Michael Gove Pledges 10-Hour School Days

[Doodle.]

I'm sorry but this is bloody ridiculous. It should be about the quality of learning, not quantity. If I had children and they were forced to go to school for 10 hours per day I would seriously consider homeschooling. They won't be able to concentrate that well because they'll be knackered.

The main reason Private schools do so well is because they have more funding.

I also don't like him talking about poor behaviour as opposed to good behaviour. Why don't we focus on good behaviour more?

Teachers work enough as it is.

http://news.sky.com/story/1205596/mi...ur-school-days

[Catharsis.]

I'm loving this comment below the article.

Who says our private schools are the best in the world? What kind of people do they turn out? People like Gove! That says it all!

Ridiculous proposal, and I really think anyone who supports this is quite delusional. Keeping students in school for ten hours a day will not automatically raise standards. Why add to the stress levels amongst students which are already sky-high? Do we actually still believe overworking people increases their productivity?

On the note of behaviour, having something that acts as a deterrent for misbehaviour is all well and good, but I have to agree with Princess Luna that we should focus more on good behaviour. Where's the incentive for good behaviour? I feel it can be more effective to encourage good behaviour than discourage poor behaviour.

[Gingerbread Latte]

The whole thing is ridiculous to begin with but one thing I'm curious about is this :

Children should also sit private school-style Common Entrance exams at the age of 13 to make sure that they are "on track for later success".

What exactly will happen to children who don't do well in these tests? Usually in private school they'll provide private tutors I think or possibly even suggest the child leave the school. With state schools they can't afford to give private tuition to every student who might fail these tests and kicking children out for doing badly on a test won't end well for anybody.

I'm also sick of so much pressure being put on children to do exams. Not all students are good exam takers and exams can only show certain areas of intelligence in people. I feel quite lucky that I'm good at taking exams but I've seen people breakdown crying in the middle of exams and had full blown panic attacks due to them so adding more into the system isn't helping.

Also, maybe if the freaking government didn't cut all the funding to state schools then they could actually afford better equipment, private tutors, more teachers so that there wouldn't be a big inequality between private and state schools. I find it hilarious that these government officials who probably went to private schools can't seem to make the link between funding and how well a school does...perhaps their private education wasn't so good afterall.

[¯|_(ツ)_|¯]

If people have a hard time sitting through six hours of school, why are they going to be any more motivated to go through ten hours of school?

Plus, Cara, you're SO right about the testing. My English teacher's retiring next year. Why? Because she's tired of all the testing and realizes the tests don't accurately measure anything. One test doesn't help anything. My teacher is tired of being chained down, teaching to a test. She said the tests are more for making money than anything, and that's probably what the entire system is. It's a shame, though, we're losing great teachers like her and others who want to get out before they screw up the system more. The ones who realize that ten hour days and testing aren't going tro work.

[dr2005]

Good luck getting a kid to concentrate for 10 hours a day, that's all I'm saying...

Actually, no, I'm going to add a bit more. I went to a private school (I know, boo hiss and all that), and most people used the time outside of lessons to socialise or muck about, quite frankly. Some people went to clubs and societies, yes, but no more than could be achieved if they went to an afterschool club or society elsewhere (and I actually had to drop out of one such club because of my school hours, which was a bit counterproductive in light of what Gove wants). Rather than stretch the day out, perhaps they should look at actually giving people opportunities to attend things in the community - but that requires funding, so it'll never happen with this government...

And yes, the obsession with testing is getting beyond a joke. Let kids be kids and actually enjoy their childhood, for Christ's sake. The adult world is enough of a grind as it is.

[Corrupted]

You learn two things in school imo:

• How to take multiple choice tests.
• How authority has complete control over your life, all sense of self-sufficiency removed.

*Sniff sniff* Do you guys smell that? That is the smell of Fahrenheit 451, a book that many people said had ideas that would not come to pass. Students being in "...school for 9/10 days..." was one of those ideas, along with the move to a strong, centralized government, headphones, an epidemic of addiction to technology, and a high attempted suicide rate just to name a few.

[LlamaLlamaDuck]

This is insane. Most of these kids parents will be working less than they're in school. Great for babysitting costs, but it'll drive the kids mad. Literally.
The amount of testing right now is ridiculous. When I was in my 5th and 6th year of high school we did Highers, and that was almost a good system. Throughout the year you take tests called NABs, if you pass them all you get to sit the exam. If you fail the exam they look back at your NABs and you can challenge the result and have it changed based on your previous results.
If we had a system like this where kids CAN challenge exam results and their coursework IS important, it'd take a lot of stress off on exam day if they can go in and say "I'll try my best, but if it doesn't go well I have something to fall back on"

Then again, that's almost a sensible idea and would cost money so it's not something that would ever occur to our government.

[Doodle.]

Agree. There needs to be a lot more coursework or controlled assessments. When I was doing GCSE English a few years ago I knew I didn't do too bad in my assessments so I wasn't that worried about the exams. Exams stress me out so I will do worse.

[Adam the Fish]

Oh, come on, he's a moron and everyone knows it.
The whole education system in this country is a worsening mess, and teachers are doing their best to prop it up and give children what they can to get somewhere in life.

I don't think Gove actually solely went to a public school, but I have no idea why anyone's keeping him in his position.

10-hour days are not happening. They won't make anything better, and although Mr. Gove may not be aware of it, it would drive teachers' free time down to approximately 4 and a half picoseconds per year.

In addition to this, I would be highly critical of the system's measuring methods (he claims things are improving, simply by moving the goalposts), especially exams.
We are not educated in anything but exam technique. Lovely as this is, it's worth nothing to us.
As a classmate of mine summed it up:

Good qualifications should be as a result of education; at the moment, 'education' is as a result of learning qualifications

I could go on.

But, whatever, Michael Gove is an imbecile, and everyone knows it.

[Lelola]

The only way this would work in my book is if they gave them more frequent breaks and chances to run around. Overall, not worth it. Yes it'll help with parents who have to work but I don't think that it will help prepare the students better.

[¯|_(ツ)_|¯]

Yes it'll help with parents who have to work

That's another point my mom makes a lot with me. She works at an elementary school where they basically go in at like 7:30, 8:00 and don't get out until about 4 PM. It's basically babysitting the kids for them and that's about it. If a kid doesn't want to learn, they're not going to learn, but it's certainly convenient to the parents.

[ThisWillDestroyYou]

Actually, private schools have turned out very intelligent people. The problem is that ALL schools should be privatized and left up to the decisions of parents and their kids. Some politician doesn't know what's good for Jim, John, Jack, or Susie. But I bet those kids and their parents have a better idea than someone who just steals their money and calls it "tax" to make theft legal. Privatized education would encourage children to become entrepreneurs, and not be make them into squares who can only fill a bubble on some sheet for an answer that a teacher indoctrinated into them.

[Gingerbread Latte]

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

Actually, private schools have turned out very intelligent people. The problem is that ALL schools should be privatized and left up to the decisions of parents and their kids. Some politician doesn't know what's good for Jim, John, Jack, or Susie. But I bet those kids and their parents have a better idea than someone who just steals their money and calls it "tax" to make theft legal. Privatized education would encourage children to become entrepreneurs, and not be make them into squares who can only fill a bubble on some sheet for an answer that a teacher indoctrinated into them.

Sorry but I disagree that all schools should be privatised. Sure, maybe government officials don't always know what's best for people but you can't say that parents always know what's best either. There are some private schools or free schools I think they're called that are run by parents and they're actually allowed to teach creationism in SCIENCE classes. Since the government doesn't have any input in these free schools they can't stop them from doing that like they can with state schools.

[Konohana Sakuya]

I may be a foreigner who has no single idea about who Michael Gove is, but I find his idea to be extremely ridiculous.

What, so now he wants to make school as hectic as it is in Asia? Well, that may benefit the parents who have jobs with long shift, but what about the students? Can't he take the students' ability to learn and their need for relaxation into account? School is already horrible right now with excessive tests and homework, so there is no need to make the students break down even worse with 10 hours of school per day, right?

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

Actually, private schools have turned out very intelligent people. The problem is that ALL schools should be privatized and left up to the decisions of parents and their kids. Some politician doesn't know what's good for Jim, John, Jack, or Susie. But I bet those kids and their parents have a better idea than someone who just steals their money and calls it "tax" to make theft legal. Privatized education would encourage children to become entrepreneurs, and not be make them into squares who can only fill a bubble on some sheet for an answer that a teacher indoctrinated into them.

I don't agree with this. If all schools were privatized there would be a bigger likelihood that a big portion of students wouldn't be able to afford the cost of going to the private schools and would end up uneducated. Public education is a good thing in my eyes. And, as Cara said, not all parents know what is right for their child. They may think that they do but in the end that isn't always the case.

I think the idea of a 10 hour school day is ridiculous. This will put even more pressure on the kids and they will have less time to do activities in there life. School already takes up a lot of a child's life and the normal school day (at least where I am from) is 6 hours. If kids had to start going to school for 10 hours they would have no social life and while school is important having a social life of some kind is just as important. I honestly don't think it would be healthy.

[Catharsis.]

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

Actually, private schools have turned out very intelligent people. The problem is that ALL schools should be privatized and left up to the decisions of parents and their kids. Some politician doesn't know what's good for Jim, John, Jack, or Susie. But I bet those kids and their parents have a better idea than someone who just steals their money and calls it "tax" to make theft legal. Privatized education would encourage children to become entrepreneurs, and not be make them into squares who can only fill a bubble on some sheet for an answer that a teacher indoctrinated into them.

Plot twist: I attend a public school which has produced numerous entrepreneurs. A compulsory student enterprise project takes place in one grade, the same project is offered by the vast majority of public schools in the country and sponsored by the local enterprise board of each city or county. Business and entrepreneurship subjects are compulsory up until the grade I'm currently in, where they're still offered and uptake levels are amongst the highest.

I personally feel widespread public education has been my country's most successful social advancement of the last century, and not just for allowing all us ordinary kids to be educated. The truth is, our educational system, while far from perfect, allows schools a certain amount of freedom which is quite beneficial for the standard of education received by students. As well as allowing freedom, our education is pragmatic, for the most part, encouraging personal development. Our standardised examinations don't consist of filling in boxes, because that's not much of an education, like you've rightly portrayed. I know people who attend a private school around the corner from my own school, their curriculum is essentially the same as ours. Parents send their kids there either because they feel the standard of education is better, or, more likely, because Heaven forbid upper-middle class children attend the same public school as your normal Joe Sixpack's child.

In short...does education need an overhaul? Hell, yes, it does. Is privatisation the answer? I don't think so. I feel the education I have received in my public school is as good as it would have been if Dad earned three times the wage he does and I ended up going to a private school. I've learned to think for myself, which seems to be the key skill you're trying not to blatantly refer to. Part of my school's ethos, a public school, is to develop the student's capability to do so. Public education is great, when it's well-executed. After all, I'm sure not every anti-establishment knobhead was privately educated, I happen to sit next to one in my Maths class at Ballygobackwards Community Comprehensive.

[ThisWillDestroyYou]

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

Sorry but I disagree that all schools should be privatised. Sure, maybe government officials don't always know what's best for people but you can't say that parents always know what's best either. There are some private schools or free schools I think they're called that are run by parents and they're actually allowed to teach creationism in SCIENCE classes. Since the government doesn't have any input in these free schools they can't stop them from doing that like they can with state schools.

You're misunderstanding what I said. I did not say that parents have the best for their kids, I said they have a better idea. Not that they have the best. There is a difference. The more local you create schools, the better the education. Why? Because if you create federal requirements, you create squares. There is no diversity. That is essentially why our DoE is in the state that it is in. As far as creationism goes, that SHOULD be left to people to decide. I'd rather people make some stupid decisions, and be free, than have the government choose what we can and cannot do. I'd rather have diversity than squares.

You're also committing a fallacy. You're implying that creationism is indoctrinating a child to a false belief. While I agree with this, you're assuming the DoE does not use education to indoctrinate children within public schools. The DoE uses education to indoctrinate children. This has been known for a long time.

Originally Posted by .:BreakingBeautifully:.

I don't agree with this. If all schools were privatized there would be a bigger likelihood that a big portion of students wouldn't be able to afford the cost of going to the private schools and would end up uneducated. Public education is a good thing in my eyes. And, as Cara said, not all parents know what is right for their child. They may think that they do but in the end that isn't always the case.

This is wrong. You're assuming privatized schools would stay at the same pricing in a free market. You're also assuming that there is no other way to operate without the government involvement This is wrong.

If the free market created only privatized schools, the cost in education would actually drop. Lets say it currently costs 400$ for a kid to go to a K-12 private school with 400 students. So, let's say Then, public schools close, and all that is left is private schools. Enrollment at the school triples. Would the cost of education DROP or go UP? It'd drop. Why? Because more enrollments means they don't need as much money to keep operating. Of course, they'd have to hire more staff, etc. but the cost of staff per student wouldn't keep the cost at 400$. I can do the math, but it wouldn't cost that much. What else would we see? We'd see competitive schools try to lower costs even further.

We wouldn't have federal standards which means that we would not be trained for a test. What would we be trained for? We'd be trained for whatever our local economy requires. We'd be taught to be entrepreneurs in order to maintain a stable local economy. So, what if a school teaches creationism? Schools are already doing that. Don't like it? Well, guess what? The government isn't FORCING you to go to a school within a certain district. It's privatized. So you can find yourself a school that doesn't teach creationism.

Originally Posted by Meteora

Plot twist: I attend a public school which has produced numerous entrepreneurs. A compulsory student enterprise project takes place in one grade, the same project is offered by the vast majority of public schools in the country and sponsored by the local enterprise board of each city or county. Business and entrepreneurship subjects are compulsory up until the grade I'm currently in, where they're still offered and uptake levels are amongst the highest.

This isn't a plot twist. I was simply dispelling the statement that privatized schools only produce idiots. I'm well aware there are people in the public sector who are very intelligent. My uncle being one of them.

Originally Posted by Meteora

In short...does education need an overhaul? Hell, yes, it does. Is privatisation the answer? I don't think so. I feel the education I have received in my public school is as good as it would have been if Dad earned three times the wage he does and I ended up going to a private school. I've learned to think for myself, which seems to be the key skill you're trying not to blatantly refer to. Part of my school's ethos, a public school, is to develop the student's capability to do so. Public education is great, when it's well-executed. After all, I'm sure not every anti-establishment knobhead was privately educated, I happen to sit next to one in my Maths class at Ballygobackwards Community Comprehensive.

I only have two things to respond to this. If all schools were privatized, your dad would not need to earn three times as much. In fact, your dad could potentially earn 26% more income without federal government taking taxes from him. He point isn't even so much as being entirely privatized, I solely think they should be run at more local levels.

As far as being able to think for yourself, I think part of being able to think for yourself is being able to make free educational choices. Education, on all sides of the political spectrum, has been shown to create people who are relatively incapable of free thinking. I do not say, "Well then, only private schools are capable of producing free thinking students." I think that would be misunderstanding what I'm after. Private schools are not free in their curriculum. They still have to adhere to DoE educational standards, which is what's wrong. The DoE doesn't know whats best. The government never does, and it's a fallacy to think so.

Look at college. What's the average college debt in the US? Do you know why it's so much? It's because of the government. Why? Because these colleges can make a lot of money off the government. The government is granting loans and aid to students without any reason at all. HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars. Well, let's be oh-so-silly for a second and assume the government NEVER granted any money, or loaned ANY money to students. What would happen? Prices would drop. Why? Because without those massive loans no one could even afford to attend school. Well, colleges want to stay open, right? So what would they do? Drop prices. Look at the correlation of federal aid and college prices. You'll see what I mean. All I'm saying is the federal government doesn't need to be involved. It should be ran at state and local levels.

And one last thing, a free market educational system would create a competitive market in education. In other words, the quality of education would improve (not to mention teachers would be paid the wages they deserve).

[Gingerbread Latte]

We don't need a competitive market in education. This is education not a corporation.

What we need is fair and equal education for all and quite frankly using a capitalist system isn't going to achieve that. How exactly do you propose we measure the quality of education? As of now it's primarily based on grades and what universities students get in to. If everything was privatised I can only see this getting worse and students being pushed to achieve higher and higher grades no matter what the cost.

[ThisWillDestroyYou]

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

We don't need a competitive market in education. This is education not a corporation.

What we need is fair and equal education for all and quite frankly using a capitalist system isn't going to achieve that. How exactly do you propose we measure the quality of education? As of now it's primarily based on grades and what universities students get in to. If everything was privatised I can only see this getting worse and students being pushed to achieve higher and higher grades no matter what the cost.

You're assuming the DoE isn't already corrupted by coporatism. The government is owned by corporations. Liberals even admit this. We haven't had a capitalist society in a long time. You're confusing capitalism with corporatism. In a free market, education wouldn't be the way corporations are ran today, getting special subsidies, tax reliefs, and grants from the government picking favorites. You're also missing the point. A free market driven educational system gives incentive for educators to grow, and become better teachers. It drives away from standardized testing and focuses on how to contribute to society in a variety of ways. It allows teachers to teach and not force them to force government permitted "fact" down the throats of children.

What makes you think our current education system isn't ran by corporations? What makes you think the government running the education system makes it "fair?" Equality can only occur in free market economics.

As far as measuring the quality of education, we already do that as consumers. The difference is in a free market, when a company goes under, the tax payers don't owe the government billions of dollars for saving a company. Rather, consumers choose who survives and who doesn't. What makes you think government regulated services means quality? Have you looked at the DMV? Have you look at the economic beliefs of our current and previous administrations? If you can't trust the federal government in small matters, why should we trust them in large matters? You also mistakenly assume that we have no way to measure the quality without government. The government is made up of people, correct? What if we regulated a privatized DoE that rated educational systems? My point is, anything the public does, the privatized sector can do better. Look at healthcare website. We hired the private sector to fix it. The NSA hires private sector employees to do NSA jobs. Why?

The problem with one formulated education path is that you get the current result of our society. Over 60% of adults 18-26 are unemployed. A lot of these kids graduating colleges are finding themselves unemployed and in-debt. Why? Because they've all been raised under the same system and put into the same box as every other college grad. Employers are beginning to value work experience over education. A simple google search will show you what I mean. Look at any news source.

That's what happens when you live in a coporatist country, not a capitalist one. If you think we are capitalist, my point of indoctrination in my previous post proves accurate.

I hope you don't dismiss my questions, but answer them.

Last thing, can I ask you, am I free to disagree with you?

Also sorry for grammar and spelling errors. My tablet likes to miscorrect things.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

You're assuming the DoE isn't already corrupted by coporatism. The government is owned by corporations. Liberals even admit this. We haven't had a capitalist society in a long time. You're confusing capitalism with corporatism. In a free market, education wouldn't be the way corporations are ran today, getting special subsidies, tax reliefs, and grants from the government picking favorites. You're also missing the point. A free market driven educational system gives incentive for educators to grow, and become better teachers. It drives away from standardized testing and focuses on how to contribute to society in a variety of ways. It allows teachers to teach and not force them to force government permitted "fact" down the throats of children.

With respect, I think you're getting your terminology mixed up. What you're referring to sounds more like the theory of corporatocracy as opposed to corporatism, which is a social theory based on groups combining based on shared interests. In any event, the claim that the United States of America (or indeed any modern economy) is in fact a corporatocracy is unsubstantiated thus far. The last officially recognised corporatocracy was the British South Africa Company in the 1920s. There is certainly scope for arguing that lobbying interests have far too strong a position in modern politics, but extending that to claims of a full-blown corporatocracy may be stretching it a bit.

Also, responsibility for education funding and governance is primarily at state level, with limited intervention from the federal government and most decisions made at school board level. So even if we were to assume that the DoE is indeed "corrupted by corporations", they would have limited impact upon the education system proper.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

What makes you think our current education system isn't ran by corporations? What makes you think the government running the education system makes it "fair?" Equality can only occur in free market economics.

See above. Also, equality under the free market is conditional upon all participants having equality in the first place. That seldom, if ever, happens.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

As far as measuring the quality of education, we already do that as consumers. The difference is in a free market, when a company goes under, the tax payers don't owe the government billions of dollars for saving a company. Rather, consumers choose who survives and who doesn't. What makes you think government regulated services means quality? Have you looked at the DMV? Have you look at the economic beliefs of our current and previous administrations? If you can't trust the federal government in small matters, why should we trust them in large matters? You also mistakenly assume that we have no way to measure the quality without government. The government is made up of people, correct? What if we regulated a privatized DoE that rated educational systems? My point is, anything the public does, the privatized sector can do better. Look at healthcare website. We hired the private sector to fix it. The NSA hires private sector employees to do NSA jobs. Why?

Actually, the private sector's track record in carrying out public functions has been very mixed to say the least. There have been frequent stories about private contractors working in the security sector having problems, most notably G4S (of the Olympics security shortfall debacle which resulted in the Armed Forces stepping in, followed by allegations of claiming fees for prisoners it wasn't actually monitoring), and the private sector's role in public transport in the UK has been pretty farcical as well, to name but 2 examples. I have worked in the private sector my entire working life, and while the public sector leaves a lot to be desired at times the private sector is no better.

As for the NSA and the healthcare website, it's probably a combination of requiring particular expertise on a short-term basis and Congress not exactly giving the current administration much money to work with...

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

The problem with one formulated education path is that you get the current result of our society. Over 60% of adults 18-26 are unemployed. A lot of these kids graduating colleges are finding themselves unemployed and in-debt. Why? Because they've all been raised under the same system and put into the same box as every other college grad. Employers are beginning to value work experience over education. A simple google search will show you what I mean. Look at any news source.

Employers have always valued work experience over education - this is not a new phenomenon. What is new is that we've been mired in economic stagnation (to put it mildly) since the 2007 banking crisis dragged the whole global economy down the toilet. It's not so much a question of problems with the education system so much as a fundamental lack of jobs, or funding for new business ideas. Various other countries (including Germany, which has a varied approach to education including defined vocational pathways) have struggled with this as well - it's not just a US-specific problem.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

That's what happens when you live in a coporatist country, not a capitalist one. If you think we are capitalist, my point of indoctrination in my previous post proves accurate.

With all due respect, debating etiquette is that it's for the person raising a claim to provide supporting evidence for it. You should therefore provide some justification for your claim of corporatocracy, rather than asserting that dissenting opinion is merely the result of "indoctrination".

[ThisWillDestroyYou]

Originally Posted by dr2005

With respect, I think you're getting your terminology mixed up. What you're referring to sounds more like the theory of corporatocracy as opposed to corporatism, which is a social theory based on groups combining based on shared interests.

First of all, there's no need to add "with respect." It is implied through communicating that people are being respectful, despite differences. Also, I tend to ignore your posts, because seeing you previously in the religious forums, I do not expect to change your mind, on any topic, ever (but that isn't my goal here). And last thing before I continue, the response you chose to respond to was not directed towards you, nor was it directed toward the public. It was a response to a single person, and I'd expect them to defend their case, not you.

Anyway, I did not confuse my terms.

Corporatocracy is relatively similar to the way some (independents, libertarians, anarchists, etc.) people use the word corporatism. In corporatism, the society, or "state" is controlled by large interest groups. These large interest groups are maintained and funded by large corporations. We refer to it as corporatism, because our country is controlled by these interest groups, which then the government funds the corporations that fund these select groups. The government spends roughly 50% more on corporation subsidies than on individual welfare.

Originally Posted by dr2005

In any event, the claim that the United States of America (or indeed any modern economy) is in fact a corporatocracy is unsubstantiated thus far. The last officially recognised corporatocracy was the British South Africa Company in the 1920s.

Officially recognized by whom? Governments? Federally funded scholars and researchers?

Originally Posted by dr2005

Also, responsibility for education funding and governance is primarily at state level, with limited intervention from the federal government and most decisions made at school board level. So even if we were to assume that the DoE is indeed "corrupted by corporations", they would have limited impact upon the education system proper.

At the end of your post, you seem to be a tad adamant about sources. So, please, show me a source other than wikipedia. Decisions are certainly made at State levels, but I'd argue they primarily are not. Why? Because they have federal expectations to hold up to. E.G. SATs, and a curriculum that allows students to go to colleges that have federal requirements, as well. It is funded by the state, to a point, but you have to look at the larger picture.

Originally Posted by dr2005

See above. Also, equality under the free market is conditional upon all participants having equality in the first place. That seldom, if ever, happens.

I think this is a little misguided. But it's also too broad of a statement to understand what you are getting at. Give me an example. It may be a little to idealistic at this point, I'd agree. It'd take baby steps to achieve free market equality. However, I'd argue a free market is the ONLY way to achieve equality in the first place. The only reason it'd be difficult with our current economics is because of how the government has been involving itself in the past 200 years. Namely the last century.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Actually, the private sector's track record in carrying out public functions has been very mixed to say the least. There have been frequent stories about private contractors working in the security sector having problems, most notably G4S (of the Olympics security shortfall debacle which resulted in the Armed Forces stepping in, followed by allegations of claiming fees for prisoners it wasn't actually monitoring), and the private sector's role in public transport in the UK has been pretty farcical as well, to name but 2 examples. I have worked in the private sector my entire working life, and while the public sector leaves a lot to be desired at times the private sector is no better.

I think you are missing the point. In a free market, people choose the winners AND losers. Not the government. Let's say we became a free market tomorrow. We kept all of our DMV employees and started privately funding the DMV. Now, let's say, the DMV does not improve in quality. What do we do? We stop funding the DMV. What happens to the DMV then? It's removed. We are no longer forced to pay for a defunct department. So, what do we do? Well, we have this wise entrepreneur who starts another DMV-like system. We are skeptical, but we start giving him money, and slowly start funding his ideas. His ideas run better, and smoother than the DMV. Do you see where I am going? Competition is good. It allows us to allocate our money to where it WORKS. Don't get me wrong, I do not think free market people are going to fix everything instantaneously, but I think it allows us to put our money where it is earned, rather than where it is taken and given to a BS system.

However, in defense of this, the DMV out where I live is good. I just use this as an example, because I know how some people feel about it. I'm more about people having options, rather than being held at the threat of arrest for not wanting to do or pay for something they don't want or use.

Originally Posted by dr2005

As for the NSA and the healthcare website, it's probably a combination of requiring particular expertise on a short-term basis and Congress not exactly giving the current administration much money to work with...

I appreciate you responding to these. However, I believe, in the case of the ACA website, if they hired privatized citizens to create it initially, it would have done better. Why? Because, think of it this way: I'm a small little web developing company called AWD (fictional company). The government comes to me and says, "Hey, I want you to create the ACA website." In this case, I would WANT to do a good job. Why? Because let's say I do well on the ACA website, what does this mean for the future of my company? The government will come pay me again to design more websites. What about government employees? Well, they may get a pat on the back, or forgotten. My mom and stepdad both work for the government. My grandpa did to. I've seen this happen first hand. You want to know what they got for doing their jobs well? A basket of treats and trophies that cost a few bucks.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Employers have always valued work experience over education - this is not a new phenomenon.

I had not said that this was a new phenomenon. What I am saying is that education is being devalued because they are finding colleges make students self-entitled. They'd rather the student get out in the workforce out of high school. Regardless, we still see education as a requirement in many places, ironically. However, you end up in a catch-22 after graduation. You need experience to get in. Generally about 2-5 years of experience, even at low-end jobs. So, what do we have? People employed making 7.50 an hour, living at home, and working at McDonalds with tens of thousands of dollars in debt from a bachelor degree that gave them nothing. Then again, if they work part time they get approximately $55K in assistance from the government (which if this is the case, why would they ever want to move up? Why would they want to be an entrepreneur?).

Originally Posted by dr2005

What is new is that we've been mired in economic stagnation (to put it mildly) since the 2007 banking crisis dragged the whole global economy down the toilet. It's not so much a question of problems with the education system so much as a fundamental lack of jobs, or funding for new business ideas. Various other countries (including Germany, which has a varied approach to education including defined vocational pathways) have struggled with this as well - it's not just a US-specific problem.

I agree. However, I'd argue that if we had removed our federal taxes, enforcing laws that make it difficult for small business owners, and allowed us to choose winners and losers in the economy (rather than the government granting billions of tax payer money to corporate companies and banks, and as it appears to be coming, insurance companies), we'd have a more stable economy. It'd allow for more entrepreneurs. You have to look at why we are in this situation to begin with.

Originally Posted by dr2005

With all due respect, debating etiquette is that it's for the person raising a claim to provide supporting evidence for it. You should therefore provide some justification for your claim of corporatocracy, rather than asserting that dissenting opinion is merely the result of "indoctrination".

I'm sorry, but this is similar to what you've done this entire post (again, no need for stated respect -- I don't really deserve any anyways). I don't find it necessary to show how we've reached corporatism. It's clear we are controlled by lobbying interest groups. And it is clear who controls those groups. Nor would I call my response a debate. I'd just call it a response with dissenting ideas. I don't really care to be "right." I just care to get people to think about what they believe.

[Gingerbread Latte]

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best at debating especially at a topic I don't know as much as I'd like to about but I'll try my best to reply to the parts of your argument that I feel I can debate on.

The government is owned by corporations

Your government may be but I would argue that my government is not owned by corporations to the same extent as the US is...at least, not yet.

What makes you think our current education system isn't ran by corporations? What makes you think the government running the education system makes it "fair?" Equality can only occur in free market economics.

With government run facilities at least the general public have some ability to hold them accountable. We can choose who to vote or not to vote in elections, we can sign petitions and rally to get certain politicians removed from office (with varying success). With a free market the general public can't do this.

As far as measuring the quality of education, we already do that as consumers. The difference is in a free market, when a company goes under, the tax payers don't owe the government billions of dollars for saving a company. Rather, consumers choose who survives and who doesn't.

So any school that is failing we just let it go under leaving those students without a school? That means those students have to go through the hassle of moving to another school. What if there are no other schools for them close by? What if the other schools close by cost more and the parents can't afford it?

You also mistakenly assume that we have no way to measure the quality without government.

I'm not saying ONLY the government can measure quality, in fact I disagree with the way they only use standardised testing to measure how well at school is doing but I was merely looking for a suggestion of how this would change if schools were privatised. My experience (albeit little) with private schools is that they want their students to achieve the top grades possible and will do anything to make them get those grades.

Look at healthcare website. We hired the private sector to fix it.

I've experienced the NHS and think that's more than adequate healthcare for the general population so there's no privatisation of it required, despite what our government thinks.

Employers are beginning to value work experience over education.

As Dave said previously this is nothing new. How do you propose this would change if schools are privatised?

can I ask you, am I free to disagree with you?

Of course you are. I'm not especially inclined to carry on debating in order to change your opinion mostly because I think that I won't be able to.

[ThisWillDestroyYou]

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best at debating especially at a topic I don't know as much as I'd like to about but I'll try my best to reply to the parts of your argument that I feel I can debate on.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not debating. I am not seeking to win an argument. People accepting free market economics, e.g. Austrian Economics, libertarian philosophy, or outright anarchism (in an intelligent way), takes a long time. I don't seek to "convert" (so-to-speak) anyone. I just challenge the ideas people have about the free market because it is often misunderstood. I don't care if you're knowledgeable or not. I, simply, hope that a discussion with me forces you to research what you think you know, or things that you don't know. You're free to disagree with me. But, I'm also free to think you're wrong

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

Your government may be but I would argue that my government is not owned by corporations to the same extent as the US is...at least, not yet.

Fair enough, I do not know enough about your government. I will say this, a lot of governments are controlled in the same way the US is. It's just more subtle.

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

With government run facilities at least the general public have some ability to hold them accountable. We can choose who to vote or not to vote in elections, we can sign petitions and rally to get certain politicians removed from office (with varying success). With a free market the general public can't do this.

There have actually been surveys (I can't find the source at the moment) that show voting is the least effective way to express yourself. But, this doesn't really matter. I'll say this, I think in the free market the general public has a BETTER way of holding people accountable. How? Because in a free market we have the ability to choose winners and losers by the money we give them, or don't give them. We can still sign petitions to the companies, who are more likely to change than the government (I'll explain why in a moment), and rally against people we disagree with.

The reason this is better is because these companies are subjected to the people. The federal government, in the US, was designed to be limited. People were supposed to be able to choose who they support, and who they don't. It was never intended to be a democracy, but a constitutional republic. The government was supposed to operate similar to the free market. If we don't agree with them, we aren't required to abide. The problem is that the government is getting more and more power, and you are forced to agree with them because they can use their power over you if you do not abide by their rules, and if you use force against them, it's considered a crime. It's hypocritical. Our early government even stated that mankind should be able to bear arms, not as protection against criminals, but as protection against their own government.

Here's where it comes down to. In a free market, if I don't like something, I don't have to support it. Within a democracy, if the majority likes it, it destroys the freedom of the minority, and even the minority are demanded to support it, or else. THAT'S the problem!

However, if in a free market you only have the people to support you, then you're more inclined to do what the people want. And if other people disagree with that decision, they're free to go to your competitor, or simply ignore you altogether. They aren't forced to fund you with the threat of jail. That's why in a free market, you're more likely to persuade people. The government doesn't fear the people, and the government should because the government is supposed to be the servants to the people, not the rulers (at least in the US, but the philosophy still doesn't change, a large government causes tyranny).

Think of it this way, is genocide in history is more likely to happen from a free market? Or large governments?

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Let me note, I do not agree with everything he says. It's simply a resource to show you what I mean. So, you see, the big picture issue is MUCH, MUCH bigger than just public education.

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

So any school that is failing we just let it go under leaving those students without a school? That means those students have to go through the hassle of moving to another school. What if there are no other schools for them close by? What if the other schools close by cost more and the parents can't afford it?

You're argument is actually a fallacy. One, you're assuming that if education continued in a free market that there would be a necessity for it to be accredited, rather than used for the purpose of bringing about a stable economy. Therefore, any education gained while at any school would prove useful because it is no longer about getting good grades, or graduating, but about providing services to further a society. However, let me consider your question another way, you're also assuming that if schools ran through a private accreditation (again, by people freely choosing if they want to attend a privately accredited school or not) that no one would step up to help those students. This is wrong. People would step up. In fact, if we look at the money the US government grants to art students in the US, private funding actually exceeds the amount the government gives, SUBSTANTIALLY!! The difference is this: It isn't with tax payer money. People are free to choose to support causes they believe in. Your false assumption is that we are incapable of performing minor functions without the government. We can perform all tasks privately. Hence the need for entrepreneurs in a free market. Instead of asking me what my solution is, why don't you stop and think for yourself (I'm not trying to come off rude or sarcastic, I'm trying to get you to think).

So, for example, lets takes roads. Say we removed the government. Who would fund the roads? In fact, I've seen this argument in a textbook for Universities (We the People), however, they said without the government we'd have no roads. This isn't true. In the early 1900s we had roads. Who funded them? The free market. How? Purchasing from companies. In other words, lets say I own a pharmacy. I want people to be able to conveniently get to my pharmacy. How would I accomplish this? Build roads. I'd even argue that these roads would be better maintained than public roads. Why? Because, I want people to get to my store safely, because you can be sure as shit that if Sally over here crashes her car because of a pothole, that she won't be coming to my pharmacy again, AND she'll tell all her friends, and I'll lose business. Now, obviously the price of these roads would have to be reflected in the cost of my services, but here's the thing, if I don't go to that pharmacy, I shouldn't need to pay for their roads. My point is, think outside the box. Take something, anything, and say, "If I removed the government from this task, how could we get it to function without?" I'll tell you this, anything the government does, the private sector can do.

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

I'm not saying ONLY the government can measure quality, in fact I disagree with the way they only use standardised testing to measure how well at school is doing but I was merely looking for a suggestion of how this would change if schools were privatised. My experience (albeit little) with private schools is that they want their students to achieve the top grades possible and will do anything to make them get those grades.

I agree with you. This is the problem of state and federal mandated testing. Private schools want good grades because that means a better school (in the eyes of the public). However, the problem is that the government has forced these regulations, restrictions, and requirements on teachers that demand certain expectations on students to pass courses or the teachers get in trouble (and this applies to the current private education). The government is the reason so much emphasis is placed on grades and testing, rather than education. This is exactly my point. If we went to a free market, value would be placed on the education and not the grades. Why? Because there'd no longer be these requirements from the government. We'd have schools training kids for real world experience, rather than teaching them that to be good people they have to be politically correct, pay their taxes, and go to work every day (so the government can take taxes). Instead the emphasis would be placed on REAL experience to contribute to society and to make your own way in the world.

I think we agree entirely on the point that you brought up. All I'm saying is, if we disagree with the way the government runs things, why should we run to them to fix it? Because you know what it will cost to fix it? More tax payer money. And you know what else? There's no incentive for the government to actually fix it. Why? Because the government will get your money by force. You don't have the right to choose whether you agree with their methods or not. Which is my point, I'd rather have a system where WE choose the methods.

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

I've experienced the NHS and think that's more than adequate healthcare for the general population so there's no privatisation of it required, despite what our government thinks.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the government fails in every aspect. I just think that the private sector can do better. Before major health insurance companies came around in the US, healthcare costs were more affordable here than anywhere else. In fact, many people could see a doctor for free. The problem is when insurance companies came around, the medical practitioners realized they could charge more and get more money. Which, then increased insurance costs, which is why we are in the state we're in. There are MANY reasons our insurance sucks, but Americans forget that about 60 years ago, we had a healthcare system that the world envied.

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

As Dave said previously this is nothing new. How do you propose this would change if schools are privatised?

I never said it was new, as I responded before. The solution, for me, is a little unclear. However, I would say this. If all education was privatized there would be an emphasis on the actual education. Let me put it this way, as Albert Einstein said, if you try teaching a fish to climb a tree, it will live it's whole life believing it is dumb. Now, I take this not to mean that we should dumb down our standards, but contrary that we should place students in a system where they can succeed to become better people with real experience. In other words, if we raise a society on the same math, the same language books, the same history books, the same everything because federal and state mandates require it, we have graduates that ALL have the SAME exact qualifications. There's no diversity. So, how do you stand out to an employer? You can't, really. I mean, of course there are ways, but don't you think it's a little ridiculous on what you HAVE to do, just to stand out? E.G. taking unpaid interns, etc. etc. etc. Instead, if our education system allowed diversity, employers would be able to find that diversity based on the private school they were graduating from. It would allow an opportunity for people to stand out, rather than forcing people to be in debt solely to become just like every other bean in the can.

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

Of course you are. I'm not especially inclined to carry on debating in order to change your opinion mostly because I think that I won't be able to.

I'm sorry I'm long winded. I think sometimes it's difficult to express these ideas in a few sentences. Then again, I've always been told I'm long winded when I get excited about something.

Anyways, as I've said, you're also free to disagree with me. I think that's one of the greatest things is the ability to freely disagree without punishment. I would never even think of using force against you for disagreeing with me. Would you grant me this, as well? In other words, I would never send armed and masked men over to harm you or throw you in a chamber for disagreeing with me. Would you grant me this, too?

[Dawn.]

Just...wow.
I work 10 hour shifts 4 days a week and it is exhausting even with the day off. I don't understand how they expect school students to sit in class for that long, then go home and study for an exam. I think they are forgetting that some students, parents and teachers have to travel to get to and from school.
As well as having teachers work 50 hour weeks.
That's just ridiculous.

[dr2005]

Sorry for being slow to reply - have been travelling a lot this week with work so haven't had chance to sit down and compose a full response.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

First of all, there's no need to add "with respect." It is implied through communicating that people are being respectful, despite differences. Also, I tend to ignore your posts, because seeing you previously in the religious forums, I do not expect to change your mind, on any topic, ever (but that isn't my goal here). And last thing before I continue, the response you chose to respond to was not directed towards you, nor was it directed toward the public. It was a response to a single person, and I'd expect them to defend their case, not you.

In response:

1) I always add in "with respect" where my response could be construed as being otherwise (for instance in this case, where someone less accommodating might think I was being snarky by pointing out the difference in terminology). Written communication of this sort is notorious for being misconstrued, and having been accused of attacks in the past when I have intended nothing of the sort I always err on the side of caution. It also acts as a helpful reminder to people that I am courteous in my reply, however much it challenges what they are saying.

2) Ignoring my posts simply because you have failed to convince me on arguments regarding religion is exceptionally narrow-minded of you, in my opinion. If you have failed to change my mind on a topic in the past, including religion, it is for no other reason than that your arguments haven't been up to scratch. That is not my fault. I am perfectly happy to consider positions contrary to my own, and do so on their own merits, and have changed my opinions on a number of topics in light of considered arguments. To claim otherwise on my part shows how little you actually know about me. In light of my background majoring in Law, I am going to go over such arguments with a fine-tooth comb and challenge them where I find reason to. Likewise, I expect people to do so with mine and am happy to respond to challenges where they are raised (and I expect them to be - if people agree with everything I say, it puts me on edge frankly). If you are unhappy with that notion, then I would say you need to reconsider why you are engaging in debates in the first place - which is, by definition, what you are doing by posting in a Debates forum (and by proxy the Religion etc forum), despite claims to the contrary.

3) You are posting on a public forum where all posts are open to reply both from the intended recipient and the wider community on this forum. Your reply contained no specific restriction on who could reply, and your claims were general enough that anyone would be within their rights to comment on them. If you sought a specific reply from one person, and one person only, then you should either say so in your reply or take it to a PM instead. When you post on a public forum instead, it's open to anyone to choose to reply. That's how these things work. Again, if you are unhappy with this notion some further thought about why you are posting may be required.

Moving on...

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

Anyway, I did not confuse my terms.

Corporatocracy is relatively similar to the way some (independents, libertarians, anarchists, etc.) people use the word corporatism. In corporatism, the society, or "state" is controlled by large interest groups. These large interest groups are maintained and funded by large corporations. We refer to it as corporatism, because our country is controlled by these interest groups, which then the government funds the corporations that fund these select groups. The government spends roughly 50% more on corporation subsidies than on individual welfare.

Fair enough. All I would say in response is it doesn't appear to match the wider use of the term, but for these purposes I'm happy to concede the point.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

Officially recognized by whom? Governments? Federally funded scholars and researchers?

Well, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a corporatocracy as "a society or system that is governed or controlled by corporations". Thus far, the last one which I've found identified in a peer-reviewed history source (either within or outside the USA) is Rhodesia. Claims of the United States and similar jurisdictions being one tend to be confined to the conspiracy theorists, who don't seem so keen on the peer review process.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

At the end of your post, you seem to be a tad adamant about sources. So, please, show me a source other than wikipedia. Decisions are certainly made at State levels, but I'd argue they primarily are not. Why? Because they have federal expectations to hold up to. E.G. SATs, and a curriculum that allows students to go to colleges that have federal requirements, as well. It is funded by the state, to a point, but you have to look at the larger picture.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act 2001) specifically forbids the implementation of a national curriculum. The Constitution is silent on education matters, so in the absence of any constitutional provision the ESEA dictates terms - which means, inter alia, education decisions are made at state level. Likewise, public universities are coordinated at state level, as is cooperation across state borders by groups such as the Washington Student Achievement Council. Beyond stating what the current legal framework requires, I'm not sure what other sources you're looking for. Regarding the comments about the SAT and the ACT requirements by colleges and universities, that is true up to a point in that it sets a national yardstick; however, it is one chosen by the colleges and universities themselves, not the federal government. The SAT is the joint effort of the College Board and Educational Training Systems, both of which are private non-profit organisations, and the ACT is administered by a non-profit based in Iowa City. Conflating "national" with "federal" serves to misrepresent the nature of the system as far as I can see.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I think this is a little misguided. But it's also too broad of a statement to understand what you are getting at. Give me an example. It may be a little to idealistic at this point, I'd agree. It'd take baby steps to achieve free market equality. However, I'd argue a free market is the ONLY way to achieve equality in the first place. The only reason it'd be difficult with our current economics is because of how the government has been involving itself in the past 200 years. Namely the last century.

I don't see how it is misguided to point out that there are large differences in manpower, resources and market reach amongst participants in the marketplace. It seems a fairly basic statement of economic fact. Nonetheless, given you seek an example, here are a few which will hopefully illustrate the point I am making:

1) Company A is an established consumer technology company. An entrepreneur, B, comes up with a product in the same sector as A's but with some distinct differences and improvements. A uses its superior resources to not only write a cease-and-desist letter to B alleging theft of its intellectual property, but also to ensure all its distribution agreements prevent its partners from stocking competing products, including B's. As a result, B's product fails to reach the market as he cannot afford to fight the legal battle or find a stockist.

2) Mr C and his family have run a successful, popular Mexican restaurant for over fifty years in their home town. D, a national chain of Mexican restaurants, opens a new restaurant on the same street as Mr C's. D cuts its prices aggressively and engages in a marketing blitz, funded by its head office, in order to force Mr C out of the market. Despite several mixed and negative reviews of D's products, Mr C's restaurant is marginalised such that it cannot make a profit, and closes. D then raises their prices back to existing levels, citing the earlier levels as an "opening discount".

3) Two candidates, E and F, apply for the same job. Both have very impressive academic records, E from well-established schools and colleges in affluent areas and F from schools and colleges in more deprived areas. However, whereas E's neighbourhood was serviced by a number of providers of extracurricular activities such as sports and social clubs funded by private businesses, F's was not as the businesses behind such schemes did not view it as viable. E gets the job over F, for no reason other than his membership of these sports and social clubs.

4) G is a large car manufacturer, with a significant share of its domestic market and sizeable operations overseas. One of its competitors overseas, H, decides to start selling cars in G's home market, in the belief that its more reliable and cheaper-to-run models will be popular with consumers in G's country. In response, G threatens its dealers that it will withdraw their franchises if they stock H's models as well, and engages in a marketing campaign bad-mouthing H's products and using selective reviews to make their own (inferior) products sound better. As such, H cannot establish a stable foothold in G's home market and withdraws.

Hopefully you can see what I am trying to say about a free market not generating equality, but just in case: none of these examples include anything which is contrary to a free market or based on state intervention, or indeed illegal. Parties can choose to enter into contracts of exclusivity if they so wish, and do so on a regular basis. However, those participants in the free market with access to higher levels of resources, and market reach, will always be in a more powerful position than those starting up, and more often than not will use that position to stifle competition. The examples I give above are all based on fairly typical occurrences in the business world. Supply and demand may form the fundamental component of the free market, but it is not immune to external influence and on its own cannot create a level playing field. Indeed, the notion of truly perfect competition within a free market tends to be regarded as utopian, and - perhaps counterintuitively - a certain amount of state intervention in the market is in fact aimed at trying to improve competition (for example the Competition Commission in the UK and the core economic freedoms within the EU).

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I think you are missing the point. In a free market, people choose the winners AND losers. Not the government. Let's say we became a free market tomorrow. We kept all of our DMV employees and started privately funding the DMV. Now, let's say, the DMV does not improve in quality. What do we do? We stop funding the DMV. What happens to the DMV then? It's removed. We are no longer forced to pay for a defunct department. So, what do we do? Well, we have this wise entrepreneur who starts another DMV-like system. We are skeptical, but we start giving him money, and slowly start funding his ideas. His ideas run better, and smoother than the DMV. Do you see where I am going? Competition is good. It allows us to allocate our money to where it WORKS. Don't get me wrong, I do not think free market people are going to fix everything instantaneously, but I think it allows us to put our money where it is earned, rather than where it is taken and given to a BS system.

However, in defense of this, the DMV out where I live is good. I just use this as an example, because I know how some people feel about it. I'm more about people having options, rather than being held at the threat of arrest for not wanting to do or pay for something they don't want or use.

One clarification, if I may: the DMV is not a federal institution. Each state has its own variant, with functions handled by either a single agency or possibly multiple agencies depending on each state's constitution, and the code which guides their operation is produced by a private non-profit organisation called the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. There is no federal standard in place, although the REAL ID Act of 2005 is trying to coordinate them more. Thus far I would say it has had limited success.

Aside from that, one issue I can see with your argument is that it assumes all services can benefit from competition. This is not in fact the case. Some systems require such a high degree of coordination, or inherent guarantees from the state, that the only effective way to administer them on a national level is to have a monopoly provider; the very fact that such systems developed in this manner rather than each state or province having its own way is proof of this. Again, a few examples:

1) All United States citizens (lawful ones, anyway) who wish to travel overseas require a passport, issued by the State Department. The form of this is the same for all US citizens - as is, no doubt, the cost. Imagine now that the State Department is dissolved, and a number of private companies decide to create their own versions, all with different degrees of information and format and priced competitively in order to get citizens to adopt them. However, a passport operates on the basis of the mutuality of obligations between states - namely, citizens from one country won't be blocked from entering the other and vice versa. That's straightforward enough with one provider - but how does a state provide such a guarantee without knowing whether the passports are backed by the state of origin? All they know is it's a document produced by a private organisation, ostensibly identifying where they are from but with no guarantees therein. So other states have to try and coordinate different sets of information and try and work out whether all the passports should be treated the same, increasing the bureaucracy and the cost involved. The only way to ensure they are all treated the same is to have some oversight by the government, such as an underwriting process or standardised format, but that entails inspection and verification procedures which again cost money. So where is the inherent benefit of competition?

2) The FDA provides a lot of regulation in the USA in the field of public health, particularly in relation to food standards and drugs. Imagine this agency is dissolved, and instead two large private agencies assume their responsibilities on the basis of more efficient and effective testing and oversight at competitive rates. A new drug, product X, is submitted to both for verification. Agency A conducts its tests and determines that the product is not safe for public use, and refuses verification. Agency B conducts its tests and determines that the product is safe for public use and grants a licence. Both sets of tests are valid - it is a question of the criteria each use in determining safety. Retailers are therefore left with Agency A refusing to allow the product on sale, and Agency B giving the go ahead. Which one should consumers listen to?

3) In Europe (seeing as my examples thus far have been US-based), crash testing for cars (and vans) is carried out by a body called Euro NCAP. This is an association backed by a combination of automotive groups and governmental departments, and is independent from the automotive industry. Imagine that, instead of this body carrying out testing, it is instead tendered out to a group of private companies. With profitability and shareholder interests to contend with, plus potential influence by the industry, it is conceivable that the testing methodology may not be as rigorous across all the companies, yet they may produce their results in a very similar format (e.g. star ratings). Consumers may be unaware as to the difference, and assume that a good rating from one company is equivalent to a good rating from another company. Does this amount to an improvement of the service to consumers?

I suppose I should hold my hand up at this point and admit that all of these examples are of government bodies which developed in response to a particular need - free passage of its citizens in foreign lands, food adulteration and vehicle safety respectively. But that is part of the point. Some services by their very nature need to be free from market forces in order to serve their end users properly - much as it may be unpopular to hand such functions over to central governments, with some things (e.g. foreign affairs) they are best suited to the role. That isn't to say they are to all things, and I would agree there are many functions which governments should keep clear of, but to say that competition and the free market always improves services is not something I can agree with.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I appreciate you responding to these. However, I believe, in the case of the ACA website, if they hired privatized citizens to create it initially, it would have done better. Why? Because, think of it this way: I'm a small little web developing company called AWD (fictional company). The government comes to me and says, "Hey, I want you to create the ACA website." In this case, I would WANT to do a good job. Why? Because let's say I do well on the ACA website, what does this mean for the future of my company? The government will come pay me again to design more websites. What about government employees? Well, they may get a pat on the back, or forgotten. My mom and stepdad both work for the government. My grandpa did to. I've seen this happen first hand. You want to know what they got for doing their jobs well? A basket of treats and trophies that cost a few bucks.

They may well have done - although I would counter that by saying that I have worked in the contracting sector myself and know all too well that private companies are also capable of doing a very poor job. G4S at the Olympic Games is a very high-profile example, but there are others as well. Admittedly government employment practices leave a lot to be desired, but again I have seen similar lack of recognition in private companies as well. It's a sign of poor management in both cases, but not unique to either.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I had not said that this was a new phenomenon. What I am saying is that education is being devalued because they are finding colleges make students self-entitled. They'd rather the student get out in the workforce out of high school. Regardless, we still see education as a requirement in many places, ironically. However, you end up in a catch-22 after graduation. You need experience to get in. Generally about 2-5 years of experience, even at low-end jobs. So, what do we have? People employed making 7.50 an hour, living at home, and working at McDonalds with tens of thousands of dollars in debt from a bachelor degree that gave them nothing. Then again, if they work part time they get approximately $55K in assistance from the government (which if this is the case, why would they ever want to move up? Why would they want to be an entrepreneur?).

I wouldn't say that education is being devalued as such - expectations in Europe, and certainly the UK, are very high in terms of the standard of education an applicant has. What is perhaps being questioned is whether the education system at present is supplying those applicants with the appropriate skills for the workplace, and that is a valid question. It is still possible to leave university, for example, with comparatively poor use of spelling, punctuation and grammar, and that is something employers hate. That being said, the experiences available to those at school leaver level are not particularly impressive, and certainly nothing which would fast-track an employee in most sectors - indeed, they tend to be the same kinds of jobs you describe above. The experience for a lot of sectors comes from internships, which tend to require completing at least college education. The major problem, and again I emphasise this, is that there simply are not enough posts because the economy is still recovering from the absolute tanking it had in 2007-8.

Out of curiosity, where did you find the $55,000 assistance from the government figure? I must confess I have not encountered that one before, and it sounds somewhat out of kilter with the US approach to state welfare generally.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I agree. However, I'd argue that if we had removed our federal taxes, enforcing laws that make it difficult for small business owners, and allowed us to choose winners and losers in the economy (rather than the government granting billions of tax payer money to corporate companies and banks, and as it appears to be coming, insurance companies), we'd have a more stable economy. It'd allow for more entrepreneurs. You have to look at why we are in this situation to begin with.

We're in this situation to begin with because, arguably at least, a very light-touch approach to regulation of our financial markets led to a series of incredibly stupid decisions regarding the subprime market which wiped out the balance sheets of major financial institutions, triggering a panic and calling in of debt which went global. The financial crisis of 2007-8, from which we are still recovering, was the result of market forces gone very badly wrong. "Boom and bust", as it is more popularly termed, is an inherent risk of a capitalist economy such as ours, or at least the trend would suggest as such. Given that, historically at least, recoveries have taken place more quickly with increased government intervention to jump-start the economy again, I'm not sure cutting off the revenue stream by removing federal taxes is a sensible approach. As for the laws question, that comes down to the question of which laws you believe make it difficult for small business owners - you may get very different responses from different owners depending on their field of expertise.

Originally Posted by Of Mike and Men

I'm sorry, but this is similar to what you've done this entire post (again, no need for stated respect -- I don't really deserve any anyways). I don't find it necessary to show how we've reached corporatism. It's clear we are controlled by lobbying interest groups. And it is clear who controls those groups. Nor would I call my response a debate. I'd just call it a response with dissenting ideas. I don't really care to be "right." I just care to get people to think about what they believe.

Asserting something is "clear" does not make it so - this is not Wonderland. If you wish to convince others of the merits of your ideas, so as to get them to "think about what they believe", it would do you some good to have some evidence to back up your positions. Beyond that, we have nothing aside from your rhetoric and assertions that it is as you describe it to be. You may well be right in your views - or you may simply be overstating the case considerably. It's up to the reader to decide in each case, but if you wish to encourage dissenting minds to consider your ideas then more substance is required. Einstein still had to show his workings out, after all.

[Corrupted]

Originally Posted by Terabithia.

That's another point my mom makes a lot with me. She works at an elementary school where they basically go in at like 7:30, 8:00 and don't get out until about 4 PM. It's basically babysitting the kids for them and that's about it. If a kid doesn't want to learn, they're not going to learn, but it's certainly convenient to the parents.

I never got a chance to read the entire thread until now, and this post in particular reminds me of this excerpt from Fahrenheit 451. "I plunk the children in school nine days out of ten. I put up with them when they come home three days a month; it's not bad at all. You heave them into the 'parlor' and turn the switch. It's like washing clothes: stuff laundry in and slam the lid."

[Sammichez]

OH GOD ! The old saying "quality over quantity" really shows here. We need BETTER education, not LONGER education.

[ThisWillDestroyYou]

I can only respond to part of this as I am busy.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Sorry for being slow to reply - have been travelling a lot this week with work so haven't had chance to sit down and compose a full response.

It's fine. We can't all monitor the forums 24/7

Originally Posted by dr2005

In response:

1) I always add in "with respect" where my response could be construed as being otherwise (for instance in this case, where someone less accommodating might think I was being snarky by pointing out the difference in terminology). Written communication of this sort is notorious for being misconstrued, and having been accused of attacks in the past when I have intended nothing of the sort I always err on the side of caution. It also acts as a helpful reminder to people that I am courteous in my reply, however much it challenges what they are saying.

You're free to do what you want. However, I would let you know, this isn't necessary for me. I believe it's implied that people are being polite, and when they aren't, I really don't care. People who are snarky, generally, don't deserve the time of day to be offended by them.

Originally Posted by dr2005

2) Ignoring my posts simply because you have failed to convince me on arguments regarding religion is exceptionally narrow-minded of you

It's a Current Events and Debates forum, not just a debates forum. I did not respond to debate or convince anyone of anything, but to cause people to think.

I also disagree with this being narrow-minded. I choose my fights. There becomes a certain point when people appear too dogmatic that debating is virtually useless. I still read your posts, and I still consider what you have to say. Choosing not to debate is not being narrow-minded. Not reading the post or considering what you had to say, would be. The argument is a tad fallacious. If we had to debate with everyone we disagree with, we'd never get anything else done. There comes a point when you know not to respond, but to still listen to what someone says because there is always potential to learn. If we take your implied definition of narrow-mindedness, everyone is then narrow-minded for not debating.

Originally Posted by dr2005

3) You are posting on a public forum where all posts are open to reply both from the intended recipient and the wider community on this forum.

Again, I disagree on this point. It is a public forum, yes. But, say someone said, "I don't believe in god." I, then, quoted them and said, "Why don't you believe in god?" I am not asking everyone in the forum to respond.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Well, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a corporatocracy as "a society or system that is governed or controlled by corporations". Thus far, the last one which I've found identified in a peer-reviewed history source (either within or outside the USA) is Rhodesia. Claims of the United States and similar jurisdictions being one tend to be confined to the conspiracy theorists, who don't seem so keen on the peer review process.

I don't agree with most conspiracy theories, but I think your claim on theorists being found of peer review is wrong. They welcome peer review, but they disagree with the typical reviewers who are generally statists and involved with the government in some way. There are substantial reasons for this, but I think the main point is obvious. Even to big government (republican or democrat) supporters this should be obvious.

Originally Posted by dr2005

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act 2001) specifically forbids the implementation of a national curriculum.

I don't really care to get into this, as we will form a whole sub-argument around this. I will solely say this, just because there is an act that forbids something, doesn't mean it can't be implemented in subtle ways. Again, my point isn't to debate, if you care to see what I mean a little critical thinking and Google searches can go a long way. I don't have the time to debate this, nor do I care to. This topic is widely debated, and highly unlikely to be resolved by two forum users.

Originally Posted by dr2005

The Constitution is silent on education matters

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

My point is over the federally funded DoE. The rest in response is also misunderstood because I did not get my point across clear enough. I think you're overlooking the point. The DoE encourages various ideas that nearly eliminate individual choice when it comes to schooling. You're also underestimating the power of the federal governments influence on the states education system. Again, I can write a book about this, and in fact there have been books already written on this. Countless articles, studies, etc. have been documented on this, and even politicians outright talk about this. My point being, it's useless to debate this when officials can't even agree.

Originally Posted by dr2005

1) Company A is an established consumer technology company. An entrepreneur, B, comes up with a product in the same sector as A's but with some distinct differences and improvements. A uses its superior resources to not only write a cease-and-desist letter to B alleging theft of its intellectual property, but also to ensure all its distribution agreements prevent its partners from stocking competing products, including B's. As a result, B's product fails to reach the market as he cannot afford to fight the legal battle or find a stockist.

1) How did Company A attain superior resources in the free market?
2) This lawsuit wouldn't take place in a free market. Cease-and-desists create unfair competition.
3) You're assuming that if this law suit took place, there'd be no one to help the entrepreneur with the lawsuit, and financial obligations that may come up, which is easier than every given our access on the web.
4) You're assuming there isn't any other option for the entrepreneur, but to give up.
5) In a free market, a corporation, "company a," woudn't be granted special privileges (copyright, limited liability, patents, etc.) from the government in exchange for taxes. Company B would be allowed to create an identical product without the fear of a lawsuit. Corporations are a product of a statist society, not a free market.
6) This example is based on a fallacy and a misunderstanding of how the free market works.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/how-fear-...minishes-life/

Originally Posted by dr2005

2) Mr C and his family have run a successful, popular Mexican restaurant for over fifty years in their home town. D, a national chain of Mexican restaurants, opens a new restaurant on the same street as Mr C's. D cuts its prices aggressively and engages in a marketing blitz, funded by its head office, in order to force Mr C out of the market. Despite several mixed and negative reviews of D's products, Mr C's restaurant is marginalised such that it cannot make a profit, and closes. D then raises their prices back to existing levels, citing the earlier levels as an "opening discount".

This, again, is a terrible example. Just because prices are cut does not mean it will remove all business from Mr C. In fact, in California, there was a national Mexican chain (two, in fact), right across the street from a family owned restaurant. More people preferred the quality and authenticity of the family restaurant. There is a market for everyone. Just because there is an On the Border across the street from a mom-and-pop, doesn't mean everyone will abandon the mom-and-pop.

This is also a false assumption that this doesn't happen in our current society. In fact, the government typically grants privileges to the corporations and larger companies over the smaller companies. The free market offers better opportunity allowing consumers to pick the winner.

Originally Posted by dr2005

3) Two candidates, E and F, apply for the same job. Both have very impressive academic records, E from well-established schools and colleges in affluent areas and F from schools and colleges in more deprived areas. However, whereas E's neighbourhood was serviced by a number of providers of extracurricular activities such as sports and social clubs funded by private businesses, F's was not as the businesses behind such schemes did not view it as viable. E gets the job over F, for no reason other than his membership of these sports and social clubs.

This also happens in today's system. The free market would provide more opportunities and free choice in schools instead of being unable to choose based on your neighborhood which is often determined by your income.

Originally Posted by dr2005

4) G is a large car manufacturer, with a significant share of its domestic market and sizeable operations overseas. One of its competitors overseas, H, decides to start selling cars in G's home market, in the belief that its more reliable and cheaper-to-run models will be popular with consumers in G's country. In response, G threatens its dealers that it will withdraw their franchises if they stock H's models as well, and engages in a marketing campaign bad-mouthing H's products and using selective reviews to make their own (inferior) products sound better. As such, H cannot establish a stable foothold in G's home market and withdraws.

In a free market the competitor (H) could establish it's own dealers and base its advertisement on it's success in other countries. In the information age people are capable seeking out the reviews on their own. Just because they couldn't use G's dealers doesn't mean they're SOL. Sure, it might take some problem solving, but problem solving requires entrepreneurs and jobs, which is a plus.

I think a lot of your understanding of the free market is misunderstood. The free market wouldn't operate in anyway like it does today because the current market isn't free.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Hopefully you can see what I am trying to say about a free market not generating equality, but just in case: none of these examples include anything which is contrary to a free market or based on state intervention, or indeed illegal. Parties can choose to enter into contracts of exclusivity if they so wish, and do so on a regular basis. However, those participants in the free market with access to higher levels of resources, and market reach, will always be in a more powerful position than those starting up, and more often than not will use that position to stifle competition. The examples I give above are all based on fairly typical occurrences in the business world. Supply and demand may form the fundamental component of the free market, but it is not immune to external influence and on its own cannot create a level playing field. Indeed, the notion of truly perfect competition within a free market tends to be regarded as utopian, and - perhaps counterintuitively - a certain amount of state intervention in the market is in fact aimed at trying to improve competition (for example the Competition Commission in the UK and the core economic freedoms within the EU).

The reason small businesses have trouble today aren't because of competition, but because of laws, regulations, and government favor of larger corporations who fund their government campaigns. It has nothing to do with competition. In fact, most of the examples you gave are results of the government and legal problems that the republican and democratic parties have created.

While I do not believe the free market is infallible, I believe it is a far better system, and the only system that brings equality to the table.

The other problem I see is that you're assuming the government HAS to give money in order to create equality. I disagree. The government doesn't create equality, it stifles it. People should be able to freely grant money to businesses they want at a local and national level, and NOT rely on the government to decide what is best for their money. This is the problem I see in the two-party mindset. They cannot fathom another way of operating without the government. They largely assume "human is fallible, so we have to have a government." The problem is the government is made up of (fallible) people and those (fallible) people are determining how to spend other (fallible) people's money from a detached perspective not relevant to the people, but rather being controlled by (fallible) lobbying interest groups. Rather, because humankind is fallible, I find it better to leave the money with the (fallible) people to wisely determine what is best for THEIR money, since they probably have a better idea than an external party choosing what's best and where there is no consequences for ill spending of their money. Where, if left to the people, there would be consequences for the spending of their own money.

I'd like to ask you the same question I asked another poster. First of all, as I've said, you're free to your own beliefs. And because of that, I would never seek to harm you by any external force via weapons, hired men to hunt you down, or sending someone to torture you and lock you away. I think you ought to be free to have your own beliefs without fear of persecution. Would you grant me the same?

[ThisWillDestroyYou]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Hopefully you can see what I am trying to say about a free market not generating equality, but just in case: none of these examples include anything which is contrary to a free market or based on state intervention, or indeed illegal.

They do have one common fallacy in economic thinking: They only consider two parties. They never consider the other parties involved in a free market, for one, the consumer/taxpayer. What is fair for them? For example, the first example you gave in the previous post considers the Mexican restaurants. You consider the chain owner, and the family owner, but you do not consider the consumer/taxpayers. Why is it fair for the government to take their money, then relocate it to where the government wants? If those people want the family business to stay open, they'll find a way. If not, then sure, that guy fell prey to a free market society. But it is better one man fall prey than an entire nation to have their money stolen from their wallets and given to less effective businesses or wherever the government feels it should risk spending other peoples money.

Originally Posted by dr2005

One clarification, if I may: the DMV is not a federal institution.

I don't believe I said it was, if I did I'm sorry. My example was only in giving a common public sector field that people are familiar with.

Originally Posted by dr2005

1) All United States citizens (lawful ones, anyway) who wish to travel overseas require a passport, issued by the State Department. The form of this is the same for all US citizens - as is, no doubt, the cost.

Why do they require a passport? What requires this? My questions may be a little bit of a straw man, and for that, I apologize, but they are essential. I don't believe passports should be a requirement for travel. I have one, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't mean I support the idea (as hypocritical as that sounds).

Originally Posted by dr2005

2) The FDA provides a lot of regulation in the USA in the field of public health, particularly in relation to food standards and drugs.

The FDA does a terrible job at regulating drugs, and is partly responsible for the increasing healthcare prices. They've eliminated competition and have removed very good drugs from coming onto the US market that are regulated in other countries to cure diseases at very low costs. This is why, in many cases, you hear of people traveling to other countries to receive healthcare (apart from medicine).

Originally Posted by dr2005

Imagine this agency is dissolved, and instead two large private agencies assume their responsibilities on the basis of more efficient and effective testing and oversight at competitive rates. A new drug, product X, is submitted to both for verification. Agency A conducts its tests and determines that the product is not safe for public use, and refuses verification. Agency B conducts its tests and determines that the product is safe for public use and grants a licence. Both sets of tests are valid - it is a question of the criteria each use in determining safety. Retailers are therefore left with Agency A refusing to allow the product on sale, and Agency B giving the go ahead. Which one should consumers listen to?

I don't believe there should be a "which one should consumers listen to." It's not for me to determine. As aforementioned the FDA has a done a terrible job and in more cases has caused more harm. Again, a little research goes a long way, I don't feel the necessity to delve into this for the sake of time and eliminating the length of the post. When it comes to the free market it depends on the transparency of the report and the reputation of the inspectors. A belief that the FDA does this better is laughable.

For example, during a 10-year delay in approving Propanolol Propranolol (a heart medication for treating angina and hypertension), approximately 100,000 people died who could have been treated with this lifesaving drug. Bureaucratic roadblocks kill sick Americans.

http://www.fdareview.org/harm.shtml
http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-fda...-bed-together/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE9sfT0Teqw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uursKkzV-7o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wezBh4V-K7g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6t-R3pWrRw

Originally Posted by dr2005

3) In Europe (seeing as my examples thus far have been US-based), crash testing for cars (and vans) is carried out by a body called Euro NCAP. This is an association backed by a combination of automotive groups and governmental departments, and is independent from the automotive industry. Imagine that, instead of this body carrying out testing, it is instead tendered out to a group of private companies. With profitability and shareholder interests to contend with, plus potential influence by the industry, it is conceivable that the testing methodology may not be as rigorous across all the companies, yet they may produce their results in a very similar format (e.g. star ratings). Consumers may be unaware as to the difference, and assume that a good rating from one company is equivalent to a good rating from another company. Does this amount to an improvement of the service to consumers?

I think this all returns to the free press, transparency, and their reputation. If we have several reputable people testing out vehicle safety, there is likely one that stands out as being superior. This means that certain vehicles may pay to get it certified by those testers in order to give ease of mind to the people that are concerned. In often cases these regulations, however, make it very difficult for companies to start up at all in the vehicle industry, never really giving the opportunity to other entrepreneurs. It in facts harms the market and competition. This is one of the special advantages larger corporations get from the government. They create regulations to remove potential competitors. This issue also removes the will of the consumer. These regulations increase costs of vehicles. If a customer wants to pay more for safety, they should be able to. If they do not have the money to pay for the superior safety, they should be free to do that as well. In other words, customers shouldn't be forced to pay more for vehicles simply because the government wants to regulate safety standards that are often times unessential. Why not pay for the base safety inspection to know that your car is operable and capable of getting from point at to point b, than pay more for other add-ons. In some states these safety regulations require vehicles to have a rear view camera. This increases the costs of the vehicle, the employers money, and the purchasing power of the individual is now stifled.

Originally Posted by dr2005

but to say that competition and the free market always improves services is not something I can agree with.

That is fine. I just think that we should be able to support what we want and don't want individually and not impose these issues on people who don't want them. I believe your money should go where you want it. I wouldn't force you to support any of my ideas against your will, and I'd hope you wouldn't expect that of me, either.

While I'm not done responding, this is all I can get to for now. Your questions are similar to what I've heard before, but fun to think over. I hope that you don't take my ignorant responses and ignore them, but that they at least help you research your own beliefs in the government, as I'm certain you do.

[dr2005]

Mike: I realise I owe you 2 replies, and this thread is on the verge of timing out because I haven't had chance to as yet. If you would prefer, and seeing as we've divulged from the topic at hand anyway, I can send you my response to your points by PM. Alternatively, if you prefer here I will aim to post something this week.