Blur - 07 May 2009 08:23 PM

You can only have liberty if there are LAWS:
...
You will always need to abandon a small part of YOUR liberty to respect the liberty of OTHERS.

Do you make lots of noise at night when your neighbors are sleeping?  No, you don’t.  Is this because you have chosen to set the limits of your liberty, or because there is a law against being noisy at night?  If there were no law, are you admitting that you would not choose to limit your freedom in any way in order to peacefully co-exist with your neighbors?  Of course not.  In the absence of the law, you would be just as civil (probably moreso) than you are now.

I think the sense in the argument you present above requires a kind of mixing of the concepts of social constraint that we all learn because we like other people (punished by dirty looks, disdain, ostracism, etc.), and law as an enforced action of the state.  The first is a natural outcome of our advanced intelligence (tree shrews just kill each other), while the latter is a device created by those who seek power.  They insinuate themselves between us and pretend that we are civil to each other because they threaten us into it.  I suppose for some, this is not a pretense, but that for you and I, it certainly is.

We’re talking about “law, government, state” in a DEMOCRACY, right?  In a real democracy, laws are voted by all, no? Governments represent the will of the majority of voters, no?

It is the nature of a democracy to subject all minorities to the tyranny of the majority.  This is why the writers of the American constitution designed a republic instead of a democracy.  But I know, I know, republic, democracy, the difference isn’t important to our argument.  I think either one would work great if the government had no power to force citizens to support it financially - it would have to serve people to survive.

Sure, “STATE” is an abstract concept and concretely, we only see the MEN who represent that concept.  It of course happens that they serve their own interests instead of serving the interests of the people who elected them. That’s why public schools are so important:  education. An educated population will know that the government they elected should be serving them, and not the contrary.

Well, you mean the importance of education.  Equating “public school” with education is like equating “drug pusher” with doctor.  I know this position of mine is quite extreme, but after reading Gatto’s book, I am very well informed about public education and it’s disturbing and disgusting.  His “Underground History” covers the globe, though it is based on the development of compulsive public schooling in America.

My argumentative mood, in fact, was inspired by Gatto.  When I find someone civil with whom to argue, at least one of us generally learns something valuable - a very important part of the education of which you (meant to) write.  Do you think a discourse such as ours is a better use of the time we’ve spent posting than an equivalent amount of time spent in public school?

..... etc. In the absence of the law, you would be just as civil (probably moreso) than you are now.”

Perhaps so, but that would (unfortunately) probably not be the case for EVERYONE, right?  That’s why I think the LAW must exist - to garantee liberty for ALL. Without the LAW,  the law of the strongest would necessarily prevail - if your noisy neighbour is bigger and stronger than you, he would just continue his parties.  If you came banging on his door every night to tell him to stop his noise, he would shoot you dead and his problem would be solved.

“I think the sense in the argument you present above requires a kind of mixing of the concepts of social constraint that we all learn because we like other people and law as an enforced action of the state.  The first is a natural outcome of our advanced intelligence while the latter is a device created by those who seek power.”
In a democracy (démocratie républicaine) the LAW is made by all. The STATE (or Law) IS the power and the government people (the politicians) are simply the representatives of that power, and they are there only to ensure that the People’s will is respected. Sure the politicians sometimes think that THEY ARE the power and that’s when things really go wrong.  Maybe if they had been taught as children in their schools that they are only the VALETS of the State and not the State itself, (the STATE is the PEOPLE and the LAW is made by the PEOPLE)  they would have a different attitude???  Here comes my public schooling again… haha!  True, I have always preferred public rather than private, since public serves the interest of all, and not only that of the financial elite.  In a private school, you are already an “elite” (a financial one anyway, if not necessarily an intellectual one) since you need to be able to afford it.  Actually, it is one of the reasons why I prefer France to the US - our universities are public. The only barrier you have to get in is you need to have your high school degree. You don’t need to have rich parents or take loans to attend.  Hey, that’s another reason why you always see so many strikes, protests, in France too, hihi!  The French people (poor included) have a very easy access to education so maybe that’s why they tend to question everything…  They are, indeed “des empêcheurs de tourner en rond”. They constantly fight for their rights.  Is that a bad thing? And funny coincidence, but here, the politicians who are now governing (rightists - Bush’s friends) want to make universities private.  Why?   

“It is the nature of a democracy to subject all minorities to the tyranny of the majority.  This is why the writers of the American constitution designed a republic instead of a democracy. ... I think either one would work great if the government had no power to force citizens to support it financially - it would have to serve people to survive.”

What you want is no tax at all, right? No tax means no money. The government would therefore need to get money otherwise - only through the people who supported them, I presume?  Now suppose 90% of the population of the country is poor, and 10% is rich.  In that case, a government elected by the 90% of poor for example would have no means whatsover. Would that be fair? In a république démocratique, is it not the the majority of votes that count?  How much freedom does a population have if only the wealthy have power? Another citation that you certainly know (I’m translating, so be indulgent ): “I do not agree with what you are saying, but I would fight so that you have the right to say it”. (Voltaire) 

“Well, you mean the importance of education.  Equating “public school” with education is like equating “drug pusher” with doctor.

hihi! You’re funny!  Please explain why a private school would be better.

I know this position of mine is quite extreme… etc but after reading Gatto’s book, I am very well informed about public education and it’s disturbing and disgusting.  His “Underground History” covers the globe, though it is based on the development of compulsive public schooling in America. My argumentative mood, in fact, was inspired by Gatto.”

I find that great: Gatto was a philosophy teacher for you then, since he taught you to QUESTION. That’s step 1.  A good philosophy teacher will not fill your head with quotations etc. of the philosophers of all times (so that you may SEEM brilliant in a public reunion… haha!), he will teach you to question everything and think by yourself.  Step 2: question Gatto to form your OWN personal opinion. I have not read that book, by the way, so I have no idea how convincing that guy is.  My little finger tells me that if he doesn’t like public education, though, there is probably something fishy beneath his assertions - is he writing to defend his own interests or that of all people?

“When I find someone civil with whom to argue, at least one of us generally learns something valuable - a very important part of the education of which you (meant to) write.  Do you think a discourse such as ours is a better use of the time we’ve spent posting than an equivalent amount of time spent in public school?  ”

Well, I could turn the question around and say “If I had not spent a little time in school (public or not) would I ever have been interested in discussing such matters with you? ” 

PS: Oh, there is one very important difference between your “république démocratique” in the US and ours, here in France.  Ours is laïque (non-religious).  So are our public schools. In the US, everything (schools, politics) is assiciated with religion. Religion is a form of power too. And not a little one!

Blur - 08 May 2009 07:08 AM

..... etc. In the absence of the law, you would be just as civil (probably moreso) than you are now.”

Perhaps so, but that would (unfortunately) probably not be the case for EVERYONE, right?

For what percent of EVERYONE do you think it would not be the case?

“It is the nature of a democracy to subject all minorities to the tyranny of the majority.  This is why the writers of the American constitution designed a republic instead of a democracy. ... I think either one would work great if the government had no power to force citizens to support it financially - it would have to serve people to survive.”

What you want is no tax at all, right? No tax means no money. The government would therefore need to get money otherwise - only through the people who supported them, I presume?  Now suppose 90% of the population of the country is poor, and 10% is rich.  In that case, a government elected by the 90% of poor for example would have no means whatsover. Would that be fair? In a république démocratique, is it not the the majority of votes that count?

You are advocating that in a society where 90% are poor and 10% are rich, that there be a government to take wealth away from the rich (only they could be taxed, of course, right?) in order to provide a benefit to the poor that consists of government services.  You also imply that the government would be of no benefit to the rich (“no means whatsoever”).  Is that correct? 

“Well, you mean the importance of education.  Equating “public school” with education is like equating “drug pusher” with doctor.

hihi! You’re funny!  Please explain why a private school would be better.

I said education would be better, not private school.  What I meant is that it is better for a person to struggle to comprehend things that they don’t yet understand, rather than to be required by law to listen to some information about things they may or may not understand.  The biggest problem with public education is that citizens are required by law to attend.  This creates a captive audience, and a captive audience is excellent prey for those few who wish to prey upon others.  Corporations, mostly.  Are French corporations “good citizens”?  Do they not take advantage of the captive audience of schoolchildren?

“For what percent of EVERYONE do you think it would not be the case?”
Depends what law is broken.  I run into such people all the time. Don’t you?  I had a neighbour who would move his fence a few feet into my yard regularly…  ha!

“You are advocating that in a society where 90% are poor and 10% are rich, that there be a government to take wealth away from the rich (only they could be taxed, of course, right?)”

I took an extreme example to get a point through, but perhaps I did not express myself correctly since you evidently did not get the point. Sorry, I don’t have time to explain again, but mainly, the point was respect of the vote of the majority, and solidarity.
It is not a question of “taking wealth away from rich”, the rich will still be rich even if they pay a little more tax, now come on! 

“in order to provide a benefit to the poor that consists of government services.  You also imply that the government would be of no benefit to the rich (“no means whatsoever”).
  Is that correct?”

No, that is not what I said.  I said that a government who could count ONLY on the people who voted for him would have a hard time to apply the program that was voted, SUPPOSING 90% of the population was poor (extreme example). 
It would still be “benefit to the rich”, (supposing they were the 10% who didn’t vote for them, extreme example again)  because if the governement did not apply the program voted,  the rich could very well suffer much more than a simple little tax levy – maybe a civil war! 

“I said education would be better, not private school.”

Education by what means, if without schools?
“What I meant is that it is better for a person to struggle to comprehend things that they don’t yet understand, rather than to be required by law to listen to some information about things they may or may not understand.”

Well, in that case, you are creating two classes of citizens.  Those who can get their education through their private tutors, their parents or friends, without much struggle, and those who will really really need to struggle,  when their parents or friends cannot help them.  I wonder if that is not the whole idea of that Gatto book you were so amazed with???  In my opinion, it’s a particularly rotton idea, then.  Public schools are what permit people from less fortunate backgrounds to succeed.  Oh, and when I use the word “succeed”, I don’t particularly mean “financially”, of course. 

  “The biggest problem with public education is that citizens are required by law to attend.” 

That’s not a bad thing, and not a problem at all, I think. Kids are required to attend until they reach the age of 16, here in France.  Afterwards, they do as they please. In fact, they most often do what their parents want.  Do you think an 8 year old kid would attend school if he didn’t have to?  I think he’d rather go play. The class would be empty and you’d have a whole generation of illiterates.  Perhaps that is what your Gatto would like? True, if you have a whole percentage of the population who is illiterate, it will be really easy to take advantage of them…  Is that the goal?  And you find that right?  I find it disgusting!

“This creates a captive audience, and a captive audience is excellent prey for those few who wish to prey upon others.  Corporations, mostly. ”

You mean lobbies?  Geez, do you have those even in public schools in the US???

“Are French corporations “good citizens”?”

They are the same everywhere. They are not better here than in the US, nor are they worse either I suppose. But you do have a few more of ‘em,  and yours are much more powerful… so far.  The problem with lobbies is that they always act for their own financial interests, for their own power, and never in the interest of a population.  In that sense, I would answer “no”, since a “good citizen” would effectively act for the good of all.

“Do they not take advantage of the captive audience of schoolchildren?”

Corporations are not in our public schools. So far, anyway.  Hope they never get there. If ever they do find their way in, I’m confident that they won’t stay long…
In our public schools, a teacher cannot even talk about his/her personal political affinity, nor can they even talk about religion, except for educational purposes – the speach must never be “partisan” (he must never favor one or the other) he can give only facts, descriptions…  In all of the schools my kids attended, there were children from all sorts of backgrounds, all sorts of religions, including atheists.  The kids are never allowed to wear a cross, a star of David, a muslim veil, a turban, or a logo from any political party,  on public school grounds here.  The principle of “égalité, fraternité...”  and of the “école de la république”.
PS: Noticed that you answer none of my important questions…

“For what percent of EVERYONE do you think it would not be the case?”
Depends what law is broken.  I run into such people all the time. Don’t you?  I had a neighbour who would move his fence a few feet into my yard regularly… ha!

I assume some paid agents of the government helped solve this problem for you.  If not, then I don’t see your point.  If so, then do you argue that paying those agents from money taxed away from everyone is better than paying them from money provided willingly by you and other property owners who would like help defending their properties from people like your neighbor?

I took an extreme example to get a point through, but perhaps I did not express myself correctly since you evidently did not get the point. Sorry, I don’t have time to explain again, but mainly, the point was respect of the vote of the majority, and solidarity.
It is not a question of “taking wealth away from rich”, the rich will still be rich even if they pay a little more tax, now come on!

It isn’t?  I think you are trying to sneak out of admitting a good point.  You expressed yourself quite well.  I like your extreme example.  It illustrates the tendency to advocate for taking from the rich to help the poor.  It’s the Robin Hood ideal, except without the recognition that Robin Hood was stealing FROM THE GOVERNMENT.  The coercive redistribution of wealth from rich private citizens to poor private ones is in direct opposition to permitted and encouraged charity.

In your example, are you supposing that (in addition to 90% being poor and no taxes), the 10% of the people who are rich would not provide the government with any support?  Would they or would they not support the government financially?

PS: Noticed that you answer none of my important questions…

Each time I try to answer them, I see that they are based on lots of seemingly incorrect assumptions you implied a bit earlier.

For example:

Well, in that case, you are creating two classes of citizens.  Those who can get their education through their private tutors, their parents or friends, without much struggle, and those who will really really need to struggle, when their parents or friends cannot help them.  I wonder if that is not the whole idea of that Gatto book you were so amazed with???  In my opinion, it’s a particularly rotton idea, then.  Public schools are what permit people from less fortunate backgrounds to succeed.  Oh, and when I use the word “succeed”, I don’t particularly mean “financially”, of course.

  “The biggest problem with public education is that citizens are required by law to attend.”

That’s not a bad thing, and not a problem at all, I think. Kids are required to attend until they reach the age of 16, here in France.  Afterwards, they do as they please. In fact, they most often do what their parents want.  Do you think an 8 year old kid would attend school if he didn’t have to?  I think he’d rather go play. The class would be empty and you’d have a whole generation of illiterates.  Perhaps that is what your Gatto would like? True, if you have a whole percentage of the population who is illiterate, it will be really easy to take advantage of them… Is that the goal?  And you find that right?  I find it disgusting!

Your important questions here, I think are “Is that the goal?” and do I find it right.  But it’s based on the assumption that Gatto’s aim is to make people struggle.  His goal was to uncover the history of an institution that he worked in, as a teacher, for 30 years, because, though he tried to prevent it as a teacher, “It kills the family by monopolizing the best times of childhood and by teaching disrespect for home and parents.”  Here’s a link with his letter to the Wall Street Journal and also a video.

If you’d like to know what Gatto wrote, the whole book is available here.  If you’d like me to continue spoon-feeding tidbits of it to you, I can do that too.  It fills my website with good stuff .

If you can list your important questions and I will try harder to answer them.

I’ve been watching this exchange quietly. Blur, if you make money and disagree with a government’s decision making, be it to blow up Iraqi’s or spend money, as I have SEEN having fancy parties while the economy suffers (indeed, having fancy parties and starting wars is exactly where they grab and maintain their power base), then you should be able to not pay taxation you have not agreed to. You can’t. They throw you in jail. Here, they take the property you “own” even if it’s fully paid for if you fail to pay their ransom (taxes) and they sell it. Oh, and then they throw you in jail too. The fact is, whether Obama is liked more than Bush or not is immaterial. So he’s a better liar than Bush. So he looks better, speaks better and reads a teleprompter better than Bush (though he does stutter horribly off prompter). He has continued and even furthered every Bush plan, increased troops overseas, increased violence abroad (more election trail lies) and has increased the Bush Bail out, Stimulus and overall economic plan. Nothing has changed. We have worse results with better PR. Why? Because to become a Head of State you have to be so power hungry you’d sell your own people and certainly the rest of the World’s to curry favor and maintain power. That is what a system paid for by lobbyists and taxation produces. Two evils. More taxation and bigger government, or slightly less taxation and covertly bigger government (Iran Contra under Reagan, Nixon and Watergate, etc.). It is very simply the system that must be destroyed and replaced.

Hi!

deminizer - 09 May 2009 02:06 AM

I’ve been watching this exchange quietly. Blur, if you make money and disagree with a government’s decision making, be it to blow up Iraqi’s or spend money, as I have SEEN having fancy parties while the economy suffers (indeed, having fancy parties and starting wars is exactly where they grab and maintain their power base), then you should be able to not pay taxation you have not agreed to.

That would be too easy. In a democracy, one must respect the vote of the majority. One can always go on strike, protest, demonstrate (manifester), - when there are a majority of protestors, governments must and will adjust their politics.  But the definite solution when the people are not happy with their government is to vote otherwise, next time.

deminizer - 09 May 2009 02:06 AM

You can’t. They throw you in jail. Here, they take the property you “own” even if it’s fully paid for if you fail to pay their ransom (taxes) and they sell it.

It’s the same here!  Except (maybe it’s the same for you?) that here they at least try to reach an arrangement with you, before throwing you in jail & selling your stuff.

deminizer - 09 May 2009 02:06 AM

Oh, and then they throw you in jail too. The fact is, whether Obama is liked more than Bush or not is immaterial. So he’s a better liar than Bush. So he looks better, speaks better and reads a teleprompter better than Bush (though he does stutter horribly off prompter). He has continued and even furthered every Bush plan, increased troops overseas, increased violence abroad (more election trail lies) and has increased the Bush Bail out, Stimulus and overall economic plan. Nothing has changed. We have worse results with better PR. Why? Because to become a Head of State you have to be so power hungry you’d sell your own people and certainly the rest of the World’s to curry favor and maintain power.

What is your solution? Anarchy?

deminizer - 09 May 2009 02:06 AM

That is what a system paid for by lobbyists and taxation produces. Two evils.

Lobbyists are a great problem - not the taxes. 

deminizer - 09 May 2009 02:06 AM

More taxation and bigger government, or slightly less taxation and covertly bigger government (Iran Contra under Reagan, Nixon and Watergate, etc.). It is very simply the system that must be destroyed and replaced.

All systems are replaced, sooner or later.  All great powers are lost too.  Communism has already died, capitalism is agonizing (dying) - even if governments from all over the world are trying to resuscitate it. Perhaps we will need to go through a long period of uncertainty before another system is found.  Personally, I think that although we are going through very rough times,  they are extremely interesting.

Dave Scotese - 08 May 2009 11:22 PM

I assume some paid agents of the government helped solve this problem for you.  If not, then I don’t see your point.

My point was simple: not ALL people are civic, and that is why laws must exist.

If so, then do you argue that paying those agents from money taxed away from everyone is better than paying them from money provided willingly by you and other property owners who would like help defending their properties from people like your neighbor?

I had to pay no money AT ALL for that sort of thing.  Property here is so respected here that it is registered “au centimètre carré près” in the books of the Notaires (lawyers representing the State), and those of the city (mairies).
Yes, I certainly do prefer that laws exist and are applied,  and that I do not have to count on my neighbours to help me defend my property.

....It isn’t?  I think you are trying to sneak out of admitting a good point.

No, I am not trying to sneak out – perhaps YOU are.? I would much rather pay even more taxes and have no lobbies running the country.  Get the point?

You expressed yourself quite well.  I like your extreme example.  It illustrates the tendency to advocate for taking from the rich to help the poor.  It’s the Robin Hood ideal, except without the recognition that Robin Hood was stealing FROM THE GOVERNMENT.  The coercive redistribution of wealth from rich private citizens to poor private ones is in direct opposition to permitted and encouraged charity.

If tomorrow I became poor, (it can happen to everyone, including YOU!)  I would not like to have to depend on charity.  That’s why I am happy to pay taxes and happy that we have a health insurance system, a retirement sytem, run by the State. I pity all of those people who worked at Emron, and all of those people who depend solely on private insurance, private investments.  Charity is degrading for the person who must receive it. Not a good system. To me, it it not worthy of a Republic, but akin to feudal times. I far prefer a system where people have rights.  In some places today, even dogs have more rights than people. Something has gone wrong in this world

Each time I try to answer them, I see that they are based on lots of seemingly incorrect assumptions you implied a bit earlier.

Depends on one’s point of view.  Your assumptions may seem incorrect to me too… But it’s always interesting to confront them. I love it when people convince me. I’m afraid to say that so far, you are far from reaching that goal, though.

For example:

Your important questions here, I think are “Is that the goal?” and do I find it right.  But it’s based on the assumption that Gatto’s aim is to make people struggle.

I don’t think that the simple “struggle” could ever be his aim, and that was not my assumption, but I do assume that there is something else hidden behind this whole idea. 
Do you agree that if such was the case, (no public schools at all) there would be a great disparity in the amount of “struggle”, whether you are from a rich, well-educated family or from a poor, nearly illiterate family?
This question I find important, so please answer this one.  

His goal was to uncover the history of an institution that he worked in, as a teacher, for 30 years, because, though he tried to prevent it as a teacher, “It kills the family by monopolizing the best times of childhood

And what about families where both parents work all day long????

and by teaching disrespect for home and parents.”

Well, I have never seen that so far. And I’m no young chick. Plus I have had 3 kids and brought up 6. Family and school are complementary (complémentaire), not opposed. If your kids are in a school that teaches disrespect for home and parents, get them out of there fast and find another school for them!

Here’s a link with his letter to the Wall Street Journal and also a video.

If you’d like to know what Gatto wrote, the whole book is available here.  If you’d like me to continue spoon-feeding tidbits of it to you, I can do that too.  It fills my website with good stuff .

No thanks.  There’s quite enough of him on the Web. I had already begun to read it up.  Gave me pimples.

If you can list your important questions and I will try harder to answer them.

No need to -  I can see what your answers would be anyway.  The questions (or arguments) were just to make sure you would NOT answer, and not argue those points. 

! this site is not working well!

Blur - 09 May 2009 09:34 AM

I don’t think that the simple “struggle” could ever be his aim, and that was not my assumption, but I do assume that there is something else hidden behind this whole idea. 
Do you agree that if such was the case, (no public schools at all) there would be a great disparity in the amount of “struggle”, whether you are from a rich, well-educated family or from a poor, nearly illiterate family?
This question I find important, so please answer this one.

There would be great disparity, but probably just as great as there is with public schools.  People tend to struggle a certain amount regardless of their conditions.  When I am happy and comfortable, I struggle in competitive games or against puzzles or distance (I like to walk).  When I am distressed or in trouble, I struggle to find the best way out without being a burden to others.  How much I struggle doesn’t change all that much because I recognize the improvements in my strength and wit that come from it.

The difference that public schools make, I think, is in the things for which people struggle: do they struggle toward self-discovery and the kind of understanding that provides them with quality of life, or do they struggle to pass the tests of the approved curriculum?

But I think you write of the struggle to learn specific things, such as algebra or history.  If you pick one, and compare the effect on disparity of eliminating public schools, I think it would increase:  Those to whom these are important subjects would struggle more with them, and those to whom they are not important would struggle less.  But the value of the struggle is much greater in those who care about a subject, and so the increase in disparity would be a good thing.

Do you share Rousseau’s fear/disdain of diversity?  I suppose you do, as most French schoolchildren learn your national motto very well.  I think confounding the idea of Liberty with that of Equality is a bit dangerous because equality has two meanings:
Equality can be created among a strong person and a weak one by saddling the strong one with extra burden, or by providing the weak one with extra help.
Equality can also be created by refusing to adjust a moral judgment to fit those being tested.  In other words, if both the King and a pauper have to sit in jail for a week each time he steals a carton of milk from the store, then the King and the pauper are “Equal”.

I don’t believe Rousseau drew a distinction between these two quite opposite meanings, and the use of a one-size-fits-all “national curriculum” in public schools seems to reflect this lack of distinction.

No thanks.  There’s quite enough of him on the Web. I had already begun to read it up.  Gave me pimples.

I have been looking for people who can critique his work (I haven’t been able to find anything to criticize him about).  What does he say that gives you pimples, and are they the kind of pimples you get when a messenger gives you bad news, or when bad reasoning is broadcast to gullible neighbors?

Can you describe how the site is not working well so I can see about fixing it?

“There would be great disparity, but probably just as great as there is with public schools. ”

I agree, there is always disparity in public schools too.  However, I still think that the public schools help to lessen a bit the gap between the two categories, which is a good thing.  I cannot speak for american schools, since I do not know them.  In french public schools (so far, but things are changing fast with our new government who wants to copy absolutely everything you did), teachers (in general) take special care of children from under-priviledged neighbourhoods. The general idea is to try to help those kids more, so that they have better chances to lead a better life than the one they have had until now. You see, what I appreciate about public schools is precicely the mixity of children who have all sorts of backgrounds. It is enriching for them. ALL of them.  To me, education=opening. Not closing! I think a home-schooled child is being “closed-in”.  Of course, in some rare cases, that may be a better solution, but again, that is the exception, and certainly not the rule. 

“How much I struggle doesn’t change all that much because I recognize the improvements in my strength and wit that come from it.”

Sure, struggle can make you stronger.  BUT, I think that children from under-priviledged backgrounds have quite enough to struggle with as is. Why wish to give them MORE to struggle with?
 
“The difference that public schools make, I think, is in the things for which people struggle: do they struggle toward self-discovery and the kind of understanding that provides them with quality of life, or do they struggle to pass the tests of the approved curriculum?”

Really, I think that depends more on the parents, not so much on the schools.  Parents are the ones who have dreams about their kids, who want them to become such and such (often too, what they are not themselves!).  I really think that schools can sometimes give kids a break, on the contrary.  Some parents are too fussy about what note their child got, if he is head of class or not…  Teachers tend to relativize more.
“But I think you write of the struggle to learn specific things, such as algebra or history.  If you pick one, and compare the effect on disparity of eliminating public schools, I think it would increase:  Those to whom these are important subjects would struggle more with them, and those to whom they are not important would struggle less.  But the value of the struggle is much greater in those who care about a subject, and so the increase in disparity would be a good thing. “

In this case, a child would take only the subjects that really interest him.  I find it important that the child learn as much as possible in all subjects.  If a child is only interested in physics for example, and not at all in litterature, it is not a good thing (I find) to let him do ONLY physics and disregard litterature completely – his “culture générale” will suffer from this.  Sure, he can do more physics and a little less litterature, but he still needs both.  A science student needs to learn a bit of philosophy too. A philosopher a bit of math. 

“Do you share Rousseau’s fear/disdain of diversity?” 

diversity (la diversité), in france means different cultures, different races, different backgrounds…  I don’t know which meaning you have.(???)

“I suppose you do, as most French schoolchildren learn your national motto very well.”

- liberté, égalité, fraternité comes from Robespierre (french revolution).

“I think confounding the idea of Liberty with that of Equality is a bit dangerous because equality has two meanings:
Equality can be created among a strong person and a weak one by saddling the strong one with extra burden, or by providing the weak one with extra help.
Equality can also be created by refusing to adjust a moral judgment to fit those being tested.  In other words, if both the King and a pauper have to sit in jail for a week each time he steals a carton of milk from the store, then the King and the pauper are “Equal”.
I don’t believe Rousseau drew a distinction between these two quite opposite meanings, and the use of a one-size-fits-all “national curriculum” in public schools seems to reflect this lack of distinction.”

The meaning is equal “devant la Loi”, so it is your second example. Everyone must be treated equally before the law, regardless of birth etc…

“I have been looking for people who can critique his work (I haven’t been able to find anything to criticize him about). ”

Really?  Only in the prologue, I have found at least three points to criticize! That must be those darn french public schools, eh? – they teach us to critisize everything!

“What does he say that gives you pimples, and are they the kind of pimples you get when a messenger gives you bad news, or when bad reasoning is broadcast to gullible neighbors? “

I haven’t had time to read much of it, but so far, it’s closer to your second guess. But I promise to at least try to read the whole thing, as soon as I find the time.  I’ll let you know if I change my mind.
“Can you describe how the site is not working well so I can see about fixing it? “

It was probably just me I always have several windows open and I do two or three things at the same time (the fun of powerful computers!).  I was having a problem with your edit button.  Each time I pushed edit button, the message would repeat itself.  Don’t worry, it’s probably simply a question of awkwardness - MINE of course!

Blur - 09 May 2009 10:56 PM

Sure, struggle can make you stronger.  BUT, I think that children from under-priviledged backgrounds have quite enough to struggle with as is. Why wish to give them MORE to struggle with?

Well, eliminating public school doesn’t give them more - it leaves them with more.  So I think you mean “Why wish to leave them with MORE to struggle with?”  Tiny distinction, but it might figure importantly.

The only way the school can provide less struggle for the underprivileged is to provide an escape.  However, it is not yet possible (politically or morally) for a school to divorce the child from its underprivileged family.  In this sense, the school prevents a struggle which must at some point be suffered, and through which the child will come to terms with the circumstances of his or her childhood.  You are treating the kind of struggle that being poor imposes on a child the same as the kind of struggle that not understanding something imposes.  The former kind may or may not be good (I suspect it is good), but the latter certainly is good.  It is through struggling to understand that our powers of learning are sharpened.  In that sense, giving the underprivileged children MORE to struggle with might be the best thing for them.  School takes it away.

“Do you share Rousseau’s fear/disdain of diversity?” 

diversity (la diversité), in france means different cultures, different races, different backgrounds…  I don’t know which meaning you have.(???)

I think it must be culture and/or background.  He was not fool enough to think one’s race could be altered.  I am asking about the diversity between, say, a person who understands physics nearly as well as Einstein, and one who understands marketing as well as, say, Walt Disney did.  Walt likely knew little of physics, and Albert knew little of marketing, but both were successful.  I think the possibility of this kind of thing freaked Rousseau out and he, as you, would have felt that both Albert and Walt were lacking because of their lack of expertise in each other’s field.

“I have been looking for people who can critique his work (I haven’t been able to find anything to criticize him about). ”

Really?  Only in the prologue, I have found at least three points to criticize! That must be those darn french public schools, eh? – they teach us to critisize everything!

Well let’s hear it!

I haven’t had time to read much of it, but so far, it’s closer to your second guess. But I promise to at least try to read the whole thing, as soon as I find the time.  I’ll let you know if I change my mind.

But you just said you already found three things, didn’t you?

“So I think you mean “Why wish to leave them with MORE to struggle with?”

Yes, sorry, I don’t often get the opportunity to speak english… Would you prefer we have this conversation in french? 
 
“The only way the school can provide less struggle for the underprivileged is to provide an escape.  However, it is not yet possible… for a school to divorce the child from its underprivileged family.”
 
Of course, divorce a child from his family would be totally immoral. No need to do that!  But the school can motivate the child - another life for him becomes possible.  Suppose the child’s parents are nearly illiterate, then he can get no help at home with his homework, no answers to his questions.  In his home, just trying to survive is the main preoccupation – not much time left for intellectual fulfilment.  But the teachers at school can help the child, his new friends can help him too. If you left that child at home, chances are he would not progress much.  School gives him the opportunity to progress. It is a moral duty to at least try to give everyone a chance, especially in our rich countries. 

“In this sense, the school prevents a struggle which must at some point be suffered (....) the same as the kind of struggle that not understanding something imposes. ”

No, it is not because the child is from an under-priviledged background that he is less prone to learn, he simply has less opportunity to do so, less stimuli, since the main preoccupation in his home would necessarily be survival, not intellectual fulfilment.  In a more priviledged background, the parents have more time to devote to their children. 

“The former kind may or may not… the latter ... is good.  It is through struggling to understand that our powers of learning are sharpened.  In that sense, giving the underprivileged children MORE to struggle with might be the best thing for them.  School takes it away.”

The stuggle to understand is the same for anyone – no discrimination there. There are fast and slow learners in all categories of people.  However, the child who comes from an intellectual family will have better chances to have his questions answered.  All children are curious, their struggle to learn is natural, and comes out as soon as they begin to talk. If you have had kids yourself, you know that the “Why?” and the “What for?” are constant with them.  When I took the extreme example “rich or poor”,  in my mind, these apply also for intellectual richness, not necessarily ONLY financial “richness” - I hope you understood it that way too.  A child can have immensely rich parents who are at the same time,  extremely poor intellectually, and vice-versa.   

” I am asking about the diversity between, say,... Einstein, ... Walt Disney did.  .... but both were successful.  I think the possibility of this kind of thing freaked Rousseau out and he, .....  in each other’s field. “

No need to be an expert in all fields. That would be impossible anyway.  But broadening your “culture générale” a bit never hurts, eh?  If Einstein had understood only physics, and absolutely nothing about morality,  he would not have been so upset when he saw that he had invented the atomic bomb, don’t you think?  Being an expert in one field is fantastic. If you can also have some knowledge in the other fields, it is even better, no?  Imagine how great a world it would be if all of the financial experts had at least SOME morality! 
 
“I have been looking for people who can critique his work (I haven’t been able to find anything to criticize him about). 
Well let’s hear it!”

(in only the prologue):
1- Here is a guy who does not believe in diplomas, public regognition, etc., but who takes great care to enumerate all of his own various achievements.  Made me laugh out loud!
2-He starts off with the “Bianca, you animal!” thing.  Holy crap! Here anyway, a teacher who would treat a child that way would immediately lose his teaching lisence for life!  Totally unlikely (to me) that this could happen very often.
3-He blames american public schools for the killings that occur there (we are forced to put our kids in places where they are killed, he said).  He does not blame the gun lobbies who force your country to accept that people can have a whole collection of deadly weapons at home.  Can you blame a child with a gun in his hands if your society permits that everyone walks around with guns?  Are guns really necessary in an “Etat de Droit”? Has your society not evolved since “cowboy & indian”  time? He is not fighting the right battle, I think.
 
(I haven’t had time to read much of it, but so far, it’s closer to your second guess. But I promise to at least try to read the whole thing, as soon as I find the time.  I’ll let you know if I change my mind. )

“But you just said you already found three things, didn’t you?”
See above.
Yes, but I didn’t read much more than the prologue, so far.  However, I saw on the Net that this guy belonged to the “conservative party of new york” - I don’t know about that political party at all, but IF it is exact (I don’t believe everything I read on the Net) that in this particular political party,  people like Bush are considered “too liberal” (in the american sense, not the french), well, that leaves me pantoise! (flabbergasted)    I would tend to NOT trust someone who is so extreme – I would make sure I find out exactly what is hidden beneath his sayings: why is he saying these things, what are his motivations. Is his motivated to awaken and help the whole population or is he serving some “inavouable” political ideal?
So far, this Gatto reminds me of Bush and his “patriot act” - it was full of lies, but it worked. It led to Iraq.  Any american who criticized that war was considered bad, unpatriotic.  Now you all know better.

4- “Schools are supposed to teach kids their place” That made me laugh too.  Do you consider that if I teach my child not not pee and poop on the living room floor, I am “putting him in his place”???