Public 'Education'
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-01-2013, 01:21 PM
RE: Public 'Education'
(17-01-2013 01:04 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Everywhere has social problems. That fact will never change as long as humans are able to maintain the balance of the individualistic - large herd/clan based social structure which itself all but guarantees that societies will have problems due to the individualist nature we humans have as that will always cause conflicts through lesser emotions such as greed.

You speak of mandatory and free higher education?

It's not just the US, or China or Russia that can be singled out, to my knowledge, there is no nation on earth which has the massive resources needed to balance a mandatory, high level educative infrastructure as well as having other forms of hard and soft infrastructure at a high level as well, the only possibility I can think of that might be an exception in today's world would be Japan; it is able to afford a reasonably high level of education because of it's stranglehold on technological development which provides a powerful economy, however it has weakened infrastructure in other areas as a result.

To make high level education mandatory and free, you would have to subtract significantly from other important hard and soft infrastructure within the nation such as law enforcement, disaster response programmes, defence programmes, medical and industrial infrastructure, transportation, water, energy, communications, waste disposal, Earth monitoring networks. Every one would see a decrease in funding and resources due to the undoubtedly enormous amount the purposed educative system would eat up. That problem would not be helped by the inevitable population growth, which would tax the weakened areas even more, whilst taxing the educative system too.

Besides, putting the resources aside, education on such a scale would not remove social issues, unless of course you go the path of North Korea, wherein the educative system is surprisingly high level, but filled with propaganda and indoctrination methods. Or you could force everybody to be educated in sociological sciences, that might help a little, but it's not going to do much.

Your idealistic views are admirable certainly, especially giving everybody the same educative opportunities, but, I submit to you sir, that it is simply infeasible.
It's only infeasible if we're still operating on the monetary system when it's implemented. I will agree with you, it could never work in a capitalist society. But if we as a species were able to stop sucking the dick of the almighty dollar and create a government which didn't need the use of money we wouldn't just be able to implement education of the highest grade for everyone, everyone would also have the highest grade healthcare, crime rates would be lowered due to the overall intelligence (smart people have lower crimes rates than dumb people, and as much as I do hate to admit this. Take Europe and Japan for example. Europe has a crap ton of rape and murder, and don't you dare blame it on the immigrants, while Japan has relatively low crime rates in comparison.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2013, 02:03 PM
RE: Public 'Education'
The problem with money is due to what is commonly known as Reciprocity; one works, and one is paid in return. It is not the fault of a 'capitalist' society that people seek wages as a form of compensation for their work. It has always been that way, ever since bartering for objects and animals was the norm. Capitalists only fault in this is taking physical money of gold, silver, tin or nickel, and replacing it with mostly with cheaper to produce slips of paper with a representative, assigned value.

That system will not change; people give their time, they seek compensation, unless you start paying the people in food and privileges. But then what is paid to farmers and other producers? They already have access to food or privileges, paying them their own property wont mean much, and if you don't pay them you wont get their produce, you certainly can't give them special privileges, that would end up on a violation of Reciprocity; the treatment would be unfair and people would begin to raise a stink about it, an especially poor situation if everybody was to be treated fairly and equally.

You simply can't pawn the blame off to those greedy capitalists and expect to simply bound off stage and wait the reply without being corrected.

People on the higher end of IQ scales do tend to seek more advanced education and have a lower predilection towards crime, so I can see where the assumption that a mandatory, high education system would make more intelligent people, could come from, but I suspect that is simply not the case. What one knows, and how intelligent one is, are two different things entirely.
I submit that residents of the lower end of the IQ spectrum would still be just as prevalent as they are in today's world. You would simply be wasting resources attempting to educate them at a level of which they are incapable, which would likely end up in resentment and the creation of a rift between the three intelligence castes; High, Average and Low. That resentment and rift would likely end up culminating in higher crime rates amongst those of the Low caste and Low-Average sub-caste.

Again, your system is simply infeasible.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: