Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education market. Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because "he who pays the piper calls the tune," public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal "educrats" while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control. Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America's parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system.
According to a study by The Polling Company, over 70 percent of all Americans support education tax credits! This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children's education.
Ron Paul, Congressional Record - U.S. House of Representatives, February 11, 2003; from the introduction to The Family Education Freedom Act.
18 comments:
Sure, parents should have more control in relation to the state in education. However, it doesn't follow from this fact that we should privatize education. The international stage is SOVEREIGN and look at the absolute fucking mess it is. What Ron Paul and ilk fail to grasp is the fact that complete sovereignty is not always a good thing. That, is a FACT>
Well, I'm sure most of the example you'd provide are countries in which the ruling group are stealing wealth from the citizens without giving it back in any meaningful way, leaving the people poor and left to do with what they have.
Irregardless, Paul the bill he was introducing wasn't an attempt to get rid of public education. It was an attempt to get cash back in the hands of parents to better assist their children's education, even if it meant that the parents decided to put it back toward their local public schools.
Paul simply wants to get the federal government out of education. It makes sense that education to be dealt with as locally as possible.
"Well, I'm sure most of the example you'd provide are countries in which the ruling group are stealing wealth from the citizens without giving it back in any meaningful way, leaving the people poor and left to do with what they have."
It doesn't matter, Josh. Some people are, by nature, bullies, jerks, or assholes. They have no problems doing what they would do if they had complete sovereignty and that is a fact.
"Paul simply wants to get the federal government out of education. It makes sense that education to be dealt with as locally as possible."
No, it doesn't. The more local it is, the more expensive. The poorer would then fall behind. Hello!
"It doesn't matter, Josh. Some people are, by nature, bullies, jerks, or assholes. They have no problems doing what they would do if they had complete sovereignty and that is a fact."
Of course it matters. Government has a role to protect the people and their freedoms. If you want to compare what Ron Paul is talking about to a country where that protection doesn't exist, its an irrelevant comparison.
"No, it doesn't. The more local it is, the more expensive. The poorer would then fall behind. Hello!"
The more local the more expensive?
"Of course it matters. Government has a role to protect the people and their freedoms. If you want to compare what Ron Paul is talking about to a country where that protection doesn't exist, its an irrelevant comparison."
No, I'm talking about philosophies and if "freedom" is always indeed a positive value. IT IS NOT.
"The more local the more expensive?"
Oh, did you think that teachers were going to be paid 18th century wages and classrooms were going to be reverted to 18th century austerity?
"No, I'm talking about philosophies and if "freedom" is always indeed a positive value. IT IS NOT."
So our purpose in life is to do what others with guns make us do, as defined by those who are alive now and were alive before us? An individual is left to only provide meaning to his or her life within his submission to the state?
No.
As individuals we have a right to determine our own meaning within society, not within the boundaries with which the state uses to restrict us under the guise of democracy. We have a right for the meaning of our lives to be not determined by those with guns; to not be determined forcefully.
Freedom is always positive as it allows us the maximum utility of our free will.
"Oh, did you think that teachers were going to be paid 18th century wages and classrooms were going to be reverted to 18th century austerity?"
No, but "the more local the more expensive" is a non-sequitor. The government in the US takes more from states than it gives back, but they need to do that to make education more efficient?
"No, but "the more local the more expensive" is a non-sequitor. The government in the US takes more from states than it gives back, but they need to do that to make education more efficient?"
I'm pretty sure that the poorer states have gotten more than they have been taxed.
I'm also pretty sure that if the poor states had to pay for education by themselves, it would be more expensive.
I also think think that economies of scale comes into play here. The buying power of the federal government allows them to buy things in greater quantities, which is cheaper overall when distributed nationally. Of course, most money is given to the states and the states can do with it as they please.
"I'm pretty sure that the poorer states have gotten more than they have been taxed."
Which?
"The buying power of the federal government allows them to buy things in greater quantities, which is cheaper overall when distributed nationally."
Yes because all schools need the exact same things. Lets not allow individual schools to choose anything. Let the federal government spend it, its not as if there aren't any special interests in Washington, DC trying to rip the country off.
"Of course, most money is given to the states and the states can do with it as they please."
That's not true. The money that is stolen from the people is given back to states as long as the states meet certain guidelines given by the federal government. They feds use education and highway money to blackmail states into putting into place laws and regulations that states otherwise would not.
"Which?'
Any state that would not be able to afford the currently cost of education if were to reject federal money. HELLO.
"Any state that would not be able to afford the currently cost of education if were to reject federal money. HELLO."
Why wouldn't they be able to afford to educate their children?
"Why wouldn't they be able to afford to educate their children?"
Did I say that? No. I said education "at current levels".
Maybe without federal intervention, education would be much better, as current levels are nothing to be proud about.
*shrug* When you are comparing yourself with the Asians, whose culture is built around the importance of education, obviously it looks bad. When your culture is not willing to do what it takes to make sure chilren are there to learn, yeah, it would seem so. That's not the system's fault, though, and no amount of nostalgia for the past will bring it back. Even if you go back to the state level, the result will be the same.
I disagree. If the government didn't subsidize failure as much, there would be much more inherit concern for education.
Post a Comment