Do socialist programs like public schooling teach entitlement?

[packsaddle 753]

That is a great article, NJ. I confess I was surprised to see pop-up ads for 'The Economist'...interesting.

I have met Inglis and I've followed his political path for quite a while. To me it's ironic that the same anti-semitic, etc. political forces/strategy that swept his party (and eventually him) into the majority in the South has now done to him exactly what he thinks could happen to party leaders. Even more ironic that it all got started in his district - a long, long time ago.

[sailingpj 18]

I and most of the students in the schools I have attended have not seen school as an entitlement, we see it as a requirement, and it is. In California you have to be in school full time until you turn 16 (I can dig up a citation for that if needed). If you cannot afford to go to a private school of some sort you have to go to the public school. Yes, some of you may say "what about homeschooling?" I have been down that route, it is way more trouble than it is worth. Whether you are trying to get into college, or trying to get back into the regular school system, it is very difficult (I am speaking from personal experience here).

 

I have been down all three paths, public schools, private schools, and homeschooling, and the way I see it something that is a requirement cannot be an entitlement. How can you be entitled to something that is not even an option?

[CalicoPenn 729]

Teabags? Yep - that explains a lot. ;-)

 

By the way, that's another advantage to the Red Beret - can't staple teabags to it.

 

I attended a couple town hall meetings and was flabbergasted at the number of senior citizens yelling for the government to stay out of health care - I guess Medicare must not be a socialist government program after all.

 

Yeah Beavah - I know you couldn't resist - but I'm not saying a Scout is entitled to a merit badge - I'm saying if a Merit Badge Counselor, the person who has the sole say so in whether the requirements have been met, signs the application that states the Scout has earned the merit badge, then the Scout has earned the merit badge - whether we agree or not. That's not entitlement - and lets not weaken an already weakened word any further.

[qwazse 4349]

Public education is about

1. producing a literate workforce,

2. producing consumers who can read advertisements,

3. self-promotion.

 

If your business/government beureau has benefitted from 1 and 2, no point in complaining about 3.

 

The majority of your laborers or clients that you have employed would not be literate if they had to pay for their own education or count on some charity paying it for them. The wheels of capitalism would grind to a halt.

 

So yeah, a successful public education will teach a little entitlement (laborers can read their paychecks and levearge for a better deal, consumers can smell the snake oil and demand more for their money/votes). It will also promote itself so everyone feels they gotta chip in a chunk of change to keep the engines running.

 

But, I'm not so sure private or home schooling wouldn't do the same.

[Hal_Crawford 15]

Don't forget to include farm subsidies to the list of socialist programs. What could be more socialist than to pay someone not to grow something?

[Beavah 205]

But, I'm not so sure private or home schooling wouldn't do the same.

 

Yah, much like colleges, private schools are heavily subsidized by da donations of their alumni and parents of their alumni.

 

Strikes me that's a lot of incentive to produce well-educated students who are grateful for da quality of education they and their children received.

 

In da public schools, da government is forced to try to create artificial accountability by laws like No Child Left Behind and lots of testing. We've all seen how well that works.

 

We've got da best free market college and university system in da world, with government, private, and religious options and a system of private and government grants to support less well off students. People around da world spend their life savings to send their kids to U.S. universities. When it comes to K-12 education, they mostly shake their heads and laugh at us.

 

B

[rdclements 10]

Few persons in contemporary American society truly understand the word "socialism". When people scream about certain policies and practices representing the threat of growing socialism, they don't realize that much of what they are advocating is also socialistic.

 

When someone tries to label a philosophy or action, it is because they are trying to control others' ideas. Much of American politics is based on the practice of defining some boundary (this is what passes for "issues") labeling "it", and trying to make people afraid of it. When someone wants to tell you that something (or someone) is liberal or conservative, watch out because you're about to get shoved.

 

BSA is very popular with political conservatives, but much of the underlying practices of running a scout unit are quite socialist. Most of those I hear ranting about their opposition to socialism should have paid more attention while attending those public schools.

 

The same practices are common in religion. In order for a religion to grow it must get new followers. There are many ways to do this, but a common tool is the rejection of other religions. How many Christians who protest against the establish of a new mosque have actually taken any time to learn about Islam?

[JoeBob 606]

Pack - you got me. Don't some of these leeches make "not work" a verb in its own right?

 

Perdid - Do you know how the percentages CLAIMED to be educated today compare to the percentages who were actually literate in the 1860s?

 

 

[perdidochas 658]

Think of all the former slaves and all of the immigrant factory workers. Stats on it show that about 20% of people 14 and over in the U.S. in 1870 were totally illiterate (80% of blacks were). Now, that is less than 1% overall. There is no way to compare more than that. Functional illiteracy is a different matter.

 

The good old days weren't all that good.

[Woapalanne 11]

"Few persons in contemporary American society truly understand the word "socialism". When people scream about certain policies and practices representing the threat of growing socialism, they don't realize that much of what they are advocating is also socialistic."

 

Only partly true. MOST of the things labeled "socialist" in today's debates are most definitely NOT "socialistic". Socialist is government (not public) ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. REA and TVA are socialist programs. Government ownership of General Motors is socialist. Public (actually "government") schools, fire protection, police, military are definitely NOT socialist. They are services provided by taxes.

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

REA and TVA are socialist programs. Government ownership of General Motors is socialist. Public (actually "government") schools, fire protection, police, military are definitely NOT socialist. They are services provided by taxes.

 

Ah, but Woapalanne, there are some people who do consider things like schools and even public law enforcement to be socialistic. They would, however, not be me. As I said earlier in this thread, "socialism" is a philosophy and a system, not a characteristic of individual programs or government activities. Just because the government may own a company here or there, in the context of an overall capitalist system, does not mean there is socialism going on. Let's take General Motors, for example. If the government owned all auto makers, on a permanent basis, well, I would begin to think we are going down the road of socialism. But that is not is what is happening. The U.S. government bought about 60 percent of a scaled-down GM (with some divisions being spun off to private companies), on a temporary basis. The paperwork for an initial public offering of stock, so the stock can begin being sold back into the regular market, has already been submitted to the SEC. Now, was this whole thing a good idea, or should the government have let GM just fail and be liquidated to pay its creditors? I don't know. But I know that the government intervention was not "socialist."

[Beavah 205]

The government doesn't own a school "here and there", eh? It owns and runs da vast majority of schools, and has a virtual monopoly in many rural areas.

 

No different than the government owning the vast majority of grocery stores, and having a virtual monopoly in rural areas. The presence of a few very expensive boutique private grocers, some religious co-op grocers, and a handful of folks who still grow their own food at home doesn't mean that such a setup is not essentially a socialist one. In da language of socialized states, it's always portrayed as a government "service" to provide groceries.

 

Common infrastructure (ex. roads and bridges), and pooled risk management (ex. police, fire, etc.) are a bit different, eh? Or at least much farther up da continuum than owning and running the vast majority of the places that indoctrinate the next generation of citizens.

 

Beavah

[packsaddle 753]

"The government doesn't own a school "here and there", eh? It owns and runs da vast majority of schools, and has a virtual monopoly in many rural areas."

Beavah, one government doesn't own the 'vast majority of schools'. Rather a large number of local governments own them and they are answerable mostly to local constituents and recipients of the services, at least the ones who vote and elect the school boards, etc.

Now I could accept the argument that 'the' government, through its subsidies, influences and regulates the vast majority of public schools but that's not the same thing as owning them. With regard to the truly rural sections of my region, there is no way the folks living there would likely have a school of any kind were it not for 'government' schools. Of course, also aimed at my region, there is a political element who would have it just that way if they could.

[Engineer61 19]

{Biting tongue to prevent rant}

[Beavah 205]

Beavah, one government doesn't own the 'vast majority of schools'.

 

Yah, I agree with yeh, packsaddle, though it's still government, eh? Having local counties and towns own almost all da grocery stores would still be a bit of a problem to my mind.

 

Da thing is, in education what we're seeing is ever-increasing moves to state and federal control, not local.

 

And if da rural folks down there don't want to support schools, I'm not sure government intervention is da answer, eh? Might be that the resultant poverty and lack of opportunity is the necessary consequence that leads to a change of heart.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)