Public Schools - Bad for American Students?

[seltivo]

no, it's just usually after being disproved several time, people just give up. It's nice to see someone persistent.

I am surprised, however, that you would make assumptions about me based on one of the only irrelevant things I said in my post.

[Kilgamayan]

I imagine that if someone is "disproved" and keeps going then they're just in denial. I haven't seen a formal logical proof from either of them that their side is correct, so no one has been "disproven" yet.

As for your second point, your use of "survived" in the context of a debate tells me enough about you to make the assumption that you think that the purpose of a debate is simply to have a contest to see who's "right".

[Kamon08]

Yea I say so because I dont like school

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Sigh. In an unrestricted market that I don't see as able to exist, at least not for very long. I'm not refuting all your claims of free markets, I'm saying that they all eventually crumble. Although I will ask you what the one exception is.

It doesn't matter. If a free-market is good and a non-free market is what we have now, there's no reason not to strive for a free-market if all that might happen is coming back to where we are now. And again, discrete units.

The topic of 'when' a benefit is seen or an outcome occurs is one I'd like to touch on more. People are generally no good at delaying gratification. It's been studied by psychologists. People procrastinate. Research is one of those things which usually has little immediate payoff, yet without it, technology wouldn't be where it is today, and technology generally increases quality of living, if only because we have more options because of it. (You're big on having choice.) But things which give no immediate reward, but which everyone generally agrees with are important, such as base research, won't get 'purchased' by any one person. However, people will pool money and resources in order to fund things like that. Central allocation of resources is fundamental for large research projects. Corporate monopoly or government looks after such things.

"Corporate monopoly" when a product of non-coercive action is perfectly acceptable. The long term benefits of research will be viewed by farsighted people, government or otherwise. Why not allow the market to determine resource allocation voluntarily by giving natural incentive for this foresightedness?

Income tax is both federal and provincially waved for my education. I still pay sales tax.

Interesting. I really don't know much about Canada.

I'm glad you acknowledge this part of your argument finally.

What do you mean? That has been an overt part of my argument for a while now.

But if a community gets together and decides to make a government of sorts for themselves, it's illegitimate? Would that not be the same free market you're talking about, deciding for itself to centralize?

No, because in this case individuals are voluntarily entering into an arrangement. At present with government, all individuals born into a geographic area are subjected involuntarily to whatever political mechanics are at work. While the case might be made that if governments have a legitimate claim to land, they can decide what individuals do on their property, you would have to show that government legitimately acquired the land.

Once you've got a monopoly, its hard to get rid of, and over time its less and less likely to be what people want or even the same people who gave that corporation power in the first place. The same could be said for governments though too.

The point, however, is that in an unrestricted market there is nothing to prevent competitors form entering. In fact there's nothing to prevent people from simply refusing to recognize whatever currency a company has monopolized as legitimate and starting their own market.

At a huge cost to the people who cause the strike, for an un-immediate payoff.

In other words, an investment by far sighted individuals in accordance with time preference.

Interestingly, this requires organization of the laborers to work en masse, or else its not going to have enough of an impact. (I wonder if societys don't all possess some cyclical movement of central organization to independence and back again.)

Societies do tend to have such a cyclical movement, however you are still misunderstanding an important dichotomy in terms of central organization. You are also mistaken in your understanding of cooperation as equivalent a measure of centralization in a pejorative sense. There is both bad and good centralization; the difference is in terms of voluntary transaction vs. involuntary.

In comparison, changing an elected government is as easy as voting for another party, although the results probably won't be so drastic. Of course, the option of revolt still exists with elected officials.

In any system outcomes will express themselves only in terms of possibility based on the rules of the system. Discarding the rules of the system is one possible movement. However, in a system with maximum possible non-coercive options discarding the rules is less likely, and part of that is because such a system satisfies subjective demands maximally.

Umm, I disagree? Groups of discrete units make up different patterns which are functionally different than the individual parts. Eg: Computation Also, why are we discussing binary terms?

We are discussing binary terms because I am using a perspective derived in part from the Praexological method. Admittedly synergies might play a role in economics. However arguments for the existence of synergies have to be shown, and all that I have so far seen I have also seen rebuttals for.

Everyone makes choices because 'they feel like it.'

Good point. However people might feel different ways for different reasons, and different reasons can have greater or lesser legitimacy.

I've chosen 'somewhere' in the middle because I'm acknowledging that I don't possess nearly enough knowledge to be more unambiguous, particularly on an ambiguously defined and discussed continuum.

If you think it is ambiguously defined and discussed, perhaps you should actually learn the language being used. Then you wouldn't have the problem of lack of knowledge. Seeking a middle-ground is almost instinctive in some people, but there's no inherent reason why an extreme might not be correct. Through my studies I have come to conclusions that some might consider extreme on the basis of such an instinct.

You say that I'm not listening to you, yet I could say that same to you, apparently, as I've stated my reasons why I've chosen a middle. Disagreement doesn't mean I'm not paying attention.

Your reasons contradict the entire chain of reasoning I have given you, without actually directly addressing it. I would be hard-pressed to come to an alternate conclusion about the attention you have given this discussion.

The only example you gave me was comparison of education to food. Except you've neglected that people don't delay gratification for themselves very well, even if they agree that it's more important, and that's what education requires people to do. You have every right to then say that if people were to choose to not educate themselves, then that's their choice. However, I say that there's something to be said about people not doing what's best for themselves, and that a little incentive to do those things that're good for you, particularly if you ultimately agree with it, is perfectly acceptable.

In other words you are suggesting both that coercion can have synergistic effects, and that an ideal good should be placed above liberty. Even if the first is true, I disagree with the second simply because there is no objective basis for good; therefore if you want to achieve "the good" you should allow individuals to pursue their own "good" to the maximum coherent possibility.

Your most recent post, not even directed towards me, the article on Indian schools was by far the strongest example that supports your theory.

It's not "my" theory, but thanks.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Kilroy seems to think his/her theories are proven.

Well, they are technically proven in the Austrian school by necessity, and they are largely confirmed by historical/empiricist accounts such as Friedman's. There's a very large chunk of economists who consider at least the basics of what I'm saying to be correct. I haven't seen your reference what schools support your viewpoint. Perhaps you should and I should inform you of responses made to them? Or you could read the books I recommended.

I've argued very little about principles of supply and demand. Where my previous post does, I draw upon widely undisputed psychological principles to back it up.

Conclusions, not principles. There are actually very few uncontested psychological principles, although some are at least certainly more useful than others.

Furthermore, you can't merely say 'False, because I know more than you', and expect that to hold up in debate.

That wasn't the statement made. I am saying that my knowledge gives me the ability to claim I have considered possibilities you have not and understood things you do not have familiarity with. I am also claiming that my perspectives find support in many economists, almost undoubtedly a fair majority.

It's cheaper to centrally run something than to have a bunch of individual organizations do it for themselves.

Contradiction in terms. In fact if you follow this to its conclusion (assuming of course that simple "cheapness" is always desirable), you would have no choice but to justify a worldwide monopoly on all businesses and industries.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

No, because in this case individuals are voluntarily entering into an arrangement. At present with government, all individuals born into a geographic area are subjected involuntarily to whatever political mechanics are at work.

Neither are people voluntarily born into whatever state the market is in, or if they're born into wealth or poverty.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

The point, however, is that in an unrestricted market there is nothing to prevent competitors form entering. In fact there's nothing to prevent people from simply refusing to recognize whatever currency a company has monopolized as legitimate and starting their own market.

With that reasoning, there's also 'nothing' from preventing people from rejecting their government's laws and regulations. That there's nothing from preventing competitors from entering doesn't mean that everyone has to give up equal amounts in order to compete. As soon as there's inequality in wealth, there's also inequal opportunity. Inequality = restriction for the underdogs. If I wanted to get an education, but I couldn't afford the existing schools, you could say I'm being coerced into not having an education, or coerced into giving up a whole lot more personal wealth than the wealthy person does, either by giving everything else (or just a lot) to get the education, or by having to rally people and start a new school or some such. That's not a very satisfactory system to the poor person, nor is it fair to the poor person who was simply born into it.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

However, in a system with maximum possible non-coercive options discarding the rules is less likely, and part of that is because such a system satisfies subjective demands maximally.

You've not convinced me that your system satisfies subjective demands maximally, due to the example above.

What exactly is the definition of free market anyways? (A little late, I know).

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Societies do tend to have such a cyclical movement, however you are still misunderstanding an important dichotomy in terms of central organization. You are also mistaken in your understanding of cooperation as equivalent a measure of centralization in a pejorative sense. There is both bad and good centralization; the difference is in terms of voluntary transaction vs. involuntary.

I never said co-operation is centralization, you're not contradicting anything I said or meant or enlightening me. I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

If you think it is ambiguously defined and discussed, perhaps you should actually learn the language being used. Then you wouldn't have the problem of lack of knowledge.

Perhaps I shouldn't play with the big kids. Perhaps I shouldn't enter discussion until I'm fully versed in all the printed literature. I'm sorry if you find my lack of vocabulary and knowledge of general theories a pain; that's not changing anytime soon though. You don't have talk to me.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Your reasons contradict the entire chain of reasoning I have given you, without actually directly addressing it. I would be hard-pressed to come to an alternate conclusion about the attention you have given this discussion.

I wouldn't be hard-pressed at all. I'd probably think me an idiot or stubborn, especially since I most certainly have given quite a bit of attention and thought to this discussion. And especially because I still don't understand what/how I've failed to address (the issue). Honestly please tell me.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

In other words you are suggesting both that coercion can have synergistic effects, and that an ideal good should be placed above liberty. Even if the first is true, I disagree with the second simply because there is no objective basis for good; therefore if you want to achieve "the good" you should allow individuals to pursue their own "good" to the maximum coherent possibility.

I know i don't know for certain what the term synergy means in this context, but I think i can figure it out. You've definitely got a point with the individual good/ideal good. However, my own 'good' is to get as many people's 'goods' as possible.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Well, they are technically proven in the Austrian school by necessity, and they are largely confirmed by historical/empiricist accounts such as Friedman's. There's a very large chunk of economists who consider at least the basics of what I'm saying to be correct. I haven't seen your reference what schools support your viewpoint. Perhaps you should and I should inform you of responses made to them? Or you could read the books I recommended.

I don't have a references for schools that support my viewpoint, as I think you already know. I've taken 1 first year class from economics entitled macro-economics, where about the only thing I can remember from it is the prof. trying to teach a bunch of arts students what slope was so that they could calculate GDP, for an entire 80 min. lecture. I've read no books on the matter, or taken or read any political science books either.
Furthermore, I don't want you to simply state what someone else has said in response to things I'm saying, unless it addresses what I've said perfectly. I can't imagine that that'd be interesting to you anyways, simply regurgitating what someone else has written.
Nor do I like the tone you're oozing in this post I'm responding to. I'd like it if you refrain in your next post (if you have one) from implying or stating my ideas are poor because I've not studied the matter. Bad ideas speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

That wasn't the statement made. I am saying that my knowledge gives me the ability to claim I have considered possibilities you have not and understood things you do not have familiarity with. I am also claiming that my perspectives find support in many economists, almost undoubtedly a fair majority.

No, the statement you made was 'False', and only now are you adding 'because I know more than you'. You can't expect someone to bow to your opinion because it's held by experts or that you know more than someone the other person. Unless the other person is waaaaay below your level of comprehension, your expertise will show through in the ideas being debated. You should still say 'false, because....'. 1 counter-example suffices.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Contradiction in terms. In fact if you follow this to its conclusion (assuming of course that simple "cheapness" is always desirable), you would have no choice but to justify a worldwide monopoly on all businesses and industries.

I see no contradiction. Would you like to give a counter-example where something centrally run is more expensive than the sums of the all the individually run, similar organizations?
You wrongly assumed that I was trying to support my viewpoint in my discussion with you, or something. I was trying to get at what lord carbo said, with the implication that there is no guarantee that it would cost an individual the same amount of money to go to individually run schools as it costs the government for each individual child, if everything else in the economy were to remain the same.

[mike2727]

Where I live (Canada) many of the schools that I have went to were also poor. Many of the teachers don't even know what they are teaching us, they are just reading what was giving to them. I think the enthusiasm of the teacher affects the learning ability of the student. Money doesn't have as much of an impact as the teacher. They are the ones teaching them everything they need to know and if the student needs further explanation they have to know the subject to give a good response. If you have ever gone to a private school before, you will see that they have a very educated staff, much more than the public school staff. Public schools are not "bad" for students in America, it's just the problem of picking the right people for the job. They could just pick people off the street if they wanted to.

Another problem that is happening is that they are taking away seperate teachers in my board. They are giving everyone a single teacher to teach the arts (music,art etc..), so the teachers don't know all of the things they are teaching. I think that is just absurd because the stupid government thinks that they can just do that so they don't have to pay as much. But I bet you that test scores will plummet because they are not getting the best education from their one teacher for every single subject. But the government jsut says, "Oh who cares! It gives us more money."

[KH Luxord]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

What is your evidence for this claim? Moreover what makes you think we need a government? Hell, what makes you think the individuals in government today actually benefited from education? It seems pretty clear that most did not.



Already been addressed. Also if the poorest people in India can afford private education, it seems somewhat absurd to say there is no hope for market provided private education.



Both the Middle East and Africa have on average very high levels of economic intervention. Many of them beat out the US in international scores anyways.



The income of a school doesn't stem by necessity from any one place, as you and many others seem to assume.



You pay for it some fashion or another, and so do others. Standardized testing also has imperfections; more importantly the problem of choice still remains.



Sure, they can. There's an important question as to whether or not they will on average do so.



Who are you to decide how other people should spend their money? If someone values something, why shouldn't they be allowed to purchase it?

But, the price for private education in India is much cheaper than it is in America. Don't think that their education is completely the same price and of the same standards.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Neither are people voluntarily born into whatever state the market is in, or if they're born into wealth or poverty.

YES, and neither are human beings born voluntarily as black or white, smart or stupid, or at all. Variance is a fact of life. You are missing the critical distinction, continually. If you can't find it even when I've rubbed your nose in it repeatedly then there's no reason for me to bother continuing.

With that reasoning, there's also 'nothing' from preventing people from rejecting their government's laws and regulations.

Yes there is; guns. At the point an individual or group takes up forceful measures against another, it no longer represents the voluntarism of the market. By default then government is not synergistic with the market. Only by extra measure are other groups.

I'm just going to point out things that are wrong now and if you want to figure out why you can either legitimately read and understand what I wrote or you can try to read and understand those books I gave you to reference, although good luck with that.

That there's nothing from preventing competitors from entering doesn't mean that everyone has to give up equal amounts in order to compete.

Irrelevant.

As soon as there's inequality in wealth, there's also inequal opportunity.

False.

Inequality = restriction for the underdogs.

Incoherent definition. There is inequality in all fields. The only way to achieve equality is to nullify all attributes, permanently. Furthermore inequality is based in many cases on inheritances no one has control over. Genes play a role in how well people will do in different environments, but no one argues that everyone should have the same genetic makeup because that would be ****ing retarded.

You've not convinced me that your system satisfies subjective demands maximally, due to the example above.

The example you gave is of a case where an individual decides they aren't willing to part with something to get something else, meaning the first item is of more value to them. In they case where they have no item of value there are still mechanisms which could help them gain things they want.

In any case, rights are negative (negative not meaning "bad" but meaning "consigned to issues of subtraction, not addition")

What exactly is the definition of free market anyways? (A little late, I know).

...

Well, the wikipedia definition is as follows:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

A free market describes a theoretical, idealised, or actual market where the price of an item is arranged by the mutual non-coerced consent of sellers and buyers, with the supply and demand of that item not being regulated by a government

It's a reasonable definition.

I never said co-operation is centralization, you're not contradicting anything I said or meant or enlightening me. I agree with you.

Now you're just lying.

Perhaps I shouldn't play with the big kids. Perhaps I shouldn't enter discussion until I'm fully versed in all the printed literature. I'm sorry if you find my lack of vocabulary and knowledge of general theories a pain; that's not changing anytime soon though. You don't have talk to me.

I didn't ask you to read every book on economics in existence, I asked you to provide support for your position in some recognized source or to acquaint yourself with a source as necessary to do so. You know what the real problem here is?

I'm sorry if you find my lack of vocabulary and knowledge of general theories a pain; that's not changing anytime soon though.

Until you take even the slightest step to fix that you're effectively talking out of your ass.

And especially because I still don't understand what/how I've failed to address (the issue). Honestly please tell me.

I've given you examples and explained mechanics behind them. You've questioned the universality of the mechanics (IE, said "nuh uh"). Give me an example that disproves the universality of the mechanics. There are a few potential examples, so this is possible, but there are also responses to them.

I know i don't know for certain what the term synergy means in this context, but I think i can figure it out. You've definitely got a point with the individual good/ideal good. However, my own 'good' is to get as many people's 'goods' as possible.

Right, and I am claiming that the market does so optimally.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

I've read no books on the matter, or taken or read any political science books either.

Fix that.

Furthermore, I don't want you to simply state what someone else has said in response to things I'm saying, unless it addresses what I've said perfectly. I can't imagine that that'd be interesting to you anyways, simply regurgitating what someone else has written.

It does address what you are saying, occasionally with slight modification when necessary. I don't care whether a person cites sources in a discussion or not, I care about their ability to address and present arguments meaningfully.

Nor do I like the tone you're oozing in this post I'm responding to.

Not my problem.

I'd like it if you refrain in your next post (if you have one) from implying or stating my ideas are poor because I've not studied the matter. Bad ideas speak for themselves.

They do. I think your ideas would just be less bad if you acquainted them in the slightest with the subject you are discussing.

No, the statement you made was 'False', and only now are you adding 'because I know more than you'.

Incorrect.

You can't expect someone to bow to your opinion because it's held by experts or that you know more than someone the other person.

This is not my expectation. I honestly don't care whether you change your opinion or not. What you should realize is that you will continue to get this sort of reaction from people, including experts , if you continue to present these types of arguments.

Unless the other person is waaaaay below your level of comprehension, your expertise will show through in the ideas being debated.

It appears you are way below my level of comprehension.

You should still say 'false, because....'. 1 counter-example suffices.

I gave you the counter-example. The counter-example consists of my entire argument, positing mechanics and providing conformational examples from the real world. In other words my "counter-example" is actually just the argument you haven't addressed yet.

I see no contradiction.

There is no contradiction, it's a reductio ad absurdum. It points out the inherent absurdity of your position, it doesn't contradict it.

Would you like to give a counter-example where something centrally run is more expensive than the sums of the all the individually run, similar organizations?

Sure; war.

You wrongly assumed that I was trying to support my viewpoint in my discussion with you, or something. I was trying to get at what lord carbo said, with the implication that there is no guarantee that it would cost an individual the same amount of money to go to individually run schools as it costs the government for each individual child, if everything else in the economy were to remain the same.

Objection 1: not everything in the economy would remain the same

Objection 2: of course there isn't a guarantee it would remain the same price, but that isn't the issue. Based on the predictive value of the model, it is of high likelihood that the cost would decrease. Even if it didn't the cost would optimize itself in accordance with the cumulatively averaged subjective value of the service provided.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by KH Luxord

But, the price for private education in India is much cheaper than it is in America. Don't think that their education is completely the same price and of the same standards.

I don't think you understand just how irrelevant this is. In India people earn less almost across the board. This holds true in the case of both nominal and real amounts. By extension of course it means private teachers earn less. This might also be reflected in the quality of services provided. Of course, private teaching in India is often a black market affair. Ironically black markets usually have the tendency to increase the price of a service.

The point is this: Similar mechanisms are at work in India and the US, so the comparison is valid. Of course there are variances, but they can be accounted for.

[Cavernio]

What you're saying is that suppression brought in by a market is OK, because it stems from inequality, while suppression brought in by government isn't. The nature of the inequality does matter. Its perfectly coherent to say that I don't want genetic equality, yet I don't want to be suppressed because I was born poor. Oh, that's right, everyone in a free market has equal opportunity, because its apparently all equal if I've got to only eat 1 meal a day for my kid to go to school, while the family a street down looses their pocket change.
What's irrelevant to you is relevant to me. It boils down to ideology, like I said in the first place. There's no point in arguing the issue anymore. Furthermore, you've put words into my mouth twice now, along with turning into a jerk.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

The nature of the inequality does matter.

Yes it does. Inherent inequality doesn't have any human impositions of adverse conditions; involuntarily caused inequality does. Human impositions are under human control, genetic, biological, and many other things are not. Moreover starting conditions are not equivalent to impositions.

Its perfectly coherent to say that I don't want genetic equality, yet I don't want to be suppressed because I was born poor.

It isn't, because what you are describing is not suppression.

Oh, that's right, everyone in a free market has equal opportunity, because its apparently all equal if I've got to only eat 1 meal a day for my kid to go to school, while the family a street down looses their pocket change.

What you are describing is inequality of resources, not of opportunity. Equality of opportunity can only be coherently described as the ability of individuals to develop and utilize their person and property, by voluntary means, to the maximum extent they desire without interference. A free-market satisfies this.

At any rate, what you are describing would almost certainly never occur in a truly free market. If you want to know why, then you can try reading and understanding either what I have written or the books I have suggested to you.

What's irrelevant to you is relevant to me.

That's because you don't understand what you're talking about.

It boils down to ideology, like I said in the first place.

If there are ideological elements in my statements, at least my ideology is based on fact. In fact because of this it can be said that the issue boils down to fact. Presumably if you desire famine and death you might advocate a statist market, Rothbard even directly conceded this.

There's no point in arguing the issue anymore.

There was never a point in the first place because you never intended to learn anything

Furthermore, you've put words into my mouth twice now, along with turning into a jerk.

I've been a jerk forever. If I put words in your mouth I suppose it was in an effort to sanitize it, with with all the gibberish coming out of it.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

It isn't, because what you are describing is not suppression.

Insidious suppression is still suppression.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

What you are describing is inequality of resources, not of opportunity. Equality of opportunity can only be coherently described as the ability of individuals to develop and utilize their person and property, by voluntary means, to the maximum extent they desire without interference. A free-market satisfies this.

Clearly I can't argue with you this point if, by definition, you think equal opportunity is independent of resources. It's ridiculous to claim that it is though.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

At any rate, what you are describing would almost certainly never occur in a truly free market. If you want to know why, then you can try reading and understanding either what I have written or the books I have suggested to you.

Do you really mean what you're saying here, that a free market equalizes resources?

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

If there are ideological elements in my statements, at least my ideology is based on fact. In fact because of this it can be said that the issue boils down to fact. Presumably if you desire famine and death you might advocate a statist market, Rothbard even directly conceded this.

Then why am I not starving or seem to be at risk of it? That's pretty factual.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

There was never a point in the first place because you never intended to learn anything

Three times now. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

I've been a jerk forever.

You might like not being one.

Free market follows supply and demand, and you say the sum of all the transactions between free people result in the fairest way of determing supply and demand. That's fine. The market no longer becomes free as soon as coersion starts though, and there's absolutely nothing to say that coersion won't happen immediately in all transactions, in a free market. The only way to get non-coersion is to, paradoxically, enforce it. This also makes it impossible to strive for. The best way of doing that is to instill morals in people so that they will feel bad and not do those things, but that's hardly foolproof.

You say that the points I have raised are all moot, because they don't happen in a free market. My point is that free market is unattainable, therefore all your points are moot.

Also, you've used the word irrelevant when, upon further reading, you really mean moot. Moot's a very good word to learn.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Insidious suppression is still suppression.

"Insidious" as a word doesn't work there. Again, you're saying that conditions people are born into=oppression. Actually you're not even saying that, you're saying the fact people aren't born into relatively higher positions=oppression. To which my response is, variance is natural, when it isn't a result of involuntary impositions it's fine, and the only way to get rid of such variance is destroy everything.

Clearly I can't argue with you this point if, by definition, you think equal opportunity is independent of resources. It's ridiculous to claim that it is though.

Well then, I suppose a solid portion of economists buy into a ridiculous claim then. Having evaluated both, I'll take their ideas over yours, thanks.

Do you really mean what you're saying here, that a free market equalizes resources?

Yes. For the most part at least. Unequalization comes about, but only as a result of unequal contribution. I'm fine with that.

Then why am I not starving or seem to be at risk of it? That's pretty factual.

You are not starving or at risk of it because the economic conditions you are subjected to are not 100% command based, and because you are not submarginal beneath the cost of whatever distortions exist in your country.

You might like not being one.

I'd rather be right than popular any day.

The market no longer becomes free as soon as coersion starts though, and there's absolutely nothing to say that coersion won't happen immediately in all transactions, in a free market.

Yes there is. This is definitionally incoherent. That's why it won't happen.

The only way to get non-coersion is to, paradoxically, enforce it. This also makes it impossible to strive for.

This happens to be the central issue addressed by Rothbard in Power and Market.

The best way of doing that is to instill morals in people so that they will feel bad and not do those things, but that's hardly foolproof.

Behavioral reinforcement is actually quite inefficient, at best. I prefer Theory Y as reported by Robert Ardrey.

You say that the points I have raised are all moot, because they don't happen in a free market. My point is that free market is unattainable, therefore all your points are moot.

Perhaps it is, but for the most part the removing of individual discrete units of coercion is a move in the right direction, so I would advocate a more liberal market even if I can't get an entirely liberal market. At any rate, the model would still be correct even if it was useless.

Also, you've used the word irrelevant when, upon further reading, you really mean moot. Moot's a very good word to learn.

You misused the word insidious. Also I'm pretty sure I meant what I said.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Yes. For the most part at least. Unequalization comes about, but only as a result of unequal contribution. I'm fine with that.

I'm definitely not, only because of the unequalization that arises because one's parents gave more or less of a contribution, through the condition their children are born into. I can't put that on par with other 'natural' variances, like genetics. People voluntarily caused that variance a generation before by not stopping it. (This could turn into a debate about, well, we've got the power to alter genes and give abortions and do tests to see what genes fetuses have, a discussion I don't want to get into.) We're not going to agree this point. Even if we strive for equality on all levels, its never going to be attained, so why worry about the problem of actually attaining it?

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

I'd rather be right than popular any day.

Which explains why you like putting 'wrong' words into my mouth. Of course, I'd rather be right than popular too. However, I don't think one's level of jerkiness is strongly related to popularity, nor that being right and popularity are mutually exclusive

Behavioural reinforcement is only a very specific subset of what I was talking about.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Perhaps it is, but for the most part the removing of individual discrete units of coercion is a move in the right direction, so I would advocate a more liberal market even if I can't get an entirely liberal market.

I agree, removing the individual, discrete units of coercion is a move in the right direction. However, I see my current government as preventing more of the individual coercive units than it brings. Perhaps wrongly so though, I'm pretty ignorant of policies.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

At any rate, the model would still be correct even if it was useless.

All except for the issue I have above with the inequality, yes.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Also I'm pretty sure I meant what I said.

A moot point is also an irrelevant point, one is the subset of the other.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

I'm definitely not, only because of the unequalization that arises because one's parents gave more or less of a contribution, through the condition their children are born into.

You're opposed to individuals who accumulate wealth by making a tremendous contribution to society, giving their wealth to their children?

I can't put that on par with other 'natural' variances, like genetics. People voluntarily caused that variance a generation before by not stopping it. We're not going to agree this point. Even if we strive for equality on all levels, its never going to be attained, so why worry about the problem of actually attaining it?

I never argued that equality is a good thing. I just said that for the most part it would be the result of the market. What you aren't getting is that any variance, any inequality that arises in the market, arises as a result of one individual making greater social contribution than another.

Which explains why you like putting 'wrong' words into my mouth.

No, because that would simply be making myself look right by way of a cheap trick. I want to actually be right. At any rate, show me where I put words in your mouth. Don't neglect the possibility that you just said something stupid and I called you on it.

Behavioural reinforcement is only a very specific subset of what I was talking about.

Perhaps it was a specific subset of what you were thinking about, but what you said was quite clear.

I agree, removing the individual, discrete units of coercion is a move in the right direction. However, I see my current government as preventing more of the individual coercive units than it brings. Perhaps wrongly so though, I'm pretty ignorant of policies.

Well, I think you have some rather large misunderstandings about what qualifies as coercion.

All except for the issue I have above with the inequality, yes.

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[omgwtfToph]

American public schools suck dick for money. I can very safely say this because I used to live in Singapore, where public schooling is TOO good, if anything, and have observed both sides of the coin.

It's kinda weird because American colleges are comparatively very good.

[Kilgamayan]

That's because American colleges can control who they accept. If you don't meet a college's standards you're not getting in. The public school system does not have any such barrier to entry, and in fact America is big on making sure everyone gets into school whether they're "normal" or not (No Child Left Behind).

Incidentally, this is why American public school compare poorly to those of other countries - if you observed a middle school in, say, China or Japan, you're far less likely to find students that are legitimately behaviorally dysfunctional. Their societies are okay with this, but of course America would drown in a sea of lawsuits if they tried to do the same thing.