government and education

[Athena]

Keith and I disagree about the role government should play in education, but we are sure what that disagreement is.

I understand an essential purpose of education is to transmit a culture that protects our liberty. This education does what religion does, only it does not define God. It prepares citizens to be independent thinkers, and to be moral, responsible citizens. It teaches a set of principles upon which to base judgements of right or wrong. This is how our liberty is protected. What defines right or wrong, is not personal desires, but a principled decision.

Not until the US mobilized for the first world war, did it include vocational training. Also, not until did this time, did the federal government do more than mandate communities provide free education to all children. Only shortly before WWI were laws passed preventing factories from hiring children and working them so many hours, they could not attend school.
Child labor laws, and the precieved importance of education are two sides of the same coin.

Why did schools include vocational training with education for citizenship? Because Industry wanted to close the schools, claiming the war caused a labor shortage. This would have ended the child labor laws. Also Industry claimed they were not getting their monies worth from public schools, because they still had to train new employees. Vocational training was added to appease industry, and it was reasoned being a productive citizen is part of being a good citizen, so it is a good thing to provide vocational training.

Teachers argued, it was our nation's best, who understood our democracy and its unquic relationship of citizens to democratic institutions, because of their education, who signed up to defend our democracy in a time of war. They argued, even if we won the war, if we did not replace them by educating the young to take their places as doctors, lawyers, teachers, political leaders, etc. then our country would be devastated by the lose of these men. Finally, they argued, an education for making good citizens, is good for making patriotic citizens.

Do you see the shift in the purpose of education? First citizenship and to protect our liberty, then to mobilize the nation for war, than to prepare products for industry, and the economic driven purpose of education that dominates today.

WWI was the first time Industry, National Defense and Education sat on the same board, and until 1958 citizenship training was the priority purpose of public education. People's complaints about government involvement in public education comes after 1958, when military and industrial powers got full control of education and instead of preparing our young for citizenship and life, it began preparing them to be products to serve industry, and a technological society with unknown values.

Our democracy was not an unknown value but today it, and it is being destroyed.

[Winter wind]

You do agree, the system in place needs to be changed right?

I agree with Athena in the sense that, whatever the current faults of the government maybe, not to use a unifying power to direct education is a waste of a resource. I don't think there should be a one-policy-fits-all, but that the system needs to be complex and that just giving it to parents isn't as good an idea.

[grandpa]

Looks like most agree the education system should be changed. That's good and healthy, but I am highly skeptical of the call for a "unifying power." That seems like more business as usual, honestly. Power may appear to unify, but it ultimately divides -- classifies, judges, places arbitrary distinctions and restrictions upon people. It almost always tells us we have to go through the "proper channel" and the "right phase" in order to fit in. In fact, "fitting in" is not necessarily what an educational system should encourage. It should encourage us to find our own place, to research things on our own. In other words, it shouldn't be much of a system at all.

One thing that annoys me is this false dichotomy; where it comes down to either the individual or the social mass. That's not how the world functions.
So much of life is about resource managment, which is complicated. Almost paradoxically, to oversimplify the issues is to needlessly complicate them. That's one reason why our society seems so schizophrenic. We hear all about individual rights, then someone chimes in, "well, what about the rights of society?" as if the issues are totally separate.

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

One thing that annoys me is this false dichotomy; where it comes down to either the individual or the social mass. That's not how the world functions. So much of life is about resource managment, which is complicated. Almost paradoxically, to oversimplify the issues is to needlessly complicate them. That's one reason why our society seems so schizophrenic. We hear all about individual rights, then someone chimes in, "well, what about the rights of society?" as if the issues are totally separate.

While you use a lot of fancy, polysyllabic words, I got the gist.
Yes, I definitely agree that the government should not have anything close to a monopoly on education, but that it should be able to extend this education to all somehow.
My problem is that people want to take the government completely out of the equation. Which is either far too trusting in the average person or far too distrusting in the government.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind While you use a lot of fancy, polysyllabic words, I got the gist. Yes, I definitely agree that the government should not have anything close to a monopoly on education, but that it should be able to extend this education to all somehow.

Well, here you're making a classic mistake, assuming that the state is society. Not only should the state lack a monopoly on education, but it shouldn't exist (in fact, it actually doesn't exist, what with it being an abstract entity).

In fact, one of the fundamental things people should learn is how governments and schools themselves are abstract, collectivist entities. They have no power in themselves, relying solely on human perceptions. When enough people realize such a thing, their overall perception of life may be better informed. They'll question things more, be more independently intelligent and, I'd assume, more honest and less superstitious about things.

Any other approach to education is like lying. Kids should want to pull off the proverbial Santa's beard, to see the true face.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Athena Keith and I disagree about the role government should play in education, but we are sure what that disagreement is. I understand an essential purpose of education is to transmit a culture that protects our liberty. This education does what religion does, only it does not define God. It prepares citizens to be independent thinkers, and to be moral, responsible citizens. It teaches a set of principles upon which to base judgements of right or wrong. This is how our liberty is protected. What defines right or wrong, is not personal desires, but a principled decision. Not until the US mobilized for the first world war, did it include vocational training. Also, not until did this time, did the federal government do more than mandate communities provide free education to all children. Only shortly before WWI were laws passed preventing factories from hiring children and working them so many hours, they could not attend school. Child labor laws, and the precieved importance of education are two sides of the same coin. Why did schools include vocational training with education for citizenship? Because Industry wanted to close the schools, claiming the war caused a labor shortage. This would have ended the child labor laws. Also Industry claimed they were not getting their monies worth from public schools, because they still had to train new employees. Vocational training was added to appease industry, and it was reasoned being a productive citizen is part of being a good citizen, so it is a good thing to provide vocational training. Teachers argued, it was our nation's best, who understood our democracy and its unquic relationship of citizens to democratic institutions, because of their education, who signed up to defend our democracy in a time of war. They argued, even if we won the war, if we did not replace them by educating the young to take their places as doctors, lawyers, teachers, political leaders, etc. then our country would be devastated by the lose of these men. Finally, they argued, an education for making good citizens, is good for making patriotic citizens. Do you see the shift in the purpose of education? First citizenship and to protect our liberty, then to mobilize the nation for war, than to prepare products for industry, and the economic driven purpose of education that dominates today. WWI was the first time Industry, National Defense and Education sat on the same board, and until 1958 citizenship training was the priority purpose of public education. People's complaints about government involvement in public education comes after 1958, when military and industrial powers got full control of education and instead of preparing our young for citizenship and life, it began preparing them to be products to serve industry, and a technological society with unknown values. Our democracy was not an unknown value but today it, and it is being destroyed.

First of all, the United States of America IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!! WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC RULED NOT BY THE PEOPLE BUT BY THE LAW, I.E. THE CONCEPT CALLED LEX REX ("the law is king"; for more about this concept read Rutherford: Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince).

Second, do a google search on something called the Common School Movement and see where our modern concept of public schools (government indoctrination centers) came from. Here's a place to start: Common School Movement - Colonial and Republican Schooling, Changes in the Antebellum Era, The Rise of the Common School

Third, you should also read John Taylor Gatto's material on education (John Taylor Gatto - Challenging the Myths of Modern Schooling).

[Winter wind]

Quote by: grandpa Well, here you're making a classic mistake, assuming that the state is society. Not only should the state lack a monopoly on education, but it shouldn't exist (in fact, it actually doesn't exist, what with it being an abstract entity). In fact, one of the fundamental things people should learn is how governments and schools themselves are abstract, collectivist entities. They have no power in themselves, relying solely on human perceptions. When enough people realize such a thing, their overall perception of life may be better informed. They'll question things more, be more independently intelligent and, I'd assume, more honest and less superstitious about things. Any other approach to education is like lying. Kids should want to pull off the proverbial Santa's beard, to see the true face.

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.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Athena government and education

U.S. Government should set the level of education for primary and secondary schools as a mandatory one, with no exception.
The level of education - as we see today in public schools - is a mockery.
That level should be twice higher, at least (!) , with separate subjects for chemistry, biology, geography, physics, zoology, etc. and not taken as 1 to create a joke like "Social Studies".

Policies like - "No Child Left Behind" - blah, blah, along with others should be canceled. A young person needs to understand that a school is not an excuse but a mandatory obligation to the Nation that individual may be held responsible one day to.

No tests.
Written proof of knowledge.

Writting is yet another subject itself. Majority of students writes horribly simple words, sentences, where complex expression seems to be on the egde of nuclear-physics, not to mention expression itself.

Example :
Letter "t" is mostly written as a sign that resembles a "cross".
Letter "I" (read : Iceland) is mixed with other symbols and can be taken for number "1" , capital letter "I" , letter "l" (read : letter).
My bet : majority of guys would have problems to write letters correctly.

U.S. education system is a state of half-illiteracy, in real world, as of today.

What U.S. government should be obligated to ?
Provide parents and/or guardians with sufficient funds, as a mandatory (!)
As you see, U.S. governing body provides big f... , instead.
Why ?
If majority of population is well educated, than there comes uncertian point of concern :
- power of reigns
Because, a well educated nation would Never allow Any governing body to proceed with Anything but People's demands.

What do you want, then :
- well educated nation, with prosperity for all
- less educated nation, with prosperity for some
??? :-)

And a point aside :
- what makes you so comfortable that well-educated nation would reach the correct decision ?
No assurance, so far, since we all belong to the same species : Homo Sapiens. And as pages of History show, we are so talented and capable of break-through imbecility that we can destroy everything and anything, even ourselves :-)

[mark3748]

Quote by: Rainbow What do you want, then : - well educated nation, with prosperity for all - less educated nation, with prosperity for some ??? :-)

I want a well-educated society with as little governmental interference as possible (read: none in education)

[Rainbow]

Quote by: mark3748 I want a well-educated society with as little governmental interference as possible (read: none in education)

Create your own state, then.

[mark3748]

Quote by: Rainbow Create your own state, then.

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.

[Athena]

What about unifying goals, and local control of education? That is how education was set up, and local taxes paid for it.

There is still a possibility of local control, if people would just take it! For several years, I have been publishing letters to the editor, saying we need public discussion of public education, and not one single person has ever attempted to contact me about this subject. Okay, now what do we do? People are not willing to give their time to become informed and discussing the role education should play in our lives and what we need to do to have the education we want.

Keep in mind, some communities are so poor they can not afford education, and some parents are still illiterate, and there is no way their children will get the education of affuent neighborhoods. We have become aware of New Orlean's education whoo's. Appalachia is a known economically deprived area and people from this area are at a serious disadvantage when they try to find employment outside of their area. Should anything be done to even out education across the US? Should we just ignore those in rural areas and inner city slums? What happens if they move out of their areas, unprepared?

[Athena]

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.

Who is responsible for these teacher's education, and what should local people know to be able to select the best teachers?

[Athena]

Rainbow: A young person needs to understand that a school is not an excuse but a mandatory obligation to the Nation that individual may be held responsible one day to.

How is a young person to come to the understanding that s/he is preparing to be a responsible citizen? How many children have you worked with? I could not get my own children to understand the importance of their education, nor can get my grandchildren to understand the importance of their education.

We are facing a global crisis with populations exceeding resources, and I don't think there is one town the whole US, that is living with this reality. How many of you know what expotential growth is? Does your city manager and major understand expotential growth and its relationship to resources? Do you know how full your schools will be in the next five years? Is your hospital adequate for another 10 years? How well is your water supply and sewage system doing? How active are you in local governing decisions, and what have your children learned from you about their future responsibility? I spoke of local responsibility, but with world markets, our decisions effect the world. Is anyone in your family prepared to step into a national conflict and negoiate peace? Have you been able to convince a child, any of this is important and comes close to being something s/he is responsible for?

You seem to be saying we have a duty but does everyone on volconvo agreement that we have responsibility and duty? This forum is about Society & Rights. The concept of duty doesn't exist. I have requested the word "duty" be added to the word rights, for over a year and that request is igoned. If the adults can not understand the importance of duty, how can they teach their children, and if they are the only voice speaking for duty, why should a child pay any attention to them? I AM NOW SPEAKING ABOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT EDUCATION QUESTION. OUR CULTURE HAS GONE TO HELL AND PUBLIC EDUCATION LEAD THEM DOWN THE PATH

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind Wow, earth to grandpa. Try to land in the pacific ocean.

Ah, condescension.

Quote by: Winter wind 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 don't think there is anything earth shatteringly horrible or idiotic about addressing elementary truths. Governments are abstract collecttivist entities. They are fallible, which is precisely why they should have very limited power. A powerful (in the sense of coercive) system can only exist with delusion and ignorance. It's also reasonable to assume there would be few laws in a truly democratic society, for law enforcement tends to mean elite positions of power. This certainly doesn't mean human beings will abolish literally all rules or all standards, but we should realize that society itself has abstract properties. The legitimacy of a given rule can certainly be questioned.
Yes, we have to call organizations of people something, and "society" is an adequate word, but its organizations are indeed abstract, fallible and alterable.

As for trusting individuals, I also do not have limitless trust in them. That's why I do not respect the authority of any one individual, or any one group, or any one opinion. A wide range of alternative views ought to be considered, when possible (and it often is).
For example, when you go toa doctor you may still get a second opinion. That principle can be applied quite generally. Environments in which people simply carry out orders do not encourage such critical thinking, nor are they intended to.

You mention stealing, which certainly deserves discussion. Is it wrong simply because thieves don't follow the rules? How wrong is it? Is it correct to punish all instances of theft? Is it possible for punishments to be worse than the alleged crime?
It's true that all organizations (even informal ones) have governing tendencies, and these bodies make choices regarding things life theft, murder, rape. However, some of these organizations are themselves systems of theft, and some politicians are undoubtedly criminals. In fact, it's not absolutely crazy to consider warfare de facto criminal behavior. Quite simply, if we acted like the state, we'd all be in jail.

Yes, the government is responsible for "collective communication," but on a selective, ideological basis. This is true for a leader like Saddam Hussein or for US presidents.
It's also true for our education system, which often does promote the status quo. That's the problem I'm highlighting here, not some bizarre theory that all rules and standards can instantly be scrapped. You're presenting a false dichotomy, and predictably. We're taught that if we challenge all authority, it means instant chaos. No, it doesn't. It means basic intellectual principles being applied. It's simply analysis.

Grandpa h.

[mark3748]

Quote by: Athena Who is responsible for these teacher's education, and what should local people know to be able to select the best teachers?

Umm, the teacher. A simple requirement would be a degree in the field they teach. A two-year degree would be adequate for lower grades while a 4-year would be sufficient for middle through high school classes. Mathematics-oriented degree for math, science-oriented degree for science classes, and so on. Even proven experience and knowledge in a given field for many skills would be sufficient.

The community can decide what criteria to use when hiring a teacher and which teachers to hire, either town-hall style or through the city council.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Athena How is a young person to come to the understanding that s/he is preparing to be a responsible citizen? How many children have you worked with? I could not get my own children to understand the importance of their education, nor can get my grandchildren to understand the importance of their education. We are facing a global crisis with populations exceeding resources, and I don't think there is one town the whole US, that is living with this reality. How many of you know what expotential growth is? Does your city manager and major understand expotential growth and its relationship to resources? Do you know how full your schools will be in the next five years? Is your hospital adequate for another 10 years? How well is your water supply and sewage system doing? How active are you in local governing decisions, and what have your children learned from you about their future responsibility? I spoke of local responsibility, but with world markets, our decisions effect the world. Is anyone in your family prepared to step into a national conflict and negoiate peace? Have you been able to convince a child, any of this is important and comes close to being something s/he is responsible for? You seem to be saying we have a duty but does everyone on volconvo agreement that we have responsibility and duty? This forum is about Society & Rights. The concept of duty doesn't exist. I have requested the word "duty" be added to the word rights, for over a year and that request is igoned. If the adults can not understand the importance of duty, how can they teach their children, and if they are the only voice speaking for duty, why should a child pay any attention to them? I AM NOW SPEAKING ABOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT EDUCATION QUESTION. OUR CULTURE HAS GONE TO HELL AND PUBLIC EDUCATION LEAD THEM DOWN THE PATH

#1
That is parents and/or guardians task, Athena

#2, #3
All the primary and secondary public schools should have the same level of education, all over U.S. No exception.
If you suggest that it can be done at local, state levels, then a political and/or administrative body - with all the necessary powers - needs to be created, that would manage and monitor that process.

[Rainbow]

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.

#1
Since an education process is about to take place, then a form of a state is a must for any form community, society, group, etc.

#2
A bad idea.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: grandpa Ah, condescension.

My apologies, but I have someone in my AP class that speaks the same way you type and, no offense, it annoys me a little. Mostly because it isn't concise enough.

Quote by: grandpa I don't think there is anything earth shatteringly horrible or idiotic about addressing elementary truths. Governments are abstract collecttivist entities. They are fallible, which is precisely why they should have very limited power. A powerful (in the sense of coercive) system can only exist with delusion and ignorance. It's also reasonable to assume there would be few laws in a truly democratic society, for law enforcement tends to mean elite positions of power. This certainly doesn't mean human beings will abolish literally all rules or all standards, but we should realize that society itself has abstract properties. The legitimacy of a given rule can certainly be questioned. Yes, we have to call organizations of people something, and "society" is an adequate word, but its organizations are indeed abstract, fallible and alterable. As for trusting individuals, I also do not have limitless trust in them. That's why I do not respect the authority of any one individual, or any one group, or any one opinion. A wide range of alternative views ought to be considered, when possible (and it often is). For example, when you go toa doctor you may still get a second opinion. That principle can be applied quite generally. Environments in which people simply carry out orders do not encourage such critical thinking, nor are they intended to. You mention stealing, which certainly deserves discussion. Is it wrong simply because thieves don't follow the rules? How wrong is it? Is it correct to punish all instances of theft? Is it possible for punishments to be worse than the alleged crime? It's true that all organizations (even informal ones) have governing tendencies, and these bodies make choices regarding things life theft, murder, rape. However, some of these organizations are themselves systems of theft, and some politicians are undoubtedly criminals. In fact, it's not absolutely crazy to consider warfare de facto criminal behavior. Quite simply, if we acted like the state, we'd all be in jail. Yes, the government is responsible for "collective communication," but on a selective, ideological basis. This is true for a leader like Saddam Hussein or for US presidents. It's also true for our education system, which often does promote the status quo. That's the problem I'm highlighting here, not some bizarre theory that all rules and standards can instantly be scrapped. You're presenting a false dichotomy, and predictably. We're taught that if we challenge all authority, it means instant chaos. No, it doesn't. It means basic intellectual principles being applied. It's simply analysis.

This kind of proves it....

I'll chop it up as best as I can.

I don't think there is anything earth shatteringly horrible or idiotic about addressing elementary truths. Governments are abstract collecttivist entities.

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.

They are fallible, which is precisely why they should have very limited power.

Everything is fallible. Even science.

A powerful (in the sense of coercive) system can only exist with delusion and ignorance.

What about laws. Retribution for crimes. only a coercive system of government can employ this.

It's also reasonable to assume there would be few laws in a truly democratic society, for law enforcement tends to mean elite positions of power.

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.

This certainly doesn't mean human beings will abolish literally all rules or all standards, but we should realize that society itself has abstract properties. The legitimacy of a given rule can certainly be questioned.

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.

Yes, we have to call organizations of people something, and "society" is an adequate word, but its organizations are indeed abstract, fallible and alterable.

Again, you are just an organization of cells. Therefore you are abstract too. Should we de-centralize you?

As for trusting individuals, I also do not have limitless trust in them. That's why I do not respect the authority of any one individual, or any one group, or any one opinion. A wide range of alternative views ought to be considered, when possible (and it often is).

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.

For example, when you go toa doctor you may still get a second opinion. That principle can be applied quite generally. Environments in which people simply carry out orders do not encourage such critical thinking, nor are they intended to.

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.

Critical thinking encouraged, simply because the government only functions best when people are questioning it so that improvement is forced.

You mention stealing, which certainly deserves discussion. Is it wrong simply because thieves don't follow the rules? How wrong is it? Is it correct to punish all instances of theft? Is it possible for punishments to be worse than the alleged crime?

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.

It's true that all organizations (even informal ones) have governing tendencies, and these bodies make choices regarding things life theft, murder, rape. However, some of these organizations are themselves systems of theft, and some politicians are undoubtedly criminals.

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.

In fact, it's not absolutely crazy to consider warfare de facto criminal behavior. Quite simply, if we acted like the state, we'd all be in jail.

Considering it is weighted according to percent of income and that the welfare washes back into those that are poorer, wouldn't you say that is more of a Robin Hood kind of theft?
It isn't crazy to think of welfare as criminal, just wrong. welfare is legal by the standards of the government, and if you don't like it, again, you get to vote people out who are for welfare.

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.)

Yes, the government is responsible for "collective communication," but on a selective, ideological basis. This is true for a leader like Saddam Hussein or for US presidents.

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

Please, Saddam was poor at collective communication, if he even did it at all.

It's also true for our education system, which often does promote the status quo.

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

That's the problem I'm highlighting here, not some bizarre theory that all rules and standards can instantly be scrapped.

I like the other rules and standards, just not the education one. So I want to work within the other rules and standards to accomplish my goal, (which shouldn't be hard as long as I can get a big enough podium to make my noise.)

you're presenting a false dichotomy, and predictably. We're taught that if we challenge all authority, it means instant chaos. No, it doesn't. It means basic intellectual principles being applied.

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.

It's simply analysis.

simply... -_-'

[grandpa]

Quote by: Rainbow #1 Since an education process is