terry_freeman on March 23, 2010, 05:39:53 pm
Most people vastly overestimate the cost of a free-market education. This is due to the terrible misconception that schooling requires 12 years times 180 days times 6 hours per day. Of course it's expensive to hire somebody to teach for such a great length of time. It has been shown that 30 to 100 hours is enough to teach a motivated student to read, write, and do arithmetic with a degree of proficiency which exceeds that of a great many high school graduates.

James Tooley has researched modern free-market education in India and Africa, in places where people have far fewer resources than Americans do. He found that many such parents prefer free-market schools to government schools, and sacrifice quite a bit to send their children to free-market schools. If they can afford it, I have no fear whatsoever that  Americans would lack the resources to do so.

As for this hypothetical imbalance, it does not take vast resources to become skilled at math or spelling or whatever. It requires some commitment, but far less than you imagine. I have a grandson, about a week shy of his 8th birthday, whose math skills were tested last year at the 6th grade level, who has been enjoying binary arithmetic, negative numbers, powers and roots, fractions, decimals, and cryptography for a few years already. His parents do not spend six hours per day drilling him. I suspect he spends about one or two hours per day in instruction.

His education is directed not by his parents, but by his interests. They act more as facilitators. Any child who wants to learn can be amazingly efficient. It took me about 5 minutes to explain negative numbers to my son, who asked "what is 7 - 5" at the age of 5 or 6. It took just a few minutes to explain to my grandson how to sum n numbers, as in the formula n(n+1)/2 -- and he  easily generalizes to many related problems. When tested on "complex problem solving" ability, he scored at the 13th grade level. When I asked him the sum of the even numbers from 2 to 50, he solved it mentally in an instant.

I keep three principles in mind. One, always answer as concisely and accurately as possible. Two, stop while the child is still interested. Leave the rest for another day. Three, point the way for the child to expand further.








Jtuxyan on March 24, 2010, 03:12:58 pm
Quote
I get your point ... you are talking about the INSANE SCENARIO 

It's not insane if it's happened multiple times throughout history. For many dictators, it's not about what's economicaly best, it's about control. Anyone who won't bow will die, until either the population submits, or there is no one left.

Quote
1- Target the Leadership : The Nutcase bastard being first on the list, you can derail the war effort by using targeted assination of the top level of command

Name one historical incident where a major offensive war was stopped by the assassination of the aggressors leader.

Quote
2- Assimetric Warfare : A modern army is a formidable machine, but a machine with some nasty problems, target supplies lines and other strategic assets and you will win ... ie: Ballistic anti-aircraft carrier missiles or more nastier stuff.

First, spell check. Second, you're wrong. There's no dispute on this matter, you're flat out, demonstrably incorrect. A modern army's initial invasion has never been repelled by private millita or insurgents. Never.

Quote
3- An armed populace : any Nut will likely want the population to be desarmed, but if this an AnCap society, at least 80% of people will have some kind of weapons home, so commiting troops to disarme those people will require a huge army and could backlash has radicalizing more people.

Why would he want to disarm them?

Seriously. You arn't getting this. For someone who's *really serious* about taking over the world, you don't disarm or occupy the target populations, you kill them. That is the scenario we are discussing. Unless your gun gives you an immunity to nerve gas, it's not going to help you in this instance.

Quote
Extermination is expensive in energy, equipment, personnel and time.  John Ross discussed this in "Unintended Consequences" recounting the German response to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during WWII.  When a population has nothing to loose, their effectiveness may only be limited by ignorance.
Quote
Time and again small groups have demonstrated an effect out of proportion to their size.  Only in limited circumstances would  a small team stand in a toe-to-toe fight with a military unit.  The preferred action  would be picking the time and place and removing the officers and senior non-commissioned officers, bypassing enlisted personnel.  Or destroying equipment essential to the military mission.  Enough "stings" and the military unit fails.

The germans did not use chemical, nuclear, or bioweapons. It seems wrong given how many people they killed, but compared to what their technology was capable of -- much less what modern technology is capable of -- their genocide was very inefficient. They were interested in eliminating *one part* of the population and sparing the rest, and did not use all the tools at their disposal to do so. If they had wanted to kill *everyone* in the occupied countries, they would have had a much easier time of it.

Quote
Most people vastly overestimate the cost of a free-market education. This is due to the terrible misconception that schooling requires 12 years times 180 days times 6 hours per day. Of course it's expensive to hire somebody to teach for such a great length of time. It has been shown that 30 to 100 hours is enough to teach a motivated student to read, write, and do arithmetic with a degree of proficiency which exceeds that of a great many high school graduates.

Even if that were true (which frankly, I doubt) school covers more then RWA, a basic understanding of history, government, science, politics, the world, etc, is required to be a citizen who can meaningfully participate in the democratic system. Furthermore, even if you are correct, that's an excellent argument for reforming public school to be of a much shorter duration, rather then an argument for private school.

terry_freeman on March 25, 2010, 12:54:08 am
If all you are saying is that the initial invasion would succeed -- so what? That's true even of governments - you can't stop a determined force from landing somewhere, destroying some stuff. Even America, with the biggest military in the world, can't claim to be able to stop a determined invader. In fact, it can't even defend the Pentagon itself from a few guys armed with box cutters.

So who cares? The point is, to actually conquer a country, you need boots on the ground. Those boots on the ground are vulnerable to guerilla warfare, as American troops are discovering in Afghanistan. I'll bet you're still too lazy and pig-headed to read the books of H John Poole, and are still clinging to your bizarre belief that we "won" in the Middle East because we broke a lot of things. "Mission Accomplished" and all that glorious pollyanna nonsense.

What is actually happening in the Middle East is that this government is rapidly bankrupting itself, which is exactly what Osama bin Laden predicted would happen. The fable of the wasp killing a car filled with four grown men is instructive. The right application of force can cause a big, massive socialist enterprise such as our military to flail about madly and self-destruct, as did the former USSR, and the US of A is following in their footsteps as blindly as ever, guided by brilliant people with all the misguided smarts of yourself.

It is possible to be very bright, very well-educated, and very incapable of looking at the strategic big picture. Remember your history; "Another victory such as this will destroy us."

America broke lots of things and killed lots of people. Yet American soldiers are afraid to venture outside of their compounds alone. Meanwhile the head of Iran can visit Iraq without a massive convoy of bodyguards. This is evidence that America conquered Iraq? No, it is evidence that America swallowed a mouth full of porcupine, and is suffering a very bad case of indigestion. Trillion-dollar deficits - higher than at any time since WW II. A $12 trillion official debt, and another $80 trillion unfunded liabilities ... that's a success story? In your dreams, in your dreams. That's the road to bankruptcy.

If Afghanistan were an AnCap society as prosperous as Switzerland, such a hypothetical invasion would be like a ship battering itself to pieces on a rock. You imagine stupid things like governments which can make secret emplacements, and corporations which can not. You can make no argument without assuming that your opponents are riddled with weaknesses.

Evidently, you never understood the phrase "know your enemy" - you think "construct a straw man" is good military strategy. What a waste of brainpower!




dough560 on March 25, 2010, 06:36:02 am
No, the WWII Germans killed anyone, not like them.  That definition expanded over time from the Jews to the Gypsies and so on.  Yes their methods were inefficient and I agree it would have been easier for them to kill everyone and let God sort them out.  The problem with that, there wouldn't have been any slaves to work in their factories or farms.

As for chemical and biological weapons, the Germans were told:  You use them, We use them.  Mutual Assured Destruction sound familiar?

Nuclear Weapons:  Apparently the Germans kept shooting themselves in the foot while trying to develop them.

one eye chuck on March 25, 2010, 10:47:35 am
Hey Guys, Gals and even to those who ain't sure what they are,
I've been crazy busy the last few days and have not had a chance to get here. Wow, is there a lot of information/opinion in this thread. I don't know if I mentioned that I am looking for good resources on AnCap/Libertarian thought and I think I've found a few, thanks to all for the tips.

As far as the fire department thing, Sandy, you were right. I didn't think it through. Every time I head into the Northwoods, I see banners advertising some kind of dinner/dance for the local volunteer FD. Well, I've been accused of being blind in one eye and unable to see out the other, just another case of it.

Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see direct replies to the points H.L. (and I) made about the fact that there will probably always be some kind of (crazy?) "strongman" and that there will be people who "need" to follow them. Nor did I see anything on the idea that, left to their own devices, enough people would lie, cheat, steal, kill, maim, rape and pillage if they thought they could get away with it, that it would make being their neighbor a real pain in the ass. Don't believe me? Then please explain the number of prisoners in the US. (Kind of a bad example - a lot of them are in for non-violent, "victimless" crimes such as simple possession of an herb that the gov't. [ in its infinite wisdom ] has deemed sooo harmful that we the sheeple should not be trusted to make our own decision regarding its use.)  OOpps, time to reel it back in  ;)

I can't say that I fully support the idea of home/private schooling. I will admit that part of the so-called education in our public schools is indoctrination and that the quality could be vastly improved. However, the indoctrination is mostly in the social graces of cooperation, being a good sport, teamwork, etc. ( I know I'm gonna get an earful on that one). Would you support a school or curriculum  that indoctrinated its pupils in racial or religious superiority?  They already exist in the world. I would rather live in society that promoted tolerance than hate.

In an AnCap/Libertarian society, what's to stop a corporation or individual from establishing a monopoly and pushing prices as far as the market will bear? ( See Standard Oil in the 1880's) Time and again, people who have no empathy for their fellow man have used that lack of empathy to rise to power and stay there. ( Do you know why CEO's and their ilk get paid so much? They are highly functioning sociopaths who can sleep at night despite the fact their decisions have resulted in real harm. There are not a lot of people who fit that bill, hence the market works! )

I have had kind of an epiphany on the subject of liberty while reading the boards here. I think a really "free" society can only exist on  a frontier.
Too many people need some kind of authority to guide them, ( how else to explain organized religion?) they would clamor for government. Pioneers, on the other hand, are an independent bunch to begin with. They are comfortable being self-reliant. They know, in their bones, that the cavalry will not come charging over the hill to save them. They are the kind of people who would make such a society work. They are the type who would be willing to put their lives on the line for their ideals. Unfortunately, there ain't enough such folks and we're out of room over the next hill. RAH was right when he said "If a place requires its people to carry ID, it's time to lift ship. It's too late to try to change it and that society is doomed to fail," or something to that effect.

This is all hypothetical, of course. We have not yet seen an AnCap/Lib society.My problem isn't with any political philosophy, it's with human nature. Too many idiots "need" government to either take care of them or keep them in line. Libertarianism is the idea that given the liberty to do so, people will act rationally in their own enlightened self interest. If that were the case, no one would start smoking, every one would strive to get as much education as they could handle and no one would drive piece o'sh*t cars with bad brakes or elect idiots who trample on our rights and wipe their asses with the Constitution. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but  the older I get, the more I believe that Malthus was right- we shall eventually perish in our own shit.

Holy cats, this is a long post! Please, poke holes in my arguments. I love it when intelligent discourse leads me to new (to me) ideas and ways of looking at the world.

P.S. To the staff of Big Head Press: Keep up the good work!  I love your stuff! It actually gives me a bit of hope for the future.


SandySandfort on March 25, 2010, 01:26:24 pm
I'm just going to hit a few high points. Otherwise, we might run out of new EFT.

As far as the fire department thing, Sandy, you were right. I didn't think it through. Every time I head into the Northwoods, I see banners advertising some kind of dinner/dance for the local volunteer FD. Well, I've been accused of being blind in one eye and unable to see out the other, just another case of it.

Yes, there are many ways to skin this cat. I was actually thinking of early New England private fire companies that worked on an insurance model. Each of them gave policy holders a big wrought iron logo to post on their house. That way, there was no question about which fire company would fight the fire. Generally, fire companies would fight fires in homes that were covered by other insurance companies or when human life was at risk. Your barn catches on fire, but there is no threat to human life? If you aren't insured, burn, baby burn.

I can't say that I fully support the idea of home/private schooling.,, I would rather live in society that promoted tolerance than hate.

In which case, you certainly cannot support government schools. Better not write an essay that questions global warming. Draw a picture of a gun, go to jail (or at least the cops are called). Say that Lincoln was a dictator or that the South was Constitutionally correct about secession, and see how much "tolerance" you get.

In an AnCap/Libertarian society, what's to stop a corporation or individual from establishing a monopoly and pushing prices as far as the market will bear? ( See Standard Oil in the 1880's)

The free market, unencumbered by a state which protects Standard Oil, will stop the establishment of a monopoly. Take the government out of the picture and artificial monopolies are not possible. (Sometime you will tell everyone the story of two trading posts that competed on the Navajo reservation.)


one eye chuck on March 25, 2010, 01:50:42 pm
Quote
I'm just going to hit a few high points. Otherwise, we might run out of new EFT.


PLEASE please please.... Don't ever let these boards take your time away from writing EFT. Like I said, your work gives me a bit of hope for the future.   ;D

SandySandfort on March 25, 2010, 02:00:40 pm
Quote
I'm just going to hit a few high points. Otherwise, we might run out of new EFT.


PLEASE please please.... Don't ever let these boards take your time away from writing EFT. Like I said, your work gives me a bit of hope for the future.   ;D


Thank you, your wish is my command*

Certain conditions may apply.

sams on March 25, 2010, 02:27:04 pm
I can't say that I fully support the idea of home/private schooling. I will admit that part of the so-called education in our public schools is indoctrination and that the quality could be vastly improved. However, the indoctrination is mostly in the social graces of cooperation, being a good sport, teamwork, etc. ( I know I'm gonna get an earful on that one). Would you support a school or curriculum  that indoctrinated its pupils in racial or religious superiority?  They already exist in the world. I would rather live in society that promoted tolerance than hate.

I doubt that that public schools can ever be improved ... they have just no feedback mechanism that tell them when the parents are please or not. A solution would be to have voucher ... maybe but first you have to face the teacher union. In almost all countries ''educational reforms' fail because most of the time the problems are drowned with money  :-\

About the racial part of your comment ... may I remember you that public schools are the most racially focused and there seems to have no practical solution to this problem.

but for specific question about the racially or religiously oriented curriculum you must know that most parents send their children to school to learn something useful and earn a living ... not to learn religion ... this is the church job. But even then if a school do have some sort of religious content, it is relatively not a problem and I know it because I studied in catholic and protestant schools. Attending the first was relatively a problem since I'm an evangelical ... but the schools required all to take part of ceremonies at the chapel, but when I was back home I had sessions of active ''deprogramming'' ... the same occurred with those who were Muslim or from another variety of Christianity : Go to school ... ignore and play low profile during religious subject class, then go home and have Daddy ready you the Coran or thora or bible

Private schools are also better to deal with racial differences because tend to be classified according income: there are schools for the poor, the middle class and the rich.
Since there are people of all race and colour in all these 3 categories, you have pretty much a more ''diverse'' ambient for your children, especially if you remember that tuitions doesn't have skin colour.

What can we about some crazy hippies who go with their children in some kind of Wacko community were they worship aliens and the kids learn and imaginary language ... well we can't do much about it  ::)

If you care about the children and fear they get a crappy education, stet in, built a school and provide the best curriculum available ... believe it is a sweet business ;D

You can also get active and lunch a think thank about it  ;)

Most of the problems of a libertarian society have no theoretical solution ... or you are calling for a government, if you really want to help : identify the problem, gather like minded people and launch a voluntary enterprise, for profit or not

Jtuxyan on March 25, 2010, 06:14:12 pm
Quote
If all you are saying is that the initial invasion would succeed -- so what? That's true even of governments - you can't stop a determined force from landing somewhere, destroying some stuff.

You mean like how the Germans successfully landed on Englands shores during the -- oh wait. Well, lets to be fair, there was a sea gap there. So I guess it's more like how they invaded all of Russia and were only driven out by a passive...no, wait, the Red Army stopped them before they could. Then...erm...just like how the US conquered all of North Korea in the Korean war, but only ...uh. No, the Chinese stopped us at the DMZ there too, didn't they?

Well, damn. Looks like you're wrong, as usual.

Quote
So who cares? The point is, to actually conquer a country, you need boots on the ground.

I'm going to repeat this as many times as it takes you to get it. I do apologize if this seems abrasive, rude, or trollish, but I'm getting rather annoyed with making this point over and over again.

The scenario we are discussing is the DESTRUCTION of a nation by an aggressor, not conquering. There is NO OCCUPATION, there is no rebuilding.

Quote
What is actually happening in the Middle East is that this government is rapidly bankrupting itself, which is exactly what Osama bin Laden predicted would happen. The fable of the wasp killing a car filled with four grown men is instructive. The right application of force can cause a big, massive socialist enterprise such as our military to flail about madly and self-destruct, as did the former USSR, and the US of A is following in their footsteps as blindly as ever, guided by brilliant people with all the misguided smarts of yourself.

It is possible to be very bright, very well-educated, and very incapable of looking at the strategic big picture. Remember your history; "Another victory such as this will destroy us."

The scenario we are discussing is the DESTRUCTION of a nation by an aggressor, not conquering. There is NO OCCUPATION, there is no rebuilding.

Quote
America broke lots of things and killed lots of people. Yet American soldiers are afraid to venture outside of their compounds alone. Meanwhile the head of Iran can visit Iraq without a massive convoy of bodyguards. This is evidence that America conquered Iraq? No, it is evidence that America swallowed a mouth full of porcupine, and is suffering a very bad case of indigestion. Trillion-dollar deficits - higher than at any time since WW II. A $12 trillion official debt, and another $80 trillion unfunded liabilities ... that's a success story? In your dreams, in your dreams. That's the road to bankruptcy.

If Afghanistan were an AnCap society as prosperous as Switzerland, such a hypothetical invasion would be like a ship battering itself to pieces on a rock. You imagine stupid things like governments which can make secret emplacements, and corporations which can not. You can make no argument without assuming that your opponents are riddled with weaknesses.

The scenario we are discussing is the DESTRUCTION of a nation by an aggressor, not conquering. There is NO OCCUPATION, there is no rebuilding.

Quote
Evidently, you never understood the phrase "know your enemy" - you think "construct a straw man" is good military strategy. What a waste of brainpower!

The scenario we are discuss-

No, wait, I'm sorry, wrong answer there.

You obviously have no idea what a "strawman" is and have failed to in any way address my points.

There we go.

Quote
No, the WWII Germans killed anyone, not like them.  That definition expanded over time from the Jews to the Gypsies and so on.

Yeah, news flash? The population of Europe is mostly white. When they start gassing the lilly-white sections of the population as well as the slaves, jews, etc, *then* they will be killing "everyone." I'm sorry, but killing all the minorities is a long damn way from everyone.

Quote
In which case, you certainly cannot support government schools. Better not write an essay that questions global warming. Draw a picture of a gun, go to jail (or at least the cops are called). Say that Lincoln was a dictator or that the South was Constitutionally correct about secession, and see how much "tolerance" you get.

How does that have anything to do with teaching hate? Global Warming has nothing to do with hate or tolerance -- the school doesn't tolerate ideas they think are incorrect the same way they woudln't tolerate a student saying 2+2=5, but they don't tell you to round up and kill people who don't believe in Global Warming. They don't tell you to discriminate against them. They don't tell you to marginalize them. They just say that Global Warming is real, and while you're free to say otherwise, you will fail the class if you do.

Quote
I doubt that that public schools can ever be improved ... they have just no feedback mechanism that tell them when the parents are please or not.

And why is the parents being pleased the criteria?

If a parent wants their child to believer that black people, jews, gypsies, etc, are subhuman, I'd imagine they would be *very* unhappy with the school for teaching their child otherwise. They won't be pleased in the slightest. The same goes with luddites who's kids have to learn about science and technology, hippies who's kids have to learn that capitalism is not actually evil, and Christians who have to learn that gays don't actually have a secret conspiracy to destroy decency in the world.

The goal of public schooling is to give the child an accurate and unbiased view of the world and equip them with the knowledge they need to make a living for themselves. And if that pleases the parents, so much the better, but pleasing the parents is not the goal.

Quote
Private schools are also better to deal with racial differences because tend to be classified according income: there are schools for the poor, the middle class and the rich.
Since there are people of all race and colour in all these 3 categories

Not evenly distributed.


Sean Roach on March 25, 2010, 08:17:06 pm
... and Christians who have to learn that gays don't actually have a secret conspiracy to destroy decency in the world.

They don't?   :>

The goal of public schooling is to give the child an accurate and unbiased view of the world and equip them with the knowledge they need to make a living for themselves. And if that pleases the parents, so much the better, but pleasing the parents is not the goal.
The goal of public schooling is to produce workers for the factories, checkers for the stores, soldiers for the army, and farm hands for the farms.

Public schooling is far from unbiased.  Each group strives to get its own bias represented, but some are more successful than others.  When a class of grade schoolers is taught to sing the praises of Obama in the months leading up to the election, something isn't right.

terry_freeman on March 25, 2010, 08:34:19 pm
O come on, that hoary old "socializaiton" myth? Excuse me, no offense intended, but you really need to get out more.

Part of the problem is that you have been indoctrinated to think that "schooling" is something that happens inside four walls of a school. Therefore, you extrapolate and think that "home schooling" means kids are locked up inside the home all the time.

That is almost never the case. First off, home schooling is VASTLY more efficient than the nonsense in government schools. How else can you explain my home schooled grandson, when he was five, exchanging cryptograms with me and solving them? How do you explain his facility with mental arithmetic? Show me a government kindergarten where students are enjoying that level of math. Now almost 8 years of age, he knows about fractions, decimals, negative numbers, powers, exponents, number bases - and can handle all of these fluently without needing calculator or even paper or pencil.

Now, is he chained to a desk for 12 hours per day? Nope. He's taught at a level of efficiency which is totally unimaginable to people who think that government schools are the be-all and end-all. His math lessons typically last a few minutes. Introduce the idea, explain it, test it, and it's done. Go do something more fun.

That leaves him, and millions of other home schoolers with lots of free time which they use to socialize - to mix with a great variety of people of all different ages. This, in my mind, is better practice for real-world social skills than this bizarre idea of keeping children in limited groups where everyone is plus-or-minus six months of the same age.

My daughter recently posted that her son prefers piano lessons to folding laundry. He - like many other home schoolers - enjoys learning; he seeks out and devours knowledge.


Jtuxyan on March 26, 2010, 02:10:40 am
Quote
They don't?   :>

It's not really an exclusive conspiracy.

Quote
Public schooling is far from unbiased.  Each group strives to get its own bias represented, but some are more successful than others.  When a class of grade schoolers is taught to sing the praises of Obama in the months leading up to the election, something isn't right.

If true, then that's a failure in execution, certainly. But it doesn't invalidate the idea or the purpose.

sams on March 26, 2010, 02:28:44 am
Quote
How does that have anything to do with teaching hate? Global Warming has nothing to do with hate or tolerance -- the school doesn't tolerate ideas they think are incorrect the same way they woudln't tolerate a student saying 2+2=5, but they don't tell you to round up and kill people who don't believe in Global Warming. They don't tell you to discriminate against them. They don't tell you to marginalize them. They just say that Global Warming is real, and while you're free to say otherwise, you will fail the class if you do.

Because public schools and college can't become center for the diffusion of stupid ideas and indoctrination ... actually they are, just visit the departement at universities:

Social studies : class warfare and a lot of Karl Marx
African studies : Because racism can never dry up ... or we can't blame the cash out of the white, jews and Asians
Women studies : Because abortions should be mandatory and femiNazis may stay relevant in an era when they are irrelevant

or shutting down Ann Coulter because she ''can commit a hate crime'' ... refuse to discuss middle east conflict by refusing Jew to give lectures ... will giving intellectual base for killing Israeli .... all of this just at the University of Ottawa, Canada

Public schools do marginalize those who think differently try again

Quote
And why is the parents being pleased the criteria?

Because the parents are the one who have the most interest with their children education, they are the ones who most care about them and should be the ones in charge of the education. Who do you want to please ? the teachers Unions ? the unicorn or the almighty president ? sorry I repeated my self :D or do you want to please the kids ... wait this aint possible at least till their 25 because they are irresponsible ... and under the responsibility of their parents who happen to be the ones who pay for the education. If the kid want to be the one pleased, then He should be the one working, which may indicate that he have maturity to take decisions


If a parent wants their child to believer that black people, jews, gypsies, etc, are subhuman, I'd imagine they would be *very* unhappy with the school for teaching their child otherwise. They won't be pleased in the slightest. The same goes with luddites who's kids have to learn about science and technology, hippies who's kids have to learn that capitalism is not actually evil, and Christians who have to learn that gays don't actually have a secret conspiracy to destroy decency in the world.

First : Yes christian kids must learn that homosexuality is sin and they shouldn't neither indulge to it or be ashamed to speak their mind.

For the rest, this would be all true if the public schools had in fact eliminated the following groups :

- Dope smoking socialist college kids : still PLENTY of them arround
- Racist and Bigot : the new tendency is to produce latinos and black ones now ... Progress !
- Hippies and Gothic : Plenty

and has bonus Marijuana is still the preferred relaxant on campus ... great accomplishment !

Quote
The goal of public schooling is to give the child an accurate and unbiased view of the world and equip them with the knowledge they need to make a living for themselves. And if that pleases the parents, so much the better, but pleasing the parents is not the goal.

Wrong : The goal of parents is to educate their kids and in the process they can subcontract a school, so the school must please the parents. So tell me who should be please ? or better who is the one with the best interest in the children future ?

Quote
Quote
Private schools are also better to deal with racial differences because tend to be classified according income: there are schools for the poor, the middle class and the rich.
Since there are people of all race and colour in all these 3 categories

Not evenly distributed.

Firstly tell me who is guilty that there are not evenly distributed ? if you are an atheist I have a feeling that you will lack a place to complain lol

The point is that private school allow kids to be in the most diverse ambient possible, because the fact that each parent can pay the tuition doesn't mean that they are all white or Asians, it mean that they are maybe middle class folks who can have a tea and talk business and Nascar ... but still may have differences of opinions

Lastly schools is not about all the crap you say, it is about giving the kids an education that give them a chance in life, and this sometime means that parents may take the decision not to send their kids in the nice religious school ... but instead in the best college around town.

PS: @Ytxuan or Xuan : So unless extermination you have no point ?
« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 02:30:30 am by sams »

dough560 on March 26, 2010, 12:27:26 pm
jtuxyan, A totalitarian nation so afraid and threatened by a libertarian society, they launch a ground war of extinction?  Major Loony Tunes.  Talk about a no win situation.....for them.  The internal controls, stresses and abuses used to dominate the totalitarian population would tear the society apart.  Especially with the population seeing the libertarian's freedom and prosperity.  When the totalitarians institute force, and at that level,  The libertarians will not just stand there and let themselves be killed or enslaved. The libertarian society would be masters of public affairs, communications, marketing.  However you want to describe the skill set.  You better believe they will get their message through.  With the totalitarian army out of the country, being killed and suborned  by the libertarians, can you say "Revolution"?

You see militias as portrayed by our media.  In our prohibitionist society, government forces have what they perceive to be superior weapons and they enact laws to ensure it stays that way (contrary to the 2nd Amendment).  A libertarian society without economic restrictions or weapons prohibitions would have free access to arms.  You may not be a member of our gun culture, but I am.  Many of us work up to steadily more powerful weapons.  Our version of keeping up with the Jones-es.  Taxes and prohibition are the only reason many of us do not have machineguns, grenade launchers, etc....  They're fun!

Who said anything about a guerrilla war,  Think Custer and the Little Big Horn.  (The MPs did.) If you've read "The Probability Broach", "American Zone", or "Venus Belt" you're familiar with the Webly Electric Pistol.  Now lets play what if.  A barrel extension raising velocity from 10, 000 to 25/30,000 feet per second.  Add a shoulder stock and optical sights.  How about a ring foil grenade that would slide down over the barrel.  (About twenty years ago, a navy experimental rail gun fired a one inch square block of lexan at a three foot thick battleship steel plate at 25,000 feet per second from 2.5 miles.  The block penetrated 2.5 feet, leaving a crater about three feet in diameter.)  You really think the libertarians wouldn't have larger then pistol versions of this weapon capable of chewing-up aircraft and armor?  Heck the kinetic energy from the pistol would ruin the day of anyone in an armored personnel carrier, let alone their version of the Hummer.

Even if the Webly didn't exist in your scenario, the libertarians would have a conventional difference.

As for the WWII Germans killing everyone.  They killed millions of people who differed from them in the foods they ate, color of their hair, the shape of their noses, language, religion, etc....  They all had the same skin color.

Any kitchen table chemist can make any number of chemical agents in a very short time period.  You really think the libertarians wouldn't have access to the formulas for things like Sarin or Mustard Gas.  Delivery systems are just as easy.  Again, think:  Mutual Assured Destruction.  With the caveat, the toleration government would have to worry about the reactions of an individual, not a government.

 

anything