Forum:The Myth of the Failure of public education

Forums: Index > The Soapbox > The Myth of the Failure of public education

The Public School System has some spectacular failures, to be sure, but to gloss over the entire system as failed is a bit myopic (incidentally, it would be equally myopic to call it an unqualified success). The United States Department of Education presents some interesting statistics about the real story of schools and public education in America. Here're some links to look at:

http://www.nea.org/edstats/

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/

http://165.224.221.98/

Part of the trouble in Public School System is the relationship between the media and Public School System. Failures are enthusiastically covered, while successes are not. Moreover, Politicians highlight failings in public education when they are running for office.

A more discerning look at this issue is important in order for us to have an intelligent discussion about it.

I clicked on the first link, and though I didn't really feel like diving deeply into statistics, the headlines I saw weren't all that good. Perhaps you can point out some good statistics for those of us who pay continuous partial attention? Ferguson 23:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Failure" of the Public School System is that it has any failures at all. Every child should have equal access to the same education and when any one child does not have that opportunity, that is the failure of the system.

There should be a single curriculum, a single set of standards that should be met, nationwide, to teach all our children equally. Only then will the system work and be truly equal to all. Midian 21:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"The United States Department of Education presents some interesting statistics about the real story of schools and public education in America. Here're some links to look at:" There's the problem right there. The same people that want your money are the people collecting the statistics. We criticize large companies for funding studies, but now somehow the government is exempt?

Midian: In life, people fail. Whoop-dee-doo. But the vast, VAST majority of the time, it's because they're not willing to try hard enough to succeed. Liberals call this "unfair." Conservatives call this "Life." Compaqdrew 01:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! I'm not saying "whoop-dee-doo", I'm looking at the situation and saying that if we call it "life" and continue to fail to address the situation, we're going to be the ones paying the bills. I'd hope that nobody on this Earth would look at failed people with an "I don't care" attitude. Jesus taught us better than that. So then the question becomes how we motivate people, and what we are willing to call success. Kids raised not to care about their future usually don't. So they just meet somebody they can marry while in a dead end job and have more kids that they raise with the same attitude. Kids raised to look forward to challenges and to try and reach their potentials usually don't give up unless they get knocked down too many times. What are they knocked down by, and how can we help? That's what I want to know. And through my government and through my society, that's what I want to do. Help. Don't tell me it's not my business or not worth my time. It's my business because I care enough to make it my business. It's worth my time because I'm at a certain level of comfort and I consider it part of my duty as a Human to help others get to that level if I can. If the best way to do that is pool my resources with the rest of my society, I'll do that. If that makes me a liberal, fine. Chadlupkes 02:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting worldview. I guess I just feel that each of us have to address our own situation, individually. Nobody can do it for us. You can't go on a diet for me; neither can you do my calc homework (that I should be doing right now, funnily enough). Jesus taught us, more than anything else, that we need to be willing to believe in something to the very end--even if it means losing everything we've got--friends, family, religiopolitical status, and even your very life. Yeah, he mentioned feeding the poor people a couple of times, but he also explicitly stated that there will always be poor people and sometimes there are better things to do than give them free handouts (source).

The real way to measure compassion is not by how much we give but by how much we no longer have to; the solution to poor people is not to give them food but to give them a job so that they can get it themselves. A sick person is still sick even if he's on medicine that keeps him alive. How inconsiderate to let the quest for wellness stop there! I, for one, will not be satisfied until the whole person is better--even if, for a time, that means that means coming down hard on people. Perhaps that's rude, perhaps it's unfair, perhaps it's mean--all I know is that every day I thank people who have done the same to me--that is, given me nothing that I didn't deserve.

Lastly, I certainly don't think I've arrived, at least not in the sense that I feel a need to spread my 'comfort.' I'm constantly improving myself and refining my thoughts and ideas to be the best approach to reality that I can find, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. I'm perfectly willing to exchange freely the things I've learned with other people--but I'm not about to cram wealth or education or anything else down people's throats. They're certainly amazing and valuable to me, but I only know what goes on inside my own head. Maybe other people aren't supposed to live my life the way I live it, or wouldn't be happy doing so? Compaqdrew 20:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you'll feed him for a lifetime."

Great saying. You're right, Compaqdrew, we cannot give free handouts, but in the case of education, we're not doing that. We're teaching them to fish. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 22:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It does no good to tell a man to lift himself up from his bootstraps when he cannot afford boots. We agree more than we disagree, actually. We just need to understand each other's perspective. I completely agree that we should be addressing our individual situations. But how can we make sure that people have the resources that they need to be able to do that? At what point do we allow bad luck or mistakes that someone makes become the reason why they no longer have a home, cannot afford food, or cannot afford boots? What matters is not how much wealth or education we have, it's what we plan to do with that wealth. Do we measure how much we 'no longer have to give' by how much money we can keep, or by how many people have been able to succeed in their efforts of getting food, water, shelter and meaning in their lives? And if someone is down, it's perfectly appropriate to describe their situation as you help them to their feet, because part of that description is how to avoid falling down again.

I like the statement you made about how inconsiderate it is to let the quest for wellness stop there! Wellness comes from security. Freedom from hunger, freedom from thirst, freedom from fear. All these and much more create our sense of security. I fought and beat Cancer in 2003. I understand the fear of disease. And I know that I don't want to see anyone go through what I did without the security to know that they will be able to get the medicines they need to survive. How can we measure what someone deserves? Sick children don't deserve any more or less than the richest among us. What measures do we use to quantify how worthy a person is? I don't think we can do that with money or other types of wealth. I think we have to look into ourselves and see that we are worthy enough in the eyes of God to do what it takes to help other people.

One of the problems is that our culture seems to regard everything to do with wealth as finite, where we have to go out and grab everything we can because if we don't we won't be worth something. I see wealth much differently. I don't want to shove money at people, hoping that they will do the right thing with it. That's why we need an educational system that actually works, to teach people what they need to know so that they can earn their living and have the security that I have. Not to live in MY house or spend MY money, but to earn their own.

Our goals are the same. It's our viewpoint and the way we want to try and reach those goals that differ. Punishment is for crimes. We shouldn't punish people for bad luck. We should help them instead, and not by giving up what we have, but by helping them reach where we are. Chadlupkes 22:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find that the harder I work, the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Indeed, we do seem to have the same goal (everyone's success). It appears that we simply have vastly varied ideas in how to achieve it.

You do seem to be focused on the fact that some people, due to various outside forces which you call "luck", "mistakes","down",etc. seem to have a harder time than other people, and this is somehow unfair, and that people do not get what they "deserve". That particular issue seems to be the basis for the vast majority of our disagreement on the entire topic, or at least that's how I see it.

You brought up God, so I'm going to bite the bullet (also, it's the strongest argument I can think of at the moment). It appears that we are both believers in some type of monotheistic Christ-based religion (mine happens to be evangelical/biblical Christianity). Working from this common ground, the entire universe can be separated into two groups: that which is timeless (God) and that which is created (everything else). Assuming that's the case, and assuming that those are the only two groups, everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen must be a direct result of something in one of those two groups.

Bearing that in mind, there are really only two options about this thing you call "bad luck" or "mistakes" or (as I call it), Evil. Either it has to come directly from the timeless (God, or some part of Him), or from the created (us). Either Evil has always existed, or it hasn't. Those are the only two views I know of. One of them has to be right.

Dualism and dualist religions/philosophers/whatevers teach that Evil has always been (and, by logical extension, Evil will always be). If that's the case, then you're right: life's unfair. We were screwed from the very beginning--we can't (nobody can, for that matter) conquer a foe that has always existed. If Evil is intrinsic to the universe, if it's a part of God or is God Himself--we're pretty much screwed, for this life and for any others.

But if Evil is somehow a part of the created--that is, it's more like Good Gone Wrong than a thing in itself--then we must have an entirely different view. It's not that some Higher Power has royally screwed us over--something in our own classification of existance did it, i.e. We Screwed Ourselves (TM). I hold this view for two reasons: first of all, because my Bible bears it out, starting in Genesis 3 when we screwed ourselves (read the curse closely and you'll find the Bible claims Adam's actions caused all economic and physical ailments in their entirety) stretching all the way to the end of Revelation when Evil gets destroyed, and secondly, because reality seems to bear it out. I can think of a lot of reasons why someone might want to kill another person: greed, sadism, and revenge, for example. But greed is merely a love for power (which is of itself a good thing), sadism is merely a desire to hurt others for pleasure (the latter being inherently a good thing), and revenge is merely a demented desire for justice (which is also a good thing). All of these motivations to kill (Evil) are merely Good things gone wrong.

With that rationale in mind, I am forced to accept the conclusion that these runs of "bad luck" and "mistakes" are, in vastly large part, the result of my own efforts. When they are not, they are the result of the efforts of my fellow men. At any rate, they are an entirely human problem. I find this akin to pre-rennaissance philosophers. "Why does it rain?" "Because God wants it to rain." That may or may not be true, but since then we have found additional, scientific explanations. While we may not understand the entire ins and outs of, say, global economics, or cancer, or AIDS, or other problems that plague the world, that's no reason to start running around saying "My, that's just bad luck," or "Isn't life unfair?" or "That's just how life is" or any number of non-explanations that we use when we don't feel like looking for the answer. There is, in all likelihood, a perfectly valid and logical reason why people are poor or diseased or whatever the case may be, even if we don't yet know what it is. All these bad things that happen are all somebody's fault, even though that's not a very comforting thought. And after ruling out God as the author of Evil, that really only leaves one group.

You raise the question: how can we measure what someone deserves? In any universe operated by a sane and just God, it can be measured quite easily: by what someone gets. Now I'm not so stupid as to believe that what each and every person gets in each and every situation is directly proportionate to how hard they work. But I am saying that, over time, the overwhelming general trend is that people get what they put in. I may buy a house, and the neighborhood might become a bad area, causing me to lose money in the short term. But after a seven-year real-estate cycle, the value of the house will go up. It's just what happens.

Now none of this is to say that we should never extend grace to other people and, as you say, try to help them when they're down. But this is to say that we're certainly not required to, whether individually or as a society, and furthermore, that it has absolutely nothing to do with "luck," unless said luck is, for some explicable reason, queerly directly proportional to our own efforts. And also, I think it's a good idea to excercise our national goodwill with great caution. Remember, the theory I'm operating on, argued above, is that the vast majority of the time, the vast majority of the people get the vast majority of what they deserve. Progressive reforms, be they welfare, education, healthcare, etc. etc. seem to operate on the very reverse of that theory--that people rarely if ever get what they deserve. Nobody's advocating, say, not funding Katrina victims or 9/11 rescue operations. Those types of things are very clearly 'not-their-fault' sorts of situations. But programs like Welfare (and, to a lesser extent, Education) are truly interfering with Life's ability to teach people lessons. And Life is certainly a better teacher than you or I or the federal govenrment can ever hope to be. Compaqdrew 23:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know. - Thomas Jefferson, June 25, 1819 [1]

Let me rephrase the goal a bit. "Everyone's success" can be taken too loosely, and may mean to some that we should ensure everyone's success, something that is a path to despair as we waste our resources trying to reach an impossible dream. The goal should in my mind become "empower people to reach their potential", something that can be done by helping everyone at the same time by building a firm foundation for a just and civil society, one that stands the test of time and emergencies.

Luck as a word is a convenience. It was my "luck" to get cancer in 2003. And it was my "luck" to get a type of cancer that I could fight and defeat using the health care services that I have available to me through my job, a job that I got through a multi-year series of circumstances that can only be seen in hindsight as pure dumb luck. I call something the result of luck when it's beyond my direct control, and until I step back and understand the series of circumstances that culminated in whatever event I am studying, it's often baffling how things could have gone so wrong, or so right as the case may be.

We may not be able to understand all the ins and outs of global economics, but we can look at our local and national economic situation and see that something is wrong. We may not have a deep understanding of the genetic causes for Cancer, but we can identify risk factors and work together to reduce or eliminate the worst of those. We can't sit back and claim that a run of bad luck for someone in the news is just too bad and honey, what's for dinner. We have to have confidence that someone, somewhere is working to repair our economic infrastructure, that doctors and researchers are working to find cures to disease, and that the person on television knows where to get the resources to get their life back on track. If we don't have confidence that these resources are available to those who need it, how can we stomach our dinner? That is on the minds of a lot of liberals in this country, because we don't see the needs of our neighbors and friends being met.

What everyone deserves, in my mind, is the opportunity to do that kind of reflection on their own lives, and the opportunity to really understand how their choices have an effect on the life that they are living and the world around them. If that means that they can suddenly get a new idea that takes their life in a new and positive direction, fantastic. If that means that they can recognize bad habits that they need to work on to stop wasting so much time and effort on that habit, fantastic. But only when we are comfortable enough to stop and think, and get other perspectives into our minds from multiple sources, can we really gain that kind of an understanding.

Given this context for what people deserve, it's necessary to place a qualitative measure on what it will take to give people those opportunities. Whether it's a place to sleep for the night, a new job, or aid from an agency that shows someone how to get back on their feet, the responsibility of the government should be to collect information about what the biggest problems are and directing our collective resources towards solving those problems. We can quickly learn what diseases kill the highest numbers of people, and we can direct our National Institutes of Health to fight the spread of those diseases. We can quickly learn what aspects of our lives in the workplace are dangerous, and set standards that companies must meet to protect the lives of their employees.

The quote that I referenced from Thomas Jefferson applies to me. Another in a letter that he wrote to John Adams in 1817 is "Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone." I can see the path up the mountain that Martin Luther King, Jr. used as a metaphor so many times in the 1960's, and I can see many other paths as well. Most all of those paths eventually reach the pinnacle of the mountain. Most all religions, faiths and words of scripture from around the world are reaching for the same goal. I believe that goal is to gain a better understanding of ourselves and our place in the world.

I actually don't see the world in such a dual form like you describe. I don't see God as timeless, and I don't see the universe as the creation of any separate entity or force. I see the universe that we live in now as a stage in the evolution. Of what, I can't really say, since I only have the perspective of a 37 year old Homo Sapiens on the third rock from Sol. I see everything as an aspect of the divine, all part of the same universe.

There is only one thing that I can identify in this universe as 'evil'. And that is willful ignorance. Nothing angers me more than dealing with someone who refuses to listen to the perspective of another. There is no right or wrong answer to most questions. Those that are locked into any particular mindset that they are willfully ignorant of the perspectives of others have perpetrated some of the worst evils ever to occur on this Earth. And the damage that they have done and are doing will take decades or centuries to repair.

Lacking the opportunity for an education, people do foolish things. Most of the countries that lack a formal education process have an indigenous informal process that provides them with the skills they need to survive. Most countries that do have a formal education system provide that system for free. One of the reasons for this site is to enable all of us to get a better understanding of how other countries handle things. The United States is not the pinnacle of our global civilization, and we have much to learn from our neighbors.

I'll fully agree with you that "we screwed ourselves". And it's up to us to come together as a community, take stock of the damage that has occurred, and determine the best course of action that will repair that damage and prevent it from reoccurring in the future.

The best welfare in the world is a job. Humans are not lazy by nature. That's a false notion that has been shoved into our culture, and we need to fight against it. Most people that I know work hard either doing what they enjoy, or doing what gives them satisfaction. Even if it's just another day's work that brings home food and pays the mortgage, it's something that they can feel good about accomplishing. But if we agree that a job is a good thing, why do we argue between liberals and conservatives who should be the provider of those jobs? If something needs to be done, then let's pay someone to do it. The infrastructure repairs and upgrades that I touched upon would employ thousands of people all over the country. And it would stimulate the economy more than any tax break ever could.

Life is its own best teacher, that much is true. But basic skills, like balancing a checkbook or having an understanding of how our system of government works, are poorly taught by trial and error. Other countries' children score higher on aptitude tests than ours do. That makes those nations better able to compete in a global economy. It doesn't take one person coming up with a single brilliant idea to drive change; it takes a thousand people talking about thousands of different ideas to find the ones that will really make a difference. Creating a place where we can present and explore those ideas is what really gives me hope. And that's what we're working towards on this site. Chadlupkes 02:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You raise a lot of interesting points, but once again I'm going to have to veer off pretty sharply from the path it appears that you're on.

One point that you raise is that we need to be concerned about problems, be they economic, medical, or otherwise. And to a large degree, you're right, especially with those examples. But you are making a few leaps in which you're failing to cover your bases. The main thing I'd like to point out (and this may be making a mountain out of a molehill) is that we need to be concerned with those issues insofar as we actually think they are problems, and in fact, that will be the case, automatically. For instance, if you break your leg, you will go see a doctor. You will seek help after identifying a problem. That's just the way it works. Now in this alternate reality example, I may think that doctors are the Spawn of Satan and that everyone who breaks their leg should let it grow back out-of-joint. I break my leg, you try to convince me to take it to a doctor; I refuse. Now maybe doctors are good and maybe they're bad, but the fact of the matter is that I should be free to receive the consequences of my own actions, be they good (a leg working as good or better than it did) or, more likely, bad (a screwed-up leg). Maybe you know better than me, and maybe I know better than you. But the only way anyone's ever going to come up with something better than what already is... is by brave souls experimenting. In other words, in life, everybody does whatever it is they need to do in order to sleep at night, or else not, in which case they don't sleep at night. Everybody will solve their own problems, or else not, in which case their own problems won't get solved. That's just the way it is. Nobody discovers that they have a problem and then sits around and does nothing. Everyone takes the action that they think will best suit them and their issues. Whether or not it's actually the best path is entirely irrelevant--what's important is that they are free to follow whatever path they wish (and will soon find out what the best path is, not just what I happen to think it is for them).

Another thing you mention is the need for safety standards in the workplace and a National Institute of Health to defend you against horrible diseases. While I am in no way saying that both are not admirable goals, it does seem to me that you're getting other people to fight your battles for you. Workplace standards, especially, are a joint responsibility. You have the motivation to look out for your own life (because it's the only one you've got), and your employer has the motivation to look out for your life for all sorts of reasons--lawsuits, bad publicity, the hassle of hiring a new employee... And so, you decide that you'd rather pay off other people (mostly people in government) to handle your life-and-death issues for you (which I happen to think is a 'problem', but I will permit you the choice not to see the doctor if you so desire). And then, shock! They have misspent your funds! For shame! They have betrayed the American People! These corrupt, these horrible people, We Have Misplaced Our Trust (TM), etc. etc. And clearly, you can see how I'm entirely apathetic to the entire media parade--from day one, I've made it my job to look out for my own workplace safety. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad; maybe it's really stupid. But it works for me, I like it, and it's the way I want to (and the way I'm going to) live my life. With nobody to blame for it except me.

You mention ignorance as a great evil. I see it as a great freedom. In life, we have the freedom to choose something that "Everyone Knows" is bad, and then reap the consequences for our actions. And the great thing about these consequences is that they are not partial. Any human judge, be he the holiest man in the world, is suceptible to racism, prejudice, bigotry, or any number of vile things. But if we make a choice and then allow Life to step in and decide what benefits we should reap--good things will consistently happen to those who make consistent good choices, and vice versa. It will have nothing to do with what political party is in office, or what theory These Smart People have come up with that explain what we should get, or what The Sacrede Formula says your effort is worth, or what any human being happens to think at any given time; it will be 'based on' Real Life, and what Actually Happens.

You mention that the world's best welfare is a job. Amen. And if you're suggesting implementing of the "workfare" programs started during the great depression, I would cautiously support you, and enthusiastically so if you would support it in lieu of the current AFDC handout programs. But tax breaks do "give people jobs". Never forget that it's somebody's job to paint the pool. And the CEO that doesn't get $400 million dollars is a CEO that doesn't spend $400 million dollars buying or investing in stuff. And so $400mil less stuff is made, and less people make it.

You further argue that people are not lazy by nature. I think our differences on that issue are merely a matter of semantics. I would argue that nobody does something unless they believe they will get a positive result out of it. This condition is surprisingly easy to fulfill: I am involved in politics because I believe I'm making a difference. I work because I get paid. I learn because it helps me approach my problems in life better. If I didn't achieve the results, I wouldn't go through the process; nobody would. But in life, we can achieve results (and, furthermore, results we actually deserve, not merely results that someone thinks we deserve), and that makes many actions viable enough to me that I perform them. Compaqdrew 22:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is fun. Seriously.

Ok, let's define problem. I think a problem is anything that either causes harm or has the potential to cause harm if not solved. Can we agree on that? I think you're going to trip on the word potential, because if something hasn't happened, how can we justify spending money to prevent something from happening. I think we can. You seem to be willing to fix things after they are broken, or leave people to deal with the results of their own mistakes and (yeah, here's that phrase again) bad luck. Yes, I will seek help after identifying a problem. But if I'm in the workplace, and I see something dangerous or potentially dangerous, I often don't have the authority to fix it myself. And there are too many stories in the news about employers not fixing problems that are identified by employees, often because it would cost money. If I'm a miner, and I see something in a mine that is not safe, I have a responsibility to myself and my fellow miners to point it out. But if it's a machine that I'm not formally trained on and I try and operate it or stop its operation, I may do more damage than I was afraid of in the first place. That's why I need an employer that will listen to me and work with me to prevent harm.

Let's use your example; breaking a leg. Sure, I'm going to go to the doctor, have it set, get a cast on it so it will heal, and get on with my life. But why did I break my leg in the first place? What was I doing? Who was at fault? Or does it matter? In my opinion, if I'm skiing and I try a double-flip with a twist without any practice and land wrong, I'm a stupid idiot. But that doesn't translate (to me) into the thought that I deserve a broken leg. If I'm riding my bike home from work and someone doesn't give me enough space and hits me, do I deserve that broken leg less? It happened. In either case, I'll be dealing with the consequences of my actions, meaning I'll have to take time off work, and I may have to change jobs. I'm probably not going to go experimenting with skiing again any time soon for the first example, but I will need to get to work for the second. And when the leg is healed, I'll probably want to ride my bike again, for the exercise and because it's a heck of a lot cheaper than $3 per gallon. But our contribution to society, the economy and the stability of our families depends on the leg healing as quickly as possible with as little permanent damage as possible. So let's get the leg in a cast, let it heal, and get on with life. If you break your leg, I'm willing to pay the taxes to provide the health care coverage so that you don't have to pay for the cast and so you can stay in your house until you can get back on your feet. My impression is that you believe that I should bear the entire cost of that without help.

I'm not trained in medicine. If I get cancer, I can't afford the cost or the time to go through 6-12 years of Medical School, get Tenure at some University so I can direct my own investigations and research into my particular type of cancer, and come up with the formula for the Chemotherapy and Radiation treatments that will save my own life. I believe that this is the reason the NIH exists, to pool our financial and research resources to discover these kinds of cures, and to make them available to everyone because everyone pays for them through taxes. That isn't getting someone to solve my problems for me, it's expecting that a certain amount of work has already been done so that everyone can be helped. That, to me, is the fulfillment of the 'joint responsibility' that you mention. We, you and I, have a joint responsibility to help each other by creating things like the NIH and OSHA to identify problems, and solve them before people get hurt, as well as a medical system that is capable of dealing with the results of problems that were ignored or missed. And I have a motivation to point out problems not just because I might be in danger myself, but because if you and I work together and you're hurt on the job, I'll have to stay later to get your work done too, or I'll have to deal with some new guy who isn't trained but he's there because you lost your job due to a skiing experiment and our company doesn't plan to bring you back on the job because your stunt on the slopes shows a lack of judgment that they don't want in the workplace. (I'm mixing metaphors, I know.)

Corruption is one of those problems that we're talking about. Do we just want to deal with it when it is discovered, or do we want to set rules in place that make corruption difficult at worst, or impossible at best? I think we already have rules like that, all they need is someone in charge of enforcing those rules that really believes in them. But we also have something in place that will allow us to get the enforcement job done even if the Attorney General is ignoring corruption, and that's legislative and judicial oversight. Or if a Judge is identified as corrupt, he can be subjected to the law through the power of the Executive & Legislative branches. Or if a party leader is corrupt, same thing. That's why we have three branches of government in the first place. And all of this plays itself out under the watchful eye of the voting public, who elect the Executive Branch leaders, elect the Legislative Branch, and either elect or voice opinions on the selection of the Judicial Branch. (Of course, having a watchful public doesn't mean much if our elected leaders don't bother to listen.)

If Ignorance is Freedom, then we are all free to be as stupid as we want to be, and our government will defend our right to be stupid... That's not what I see as the role of government. Isn't it a better option to try and prevent ignorance? And isn't it cheaper and easier to do that with our common resources? What I see in your statements is the notion that the world is static, that everyone knows what they know and that's just the way it is. That's a false notion. We can, and do, spend a lot of time, money and effort to teach ourselves, our co-workers and our children how to identify and fix problems. That is real life. It's our task to improve the way that we learn, the ways that we teach, and the ways that we identify problems. If we're not doing that, then we're not doing anything worthwhile at all. But I can't train auto-mechanics, and auto-mechanics can't train doctors. We need professional teachers or an apprentice program that provides the training needed. Another subject that we could discuss is whether the government should fund such a program.

I don't like handouts. What do you mean by AFDC? I have a feeling you're talking about Social Security, which is not a handout, it's an insurance policy. Granted, it's an insurance policy that was designed poorly and needs to be fixed immediately because the longer we allow it to be a Ponsi scheme instead of a true insurance type system, the more it will cost in the long run.

And yes, tax breaks do provide jobs. If someone has an extra 50 million dollars in their pocket, they're going to want to build a new manufacturing plant to make more money. And they're going to look for the cheapest place to put that plant and hire the workers. Right now, those places are in China, India, etc. Too bad for the people in the United States that see all these cheap goods manufactured somewhere else that they can't afford anymore because a stupid skiing accident caused them to lose their job and they can't work in the industry that they were trained in because they have a bum leg and can't move as well as they used to.

Want to know what motivates me? Positive results. For myself, AND for my employer, AND for my community, AND for my country, AND for the future of the world my children are going to live in. That's why I'm riding to work on my bike more often. That's why I'm politically active. Because if I'm not making a difference with the process that I'm using now, at work or at home, I want to change the process itself. I want to see results that I can be proud of that go far beyond a larger bank account or a larger home for myself. I want clean air and water. I want a Health Care system that doesn't pass judgments and just helps people when they need help. I want a Government that identifies problems and works to prevent harm as much as they work to repair damage. Because only when we all work together, pool our resources and make sure that there is no more corruption anywhere will we really be able to solve our global problems. Chadlupkes 20:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Government is not the solution to the problem; Government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan.

This is very fun. Seriously. This is the most worthwhile discussion I have had this week.

I can live with your definition of problem. I don't have any problem with your use of 'potential'--there are clear-cut cases where we need to solve things before they occur (Social Security, *cough* *cough*)

It's not so much that I'm willing to leave people to fix things after they're broken--I'm just willing to leave people with their own problems however they want to fix them--before, after, or never. You and I may think cancer 'bad' because it kills a person, but fringe wackos may think a surgeon is 'bad' because he kills cancer. Not everyone views problems the way 'normal people' do, and to that extent I'm hesitant to muck about "solving" other people's "problems" the same way that I am always witnessing people attempting to "solve" mine.

I would argue in your safety example that your "responsibility to [yourself] and fellow miners" is in reality a desire to do a friend a good turn in the hope that he would do the same to you. Nothing wrong with that, just restating it in terms that make more sense to me.

If you're skiing and you attempt some crazy stunt with no training, I would most heartily state that whatever injuries you incur are your own fault--who else's fault would they be? Similarly, if you're riding home from work and "someone hits [you]," sounds like a pretty clear-cut case of their fault to me. What you may not understand is that to me, it's fairly obvious that everything in the world happens for a reason. That is, I am writing to you because this is an excellent discussion and I enjoy these types of conversations. I am mad at my girlfriend because she broke up with me. I am getting an A in Calc because I study and have a mind capable of understanding the material. Everything that happens is someone's (or some collective group's) fault (or, to choose a more-comfortable word, responsibility). Sometimes it's pretty clearly one person's fault (knocking over a vase), sometime's it's a group of people's (Enron), sometimes we may not even know whose fault it is (unsolved crimes), but the fact is that vases do not knock over themselves, account books do not hide assets, people don't go out and get themselves murdered, and driverless cars do not terrorize byciclists on their way home from work.

Now. About your broken leg. I believe that you should bear the cost of your recovery according to your responsibility. If you were doing stupid ski tricks, you should be paying all of it. If a car hit you on your way home from work, said driver should be paying all of it. If you didn't have your required-by-law reflectors on, but the car didn't signal, you should be paying some of it. However, under no circumstances can I see a scenario in which you breaking your leg is my responsibility. Why should I be expected to pay for it? I do not have any say in whether or not you choose to ride a bike; why am I being taxed to cover your expense? Now note that you have several options available to you. You could take out an insurance policy from a private firm, much the same way that automobile drivers do. You and your biker friends could form an organization to cover each others' accidents that is funded by periodical dues. You could pick up a book on accident law to help you understand what legal options may/may not be available to you. But instituting a tax, requiring non-bikers and non-automobile drivers to participate in what should be your solution to your problem? That's overstepping the boundary.

I don't have a problem, particularly, with government-funded organizations with such clearly-defined goals as the NIH, provided they are properly allocating their funds (which is, in the Real World, extremely unlikely). I do have a problem with programs like welfare, social security, healthcare, and federal housing, which attempt to unload some people's problems on everyone, and in a highly-innefficient manner at that.

Corruption. Here's the neat thing about conservative (and by that I mean "classical liberal") philosophy: we walk in the door expecting it to happen, and we attempt to minimize it by minimizing the amount of functions government performs. Every time you start a new government program, you guarantee that someone will abuse the flow of funds for their own ends. It's pretty simple really: in a private company, if you can't survive making market-dictated product at market-dictated prices, you die, and someone else does it instead. In a government program, if you can't make market-dictated product at market-dictated prices, you obviously need more funding. So it's pretty easy to see how government programs tend to distribute wealth in the most inefficient manner possible: in a government office, if you can't make do with what you've got, there's always an illusion that you will simply get more. And more, and more, and more. And pretty soon the American people are paying people not to raise corn, and people not to fill out forms accounting for people who don't raise corn, and people not to manage the people who don't fill out forms for the non-corn-growers, and meanwhile the legislators are all patting themselves on the back for what a great job they did helping out the economy by raising corn prices.

Bearing that in mind, I think it's painfully obvious why we need a system to track government spending. Not like we wouldn't just hire more people to write lofty job titles so it looks like the not-managers are doing something useful, but still.

Preventing ignorance is a good thing, but one person's stupidity is another's wisdom. And who gets to decide which is which? You and I have gone back-and-forth for roughly ten pages on the meaning of words like "problem" and "fault" and "luck". Do you really think that there's an arbitrary person or panel that can come up with a definition of 'ignorance' and what we should do to 'prevent it' that even 25% of Americans would sign on to?

Now I will agree with you that we need auto mechanics and doctors and airplane pilots and all the rest of it. But the reason that we have the word "auto mechanic" is because there are such things as auto mechanics, and we do have them. Your point then can only be that we do not have "enough". But how much is enough? The only answer I can come up with to that is "as many as the market will bear." In other words, if there aren't enough auto mechanics, wages for auto mechanics will go up, and more people will want to become auto mechanics. If there are too many auto mechanics, wages for auto mechanics will go down, and some of them will probably find a job in, say, auto manufacturing or auto parts suply or running an auto mechanic shop. In any event, I fail to see how (and to what positive effect) the government should get involved. Perhaps we should start a program ensuring that Ford only purchases four times the amount of tires as cars it manufacturers, or checks that Nike manufactures equal numbers of left-and-right-paired shoes?

AFDC stands for "Aids to Families with Dependant Children", which is a clever politically-correct term for welfare. As far as Social Security, I must say I find the entire affair rather funny. If you or I were to run a Ponzi Scheme, we'd have a runin with the Secret Service, but the federal government's been doing it for years, and nobody cares. In fact, the Democrats get up during the State of the Union and applaud the fact that they blocked legislation that, as best as I can make out, gives people the option to optionally manage their own money.

Wealthy CEOs open plants in Asia, and this is indeed "too bad". But once again, it's all somebody's fault. Why is it cheaper to make goods in Asia and have them shipped here? All things being considered, you would think it would be more efficient to have goods that are to be sold here, made here. But laws like minimum wage (Action Line: We're going to guarantee a standard of living for all Americans, *backpat*) and assorted business regulation (Action Line: We're going to protect you from the Evil Capitalist) have aparrently (note: this only surprises liberals) to have done more harm than good. But just the same way that a government program that doesn't work obviously needs more funding, progressive platforms that don't work obviously mean we're not trying hard enough. The liberal solution to outsourcing caused by minimum wage and business regulation is going to be higher minimum wage and more business regulation. But it won't work; even John Q. Public can see the stupidity in beating a dead horse.

Furthermore, there's another thing you're not seeing: outsourcing isn't all that bad. This isn't the 17th century, and (at least in theory) we've outgrown [mercantilism] as an economic theory. True, Americans have less jobs, but products also have a lower manufacturing cost, which translates into savings for the consumer. We don't have to keep all the bullion within our borders in order to be economically successful. In other words, yes, losing jobs is bad, but also yes, decreased consumer cost is good. The market has ways of compensating for even the absolute worst intentions of policymakers.

I, like you, am also motivated by results. Like you, I also want clean air and water and a bigger home and the whole bit. But I want a government that largely stays out of the way while I go get it. Compaqdrew 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting pretty long. Let's continue the discussion here. Chadlupkes 06:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)