Free (as in speech) education?

[Borodog]

For the purposes of this post, free means free as in speech, not free as in beer.

Is a free educational system necessary for a free society?

If you answer No, please explain yourself.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
a state will lead inevitably to totalitarianism

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[Borodog]

Bump.

[Phil153]

What does this even mean? You're throwing words around that are too general to answer specific questions. You have to be specific if you want an answer that has meaning.

"free [speech] educational system"

What do you mean by this statement? One where each individual teacher decides what is taught? One without rules or standard curriculum? Or just a system without government input or funding, provided entirely by private corporations?

State controlled educational system?

What do you mean by this statement? The current system involves the state providing the money, and having some input into the curriculum in consultation with parents, teachers, and other community members. They're called "school boards"

Is this state controlled under your definition? Is it free?

You appear to be making the same mistakes Marx and other philosophers made, the same mistakes that produced communism. Try relating your words, concepts and thoughts to the real world, and you might produce some insights that are meaningful. If that's what you care to do.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
What does this even mean? You're throwing words around that are too general to answer specific questions. You have to be specific if you want an answer that has meaning.

"free [speech] educational system"

What do you mean by this statement? One where each individual teacher decides what is taught? One without rules or standard curriculum? Or just a system without government input or funding, provided entirely by private corporations?

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean free as in speech and not free as in beer, i.e. free from government control, as in what everyone plainly understands a "free press" to mean.

[ QUOTE ]
State controlled educational system?

What do you mean by this statement? The current system involves the state providing the money, and having some input into the curriculum in consultation with parents, teachers, and other community members. They're called "school boards"

Is this state controlled under your definition? Is it free?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the current system is state controlled, and no it is not free.

[ QUOTE ]
You appear to be making the same mistakes Marx and other philosophers made, the same mistakes that produced communism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be making the mistake of saying things that don't follow logically from anything that I've stated. This is pretty funny, as the monopoly compulsory public education system in the US can be no better described than "Soviet style."

[ QUOTE ]
Try relating your words, concepts and thoughts to the real world, and you might produce some insights that are meaningful. If that's what you care to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The words and concepts are straightforward, they mean what they plainly mean and refer to the real world as anyone who doesn't have a fragile worldview to protect can plainly see it to be.

[Phil153]

So to be free, there must be absolutely NO government input into the process whatsoever. Anything that has the tiniest amount of government input is not free. This appears to be what you are saying.

If that's what you're saying, then your position is silly, because the minutest amount of government control (say, mandating that kids must learn American history) would cause your education system to be defined as non free, even though the <u>practical effects</u> of this system would be virtually identical to a completely "free" system. You're committing an all-or-nothing logical fallacy.

If that's not what you're saying, then you need to define the points at which and degree to which government intervention inhibits freedom, in order to have a meaningful debate.

[ QUOTE ]
This is pretty funny, as the monopoly compulsory public education system in the US can be no better described than "Soviet style."

[/ QUOTE ]
In definitional language that doesn't apply to reality, it may be a reasonable statement. In practical terms, it's utterly ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
The words and concepts are straightforward, they mean what they plainly mean and refer to the real world as anyone who doesn't have a fragile worldview to protect can plainly see it to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Attacking a person's motives is a sign of a poor thinker. My original comments are simply friendly ones, made to a person who seems to have lost his way intellectually. The world needs more smart people who can get stuff done, not stubborn idealogues who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
So to be free, there must be absolutely NO government input into the process whatsoever. Anything that has the tiniest amount of government input is not free. This appears to be what you are saying.

If that's what you're saying, then your position is silly, because the minutest amount of government control (say, mandating that kids must learn American history) would cause your education system to be defined as non free, even though the <u>practical effects</u> of this system would be virtually identical to a completely "free" system. You're committing an all-or-nothing logical fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]


Freedom &lt;-----&gt; slavery

That's a matter of *degree*.

Any institutionalization of ruler-ship would make (among everything else) education slavery/non-free.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
If that's what you're saying, then your position is silly, because the minutest amount of government control (say, mandating that kids must learn American history) would cause your education system to be defined as non free, even though the practical effects of this system would be virtually identical to a completely "free" system. You're committing an all-or-nothing logical fallacy.

If that's not what you're saying, then you need to define the points at which and degree to which government intervention inhibits freedom, in order to have a meaningful debate.


[/ QUOTE ]
No, you're the one committing the all-or-nothing fallacy by wanting to pick a arbitrary line where X amount of government interevention=not free. It is a sliding scale. Something touched by the government just a little bit is not free, but it's not as not free as something controlled completely by the state.

[Phil153]

Read it again:

[ QUOTE ]
If that's not what you're saying, then you need to define the points at which and degree to which government intervention inhibits freedom, in order to have a meaningful debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Read it again:

[ QUOTE ]
If that's not what you're saying, then you need to define the points at which and degree to which government intervention inhibits freedom, in order to have a meaningful debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly my point. You want to pick an arbitrary degree as a cut off between freedom being inhibited and freedom not being inhibited. That's not how it works.