government and education

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind By that logic, so are humans, because they are made up of many little cells, that are made up of many tiny atoms, which are made up of... So everything except the smallest unit of something can not be abstract.

Well, living things are material. They can be abstracted, but certainly needn't be. It's also true that abstract things can be concretized, which is what I was referring to earlier.
So I can see what you are talking about, I just think it's misleading.

Language itself is abstract, and that's one point I respect postmodernists on. Much language, like much perception, is delusional and potentially dangerous. Look at religious groups who kill others for their
so-called lord. Also, look at state governments, which are abstract and regularly kill people.
Look at abstract class-based discrimination.

Quote by: Winter wind Everything is fallible. Even science.

Certainly. In terms of considerations, there's room for everything. But science proves very valid on at least one thing: The demand for evidence.

Quote by: Winter wind What about laws. Retribution for crimes. only a coercive system of government can employ this.

Indeed, a lot of laws can only exist in a state of ignorance. Questioning the validity of federal, state and local laws certainly is good. Basic history provides enless reasons to quertsion laws. There have been many crimes against blacks for shallow racist reasons. However, remember much of this racist behavior was the law.

I also don't think only coercion can prevent criminal behavior. Can you point to any examples of a truly stable coercive system of government? I'd guess stability itself comes from lack of coercion.

Quote by: Winter wind Yes, but when the guy next door decides to blow my head off for my tv, what stops him from going through with that decision? The elitist, law enforcement.

Rarely does law enforcement arrive before the crime takes place. And you're misunderstanding my views. I'm not against basic self-defense. I just don't think that's mostly what government is about. We are raised to believe the cop on the street will protect us, but we should be interested in protecting ourselves and others from predators, not relegating that responsibility to someone else.
I'm not a big tough guy or anything, but I would feel great moral shame if I did not come to the aid of someone getting attacked. But I've rarely ever been in such circumstances, as they do not happen as often as TV would have us believe.

Quote by: Winter wind Yes!* I agree, which is why I think the government should not be thrown out of education, just questioned. If they don't comply, find someone who shares your ideas of education and get people to vote for him/her. In America, you get to question the system and even change it, if you get the attention you need.

I wish you'd do more reading on ways our schools misinform us. I recommend Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me," and Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." Those two books show quite well how much our government school textbooks leave out of our education. A lot of it is lying by omission, but that's a very important form of lying.
They also highlight reasons not just to question, but to organize against the pernicious affects of state power, and hierarchies quite generally.

Education should not have a foundation in compulsion. I understand why many disagree, and that's largely due to the education system as it stands.
And you highlight a fundamental problem: In order to fix education, you feel we should vote for someone else to do it. Again, it's relegating the reponsibility to someone else. I just don't think it's good for the general welfare. Many are infatuated with the "failure rate" of schools, without doing anything directly to change this. The first step though is simply presenting information, which is what I'm trying to do. If we're really concerned about proper education, we should stop lying to kids.

Quote by: Winter wind Again, you are just an organization of cells. Therefore you are abstract to. Should we de-centralize you?

But people are not "just an organzation of cells," nor would I recommend we simply eradicate people. These are two different issues, as far as I'm concerned. But why do we understand human beings are organized cells? Because we put aside certain dogmas which were previously restricting research into such a matter. It is through critical thinking that science is able to advance in any decent way. In other words, not through centralized power. Once you're not thinking critically and not looking for contradictory evidence, you're essentially done with science and you're doing something else. Authority should be
rendered down as much as possible.

Quote by: Winter wind Which is also why I think that government is a necessity, made possible by something like mutually assured destruction, otherwise people would take at the expense of others, and those who did it the best would make a group around them self instead.

"Mutually assured destruction" is just what it says, and it's acronym is an accurate description as well. It is indeed mad. And you should perhaps prove that states prevent anti-social behavior. I simply don't see this happening. In fact, I am positive that, under conditions of authority, many people engage in behavior they never would have engaged in otherwise.

You also seem to assume that those who respond to their instincts always do evil things. I think there are plenty of good instincts that are being undermined every single day, often due to superstitions and to arbitrary restrictions on generosity. There is a lot of culturally induced ignorance.
In a stable environment, the very anti-social person only embarasses himself.

Here's a personal example: I went to my local university library a few days ago. A bunch of us were waiting for it to open. Maintenance eventually showed up and opened it for us. There was nobody working there, no security cameras, nothing but us. Some of us joked about running off with computers, but no one did anything. It was probably an hour before anyone who worked there showed up, rather coincidently.
There are many, many examples of people being free of authority without anything too bad happening.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind A second opinion isn't encouraged? It's called the two-party system and elected representatives. The government isn't just a single body, there are factions that fight within it.

In my opinion, this is simply absurd. Assuming the two parties are very different (a highly dubious claim on many, many issues) you also misconstrue my point. By second opinion, I didn't just mean "only two opinions." I mean diversity of views in general. Considering only a handful of opinions isn't very good as a measure of anything at all, nor is the existence of a "two-party system" and the "factions that fight within it."

Quote by: Winter wind Well, this is true, but your option is for them to get off free. I'm against mandatory minimums for this exact reason. While judges are a single person, they should be allowed to exercise common sense. And if you disagree, then appeal the case. A second opinion.

But we shouldn't place faith in judges to exercise common sense for us. We should apply it ourselves in whatever circumstances we are in. If you need a third party in some dispite, it needn't be a "judge."

Quote by: Winter wind Yes, but then once you realize they are criminals, you get to vote them out and charge them with corruption or whatever. If you don't realize they were criminals, the public wasn't paying enough attention.

But why let potential criminals rule over you to begin with? This question is even more pertinent if you think the system itself is like an organized crime protection racket.

Quote by: Winter wind Wait, oh, warfare, well ok. Warfare can be seen as self-defense, and when it isn't, it should be criminal. (or when "your neighbor's house is on fire" as FDR put it.)

But why does warfare most often occur? Authority!

Quote by: Winter wind Just by saying collective communication and Saddam Hussein in the same breath doesn't mean collective communication is bad.

But I elaborated on this already. I meant governments also restrict information. They often promote ignorance.

Quote by: Winter wind This is true which is why we need to move for a new education system that does not promote the status quo.

Yet you've been mostly advocating it here.

Quote by: Winter wind And you, good sir, are putting words in my mouth. I think that challenging all authority (as long as its productive and not annoying) is wonderful. I think abolishing authority would be bad. For two reasons, one because people will have no cohesiveness. No center to come together and discuss things, or try and work together for a common goal. Second because in the vacuum of power someone, always, always, tries to fill that gap. Take a playground where the teacher is off on a "cookie break". Without anybody watching over, bullies can do what they want. So you don't have chaos, just a bunch of bullies with the monopoly on milk money. Without someone with power, someone else always rises, and has a tendency to be the one out for himself.

People can make their own "center." And here you assume something strange, that because people have filled in "power vacuums" in the past, we should accept it as something inherent. Your playground example is an exception to the rule of "authority," but it isn't that great of an argument anyway. Bullies provide a decent example of why kids should band together and support each other. That's how they can prevent "chaos," not simply by expecting some authority figure or adult to step in prevent all our problems. Obviously, bullies can function in organized networks, much like state governments (which also steal, by the way, and it's much more than our milk money). That's why people everywhere should be on the lookout for bullies. It can be kids and adults. People should organize in self-defense networks of various kinds, and these neend't themselves be state governments or otherwise hierarchical.

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

In my opinion, this is simply absurd. Assuming the two parties are very different (a highly dubious claim on many, many issues) you also misconstrue my point. By second opinion, I didn't just mean "only two opinions." I mean diversity of views in general. Considering only a handful of opinions isn't very good as a measure of anything at all, nor is the existence of a "two-party system" and the "factions that fight within it."

The bi partisan system is only the general tip.
There are spectrum with in it full of diverse opinion.
Economic system, role of federal government, education, civil rights, etc, no two democrats nor republicans have the same opinion. What don't you think has been represented?

But we shouldn't place faith in judges to exercise common sense for us. We should apply it ourselves in whatever circumstances we are in. If you need a third party in some dispite, it needn't be a "judge."

It has to be unbias and it can't be someone who isn't logical.
You need a third party if the two parties can't find a common ground.

But why let potential criminals rule over you to begin with? This question is even more pertinent if you think the system itself is like an organized crime protection racket.

Because the crime protection racket doesn't last more then a few seconds before someone says "hey wait! these guys suck!"
I like that revolutions in government can happen non-violently.

But why does warfare most often occur? Authority!

Two kids fighting over a cookie. a bar fight, both don't include authority. If you mean countries fighting, well, countries can't fight unless there is Authority, without it, people would just fight one on one more often.

But I elaborated on this already. I meant governments also restrict information. They often promote ignorance.

And the first Amendment was a mirage?

Yet you've been mostly advocating it here.

This is another reason why the ap student was annoying, they heard only what they wanted to hear from me. I have been advocating the over throw of the education system, grades, and seminar like classes just as the tip. I want to keep all option on the table including government involvement. You just dismiss it out right.

Your playground example is an exception to the rule of "authority," but it isn't that great of an argument anyway. Bullies provide a decent example of why kids should band together and support each other.

but no! that band of kids is an abstraction. They have a centralized group where someone is bound to become more powerful and start dictating things like whether they should beat up the bad guys or give them a warning first.

I've found in life that exploring the actions of kids, gives insight into the world. Also people's opinion of kids is about the same as their world view.

I see a number of bright gems in kids that are unfortunately out numbered by group mentality kids that try to emulate those in power.

Grouping together is great, but that's what you've been arguing against. Organization. Power in numbers.
Authority is neither good nor evil, it is the use of it that is good or evil. That is the main point
Authority is a tool, it's use is the point.

[Winter wind]

Well, living things are material. They can be abstracted, but certainly needn't be. It's also true that abstract things can be concretized, which is what I was referring to earlier. So I can see what you are talking about, I just think it's misleading.

I think you mean that everything is abstract, therefore we should recognize this and make things abstract when they should be...

I'm not sure.

Certainly. In terms of considerations, there's room for everything. But science proves very valid on at least one thing: The demand for evidence.

Sure, but why should government be axed because it's fallible. So are all humans.

Indeed, a lot of laws can only exist in a state of ignorance. Questioning the validity of federal, state and local laws certainly is good. Basic history provides enless reasons to quertsion laws. There have been many crimes against blacks for shallow racist reasons. However, remember much of this racist behavior was the law.

Questioning laws is fine, I just think it is best to eliminate the bad laws from within, rather then attacking the entire infrastructure.

I also don't think only coercion can prevent criminal behavior. Can you point to any examples of a truly stable coercive system of government? I'd guess stability itself comes from lack of coercion.

I can't prove this, mostly because I don't know what your definition of stable is. What I can tell you is that government coerciveness is no worse then mob mentality.

Rarely does law enforcement arrive before the crime takes place. And you're misunderstanding my views. I'm not against basic self-defense. I just don't think that's mostly what government is about. We are raised to believe the cop on the street will protect us, but we should be interested in protecting ourselves and others from predators, not relegating that responsibility to someone else. I'm not a big tough guy or anything, but I would feel great moral shame if I did not come to the aid of someone getting attacked. But I've rarely ever been in such circumstances, as they do not happen as often as TV would have us believe.

Yes but the knowledge that society would punish a criminal for his actions has got to mean something.

And it isn't just TV. I've heard stories similar to the one below several times.

A woman is running from a man with a knife at night. It is an empty street, but people could see what was happening from the windows. It wasn't a quiet incident and there were many witnesses. The attacker stabbed the woman once before having to pursue a little long then stabbed her to death.
Not one person acted. Not one person grabbed a couple of friends with baseball bats to take on the guy. Human nature is not evil, but it isn't always great.

Education should not have a foundation in compulsion. I understand why many disagree, and that's largely due to the education system as it stands.

Like it or not, people learn naturally, not in a facility. Education is already compulsive. Channeling that education is the goal of the system.

And you highlight a fundamental problem: In order to fix education, you feel we should vote for someone else to do it. Again, it's relegating the reponsibility to someone else.

I'd run, but I'm not of age yet. In the mean time, I make as much noise as possible and do what I can. Fighting the system is good, but I'd rather work the system. That way I can educate society rather then just the people I know. Education is the key to eliminating almost all the ailments of society, it has to be open to everyone equally. Not off of money.

But people are not "just an organzation of cells," nor would I recommend we simply eradicate people. These are two different issues, as far as I'm concerned. But why do we understand human beings are organized cells? Because we put aside certain dogmas which were previously restricting research into such a matter. It is through critical thinking that science is able to advance in any decent way. In other words, not through centralized power. Once you're not thinking critically and not looking for contradictory evidence, you're essentially done with science and you're doing something else. Authority should be rendered down as much as possible.

Government shouldn't get into science for any other reason then they stink at it. But that isn't the point. The point is that authority works best as a tool to create groups and work for the common good. Plus, your response was a bit of a Non-Sequitur.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind The bi partisan system is only the general tip. There are spectrum with in it full of diverse opinion. Economic system, role of federal government, education, civil rights, etc, no two democrats nor republicans have the same opinion. What don't you think has been represented?

But our system has been broken (or has been working well, in the view of some). For example, only about 25% of the eligible voters voted for Bush in the 2000 election, and Bush won the Presidency even though he lost the popular vote. Even by conservative standards (not necessarily menaing "Republican party" standards) that might be considered a failure.

As for them having no two same opnions, maybe they don't agree 100% on how things should be done. But, in general, they agree there should be the FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA, etc. Many of the positions are remarkably similar on a whole host of other issues.

More to the point, these people shouldn't be making decisions on our behalf.

Quote by: Winter wind It has to be unbias and it can't be someone who isn't logical. You need a third party if the two parties can't find a common ground.

But judges and politicians don't have to be unbiased and logical, nor should we expect them to be.

Quote by: Winter wind Because the crime protection racket doesn't last more then a few seconds before someone says "hey wait! these guys suck!" I like that revolutions in government can happen non-violently.

No, terrible social arrangements can last for a long time. And yes, things can be changed relatively peacefully.

Quote by: Winter wind Two kids fighting over a cookie. a bar fight, both don't include authority. If you mean countries fighting, well, countries can't fight unless there is Authority, without it, people would just fight one on one more often.

Actually, authority is involved, just not in the form of a parent or an authority title. If the bully dominates someone else, he has authority. If the others rebel against the authority of the bully, they too would be approximating it. Authority is excluded when such a struggle is removed.

I simply disagree that formal authority prevents conflicts. Can you provide at least one example of a powerful state without a dysfunctional population? I can't think of one. In fact, I think we have states for this reason: "The earth has enough for everyone's needs, but not
enough for some people's greed" (Mahatma Gandhi).

States are organized greed; they dominate resources and decisionmaking. The same is true of corporations. Get rid of them and a lot of conflicts would be solved.

Quote by: Winter wind And the first Amendment was a mirage?

It is ultimately an abstraction. Free speech occurs not just because some amendment, but because people are allowed to speak freely. Either way, this doesn't change the fact that governments still regularly promote ignorance and superstition.

Quote by: Winter wind This is another reason why the ap student was annoying, they heard only what they wanted to hear from me. I have been advocating the over throw of the education system, grades, and seminar like classes just as the tip. I want to keep all option on the table including government involvement. You just dismiss it out right.

What I dismiss is the compulsion, the superstitions, lies and half-truths.
I also don't see why kids should be educated by a system run by people who often seem to kill (war), steal (taxes) and do whatever they please (other government crime).

Quote by: Winter wind but no!* that band of kids is an abstraction. They have a centralized group where someone is bound to become more powerful and start dictating things like whether they should beat up the bad guys or give them a warning first.

I think a group of people dealing directly with real issues is less abstract than state government.
They needn't organize just to punish the bully, but to support ALL the kids, to create solidaric bonds.
If such kids set up a minority group and give them different treatment, then they become less in solidarity. They're strongest right at the moment they have peace and cooperation, otherwise they are just being childish.

Quote by: Winter wind I've found in life that exploring the actions of kids, gives insight into the world. Also people's opinion of kids is about the same as their world view.

As I've said before (and as someone said before me), if people behaved like their governments, we'd all be in jail. This is also true for children, who often do not act in the most violent ways imaginable.
You've been right that kids should not look to authority figures and adults with outright rejection. They should intelligently question these people. If they do that, they may still find many illegitimate things about the world around them.

Quote by: Winter wind I see a number of bright gems in kids that are unfortunately out numbered by group mentality kids that try to emulate those in power.

Exactly. There are a lot of pressures to be a social chameleon; punishments, rewards, name-calling.
We're supposed to try to lead the life of a myth or an image. Look at history. Those who
sought to make the greatest changes tended to be the rebels; those who openly challenged power.

Quote by: Winter wind Grouping together is great, but that's what you've been arguing against. Organization. Power in numbers. Authority is neither good nor evil, it is the use of it that is good or evil. That is the main point Authority is a tool, it's use is the point.

Again, this is a false dichotomy. It doesn't come down to everything going either to the group or to the individual. Simply, it is we as individuals that make a group work, or not work. I've often argued here and elsewhere for more organization, much more. I think it's fundamentally sensible to organize with others and express your interests. You say there is power in numbers, which is true, but not necessarily can we find legitimacy in numbers. Right or wrong is not a numbers game or a popularity contest.

You've neglected one thing, though. Only through further organization can aspiring tyrants be curtailed. Intelligent organizations can refuse granting overarching power to themselves and to specific individuals. They will be intentionally non-hierarchical. What we commonly call "evil" is what subtracts from genuine sociability.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind I think you mean that everything is abstract, therefore we should recognize this and make things abstract when they should be...

No, that's not what I said. I suggested concrete things (like human beings, food, housing, etc) can be abstracted, and that abstract things can be concretized. We should be aware of abstract things because they have illusory properties to them. Illusions are a danger to all, especially in the hands of a thug.

Quote by: Winter wind Sure, but why should government be axed because it's fallible. So are all humans.

By "axing" coercive state governments, it doesn't mean we'd destroy all people. In fact, state governments are responsible for most of the worst human suffering.

Quote by: Winter wind Questioning laws is fine, I just think it is best to eliminate the bad laws from within, rather then attacking the entire infrastructure.

I understand your point, but often to subvert a "serious" law is to bring the weight of the system down on you. It's not that all authoritarians think they are doing the right thing per se, but they're just carrying out the law. They're doing their job like they were taught. This is why I criticize "the entire infrastructure," as you call it. It condemns people to not take responsibility for their own actions, to not think for themselves. It's anti-intellectual.

Plus, you should consider if "the entire infrastructure" itself is attacking us. Sure, a person may break a law, but do laws ever break people in some way? I certainly think so.

Quote by: Winter wind I can't prove this, mostly because I don't know what your definition of stable is. What I can tell you is that government coerciveness is no worse then mob mentality.

Oh, but it so often is mob mentality, only it's wearing a suit. I don't equate government coerciveness with civility and intelligence. It is fundamentally unintelligent to have to formally govern one's actions. And I think, at least in most instances, coercive formal organization isn't absolutely necessary.
On the other hand, they are always unstable. Any situation where people are being dominated or pushed around in some way breeds instability.

But again, we get to the issue of tugging away Santa's proverbial beard. In this case, we would probably find that that much "mob mentality" is rooted in the government.

Quote by: Winter wind Yes but the knowledge that society would punish a criminal for his actions has got to mean something.

Not necessarily much.

Quote by: Winter wind And it isn't just TV. I've heard stories similar to the one below several times.

I know it isn't, but TV does tend to hype violent crime a lot. On the other hand, it overlooks a lot of terrible behavior by governments and by corporations, as well as some crucial questions about their fundamental nature.

Quote by: Winter wind A woman is running from a man with a knife at night. It is an empty street, but people could see what was happening from the windows. It wasn't a quiet incident and there were many witnesses. The attacker stabbed the woman once before having to pursue a little long then stabbed her to death. Not one person acted.

I've read here an argument for more individual responsibility, not less. Obviously, people in such examples should have organized and came to this woman's aid. Because they didn't, because they decided it'd be better to relegate the responsibility to someone else, someone was needlessly killed.

If you'd like organized efforts to address crime, why don't you create one? I haven't joined one myself because I'm not too concerned about violent crime where I live. But certainly, such citizens groups do exist, and I personally think they have a practical basis.

Quote by: Winter wind Human nature is not evil, but it isn't always great.

I certainly agree. That's actually been one of my fundamental points. But in order to fully address evil acts, we should consider the thoughts themselves as well. Where do they come from? Often from an anti-social setting. Sometimes it's mental illness. In any case, no well-rounded community/society is going to be relegating such considerations and responsibilities somewhere else. Again, if I see someone getting attacked, I'd like to think I'd step in and try to halt the attacker.

Quote by: Winter wind Like it or not, people learn naturally, not in a facility. Education is already compulsive. Channeling that education is the goal of the system.

Here you're misinterpreting my point about "compulsion." Yes, people do have an instinct to learn things. But that's not the samee as compulsory institutions. I think a fully detailed, workable program is a possibility, and that it could be non-compulsory and quite non-discriminatory. That is clearly NOT the goal of the system as it stands. Everything it does is with legal compulsion. I simply don't think that's necessary, except as a means of instilling obedience.

Quote by: Winter wind I'd run, but I'm not of age yet. In the mean time, I make as much noise as possible and do what I can. Fighting the system is good, but I'd rather work the system. That way I can educate society rather then just the people I know. Education is the key to eliminating almost all the ailments of society, it has to be open to everyone equally. Not off of money.

A lot of people interested in politics consider running. Even I've thought about it. But we currently have too many problems to think a few hundred miracle politicans will solve them. It becomes even worse when many of the problems come from obedience to such politicians.

It's also hard for a few people to fight an entire system. There are many examples of is. Here's one: The World Bank and the IMF have been against letting countries develop their own solutions to problems.
I don't think a few relatively powerless people will change that. The problem is, like you mentioned earlier, a matter of numbers. People think that because something exists and enjoys some level of support, it must be legitimate. That's the mindest from which dictatorships are born, and I think we see it cultivated in our system, sometimes through education activities, from parents, peers and pop culture. We're just not supposed to think much.

I very much agree with your statement about openness and equality.
For example, I don't believe in "A fair and equal society for rich white men."
But I don't think legal compulsion is necessary for that regarding education, or even that all education needs to be done in a formal fashion. In fact, as dreadfully "neo-con' as this may sound, over the years I think a lot of my money could have gone to much better uses than the compulsory education of others. I could have voluntarily given some of it to libraries, for example.

Of course, I'm not too crazy about money, either. But if it is to exist I should certainly choose where I put it; otherwise why give it to me in the first place?

Quote by: Winter wind Government shouldn't get into science for any other reason then they stink at it. But that isn't the point. The point is that authority works best as a tool to create groups and work for the common good* Plus, your response was a bit of a Non-Sequitur.

No, egalitarian-minded individuals work best to create groups and work for the common good (though I hope they're not dismissed as mere tools in the process). Authorities tend to "stink at it." Often in my experience, authroities only have dissent targeted and eliminated. Rarely ever is it addressed intelligently. It's almost always a "my way or the highway" sort of deal. That's my point. It isn't what I would consider intelligent or sensible. These aren't higher mental
functions at work in such instances (which are innumerable).

Grandpa h.

[Athena]

Quote by: Winter wind Wow, earth to grandpa. Try to land in the pacific ocean. Government may not exist as an entity, but it is there. It makes laws and enforces them an a system of society. I don't trust the individual person enough that they would follow the rules that I like (like not stealing) unless they were certain of a punishment that followed. There may not have to be a government, but a center-place where people can come together to make decisions. No man is an island, so we have to find a system of collective communication. One way is through government.

I think you have things backwards. Our governments do not create our societies as some claim a God created our existence. And as grandpa pointed out, law enforcers respond after a law has been violated. We also have many questions of liberty, such as it is my right to own slaves or at least to protect my children in segregrated schools, to beat my family and even kill them. When religion teaches it is the father who maintains social morals, but men can beat their wives and daughters and sometimes killing them. Not because the government says so, but because the people say so, and not long ago, it was okay for a man to beat his wife and kids, and laws said this was right, and law enforces would not interfer in these domestic disputes. In some places blacks were lenched to maintian White power over Blacks, and the law allowed this happen, because it is the cultural norm in some communities.

If men not who are under God can not beat and sometimes kill their wives and daughters, to maintain social morality, how is morality maintained? That is the job of education. Our liberty is maintained by transmitting a culture with customs and traditions and a concept of what means to be human and how humans should related with one another and their institutions. Education for technology is not doing this, and therefore, we are reverting back to a police state. This education prepared everyone for a technological society with unknown values, and this results in an amoral society, and then a police state, as people hold what you said as true- that it is the government that prevents people from killing each other, and we must control people with laws and law enforces.

[Athena]

Again, this is a false dichotomy. It doesn't come down to everything going either to the group or to the individual. Simply, it is we as individuals that make a group work, or not work. I've often argued here and elsewhere for more organization, much more. I think it's fundamentally sensible to organize with others and express your interests. You say there is power in numbers, which is true, but not necessarily can we find legitimacy in numbers. Right or wrong is not a numbers game or a popularity contest. You've neglected one thing, though. Only through further organization can aspiring tyrants be curtailed. Intelligent organizations can refuse granting overarching power to themselves and to specific individuals. They will be intentionally non-hierarchical. What we commonly call "evil" is what subtracts from genuine sociability.

Grandpa, you have said so many profound things, I hope my adversaries Milton and Osborn are reading.

Our form of government is only one expression of democracy. Democracy is about people uniting for their mutual good. This is the reasoning behind unions, and social protest. It is what forced a US president to final take action in protecting the equal rights of Black people, by sending the National Gaurd to enforce the new law that Whites could not discriminate against Blacks in schools. May be Blacks are still afraid to enter some buildings in the south, but we have come long ways from when segregation was taken for granted.

I doubt if we would have a strong middle class, if it had not been for strong unions. Unions got a lot of people medical coverage, and this was great for union people, but is not great for those who can not afford medical insurance and must pay more for medical care out of pocket. It is next to impossible for our less fortunate to unite, but they must, to correct the injustice medical insurance has created. Justice is the underlying principle, not self interest, but not many people are motivated to take action on a matter of justice, unless their self interest is at stake.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Athena I think you have things backwards. Our governments do not create our societies as some claim a God created our existence.

Thank you! Many children are given that impression, though. For some, questioning the government is like besmirching the name of God.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Athena Grandpa, you have said so many profound things, I hope my adversaries Milton and Osborn are reading.

Thanks for the positive comment. I get sick and tired of being ridiculed by people who haven't
given evidence for anything, or who otherwise lack strong arguments.

Quote by: Athena Our form of government is only one expression of democracy. Democracy is about people uniting for their mutual good. This is the reasoning behind unions, and social protest. It is what forced a US president to final take action in protecting the equal rights of Black people, by sending the National Gaurd to enforce the new law that Whites could not discriminate against Blacks in schools. May be Blacks are still afraid to enter some buildings in the south, but we have come long ways from when segregation was taken for granted.

Correct. People working for their "mutual good" often rebel against something. That's an undeniable pattern in history, whether we mean social security for millions of people or abolishing chattel slavery. Of course, it doesn't mean the people are always right elsewhere (in supporting the coercive state, for instance).
This is where questions of group and individual education come in.

Until people think differently, they're probably not going to act too differently. It's frightening how people may worship whoever or whatever comes along.

Quote by: Athena I doubt if we would have a strong middle class, if it had not been for strong unions. Unions got a lot of people medical coverage, and this was great for union people, but is not great for those who can not afford medical insurance and must pay more for medical care out of pocket. It is next to impossible for our less fortunate to unite, but they must, to correct the injustice medical insurance has created. Justice is the underlying principle, not self interest, but not many people are motivated to take action on a matter of justice, unless their self interest is at stake.

Our thinking is very similar here.
Your last point is unfortunately accurate. And much of one's "self-interest" depends on personal preference, as well. Some will hold onto convenient myths simply because it makes them feel better. For example, if roughly one half of the population feels women shouldn't vote or work outside the home, then the other half will have a much harder time doing so. This is based on the myth that women could only be homemakers, meek "helpers" and baby-makers. That made many men feel good, powerful. Women used to also be much less literate, thanks to such views (even though the first known novel was written by a Japanese woman). And some women still cling rigidly to such "old-fashioned" values.

Also, look at Christian scientists and their unique way of organizing. If everyone abided by their standards, they'd cast every medical profession into oblivion. So democracy can be, in terms of pure numbers, a very scary thing.

But, of course, these situations aren't purely democratic, but authoritarian and dogmatic. They contradict basic principles of democracy. The availability of basic healthcare neend't be only a luxury, but in a system of inequality it sure is. Rights are only perceived things. If we feel we have the right to be healthy, then we think it. If we feel otherwise, then we do. They aren't inherent, and often must be fought for once they're realized. It's this reality that metes out justice, not some almighty government.
Somee basic principles are at stake here.

Take care.

Grandpa h.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: grandpa Here you are overlooking the many ways in which states harm communities, societies and groups. We're not talking about benign things here. It's well known that states can be monstrous, discriminating by nationalism, race, gender, class, etc. Well, explain why.

#1
It looks you misunderstood my post.

Quote by: mark3748 And what does that have to do with the topic? You asked a question, and I answered. The government should have no role in education whatsoever. A (voluntarily) community funded school, run by teachers that know how to teach their students in a way that allows them to truely learn and not just mimic can do a far better job than anything the public school system has to offer.

I answered to mark3748 that the fundament for any process to take place within any community, society, group is a state's existence as a Must and/or Mandatory (!).
The noun "state" indicates a "country" in this particular case, and Not yet another state within U.S.

Read and compare your reply, addressed to me, then.

#2
mark3748 underlines his concept for "zero" influence of U.S. governing body on schools, all over U.S.

Example :
So, some guys in southern parts of U.S. present a level of half-illiterals and some guys in northern parts of U.S. present a level of Nobel Prize Award winners.
Is that your concpet, as well ?

[Athena]

Quote by: grandpa Thanks for the positive comment. I get sick and tired of being ridiculed by people who haven't given evidence for anything, or who otherwise lack strong arguments. Correct. People working for their "mutual good" often rebel against something. That's an undeniable pattern in history, whether we mean social security for millions of people or abolishing chattel slavery. Of course, it doesn't mean the people are always right elsewhere (in supporting the coercive state, for instance). This is where questions of group and individual education come in. Until people think differently, they're probably not going to act too differently. It's frightening how people may worship whoever or whatever comes along. Our thinking is very similar here. Your last point is unfortunately accurate. And much of one's "self-interest" depends on personal preference, as well. Some will hold onto convenient myths simply because it makes them feel better. For example, if roughly one half of the population feels women shouldn't vote or work outside the home, then the other half will have a much harder time doing so. This is based on the myth that women could only be homemakers, meek "helpers" and baby-makers. That made many men feel good, powerful. Women used to also be much less literate, thanks to such views (even though the first known novel was written by a Japanese woman). And some women still cling rigidly to such "old-fashioned" values. Also, look at Christian scientists and their unique way of organizing. If everyone abided by their standards, they'd cast every medical profession into oblivion. So democracy can be, in terms of pure numbers, a very scary thing. But, of course, these situations aren't purely democratic, but authoritarian and dogmatic. They contradict basic principles of democracy. The availability of basic healthcare neend't be only a luxury, but in a system of inequality it sure is. Rights are only perceived things. If we feel we have the right to be healthy, then we think it. If we feel otherwise, then we do. They aren't inherent, and often must be fought for once they're realized. It's this reality that metes out justice, not some almighty government. Somee basic principles are at stake here. Take care. Grandpa h.

Okay, I believe we have a higher degree of mental illness, and social problems, because we replaced education for good moral judgement with education for technology. We have fickle minds and our heads can be filled with a lot of erronous thinking. Garbage held in our subconscious can make us completely irrational creatures. For this reason, there is a strong argument against us being rational creatures capable of ruling ourselves by reason.

How can anyone live by principle if principles are unknown? How can we be virtueous without an understanding of virtues? How can we be honorable without an understanding of what is honorable? How sane is it, to leave all of this out of a child's education, and then expect liberty to work for the good? How are such poorly educated people to govern their own lives, let alone govern their communities, states and nation? We have rapidly growing government authority over the people, with the peop