sarcastrophe: You do realize that this idea sounds like communism, right? You should not force people to conform."Conformity is the enemy of self-reliance" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson/that quote changed my life in 11th grade English

I never said you had to conform- I said you had to learn, and learn to work.

I'm horrible at conforming. But I'm a good worker and I have always at least partially supported myself. Don't confuse conformity with getting a proper education- which if viewed incorrectly, can be misconstrued with conformity. I want to make sure kids learn science (including Darwinism you farking creationists), math, reason, (we actually also need to desperately support English, well, reading and understanding what you read), and a healthy lifestyle.

So no, it's not communism. The government doesn't get to place you in a job for the first 5 years of your working life. They aren't mandating what is made by factories, they aren't picking your clothing line, they are instilling the ability to survive and grow. Non-conformity is not letting children forever be children- there is no reason to support idiocy and immaturity under other banners.


sarcastrophe: So an ultra authoritarian version of Andorra vs. Spain/France?

No. Still representative government. Still freedom. Still lots of choices. Just because you are forced to get a good education so you can be a valueable member of society later in life does not mean we have an authoritarian government. Freedom does not mean you get everything.

As for the states thing- I would kind of support consolidating the states. I'd like more land to be nature reserve. But if people want to live like Emerson and be naturalists or other types of cultures, I'm more than supportive. There are great values to other types of cultures.

Well, I'm back, after having been distracted by the wife, and now I simply don't feel like digging through excell spread sheets, so I will get the data at my next earliest convenience and present it the next time a stimulus thread opens, which should be in about half an hour.

I do agree with you helix that the zero-sum theory is inherently false, as that would deny that real GDP ever grew. I think it is far more accurate to say that while not a zero sum game, the state of the economy in this nation in the last decade has led to a wildly disproportionate rate of growth in terms of real net worth among the population. Now, it can be argued back and forth about debt being a contributing factor here (and I think it partly is, though it is far more a byproduct than a cause), and that is the real problem. The pie is getting bigger, but some of the pieces are getting bigger much faster than the other ones and eating into the growth of the smaller pieces. That, more than anything, is why trickle down doesn't work, will never work at full efficiency, and why some sort of income redistribution is in the best interest of everyone, even the people getting taxed at higher rates.

sarcastrophe: Phil Moskowitz: Why? Are you going to counter with the broken window fallacy?

No, I would counter that Keynes only wanted temporary spending. When this recession is over, are all the dems screaming about Keynes going to be screaming about cutting spending?

That's the whole farking point of keynesianism you stupid twat. It's a system that correlates with money contraction. The "dems" as you call them know how transient environments are different from the status quo.

sarcastrophe: I think we should let the people decide their own values based on experiences in society, not have them force fed values by the state.

As I said, I want both. An opportunity for society to teach its values, and an opportunity for parents to teach theirs. Hardly authoritarian.

The problem with letting everyone teach whatever they feel like is what we are starting to see now- we have lots of people who know very little and value very little. This hinders growth for other people, because contrary to Libertarian principles and understandings, growth is very much hindered on a society, and not just a collection of individuals.

So both should get their chance.

sarcastrophe: I think we should let the people decide their own values based on experiences in society, not have them force fed values by the state.

Attitudes like that allowed racism to legally exist in the South.

sloppy shoes: I never said you had to conform- I said you had to learn, and learn to work.

I'm horrible at conforming. But I'm a good worker and I have always at least partially supported myself. Don't confuse conformity with getting a proper education- which if viewed incorrectly, can be misconstrued with conformity. I want to make sure kids learn science (including Darwinism you farking creationists), math, reason, (we actually also need to desperately support English, well, reading and understanding what you read), and a healthy lifestyle.

So no, it's not communism. The government doesn't get to place you in a job for the first 5 years of your working life. They aren't mandating what is made by factories, they aren't picking your clothing line, they are instilling the ability to survive and grow. Non-conformity is not letting children forever be children- there is no reason to support idiocy and immaturity under other banners.

If you're going to teach logic, reading, writing, and math, we already have a system for that and it's called public schools. If the public schools are failing already, why would you want to extend that non-sense? What we need to do is get out of the idea that every child should be a college graduate. We need serious vo-tech in high school.

Phil Moskowitz: That's the whole farking point of keynesianism you stupid twat.

Well it was fun talking to you, too. Thanks.

sarcastrophe: No, I would counter that Keynes only wanted temporary spending. When this recession is over, are all the dems screaming about Keynes going to be screaming about cutting spending?

If past trends are to be taken into account then yes. Just keep in mind which president cut spending the most in the last 30 years.

sarcastrophe: I think we should let the people decide their own values based on experiences in society, not have them force fed values by the state.

As a proponent of anarcho-capitalism, you should understand fully why capitalism can not exist in a society devoid of norms and common values. After all, what are laws enforcing contracts but forced indoctrination and oppressive regulation by the government.

whidbey: Attitudes like that allowed racism to legally exist in the South.

I thought the 13th and 14th Amendment covered that, did it not?

I'd be rich if it weren't for taxes. We're done.

PascalsGhost: SO stupid. Do you realize you couldn't even have corporations without government regulation? I mean, the concept wouldn't exist.

The concept did exist without government regulation. We called them trusts. Conceptually they did the exact same thing as corporations do today in creating a fictional entity and limiting the liability of its investors. And if you eliminate corporations, we will go back to using them.

sarcastrophe: Phil Moskowitz: That's the whole farking point of keynesianism you stupid twat.

Well it was fun talking to you, too. Thanks.

So what's your treatise on monetary theory, rocketman?

sarcastrophe: I thought the 13th and 14th Amendment covered that, did it not?

If they did, gay marriage wouldn't be an issue.

sarcastrophe: We need serious vo-tech in high school.

Better teach them to speak Chinese too then.

sarcastrophe: What we need to do is get out of the idea that every child should be a college graduate. We need serious vo-tech in high school.

Except that just about every study done in the last 10-20 years has confirmed that economic prosperity is directly correlated with knowledge, and knowledge is directly correlated with college graduation. More votech education would be a step back for our economy. Unless part of your suggestion is revamping the whole idea of votech to include white-collar service careers like IT or basic engineering principles.

sarcastrophe: If you're going to teach logic, reading, writing, and math, we already have a system for that and it's called public schools. If the public schools are failing already, why would you want to extend that non-sense? What we need to do is get out of the idea that every child should be a college graduate. We need serious vo-tech in high school.

I want a portion of young adult hood where kids are away from their parents. Where they have no tv, only books, regimented schedules, then free time if they can handle it, etc... I think a major reason the public schools are failing is lack of accountability on parents. It would be very easy to set up boarding schools where there is lots of accountability. And punishment when you fail. (Not violent, but certainly lots of exercise, restricted activities, etc...)

I didn't say every child needs to be a college graduate, and I would support more vo-tech training. Actually, I think colleges have gotten out of hand to a degree.

sarcastrophe: sloppy shoes: I never said you had to conform- I said you had to learn, and learn to work.

I'm horrible at conforming. But I'm a good worker and I have always at least partially supported myself. Don't confuse conformity with getting a proper education- which if viewed incorrectly, can be misconstrued with conformity. I want to make sure kids learn science (including Darwinism you farking creationists), math, reason, (we actually also need to desperately support English, well, reading and understanding what you read), and a healthy lifestyle.

So no, it's not communism. The government doesn't get to place you in a job for the first 5 years of your working life. They aren't mandating what is made by factories, they aren't picking your clothing line, they are instilling the ability to survive and grow. Non-conformity is not letting children forever be children- there is no reason to support idiocy and immaturity under other banners.

If you're going to teach logic, reading, writing, and math, we already have a system for that and it's called public schools. If the public schools are failing already, why would you want to extend that non-sense? What we need to do is get out of the idea that every child should be a college graduate. We need serious vo-tech in high school.

You're just some dumb 20 year old.

Lusiphur: If past trends are to be taken into account then yes. Just keep in mind which president cut spending the most in the last 30 years.

What I don't know (I was too young to follow this stuff at the time) is was this the result of the Republican Congress or the President?

/seriously don't know the answer to that
//please don't go full partisan

Lusiphur: As a proponent of anarcho-capitalism, you should understand fully why capitalism can not exist in a society devoid of norms and common values. After all, what are laws enforcing contracts but forced indoctrination and oppressive regulation by the government.

Those norms and common values should be fairly simple, though. Not overreaching public policy to regulate your behavior.

whidbey: sarcastrophe: I think we should let the people decide their own values based on experiences in society, not have them force fed values by the state.

Attitudes like that allowed racism to legally exist in the South.

Attitudes like that also allowed our state to excel in education compared to the rest of the country. I'm not sure I want further federal (ie the rest of the country's) values in my schools.

Lusiphur: Unless part of your suggestion is revamping the whole idea of votech to include white-collar service careers like IT or basic engineering principles.

That's how I view it. I think there are a number of students who would benefit more from the focused training.

Lusiphur: Except that just about every study done in the last 10-20 years has confirmed that economic prosperity is directly correlated with knowledge, and knowledge is directly correlated with college graduation. More votech education would be a step back for our economy. Unless part of your suggestion is revamping the whole idea of votech to include white-collar service careers like IT or basic engineering principles.

I have no college degree... I'm apparently "rich." How's that possible?

sloppy shoes: I want a portion of young adult hood where kids are away from their parents. Where they have no tv, only books, regimented schedules, then free time if they can handle it, etc... I think a major reason the public schools are failing is lack of accountability on parents. It would be very easy to set up boarding schools where there is lots of accountability. And punishment when you fail. (Not violent, but certainly lots of exercise, restricted activities, etc...)

I didn't say every child needs to be a college graduate, and I would support more vo-tech training. Actually, I think colleges have gotten out of hand to a degree.

So you want the government to raise my children even more than they already do. No, I'll pass, thanks.

Lusiphur: Unless part of your suggestion is revamping the whole idea of votech to include white-collar service careers like IT or basic engineering principles.

That's already occuring in some school systems, no revamping required. My local school district has a votech group that handles what all other votech centers offer, but it also includes microelectronics and software development/administration.

We don't need further federal regulation to reach this goal.

rohar: whidbey: sarcastrophe: I think we should let the people decide their own values based on experiences in society, not have them force fed values by the state.

Attitudes like that allowed racism to legally exist in the South.

Attitudes like that also allowed our state to excel in education compared to the rest of the country. I'm not sure I want further federal (ie the rest of the country's) values in my schools.

I really don't see the comparison between a state managing to excel national performance measures and people being treated as 3/5ths of a person because "that's the way it is."

Besides, I suspect it was a couple of them durty Democrats (Magnuson and Jackson) that managed to stand up to the Feds on that one. They carried quite a bit of clout in the Senate.

sarcastrophe: whidbey: Attitudes like that allowed racism to legally exist in the South.

I thought the 13th and 14th Amendment covered that, did it not?

At the cost of civil war.

sarcastrophe: What I don't know (I was too young to follow this stuff at the time) is was this the result of the Republican Congress or the President?

/seriously don't know the answer to that
//please don't go full partisan

No, I agree, it is a serious question that needs to be looked at. Honestly, I think it was a little of both. Historically, government spending is smallest while a democrat is president and republicans control congress. I think a lot of the credit does go to Bill, for cutting the military budget, but the effect of a vocal and pissed of majority in congress can't be rulled out as a co-factor. The thing is, though, we haven't really had the chance to experience a democratic president AND a democratic congress in a long, long time. I'm very curious to see where things go.

sarcastrophe: Those norms and common values should be fairly simple, though. Not overreaching public policy to regulate your behavior.

Any public norm is a coercive force on your behavior. The trick is finding that right balance that manages to do the most good for the most people while minimizing any harm to the minority groups. There are values which would be very beneficial to have taught at a very young age that nevertheless do not lead to conformity or unity of thought. For instance, despite being two very different people, I am positive we have way more values in common than not.

sarcastrophe: So you want the government to raise my children even more than they already do. No, I'll pass, thanks.

Thank god a dumb coont like you would express these feelings. I hope all of your crotch fruit learns specifically from your god awful teaching and enters the workforce with little or no skill.

Excelsior you dumb coont!

sarcastrophe: What I don't know (I was too young to follow this stuff at the time) is was this the result of the Republican Congress or the President?

/seriously don't know the answer to that
//please don't go full partisan

Both. Even Bush Senior wasn't that bad. He was much more pragmatic and realistic about the nature of government.

The problem is that many Republicans were, honestly, really just opposing the president. More importantly, they learned important lessons about deception and politics, and how they didn't really have to do things, but they could claim things. Many of them became a true party, as opposed to the much more pragmatic stances American parties have usually been.

That's a major problem they are facing now- they trying to become more party oriented, rather than let new faces change the shape and some of the values of the party.

Lots of Americans want to do things like pay back the debt. When I say 'we,' it really can incorporate all or most of America. This was more than evident in the 90's. But we have to disavow the politicians who want USSR style parties, as opposed to what a political party should be- a changing shape of values that is pragmatic but founded on certain principles.

whidbey: I really don't see the comparison between a state managing to excel national performance measures and people being treated as 3/5ths of a person because "that's the way it is."

Not quite the point I was trying to get to. We came to this education system in WA because we decided to do so using our own values based on our experiences in society, not those shoved down our throats. We also have a bit different idea of how to treat people with other sexualities, I'm pretty proud of that as well, but I can assure you, the nation does not appear to agree. I'm pretty sure we don't want those values shoved down our throats either.

rohar: Not quite the point I was trying to get to. We came to this education system in WA because we decided to do so using our own values based on our experiences in society, not those shoved down our throats. We also have a bit different idea of how to treat people with other sexualities, I'm pretty proud of that as well, but I can assure you, the nation does not appear to agree. I'm pretty sure we don't want those values shoved down our throats either.

Yeah, those should be more states issues. (Though I think national interest is vested in protecting certain minority classes). But the Federal Gov. has a necessary requirement to insist on certain education standards.

rohar: I'm pretty sure we don't want those values shoved down our throats either.

This is the problem. Everyone thinks they are the ones that are right. Then we get crap like the DOMA from the fed.

sloppy shoes: That's how I view it. I think there are a number of students who would benefit more from the focused training.

I think that would be a great plan. I was very pleased to see that my college had quite a few high-tech 2-year vocational programs. The only problem is that these programs would need to be watched closely to make sure they are kept current and up to date, else we go back to having outdated education paths that lead nowhere.

sarcastrophe: I have no college degree... I'm apparently "rich." How's that possible?

I have no college degree. I pull down way more than the median income. Exceptions happen. That's why statistical conclusions come with the caveat that they are neither one hundred percent true of all people nor one hundred percent accurate. I know far more people that make less after decades in the workforce with no college education than those who succeed.

rohar: We don't need further federal regulation to reach this goal.

Oh, no, I never said this should be regulated or legislated. Just my opinion. And a lot of schools ARE turning to this model, which is encouraging. I DO think we need a federal incentive to entice more schools to switch and offer new programs though, and federal funding with getting the new programs into running condition as soon as possible. More than anything, it is the influx of bright, young, well trained workers into the labor pool that helps pull nations out of recessions. Just look at all the innovation the dot-com bust spawned.

rohar: Not quite the point I was trying to get to. We came to this education system in WA because we decided to do so using our own values based on our experiences in society, not those shoved down our throats. We also have a bit different idea of how to treat people with other sexualities, I'm pretty proud of that as well, but I can assure you, the nation does not appear to agree. I'm pretty sure we don't want those values shoved down our throats either.fark the nation. They can get over it. We shouldn't discriminate based on birthplace. It took the federal government to end anti-miscegenation laws.

HTML hates me. Time to retire.

Lusiphur: I have no college degree. I pull down way more than the median income. Exceptions happen. That's why statistical conclusions come with the caveat that they are neither one hundred percent true of all people nor one hundred percent accurate. I know far more people that make less after decades in the workforce with no college education than those who succeed.

If exceptions happen, then why would you want to pigeonhole people? This sounds like you want to create a mediocre society.

EatHam: DamnYankees: I don't really understand why our highest tax bracket is so low.

Low? Really? Tax rates are out the fark of control. Honestly I don't really care that much what anyone other than me gets charged but holy hell, I'm not making millions, and my total tax burden is close to 50% when you factor in every tax I have to pay (federal, state, social security property, gas, sales, etc., etc., etc). And you think that it should be higher for people who make more than I do? Holy shiat.

Yes it should be higher for people making more than you. Then lower for the middle bracket. Thank Regan for the fact that the ever shrinking middle class has the greatest burden on % of income.

Lusiphur: I think that would be a great plan. I was very pleased to see that my college had quite a few high-tech 2-year vocational programs. The only problem is that these programs would need to be watched closely to make sure they are kept current and up to date, else we go back to having outdated education paths that lead nowhere.

Let the top University programs and Industry councils come up with recommended curriculum. (Which is sorta what happens now, anyways).

AgeOfReason: Thank Regan for the fact that the ever shrinking middle class has the greatest burden on % of income.

[citation needed]

sarcastrophe: This is the problem. Everyone thinks they are the ones that are right. Then we get crap like the DOMA from the fed.

If memory serves, DOMA doesn't force anything upon the states, but instead permits them to reject the validity of marriages entered into in other states.

sarcastrophe: If exceptions happen, then why would you want to pigeonhole people? This sounds like you want to create a mediocre society.

Not at all. I want to raise the median level to where exceptions still happen, but they are not quite the leaps and bounds they are now. Moreover, you have to realize that we are playing in a global economy now. It is no longer enough for you to beat the middle here. You have to beat the middle here, and in China, and in India and in Russia, and in Europe, and in South America, etc. They are fevirishly working to improve the average qualifications in their nations. And they have a lot more people, hnce a lot more exceptions will occur.

I'm not trying to pigeonhole people or hold anyone back. However, I think it's ridiculous that we set the bar so low. If we are to remain competitive as a nation, we need to take every fry cook and ditch digger in the US and beat them in the head till they can pass Network+ certs in their sleep, not to mention have a fundamental understanding of biology, physics, chemistry, and electronics beyond what is taught in HS.

sloppy shoes: Let the top University programs and Industry councils come up with recommended curriculum. (Which is sorta what happens now, anyways).

I'm all for this. I would like to see secondary education standardized from state to state by some sort of national body or panel, if only for the sake of consistency.

Korovyov: If memory serves, DOMA doesn't force anything upon the states, but instead permits them to reject the validity of marriages entered into in other states.

No. It completely invalidates a legal contract from one state to the next. Any two consenting adults should be able to agree to any legal contract.

Lusiphur: Not at all. I want to raise the median level to where exceptions still happen, but they are not quite the leaps and bounds they are now. Moreover, you have to realize that we are playing in a global economy now. It is no longer enough for you to beat the middle here. You have to beat the middle here, and in China, and in India and in Russia, and in Europe, and in South America, etc. They are fevirishly working to improve the average qualifications in their nations. And they have a lot more people, hnce a lot more exceptions will occur.

I'm not trying to pigeonhole people or hold anyone back. However, I think it's ridiculous that we set the bar so low. If we are to remain competitive as a nation, we need to take every fry cook and ditch digger in the US and beat them in the head till they can pass Network+ certs in their sleep, not to mention have a fundamental understanding of biology, physics, chemistry, and electronics beyond what is taught in HS.

You cannot force someone to learn. Even if you could, there is no entity on the planet that can decide for an individual WHAT they should learn. That should be a personal choice. If the majority of people choose to be ditch diggers, I don't think it's the government's business to prevent it. We should provide the choice and opportunity, not force it.

Lusiphur: I'm all for this. I would like to see secondary education standardized from state to state by some sort of national body or panel, if only for the sake of consistency.

Isn't that what we tried to do with NCLB?

In the end, I believe our society is far too varied for that to occur. The education system in WA is at least 30 years advanced over that in FL (my mother just returned here from teaching in FL, there's been a lot of conversations). There's no way we're going to rectify that any time soon.

Lusiphur: I'm all for this. I would like to see secondary education standardized from state to state by some sort of national body or panel, if only for the sake of consistency.

Theoretically, NAEP is a useful standardized metric for assessing the performance of districts.

I'll note that even with something not obviously rife with ideology as economics or history, there are still major controversies. There's a strong faction in California arguing that they simply don't have the resources to teach algebra to eighth-graders, for instance.

rohar: Isn't that what we tried to do with NCLB?

Actually, no; NCLB insists that states achieve annual progress in meeting standards, but let the individual states determine what those standards would be. Of course, this doesn't stop those states' politicians from railing against NCLB when they complain that their own states' standards are too high to meet.

sarcastrophe: You cannot force someone to learn. Even if you could, there is no entity on the planet that can decide for an individual WHAT they should learn. That should be a personal choice. If the majority of people choose to be ditch diggers, I don't think it's the government's business to prevent it. We should provide the choice and opportunity, not force it.

Ok, ok, I was using too much hyperbole for my own good again. I think we should provide more and better opportunities for people to receive a technical/practical education at a younger age. Take some of these two-year info-tech programs at community colleges and allow high school junior to take them as a substitute for their junior and senior years in HS. So when they graduate, they can join the workforce immediately in a career that wasn't rendered obsolete a decade ago.

rohar: Isn't that what we tried to do with NCLB?

The difference is that NCLB tried to apply itself to rather abstract areas of study. I was referring specifically to standards for votech training. It's fairly difficult to test if someone has a good grasp on english literature, or if they really understand science or simply crammed for the test. On the other hand, it's very easy to tell if someone would make a good sysadmin or server tech or HVAC repairman, because none of those fields have any nuance.

Korovyov: I'll note that even with something not obviously rife with ideology as economics or history, there are still major controversies. There's a strong faction in California arguing that they simply don't have the resources to teach algebra to eighth-graders, for instance.

Weren't they defeated? And isn't that mostly in the really poor districts?

sarcastrophe: You cannot force someone to learn. Even if you could, there is no entity on the planet that can decide for an individual WHAT they should learn. That should be a personal choice. If the majority of people choose to be ditch diggers, I don't think it's the government's business to prevent it. We should provide the choice and opportunity, not force it.

We have become much to easy on children. We can indeed get them to learn. More importantly, we can funnel them in certain directions. That is not destroying individuality- it is a reality of being human and part of society.


rohar: Isn't that what we tried to do with NCLB?

In the end, I believe our society is far too varied for that to occur. The education system in WA is at least 30 years advanced over that in FL (my mother just returned here from teaching in FL, there's been a lot of conversations). There's no way we're going to rectify that any time soon.


Not at all, and society is not too varied. We really just don't try to improve our educational system. The reality is it needs a national makeover , with many of the "stupider" states being informed on what to do, and how to do it. With repercussions extremely severe.

Lusiphur: On the other hand, it's very easy to tell if someone would make a good sysadmin or server tech or HVAC repairman, because none of those fields have any nuance.

I can assure you, being an excelent sysadmin has very little to do with systems or administration. It's virtually all nuance. Good admins are excelent not only at troubleshooting, but also interpersonally. If you get into some of the more traditional vocational studies, it's even worse. Banging a wrinkled Porsche fender back to a perfect factory curve with nothing but a hammer, a hunk of cast iron and a leather purse is 100% nuance. How would it be any easier to test these things?

sloppy shoes: Weren't they defeated? And isn't that mostly in the really poor districts?

Hm. Apparently so, as for the first part. With respect to the second -- I doubt it, considering the large hole in the state budget plus the slackening property values. Unless they manage to battle the UC system and the community colleges for a larger share of the already large portion of the state expenditures on education...

In August it seems that an official was calling for $3.1B of additional spending just for algebra; that's presumably not going to happen with a ca. $40B gap through... mid 2010, IIRC.

sloppy shoes: We have become much to easy on children

Careful here. Ya know I lived on the streets from 18-19 and I was in foster care from 15-18. You're going to breed libertarians if you force people to take care of themselves. You may want to re-evaluate if you think hard times breeds liberalism.

Actually, check that. There seems to be a court battle going on, which recently blocked California's algebra mandate. That's from Jan. 21. *shrug*

rohar: I can assure you, being an excelent sysadmin has very little to do with systems or administration. It's virtually all nuance. Good admins are excelent not only at troubleshooting, but also interpersonally. If you get into some of the more traditional vocational studies, it's even worse. Banging a wrinkled Porsche fender back to a perfect factory curve with nothing but a hammer, a hunk of cast iron and a leather purse is 100% nuance. How would it be any easier to test these things?

Because we wouldn't be testing for excellence. We'd be testing for competence. There's no point in even trying to test for the best of the best. We'll know who they are. There IS however a point in testing and standardization to make sure the worst of the worst don't kill everyone by mis-soldering a wire somewhere.

sarcastrophe: Careful here. Ya know I lived on the streets from 18-19 and I was in foster care from 15-18. You're going to breed libertarians if you force people to take care of themselves. You may want to re-evaluate if you think hard times breeds liberalism.

You'd be surprised what hard times breed. It can breed all types of people. But we can structure education to guide people.

You also missed the point of my comment. You keep talking about how we need to let children learn what they want to learn, and do this and that= all a bunch of bogus. We can very much educate our children in a general direction. That doesn't mean everyone will turn out the same nor that they will all be equally intelligent. But, there is no reason why a good percentage of the population can't learn algebra, basic calculus, know how to read at the 12th grade level, enjoy it, etc...

Libertarianism isn't a real solution. Part of mandating that kids join the peace corps or americorps is learning some of the realities you faced, and what happens when societies begin to fall apart.