This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
A student's prayer.
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
That's not the Magician's views, just something he linked from Facebook.
But, judging by his post in the other thread, and his own statement at the beginning of his post, it seems like he agrees.
........You've never seen his views on religion have you?
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
1) You could still require a minimum amount of schooling by law, if you wanted. Just as you can require people to have insurance (if they want to drive) without every car insurance company being a public company.
2) You could still subsidize education. Give families a voucher to spend on education at the privately owned and operated school of their choice.
Here's a blog post by a guy I kind of know. He points out something worth realizing, which is that education definitely has external economies, but it isn't a public good. A public good can't possibly be exclusive, but you can easily bar people from education. Every university rejection letter is proof that education is not technically a public good.
Externalising the problem. Assuming the poor people pay no more than typically, one is just creating the same uneven distribution, but the school has to take even greater financial considerations. Likely, the children of parents that donate the most to the school will be given preferential treatment - the school's commitment shifts from providing an education for the children to remaining profitable. I fail to see how this would benefit the majority of people.
The other issues are that of uniformity: the curriculum will likely be radically different in Georgia than in Massachusetts say, not to mention that those attending schools in poor areas will be even more disadvantaged.
As for whether it constitutes a public good: there is a negative correlation between education and illiteracy,
divorce
,
crime
and
unemployment.
These are huge benefits to society
that everyone reaps
. A literacy rate of only 99% is considered a chagrin by society now, but before compulsory schooling, one study of printed text saturation in the population showed that the literacy rate in 1850 was just 50%. Compulsory education is also fundamental in the emancipation of women - should education be privatised and not regulated by a central authority, almost a century of progress could go to waste in states like Utah.
You act like providing education is opposed to being profitable. If by and large the general public agreed that a particular school's education ended at 'counting on your toes as well as your fingers' would YOU send your children there? Competition to provide the best education is no different than competition to provide the best of other goods and services.
You're also missing out on the difference between a public good and a good that produces external economies. A
public
good is a non-exclusive and non-rivalrous good. Education is obviously exclusive, so education, according to the strict definition in the field of economics, is not a public good. A good that produces positive externalities is one that the market under-utilizes, but which the market nevertheless
can and does produce in a competitive environment.
I don't disagree that education is a great thing. Even as libertarian as I am I don't disagree that it should be mandatory.
I'm only pointing out that goods and services from which non-consumers can be excluded can be produced at a higher quality and at a lower price by the free market than by a bloated bureaucracy.
Post by
Atik
That's not the Magician's views, just something he linked from Facebook.
But, judging by his post in the other thread, and his own statement at the beginning of his post, it seems like he agrees.
........You've never seen his views on religion have you?
No, any posts I've seen from him seem to read like he wants christianity shoved down people's throats.
Post by
Adamsm
He is a follower of the Church, but he's never been about that.
Post by
gamerunknown
A public good is a non-exclusive and non-rivalrous good. Education is obviously exclusive, so education, according to the strict definition in the field of economics, is not a public good.
This is defining the phenomenon out of existence. The country is better off with mandatory education. The "consumer" already has the choice as to whether to send their children to private schools if they can afford to do so. Removing government funded schools removes the choice and doesn't really add to competition. At the moment schools are responsible to the department of education, even private schools as far as I'm aware (though I don't think homeschooling is regulated, sadly). Should mandatory education be enforced but no central curriculum be applied, then for the people who have no other schools in the district, they're much more likely to be subject to a cursory education. Just as Wal-Mart loves to prey on communities with only one or two small stores.
I think the distinction between public schools and military is fatuous too: mercenaries have always existed essentially.
Post by
pezz
It does define the phenomenon out of existence to take it to the extreme, which is why you measure it by degrees. But even so, education is a textbook example of an exclusive good. Every university rejection letter ever sent out is proof that education can be exclusive.
Yet again, I'm not arguing with you about making education mandatory. It doesn't have to be publicly run to be mandatory.
There's not much choice between incompetently run government schools and private secondary schools when the private secondary schools cost more than some university tuition, and aren't at all subsidized.
You wouldn't, in practice, remove the schools the government is currently funding. It's much easier to privatize complexes which are already serving as schools (and can't easily serve as too many other things) and groups of staff who are already serving as teachers and school administrators. The only new thing is that they can go bust if they aren't any good.
You said yourself private schools are responsible to the department of education. I'm all for less government oversight, but we don't have to dismantle it completely if we don't want to. We already have empirical evidence that public departments can have some degree of oversight into private schools, if we want that.
Define a cursory education, since I may or may not disagree with you depending on what you mean by it.
Yes, mercenaries have always existed, but that doesn't mean the overarching free rider problem in the military isn't there. The legitimate function of the military is national defense. When was the last time a private citizen of the U.S. hired his own mercenaries for national defense?
Post by
gamerunknown
The only new thing is that they can go bust if they aren't any good.
A similar practice was put in place in New York and in England as far as I'm aware. In England I think if schools fail consistently, their head is fired and they're turned into academies and run at a profit. In New York, I think schools are shut down if they consistently fail their students as well.
The military analogy holds up: the taxpayer pays for the military even if each of their individuals ventures do not benefit them personally. The government chooses to have a central authority and chain of command when they could instead compose the whole military out of private contractors and not have uniform training.
Post by
pezz
So you have two examples of places where some system (but not the market or its price signals) provides some measure by which a school can be terminated if it fails its students. That's still significantly worse than what the market could do.
Oh I misunderstood what you meant about the military. Quite a lot of it is contracted. Private companies design the new planes, for instance. As far as chain of command goes: I suspect that a military's chain of command benefits more from uniformity than a diverse set of schools spread out over a geographical and culturally diverse area. I would also hazard a guess that, when fighting in unusual geographical and cultural areas, the military hires specialists, but I'm less prepared to argue concretely on either of those points.
Post by
gamerunknown
That's still significantly worse than what the market could do.
Say in a town with a failing public school and a private school, under the new conception, what would happen? What would it entail for the students?
I think having a uniform curriculum can be handy, especially over something like the Scopes trial. Local history and agriculture aside, perhaps.
Post by
gnomerdon
In the diary, I have to admit that I have felt like this at times... I never had time to write about it though. Now that I look back on it, I was pretty much brainwashed back then. Maybe still am today. =D
Post by
pezz
That's still significantly worse than what the market could do.
Say in a town with a failing public school and a private school, under the new conception, what would happen? What would it entail for the students?
I think having a uniform curriculum can be handy, especially over something like the Scopes trial. Local history and agriculture aside, perhaps.
The simplest thing that might happen would be an experienced private company or individual would buy the (now privatized) public school and do what needs to be done to whip it in to shape. Unfortunately there's a distinct possibility that this won't happen. In which case it may well go bust, leaving just the one private school (which even with subsidy vouchers many of the students may not be able to afford) in town, forcing students to go elsewhere (if indeed they can) for education, but that's not very nice.
So that town would have a high demand for a new school. At which point some entrepreneur would open one, starting from scratch, which should lead to a better school. Or better yet, three or four entrepreneurs would do just that, and free market competition could goad all of those new schools into doing the best they could, significantly improving the quality of the education for the students there.
Could there possibly be a messy transition period? Yes, absolutely. Would the market equilibrium price and quantity of education eventually win out, leading to enough schooling for the children of the town, at a higher quality than the old public school? Also, yes, absolutely.
Post by
gamerunknown
The simplest thing that might happen would be an experienced private company or individual would buy the (now privatized) public school and do what needs to be done to whip it in to shape.
This can happen in public schools too though. It happened successfully with a local school - it went from a 50% pass rate for its students to over 95% and the best in the borough since a headteacher was moved in from another area.
Since those that can afford it already largely choose to send their children to private schools, the difference will be for those that can't and are using the government subsidies. While you may be correct in that it will provide the motivator to attain higher standards, I'm not sure how they could do so. I think there's already a teacher shortage. Should parents have the option to choose between quality and cost those with the vouchers will probably already have to sacrifice on quality.
Post by
296147
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
While you may be correct in that it will provide the motivator to attain higher standards, I'm not sure how they could do so.
You don't have to be sure. I frankly have no idea what the specifics are. That's why I want to let the market have the room it needs to find out.
Post by
gamerunknown
You don't have to be sure. I frankly have no idea what the specifics are. That's why I want to let the market have the room it needs to find out.
Wouldn't that be a little irresponsible? Perhaps they could privatise a few schools as trials (as has been done with academies in the UK) under the same regime and see if costs are reduced and attainment increases. If schools weren't viable in small communities and there was no interjection by entrepreneurs it would be a travesty.
If attainment and costs went down, it'd be futile. If costs went up with attainment, a similar result may be obtained by just investing more in public education.
Post by
pezz
Well, I have no problem with trying it out in several places first. It doesn't have to be done all at once. In fact, it probably shouldn't be done all at once, in a rush.
I don't think that investing more in public education will result in the same level of innovation as a competitive free market, so I don't think we'll see that cost and attainment stay stuck in the same ratio no matter what. That's simply not how a capitalist believes the world works.
Post by
Levarus
I saw this on Facebook (anyone but me HATE the new Facebook, BTW?), and I had to post it here. Should make for a good thread for the weekend.
Now I sit me down in school Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God Finds mention of Him very odd.
If scripture now the class recites, It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green, That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise. Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate, God's name is prohibited by the state.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks, And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible. To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen, And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong, We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls, Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed, No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess, When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make: Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen
Go to bible school noob.
Post by
Magician22773
Go to bible school noob
I do, every sunday morning.
I guess my question is, for the OP (as it was in the sentencing people to church instead of jail thread)- would you be ok, if the religion that was state supported wasn't yours?
State supported =/= State allowed =/= State banned.
Also,
I do hope that the "church or jail" offer would be extended to include at the least, all the "major" religions.
You may have missed that from the other thread. I will even say that I would agree that Wiccan would fall under "major" religions. I may not agree with it as a Christian, but I also can't deny its history either. Just as I have faith in God and Christ, I realize others have just as strong a faith in many other forms.
Just judging by this thread, it seems like he agrees with what he posted because he never stated otherwise.
While the poem isn't mine, yes, most of what is expressed in it are my beliefs. I may not agree with every line, but I do believe that the overall context of the poem is a pretty good description of how prayer in many schools is treated.
I'd be interested to see links to things that show which poems are right in which circumstances.
Pezz, the 3 major Supreme Court cases that DO bar prayer and Bible reading in public schools are:
Engel v. Vitale; 1962
Murray v. Curlett; 1963 "The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of abolishing school prayer and Bible reading in the public schools."
Abington Township School District v. Schempp;1963 "the courts ruling stated that Prayer and / or Bible reading was a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment."
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal Matter now.
No, any posts I've seen from him seem to read like he wants christianity shoved down people's throats.
Please, post one...any one. Professing my belief as a Christian does not mean I am "shoving anything down your throat." This forum has a collection of many different people from mant different lifestyles, beliefs, and backgrounds. Many of the topics are such that those differences become a part of the discussion.
While as a Christian, I am opposed to homosexuality, you don't see me going into a homophobic rage against Xara, or telling Adamsm to stop shoving his Wiccan ideology down my throat. In nearly every thread I quantify my posts with "these are MY beliefs". I may argue the Christian side of the discussion, and that side may disagree with the other, but you do not see me spitting venom like what is consistantly hurled back at me in these threads.
A christian QQ because their religion doesn't control the world?
I hate seeing this kind of bull on facebook.
I'm not sure if this was written by a complete liar or just an idiot,
We are bashing it because it is so full of bull%^&* the text should be brown.
Ugh I remember when I first saw this piece of garbage
Yeah, the original poem is garbage.
Post by
Adamsm
I find it amusing when Atik says other people shove their religion down his throat...yet, every chance he gets, he insults anyone with the smallest showing of belief in something religious and touts out his own personal belief system and acts like it is the truth above all else.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.