Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I see; we were approaching it from different angles.

I was thinking in terms of what rights would be applicable both to this society and any past one. (Or, if not every society which has existed, the vast majority of them.)

That difference in starting point probably helps explain often have such fundamentally different views on rights.

Frazzled wrote:Wait you say that and then think I'm the one touting ideological poppycock? How many democracies are there in the world? How many dictatorships?

Going by the Economist, http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf, there are 82 full democracies (though a large portion of them are not full democracies), 30 hybrid system with both democratic and non-democratic elements, and 55 authoritarian regimes. I post that because you asked and because it’s a fun thing to know, not because it has anything to do with this thread.

What I’m talking about is being realistic about the role of society in our lives, and being realistic about how government can take a place in ensuring everyone has a chance at a decent life. What you’re talking about is the dream of every man as an island, and it has nothing to do with how the world actually works.

focusedfire wrote:@Sebster-

1)Awfully dramitic or uncomfortably accurate. Your arguing symantics on a governmental regular use term in an attempt to downplay the significance of what it means when you appoint someone else to watch out for your rights. When you do such a thing it is the same thing as hopping in a car with a stranger. You are putting your fate into someone elses hands.

It isn’t semantics because words have implications. When you uses a term like overseer they give a very dramatic implication.

Our lives are in other people’s hands everyday. When you get in your car you should drive carefully, that is in your hands. But there are also thousands of other people on the road, and anyone of them that drives badly increases the chance of you dying. And there is also the issue of the roads themselves, built by hundreds of people, paid for by the taxes gathered from everyone. Or the issue of the quality of your car, from the quality of the engineers designing the brakes, to the quality of the workman installing them, to the stringency and rigorous level of safety testing mandated by government.

To bring it back to education… the future well being of your child is already in the hands of others. You can homeschool your kid and teach him everything you think is valuable, but if that doesn’t align with college requirements there’ll be no degree and no access to many, many jobs. So why not build a govt system where govt develops teaching programs to help homeschooling parents meet those requirements?

2)Where does such a fantasy exist. Any transparency granted by law will immediately be obfuscated by a blizzard of bueracratic paperwork. Name a single american governmental institution outside of the IRS that has clear priorities.
Your answer is ideologically correct but has no basis in the world which we live. Homo Sapiens would have to transcend to another level of existence for that ideology to apply.

It’s an interesting assumption you’ve made, that because you believe US government is flawed, all government is flawed. That yours must be the best, therefore if it isn’t working then the problem must be the model, not your execution of it. Because right now I’m scratching my head thinking about an Australian govt body that doesn’t do what it says on the label…

And no, my ideas here have no ideology behind it. If they did could you please describe what ideology that would be? My ideas are based on the practical idea that we live in an inter-dependent world, where the well-being of each person is dependent on direct and indirect interactions with millions of other people. Ignoring the level of government and social rules already governing those interactions is ideology from the deep end.

3)No, the people living in the shack have already asked themselves this question and done the"Math". These questions are disturbing to the politically and philosophically unconscious masses that just go through their day to day existence. These people don't want to hassle with keeping an eye on what their gov't is doing, thus proving Stalin and Marx right on one of the points were they acrually agreed. Decadent people don't want to be bothered by handling the reign of their gov'ts and will hand those riegns over to the government thus creating the most effective tyrrany.

There is a middle ground between ‘govt is great and wonderful’ and ‘govt is an oppressive tool so let’s go live in shacks in the wilderness’. It’s a middle ground where you recognise the failings of government and aim to government accountability and direct government more closely to the interests of the people.

@Dogma-Good question. What do we do when economics limits your learning ability?

You can write all of the laws in the world to fix this but you will not change basic human behavior. People very rarely will put any real effort into a government job unless they have something to gain.

The people that are in a position to gain do not profit by getting the best for the Tax payers. They in fact have every reason to make sure that the average person remains under-educated.
The job of the public education system is to turn out workers and enlisted troops, not leaders. If you find this hard to believe look at the educational stats from the time the dept. of education was created in 1980 and you will see a steady decline in the performance of the public school systems.

Next question, Who sits on the boards and commitees for the majority of the public schools?
Who controls what books are available to public schools?

Usually, They are upper-class economically with kids in private schools and have nothing to encourage improved importance.

Do these overseers of our education have a constituency that watches to make sure they do a good job?
Do they get pay cuts when performance drops or is there another throw more money at education campain that gives them a Pay raise?
On just a local level, some self-serving lady made the jest that if they improved the quality of the Public education it would only create competition for their kids when it comes to getting into a choice college. She still has the job. I'm not saying that she actually consciously does such but it does show a mindset where sub-consciously she might not do her best.


@ Sebster-
1)As to the symantics statement. Yes all words have implications. Try to be politically correct and in time the new term becomes offensive or disturbing. If I use another word that has the same meaning and your willing to accept it then it is an argument about semantics.

You can try to hem me in by restricting my choice for what word I feel is appropriate but it is nothing more than a red herring to distract from the reality of the situation. That reality being that the government that I am most familiar with(US) calls them oversight commitees. At which point, the term Overseers is the correct usage and title for the group.

1a)Getting into the car is a choice that isn't being forced upon us, there are alternatives, unlike these gov't systems your proposing/defending(?).


2)Very nice way to invalidate your own argument. Just because I reference the US system I must think it is the best even though I am saying other-wise.

Your statement is a debate slieght of hand trick where you say hey look, a stereo-typical AMERICA ***K YEAH type of yank and then try to slide an AUSTRALIA ***K YEAH statement in. Smooth attempt at playing upon the anti-american sentiment but I gotta call you on it.

To set the record straight, and you know this from previous conversations is that I am a political realist that believes most if not all governments are Machiavellian in nature. This sets me up about your ideological statement that was in answer as to who should oversee the right of education.

sebster wrote:Public bodies given clear priorities by transparent, democratically elected governments.

2a)Your statement implies a world where government employees will do their job instead of hiding behind the bueracracy. This implies a world that operates off of the optimistic ideology of a world with no self-motivation.

This is the Ideology of Nirvana, Shangri-la, or Utopia. You can't get much more ideological than implying that a model that would work in a perfect world is the path to take.

3)I agree that there is a middle ground. But, Who decides where the middle is? The answer is that it is not static. Also, there is nothing wrong with being either form of patriot. World needs those extreme ends on occasion.

In reply to this last, another question. What do the people do when the government refuses to be "Directed"?

Studying Human rights here in australia. Basically, though we are a lot better than many countries... *cough* China...cough* possibly America too, just take a look at what is going on with asylum seekers. We're breaking some basic human rights, and pretty much telling the UN to go stuff themselves. NZ is way better...except they don't say MATE. They say bru. That's way such animosity exists between us.

focusedfire wrote:@ Sebster-
1)As to the symantics statement. Yes all words have implications. Try to be politically correct and in time the new term becomes offensive or disturbing. If I use another word that has the same meaning and your willing to accept it then it is an argument about semantics.

No, it isn’t about political correctness, it is about the fact that words can mean the same thing but give different implications. For example, employer and boss describe the same person. Employer is more positive, focussing on the fact that he offers employment. A boss is more negative, focussing on the fact that he tells you what to do.

I have no idea why you’re arguing otherwise, it’s a very basic thing.

1a)Getting into the car is a choice that isn't being forced upon us, there are alternatives, unlike these gov't systems your proposing/defending(?).

I’m proposing a system where access to a mimimum level of education is guaranteed. I haven’t proposed stormtroopers stealing kids away from their mums to make them sit in a classroom for six hours every day, yet you’re pretending like I did.

To continue the above, I’m saying that like choosing to get into a car, you can choose to get your kid educated. If you do govt guarantees the roads will be of a certain level of quality, and that your car will have a certain level of safety. That if you opt in, you should have a right to expect a level of education that’ll give your child the full range of opportunities in later life.

2)Very nice way to invalidate your own argument. Just because I reference the US system I must think it is the best even though I am saying other-wise.

Your statement is a debate slieght of hand trick where you say hey look, a stereo-typical AMERICA ***K YEAH type of yank and then try to slide an AUSTRALIA ***K YEAH statement in. Smooth attempt at playing upon the anti-american sentiment but I gotta call you on it.

No, I made the only assumption possible from your claim. I said govt could work well. You challenged me to name a part of US government that had clear priorities. I looked at that for a second, and not being intimately familiar with the US system thought about the Australian system, and couldn’t think of a single element that was doing anything other than its stated aim. Then I wondered why that wouldn’t be enough to justify the idea that govt wasn’t always wonderful. So I said that.

You felt this was America bashing… which is a bizarre reading of what I wrote. I didn’t bash America, I didn’t’ do anything like America bashing. You claimed US govt departments had unclear priorities. I took that at face value, and pointed out govt didn’t have to be like that. Taking that as America bashing is absurd, and makes me wonder if you’re really putting the effort in to follow this conversation.

Nor was I heaping praise on my own country. I’d think most democracies would be in a position where their govt departments were under control, at least at the strategic level. If you want we can talk about the failings of Australia, Emperor’s Faithful mentioned a few and there’s plenty more. It would probably need to be a thread of its own, though.

To set the record straight, and you know this from previous conversations is that I am a political realist that believes most if not all governments are Machiavellian in nature. This sets me up about your ideological statement that was in answer as to who should oversee the right of education.

You are not a political realist. This needs to be made absolutely, abundantly clear. You are a hardline ideologue. There is simply no way you can begin to understand your place in the political dialogue unless you know that. When you are so adamant about the value of government that you call someone a utopian for suggesting a transparent, accountable government body could improve the quality of education available to all, you are on the extreme fringe.

And that was a nice little twist there, ‘who should oversee the right of education’. It’s almost what I said (there is a right to access a level of education) and so you almost, nearly, slipped it through. Of course, what you said is basically nonsense, as without government involvement there simply is no right to education, just a case of getting what you can as long as someone else is hopefully going to offer it.

2a)Your statement implies a world where government employees will do their job instead of hiding behind the bueracracy. This implies a world that operates off of the optimistic ideology of a world with no self-motivation.

This is the Ideology of Nirvana, Shangri-la, or Utopia. You can't get much more ideological than implying that a model that would work in a perfect world is the path to take.

Now you’re just being silly. The idea I’ve given is that a democratic, accountable government can play a part in enhancing the rights of its citizens. Your position is that no government body ever could possibly be anything but hopelessly corrupt. To be frank, your position sounds like a satire on libertarianism.

3)I agree that there is a middle ground. But, Who decides where the middle is? The answer is that it is not static. Also, there is nothing wrong with being either form of patriot. World needs those extreme ends on occasion.

The world needs extreme ends to the extent that those extreme ends are producing valid arguments with some truth to them. When it comes to the idea that govt by its nature cannot improve things for its citizens, then it’s a big ‘if’.

In reply to this last, another question. What do the people do when the government refuses to be "Directed"?

Vote in another government? Or are you talking about all of government turning bad and putting soldiers on every corner. If that’s what your talking about, what on Earth does that have to do with considering education a right?

sebster wrote:No, it isn’t about political correctness, it is about the fact that words can mean the same thing but give different implications. For example, employer and boss describe the same person. Employer is more positive, focussing on the fact that he offers employment. A boss is more negative, focussing on the fact that he tells you what to do.

I have no idea why you’re arguing otherwise, it’s a very basic thing.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics

Yes, it is an argument over semantics. You can claim, "basically", it is not but the definition says otherwise.

sebster wrote:I’m proposing a system where access to a mimimum level of education is guaranteed. I haven’t proposed stormtroopers stealing kids away from their mums to make them sit in a classroom for six hours every day, yet you’re pretending like I did.

To continue the above, I’m saying that like choosing to get into a car, you can choose to get your kid educated. If you do govt guarantees the roads will be of a certain level of quality, and that your car will have a certain level of safety. That if you opt in, you should have a right to expect a level of education that’ll give your child the full range of opportunities in later life.

1)The problem is that guaranteed can and has been re-inerpreted to mean required. When it is viewed as such then you do end up with an enforced educational structure. You see, I'm not arguing the concept of access to education. I'm arguing that any attempt to establish such as a written law will eventually force the creation of a non-local governing body to oversee the system. That such a body will always be too ponderous and inflexible to meet the needs of the individuals and will only work from the needs of the bueracracy.

1a)I feel that this is more of a difference in length of time as an independent governments. The longer a government is in power the more comfortable it gets in the idea of exercising power over its people. You see, over here we have had the stormtroopers(The forced bussing nightmare). Our government had an ideologically concept and enforced such against the will of many individuals and to the detriment of many children. In my area kids had to get up at 4:30 in the morning to catch a 5:30 bus that did not get to school until around 7:45. Then there was 2+ hour ride home. This was "daily" and there was a school within walking distance. All of this because of an elected official that was an idealist and decided to enforce his personal views. Your model ignores human self-motivation and as such is an idealized structure.

1b)To sum up 1 and 1a, any attempt to legislate morality will, by its very nature, create a system that is inflexible, abusable, and ineffective. It will require constant vigilance to keep it in check and under control, a vigilance that people(With the possible exception of France)generally have been unwilling to maintain for any period of time.


2) You should have the choice of whether you opt in or not but it very rarely works that way. This is so for a variety of reasons that getting into to much detail migh derail the discussion, I'll just leave it at required standards for government accredtitation.

No one really gets access to the full range of opportunities. There are just too many variables, not even the richest get access to all of the possibilities. To try and guarantee such is impractical. Now shooting for a system that is about finding the individual needs of the student and tailoring the curriculum would be a bit more workable, but only on a parent/school level. Any thing larger is too ponderous and will take a mass production cookie-cutter approach. Education systems work better when you keep the government involvement minimal to non-existent.

sebster wrote:No, I made the only assumption possible from your claim. I said govt could work well. You challenged me to name a part of US government that had clear priorities. I looked at that for a second, and not being intimately familiar with the US system thought about the Australian system, and couldn’t think of a single element that was doing anything other than its stated aim. Then I wondered why that wouldn’t be enough to justify the idea that govt wasn’t always wonderful. So I said that.

You felt this was America bashing… which is a bizarre reading of what I wrote. I didn’t bash America, I didn’t’ do anything like America bashing. You claimed US govt departments had unclear priorities. I took that at face value, and pointed out govt didn’t have to be like that. Taking that as America bashing is absurd, and makes me wonder if you’re really putting the effort in to follow this conversation.

Nor was I heaping praise on my own country. I’d think most democracies would be in a position where their govt departments were under control, at least at the strategic level. If you want we can talk about the failings of Australia, Emperor’s Faithful mentioned a few and there’s plenty more. It would probably need to be a thread of its own, though.

1)You could have made a different assumption, You could have realized that I was working from the realistic point of view that people are not perfect and that governments are run by people.

1a)You were not just saying that governments could work well. You were asserting that governments work well without much need of being watched. That once a system is set in place it will function as intended or flawlessly.

1b)Your inability to critique your own government and the assertion that it could be used as justification of a government where everything is "always wonderful", discredits any further argument about the nature of governments you might make.

2)Not a bizarre reading, You wrote:

sebster wrote:It’s an interesting assumption you’ve made, that because you believe US government is flawed, all government is flawed. That yours must be the best, therefore if it isn’t working then the problem must be the model, not your execution of it. Because right now I’m scratching my head thinking about an Australian govt body that doesn’t do what it says on the label…

I believe the government is flawed because it is made up of flawed individuals. All governments are flawed for the same reason. There is no implication of superiority on my part where there is a blatant one on yours. Any attempt to say the, "That yours must be the best" wasn't an attempt to play towards the US is the best Yank Stereo-type is completely shot down by your following statement of everything works exactly as intended in Australia. This was nothing less than trying to claim a form of high ground in the discussion by playing upon a negative stereo-type.

2a)Here you are flip-flopping on your very words fom 2 points before in the last line: "Then I wondered why that wouldn’t be enough to justify the idea that govt wasn’t always wonderful. So I said that." It leaves me to wonder if you are really putting the effort in to follow this conversation.

sebster wrote:You are not a political realist. This needs to be made absolutely, abundantly clear. You are a hardline ideologue. There is simply no way you can begin to understand your place in the political dialogue unless you know that. When you are so adamant about the value of government that you call someone a utopian for suggesting a transparent, accountable government body could improve the quality of education available to all, you are on the extreme fringe.

And that was a nice little twist there, ‘who should oversee the right of education’. It’s almost what I said (there is a right to access a level of education) and so you almost, nearly, slipped it through. Of course, what you said is basically nonsense, as without government involvement there simply is no right to education, just a case of getting what you can as long as someone else is hopefully going to offer it.

1)As to my not being a realist:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_realism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machiavellianism
I have never argued against the Machiavellian nature of governments, Just that everyone needs to be aware of this nature and that it like everything else has its time and place. What I have been arguing is that you can not expect amoral governments to legislate morality because to do so is an ironic contradiction that destablizes the entire system.

I belive this applies to you: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideologue
I say that governmant is not perfect and has its own goals that may be at odds with the individual. That it is our duty to be aware of such before pushing for "rights" to be legislated and placed under governmental oversight.
You say that your government is "always wonderful" and should be used as a model for how other government could be so. Who is the ideologue here?

So please try to tell me my place again. I have no illusions or delusions of superiority about myself or my government. I merely look at things with a critical eye because that is my duty when participating in a "democracy"(*Cough* republic*cough*)

3)You sure you meant this line, "Of course, what you said is basically nonsense, as without government involvement there simply is no right to education", This could be read to mean that all rights come from the government. This would mean that every government is totalitarian with some only being more benevolent than others.
BTW, It is funny, We were educating ourselves better in the US before the government became involved. That was because if we wanted it we went out and found it.

sebster wrote:Now you’re just being silly. The idea I’ve given is that a democratic, accountable government can play a part in enhancing the rights of its citizens. Your position is that no government body ever could possibly be anything but hopelessly corrupt. To be frank, your position sounds like a satire on libertarianism.

My position is one with an eye towards human history and the path of every pervious government. Historical track record supports my stance. My stance is that no matter how good the original concept over time it will fall due to that people are corruptable by power and being in government gives them power.
Also, democracy only works in small groups. Democracy has nothing to do with the national level of government. This is because Democracy is a government of the people and by the people. By the time it hits a national level the government becomes to big to be of the people and becomes its own seperate entity with its own seperate goals.

sebster wrote:The world needs extreme ends to the extent that those extreme ends are producing valid arguments with some truth to them. When it comes to the idea that govt by its nature cannot improve things for its citizens, then it’s a big ‘if’.

The definition of improve things is subjective and completely dependent upon the individual citizens priorities. The idea isn't that they"cannont" but rather they won't unless it is a benefit to the government of itself and its goals.

sebster wrote:Vote in another government? Or are you talking about all of government turning bad and putting soldiers on every corner. If that’s what your talking about, what on Earth does that have to do with considering education a right?

Troops being used to enforce government policy through an intrusion into the education system has had a long history of abuse in the US dating back to the Indian Schools. Not saying this is wrong, just to be aware that everything is situational/subjective and trying to legislate such is always double edged.

focusedfire wrote:@Dogma-Good question. What do we do when economics limits your learning ability?

Presumably work, the same thing you would do when the government limits your learning ability.

focusedfire wrote:
You can write all of the laws in the world to fix this but you will not change basic human behavior. People very rarely will put any real effort into a government job unless they have something to gain.

You mean ANY job correct? Why the emphasis on government jobs?

focusedfire wrote:
The people that are in a position to gain do not profit by getting the best for the Tax payers. They in fact have every reason to make sure that the average person remains under-educated.

You need to expand on that. Unless you're going to posit that its in the best interests of any person in power to ensure that anyone who is uneducated remain uneducated.

focusedfire wrote:
The job of the public education system is to turn out workers and enlisted troops, not leaders. If you find this hard to believe look at the educational stats from the time the dept. of education was created in 1980 and you will see a steady decline in the performance of the public school systems.

You'll also see an expansion with respect to the number of people being educated, and the amount and kind of information related to students. The less intelligent outnumber the more intelligent, and so will pull down the average in an environment where excellence is more difficult.

Also, grades mean very little in terms of actual knowledge. Rather they measure the willingness of any given person to do work in an academic environment.

focusedfire wrote:
Next question, Who sits on the boards and commitees for the majority of the public schools?
Who controls what books are available to public schools?

Usually people living in the school district, who take an interest in the education available to the community. This means they tend to be parents, grandparents, or teachers. Unless its a major city, then they might simply be career politicians.

focusedfire wrote:
Usually, They are upper-class economically with kids in private schools and have nothing to encourage improved importance.

That's not true at all. I'm from one of the wealthiest counties in the United States, and every single person on the board had a child in the public education system.

focusedfire wrote:
Do these overseers of our education have a constituency that watches to make sure they do a good job?

Yes, that's why people are elected to the school board.

focusedfire wrote:
Do they get pay cuts when performance drops or is there another throw more money at education campain that gives them a Pay raise?

They don't generally receive much in the way of monetary compensation at all. It isn't a full time job in most places.

focusedfire wrote:
On just a local level, some self-serving lady made the jest that if they improved the quality of the Public education it would only create competition for their kids when it comes to getting into a choice college. She still has the job. I'm not saying that she actually consciously does such but it does show a mindset where sub-consciously she might not do her best.

She must be particularly reflective. People coming out of highly competitive environments have the best chance of getting into a highly selective school. Read up on the number of 1600 SAT/36 ACT/4.0 GPA students who get turned away from Ivies due the common nature of their background.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

focusedfire wrote:
1)As to my not being a realist:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_realism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machiavellianism
I have never argued against the Machiavellian nature of governments, Just that everyone needs to be aware of this nature and that it like everything else has its time and place. What I have been arguing is that you can not expect amoral governments to legislate morality because to do so is an ironic contradiction that destablizes the entire system.

So you claim to be a realist in the ideological sense. Rather than a realist in the observational sense.

focusedfire wrote:
I belive this applies to you: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideologue
I say that governmant is not perfect and has its own goals that may be at odds with the individual. That it is our duty to be aware of such before pushing for "rights" to be legislated and placed under governmental oversight.
You say that your government is "always wonderful" and should be used as a model for how other government could be so. Who is the ideologue here?

Both of you. Though Sebster isn't claiming that the government is always wonderful. He claiming that it is capable of being useful.

focusedfire wrote:@Dogma-Good question. What do we do when economics limits your learning ability?

dogma wrote:Presumably work, the same thing you would do when the government limits your learning ability.

Well, you admit that the government does limit learning ability. I was actually reffering to the possibility of a system that helps to maintain the position of our societal elites and their families.

focusedfire wrote:
You can write all of the laws in the world to fix this but you will not change basic human behavior. People very rarely will put any real effort into a government job unless they have something to gain.

dogma wrote:You mean ANY job correct? Why the emphasis on government jobs?

Emphasis on government jobs due to the nature of inherent job security(Gotta work at it to get fired) and the lack of a motivational rewards/disciplinary system.

focusedfire wrote:
The people that are in a position to gain do not profit by getting the best for the Tax payers. They in fact have every reason to make sure that the average person remains under-educated.

dogma wrote:You need to expand on that. Unless you're going to posit that its in the best interests of any person in power to ensure that anyone who is uneducated remain uneducated.

Why would it not? If you and yours are at the top what is your motivation to help them take your place?

focusedfire wrote:
The job of the public education system is to turn out workers and enlisted troops, not leaders. If you find this hard to believe look at the educational stats from the time the dept. of education was created in 1980 and you will see a steady decline in the performance of the public school systems.

dogma wrote:You'll also see an expansion with respect to the number of people being educated, and the amount and kind of information related to students. The less intelligent outnumber the more intelligent, and so will pull down the average in an environment where excellence is more difficult.

Also, grades mean very little in terms of actual knowledge. Rather they measure the willingness of any given person to do work in an academic environment.

It is the overall percentages that are the fly in the ointment in this case. The percentages are increasing rather than decreasing. You say grades mean very little. If examination of impirical evidence isn't the way to judge then what is? I would suggest that maybe we look at the number of inane diclaimers that are being stamped upon the products sold within our society in order to protect us from our own stupidity. I know that you were getting at Grades don't equal knowledge. Problem is that the grades are what is used to determine your future opportunities in both acedemic and employment situations.

focusedfire wrote:
Next question, Who sits on the boards and commitees for the majority of the public schools?
Who controls what books are available to public schools?

dogma wrote:Usually people living in the school district, who take an interest in the education available to the community. This means they tend to be parents, grandparents, or teachers. Unless its a major city, then they might simply be career politicians.

The local schoolboards very rarely control what books are available as recognised curriculumn. There is a group of politicians that determine what books meet accreditation standards on a state wide level. Quite often the same group that is playing the shell game with which schools get how much money.

focusedfire wrote:
Usually, They are upper-class economically with kids in private schools and have nothing to encourage improved importance.

dogma wrote:That's not true at all. I'm from one of the wealthiest counties in the United States, and every single person on the board had a child in the public education system..

One county does not change the norm. It is rather the exception. Wealthiest counties also usually get more cash for their scools and leniency towards following the limiting state mandated curriculumn. It is why there are so many "Robin Hood" laws trying to fix this.

focusedfire wrote:
Do these overseers of our education have a constituency that watches to make sure they do a good job?

dogma wrote:Yes, that's why people are elected to the school board.

Again, I'll point out that most school boards do little more than set hiring policy and order replacement books from a list created at the state level by politacal apponties or a sub-committee that nobody ever holds responsible for their choices.

focusedfire wrote:
Do they get pay cuts when performance drops or is there another throw more money at education campain that gives them a Pay raise?

dogma wrote:They don't generally receive much in the way of monetary compensation at all. It isn't a full time job in most places.

Was reffering to the people over at the state board of education. Not the local school board.

focusedfire wrote:
On just a local level, some self-serving lady made the jest that if they improved the quality of the Public education it would only create competition for their kids when it comes to getting into a choice college. She still has the job. I'm not saying that she actually consciously does such but it does show a mindset where sub-consciously she might not do her best.

dogma wrote:She must be particularly reflective. People coming out of highly competitive environments have the best chance of getting into a highly selective school. Read up on the number of 1600 SAT/36 ACT/4.0 GPA students who get turned away from Ivies due the common nature of their background.

Having parents that went to certain schools still carries a fair amount of wieght in the admissions process. Also define the common portion of the statement. Could mean that the public education system is doing its job of making the applicants too common. Word play aside you still have to look at the percentages of who came from where that they were actually able to produce those scores.Percentages play in the favour our elite class in this country.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

focusedfire wrote:
1)As to my not being a realist:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_realism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machiavellianism
I have never argued against the Machiavellian nature of governments, Just that everyone needs to be aware of this nature and that it like everything else has its time and place. What I have been arguing is that you can not expect amoral governments to legislate morality because to do so is an ironic contradiction that destablizes the entire system.

dogma wrote:So you claim to be a realist in the ideological sense. Rather than a realist in the observational sense.

I have not made a "this is bad" judgement pertaining to this discussion. Merely pointed out the basic nature of things and how some will conflict to prevent the original end goal from being accomplished. Not saying that controlling overseers are bad, just that you don't write morality into law for them to enforce and expect the system to work. Write the laws for the need of the community and be aware that they are witten for that purpose.

focusedfire wrote:
I belive this applies to you: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideologue
I say that governmant is not perfect and has its own goals that may be at odds with the individual. That it is our duty to be aware of such before pushing for "rights" to be legislated and placed under governmental oversight.
You say that your government is "always wonderful" and should be used as a model for how other government could be so. Who is the ideologue here?

dogma wrote:Both of you. Though Sebster isn't claiming that the government is always wonderful. He claiming that it is capable of being useful.

A close examanination of his words implies differently. May have been purely sub-conscious but it is still there.

focusedfire wrote:
Well, you admit that the government does limit learning ability. I was actually reffering to the possibility of a system that helps to maintain the position of our societal elites and their families.

No, I admit that its capable of doing so. Though I'm not sure how you would distinguish an educational system which maintains the position of an elite class (presumably an illegitimate one) from one that simply constricts knowledge. If the system isn't constricting knowledge, and yet still works to maintain the status of the elite, then the elite is legitimate with respect to the educational system.

focusedfire wrote:
Emphasis on government jobs due to the nature of inherent job security(Gotta work at it to get fired) and the lack of a motivational rewards/disciplinary system.

There are a lot of private sector jobs that lack motivational rewards, and disciplinary system. You could argue that they are less prevalent, but that's a much more difficult case than one which is based purely on logical association. Unless you're willing to make that case, we can assume for the purposes of this conversation that a government job is not especially distinct from a private sector position.

focusedfire wrote:
Why would it not? If you and yours are at the top what is your motivation to help them take your place?

The fact that, while power is a zero sum game, quality of life is not.

focusedfire wrote:
It is the overall percentages that are the fly in the ointment in this case. The percentages are increasing rather than decreasing. You say grades mean very little. If examination of impirical evidence isn't the way to judge then what is?

You misunderstand. I don't consider grades to be empirical evidence.

focusedfire wrote:
I would suggest that maybe we look at the number of inane diclaimers that are being stamped upon the products sold within our society in order to protect us from our own stupidity. I know that you were getting at Grades don't equal knowledge. Problem is that the grades are what is used to determine your future opportunities in both acedemic and employment situations.

Are you referring specifically to letter grades (which is what I was talking about), or the broad notion of grading as the result of assessment?

focusedfire wrote:
The local schoolboards very rarely control what books are available as recognised curriculumn. There is a group of politicians that determine what books meet accreditation standards on a state wide level. Quite often the same group that is playing the shell game with which schools get how much money.

The state accreditation board certifies a rather broad set of acceptable text books. However, it is up to the local school board to determine which books are actually utilized in the classrooms. There is actually a lot of local control over curriculum.

focusedfire wrote:
One county does not change the norm. It is rather the exception. Wealthiest counties also usually get more cash for their scools and leniency towards following the limiting state mandated curriculumn. It is why there are so many "Robin Hood" laws trying to fix this.

We're just dueling with anecdotes at this point. Until one of us produces statistics there is no way to settle the matter. Though I sincerely doubt that the majority of school board members are the parents of private school children.

I am somewhat baffled by this notion of a limiting curriculum. The state mandates a minimum set of necessary courses, but there really isn't a whole lot to that minimum. In most of the states that I'm familiar with (Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Kentuck) it doesn't amount to much more than X number of years in broad educational area.

focusedfire wrote:
Again, I'll point out that most school boards do little more than set hiring policy and order replacement books from a list created at the state level by politacal apponties or a sub-committee that nobody ever holds responsible for their choices.

You're really overestimating the actual constriction placed on the ability of individual districts to customize the education offered therein. The list of state approved texts exceedingly long, and generally fairly open.

focusedfire wrote:
Having parents that went to certain schools still carries a fair amount of wieght in the admissions process. Also define the common portion of the statement. Could mean that the public education system is doing its job of making the applicants too common. Word play aside you still have to look at the percentages of who came from where that they were actually able to produce those scores.Percentages play in the favour our elite class in this country.

Common as in publicly educated, non-legacy, or lacking in perceived status. A 4.0 GPA at Mayberry High means less than a 4.0 at a Country Day school.

Who came from where in terms of public versus private, or whom came from where in terms of residence?

focusedfire wrote:
I have not made a "this is bad" judgement pertaining to this discussion. Merely pointed out the basic nature of things and how some will conflict to prevent the original end goal from being accomplished. Not saying that controlling overseers are bad, just that you don't write morality into law for them to enforce and expect the system to work. Write the laws for the need of the community and be aware that they are witten for that purpose.

But you did link to two sources which define political realism as an ideological position, as opposed to an observational one.

focusedfire wrote:
A close examanination of his words implies differently. May have been purely sub-conscious but it is still there.

Interesting stance; considering that you felt it necessary to use the word 'overseer' when describing government appointees. Now, that word itself is quite innocuous, but it can have a negative connotation. If you want people to take your own statements at face value, it seems rather ridiculous to abstain from doing so yourself.

Right and wrong are defined in two manners:

1) A social level, where mankind can work together in relative harmony.
I like these. It lets me have cookies without Wrecksaur smacking me over the noggin to take my cookies. Usually boiled down to "try to avoid being a jerk"

2) Universal absolutes of right and wrong.
Where the universe doesn't really seem to care who has the cookies, so long as the matter is neither created or destroyed. Sadly, these seem to be more... MY COOKIES!!!...

focusedfire wrote:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics

Yes, it is an argument over semantics. You can claim, "basically", it is not but the definition says otherwise.

You are pretending that words don’t have implications… why are you pretending words don’t have implications? Are you just saying ‘nuh-uh’ just because you think that’s what you have to do in an argument, is this actually a concept you don’t understand, , or are you trolling for funzies?

Because if you’re just saying nuh-uh out of a belief that you cannot concede the slightest point on anything in an argument, it doesn’t have to work that way. You could say ‘yes it has a negative implication, that was intended because I believe the body would be negative. You used ‘government body’ to sound positive or value neutral in much the same way. I do not believe the implication is as negative as you claimed, but obviously you differ.’ We could then agree to disagree over how negative the term was, and move on to the actual content of the conversation.

If you honestly don’t understand, well… Look, don’t take this the wrong way but do you often miss the point in conversations with other people? Do you find yourself understanding every word used in conversation, but struggling to understand someone’s meaning? If that sounds like your common experience, I’d recommend you talk to friends and family about the issue. It may be something you can work on.

If you are just trolling, then well played sir, I don’t think I’ve ever been dragged along for multiple posts on something as silly as ‘words don’t have implications’.

1)The problem is that guaranteed can and has been re-inerpreted to mean required. When it is viewed as such then you do end up with an enforced educational structure. You see, I'm not arguing the concept of access to education. I'm arguing that any attempt to establish such as a written law will eventually force the creation of a non-local governing body to oversee the system. That such a body will always be too ponderous and inflexible to meet the needs of the individuals and will only work from the needs of the bueracracy..

I know what you’re saying, but it is an ideological position with little relation to how the world actually works.

To argue that government tends towards bureaucracy is sensible. To argue that crippling levels of bureaucracy are inevitable so all possible government must be fought is ideological nonsense.

1b)To sum up 1 and 1a, any attempt to legislate morality will, by its very nature, create a system that is inflexible, abusable, and ineffective. It will require constant vigilance to keep it in check and under control, a vigilance that people(With the possible exception of France)generally have been unwilling to maintain for any period of time.

You haven’t really thought through what you’re saying. All legislation is moral legislation, what is a law against murder but a law against something people see as being immoral? The property laws so beloved by the right wing are the very same thing.

Your claim that legislating morality will always create an inflexible, abusive system has no backing in reality. None. If it were true, the US healthcare system would score higher in all measures of healthcare than the public systems used elsewhere. However, despite spending around 50% more than other developed countries, the US scores poorly in all measures of healthcare.

No one really gets access to the full range of opportunities. There are just too many variables, not even the richest get access to all of the possibilities.

True, I was a little loose in my wording (in my defence I didn’t realise such a simple statement of mine was going to meet such strong resistance). I should have said something along the lines of ‘all people are entitled to a minimum level of quality of education, while allowing others to use their own resources to gain a greater level of education’.

To try and guarantee such is impractical. Now shooting for a system that is about finding the individual needs of the student and tailoring the curriculum would be a bit more workable, but only on a parent/school level. Any thing larger is too ponderous and will take a mass production cookie-cutter approach. Education systems work better when you keep the government involvement minimal to non-existent.

That is just a collection of talking points you’ve likely picked up from pundits that you’ve never properly considered.

Look, there are two basic mechanisms for allocating resources to a desired end. The first and most common is through private interactions, typically through markets. The second is government. Through the efficiency of pricing in allocating resources the first is preferred in most circumstances, but there are circumstances where the pricing mechanism leads to poor outcomes. Most commonly, the market fails to account for externalities, or fails to provide at all for people with no money who still deserve the service.

Now, in many cases it is easy to say ‘well if they wanted the service bad enough they now have the incentive to go out and get more money’. However, when it comes to kids dependant on the incomes of their parents to get an education, most sane people think the kid should get than education anyway (as the income of their parents can hardly be the kid’s fault). In those circumstances we have government take a role, ensuring that every kid gets access to education.

It’s a simple thing and while there will always be problems, in most places we’ve managed to have government education programs (either stand alone or working with private sector options) that haven’t turned into giant, monolithic leviathans. You’re freaking out over your ideology, when the problems predicted by your ideology do not match reality.

1)You could have made a different assumption, You could have realized that I was working from the realistic point of view that people are not perfect and that governments are run by people.

I could have assumed that you were working from a fantastical ideology with little or no regard for reality, that’s true. I was being generous is assuming a less ludicrous assumption.

1a)You were not just saying that governments could work well. You were asserting that governments work well without much need of being watched. That once a system is set in place it will function as intended or flawlessly.

No, I wasn’t assuming governments don’t need to be watched. I wrote ‘accountable’ every time. That means they’re watched and held accountable for what they’ve done. You need to follow this conversation a lot more closely than you have been. To be honest points like the above make you look foolish.

1b)Your inability to critique your own government and the assertion that it could be used as justification of a government where everything is "always wonderful", discredits any further argument about the nature of governments you might make.

You say I have the inability to critique my own government, when a paragraph later I said ‘If you want we can talk about the failings of Australia, Emperor’s Faithful mentioned a few and there’s plenty more’

You’re lying, or have the reading comprehension of a seven year old. Pick one.

2)Not a bizarre reading, You wrote:

sebster wrote:It’s an interesting assumption you’ve made, that because you believe US government is flawed, all government is flawed. That yours must be the best, therefore if it isn’t working then the problem must be the model, not your execution of it. Because right now I’m scratching my head thinking about an Australian govt body that doesn’t do what it says on the label…

Yeah, you produced a bizarre reading, probably intentionally to draw the conversation away from a point you can’t win. Think about it… you said government was bad and to establish this you challenged me to give a dept of US govt that did what it was supposed to. I said I didn’t know enough about US govt, but each element of Australian govt did what it was supposed to.

Now, why would I want to start bashing America? My point is that govt can be an effective, useful part of society. If I moved my point to focus on why America sucks that would diminish my point that govt can be good as it would produce the out ‘our govt is good while yours is bad because the US is bad’. That would support your point and justify you not wanting more govt. Instead, my point was ‘we have govt where individual departments act largely as they should and there’s no reason you can’t achieve the same, so if you really believe your govt is so out of control you should check to see if that’s really true, or how you can bring it back into line’.

It’s a simple case of following the logic of the conversation. It is something you are capable of, so when you fail so badly as to assume I was America bashing, the only possible conclusion is that you aren’t really trying to follow the conversation, but are just skimming to find points to complain about. You should stop that, it is ignorant and rude.

I believe the government is flawed because it is made up of flawed individuals. All governments are flawed for the same reason. There is no implication of superiority on my part where there is a blatant one on yours. Any attempt to say the, "That yours must be the best" wasn't an attempt to play towards the US is the best Yank Stereo-type is completely shot down by your following statement of everything works exactly as intended in Australia. This was nothing less than trying to claim a form of high ground in the discussion by playing upon a negative stereo-type.

You need to read up on agency theory. It does a far better job of explaining your general idea. It doesn’t rely on the moral judgement of flawed individuals, and it doesn’t restrict agency costs to government, but any situation where agents act on behalf of others.

2a)Here you are flip-flopping on your very words fom 2 points before in the last line: "Then I wondered why that wouldn’t be enough to justify the idea that govt wasn’t always wonderful. So I said that." It leaves me to wonder if you are really putting the effort in to follow this conversation.

I put ‘wonderful’ instead of ‘dreadful’. A silly error on my part, good pick up there, but I’m pretty disappointed you’re trying to turn the whole thing into a point scoring exercise. It should have been obvious from context that I had meant ‘dreadful’ or something similar. Read directly, it’s challenging you to explain why you think government is always wonderful... which makes no sense given our respective positions in this debate.

So yeah, I made a typo, my bad. Now you’re trying to score points by pretending it wasn’t an obvious typo, which is very poor form on your part.

1)As to my not being a realist:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_realism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machiavellianism
I have never argued against the Machiavellian nature of governments, Just that everyone needs to be aware of this nature and that it like everything else has its time and place. What I have been arguing is that you can not expect amoral governments to legislate morality because to do so is an ironic contradiction that destablizes the entire system.

First up, Machiavelli was recommending an approach and specific tactics to an Italian prince to gain more power. It’s an interesting read and has relevance to modern society, but inspiring fear before love is not exactly an effective description of modern govt politics. You should try reading the book and not going off of on-line dictionaries.

Second up, there is a difference between political realism and what you’re suggesting. Political realism accepts that govt is made up of individuals, and looks to build relationships within governments that recognise those failings. So when I said that a democratic, accountable, government body could do a decent job, I was recognising the political realities that the body would have to be representative of the people and accountable to them.

When you ignored that I’d said democratic & accountable and went on to declare all government inherently corrupt and ineffective, you were following a very crude ultra-libertarian ideology.

I belive this applies to you: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideologue
I say that governmant is not perfect and has its own goals that may be at odds with the individual. That it is our duty to be aware of such before pushing for "rights" to be legislated and placed under governmental oversight.

You say that your government is "always wonderful" and should be used as a model for how other government could be so. Who is the ideologue here?

I didn’t say government was always wonderful. My sentence as written asks you to explain why you thought government was always wonderful. This was a typo on my part, my bad. How and why you’re taking that typo out of context and pretending it means I think govt is always wonderful is odd though. You realise no-one else is reading this, that theatrics will score you no points among our audience of no-one. So why be so disingenuous? You had to know I would pick up on my typo being taken out of context straight away, as I’d know I’d never saying anything so silly. So if it wasn’t going to trick anyone, why did you bother? Why not be honest to yourself, at least?

So please try to tell me my place again. I have no illusions or delusions of superiority about myself or my government. I merely look at things with a critical eye because that is my duty when participating in a "democracy"(*Cough* republic*cough*)

Except that isn’t what you’ve been saying. You’ve been claiming govt always ends up corrupted and ineffective. That is not a critical eye, that’s the fanatical eye of the ideologue.

3)You sure you meant this line, "Of course, what you said is basically nonsense, as without government involvement there simply is no right to education", This could be read to mean that all rights come from the government. This would mean that every government is totalitarian with some only being more benevolent than others.

Uh yeah, rights are basically government recognition of things its citizens are entitled to. If two private individuals meet on a blasted wasteland after the bomb has dropped, there are no rights, as there is nothing to enforce them.

But no, the idea that rights come from government does not mean government is totalitarian. The nature of rights granted, the extent those rights, and the commitment to extend those rights to all citizens at all times are the critical factors in distinguishing a free society from a totalitarian one.

BTW, It is funny, We were educating ourselves better in the US before the government became involved. That was because if we wanted it we went out and found it.

Citation needed.

My position is one with an eye towards human history and the path of every pervious government. Historical track record supports my stance.

Citation needed.

My stance is that no matter how good the original concept over time it will fall due to that people are corruptable by power and being in government gives them power.

Every system has the potential to corrupt. That corruption may be government bloat, it may opening up public goods to control, manipulation and profiteering by oligarchies that is technically the ‘free market’. Your focus purely on govt is mistaken.

Also, democracy only works in small groups. Democracy has nothing to do with the national level of government. This is because Democracy is a government of the people and by the people. By the time it hits a national level the government becomes to big to be of the people and becomes its own seperate entity with its own seperate goals.

Yes, as a democracy involves more and more people it becomes increasingly difficult to represent the interests of every person. This is why we have multiple levels of government, each accountable to their electorates. It is not a reason to reject government, that would be moon logic.

The definition of improve things is subjective and completely dependent upon the individual citizens priorities. The idea isn't that they"cannont" but rather they won't unless it is a benefit to the government of itself and its goals.

Yes, and aligning the goals of government and the goals of the people is what that whole ‘democratic and accountable’ thing was about. Which I put in my first post on the issue. Which you’ve ignored in every single post since.

Troops being used to enforce government policy through an intrusion into the education system has had a long history of abuse in the US dating back to the Indian Schools. Not saying this is wrong, just to be aware that everything is situational/subjective and trying to legislate such is always double edged.

So, just to clarify, you’re saying that you oppose education being considered a right because you think that it might lead to troops coming in to people's houses to make them go to school?

Let us all remember this fact:
Once marriage became a social institution it was inevitable that the dirty GAYS would demand access to it. Bloody marriage, biggest mistake ever.

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Orkeosaurus wrote:God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

So who created Steve? If God didn't do it does that mean he has no soul. He always seemed a little off to me, but I had no idea he was the child of Satan.

Steve is gay, so you'd be correct in your assessment.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Steve is gay, so you'd be correct in your assessment.

Really, the parents are to blame. Who names their child Steve and expects them to end up straight?

he's not impressed.

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Steve is gay, so you'd be correct in your assessment.

Really, the parents are to blame. Who names their child Steve and expects them to end up straight?

They could have named him Aloysius. Or Elton. How does he play with Alice n' Chains.

whatwhat wrote:
he's not impressed.

Whatwhat wins again

As soon as he finishes wrestling that thar bovine to the ground, he'll deal with this thread.

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

So who created Steve? If God didn't do it does that mean he has no soul. He always seemed a little off to me, but I had no idea he was the child of Satan.

Oh, lets get into *this*.

1: Given a divine creator per
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image
Therefore mankind was made in his image. All mankind's potential and opportunity.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
2 Corinthians 4:15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.
Therefore this potential in mankind was created for a greater glory.

So, this deity made the option for its own glory. Since the book *ALSO* espoused the nobility of King David of Israel despite the problems with his very likely homosexuality as recorded in 1 Samuel 20:30-42... either the book is bloody wrong for inconsistencies, or mankind has NO BLOODY IDEA what this purported creator really wants.

"I am always amazed at how the Bible, that portrays my Lord embracing the outcasts, touching the lepers, welcoming the Samaritans, not judging the woman taken in the act of adultery, and inviting 'all of ye,' not 'some of ye,' to 'come unto me,' can, in the hands of a few distorted people be turned into a book of hatred, violence and judgment." J.S. Spong, retired bishop of the Episcopal Church, USA.

Since I can safely presume none of the folks on this board have killed a person for being homosexual Leviticus 20:13 or any of the other abominations like women wearing pants, we can rightly assume that Sebster is willfully ignorant.
How's that invisible sky wizard helping you out now? Doesn't seem to be making anything more or less right.

2: I thought it was The Cow 2:282 that established women as less than men...but these whole Abrahamic religions confuse me with their contradictions, abrogations, and revised editions.

Edit: edited for an open link.

@Sebster- I know I said before that words have implications but I was reffering to the spoken as opposed to the written. I was also just trying to give you an out because I didn't want to get overly sidetracked on this issue. But you won't let it go so here:The truth of the matter is words do not have implications in and of themselves. They are just words with basic meanings. It is people who give words implications through a conscious act of choice, whether stated or percieved. On the interweb you cannot see body language or hear tone so if it is only your choice whether you percieve an implication in a statement. If some one has an emotional reaction to something that is said, it is their choice to do so, no one else's. They make the personal choice whether they are going to become emotionally excited by the statement. It has nothing to do with the words beyond their basic meaning. When people try to restrict others speech based upon "percieved" implications they are doing nothing less than censorship. Paint it however you might, dress it up as political correctness, it still comes down to a rationalization to behave with an emotional response rather a logical one.

This is not a point to be conceded, due to that if I allow someone else to censor me over something they choose to percieve as a negative I am effectively conceding my right to speak.

I don't recall ever saying having overseers is negative or bad. Now I have worked from the point that they will be ineffective in the since which you wish to use them. There is a difference between a moral judgement upon the group as a whole and an honest assessment of probable performance.

Comprehension is off the charts, usually catch what others miss. Many say things without realizing what they have just said, though. Has this ever happened to you?

The line where you allude to me being a troll is priceless in light of your previous line. The term appropriate here might be projection. Fortunately you have decent health care in auzzie land and should have no problem securing a professional with whom you might discuss personal issues.
*Next quoted point*


To argue that government will not tend towards crippling levels of bueacracy over time unless the people fight to keep them accessible is unrealistic.
*Next quoted point*


The law is the law. Here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/law
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/law
The only mention of anything that would be applied to morality is the part addressing old Judaic law and from past conversations I don't believe you will argue that modern law has its basis in the Old Testament.

I'm claiming that legislating morality and then expecting an amoral governing system to apply said law effectivley, accurately, or as intended for any length of time is unrealistic. The law, over time will be subjectively re-interpretted for use as a tool for the needs of the government as opposed to serving its original purpose.
The US Healthcare system has indeed fallen from its place as a world leader. This fall can be traced back to the creation of the HMO system. A system whos architect was none other than Hillary Clinton.
*Next quote*


No need for defense, wasn't going for a strong argument. I will admit to always having been a little leery of "Entitlements". They seem to become things that people end up taking for granted and then neglecting.
*Next quote*

Nope, My words and points from personal observation.

Next three lines:
1)You ignored the third possibility that people on an individual level are fairly generous and will help support the poor without the need of the governments wealth redistribution programs. When governments step into to these situations they are using public money to do so. Because of this they give the illusion of accountability by requiring that the text books meet some middle of the road standard. By the time these books are reviewed and put into the schools they are already on the verge of being outdated. IMO, this is done for job security. They could write the books with just the basic generic information in them and then release supplements but they don't do that over here, yet. But you said as much in your post.
2)This assumes that the poor will not recieve help from various private non-government charities. Which is what used to happen before the government muscled in.
3)Give it time. If not already so then your governmental systems will catch up to our monolithic institutions over time. This isn't ideology, its just the nature of the beast.
*Next quote*


So it is ideologocial to point out that people are flawed and not perfect. Funny, used to be called a realistic assessment of the situation.

I want to point out that this line contains the second statement that you have made that might be considered provocative. If my simple disagreement in this discusion is affecting you emotionally we can postpone this until such a time that you can comport yourself.
*Next quote*


You make accountable sound like something easy to maintain, this bears no correlation to reality when applied to governments.

Public bodies given clear priorities by transparent, democratically elected governments.

Not every time. This following close enough? Over simplification of a complex subject is not necessarily the best or wisest course.
Third attempt at provocation duely noted and I again offer a postponement if this simple discussion is affecting you emotionally.
*Next quote*


Nice selective quote and attempt to back peddle. I didn't comment upon it because it was an obvious attempt to play both sides of the fence when applied to your previous statements.
You made a line of statements that were clearly from the point that your system of government was superior and "always wonderful". Your offer was buried in the last line of an attempt to back peddle from a statement that taken at literal value came across as a debate tactic employing a popular stereo-type in order to gain support for your side of the dicussion.

Fourth provocative statement. Seriously, if you are having trouble comporting yourself we do not have to continue. To me this is just an enjoyable dicussion, I have no personal investment other than exercising my mind and vocabulary.
*Next quote*


Ahh, ...The I win statement. You claim victory because of your, "percieved" inherent superiority of your government. Your entire point here is based upon your own personal viewpoint of everything is working as intended within your government. Your not going to see the problems if you don't look. You are attemtping to claim my position is unwinnable based soley upon your personal bias. Forgive me if I don't immediately accept this as a credible argument.

Don't know why but your Aussie pride is showing strong. And to the rest, That is not what you were trying to do. You were holding your government up as an example of your stated model in a working form and have alluded to others following this model. The fact that your example is based upon your persoanl bais has escaped you but it is showing in your words.

Attempt at siezing the "moral" high ground through your fifth provocative statement duely noted. I now invite you to go back and emotionlessly, if you are able, read the converstation. I have followed point for point and you have done considerable back-peddling in an effort at damage control for a self serving, we are better, and off the cuff reply you made.
*Next quote*


Agency theory is more for a financial model of relationships between inestors and their agents. There is no need to try and obsure a simple truth with with even more obscure terms. The fact that Human beings are flawed are as close to a scientific certainty as is the air, the earth, and the sun. You can posit a possible theory that states other-wise but the evidence is overwhelming in support of our flawed nature.
*Next quote*


I as that you forgive me if I don't accept the veracity of your excuse when viewed in the light and context of the prior comments.

As to whether I'm making this a scoring exercise I have this question. Am or am I not following this conversation closely? First you say I am not then you say I am picking it apart point by point.

Not an obvious typo when viewed in the proper context of your prior statements.
*Next quote*


I have a well read copy if you want to borrow it. If you do borrow it you find that the first and primary point is that Morals do not come into play and is quickle followed the welfare of the state is the primary and only goal of the government.

Your definition of political realism has nothing to do with the actual definition. I invite you to read the definition again. It is power polictics and is a modern echo of Machiavelli's advice to his prince.

Thing is in your first reply the word accountable was not used in the line that started this.

Public bodies given clear priorities by transparent, democratically elected governments.

How does one ignore what wasn't written? You repeatedly try to cast me in the light of a libertarian. This seems to be some sort of a moral judgement that implies negetivity through association. What have I done that you are reacting with such emotion? Second, What did the libertarians do to you that you feel that they are to be used with a negative connotation?
Did the libertarians run over your pet joey?
*Next quote*

I would believe you if it were for your words preceding the statement, all of them. I am unable to accept such as a typo due to the context of the paragraph and the topic of the preceeding comments that lead to us discussing your choice of words. I find it amazing at how much effort you are putting into the prevarication. It is almost enough to make me think that you believe your own....excuse, thats the word I'm looking for, excuse.
Again, projection.
*Next quote*


Not the fanatical eye of an Ideologue, Just the weary eyes of an old amatuer historian. History shows that every government grows corrupt over time. The architects of our version of a democracy left such instructions to watchguard our government. To do otherwise is a form of refusing to participate in our system.
*Next quote*


I disagree, People in small areas have arranged for education without any form of government because they felt on a personal level that it was a right. Morality and what is right and wrong is a personal decision. Rights as they are only extend from the individuals personal morality. Governments/=morality
*Next quote*

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000063.asp
Will try to get a better and more current source. Funny, access to statictical data after the creation of the dept of ed are hard to come by. There are hundreds of sites claiming the decline and are using the same statistics to support their causes(Race, immigrant, age, workforce, population levels, just to name a few. If you want I will spend some extra time and try to pin down the source that these groups and colleges are quoting to see if there is an easy to interpret set of graphs.
*Next quote*

No need for citation. I will ask instead for an instance of a government that was free of corruption.
*Next quote*

My focus is on the topic at hand. Your statement here admits to such corruption. It is not a mistake to stay focused. Just because other structures are corrupt does not prove my point inaccurate. It rather tends to support the point I was making.
*Next quote*

Your statement here makes a fallacious assumption that I reject governement. Never said such. I understand and support the concept of governments. Just am saying to be very careful when attempting to legislate morality. That when you attempt such, the system you create to oversee that the laws are enforced will need constant attention and even with such will eventually fail due to the shifting, situational, and subjective nature of what is right and wrong.
*Next quote*

I have already addressed this here. Are you reffering to some point before our conversation? Your first reply to me had no such wording. The wording was inserted into your later replies but only after the dialogue had opened and our points were being discussed. Even then it wasn't untill the las post where you began to edge closer to my point of having to keep constant vigilance in order to maintain said accoutability.
*Next*

Go back and reread the statement and the conversation. Was asked about the possibility, I gave prior instance of our government doing such. I like where you try to apply a fear label here. Are you trying to allude to something? If so, go back and reread. I said that there is no moral judgement here just that people should be aware of such things when they try to legislate such concepts.

You see, you believe that rights are a "Gift" from the government and following such a line of thought we have no right or recourse should the government decide to restrict or revoke such rights.

I believe that any rights, such as they may exist, come from and are an extension of the indivdual. As individuals change so will what are considered rights.


Because the dicussion seems to be causing you some agitation, I will now offer that we agree to disagree. That we let this discussion between us come to an end.

Have a nice day, Later.

Sorry for not replying earlier, it's just that I had an hour to kill before seeing Coraline and was skipping through the backpages and saw you'd replied.

Because the dicussion seems to be causing you some agitation, I will now offer that we agree to disagree. That we let this discussion between us come to an end.

Have a nice day, Later.

Yeah, it's good to call it a day on this. Nothing was going to be achieved. But I'll just leave you with one final thought, it is fine to debate things and ending up agreeing to disagree, as I'd done in this thread with other posters. But that needs both posters to show some honesty and some self-awareness. You made multiple points that were simply ludicrous, and would not back down or concede on any of them.

As long as you treat debate as a way of scoring points you'll never learn anything, you'll never expand your views or begin to accept complexity into your arguments. As long as you read all other ideas, contort them into silly parodies of themselves to reject, you'll never question the simplistic ruleset that you've built to explain how government works.

So yeah, I think we can call this a day, and probably a complete waste of time. But maybe you might walk away from this and think that maybe, just maybe you might not have been all that reasonable in your approach to this thread. That in some future debate with someone you might try to explain your ideas, and understand his, instead of trying to find the easiest way to misinterpret a claim of their's in order to score a point. Maybe then this won't have been a waste of time.

WALL OF TEXT, WALL OF TEXT!

Scribbling...in blood...it says...'Save the Cheerleader'...and...I can't make it out...'Save the World'?