Hi, Kevin and MOQers!
Kevin, this is primarily a response to some of your recent posts:
You wrote to me:
> I cannot read you Hitler-like comment without providing a
vehement dissent.
I reply:
At first I was outraged at being described as Hitler-like. I have
been as far from socialist as I thought was possible. In my political
views I am closer to anarchist than Fascist.
I tried to think of a cogent argument that would persuade you of
the necessity of education by authority. Ultimately, there is no
argument that will sway a 17 year old. Wisdom comes from experience.
When I was seventeen, I was a socialist. I even interviewed the
head of the Communist Party in my home state fr the school newspaper. It
is almost axiomatic that reasonably intelligent people are socialists at
that age. As I matured, I soon learned freedom cannot come from without.
It must arise from within. It does little good to proclaim your freedom
if you know neither from whence it comes nor that which guarantees it.
Such "freedom" is nihilism and IMO is the root of the malaise of the
Western world.
It is impossible to teach a child anything it does not wish to learn
if one does not impose one's will upon the child. Life is a never-ending
enforced educaton process. If we didn't learn by being taught, we damn
sure would learn by hard experience.
I would not send my child into the world without assuring that he has
at least a basic knowledge of the rules of society and an idea of how
the world works. It would be unlikely that he would learn to read or
write or cypher without a guided education. A curriculum must be taught.
Schools are by nature authoritarian. A student must understand that 2
+ 2 must equal four. Only after you have mastered the basics can you
begin to understand what freedom is. Freedom comes from knowledge.
It is the responsibility of our school system to inculcate the basic
values of society as well as the "3 R's" because only a populace that
understands the basis of our free society can maintain it in the face of
government that is inherently totalitarian. I find it telling that the
usurpation of our rights and responsibilities in this country have come
about largely because of the corruption of our education system.
"The Founding Fathers believed that the purpose of politics is to
safeguard the space in which individuals can grow. The Constitution was
devised to promote freedom and enterprise, and to encourage individuals
to take full responsibility for their lives. The liberal heirs of the
Founding Fathers believe that the purpose of politics is to look after
all citizens from cradle to grave, regardless of what they have done to
deserve it. For them, politics is a rescue service, offered
unconditionally to all. Hence safety, health, and comfort become the
primary political values. The aim is to
create a risk-free society. "
-Roger Scruton, English writer, writing in National Review
Schools are "totalitarian" because they must be. Grades are awarded
because there has to be some objective measure of achievement.
Socialists - democratic or, more likely, otherwise - are anathema to
freedom.
Please consider the following:
"Goodness without wisdom always accomplishes evil."
-Robert A. Heinlein.
You also wrote:
> As a democratic socialist I must correct you - if schools were socialists
> they would be very intellectually creative. Instead, schools are
> totalitarian. The number one rule: follow directions. Self-direction thus
> violates school rules. We learn to obey the orders from our adult
> overseers. Tyranny, much?
>
We're trying to train you to be self directed. In order to impart the
wisdom of the ages, we have to discipline you. We do free you when you
reach the age of majority, after all;-)
>
> Not if we want a social order grounded in freedom. Indoctrination never
> works to convince anyone of the value of liberty or love. It only breeds
> resentment or ignorance or conformity.
>
With any luck at all, it also grounds you in the rules of the society in
which you will live one day.
Unfortunately, our schools seem to be doing a lousy job of it lately.
That's why our social fabric is rent here in the US.
>
> I would encourage my class not to compete with one another, but to either
> work together or work on individual projects. But I am a humble student and
> don't have your experience as a teacher . . . . so I will leave that
> dicussion for another time.
>
What's wrong with a little competition? My daughter delights in screwing
up the curve. Payback for the social repression by her fellow rats;-)
I guess if you're not working together you can always work on individual
projects. lol!
>
> Yes, I know it must be extremely difficult after 12 years of indoctrination
> to enlighten a student.
>
Were the indoctrination done correctly, it would be actually be easier.
>
> I would think they would simply want to get there
> rewards - high numbers, a framed slip of paper which says they are smart to
> future employers who will give them more slips of paper, green and with
> dead presidents on it - and get out.
>
Newsflash - the majority is happy with that.
>
> : >Since I have only lived for 17 revolutions of the Earth
> : >around the sun, I believe that adult society oppresses youths.
>
Understandable. And true. But it's for your own good;-)
>
> I am not indicting capitalism in anyway here. When I say slavery had
> economic beginnings, surely we can agree on that, and then also say
> capitalism is the best system available. Pleace, don't let the fact that I
> am a democratic socialist bias you. Perhaps, economic would be a better
> word than capitalistic. Ephebiphobia had economic factors which started it.
>
and
>
> But before youths and adults saw themselves as different, before they
> accepted the age stratified culture, before the industrial revolution,
> youths and adults worked together side by side. Contemporary peer cultures
> didn't always exist. Used to be that family members of all ages were your
> best friends. And I think there are advantages to the familial system
> before the industial system that need to be revived - and perhaps new
> familial system like in Aldous Huxley's Island. Either way, the current
> system puts the blind to the lead the blind which indirectly results in
> tragedies like Columbine.
>
Huh?
>
> Nor is a mere conspiracy theory, this is the way historical processes
> create societies.
>
No, they don't.
>
> The peer culture is
> a societal creation - something the post-industrial revolution Giant did
> without regard for the effects on intellect.
>
Actually, I believe "peer culture" predates recorded history. Note the
coming of age rites in all primitive cultures of which I am aware.
Adulthood is earned as well as attained in virtually all cultures.
>
> I submit that it harms our
> ideas of fairness to exclude others from social grouping because of age.
> Thus individuals need to change the Giant and we need to hurry so that more
> Columbines don't happen.
>
Life isn't fair. Get over it. Fairness is one of those mushy liberal
concepts that really doesn't mean much.
>
> I think its clear the government didn't really buy wrenches for millions of
> dollars -
>
No, we did. Taxpayers.
>
> The reason government can be dictatorial is because there is no organized
> civil society to check it.
>
Government is organized society.
>
> We need to become participants in government,
> then it won't be abusive.
>
Not if you are the top dog, I guess. Coercion is abusive in my book.
>
> Nor do I see taxation as unfair. Businessmen and
> women only make money because poor people exist.
>
Pray tell, how many BMW's do poor people buy? Mind telling me how Bill
Gates got rich off people with no money?
> Without demand outstripping supply, capitalism wouldn't exist. Without poor people to > kick around, we couldn't have the corporate elite. Without a community,
> individual money-makers could live. So I see nothing unfair about taking
> money away from the rich and giving it to the poor. Additionally, Rawl's
> Distributive Justice theory seems the best way to run society.
>
If nobody wants a product, it makes no sense to produce it. If demand
exceeds supply, then price acts as a regulator. You should learn that in
Econ your Senior year.
Where did you go to school? Karl Marx High? Besides, you contradict
yourself with every other statement.
>
> True. I will not sit here and say big government isn't oppressive too. But
> Big Business is more oppressive - which is why when picking between
> dictators, I will choose government. At least I get a vote and a voice
> there.
>
You get a choice with business. Buy their product or not. There are
always other suppliers. I excercise that particular freedom every day. I
defy you to show me a person in jail because he/she did not buy from a
particular supplier. I do not choose whether or not I pay taxes. I do or
the government confiscates my propery and tosses my butt in the slammer.
Good luck, Kevin. You seem like a good kid. Question yourself a little
more. Keep questioning us old farts. Call me in 20years and we'll see if
you still see the world the same way you do now.
Just lay of the Hitler comparisons, okay?
drose
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:59 BST