialized education, then so be it. But this moronic idea that because I want a free market education system, I'm supposed to come up with all the answers for it completely undercuts the concept altogether. I want a free market system because I believe that no one source can come up with all the answers, ESPECIALLY not the government. The only thing the government can do is provide a lowest common denominator type of education that deteriorates as the kids get older.

I'm not going to provide all the answers. I don't claim to have them. What I do claim is that there are plenty of them out there, and they'd present themselves if we were to jettison the socialist system we have now and the market were allowed to work.

I have a dream of my own to go back to school and get a doctorate in education, with the end goal of setting up a private school system in which the class sizes are intimate, and the teachers move up with the kids from the time they start school to the time they leave it serving as educational mentors who take a lifelong interest in the quality of their education. Tutors would be brought in to instruct on some of the more intricate subjects, with the overseer ensuring that "no child gets left behind." And every subject would be taught using the principles of the socratic method in which the children would have to take active participation in the subjects. They wouldn't be just taught facts and figures, but instead they'd be taught *how* to *think* for themselves.

I've incubated this idea for about 5 years now - but I wouldn't bother even trying in this environment. Competing with the government monopoly is an enormous undertaking, and finding funding for this sort of venture when the government sucks the environment dry would be near impossible.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 03:06 PM
Well, you might want to pick up the book "Is public education necessary?" by Sam Blumenfeld. It's either in that book or one of his others where he gives the facts on poor people not getting an education before we had public schools and what the literacy rates are. Is a real eye-opener. He is an educator, one of the creators of the HomeSchool movement ( how poor people were educated before) and repairs damaged kids from the public system and does a good job. He was also a guest in the Regan WH too.


Other insightful articles by Sam Blumenfeld:

Have Public Schools Become A Criminal Enterprise?
By Samuel Blumenfeld (http://www.americandaily.com/author/65) (09/05/03)

http://www.americandaily.com/article/1756

Sex Ed And The Destruction Of American Morality
By Samuel Blumenfeld (http://www.americandaily.com/author/65) (01/18/03)


http://www.americandaily.com/article/1766

How Barney Frank Helped The 9-11 Hijackers
By Samuel Blumenfeld (http://www.americandaily.com/author/65) (09/23/04)


http://www.americandaily.com/article/5143

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 03:08 PM
The schools are being turned into to full-service social engineering health clinics and day-care so parents have less control over child-raising now and encourages both of them to remain in the workforce. It encourages feminism and destroys the traditional family—another goal of Marx. This is what Sweden has done with regular visits by govt patrols to homes over spanking and other rearing subjects. That's the whole idea of our ed system these days. You can get a copy of the behind the scenes writings of Tucker and Hillary for Bill's Goals 2000. Bush is not much different.

It's a Brave New World we're living in.

Feminism was a goal of Marx? I missed that one.

In fact, it seems I know nothing about anything since I don't live in bizarro world.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 03:09 PM
My proposal is simple: give me back my money and let me spend it. If people want to participate in education co-ops, then I say let them. If people want to give their kids specialized education, then so be it. But this moronic idea that because I want a free market education system, I'm supposed to come up with all the answers for it completely undercuts the concept altogether. I want a free market system because I believe that no one source can come up with all the answers, ESPECIALLY not the government. The only thing the government can do is provide a lowest common denominator type of education that deteriorates as the kids get older.

I'm not going to provide all the answers. I don't claim to have them. What I do claim is that there are plenty of them out there, and they'd present themselves if we were to jettison the socialist system we have now and the market were allowed to work.


So you have no proposal. Your plan is to scrap public school education and cross your fingers that it will all work out becuase, of course, you have faith in the marketplace.

Ok, great. Thansk for letting me know. Let me know where I sign up for this proposal. Sounds great. Really.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 03:11 PM
So you have no proposal. Your plan is to scrap public school education and cross your fingers that it will all work out becuase, of course, you have faith in the marketplace.

Ok, great. Thansk for letting me know. Let me know where I sign up for this proposal. Sounds great. Really.


I didn't expect that my proposal included enough socialism to satisfy your liberal palette.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 03:39 PM
I didn't expect that my proposal included enough socialism to satisfy your liberal palette.


It contains precisely nothing, so I suspect it would satisfy nobody except those on the libertarian fringe.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 03:54 PM
It contains precisely nothing, so I suspect it would satisfy nobody except those on the libertarian fringe.


You would have to have exactly zero faith in people to tend to their own best interests to call what I wrote "precisely nothing."

But don't fool yourself with your talk about "fringe." I've run my idea across plenty of regular conservative people who get starry eyed at the concept. Especially those with religion, who are watching their kids grow up into socialist high school systems that disconnect their kids from the values that the parents try to instill in them.

Personally, I think it goes to show you just how much of an unwitting socialist you really are. The entire idea of giving parents ultimate control in their kids education to you is a "fringe" concept. And why is this such a fringe concpet? Because there's not enough social control to satisfy your tastes. Not enough "proposals" to be centrally planned around...

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 04:04 PM
A free system doesn't have a proposal. It's simply put into the hands of those offering educational services. They can post their successes and results as a marketing tool. The schools already are accredited by private groups anyway...kinda like seeking that sought for Underwriter's Laboratory seal. Or someone may want something outside the routine niche.

Then what happens is that others start to copy the successful models because that's what most parents will gravitate to. This is what happens in any market. Copying starts and the educational system improves itself based on results or parents will vote with their feet and dollars. This is what happens in other markets. It works and leads to excellence.Unless you're the control freak type that has to control and micromanage it.

I get that all the time from lefty's ( including left leaning Republicans)...what's your proposal for education? They don't get the idea of decentralize control and freedom means there would not be a single plan on paper but a variety of market educational services that would be tailored to a parent's desires or the individual child. They are so used to wanting to CONTROL everthing they can't extricate themselves from the current status quo.

Did anyone know Einstein was homeschooled?

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 04:09 PM
You would have to have exactly zero faith in people to tend to their own best interests to call what I wrote "precisely nothing."

If you could quote me even one historical precedent from any country in the history of the world....

But don't fool yourself with your talk about "fringe." I've run my idea across plenty of regular conservative people who get starry eyed at the concept. Especially those with religion, who are watching their kids grow up into socialist high school systems that disconnect their kids from the values that the parents try to instill in them.

Maybe if you keep saying our schools are socialist, it will become true. Trying chanting it every hour, perhaps.

Personally, I think it goes to show you just how much of an unwitting socialist you really are. The entire idea of giving parents ultimate control in their kids education to you is a "fringe" concept. And why is this such a fringe concpet? Because there's not enough social control to satisfy your tastes. Not enough "proposals" to be centrally planned around...

Yes, right, I'm a complete socialist. I acknowledge that you think that I am, along with Pat.

Can I ask an honest question -- when did you suddenly find this ultra-libertarian religion of yours? I actually used to agree with at least a reasonable percentage of your posts back before you were subverted by this little cult you've joined. It's a bit sad really.

Coincidentally, I just spent the last half hour or so tooling around on the Lew Rockwell site. A few things I agree with. The vast majority I either didn't agree with, or disturbed me greatly as being the product of true tinfoil hat paranoia. Be that as it may, I'll likely be engaging you less in debate, as it seems you've joined BEP in the "impervious to facts" department. Create your own set of facts and keep chanting them to other people on whatever message board Lew Rockwell's adherents assemble at, and perhaps it will all become true. Most people, however, don't refer to Abe as "King Lincoln", etc.

pikesome
03-25-2008, 04:14 PM
Did anyone know Einstein was homeschooled?

No he wasn't.

At least not entirely.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 04:15 PM
I get that all the time from lefty's ( including left leaning Republicans)...what's your proposal for education? They don't get the idea of decentralize control and freedom means there would not be a single plan on paper but a variety of market educational services that would be tailored to a parent's desires or the individual child. They are so used to wanting to CONTROL everthing they can't extricate themselves from the current status quo.

I wouldn't be opposed to a more market based school system. My concern remains that a vast segment of our population won't/can't afford it, especially in the Inner cities of America.

Did anyone know Einstein was homeschooled?

Your ability to simply make up facts (Lincoln supported RAPE!) to support your various propositions is truly astounding.

The Einsteins were not observant of Jewish religious practices, and Albert attended a Catholic elementary school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_school).

In 1889, family friend Max Talmud (later: Talmey), a medical student,<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-HarvChemAE_7-0>[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-HarvChemAE-7)</SUP> introduced the ten-year-old Einstein to key science, mathematics, and philosophy texts, including Kant's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant) Critique of Pure Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason) and Euclid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid)'s Elements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements) (Einstein called it the "holy little geometry book").<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-HarvChemAE_7-1>[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-HarvChemAE-7)</SUP> From Euclid, Einstein began to understand deductive reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning) (integral to theoretical physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics)), and by the age of twelve, he learned Euclidean geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry) from a school booklet. Soon thereafter he began to investigate calculus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus).

In his early teens, Einstein attended the new and progressive Luitpold Gymnasium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luitpold_Gymnasium). His father intended for him to pursue electrical engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_engineering), but Einstein clashed with authorities and resented the school regimen. He later wrote that the spirit of learning and creative thought were lost in strict rote learning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_learning).

In 1894, when Einstein was fifteen, his father's business failed, and the Einstein family moved to Italy, first to Milan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan) and then, after a few months, to Pavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavia). During this time, Einstein wrote his first scientific work, "The Investigation of the State of Aether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories) in Magnetic Fields (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field)".<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-8>[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-8)</SUP> Einstein had been left behind in Munich to finish high school, but in the spring of 1895, he withdrew to join his family in Pavia, convincing the school to let him go by using a doctor's note.

Rather than completing high school, Einstein decided to apply directly to the ETH Zurich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETH_Zurich), the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zurich), Switzerland. Without a school certificate, he was required to take an entrance examination, which he did not pass, although he got exceptional marks in mathematics and physics.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-9>[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-9)</SUP> Einstein wrote that it was in that same year, at age 16, that he first performed his famous thought experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment), visualizing traveling alongside a beam of light <CITE class=inline>(Einstein 1979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#CITEREFEinstein1979))</CITE>.

The Einsteins sent Albert to Aarau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarau), Switzerland to finish secondary school. While lodging with the family of Professor Jost Winteler, he fell in love with the family's daughter, Sofia Marie-Jeanne Amanda Winteler, called "Marie". (Albert's sister, Maja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maja_Einstein), his confidant, later married Paul Winteler.)<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-10>[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-10)</SUP><SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-11>[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-11)</SUP> In Aarau, Einstein studied Maxwell's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell) electromagnetic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theory). In 1896, he graduated at age 17, renounced his German citizenship to avoid military service (with his father's approval), and finally enrolled in the mathematics program at ETH. Marie moved to Olsberg, Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olsberg%2C_Switzerland) for a teaching post.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

CHIEF4EVER
03-25-2008, 04:18 PM
But don't fool yourself with your talk about "fringe." I've run my idea across plenty of regular conservative people who get starry eyed at the concept. Especially those with religion, who are watching their kids grow up into socialist high school systems that disconnect their kids from the values that the parents try to instill in them.

Rep. What a great post. I have been bitching about the public school system openly indoctrinating our children for years.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 04:23 PM
Rep. What a great post. I have been bitching about the public school system openly indoctrinating our children for years.

Indoctrinating it in what? Socialism?

Do public schools even teach economics? Mine certainly didn't.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 04:28 PM
Yes, right, I'm a complete socialist. I acknowledge that you think that I am, along with Pat.

I don't think that you're a "marxist." But I definitely think that you're are prone to socialism. It seems like you favor a lot of socialism in your solutions, and are very much against market based ideas that either live or die on their own merits. You want a social safety net. You want socialism. You just don't want to be called a socialist for it.


Can I ask an honest question -- when did you suddenly find this ultra-libertarian religion of yours? I actually used to agree with at least a reasonable percentage of your posts back before you were subverted by this little cult you've joined. It's a bit sad really.

I've always been a libertarian, since I was first formulating my political ideas. I was definitely indoctrinated by the school system to favor socialist ideas, but I had a libertarian government teacher in high school that was more influential than I knew he would be at the time.

The percentage of posts that I have that you agree with are likely posts along the lines of civil liberties. I'm a libertarian there too. I just happen to be consistent and take the libertarian principles that I believe in those areas and apply them across the board. I don't need the government giving me permission to marry any more than I need their permission to send my kid to a school of my choice. I favor liberty and small government. Always have.


Coincidentally, I just spent the last half hour or so tooling around on the Lew Rockwell site. A few things I agree with. The vast majority I either didn't agree with, or disturbed me greatly as being the product of true tinfoil hat paranoia. Be that as it may, I'll likely be engaging you less in debate, as it seems you've joined BEP in the "impervious to facts" department.

Haha! Impervious to facts? What facts are you delivering that I'm impervious to? You deny your socialist tendancies and then tell me that I'm impervious to facts! That's precious!

You can go ahead and run away from my opposing viewpoint. Just know that I'm not afraid to debate you though. It's easy to debate someone who doesn't know where they are grounded.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 04:34 PM
Indoctrinating it in what? Socialism?

Do public schools even teach economics? Mine certainly didn't.


Mine did. Not that I needed the whole course to learn TINSTAAFL.

Where did you get your indocrtination that puts no faith in people, and the idea that only centrally planned government proposals amount to workable solutions?

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 04:35 PM
Mine did. Not that I needed the whole course to learn TINSTAAFL.

I obviously can't argue with you about what you learned in school, but I am a bit dubious. No idea what your acronym is about.

Where did you get your indocrtination that puts no faith in people, and the idea that only centrally planned government proposals amount to workable solutions?

I didn't learn that, and don't believe that, but again, if you keep repeating it to yourself, maybe it will become true.

CHIEF4EVER
03-25-2008, 04:37 PM
Indoctrinating it in what? Socialism?

Do public schools even teach economics? Mine certainly didn't.

Apparently you haven't been in too awful many conversations with your child about what they are being taught at school if you make a statement like that. Maybe the public schools here are just different than the ones in your area (but I doubt it highly....you live in N.E. which places your region just slightly to the right of California on the lunatic leftist scale :p). I had a lot of friction with the public school my son attended based on them blatantly teaching and encouraging him and his classmates to rebel against parental authority and trying their best to convince them that people of faith are loons thus undermining what we parents were trying to teach them regarding faith and morals. It got so bad it nearly resulted in a lawsuit before they backed off.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 04:38 PM
You can go ahead and run away from my opposing viewpoint. Just know that I'm not afraid to debate you though. It's easy to debate someone who doesn't know where they are grounded.

I've never run from a fight on here in my life, and I imagine most regular posters/viewers on here will attest to that.

And I understand my arguments and viewpoints, thankyouverymuch. Your pretention of superiority or arrogance or whatever it is is hardly persuasive. It might work when you're debating dunces on some other board, but spare me the hystrionics.

I'm just tired of trying to understand bizarro-history and bizarro-economics. Maybe I'll take a breather and be ready to re-engage you about whackyland, but between Lincoln's serial rapes and Pat being a socialist and Einstein homeschooled and all that isn't really all that interesting a set of subject matters to be debating.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 04:39 PM
Apparently you haven't been in too awful many conversations with your child about what they are being taught at school if you make a statement like that. Maybe the public schools here are just different than the ones in your area (but I doubt it highly....you live in N.E. which places your region just slightly to the right of California on the lunatic leftist scale :p). I had a lot of friction with the public school my son attended based on them blatantly teaching and encouraging him and his classmates to rebel against parental authority and trying their best to convince them that people of faith are loons thus undermining what we parents were trying to teach them regarding faith and morals. It got so bad it nearly resulted in a lawsuit before they backed off.

May oldest is in 1st grade, so I could well be in for an awakening. If so, I'll moderate their influence at home, but I'd be saddened if this was necessary.

We'll see.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 04:40 PM
I obviously can't argue with you about what you learned in school, but I am a bit dubious. No idea what your acronym is about.


Mr. Williams. There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

It's the first thing I learned in high school economics. It's pretty much the center of my economic universe. The second core is that everyone, to the last person, will always act in their own best self interests first and foremost, without exception. The first one came from school. The second one came from experience.

I didn't learn that, and don't believe that, but again, if you keep repeating it to yourself, maybe it will become true.

I'm just going off the things that you are saying.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 04:42 PM
I'm just tired of trying to understand bizarro-history and bizarro-economics. Maybe I'll take a breather and be ready to re-engage you about whackyland, but between Lincoln's serial rapes and Pat being a socialist and Einstein homeschooled and all that isn't really all that interesting a set of subject matters to be debating.


I don't believe that I've said any of those things. I don't think that you're trying to understand anything. You started this thread to run away from a discussion we were having in another thread. Now you're exasperated because you keep exposing just how much socialism you actually do support.

I find it hard to blame you. I'd run too.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 04:45 PM
I don't believe that I've said any of those things. I don't think that you're trying to understand anything. You started this thread to run away from a discussion we were having in another thread. Now you're exasperated because you keep exposing just how much socialism you actually do support.

I find it hard to blame you. I'd run too.

Seriously, get off it. I told you in the other thread, after I'd kicked your ass there, that I'd kick it here or there, or both, as you prefer. Go back to the other if you like and restart it.

If you're going to pretend that I"m running from you because I can't keep up, that's simply a joke.

Leapin' Lenny...

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 04:45 PM
No he wasn't.

At least not entirely.

Okay, partially. I checked it out. That doesn't change that he was. I can name more too.

Lots of HS kids are partly educated in school until parents remove them. He was in a Catholic school at first, even though he was Jewish and did well but wilted under what he considered a rigid atmosphere in his next school. So he decided to educate himself. He was a free thinker as was his father, and had a profound mistrust of authority. This is the type of thinking public schools crush.

His father enjoyed professional independence and was a moderately successful engineer. His mother instilled in him by having him learn violin, the ability to focus in order to complete complex tasks. You get these abilities from the home much more than in a school, especially one-size fits-all cookie cutter system that's more interested in social conditioning them to all be the same.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 04:48 PM
Okay, partially. I checked it out. That doesn't change that he was. I can name more too.

No, he wasn't.

How many sites do we have to throw at you before you just admit that you were wrong.

At the age of 7, he started school in Munich. At the age of 9, he entered the Luitpold-Gymnasium. By the age of 12 he was studying calculus. Now this was very advanced, because the students would normally study calculus when they were 15 years old. He was very good at the sciences. But, because the 19th-century German education system was very harsh and regimented, he didn't really develop his non-mathematical skills (such as history, languages, music and geography). In fact, it was his mother, not his school, who encouraged him to study the violin - and he did quite well at that as well.

In 1895, he sat the entrance examinations to get into the prestigious Federal Polytechnic School (or Academy) in Zurich, Switzerland. He was 16, two years younger than his fellow applicants. He did outstandingly well in physics and mathematics, but failed the non-science subjects, doing especially badly in French - so he was not accepted. So in that same year, he continued his studies at the Canton school in Aargau (also called Aarau). He studied well, and this time, he passed the entry exams into the Federal Polytechnic School.

So the next year, he finally started studying at the Federal Polytechnic in Zurich (even though he was now one year younger than most of his fellow students). Also in the year 1896, even though he was only 16 years old, he wrote a brilliant essay that led directly to his later work in relativity.


http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1115185.htm

His father enjoyed professional independence and was a moderately successful engineer. His mother instilled in him by having him learn violin, the ability to focus in order to complete complex tasks. You get these abilities from the home much more than in a school, especially one-size fits-all cookie cutter system that's more interested in social conditioning them to all be the same.

He was home-schooled in violin. If that's your argument, then great, you're right. But other than that, you're not right. Per my many links, as opposed to your zero links.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 04:52 PM
I don't believe that I've said any of those things. I don't think that you're trying to understand anything. You started this thread to run away from a discussion we were having in another thread. Now you're exasperated because you keep exposing just how much socialism you actually do support.

I find it hard to blame you. I'd run too.

Your "one drop of socialism" concept (which you've subsequently run away from once we rammed it down your throat) brought Pat in here full force to defend himself from your absurd view.

The other two comments are BEP's.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 04:55 PM
A lot of our greatest scientists followed similar paths to Einstein and Edison striking out on their own early in life.

Edison had very little formal education as a child, attending school only for a few months. He was taught reading, writing, and arithmetic by his mother, but was always a very curious child and taught himself much by reading on his own. This belief in self-improvement remained throughout his life.

http://inventors.about.com/od/estartinventors/a/Edison_Bio.htm

Here's a whole list of HS famously accomplished people:
Link (http://www.christianhomeschoolers.com/hs_famous_homeschoolers.html)

I'll put some of the closer to our century since it was the way people were educated in the past:


Sandra Day O'Connor (Chief Justice of USSC)
Sally Ride (Astronaut)
Andrew Carnegie ( Industrialist)
Noel Coward ( Playwright)
Tamara McKinney (World Cup Skier)
Ansel Adams (Photographer)
Irving Berlin (Composer)
Winston Chruchill (Statesman)
Look at the long list of statesmen that founded our country on that list too.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 04:58 PM
Seriously, get off it. I told you in the other thread, after I'd kicked your ass there, that I'd kick it here or there, or both, as you prefer. Go back to the other if you like and restart it.

I already finished it over there. You needed help so you ran into this thread, apparently hoping for a pile-on. So I came to defend myself and "the world that I live in."


If you're going to pretend that I"m running from you because I can't keep up, that's simply a joke.

Leapin' Lenny...

Whatever reason you're running doesn't matter to me. I just know that you're running. The reasons you've given are pretty strange. Something about Lincoln, Patteeu being socialist (?), and something Buc said about Einstein. Beats me. It doesn't matter to me. I could care less if you choose to disengage me in debate from here on out. The only thing I can do is present my point of view and give my arguments to back them up. As far as I can tell, I've done a very good job of that in this thread. It's not my problem if you don't understand what socialism is, or how much of it you subscribe to. My problem is opening other people's eyes to just how much of it has crept into our society. It's not easy to do when misguided folks say laughable things like "Hillary's healthcare proposal was a market based solution." Talk about bizarro world.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 05:01 PM
I already finished it over there. You needed help so you ran into this thread, apparently hoping for a pile-on. So I came to defend myself and "the world that I live in."
Yup! Shows the attitude of a typical lawyer. Not interested in a discussion but more to win an argument. That's how they train 'em. Only thing is it belongs in a court of law far more than in dealing with regular people. Now we know why its a profession most people don't respect even if some of them are respectful.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 05:15 PM
Your "one drop of socialism" concept (which you've subsequently run away from once we rammed it down your throat) brought Pat in here full force to defend himself from your absurd view.

Actually, I never advocated the "one drop of socialism" concept. I did ask a rhetorical question which I can understand got interpreted as such. But that was patteeu's interpretation of it. I didn't own it. But for that matter, his take was convoluted at best, because he took his argument further than I would. He argued that the military was a socialist system. I can see his point, but I personally see the military as a legitimate service that we have a contract with the government to provide. So while it's true that it's socialized defense, it's also true that we have contracted with our government through the constitution to have the service provided.

But I never once called patteeu a socialist, and as far as I know, he never had to come in here and defend himself "full force" from any attack that I made. I think he was just being fiesty and hoping to trap me into something that was a real stretch on his part.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 05:19 PM
But I never once called patteeu a socialist, and as far as I know, he never had to come in here and defend himself "full force" from any attack that I made. I think he was just being fiesty and hoping to trap me into something that was a real stretch on his part.
Sounds about right! I think he likes to just play the contrarian so he can argue for the sake of argument. Like a lawyer.

But this:

(which you've subsequently run away from once we rammed it down your throat)
And here I thought liberals were generous, gracious and open-minded.
This sounds more like a bully at the level of thought. :eek:

Taco John
03-25-2008, 05:23 PM
I only wish the problem was "one drop" of socialism. Personally, I thought that was really weak on patteeu's part, who is most definitely an ally in these discussions despite his fiestiness yesterday. One drop of socialism is most definitely not the problem in America today. We're drowning in it, and the water seems to only get deeper.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 05:24 PM
And here I thought liberals were generous, gracious and open-minded.
This sounds more like a bully at the level of thought. :eek:


We could all stand to be more gracious, I suppose...

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 05:34 PM
Well it was boasting about ramming it down someone's throat that got me, if they claim to be liberal.
I expect that more from the right.

ChiefaRoo
03-25-2008, 06:07 PM
You need to hug the little boy inside and tell him that it's all ok. There's no need to overcompensate the way you do if all of this is true...

Just stating the truth chubby.

a1na2
03-25-2008, 06:08 PM
You have no idea if they're doing their jobs or not, and neither do I. I suspect most here, like me, have no clue what the DoE is really supposed to be doing in the first place.

Of course we don't. The intelligence level of college graduates has fallen steadily over the past 25 years. Less teaching and more political commentary.

I wasn't talking about the whole department in general, just the loyal minions that don't seem to be able to teach the kids that are in their charge.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 08:41 PM
A lot of our greatest scientists followed similar paths to Einstein and Edison striking out on their own early in life.

Edison had very little formal education as a child, attending school only for a few months. He was taught reading, writing, and arithmetic by his mother, but was always a very curious child and taught himself much by reading on his own. This belief in self-improvement remained throughout his life.

http://inventors.about.com/od/estartinventors/a/Edison_Bio.htm

Here's a whole list of HS famously accomplished people:
Link (http://www.christianhomeschoolers.com/hs_famous_homeschoolers.html)

I'll put some of the closer to our century since it was the way people were educated in the past:


Sandra Day O'Connor (Chief Justice of USSC)
Sally Ride (Astronaut)
Andrew Carnegie ( Industrialist)
Noel Coward ( Playwright)
Tamara McKinney (World Cup Skier)
Ansel Adams (Photographer)
Irving Berlin (Composer)
Winston Chruchill (Statesman)
Look at the long list of statesmen that founded our country on that list too.

Edison was born before the Civil War. I imagine the percentage of kids that were home schooled at that stage in America was very high. Obviously, home schooling or not, you can be brilliant. I don't argue that home schooling shouldn't be permitted. I argue that if you eliminate free public schooling and FORCE people to either home school or pay for school, you will dramatically reduce the AVERAGE level of quality schooling in America.

Sandra Day O'Connor went to Radford School for Girls (whatever that is), a high school, and then Stanford Law. Not sure what you're citing her for?

Sally Ride went to public schools for at least grades 7-12 and then college...?

etc. from there. Not sure what point you're trying to prove really. Apparently, however, you've switched gears after giving up on the "Einstein was homeschooled" mistake.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 08:48 PM
I already finished it over there. You needed help so you ran into this thread, apparently hoping for a pile-on. So I came to defend myself and "the world that I live in."

In your dreams. You were getting drubbed over there and we were about done.

I've revived the thread. Feel free to revisit your pummeling regarding how Sections 8 and 10 do NOT intersect. There's not even a viable argument about it, to be honest.

Whatever reason you're running doesn't matter to me. I just know that you're running.

If it amuses you to think so. Since I'm not about to be labeled as running, I'll stick it out, and gladly so.

As far as I can tell, I've done a very good job of that in this thread.

Better here than in the other thread (gold and Congress' power to coin money).

It's not my problem if you don't understand what socialism is, or how much of it you subscribe to.

I understand it perfectly. You're the one that started iwth the "drop of socialism" argument and then ran from it once it was rammed down your throat how silly it was. I don't dispute that I favor certain programs that are socialist by nature. And I understand perfectly which programs those are. I hardly need any educating from you on the subject when you think everyone to the left of you (which is EVERYONE) is a socialist!

My problem is opening other people's eyes to just how much of it has crept into our society. It's not easy to do when misguided folks say laughable things like "Hillary's healthcare proposal was a market based solution." Talk about bizarro world.

It wasn't entirely free market, there is no doubt of that. But neither was it nationalized healthcare. That was the primary point I was trying to make. I do not argue that it was a laissez-faire approach to healthcare. It certainly was not that.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 08:49 PM
Actually, I never advocated the "one drop of socialism" concept. I did ask a rhetorical question which I can understand got interpreted as such. But that was patteeu's interpretation of it. I didn't own it. But for that matter, his take was convoluted at best, because he took his argument further than I would. He argued that the military was a socialist system. I can see his point, but I personally see the military as a legitimate service that we have a contract with the government to provide. So while it's true that it's socialized defense, it's also true that we have contracted with our government through the constitution to have the service provided.

But I never once called patteeu a socialist, and as far as I know, he never had to come in here and defend himself "full force" from any attack that I made. I think he was just being fiesty and hoping to trap me into something that was a real stretch on his part.

FWIW, the Lew Rockwell site had an article or two re: the military being a socialist program. Saw it today, though I dnd't read it any detail.

I suspect he'd disagree with your characterization, but whatever.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 08:50 PM
I only wish the problem was "one drop" of socialism. Personally, I thought that was really weak on patteeu's part, who is most definitely an ally in these discussions despite his fiestiness yesterday. One drop of socialism is most definitely not the problem in America today. We're drowning in it, and the water seems to only get deeper.

Right, it's 60% if you study Marx's planks. Except it's not...as Banyon correctly and forcefully pointed out by linking to the actual planks.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 08:51 PM
Well it was boasting about ramming it down someone's throat that got me, if they claim to be liberal.
I expect that more from the right.


Liberal doesn't mean wimpy, nice pussy. Give me a break.

banyon
03-26-2008, 01:01 AM
No, he wasn't.

How many sites do we have to throw at you before you just admit that you were wrong.



http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1115185.htm



He was home-schooled in violin. If that's your argument, then great, you're right. But other than that, you're not right. Per my many links, as opposed to your zero links.

No, he wasn't.

How many sites do we have to throw at you before you just admit that you were wrong.



http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1115185.htm



He was home-schooled in violin. If that's your argument, then great, you're right. But other than that, you're not right. Per my many links, as opposed to your zero links.

good luck with that. She doesn't make mistakes, or at least admit them, no matter how egregious (pretty ironic for someone who chastizes bush for the "big lie" theory he manipulates).

As you can also tell from this thread, she has a lot of resentment built up against lawyers which you have admitted belonging to. This makes it even harder for her to admit to her mistake as I'm pretty sure her ex-husband was a lawyer and she is "projecting" as her psychotherapist has probably explained to her.

banyon
03-26-2008, 01:18 AM
Apparently you haven't been in too awful many conversations with your child about what they are being taught at school if you make a statement like that. Maybe the public schools here are just different than the ones in your area (but I doubt it highly....you live in N.E. which places your region just slightly to the right of California on the lunatic leftist scale :p). I had a lot of friction with the public school my son attended based on them blatantly teaching and encouraging him and his classmates to rebel against parental authority and trying their best to convince them that people of faith are loons thus undermining what we parents were trying to teach them regarding faith and morals. It got so bad it nearly resulted in a lawsuit before they backed off.

what exactly were they teaching that conflicted with your home religious teachings.

ClevelandBronco
03-26-2008, 01:46 AM
what exactly were they teaching that conflicted with your home religious teachings.

I know that you weren't asking me, but my son was once told by a teacher that he would not be allowed to bring his Bible to school (he likes to read it in his free time) because it might upset other students.

In another case an essay that he had written that included Biblical references was handed back to him with the admonition that he would have to rewrite it without those references before she would accept it.

In both instances the friction was settled favorably toward my son and the teachers involved were quickly put back in their places by school administration officials.