Are liberal democrats violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

**ttwtt78640** · 09-02-19, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by aociswundumho

1) I don't understand the question. Say I want to learn how to weld. What difference does it make as to how much knowledge I have when looking for a welding school to attend?

2) What world do you live in where a private business must tolerate kids or adults who refuse to behave?

3) The idea is to abolish public schools completely.

1) Teaching a kid to weld is wonderful but not at the exclusion of teaching English, math and other subjects.

2) Exactly, yet why should the public schools not be able to impose those same standards?

3) Which is precisely why your brand of "school choice" is opposed. You want public funding of private entities (aka crony capitalism). That mission could also be accomplished by simply removing all school taxes, but you seem to want to keep the income redistribution alive and (essentially) privatize the public schools.

**aociswundumho** · 09-02-19, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by ttwtt78640

1) Teaching a kid to weld is wonderful but not at the exclusion of teaching English, math and other subjects.

2) Exactly, yet why should the public schools not be able to impose those same standards?

3) Which is precisely why your brand of "school choice" is opposed. You want public funding of private entities (aka crony capitalism). That mission could also be accomplished by simply removing all school taxes, but you seem to want to keep the income redistribution alive and (essentially) privatize the public schools.

1) I still don't understand the question you were asking. Could you rephrase it?

2) They should.

3) A voucher system is not crony capitalism. Do you consider food stamps to be crony capitalism?

**ttwtt78640** · 09-02-19, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by aociswundumho

1) I still don't understand the question you were asking. Could you rephrase it?

2) They should.

3) A voucher system is not crony capitalism. Do you consider food stamps to be crony capitalism?

1) There was no question asked. The point was that removing any need to provide a complete basic HS education because Johnny just wants to learn how to weld (or preach the gospel) is insane.

2) Agreed.

3) Yes, since it allows morons to spend public funds foolishly.

**AmNat** · 09-02-19, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by aociswundumho

From Article 26, Section 3:

Seems to me a voucher system for education is the only way parents would have this "right to choose".

Compare a public housing project to the section 8 voucher system. A public housing project is owned by the government, just like a public school is owned by the government. The Section 8 system gets poor people out of terrible public housing projects and lets them find a place in private housing. A voucher for education would let parents pull their kids out of failing public schools and let them pay for a private school.

For a voucher system to be successfully universalized, the law would need to regulate the prices private schools could charge. Also, given the Obama DoE's policy of accusing districts with semi-functional school discipline of "discrimination", and the fact that those laws are theoretically applicable to private schools, the discrimination laws would need to be repealed.

**chuckiechan** · 09-02-19, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by ttwtt78640

Somewhat true, but you can't deny that vouchers would allow (only?) the better students to opt into private schools while increasing the percentage of worse students left in the public school system.

So why force the good students to stay in crappy schools. When they leave, the teachers will have more time to spend on bad students, uh... teaching.

**Acadia** · 09-02-19, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by ttwtt78640

Somewhat true, but you can't deny that vouchers would allow (only?) the better students to opt into private schools while increasing the percentage of worse students left in the public school system.

I think that beats better students being stuck in a crappy school. It's a trade off.

**ttwtt78640** · 09-02-19, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by chuckiechan

So why force the good students to stay in crappy schools. When they leave, the teachers will have more time to spend on bad students, uh... teaching.

They are incapable of teaching bad students, but are paid for pretending to do so since they can't get rid of them.

**ttwtt78640** · 09-02-19, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Acadia

I think that beats better students being stuck in a crappy school. It's a trade off.

Why spend anything on a crappy school? Folks have to wake up and admit that you can't force feed an education into someone's head. Move the just pretend students and the just pretend teachers into a just pretend school and then just pretend to fund it.

**Carjosse** · 09-02-19, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by aociswundumho

From Article 26, Section 3:

Seems to me a voucher system for education is the only way parents would have this "right to choose".

Compare a public housing project to the section 8 voucher system. A public housing project is owned by the government, just like a public school is owned by the government. The Section 8 system gets poor people out of terrible public housing projects and lets them find a place in private housing. A voucher for education would let parents pull their kids out of failing public schools and let them pay for a private school.

Did not read the details of it did you? All it means is that parents have the right to enroll their children in a private school, no where does it say a nation must provide funding or subsidies for it.

Maybe instead you should just invest in making public schools better. The government has no business giving a single cent to private schools.

**TheEconomist** · 09-09-19, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Carjosse

The government has no business giving a single cent to private schools.

There is quite an extraordinary amount of businesses supplying goods and services to the government. Somehow, it makes sense to buy computers, whiteboards, markers, furniture, and books from private businesses and to contract the construction of school buildings to private businesses, but we draw the line at managing the school. That must be done by bureaucrats. It's completely ridiculous.

You shouldn't be worrying about whether or not someone profits from supplying goods and services to the government. You should be worried about how to get the biggest bang for your buck every time you use public funds. It's the only part that really matters, assuming you do want to go ahead and spend public funds in the first place. I think you would agree it would be idiotic to opt for publicly supplying a service if you can contract it out for cents on the buck in the name that we need to make sure some Jack can't buy a yacht or a mansion. I am not saying it would be necessarily the case with schooling, though having seen how bad a job government agencies do everywhere at almost everything, it wouldn't exactly shock me. To be fair, some of those problems are related to the needless obstacles we throw in the way of people who manage public services more than to the public aspect of the organization. One such obstacle is the insane difficulty of firing morons who underperform and kill morale. If a manager doesn't have much flexibility, whether or not he is motivated by profits doesn't matter: he can't do what he should be doing.

As for the issue of performance, it seems that self-selection plays a big role in forming successful students. If a school has a reputation of being highly demanding and tests students for admission, it will screen out every student who is not willing to put in the effort, who has behavior problems or whose parents are not interested in going through any kind of tedious process. It's not so much that you always get geniuses as the fact it's damn easy to disturb teaching. Just one idiot can waste it for 25 or 30 others in a classroom. It might explain why some private schools do so well: they have zero tolerance for misbehavior and people who don't want to put in an extra effort simply do not enroll.

As someone else put it, you can't cram education in the head of people who don't want to learn. Meanwhile, if you put them in the middle of others who do want to learn, you're screwing the others out of a decent education.

Thread: Are liberal democrats violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Thread Tools

Display

Re: Are liberal democrats violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Re: Are liberal democrats violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Re: Are liberal democrats violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Re: Are liberal democrats violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Re: Are liberal democrats violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Re: Are liberal democrats violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Re: Are liberal democrats violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Re: Are liberal democrats violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Re: Are liberal democrats violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Re: Are liberal democrats violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Posting Permissions