Charles

Compared to the present system: I think the privatizing more than allows for a few rules that guide what educational instituions can be. I repeat: That is money being spent on a couple of laws; not subsidies, not state schools....... You then asked how/if I would propose to prevent fundamentalist educational institutions without increasing state control. Well; I have not got a firm view on this; whether government laws regarding types of institutions be allowed requires consideration of a number of issues: 1) As I described earlier - whether or not such irrational ideas would die a natural death as more rational ideas out-evolved them? 2) The need for some degree of standardization? 3) The rights and responsibilties of students and of teachers? 4) Health and Safety I realise the latter two are in some cases carried out to a ridiculous exent at present; but there would probably be a need for laws should schools be private, and each school's rules independant. To give the most obvious example; would a religious school be permitted to enact corporal punishment on a child such as convent schools in Eire have be known to and Islamic schools in the certain middle eastern nations.

Montesquieu, like you I am a fan of Atlas Shrugged; but to think that there are rail dynasties such as the Taggarts in the UK, and for each of the old regional railways is a little nieve. The points being made against the concept of a transition period (a mixed economy) are taking my point out of context; I am talking about a methology for changeover from state to privatized. If your asking for time specifics as regards how long the changeover would take; I would happily say a week in an ideal world where business's were waiting at the door to buy a rail-line; if it werent for the fact that there arent and any government that stands election here now would as said leech on to the time and not adapt my proposed methods anyway. It goes without saying that if these plans were to be adopted it would need a government thats sure fire keen on getting the companies into the ambitious hands of a business. One way of ensuring the railways go into hands that actually have plans for a line, and not to some government donor trying to acquire assets or whatever, is to sell to the highest bidder; its cuts the chaff out. You cannot seriously suggest the lines be given back to their previous owners & companies which ceased to exist at the start of World War 2 under emergency laws and made permanently nationalized in 1948! I doubt any of the original employees are alive and their relatives? Probably in a completely unrelated field. This isnt realistic. It annoys you that the government make a buck out of this? Well at least its a buck coming from making things right, and not taxes. This is true. However the constitutional reforms that would be neccesary for this, and many truly capitalist policies would require a complete change of philosophy of government in the UK: which looks highly improbable - hence when discussing policy on this board I do so in an idealistic way; looking at practicalities only in the hypothetical 'if' the government was to decide to turn round on these issues 'how would we make the change'. The only other time I would see to talk about practicalities is in considering how to bring about these improbable changes. For which im always open to new ideas.

To address David Odden's last point; I am not advocating a 'massive increase in state control' over education. In my last post I have specifically advocated the idea of privatizing schools. My caveats were 1) there would have to government laws within which an educational system must function; if schools are gearing up kids with fundamentalist irrational nonsense; then they are not really educating. Having read Bearster's post I suppose a radical objectivist's analysis might conclude; let the fundamentalist mosque open an educational facility; let the creation schools continue to refute science - because in the end these people contribute nothing; they are not the great minds and they are not producers and success permitting for the producers assuming they open there own successful schools producing some talented rational young men and women, (a success contingent on abolition of state education in this case) these usurpers and their ideas will perish. I am undecided; but history seems to tell, and be telling a different story. My second caveat was that the reason privatization failed abysmally when British Rail was privatized was that the government immediately enacted this change and unloaded the organzation to a group of companies who would take it without any plan for turning it into succesful business and for little of there worth. By Transition period I mean; the necesary time it would take for buyers to step forward once the government has announced its willing to sell; rather than an immediate offload to everyones disadvantage. I then applied this to the state education system; it would be absurd to stop funding all state schools -halfway through a hundred thousand kids educations - destroying those who have actually committed themselves to learning chances by catching their parents off guard; 1) because even though they would have paid for their childs education they couldn't because the state system meant only incredibly high income parents could send their kids to incredibly expensive private schools 2) because when the government makes it lightening decision to pull all funding there were no alternative schools in existence. Hence within a short but definite period state schools should be phased out as they are taken over by other institutions who will pay for and charge entry on or sponsor them. So yes to ordered privatization; acting as it were morally; but also taking into account obvious practical concerns. (not to mention the street problems that could rise up with truancy were the changes made so opaquely). No to instant and total change; which equates to madness and chaos. Incidently; a by-product of the eventual elimination of state education would be that a lot more responsibility would be placed on the future parent - perhaps forcing a change as regards excessive breeding and helping the population problem (one of quality and quantity)

Not rather than; it is a mattter of duty because in a democratic state the only way you are going to uphold your ideals of individuality and freedom to be self- interested in the longterm (as far a voting is concerned) is to stand yourself; that is if no other government candidate comes even close to your position. Im not advocating duty as defined in terms of democracy, i haven't put forward support for democracy. Im simply talking about the necessary measures to be taken in liu of ones ideals when voting in a country that pertains to be democratic.

A absurd as it may sound; as a democracy if you cannot vote for a standing candidate then it is your duty for you to stand for those policy's you feel a perfect leader would represent. If someone from this board was to stand, an objectivist - would you not vote for him? or would you vote for the lesser of two evils?

In Britain the rail system is not functioning properly and many people blame this on it being privatized by the last tory government. When Privatizing anything one has got to be careful: You cannot just decide to do it and then put it on the market for whoever will take it. You have to formerly put up notice saying if any business would like to take over control of a line in the country then they can approach us with an offer. Until they do, it remains state controlled. You cant have change like that over night, and do attempt to do so just gives privatization a bad name. The same should be considered with regards to education; the government should obviously lay down some rules for the type of institutions that would be privately run (you dont wont xtian and ethnic schools springing up in areas of traditional/multicultural roots) and then make them available subject to a business plan that fits these rules. Opportunity for change within a transitional framework. I might also point out you dont want the american situation where you get Coke/Pepsi sponsored syllabi. The rules would no doubt be a point of contention, as they are to promote freedom, but within a rational framework.

I dont know who these peoples are or torquemada is an expression. However I get the gist of your question; and yes with employment come both rights and RESPONSIBILITY, both delegated to you by your employer. If an individual is failing to do his job, acting irresponsibly or otherwise being inefficient with resources you can fire him. The difference between the state and a business is that if someone starts to 'leech' of the company, he has no claim on its responsibility to look after him - that isnt an absolute right of the employee, it is an arbitrary one secured by the contract that employs him; if he violates it, then he goes. Government, by its own acclaimed principles cannot do this. Objectivist's want to see this government stance changed so that the type of laws that prevent your freedom to employ/unemploy and limit your freedom are repealed.

All of the following are dictionary definitions of the word system. -------- A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole. A functionally related group of elements, especially: The human body regarded as a functional physiological unit. An organism as a whole, especially with regard to its vital processes or functions. A group of physiologically or anatomically complementary organs or parts: the nervous system; the skeletal system. A group of interacting mechanical or electrical components. A network of structures and channels, as for communication, travel, or distribution. A network of related computer software, hardware, and data transmission devices. An organized set of interrelated ideas or principles. A social, economic, or political organizational form. A naturally occurring group of objects or phenomena: the solar system. A set of objects or phenomena grouped together for classification or analysis. A condition of harmonious, orderly interaction. An organized and coordinated method; a procedure. See Synonyms at method. The prevailing social order; the establishment. Used with the: You can't beat the system. ------- A system can coordinate a number of other systems as means to a specific ends, much like the layers of programming in a computer, or the layers of institutions that form government. A system with an ends' effectiveness is judged by this end. Some systems bring order to chaos, other bring a higher order to a lower order. As you highlighted in your earlier post - the human mind seems to need some degree of chaos at some level, emotions. Though you can take control of that by directing them through habit you can never get rid of them, who would want to? they are like engine fuel, they are our drive, just use reason to determine whats driven.

Forgive me for repeating this post I have made in another section of the forum, but I believe it is relevant. --------- Throughout his discourses Plato often makes an analogy between the state and the human body/mind. He maintains that the body is a hierarchy of systems controlled by the mind/brain/head and that society itself is a system of hierarchies and his philosophy concerns a search for the best system of government possible. Western Philosophy has never left this most central of points. That the mind and body are intergrated and the success of each is woven into the other is dealt with primarily by certain eastern philosophies. At the center of reason must lie the will to live. Its the basic axiom for life; survival. However with advanced mind capable of abstraction the majority of humans appear to have placed such illogical abstractions as pleasure at the heart of their philosophy. In such cases the body becomes subservient to the ego. Contrasting the hierarchal dichotomizing of ourselves to that of society, or of any group unit, whether it be corporation/employees or government/subjects is it not any surprise that things appear to be heading in a negative direction? In the case of the corporation would it not be more logical to take into account the needs, and potentials of your employees. Would that not produce a more sustainable business? And would the means of business not be better targeted selling products that do not degrade their consumers? In the case of the government would it not be more logical to take into account the individuality of its subjects? Would it not be more prudent to focus its resources upon education rather than rule making or state policing? In the case of ourselves would it not be more logical to take into account that pleasure is a product of habit, and that satisfaction can potentially gotten from any number of things? Would it not be more rational to live a life that derives fulfilment from acts that prolong and enhance that life? ------------ on a separate point as regards americonorman's point: Good point. That really is the crux, indeed as a prospective neuroscientist it shall be interesting to attempt to answer this question on many levels both physiological, psychological and philosophical. Literally HOW does this system function and WHY?

The difference between pragmatism and moralism huh? You could always earn an honest living, not pay your taxes and then see everything you've ever done taken and destroyed by the tax collector acting on behalf of 'legitimacy'. No thanks, but it does beg the question of whether its worth participating (at least so opaquely as a picket fence property) in the system full stop? If you've paid a mortgage off, dont pay your taxes and dont use any form of welfare, specifically declaring your moral inclinations and yet you still loose all is the contract that makes that house yours worth anything? Time to rip up the contract me thinks. The social one at least.

Throughout his discourses Plato often makes an analogy between the state and the human body/mind. He maintains that the body is a hierarchy of systems controlled by the mind/brain/head and that society itself is a system of hierarchies and his philosophy concerns a search for the best system of government possible. Western Philosophy has never left this most central of points. That the mind and body are intergrated and the success of each is woven into the other is dealt with primarily by certain eastern philosophies. At the center of reason must lie the will to live. Its the basic axiom for life; survival. However with advanced mind capable of abstraction the majority of humans appear to have placed such illogical abstractions as pleasure at the heart of their philosophy. In such cases the body becomes subservient to the ego. Contrasting the hierarchal dichotomizing of ourselves to that of society, or of any group unit, whether it be corporation/employees or government/subjects is it not any surprise that things appear to be heading in a negative direction? In the case of the corporation would it not be more logical to take into account the needs, and potentials of your employees. Would that not produce a more sustainable business? And would the means of business not be better targeted selling products that do not degrade their consumers? In the case of the government would it not be more logical to take into account the individuality of its subjects? Would it not be more prudent to focus its resources upon education rather than rule making or state policing? In the case of ourselves would it not be more logical to take into account that pleasure is a product of habit, and that satisfaction can potentially be gotten from any number of things? Would it not be more rational to live a life that derives fulfilment from acts that prolong and enhance that life?

Spearmint, it is true that a child could pass through either state or private education without any considerable difference. However, for the child who is self-aware; is either naturally or decidedly to teach himself; to soak up with interest the information around him - the difference is quite marked. Private schools provide the resources. Whether that be books, computers, experienced teachers/professors. They provide the opportunities. Whether that be sporting, academic, musical, theatrical or of specific interest.

Montesquieu, if that is a myth then it is exactly the kind of myth that should be under intense discussion 'around here'. Whilst I agree with your sentiments and would hope that people would respond in such a way in such a circumstance, I do fear that a significant number would not pay for their childs education. I see too many childrens potential knowingly wasted in favour of a more hedonistic lifestyle for the family. However; I recognize that it is that fear which you are dispelling as myth. It is that fear which would prevent the system, or lack of, that you suggest, from ever becoming a reality. Society would not let the government give it that freedom. The myth is accepted by so many, that to the observer viewing things pragmatically its easy to see how one could choose to see it as fact when deciding ones choices with regards to education. This is the power of the status quo. What do you believe is the path to change?

David Odden, I agree that such an argument is merely an assertion "that it isn't "fair" for one person to not have exactly the same advantage that everyone else has" and that "It's a rather perverse mentality -- we must all suffer if anyone suffers." Any support I extend to state schools is based upon an understanding that without an underclass educated to a sufficient level the more advanced features of civilization would not exist due to encroaching barbarism and class wars played out on a revolutionary scale. Those making money, creating means etc could not do so if they didnt have the customers. I realize however, that the media plays an increasingly prominent role in educating, whilst subduing, the masses to a level of mediocrity. If I ever had responsibility for a child I would, means providing, give it as many forms of private tuition as I deemed necessary for I can see the obvious faults in the state sector and do not believe a minute of my child miseducation is worth my correcting it. No doubt such a semi-monthly guardian assertion would deem me a hypocrite; supporting the state schools for selfish means/ sending child through private education.

In the UK Private educational institutions are known as public schools, I will henceforth refer to them by this title. There are also subdivisions of Prep(aratory) Schools (8-13) and Secondary schools(13-18). These schools are very expensive in comparison to the private schools of europe, and I think the US. Some have selective intake based on exam results, others dont. They are generally populated by middle-upper middle and upper class children (divisions that perhaps only have the older british meaning when we talk of party politics, as class boundaries socially speaking are blurred these days/meaningless). It is often argued that it is a parents moral duty to send their child to a state school - that it is 'unfair' for some children to get a better education because of someones money. If the state school nearest, or indeed the whole system (as is practically the case) has little resources, bad quality teaching and a misunderstanding of education - then it is the parents moral duty to improve the schools - to support their local schools and apply pressure to the government. The choice in the case of the parent with money; Send my child to a private school and pay for an education that will beyond reasonable doubt be a good one and set him up for further education and give him opportunity to participate in all manner of physical, academic, music and theatrical endeavours....or do I send him to the local state school where all children have to go by law, where the class sizes are to big as the teachers number too little, and are supposedly sub-standard??? Public Schools (private) have a long history of traditions - often with religious foundations, and also may despite all their resources not teach students to desire to learn, which is in my mind a point of education. They are by no means ideal schools, and there students are often by no means ideal people - but they will all have had the opportunity to access much better teaching and more exstensive resources. So in conclusion I personally can empathize with the assertion that it is our moral duty to ensure state education is improved, however believe it is the parents duty to do the best they possibly can for their children that is more important. What are peoples thoughts on this issue? NB. in Britain, the Conservative Party supports the notion of public (private) schools, and the Labour party has threatened several times to abolish them.

This is more a feature of democracy - that a government is contingent upon people voting it in, makes it a slave to the free press - whom have hold of our minds. It become a vicious circle - to see through bad press, education is required; to improve education, the government must take active steps, to be in a position to make those steps it must tow the media line to allow electability. I think that discussions about ideals/role of government would stand a better chance in a non-party system. It is harder to change the image of hundreds of prominent individuals than three parties/party leaders. Though the problem here is the difficulty for large groups/councils to be decisive... Im actually beginning to think that a technocracy would be preferable (Though how that is reached I dont know). In a technocracy there would however be a need for strong interelation between fields (a specilization in itself perhaps?) eg. If there are to be great scientists there are to be great educators. There are basic rules/laws which apply to all, and all subject specific institutions add to those in relevance to their own field. There is a similar logic by which Businesses would share information about their market for mutual advantage. In this sense the face of humanity, say an outside encounter was made would be represented by the specialist philosopher explaining the system of systems.

This I think is the main point in this issue, and many others besides. Is making a profit off the irrationality of others morally acceptable? Are not we encouraging this immorality through creating certain products?

Question: In other topics I have discussed how certain industries, specifically to do with entertainment, might not be rationally acceptable as they rely on other peoples misgivings. I ask this; What does one make of the drug dealer? a viable market or not? Ill break it down a little, as there are many scenarios... a) The student who grows weed and sells it to his friends/socially...or B ) The dealer selling large quantities of a drug such that is a a gray area, legally speaking... c) The Cocaine dealer at the top of the chain who lives and functions outside countries to which he sells... Interested to hear some opinions on this...

I'd have to disagree.

On the same principle a magician can trick/trap a subject into making a false choice by framing his question, or controlling his surroundings - i.e. offering false premises (these cards have been shuffled randomly) or hiding true ones (there's more than two ace of spades in this pack); it is possible for one to control consumer choice by convincing of the necessity for young skin, colored hair, to be uptodate on the latest scandal etc etc. Now I dont argue that the weak minded arent to blamed for allowing themselves to be duped...but is it rational for a businessman to profit from lowering the awareness and rationality in the populus? Is it not in ones self interest to live in a society of intelligent people? I hope this gives a more specific picture of what im getting at RadCap.

Im just saying everyones perception of reality is tainted, BUT it is still better to be flexible and adapt in the face of experience rather than keep a rigid world view. The latter makes the mistake of assuming we can get it absolutely right. We do this by refining our interpretation of sensory data; i.e. updating the model.

I think you will agree that there have been progressive, albeit misguided, elements of islamic culture in the past. Would you not agree that by bringing these to light we can offer them the first rung of the ladder to becoming reasonable?

In the most absolute sense of things the only thing we can be sure is our own conscious mind, everything else is secondary; ie. filtered through the senses. Schopenhauer talks about how our own personel universe is made up of Will & Representation, ie. that that comes through our senses to mind, whether via emotions, body or perception, it is the input. Will is our ability to define how we process this information and react to it. We know from experience how to change the input to our senses by acting in certain ways, and we do this by using a working model of what is percieved, which we call reality. The Objective Reality from which these perceptions come can never be known asbolutely, as to do this you must percieve from that view point. As such our 'selves' do not even include our own body beyond the fact that it obey the rules of the model. If we stab a knife in our chest - we assume we die. We can not technically know this, but it is because of this very fact that it suits us a working model for LIFE; it is this unknown, and the possibility that it might be unknowable that prerequisites a changing model, life. Am I being nihilist? Not exactly; science is a working model - adapting to suit new data. Life is a working model - adapting to suit new experience. As soon as you tie either down to 'absolutes' they become dogmatic, increasingly fail to lie closer to the reality we will ever try get close to. So try to experience as much as you can, and work it into an ordered framework with aims for a place and a time. Such is life; Such is capitalism. The closest thing we have to experience, from which we can create the greatest working model is our body - get to know it and understand its relation to your mind and you will want to preserve it. Reason starts here !

Your being far to idealistic and not at all realistic, Im not saying whos right or wrong - Im talking in facts; they will not accept americanization, whats the alternative - escalating violence? more US troop deaths? Im offering an alternative. Do you really think Capitalism has only ever been advocated by the West? Individuals throughout the world have strived for something like it, America is the first nation whose government has actually advocated it (past/present u decide). If America had the rational its claimed it does it would see that the only way we can make 'them' more like 'us' is to show them the door to progress, a natural progression in their own history, rather than point a gun and force them through ours...!?! Not particularly. But the governments of Brunei, Dubai, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and countless others do. Your knowledge of islamic countries is unsettling. Current estimates have it that America is probably about 50yrs ahead of most of the world in its technological capibilites/potential, Britain - my own nation, lags behind considerably as does the rest of Europe and Asia. However many Asian/Middle Eastern nations have a great many research facilites and a great deal of student dedicated to their chosen field. Far more interest is shown in British Medical courses from Middle Eastern students abroad such as Brunei than in our own country and with a realisitic picture of the need for constant modernization in their own country they often become the greater doctors.

As I am sure each and every member of this forum would agree, there is a necessity in bringing freedom and reason to fundamentalist islam nations. However recent events have made quite clear what was clear already; that nations such as Iraq, will not allow themselves to modernize if in doing so they become an American industrial outpost. They dont want American culture, they dont want American companies. What many neglect to realize is that there is a whole range of islamic nations that have constitutions, i.e. law beyond the sharia, and are succesfull in fields of scientific and industrial endeavour. In fact there have been a series of Islamic scholars in recent times (18th, 19th 20th centuries) who have constantly, and sometimes successfully advocated a more secular/scientific approach to life with an attitude similar to that of the jews, whom have excelled in many fields. It seems to me a tactic that could save this debacle is to offer the best elements of their culture back to them, instead of showering them with western leaflets, television and an explanation of why they need us, we could be bombarding them with islamic literature and envoys of civilized muslim scholars presented a better way of life that is theirs to claim. You may believe it would be better for such a nation to accept America entering its nation and creating new institutions based on American ones and building up their economy with American business; but realistically that is never going to happen. Whether right/wrong they DO see us as an outside agressor and they do see many flaws in out culture/attitude. We must appeal to their sense of reason, to inspire thought, and a new kind of pride - you see these people need a face, and we cant force a mask onto them, but we can help them find their own.