Statist School Systems In A Nutshell

reply to post by woodwardjnr


No, monopolies are certainly not the result of capitalist action!
The only conceivable way for a monopoly to exist, even in theory, in a truly free market capitalist society, is A. only in particular trade, or product, and B. only if that company makes their product the best, for the least price to the consumer, and pays the best wage to its workers. If any of these three are missing, there will always exist competition on the market for that product.

Never forget that your money is not just your property: it is the physical expression of the value you put on your own labor.. It is your vote!

*ETA*

As this deals with the public school system, if I as the (indirect) consumer (parent) of a product (education for my children) have no say in where or if to spend my money (taxes), there is no incentive to the maker of this product (public school) to make a better product, nor to manage the funds they are given wisely.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by blood0fheroes]

reply to post by blood0fheroes


I think my understanding of the capitalist class, differs from yours. We come from different sides, but I respect your view and agree to disagree

dp post

[edit on 19-8-2010 by woodwardjnr]

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Agreed then. If it will help to further explain, the core of my ideology is this: That I am subservient to no man. That my labor and all the product of my labor belong solely to myself. That in duality with this, that the sole responsibility for my life and well being; for either my prosperity or ruin, belong to myself and no one else.

If I succeed, it is due only to my own efforts. If I fail, I have no one to blame but myself, and no one else should be compelled through force or threat of force to help me succeed.

reply to post by DINSTAAR

Ever think the reason that you aren't being shaken down is because you willfully pay taxes.

Again, it's an obligation to pay taxes. You don't fulfill your side of the deal, you face the consequences.

The government initiated the conflict by forcing me to pay...I never signed the declaration of independence. I do not accept this form of government as a government in my own interest or in the interest of the people altogether.

I am not cattle. I am not the property of anyone but myself.

You have entered the contract with the government when you were born and became a US citizen, that is all it took.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

Take it up with the constitution.

that the relationship that I have with the state is voluntary. In reality, the state works like this.

You're free to revoke your citizenship at any time you wish.

Of course you think paying your taxes, even in the face of how poorly they are used, is your duty. You attended schools your whole developing life that told you exactly that.

Yes, as a citizen that has entered into a contract with the government, it is my obligation to pay. Of course, I can seek change anything, including taxes, through petition, protest, whatever it may be, if I so choose. But regardless, incompetent politicians do not mean the system is broken, it means theirs a lot of incompetent people trying to run things.

And, no, I actually can't remember ever taking up anything specifically related to paying taxes in school, ever.

Please, take the opportunity to revoke your citizenship, making the contract between you and the government invalid. Maybe you and the anarchist / libertarians can go move to Somalia and see how well a severe lack of government works.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Whyhi]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I'm not sure what caused your response to be so condescending and,yes,smug.I had no intention of being superior.
I was simply attempting to give some actual personal insight into the school system in my country, the school system I attended.And create some lines of actual discussion about ways in which those who want to abolish public schooling might instead attempt to mend it.

Since your brutally patronising post relied so heavily on your exhaustively extensive research evidence it may have benefited your post to scroll down a little further on this source.

Your post proclaimed
According to isca.edu.au:

In 2009, there were 1,022 independent schools in Australia which enrolled some 484,493 full-time equivalent (FTE) students. This represented 14 percent of all Australian school enrollments. More information is available in School Statistics.

Had you have done that you would have noted

How much funding do governments give to independent schools?

Total expenditure by governments on school education was $36.4 billion in 2007-08 (the most recently available figures), with $28.8 billion going to government schools and $7.7 billion to non-government schools, including independent schools.

In this period, government schools accounted for 79 percent of this expenditure compared to 66 percent of full time equivalent (FTE) student enrollments. In comparison, non-government schools accounted for 21 percent of total government expenditure compared to 34 percent of FTE student enrollments.

THAT'S RIGHT, our government gives private schools funding also.
There is no 'strictly' private education in Australia.
It's a fairly good system when rated against other developed countries.
But I don't have any stats that state that,so it's strictly anecdotal.

Scroll down a bit more to find

Why do ‘wealthy’ schools receive government funding?

All Australian children are entitled to the best possible education and should be entitled to at least a basic grant from governments to meet the cost of their school education. It is reasonable that as taxpayers, parents of students attending independent schools should receive some government assistance in meeting the cost of their child’s school education.

Here we have a clear statement that could explain our relative success in schooling.

My post was aimed at discussing working alternatives to current government policy.Not smugly proclaiming why your post was 'wrong' I was expecting a discussion, not a reactionary defaming.

To answer this question
but you didn't have a pen pal writing you from a private school in the U.S. did you?

No it was students from one fully gov funded school to another.Highlighting how our public school students and those in the USA had vastly different literacy and socialising skills.That was to illustrate that our students are not achieving academically due to private school attendance.And that our public students,in general have a high level of education.It was a comment on USA/UK systems.Not the individuals who are victims of it.


You state
... public school teachers to baby sit too many students who don't want to be there.
And although that's not backed up by statistics, guess what?I actually believe you.

That's not unique to the USA, and yet other countries with gov funded schools are achieving higher education levels while dealing with the same problems.

And this you posted

With the rise of an aggressive atheism on the Australian educational landscape ...........
comes from a site that states

Is HSLDA a Christian organization?

...... HSLDA officers, directors and employees are followers of Christ who seek to provide the very highest levels of service in defending homeschooling freedom and equipping homeschoolers. HSLDA membership is open to all who choose to exercise their fundamental parental right to educate their children at home.

So the slant they have put in has strong anti atheism overtones and seems particularly irrelevant to the discussion.

To touch on your statement
Even so, your anecdotal evidence only seems to indict what has all ready been soundly indicted by actual research data, and that is that The U.S. public schools are failing miserably

Yep And I was giving some possible alternatives to nullification but forgot that if I am stating what is to me a KNOWN strategy that actually is PRACTICED it's simply an anecdote.

I used to also have lunch time at school, and every other school in Australia does.But I can't link that to any website so it's only to be taken as an anecdote.

reply to post by Whyhi

Again, it's an obligation to pay taxes. You don't fulfill your side of the deal, you face the consequences.

All taxes obligated to be paid are those taxes one has been made liable for, that is the deal.

You have entered the contract with the government when you were born and became a US citizen, that is all it took.

\

The law of contracts states otherwise. In law, a contract is an agreement between two or more parties, and must contain the elements of a legal agreement in order to be enforceable by law.

Please, take the opportunity to revoke your citizenship, making the contract between you and the government invalid. Maybe you and the anarchist / libertarians can go move to Somalia and see how well a severe lack of government works.

It is always the same with your lot. If a person chooses to live free and pursue happiness without infringing upon the rights of others, this in your mind, means they must leave the country. If no contract was obtained legally, by means of agreement and signatures, then no contract exists. A person free of contractual obligations does not have to leave the country in order to remain free of contractual obligations. Only bullies and tyrants take the stance that free people must leave or surrender.

Before using Canada as an example for private schooling yielding better results, do more research.

They don't seem to state that in large areas of Canada "private" schools are PUBLICLY funded. They are designated private for other reasons.

It's actually very complex, and there are huge amounts of money wasted.

Example: Central Alberta

Edmonton:
Public Schools - Public Funds
Catholic Schools - Listed as Private, Public Funds
Private Schools - Private + Public depending on curriculum choices.

St. Albert:
Public Schools (Catholic) - Public Funds
Private Schools (Non Denominational) - Listed as Private, Public Funds
Private Schools - Same as Edmonton

We even get to pick on our taxes wether we would like our tax dollars to go public, private, or both.

So I personally don't think that public or private dictates superior students.

I used to send my children to an actual private school, and the biggest thing that I learned was:

High parental participation = superior students.

As this was forced as part of the contract with the private school I learned fast.

Now my children go to public schooling, and I maintain a high level of participation, and my children still score just as well on standardized exams

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


"Only bullies and tyrants take the stance that free people must leave or surrender. "

Pretty much it.

Of course, there aren't any free countries left on the planet to move to.

No matter where you go, a statist with a gun will be knocking at your door demanding a portion of your labor.

You can not be left alone unless you chose to move into the Canadian wilderness and live the life of a self-sufficient hermit.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

All taxes obligated to be paid are those taxes one has been made liable for, that is the deal.

You're liable for paying any tax which the government puts into effect through law or granted by the constitution

In law, a contract is an agreement between two or more parties, and must contain the elements of a legal agreement in order to be enforceable by law.

It is a social contract unique to the situation. Once you have been born, you have become an American citizen and...

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

I'm sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose what laws you follow, and especially not the constitution.

If no contract was obtained legally, by means of agreement and signatures, then no contract exists

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and are citizens of the United States. This also entails you are to follow the constitution and the laws, which state you must pay taxes.

Are you suggesting the constitution is illegal?

A person free of contractual obligations does not have to leave the country in order to remain free of contractual obligations.

Declaring that you are sovereign does not automatically so any more than me declaring I have become a superhero and will now take on the full powers of law enforcement as I see fit, regardless of laws.

Only bullies and tyrants take the stance that free people must leave or surrender.

You were born in the country, making you a citizen of that country, also granting the government power over you to enforce laws. You are breaking the laws by not paying, therefore, they are enforced. If you still do not cooperate, you will be dealt with according, probably in court. Please tell them their laws and the constitution doesn't apply to you.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Whyhi]

reply to post by peck420


Anecdotally, we will find all sorts of instances where a certain public school generally out preforms private schools, but we are talking on the whole here.

On the whole, private schools test consistently higher on college entrance exams.

On the whole, American public education is garbage.

I went to an all white Wisconsin suburban public high school. I would put the quality of the education I received as being wildly superior to just about anything. My high school consistently ranks in the top 10 public schools in Wisconsin, and is among the top public schools in the nation. Its test scores and graduation rates are phenomenal (>99% graduation rate). Newsweek ranked it in the top 5% of all high schools in the US.

Does this prove anything? Does this prove that the government can consistently deliver a high quality education? NO - In fact I would argue that I WAS DEPRIVED of an even higher quality of education because the public educational system refuses to allow competitive schooling.

As good as my school was, there was nothing to push them to achieve even more. There is no incentive, other than incredibly involved parents, that forces the school to stay on top. There are no external market pressures at all. I can guarantee that putting the school into a competitive market would have improved the education.

The government robbed me of a superior education because it sheltered the school from the market.

reply to post by Whyhi


I seem to recall the people of the US shooting tax collectors enmass at one point in our nations past.

The Stamp Act
The Whiskey Rebellion
The Townshend Acts
etc.. etc..

The crown saw fit to quarter tax collectors in people's houses while they audited them.

The nation was originally founded by smugglers - who smuggled to avoid British taxation. John Hancock, for example, made his fortune in smuggling goods past the British tyrants.



[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Congratulations...?

This is relevant why?

Are you going to smuggle babies in too avoid becoming a citizen in order to avoid paying taxes?

Wage war on the government perhaps? Shoot tax collectors...?

reply to post by Whyhi


You're making the argument I am some how obligated to pay taxes and that taxes are always legitimate.

They are not.

Hence, why we decided to shoot British tax collectors dead.

Lincoln's tariffs also played a huge part in bringing about the US Civil War.

The Civil War was a war over states rights - the right to be left alone from federal taxation and regulation.





[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mumma in pyjamas

I'm not sure what caused your response to be so condescending and,yes,smug.I had no intention of being superior.

You had no intentions of being superior? You certainly seemed smug in your anecdotal evidence of pen pals, and most certainly asserted superiority over your American pen pal. I responded to your condescension in kind. Some can dish it out, but can't take it.

I was simply attempting to give some actual personal insight into the school system in my country, the school system I attended.And create some lines of actual discussion about ways in which those who want to abolish public schooling might instead attempt to mend it.

Of course, you have no interest at all in discussing how privatizing the school system might work out in every ones best interest, only maneuvering the discussion in how government can keep their monopoly on the education system.

Since your brutally patronising post relied so heavily on your exhaustively extensive research evidence it may have benefited your post to scroll down a little further on this source.

Stop your whining and pay attention. Your own patronizing is blinding you to the fact that government funding of private schools is not at all the same as government run schools. If there were no government run schools, the idea of government funds being funneled into private schools has validity. The idea of continually funneling government funds into a failed public school system has very little validity.

Here we have a clear statement that could explain our relative success in schooling.

The United States also has such a system, and even further blurring the line between private and public schools the U.S. has what are called Charter Schools. Throwing money at a problem does not always fix the problem, and when it is government throwing money at the problem, it is rare that the motive is to actually fix the problem.

My post was aimed at discussing working alternatives to current government policy.Not smugly proclaiming why your post was 'wrong' I was expecting a discussion, not a reactionary defaming.

Uh-huh. I take you to task for relying solely upon anecdotal evidence to "discuss" the problems of the public school system, particularly in the U.S., and you cry you have been "defamed". Of course, there was nothing untruthful about my assertions that you relied solely on anecdotal evidence, so perhaps your most excellent public schooling failed to properly educate you on what defame actually means. If by "defame" you actually mean I have disgraced you, I have only done so by pointing out your failure to offer anything more than anecdotal evidence. If you feel disgraced by such a thing, perhaps you might consider spending less time whining, (of which you astoundingly would call discussion), and more time doing actual research.

Yep And I was giving some possible alternatives to nullification but forgot that if I am stating what is to me a KNOWN strategy that actually is PRACTICED it's simply an anecdote.

Frankly, by your posts I am not witnessing any sort of outstanding educational acumen as much as I am witnessing the hurt feelings of a member who didn't expect to be taken to task for relying on anecdotal evidence as a "possible alternative to nullification" of the public school problem in the U.S., or the U.K. for that matter. Where your initial post lamented the lack of writing skills and maturity of your American pen pal, you are not facing a "pen pal" now who lacks the ability to write, and if you choose to view your simpering complaints of defamation as maturity, this is your choice to make. I, however, am not seeing this maturity.

I used to also have lunch time at school, and every other school in Australia does.But I can't link that to any website so it's only to be taken as an anecdote.

Uh-huh. Well, you may not have gone to the Bondi Public School but they have a link to their school lunch menu, and maybe you didn't attend a public school in NSW, but you could certainly post this link to demonstrate that school lunches are had in public schools in New South Wales. Or, you could post this link from the National Healthy School Canteens Project which is a part of the Australian Better Health Initiative to demonstrate your claim. Or posted a link to the numerous other sites available to demonstrate that school lunches are a part of public schools in Australia, or you could just keep pretending that making such an effort was too darn difficult for you and that all you could do is offer up anecdotal evidence. That choice, and what ultimately defines your character, is yours to make.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

I have no children, and I support this policy

Jean Paul Z, you have my full support on this one

reply to post by Whyhi

You're liable for paying any tax which the government puts into effect through law or granted by the constitution

Really? So, even if I do not own property, I am liable for property tax simply because it has been granted to Congress by Constitution to levy such a tax? You don't seem to have much understanding of what tax liability actually means:

What Does Tax Liability Mean? The total amount of tax that an entity is legally obligated to pay to an authority as the result of the occurrence of a taxable event. Tax liability can be calculated by applying the appropriate tax rate to the taxable event's tax base. Taxable events include, but are not limited to, annual income, the sale of an asset, a fiscal year-end or an inheritance.

There has to be a taxable event in which I am directly involved in before I can be made liable for a tax. Every tax has a subject of that tax, and if I am not involved in that subject, then I am not subject to that tax. Congress, while having the complete and plenary power of taxation, cannot just willy nilly declare a general tax subjectless tax. That is not Constitutionally allowed.

It is a social contract unique to the situation. Once you have been born, you have become an American citizen and...

Social contracts are imaginary contracts that have no validity in the law of contracts and cannot be enforced as contracts. You are dreaming a delusional dream if you believe otherwise.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose what laws you follow, and especially not the constitution.

The Constitution is not a statute making people subject to it, it is a Constitution laying out the clear boundaries of government. The 14th Amendment you are so erroneously relying upon did not in any way negate the 13th Amendment. If it is law, then it is Constitutional. If it is not law, then it is unconstitutional, and as evidenced by the authority of judicial review found with the courts, legislation not constitutional will be struck down as unconstitutional. When legislation is struck down as unconstitutional, it is done so because someone like me challenged the legislation as being unconstitutional and effectively used the court system to have the legislation struck down. In this regard, I most certainly do get to pick and choose what "laws" I will follow.

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and are citizens of the United States. This also entails you are to follow the constitution and the laws, which state you must pay taxes.

Your profound ignorance of The Constitution is no excuse when it comes to law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Jurisdiction of the three branches is clearly defined by that Constitution. That Constitution is not a law that makes me subject to anything other than the Constitutional laws that have been legislated and Constitutionally enforced. That Congress has seen plenty of their legislative acts struck down as unconstitutional should give you some clue to the fact that Congress often times acts beyond the scope of their jurisdiction. The same is true of both the Executive and Judicial branches.

It is ridiculous to assert that The Constitution is some sort of imposition upon the people. Try reading the Preamble to get a better understanding of who ordained that Constitution.

Are you suggesting the constitution is illegal?

Not at all, I am suggesting you are making mistakes of fact, and misinterpretations of law.

Declaring that you are sovereign does not automatically so any more than me declaring I have become a superhero and will now take on the full powers of law enforcement as I see fit, regardless of laws.

Making fanciful declarations, as you just have, doesn't make you any more intelligent when it comes to discussing the law. If it is law, it is law. If it is not law but has been legislated as law, that legislation merely serves as evidence of law. Law is not what is written on paper, and gravity did not come into play once Newton wrote down its mathematical equation, nor did murder become illegal once Congress legislated acts prohibiting it, it was all ready illegal, and will be with or without acts of legislation.

You were born in the country, making you a citizen of that country, also granting the government power over you to enforce laws. You are breaking the laws by not paying, therefore, they are enforced. If you still do not cooperate, you will be dealt with according, probably in court. Please tell them their laws and the constitution doesn't apply to you.

You are making far too many presumptions and making far to many generalizations to effectively address this last ludicrous statement. I am breaking the law by not paying what? Why have you gone from, (disingenuously), asking me if I was suggesting the Constitution, of which you laud as some thing you pretend to respect, but can't be bothered to capitalize the word to show its proper respect, and now you are clearly presuming the Constitution doesn't apply to me. Here is how the Constitution applies to me; it is a legal document that has created and placed several clear prohibitions on government. When that government ignores those prohibitions and deigns to impose upon me that which they do not have any legal authority to impose, you bet your ass I will use the court system to make sure that Constitution is upheld and followed to the letter of the law.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

it's no secret that the government is messing up the school system. for example the government takeover happened when i was in highschool. i remember one semester we are actually learning, then the next we are coloring maps with colored pencils and watching movies. i asked a teacher what was up and they told me the government now makes the lesson plans.. what? everything we give these idiots control of turns to sh*t and we're going to let them run the school system? i heard they are now playing videos of obama to school children. you got to be kidding me.. schools are now officially trying to introduce a life of corporate servitude to your children.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Really? So, even if I do not own property, I am liable for property tax simply because it has been granted to Congress by Constitution to levy such a tax?

Wow, nice way to twist around what I meant there.

If you own property, you have to pay the property tax that was put into effect.

If a health care reform is carried out, the increase to your income tax is put into effect, increasing your tax. Of course you can use the tax liability statement you used earlier and say well I am not directly involved, and I could respond with the commerce clause that allows them to have to power to carry out such reforms.

The Constitution is not a statute making people subject to it, it is a Constitution laying out the clear boundaries of government

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.

Supreme law, as in you're subject to it. An individual can break the constitution, no? Treason and such?

How did I erroneously quote the 14th amendment? I said the 14th amendment gave US citizenship to anyone born in the US, correct? I think it's safe to assume that as a US citizen, you follow laws, including tax laws.

If you're trying to equate slavery with obtaining a US citizenship through birth and therefore are to follow US laws, then more power to you I guess.

It is ridiculous to assert that The Constitution is some sort of imposition upon the people

Not at all, I am suggesting you are making mistakes of fact, and misinterpretations of law.

I think you're just arguing with my wording at this point. Like I'll say slavery is illegal via the constitution and you'll say the Constitution is laying out the clear boundaries of government, and It's illegal because congress is enforcing the law of making slavery illegal. Did I get that one right? We'd still be arguing about what wording I may have used when we're both basically saying the same thing.

it was all ready illegal, and will be with or without acts of legislation.

Please explain. Go on about natural rights or whatever while dismissing the concept of a social contract.

I am breaking the law by not paying what?

Taxes

but can't be bothered to capitalize the word to show its proper respect

I can truthfully say I actually had no idea the constitution was actually supposed to be capitalized. You got me there.

All in all, name a specific tax which you think is unconstitutional. And yes, I support taxes, and socializing elements of society.

PS: Yes, I'm aware I probably worded several things in there incorrectly and I'm alright if you point them out for me in a somewhat patronizing manner

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Whyhi]