We could go back and forth on all of that. I have to disagree with as much as I nod to. One thing is that all of the "social justice" solutions involve taking from those who are productive and giving to those who are not. At best, it is an investment in their future success, but that cannot be guaranteed -- and it would not justify the initital taking from the productive in the first place.

Voluntary charity rests on the assumption of personal self-ownership. There is no way to contradict that and still be moral, rational, and real.

(More later...)

I learned about this in Macro. I later dismissed it because it's utilitarian. It's saying you can find some function for an individuals wealth vs. utility. If we accept stealing, we could maximize utility in the world by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. But stealing is wrong, I thought.

Suppose, though, we lived in an agricultural society and wealth was tied to arable land. Maybe stealing is just in that case, compared to feudal lords passing the wealth down within the family and everyone else subsisting working for them. I think this is why the world's religions often promote socialism. Many people ask, how can people be foolish enough to support socialism? The favorite answer is "pat yourself on the back because they're idiots and we're so bleeding smart." But I think the right answer goes back to societal and religious traditions that developed before industry and information technology.

Now that we have ability to create unlimited plenty, the reasons for the ancient religious support of socialism are no longer valid.

But you have me thinking about this. Even though individuals can now create unlimited wealth, it's hard to do it if you start in a troubled background, say in a family struggling to pay for basic medicines. But the idea of taxing people's money to provide those things can easily metastasize into gov't buying most healthcare expenditures. The same cam happen with housing or any basic need.

It takes me back to the non-utilitarian self-interested argument that we tax for policing protection from troubled people why can't we tax to help troubled people? You have me thinking, though, suppose we knew that a particular type of trouble would never hurt others. It would just result in a child being born into a unpleasant situation and eventually dying without harming anyone else. Suppose further we had a reliable way to help that person. Should an individual do it? Should the gov't use force to steal other's money to do it?

I'm realizing my non-utilitarian self-interested case is a cop out that avoid the Rawls' question.

I began having realizations of how ignorant I was by reading.I picked up the Fountainhead at age 14, then The Universe and Dr. Einstein, Schroedinger's Cat, and off I went into philosophy, history (John Adams) quantum physics. So much to learn, so little time.. Then I discovered my 1st cousin wrote a great book on Quantum Physics called Quantum Enigma Physics Encounters Consciousness by Fred Kuttner.

Then the real prosecutions of corruption against the Clintons, Obama, DNC et al must succeed and educate the deniers.

What I liked about John Rawls's theory of justice is the way he framed the question. "Design your perfect society. Explain how it works, what the rules are. But before we put you in that, you have no control over where I drop you." Most people want some safeguards, whether guaranteed minimum wage or a system of objective courtoom justice.

That gets back to the problem of taxation, the only model we all know. Even Ayn Rand said that while government is the servant of the people, it is not the unpaid servant.

*Uncle Sam the Monopoiy Man" by William C. Wooldridge chronicles working historical alternatives to public services, including private police and courts.

"while I can see the Rawlesian argument"
I had never heard of Rawls until now, so I'm not educated on this. I read a blurb about him, and it seems like I disagree with him because his theories relate to just distribution of wealth. Distribution implies wealth is like a fixed deck of cards to be doled out, but wealth is created through people's work. If you make something, it seems to me you have a right to keep it.

My support of nutrition / welfare programs is based on the idea that when people live together inevitably they have to deal with the effects of people problems, i.e. mental illness, lack of jobs skills, abusive parents, untreated diseases. I'm intrigued by ideas of having unbiased policing and criminal justice funded without taxes, but the only model I've seen is we all pay taxes to fund a criminal justice system. Even if someone says she doesn't really need it because she lives in a remote place and provides her own protection, she cannot opt out of taxes because there is no practical way to opt out of the benefits of having criminals behind bars. If we accept all that, I see no reason not to accept "positive" actions aimed at similar goals, such as providing help that reduces the risk of criminal behavior and increases the chance of someone being a productive member of society.

I see the dangers of this turning into alms, calls for selflessness, and so on. Gov't powers to punish people, however, have their own set of dangers. I see nothing worse about constructive "helpful" approaches.

I too have seen how religious organization do a great job of helping the needy. They generally do not seem to be like those nuns in AS who were basically the same as Jim Taggart. At least as far as I can tell, they're cheerful people who just like living life, helping themselves, and sometimes helping others.

I am thinking that with the liners in control of the government indoctrination centers, the percentage of liberals is rising every year in the USA. It’s already passed 50%. I say real leftist democrats will win big time in 2020

I have a little trouble these days with the concept of “teaching” and “teachers”. It strikes me as backwards. It’s top down like one is having information crammed down the throat. When you absorb information you are opening the door to your brain- which is what I call learning. I can watch someone do something and catch on without him/her actively “teaching”.

Perhaps People learn on their own when they open the brain door because they want to know, and then look around for a way to understand things so they can fit it into their brains in some coherent way that can be retrieved when needed.

So we shouldn’t think “teachers”, but rather “learning facilitators” who help others to understand what they want to understand when they want to know.

I have learned more from YouTube and Netflix than I ever did in public school

About half figure it out.
The rest are liberals.

Y'know, upon further though, you can hardly go anywhere for an education without indoctrination. You'd have a better chance by selecting a school after doing a little research, and it most likely will be a private school. Don't know what I was thinking.Everything I have learned since the 5th grade I have taught myself. Thanks for the incentive I needed to come to this realization.

Many have been taught that being educated is some natural right, just like being fed or being provided a safe space. Mostly it is an excuse to grab more resource to boost their system to indoctrinate more kids even faster.

Just about everyone I talk to or listen to (including such blogs) says pretty much the same thing. The question I have is that in a supposedly properly working system: how can we have so many people being ignored by the powers that be who regulate the public education systems (so few people)? With government dictated curricula, legislation and regulation, the natural process of education is soiled and inefficient. That goes for many other facets of our society.

If teachers don't like what they are being paid, they are free to work somewhere else. No one is pointing a gun at them and forcing them to work as teachers. The province where I live is pushing the minimum wage up to $15 pr hour. In essence, they are pointing a gun at business owners thus forcing them to pay more while no one is forcing the workers to work for more or less. A job at lower wages is better than no job at all.

I guess my parents were trying to help me by insisting I absorb the party line in public schools They didn’t have the funds to send me to private school AND pay taxes for public education at the same time. They never said a word about thinking for myself tho. I was a “good” boy. Getting away from home at college freed me from the slavery of public indoctrination

No wonder the leftists want to control education The hidden agendas become obvious only later, and maybe never

Students wanting to do “good” is exactly why leftist English teachers can and do mark students down a grade when using such words as “mankind.” To leftists, that’s wrongthink.

When I was a kid I was indoctrinated into. Thinking I had to do “good” in school or I was a bad person. The report card was the determiner of my worth when I got home. So I parroted back what they “taught” me, without knowing why i needed it for my life. Somehow I survived it all, although I hardly remember anything I was “taught” before I went to a private college, where I they showed me I could learn anything I needed on my own

Since college I have “learned” a lot, because I needed the knowledge and sought it out when I needed it. I wish I would have had the freedom to learn when I was a kid in public school.

If you don't mind the indoctrination.

I am beginning to think that a student would learn more by choosing from the offerings in the internet (google, YouTube) and cable tv ( history channel, discovery channel, a & e) and netflix. Than forced monotony in a government indoctrination center

We have become so used to compulsory state education that we tend to forget we are forced to send our children to it just as we were forced to attend ourselves. This entails assignment to specific schools whether or nor we choose to attend the one chosen by the government.. We are allowed to let our children or ourselves to attend certified private schools if we can afford it. The public schools are paid for by taxes, part of which we pay for ourselves.. No credit is allowed for the taxes that we must pay if we send our children to private schools.Included in the private system is the desire to choose the best school for our children and their particular desire to learn a specific art or science, which may or may not be available in the public sector.

First of all. Students are forced to attend certain schools. They are forced to absorb the things the teachers are forced to teach. There is little free about the whole system. How could a teacher be judged and rewarded or punished? Certainly not by what a student learns, since that is up to the student. The whole system is ridiculous

Every job comes with headaches, or else you would pay them for the privilege and it would be called "entertainment." But if you talk to teachers, you will find that commonly enough, they put up with the unruly children and their unruly parents as well as the over-ruly administration in order to do what they love: teach.

You certainly must have had a range of teachers yourself, most fair to middling, some great, a few awful. How is that different from bus drivers or brain surgeons?

We all agree here that tax-funded mandatory public education is the wrong model. An open market would be better.

The fact that teacher salaries are set by publlic policy forces them to address their issues in public forums. In a rational market, individuals are paid differently even when the same person does the same work. Teachers do not have that opportunity. See my earlier reply below https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post....

The American Teachers Association has a monopoly on control of "public" government schools. Unions want money, employers provide money but ultimately it's the customer that gets the short end of the stick.In this case the customer is the student. My kids have gone through private schools. I will not inflict the "public" school system on them.

If it's rational, you can bet that the lefties are against it.With two choices, how come humanity invariably chooses the wrong one?

Absolutely!

Yes.
The way I think (analytical/ cynical) is-
if students deserve better, then those now teaching are not doing a proper job.
Rather than attempt to pay/bribe the same ones to work better,
sack them and bring in people who know what the job is and want to do it.

So obvious. So rational. So not the left way.