As for the Roanoke colony which you reference, no one knows what really happened... though there is evidence that they were absorbed into the local indigenious population.

Bukharin - Well, you may assume I'm gonna go have a beer now. Definitely.

Good weekend all.

Crotchrocket Slim

Its not public education that made it possible to get educated everywhere. It's more do to with industry. 100 years you couldn't of had education on such a wide scale.

Roy_D_Mercer:

fark the voucher system. I still have to pay for it. If I ever have kids I can pay for there education. Untill I do, I should not have to pay for it. simple as that.

insert vroomazoom will not have children joke here ---X

Ayn was not for public education what so ever.

Then how does she account for the privilege of the affluent? How does she suggest leveling the playing field so that those without means have a fair shot at succeeding? This is the major reason Objectivism really fails... it doesn't recognize that Capitalist systems do have faults.

Bukharin:

I dont care if people want to pool their money together. If it is optional, fine, as long as the organization of the pool system does not require tax dollars and is not under the controll of the government. if its required, costs tax dollars, or involves government employees, no.

Bobert
You don't have a right to an education. You have the right to pursue it. The government should be allowed to force someone to go to school.

apologies if this has been covered.

I doubt Cecil Adams is a real person.

He's a pen name for one, two or three writers.

Anybody have any proof that he exists?

RF

Roy_D_Mercer:

adios

04-11-03 04:55:50 PM Objectivist
Its not public education that made it possible to get educated everywhere. It's more do to with industry. 100 years you couldn't of had education on such a wide scale.

The Chinese had public education for 100s of years before industrialization. Also, explain to me just how changing from an agrarian society to an industrial one made widespread education possible. I see the correlation, but not the causation.

Daz: "the attorney-client PRIVILEGE."

Apparently you don't understand that there are several definitions of the word privilege. In the case of attorney-client privilege, it refers to the fact that information shared between a client and attorney is privileged, meaning it is not subject to disclosure in a court of law.

Also, how do you know Bush did well on his SATs?

04-11-03 04:57:59 PM Vroomazoom

So you would be in support of communial education.
How about communial healthcare? Similar system.

04-11-03 04:58:21 PM Objectivist
You don't have a right to an education. You have the right to pursue it. The government should be allowed to force someone to go to school.

This, I agree with you on... though doesn't that mean it should be made available to all, regardless of pre-extant personal wealth? Doesn't this also mean that there must be at least a minimal (grade school) education available for all just to set up a basic understanding of our culture and society?

Crotchrocket Slim

i don't agree with your assertion that only the rich could afford education. Secondly no system can exist that will be perfect for every individual. But Capitalism is a system that protects individual rights. That means every one is treated equally. Objectivism doesn't say it we adopted lassez faire everything would be perfect. People have different abilties. The only way you level the playing field as you like to say is by punishing the ones at the top and that is not fair. Your not guaranteed an equal opportunity that opportunity is provided at the expense of others.

04-11-03 04:58:21 PM Objectivist
"You don't have a right to an education. You have the right to pursue it. The government should [NOT, i assume] be allowed to force someone to go to school."

I think basic literacy and math should be manditory.

I think basic literacy and math should be manditory

what about spelling?

RF

Objectivist,
I don't feel it should be viewed as forcing someone to go to school, because it is not the childs choice, you are not forcing children to do anything, they are not making the decision, the parents are, I don't think because a parent is lazy or doesn't give a damn about their child, the child should be denied an education. Your argument (at least the way you framed it) is flawed at the point you conciede that if a child has no choice in being educated and not educated.

Bukharin:

i dont care what people want to do with there money if they dont involve the government, or me. spend your money in groups, spend it by yourself, just dont bother me with it.

Doesn't this also mean that there must be at least a minimal (grade school) education available for all just to set up a basic understanding of our culture and society?

That can be done privately. If people weren't being taxed out of their ass they could afford to send kids to school. It would be much cheaper than private school costs now.

But Objectivist, many times those at the top are not there through skill, but through luck... therefore, they benefit disproportional from this liberal society.

And need I remind you that education costs money... and takes time. You can work, or you can go to school. Some many to do both, but the majority of people can't... especially if the field of study (such as any of the sciences) is especially demanding.

Objectivist, explain how working families can afford to have their children go to school while they can barely afford to feed themselves please. Anyway, an educated populace is a productive one... and you want America to stay competitive, don't you?

I don't think because a parent is lazy or doesn't give a damn about their child, the child should be denied an education

I agree that is horrible but because of the super small amount of horrible parents that would not want their kids to go to school is just not a good enough reason to force everyone in society to pay for education.

Your argument (at least the way you framed it) is flawed at the point you conciede that if a child has no choice in being educated and not educated.

Can you clarify this for me. I'm not sure what your saying.

04-11-03 05:06:03 PM Vroomazoom

If there was a communial healthcare system,
how would advancements in medical technology be paid for?

Should the benefits of those advancements be used by only those that paid for them?

Should those who cannot afford the advancements do without?

But Objectivist, many times those at the top are not there through skill, but through luck... therefore, they benefit disproportional from this liberal society.

That's bullshiat and I'm not even going to argue that point.

Secondly how did America thrive so fast from 1800 to 1900. there wasn't public education. If there was no income tax people could afford school for their kids. They should be responsible. They should not have kids if they can't afford them. Education is part of the cost of having kids. You can't have kids and then say o waitr I can't afford this and then make society fit the bill.

Bukharin:

there is not a communal health care system now because the idea is silly. people will not get together and pay for healthcare as a group. if they want to fine, but it wont happen, so the results of such a situation do not matter.

explain how working families can afford to have their children go to school while they can barely afford to feed themselves please.

they are paying for education right now. education is not free. it is payed for by taxes. if you did not haveto pay those taxes, you could easily afford education.

04-11-03 05:13:46 PM Vroomazoom,

Then what system would you propose?
Or would you do without healthcare?

Anyway, an educated populace is a productive one... and you want America to stay competitive, don't you

It's amazing that the more we spend on education the dumber everyone gets. Maybe that's why were not as competitive.

"I think basic literacy and math should be manditory."

Does anyone else see the irony in this?

Clarification

You said "The government should not be able to force anyone to go to school"

the force is being applied on the parents not the children, because the parents are making the decision.

it should read
"The government should not have the right to force parents to give there children an education"

and this is not a small detail. It does change radicly the entire arguement. because the later opens debate regarding the childrens rights, because, due to there age they rely on there parents to provide nececities. I feal quite strongly that depriving a child of education, is simular to crazy religious parents that refuse to give there children vaccinations, or medical care. (if you feal that this should also be legal ignore it so we can stick to a single topic. I'm just trying to ilustrate a point, and I do realize the alalogy is not flawless. Im just hopping it helps you with my perspective)

Bukharin:

what are you talking about? advancements in medical technology are payed for when the the advancements come out. You pay for the advancements when you use the advanced technology. the current private system in the U.S. is fine with me, accept for the taxes that i have to pay for other people to get medical assistance.

"Or would you do without healthcare?"

huh? i have medical insurance. that covers the cost of my health care.

That's bullshiat and I'm not even going to argue that point.

If you could, you would. Explain to me why it is fair that GWB's connections kept him in the NG (oops, on topic now) while so many poor people were forced into the regular army. Explain why higher level boarding schools are filled with the children of the affluent, where many networking connections are made, while the children of the poor are stuck in huge, underfunded public schools... and you want to remove even this.

Secondly how did America thrive so fast from 1800 to 1900.

Easy, capitalism hadn't become so entrenched in American culture. Sure, there was heavy trade, but the nation was still very undeveloped and it was possible to survive just by living off the land. Immigrant farmers could come in and get a plot of land via the Homesteading Act, and not pay for it at all. After being given the chance to succeed, they worked hard and did. Ayn Rand was right about hard work and determination, but completely discounted the inequalities inherent in purely capitalist systems... which is why the rest of the world uses social programs, which we needed to help us out of the Depression.

04-11-03 05:15:09 PM Vroomazoom

Indeed, much of the tax money goes to fund middle-men who shuffle paperwork and then pass the remander of the funds to the school. It would be cheaper to pay the school directly.

04-11-03 05:16:51 PM Objectivist
It's amazing that the more we spend on education the dumber everyone gets. Maybe that's why were not as competitive.

I didn't say the current system was perfect, or didn't need massive overhauls... just that it was better than nothing.

Crotchrocket Slim and Objectivist

You two get a room.

which is why the rest of the world uses social programs, which we needed to help us out of the Depression.

WWII got us out of the great depression.

04-11-03 05:20:13 PM Vroomazoom
huh? i have medical insurance. that covers the cost of my health care.

Is that insurance selected and paid for by yourself?
Or is it company provided and deducted from your pay?

Addendum to my 04-11-03 05:20:21 PM Crotchrocket Slim post:

Slave labor in the South also contributed a lot to the commerical growth there. And that's nothing but exploitation and oppression.

Buckharin, my guess is none of the above but thats just a guess.

Crotchrocket Slim

the depression was caused by government not Capitalism. The inequalities you speak of exist in reality. You can't get around them. All your doing is recongnizing some people are smarter than others and are more talented. Why should they be punished?

If you could, you would. Explain to me why it is fair that GWB's connections kept him in the NG (oops, on topic now) while so many poor people were forced into the regular army. Explain why higher level boarding schools are filled with the children of the affluent, where many networking connections are made, while the children of the poor are stuck in huge, underfunded public schools... and you want to remove even this.

It isn't fair. But you can't have a system that is fair for everyone. Sure if someone has more money they can afford better thing and havea better opportunities. That's the reward of being successful. The poor children are stuck in the crappy schools because government has a monopoly on education.

Bukharin :

It is through my company, but if you want to debate any points, your going to need provide a side you support.

04-11-03 05:24:56 PM Vroomazoom
WWII got us out of the great depression.

Well, actually it was both... but the massive government spending, which provided many jobs when before there was a complete lack of them before- is just what Objectivism cannot stand. Also, much of the debt accrued doing that time got tacked onto the National Debt, which is slowly choking the life out of the US economy, among other things.

I didn't say the current system was perfect, or didn't need massive overhauls... just that it was better than nothing.

I reject your dichotomy that it is either public or nothing.

wait! what am I saying? I am covered for a different reason. thanks for the remider Bobert. My health care is provided from my parents still, I believe through there employer. not sure why.

objectivist,

are you going to respond to my clarification?

Crotchrocket Slim

Before you start representing Objectivism you might want to know what you are talking about. The government is responsible for the Depression not Capitalism.

It's because you are a student under the age 25 and your mother works at the hospital that is currently providing the insurance.

Crotchrocket Slim :

i would venture to say that the government spending did nothing, or made the problem worse. I guess its a moot point though, and not a discussion i would want to get into.

04-11-03 05:28:19 PM Vroomazoom
"It is through my company, but if you want to debate any points, your going to need provide a side you support."


I have no side, I am undecided.
But if your company pays for it when they could pay you more by not providing it, is'n that similar to a tax? Or is the insurance optional?

Bobert

I want to but I'm tied up with Slim. Not evading just give me a second. Well fark it. Here it is in short. I think the intiation of force should be banned from all human interaction. Will clarify a little later.