Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:30:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1296 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > But are those children any better off now? If a child has whatever it
> > takes to succeed in school when the parents have no care, they ought to
> > still do well. There will be organizations working with these children
> > (there are now). They will find most of the children who will benefit.
> > NO system can guarantee that NO ONE will fall through the cracks.
>
> That's a lovely notion, but it seems at best unrealistic. "Whatever it
> takes" is a lot more than academic ability or even a knack for succeeding on
> tests; it stems from a solid upbringing and a sound family unit, and there are
> demographic correlations across the board to demonstrate the negative effects
> of poverty, divorce, abuse, parental drug abuse, and countless other factors
> that keep children who may have "whatever it takes" from succeeding in
> school. Besides which, the idea that some children have "whatever it takes"
> to succeed despite the negative influences of their environment implies some
> innate advantage that so enables them and sounds disturbingly like an
> assumption of hereditary predisposition to success.
If the kids don't have whatever it takes, they don't have it. No amount
of government posturing is going to fix it. If people really feel these
kids deserve a break (and perhaps if this REALY is the case, they do),
then charity will step in. I dispute the thought though that these kids
are totally lost. I have read many articles on people who have set up
some kind of organization to help kids like this, and have been
successefull (one recent one which comes to mind is the grade school
teacher who adopted a whole class of underpriviledged kids, those kids
are now graduating from high school, and I think almost all are going to
college [assuming I'm remembering right]).
"Whatever it takes" is certainly not hereditary or we wouldn't have so
many rags to riches stories (and the reverse)... Most of "whatever it
takes" is someone else caring. I see evidence that people do, and with a
system which actually rewards teachers (I think teachers pay is going to
rise dramatically in Liberatopia), I expect a LOT more teachers to care.
> > Of course many of the children who are not sent to school by their
> > parents will end up running afoul of the law. You can bet your booties
> > that however the justice system works, I'm going to expect that it will
> > do something to make sure that these kids get an education to make them
> > sufficiently productive to offset the cost of supporting them.
>
> That's quite a trick! What manner of education will the justice system
> impart to these poor souls? License plate manufacture? And who will run or
> even fund these education factories? The parents who had insufficient money
> to educate their children in the first place?
There will be some kind of correctional system, funded by fees to
property owners who wish to keep the crooks of the street at worst. In
order for this correctional system to operate the most efficiently, it
must do more than simply warehouse the crooks. It will (over the long
term) find the most cost effective amount of education to give to
produce the most income from the crooks. Those crooks who are not
"lifers" will leave with a usefull skill, and in many cases will have
paid off any financial debt they owe.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
209 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
