Private school is child slavery!!!

[cunicula]

Ummm.. no. My mother never spanked me. Ever. Nor did she use any other form of discipline at all (quiet corner time etc.). Instead she tried to persuade me to do what she wanted using words.

In fact, like a true statist, she intervened when she saw people hitting their children in public. Humorously, this once resulted in a fight between my mom and a rather large African-American lady.
I guess that intervention to help defenseless children is what you call 'selective violence.' I am all for it.

[MoonShadow]

Ummm.. no. My mother never spanked me. Ever. Nor did not use any other form of discipline at all (quiet corner time etc.). Instead she tried to persuade me to do what she wanted using words.

In fact, like a true statist, she intervened when she saw people hitting their children in public. Humorously, this once resulted in a fight between my mom and a rather large African-American lady.
I guess that intervention to help defenseless children is what you call 'selective violence.' I am all for it.

How does that data point fit into your worldview, guys?

[MoonShadow]

So I havent read the whole thread nor do I intend to, I went to a private christian school 7-11th grade,  I was kicked out my junior year for drinking. I blew my knee out during football and had gotten fairly addicted to painkillers thanks to a generous 6x60 percocet (sp?) 30mg script. First time ever using drugs and I went overboard. All the while my sister had to drop out of school for a semester and was in the hospital for 3 months, not one person ever called and asked how I was. I was living at my buddies house because my parents were with my sister at the hospital and my coaches/teachers couldnt have cared less. Private [Christian] institutions as I know them are hypocritical, so much so I am no longer a practicing christian, not one time over the course of 4 years there did I ever feel "God's love" there were good people there and I do not intend to bash christians for the wrong doing of a few.

Now the worst part of it all is that when you sign up to go to school there both you AND your parents sign forms saying that they are allowed to discipline you in whatever manner they see fit and you are not allowed to sue them for wrong doing. In a sense I had to sign away personal rights to attend school there. Instead of getting detention for being late our football coach was informed and we were punished by at practice, our coach happened to be the dean of students and not the kind of man to fuck with.

I graduated from PLD in Lexington and while my class was 500 compared to 120 at my other school the group of friends I have are the most loyal, kind, fair and generous people you will ever know. When I have kids they will go to public school no question, of the friends I know from the private school 4 have ended up in rehab 2 are pregnant and 6 have dropped out of school that leaves 3 still on track to be successful... Now with my group of friends we are all juniors at the University of Kentucky and only one person has decided to drop out of college. I think there is no question which environment better prepares you for life. Of course the only advantage of going to private school is the networking, a guy 3 years older who went there was on Romney's campaign team first year out of college. If you live in the US you pay for education either way, but the extra $$ for private school is not at all worth it.

If you want good public school for your kids move to Singapore. #1 in the world. Year after year after year. Have you heard of the Singaporean method of teaching mathematics? We use it to pwn everyone. True, the statists in South Korea and Scandanavia are close. But we have the strongest state education system and come out on top.

I can see that even in the US though, the state does better than those worthless Christian motherfuckers.

Considering that I do homeschool, I have heard of the Singaporean method. I wasn't impressed, myself.

[cunicula]

Considering that I do homeschool, I have heard of the Singaporean method. I wasn't impressed, myself.

You have to remove the capacity for your children to feel before they can learn properly. We are also #1 in the world for lack of emotions. When asked did you have an smile, laugh, feel angry or sad yesterday, only 36% of Singaporeans report yes. That is the lowest rate of emotion in the world. We even beat out the ex-Communist countries. Your children probably still don't know how to master their emotions. How do you expect them to learn if they are always getting distracted by emotional noise?

[MoonShadow]

Considering that I do homeschool, I have heard of the Singaporean method. I wasn't impressed, myself.

You have to remove your capacity for your children to feel before they can learn properly. We are also #1 in the world for lack of emotions. When asked did you have an smile, laugh, feel angry or sad yesterday, only 36% of Singaporeans report yes. That is the lowest rate of emotion in the world. We even beat out the ex-Communist countries. Your children probably still don't know how to master their emotions. How do you expect them to learn if they are always getting distracted by emotional noise?

Well, that's on theory.  The other is that I'm much less concerned that they master math than enjoy their adulthood.  What is the suicide rate there, btw?

[cunicula]

Well, that's on theory.  The other is that I'm much less concerned that they master math than enjoy their adulthood.  What is the suicide rate there, btw?

That might be a state secret. Wait a moment while I check. Nope, how disappointing. Damned transparency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

10.1 per 100k according to the above link. This is lower than the US at 12.0. We also have much lower rates of depression than most other developed countries.
Are only mental trouble is obsessive-compulsive disorder. It is about 3 times the world average and is probably under-reported.
I think it comes from the state always compelling us to do things. People get really anxious about incurring the State's disapproval.
It is too bad. Statism has its small problems.

More interesting is that the Singaporean State is conducting "randomized behavior modification trials." Those are exactly the words used by the state newspaper.
They are installing loudspeakers to remind citizens to be clean and tidy at randomly selected high foot traffic locations and then measuring how this effects littering in these areas.
To prevent this from being too obnoxious, they are also broadcasting American popular music from the loudspeakers.

[meowmeowbrowncow]

Considering that I do homeschool, I have heard of the Singaporean method. I wasn't impressed, myself.

You have to remove your capacity for your children to feel before they can learn properly. We are also #1 in the world for lack of emotions. When asked did you have an smile, laugh, feel angry or sad yesterday, only 36% of Singaporeans report yes. That is the lowest rate of emotion in the world. We even beat out the ex-Communist countries. Your children probably still don't know how to master their emotions. How do you expect them to learn if they are always getting distracted by emotional noise?

While the world will demand increasingly productive people the thought of humans as logic machines without feelings to interrupt that pursuit is majorly disturbing.

I'm not convinced mastering emotion is lacking emotion.

[Rudd-O]

Considering that I do homeschool, I have heard of the Singaporean method. I wasn't impressed, myself.

You have to remove your capacity for your children to feel before they can learn properly. We are also #1 in the world for lack of emotions. When asked did you have an smile, laugh, feel angry or sad yesterday, only 36% of Singaporeans report yes. That is the lowest rate of emotion in the world. We even beat out the ex-Communist countries. Your children probably still don't know how to master their emotions. How do you expect them to learn if they are always getting distracted by emotional noise?

While the world will demand increasingly productive people the thought of humans as logic machines without feelings to interrupt that pursuit is majorly disturbing.

I'm not convinced mastering emotion is lacking emotion.

I'm not convinced either.  Mastering emotion doesn't mean squelching it.  From the remnants of what I can see quoted here, I imagine that cunticula obviously has suffered abuse at the hands of a pretty totalitarian system ("Singaporean" method) but he selectively blocks or doesn't remember the abuse.

[meowmeowbrowncow]

Yeah.


Reading that conjures up ideas such as 'thought police' and orwellian worlds.  Eliminating emotion is ...insidious.


Granted I would have liked a better public education.  My experience was a zoo-like atmosphere and very disappointing.

[myrkul]

I really don't see why you have such a problem with it, since that "one law" says only "Don't bully, don't hit, and don't steal." Did your mommy not teach you these things?

Rather than being sarcastic, ask yourself: don't steal what? Property is enshrined into that law like it's an almighty "act of god", rather than something invented by the human intellect. But it seems you are too brainwashed to see it no matter what I say.

Property is not "invented" by the human intellect. It is the natural state of things. You own your body because you, and you alone, are responsible for it's actions. No one can make you do something without your permission, without using coercion or force. And that is why coercion and initiatory force are morally wrong: because they violate the ultimate property right, that of your own body.

All other property rights stem from that one. Because you own your body, you own the results of that body's efforts, the labor and the product of that labor are yours. If someone were to take from you the products of that labor by force or coercion, or fraud, then they have stolen from you. Stolen the products of your labor.

That, then, is your answer: Don't steal what? The products of another person's labor. The hard-earned gain of their blood, sweat, and tears. To attempt to do so is to seek unearned gain, and violates that person's rights to the ownership of the products of his body's labor, and thus, his body.

And even if all of that were just so much sophistry, private property just works better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=66QdQErc8JQ

[myrkul]

Ummm.. no. My mother never spanked me. Ever. Nor did not use any other form of discipline at all (quiet corner time etc.). Instead she tried to persuade me to do what she wanted using words.

In fact, like a true statist, she intervened when she saw people hitting their children in public. Humorously, this once resulted in a fight between my mom and a rather large African-American lady.
I guess that intervention to help defenseless children is what you call 'selective violence.' I am all for it.

How does that data point fit into your worldview, guys?

Even assuming a single word this troll types is true, Mommy doesn't have to be the one abusing him:

You have to remove the capacity for your children to feel before they can learn properly.

Yaaaay conformist robot factories! How in the hell is emotionally deadening your child not abuse?

[MoonShadow]

Ummm.. no. My mother never spanked me. Ever. Nor did not use any other form of discipline at all (quiet corner time etc.). Instead she tried to persuade me to do what she wanted using words.

In fact, like a true statist, she intervened when she saw people hitting their children in public. Humorously, this once resulted in a fight between my mom and a rather large African-American lady.
I guess that intervention to help defenseless children is what you call 'selective violence.' I am all for it.

How does that data point fit into your worldview, guys?

Even assuming a single word this troll types is true, Mommy doesn't have to be the one abusing him:

You have to remove the capacity for your children to feel before they can learn properly.

Yaaaay conformist robot factories! How in the hell is emotionally deadening your child not abuse?

I can't answer that, but my point is that you don't get to decide.  Not all cultures are equal, but that kind of attitude, metasized to an entire population, leads to colonialism for their own good.  It's not a ancap position to take to compel others to do anything, whenever there is a doubt.  And, honestly, there should be doubt on your part concerning other peoples' children.

[MoonShadow]

Property is not "invented" by the human intellect. It is the natural state of things.

Ahh, but aren't you confusing two different definitions of the word 'property'?
I could say that one property of the sky is that it's blue. We can even map a slightly different concept, that of 'territoriality', and say that the sky's blueness belongs to it. We could then build on this concept and say that a person can also own some physical property, and that that property belongs to the person.

However, this line of reasoning is based on a mistake. It's a mistake to say that the sky's 'blueness' is something inherent about the sky. 'Blue' is what I imagine the sky to be after I receive electrical impulses from my eyes, and my brain makes up something called colour. Your sense of blueness could be different. The same could be said of any property.

And even if all of that were just so much sophistry, private property just works better...

On a certain level I think we actually agree here. The "planned society" Communist experiments in various parts of Europe were a miserable failure. Their Marxist ideals that enshrined 'community' and rejected 'property' were always going to be a disaster. Maybe in theory they could have aimed for a minimalist, or practically non-existent State, even voluntary (maybe they did?!). It's just that some members of society didn't want that. Therefore the proponents of Communism had to make a choice - let it all be voluntary and chaotic, or make a concerted effort to educate people about the advantages of Communism and why private property should be completely rejected. They chose the latter option and they failed.

You can learn from others' mistakes.

Actually, there are examples of both methods in practice.  Communism always fails. Several early American colonies, including the Pilgrams of Plymouth Rock, Mass., and in evry case roughly half died of starvation the first winter.  The indian tribes of the East coast didn't have a developed theory of real estate property, but they certainly did understand that the corn planted, cultivated and grown by one family was to be consumed by that family, and that it was rude to harm that plot or take the corn without permission.  In many cases, the local land was never really 'owned' in the traditional sense by those colonists, but in every case they came to acknowledge that on family functionally possessed the amount of land that they lived and worked for as long as they did so, and that the products of same certainly was that family's property.

Ergo, private property is the net result of natural human habits and forces within a community, and the larger that community grows, the more defined that property must become in order for that community to continue to prosper.  Loosely defined property rules are fine for small or temporary communities, and even communism works at the scale of the family (or even up to the small church), the problem is that neither scales well to a greater society. 

[myrkul]

Property is not "invented" by the human intellect. It is the natural state of things.

Ahh, but aren't you confusing two different definitions of the word 'property'?

No. You may be, but I am not.

I could say that one property of the sky is that it's blue. We can even map a slightly different concept, that of 'territoriality', and say that the sky's blueness belongs to it. We could then build on this concept and say that a person can also own some physical property, and that that property belongs to the person.

However, this line of reasoning is based on a mistake. It's a mistake to say that the sky's 'blueness' is something inherent about the sky. 'Blue' is what I imagine the sky to be after I receive electrical impulses from my eyes, and my brain makes up something called colour. Your sense of blueness could be different. The same could be said of any property.

You're deflecting, but I'll knock it down anyway. It gives me an opportunity to teach you something. We might well have different cultural or personal referents for the color we see when we look into the sky - the color of your mother's eyes, the color of a jay's wing - but regardless of how we describe it, we are both seeing a wavelength of light between 450–495 nm. And when we look into the same sky at the same time, we see the same wavelength. That is the difference between subjective perceptions, and objective reality: Subjectively, you may see a shade just lighter than your mother's eyes, and I may see a shade just darker than a jay's wing, but objectively, we're both receiving light at a wavelength of 475 nm.

Now, back to personal property:

You own your body because you, and you alone, are responsible for it's actions. No one can make you do something without your permission, without using coercion or force. And that is why coercion and initiatory force are morally wrong: because they violate the ultimate property right, that of your own body.

This is not a confusion of the concept of "property" as "that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner," and "property" as "an essential or distinctive attribute or quality of a thing." No, rather, it is wholly under the first definition. It is the contention that you own your body; it is your possession - the only one you come into the world with, in fact. Your body is your possession because you are the only one who possesses it.

Ergo, private property is the net result of natural human habits and forces within a community, and the larger that community grows, the more defined that property must become in order for that community to continue to prosper.  Loosely defined property rules are fine for small or temporary communities, and even communism works at the scale of the family (or even up to the small church), the problem is that neither scales well to a greater society. 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[myrkul]

It's not a ancap position to take to compel others to do anything, whenever there is a doubt.  And, honestly, there should be doubt on your part concerning other peoples' children.

Oh, but it is an AnCap position to compel others not to do something, for instance to not hit someone. That's called "defense," and it most certainly can be used third-party, especially when the person being defended is incapable of defending themselves against the aggressor. There is no doubt. A person hitting a kid is attacking a defenseless person.

[Rudd-O]

It's not a ancap position to take to compel others to do anything, whenever there is a doubt.  And, honestly, there should be doubt on your part concerning other peoples' children.

Oh, but it is an AnCap position to compel others not to do something, for instance to not hit someone. That's called "defense," and it most certainly can be used third-party, especially when the person being defended is incapable of defending themselves against the aggressor. There is no doubt. A person hitting a kid is attacking a defenseless person.

Well said. Also, it IS an an cap position to compel certain people doing certain things -- it is perfectly compatible with an cap to compel, using proportional (up to deadly) violence even, a person who rapes, who kills, who robs, or who assaults other human beings (children included), to get said person to stop. Defense of others is just as ethically valid and just as defense of self.

[Richy_T]

To prevent this from being too obnoxious, they are also broadcasting American popular music from the loudspeakers.

Quite, quite masterful.

[MoonShadow]

It's not a ancap position to take to compel others to do anything, whenever there is a doubt.  And, honestly, there should be doubt on your part concerning other peoples' children.

Oh, but it is an AnCap position to compel others not to do something, for instance to not hit someone. That's called "defense," and it most certainly can be used third-party, especially when the person being defended is incapable of defending themselves against the aggressor. There is no doubt. A person hitting a kid is attacking a defenseless person.

If you can justify intervening with force on behalf of my child, based solely upon your own judgement as to what constitutes initiation of force, then you can justify any singular or collective action at all; and morality truly becomes relative. You have, therefore, proven that ancap is as unstable ( and thus just as impossible) as communism.  There still must be some kind of standard, and you know that your position is contrary to 4K years of Judeo-Christian 'standards'.  Not to mention terriblely impractical.

[cunicula]

There still must be some kind of standard, and you know that your position is contrary to 4K years of Judeo-Christian 'standards'.

Nah man. There is no god. Everything is permissible.

What are you going to do with the Confucian cultures? Statism is the core dogma of Confucianism.

[myrkul]

It's not a ancap position to take to compel others to do anything, whenever there is a doubt.  And, honestly, there should be doubt on your part concerning other peoples' children.

Oh, but it is an AnCap position to compel others not to do something, for instance to not hit someone. That's called "defense," and it most certainly can be used third-party, especially when the person being defended is incapable of defending themselves against the aggressor. There is no doubt. A person hitting a kid is attacking a defenseless person.

If you can justify intervening with force on behalf of my child, based solely upon your own judgement as to what constitutes initiation of force, then you can justify any singular or collective action at all; and morality truly becomes relative.

No, it's not my "judgment" as to what constitutes initiation of force. I'm simply applying the same standard to adult/child interactions as I do to adult/adult interactions. And I believe the force was brought into the equation by you. Were you not the one that would respond with the use of deadly force to my verbal statements that you should stop striking your child?

Where, exactly, in your moral code, do these two phrases differ, that one would be justifiably responded to with deadly force, while the other would not?
"Hey, stop raping that woman!"
"Hey, stop hitting that kid!"

There still must be some kind of standard, and you know that your position is contrary to 4K years of Judeo-Christian 'standards'. 

There is a standard: No person has the right to initiate the use of force, the threat of force, or fraud upon another person or their property. And yes, this is contrary to 4 thousand years of abusive "standards," that's the idea. "Person" doesn't just mean "person who looks like me," or "person who has a penis," or "person who likes the opposite sex," or "person who prays to the same god as I do," or "person over a certain arbitrary age." It means all people, young and old, male and female, of all colors, religions, ethnicities, creeds, and orientations. Children are people too.

After all, you said it yourself:

we recognize that he will have rights in the future, and thus he has them now.