Freedom is ...

[Dalkore]

If ancap is only compatible with intelligent people then we should stop talking about it because it will always be an ideal and could never really exist. But ancap is compatible with the unintelligent, they would just be worse off. Maybe that's why the unintelligent argue against ancap...

Whoa, watch yourself.   Don't think that to agree with AnCap makes your intelligent and to disagree means the opposite.  That would definitely tell me something about your intelligence level in the discussion of philosophy and dissent.

I will allow you to retract your statement.



D

[hazek]

When you say educated, what areas do we need to improve the current education?   What subjects do they need more education of?

People aren't being taught how to think only what to think. This is the number one problem the current education system has, kids never learn that if they want to think correctly, i.e. think in a way that will yield the best possible resaults they need to correctly apply reason/logic and empirical observation.

Instead kids are bombarded with facts that they must memorize in order to pass a test, not to mention that while being taught these fact they are also subtly being taught obedience to authority and the fallacious virtue of a violent state.

[Dalkore]

There is the list without Government.   Political Movements stays because even without Government, people will still lobby each other about the issues that affect them.

Why is it harmful?   Well having everyone operate only for consumption of goods and profit makes a pretty thin culture.  So the first example would be a business person that does only want to increase his wealth, he might fund projects that sway people to follow a trend in which he produces for and makes a profit.  Maybe he has a particular view of the world and believes that is the only correct manner, then he may use his wealth and influence to get "experts" to agree with him and indoctrinate the children into this way of thinking before they have had time to mentally develop and experience the world first hand to make up their own mind.

You can already see this on a daily basis, very similar messages.   Consume this, be like this, approve this, your not complete unless you drive this, idolize this, etc....  

You can wear the blinders if you want but I am fully aware of the influencers and messages at play.  You may want to focus you energy against government but just as you have said (not you but others), government is used as a tool.  A tool by whom?

I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. You think it's wrong to attempt to influence others?

I'm not wearing any blinders, that I know of, at all. The influence you speak of is quite easy to avoid. Especially considering I have a choice in the matter. I can also teach my children to recognize such influence (this is my responsibility after all) and think for themselves. Laws on the other hand, not so much. If the federal government says I must or mustn't do this, well I have little choice in the matter.

Yes, I believe some form of influence especially ones that can be only performed if you have lots of capital are bad and harmful.  It is a case by case basis so I can not blanket all influence and propaganda.  Let me say that currently, a majority of it is bad and harmful.  Currently.

[myrkul]

Why is it harmful?   Well having everyone operate only for consumption of goods and profit makes a pretty thin culture.

What makes you think that only profit would drive everyone? For that matter, what makes you think that all profit is monetary?

So the first example would be a business person that does only want to increase his wealth, he might fund projects that sway people to follow a trend in which he produces for and makes a profit.  

Yes, that's called advertising. It's not a problem.

Maybe he has a particular view of the world and believes that is the only correct manner, then he may use his wealth and influence to get "experts" to agree with him and indoctrinate the children into this way of thinking before they have had time to mentally develop and experience the world first hand to make up their own mind.

Which children? At what school? And what's keeping the parents from switching schools, once they see what's happening?

[Dalkore]

When you say educated, what areas do we need to improve the current education?   What subjects do they need more education of?

People aren't being taught how to think only what to think. This is the number one problem the current education system has, kids never learn that if they want to think correctly, i.e. think in a way that will yield the best possible results they need to correctly apply reason/logic and empirical observation.

Instead kids are bombarded with facts that they must memorize in order to pass a test, not to mention that while being taught these fact they are also subtly being taught obedience to authority and the fallacious virtue of a violent state.

Now we have an area of agreement we can build from.   I agree so much.  I actually want to teach a class on "how to think 101" & "critical analysis". 

[Dalkore]

Why is it harmful?   Well having everyone operate only for consumption of goods and profit makes a pretty thin culture.

What makes you think that only profit would drive everyone? For that matter, what makes you think that all profit is monetary?

So the first example would be a business person that does only want to increase his wealth, he might fund projects that sway people to follow a trend in which he produces for and makes a profit.  

Yes, that's called advertising. It's not a problem.

Maybe he has a particular view of the world and believes that is the only correct manner, then he may use his wealth and influence to get "experts" to agree with him and indoctrinate the children into this way of thinking before they have had time to mentally develop and experience the world first hand to make up their own mind.

Which children? At what school? And what's keeping the parents from switching schools, once they see what's happening?

1.  I don't think all profit is monetary.  I don't but that is the common message these days and many people fall into herd mentality. 

2.  Advertising is a problem.  We don't need the complete commercialization of our society of lives.   I didn't volunteer for that but it is forced on my everywhere.  There are many South America cities where they have outlawed billboards and they are much more pleasant to walk around and they have a vibrant commercial district with annual growth of their lower and middle class.

3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

[hazek]

2.  Advertising is a problem.  

No. It's a symptom of the problem we just both agreed on. Advertising has minimal effect on me because I studied it's effect and try to be self aware about my actions. Plus because I studied it I do my best to avoid it (thank luck we have adblock  )

[myrkul]

3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

[hazek]

3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there.  

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I mean seriously, that's my main beef with your posts too.

[Dalkore]

3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I point these things out because they would persist in both systems.

[Dalkore]

3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there.  

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I mean seriously, that's my main beef with your posts too.

I was just writing a post saying the same thing, but when I refreshed to preview, I noticed that I was late to the party.

It must be nice to all repeat each other.  Its like an echo chamber.  Don't worry, I got enough for all of you.

[myrkul]

3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I point these things out because they would persist in both systems.

Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone.

[Dalkore]

3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I point these things out because they would persist in both systems.

Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone.

Yes they would.   Your patently wrong in this assertion.  The list I mentioned which in most part already is private would still be subject to that type of perverse influence.  Keep dreaming Myrkul.   

[myrkul]

3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I point these things out because they would persist in both systems.

Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone.

Yes they would.   [You're] patently wrong in this assertion.  The list I mentioned which in most part already is private would still be subject to that type of perverse influence.  Keep dreaming Myrkul.   

I can back my assertion with logic, can you say the same?

[Dalkore]

3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I point these things out because they would persist in both systems.

Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone.

Yes they would.   [You're] patently wrong in this assertion.  The list I mentioned which in most part already is private would still be subject to that type of perverse influence.  Keep dreaming Myrkul.   

I can back my assertion with logic, can you say the same?

I do not believe you can.

[myrkul]

3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I point these things out because they would persist in both systems.

Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone.

Yes they would.   [You're] patently wrong in this assertion.  The list I mentioned which in most part already is private would still be subject to that type of perverse influence.  Keep dreaming Myrkul.   

I can back my assertion with logic, can you say the same?

I do not believe you can.

I note that this is not a yes, indicating that you cannot. That's beside the point, however, so I won't address it.

As I said, I can explain why private schools would be affordable, and why they would teach the curriculum the parents want, and as I said, it can be summed up by the fact that even the poorest Americans can afford color televisions. Think about that for a few minutes before continuing.

OK, is it good and soaked in? Have you thought about why even the poorest people in America have color TVs? The answer is the market. People want color TVs. People want education. Because the people want these things, other people, seeking to make a buck, provide these things to those people. They know that the more people that can afford to buy their product, the more money they will make from selling that product. So they sell it at a price that people can afford. If they cannot sell it a profit, they can reduce the featureset until they get a profitable product for that pricepoint. A basic television is cheap to produce. Likewise a basic education (Reading, writing, and math, and most importantly how to learn) can be provided very cheaply, and not take too long to instil. Extra features (classes) can be added on, but they raise the price a little bit. If a school does not offer the curriculum that the parent wants, then they will enroll the child in a different school, which does, or they can always teach the child anything that they want beyond the basics themselves.

Monopolies do not serve the customers. Companies in market competition do. That is why private schools would be more affordable and teach the curriculum that the parents (their customers) want.

[FirstAscent]

3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I point these things out because they would persist in both systems.

Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone.

Yes they would.   [You're] patently wrong in this assertion.  The list I mentioned which in most part already is private would still be subject to that type of perverse influence.  Keep dreaming Myrkul.   

I can back my assertion with logic, can you say the same?

I do not believe you can.

I note that this is not a yes, indicating that you cannot. That's beside the point, however, so I won't address it.

As I said, I can explain why private schools would be affordable, and why they would teach the curriculum the parents want, and as I said, it can be summed up by the fact that even the poorest Americans can afford color televisions. Think about that for a few minutes before continuing.

OK, is it good and soaked in? Have you thought about why even the poorest people in America have color TVs? The answer is the market. People want color TVs. People want education. Because the people want these things, other people, seeking to make a buck, provide these things to those people. They know that the more people that can afford to buy their product, the more money they will make from selling that product. So they sell it at a price that people can afford. If they cannot sell it a profit, they can reduce the featureset until they get a profitable product for that pricepoint. A basic television is cheap to produce. Likewise a basic education (Reading, writing, and math, and most importantly how to learn) can be provided very cheaply, and not take too long to instil. Extra features (classes) can be added on, but they raise the price a little bit. If a school does not offer the curriculum that the parent wants, then they will enroll the child in a different school, which does, or they can always teach the child anything that they want beyond the basics themselves.

Monopolies do not serve the customers. Companies in market competition do. That is why private schools would be more affordable and teach the curriculum that the parents (their customers) want.

Cool! Education for the rich.

[myrkul]

Cool! Education for the rich.

I think you may be confusing education and schooling.

Schooling for the rich, education for the masses.

[FirstAscent]

Cool! Education for the rich.

I think you may be confusing education and schooling.

Schooling for the rich, education for the masses.

You mean a reduced and cheap product for the masses, graduated in such a way as to insure the poor get the least education. How thoughtful.

[myrkul]

Cool! Education for the rich.

I think you may be confusing education and schooling.

Schooling for the rich, education for the masses.

You mean a reduced and cheap product for the masses, graduated in such a way as to insure the poor get the least education. How thoughtful.

Once again, you're confusing schooling and education. Everyone gets the same education (as I said, reading, writing, and math, and most importantly how to learn) but not everyone gets the same schooling - classes, curriculum, etc.