the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

[Skepdick]

The idea of a government-provided education was never part of American thinking until Horace Mann learned it from the Prussians and brought to this country. That idea of education was to make "useful citizens," for the state. It was never about providing individuals with the ability to think for themselves and be free, productive individuals.

It is understandable why socialists and collectivists despise the home school movement in this country, because it proves the lie that education requires the government to provide it. With regard to so-called, "educators," who's income is provided by money extorted from others.

So you are OK with your parents subsidising your schooling needs, but you aren't OK with governments doing the same?

Don't you think you are taxing (stealing) your parents' time in doing so?

Shaw was right, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."

So... those (parents) who can do; those (parents) who can't, teach (their children)?

I guess henry can't? That's why he's teaching.

You are so confused.

[RCSaunders]

What, "ideology," is that? I have no social or political ideology. I regard all such ideologies as, at best, mistaken, and in practice, malevolent. I'm only pointing out how absurd any view of making societies what anyone thinks they ought to be are, and how dangerously harmful they are to actual individual human beings, as a warning to those who are really interested in making something of their lives.

The ideology which concludes that subsidising rural schools (which are otherwise economically infeasible) with taxes is "malevolent", "absurd" and "harmful".

You don't think denying education to individuals is harmful to individuals?

First of all, I have no idea what you call, "education," but if it is what is provided in most government schools, it amounts to brain washing and indoctrination that most children would be better off without. Secondly, I do not understand why you are for denying people the money they have earned by taking it away from them to give to others who have not earned it. Thirdly, no one I know of wants to deprive anyone of anything right. I do not think it is right to steal from others and I do not think it is right to receive stolen goods. Finally, there is no reason anyone has to be denied an education, and anyone who truly wants to learn anything can, especially today with almost limitless resources.

I really do not think you are interested in people's, "education." You want to force people to learn (or at least have crammed into their heads) what you want them to think and believe, whether they want that education or not. The reason you claim to worry about the education of poor rural people (which actually is an insult like racism--"poor ignorant country bumpkins" that just cannot get along without you) is you are afraid they really are educated and will not buy all your social nonsense and realize they don't need or want your government.

[Skepdick]

First of all, I have no idea what you call, "education," but if it is what is provided in most government schools, it amounts to brain washing and indoctrination that most children would be better off without. Secondly, I do not understand why you are for denying people the money they have earned by taking it away from them to give to others who have not earned it. Thirdly, no one I know of wants to deprive anyone of anything right. I do not think it is right to steal from others and I do not think it is right to receive stolen goods. Finally, there is no reason anyone has to be denied an education, and anyone who truly wants to learn anything can, especially today with almost limitless resources.

I really do not think you are interested in people's, "education." You want to force people to learn (or at least have crammed into their heads) what you want them to think and believe, whether they want that education or not. The reason you claim to worry about the education of poor rural people (which actually is an insult like racism--"poor ignorant country bumpkins" that just cannot get along without you) is you are afraid they really are educated and will not buy all your social nonsense and realize they don't need or want your government.

Then why is henry home schooling if his children don't need/want education?
Do you think henry thinks his children are ignorant country bumpkins?
Do you think henry thinks his children can't get along without him?
If his children are already educated then they don't heed schooling. Home or otherwise.
Why would fredom-loving henry give up a single second of his precious freedom educating his kids?

Your strawman is on fire.

[RCSaunders]

The idea of a government-provided education was never part of American thinking until Horace Mann learned it from the Prussians and brought to this country. That idea of education was to make "useful citizens," for the state. It was never about providing individuals with the ability to think for themselves and be free, productive individuals.

It is understandable why socialists and collectivists despise the home school movement in this country, because it proves the lie that education requires the government to provide it. With regard to so-called, "educators," who's income is provided by money extorted from others.

So you are OK with your parents subsidising your schooling needs, but you aren't OK with governments doing the same?

Absolutely not. I think parents who pay for their children's education are making a terrible mistake. Those who pay for their own education learn more thereby than all their years in some Univeristy.

Shaw was right, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."

So... those (parents) who can do; those (parents) who can't, teach (their children)?

I guess henry can't? That's why he's teaching.

You are so confused.

The reason you are confused is because you took my quote out of context. What I said was:

With regard to so-called, "educators," who's income is provided by money extorted from others, Shaw was right, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."

Unlike public school teachers, Henry earns his money, that's what makes him able to teach. He actually does something of value.

[RCSaunders]

Then why is Henry home schooling if his children ...

I don't care to speak for Henry. He's perfectly capable of speaking for himself.

[Skepdick]

Absolutely not. I think parents who pay for their children's education are making a terrible mistake. Those who pay for their own education learn more thereby than all their years in some Univeristy.

So, am I to understand that you put absolutely no effort in your children's education?
They didn't get home schooled OR attend any public/private schools?

I am curious, what sort of "education" your children received between the ages of 6 to 18.

The reason you are confused is because you took my quote out of context. What I said was:

With regard to so-called, "educators," who's income is provided by money extorted from others, Shaw was right, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."

Unlike public school teachers, Henry earns his money, that's what makes him able to teach. He actually does something of value.

So why isn't henry home-schooling outside of lockdowns?

[Skepdick]

Then why is Henry home schooling if his children ...

I don't care to speak for Henry. He's perfectly capable of speaking for himself.

OK. Speak for yourself then.

Did your children receive any education between 6 and 18?

Why?

[henry quirk]

...if you wanna know why I do this or that: talk to me

RC isn't my PR guy

[Skepdick]

...if you wanna know why I do this or that: talk to me

RC isn't my PR guy

I don't want to know why you do this or that.

I want to know why RC thinks you do this or that.

That's why I am asking him.

If I wanted to know why you do this or that - I would ask you. Go back to your corner

[henry quirk]

...if you wanna know why I do this or that: talk to me

RC isn't my PR guy

I don't want to know why you do this.

I want to know why RC thinks you do this.

seems to me: you're just lookin' for a reason to tussle with him

well & fine: play fair (cuz sometimes you don't)

-----

Go back to your corner

fuck you

[Skepdick]

seems to me: you're just lookin' for a reason to tussle with him

well & fine: play fair (cuz sometimes you don't)

I never play fair when the game is rigged.

fuck you

You aren't my type.

[henry quirk]

thank Crom for small blessings

[commonsense]

That’s just it—the system is “imposed” voluntarily when individuals opt in. Those individuals who at some time want to voluntarily opt out, as is their prerogative since they chose to volunteer, they are reminded that they could be forced to stay in. It is force, or the possibility of force, that compels them to stay.

As if those individuals forgot that one of the reasons humans opted in was safety in numbers.

Force or threat of force shouldn't scare you! Dangerous living was the default state of affairs before society.

Accept the risk, call the bluff and opt out.

I totally agree.

And force or threat of force doesn’t frighten me, because that’s how society and the world as a whole is stabilized.

Take the risk and opt out, or huddle in perceived safety by remaining in.

[Skepdick]

Take the risk and opt out, or huddle in perceived safety by remaining in.

The safety isn't perceived - it's actual.

Doctors, sanitation, electricity, reliable source of food.

The price you pay for all of those comforts is all the responsibilities it comes with.

[commonsense]

Perhaps in clubs and recreational activities, but in fields of wealth production, every individual has their own objective

So every individual wants to produce wealth? That sure sounds like a shared objective!!!

Not shared if every individual wants to produce wealth for only himself or only himself and his family.