Your Thoughts.

[Seniosh]

What is determining truth? I am arguing that the government has the responsibility to make sure that all accepted viewpoints are taught. It isn't determining truth, it's presenting all versions of it.

Plus, most learned scholars in the medieval period acknowledged that the earth was round. Most people were not taught in schools back then, which is why peasants widely regarded the earth as flat.

In addition, when government intervention is not taken to ensure that all viewpoints are able to be represented, you have the church imprisoning Galileo because he thought the earth revolved around the sun.

All scientifically backed theories should be presented. Multiple viewpoints of history should be presented. It's not a matter of using force to determine truth, it's a matter of forcing the subject to use his own brain to tell him what the truth is.

[DarkAsmodeous]

Stop for a moment to read my last post once more, I'm not insinuating that you are ignorant or didn't read it before, but it answers most of the questions posed in your last post, please avoid the modern politicized weights attatched to terms and try and stick to what I present. 1: forcing teaching of accepted theories imples government interference in education, like all other markets, education is a competative system, and it teaches what people want to be taught (note, this is on a bussiness basis, not a personal one) and the evolution of the institution is a dynamic one based on a learning process. The sciences themselves are dynamic and based on an evolutionary learning process. When force enters these realms, or others, it causes problems. Your example with the church using FORCE to imprison galileo is a perfect one for my arguement. And since the church would have used force, this would have been an instance where the government, as explained in my post, would use RETALIATORY as a countermeasure. The government is not an intellectual authority, nor a moral authority, and any attempts by it to enter these realms is actually the individual members of the government seeking thier own interests by using force, something no man is justified in doing.

[Seniosh]

I think we're saying the same exact thing, we just have different viewpoints of "force"

putting on capslock and telling me that "no man has the right to use force to determine truth" implies that i was saying that man has the right use force to determine truth, which i wasn't. man has the right to view all the information, and force should be used to ensure that nobody blocks out some of the information

1: forcing teaching of accepted theories imples government interference in education, like all other markets, education is a competative system, and it teaches what people want to be taught

And education is not a competative system, at least not in the sense that capitalism is a competative system. Schools are heavily government regulated, and i'm not sure if you are saying they aren't or that they shouldn't be. The government interferes all the time, just look at brown vs kansas board of ed, or the Scopes Trial (the monkey trial). These are both government intervention. You are not taught what you want to be taught, you are taught according to the curriculum.

That is unless you speak of private schools.

[DarkAsmodeous]

The very concept of the american public education system is to take money from people to give it to ends that people other than those who posses the money would have it support. I also am not advocating government interference. Economics deals with the nature and logic of choice, and that is a value based process. Force serves to have others act in the pursuit of the values of others, and without consent. Forcing a teaching of a specif theory, or of a hundred specific theories, has amazing unforseen consequences in the "market" of information and the advancement of knowledge. think what owuld have happened if the government had actualy forced Beta on us instead of VHS? They talked of making it mandatory, we'd have no DVD.

[Seniosh]

You have a very confusing writing style. Yes, we pay taxes, and the money is given to people, who determine what is done and what we learn. That's representative democracy - we elect people to make decisions about our money.

Forcing a teaching of a specif theory, or of a hundred specific theories, has amazing unforseen consequences in the "market" of information and the advancement of knowledge

-_- ahh the government DOES force a specific theory on us. It's called evolution. We are required by law to learn it. Same with the theory of gravity, particle interactions, ect. And i don't get the comparison between public education and a "market" The idea of a market is that you get to chose what to buy. The idea of a school is that you go to the nearest one and learn what they are required to teach.

I also don't see how the Beta vs VHS argument is relevant. Of course the government can't force us to all buy some item, they can however lay out for us what we should learn. What we get from the learning is up to us.

Plus, scientists aren't limited by the government, so regardless of what schools teach, science will evolve. Schools generally teach things the scientists are pretty sure of anyways, so the evolution of knowlege wouldn't be stunted in the slightest

[DarkAsmodeous]

Representative democracy... The greatest evils are done by those with good intentions. Regardless of what format its done it, its also immoral to ask someone else to use force on your behalf. Next, the beta VHS arguement is relevant because its an example of how the evolutionary nature of the concepts, and in turn the products, was almost stopped. The government ought not force certain educations, in a market, it would be proffitable for someone to offer a service needed, good education, and that education is then offered, but even that is irrelevant, the market creates solutions, dependancy and force interfere with their discovery. I maintain that any individual has the right to pursue his interests without force or fraud, or, without coercion and while honoring contract.

[Seniosh]

The concept of capitalist education is called private schools. They're expensive, because running a school is not very profitable otherwise.

There must be public schooling, any way you try to look at it. I certainly can't afford private school, and if schooling was a market, those who can't afford just lose out. The government has to have a standard of education.

It seems as though you are arguing that public schooling should be demolished, and that nothing should be government regulated. I maintain that regulation is necessary to ensure that children get a decent education, and that ideas are able to evolve. If the government did not force the teaching of evolution, there wouldn't be a concept of things evolving.

What would happen to ideas and concepts without government regulation? What should we be taught. If you leave it up to each school to decide, you get a wide range of different educations, and some people simply get screwed. The person taught that 2+2 = 5 will be very confused indeed. For a more realistic example, consider not learning the theory of evolution at all. Government regulation means we learn it and what it entails. In some catholic schools it is simply not taught at all, and those people will be in for a big suprise when they try to apply for a biology job.

The government ought not force certain educations, in a market, it would be proffitable for someone to offer a service needed, good education, and that education is then offered, but even that is irrelevant, the market creates solutions, dependancy and force interfere with their discovery

You keep insisting that schools are a market. They are not in any way a market. As i said, you do not chose which school you go to. You should not be taught something that is "in demand". Shall we say that paris hilton controls the earth? It is a falsity! But if there is a demand for it, should it be taught anyway?

Education is not a product. It needs to be regulated to ensure that everyone recieves a decent education that teaches them the basics of history, math, language, and science. A market might shatter that. What happens to inner-city schools? Who in their right mind would try to set up a profitable school in the ghetto. It's dangerous, and people have no money. So should people in those schools get no education? Nay, they should get the same education standards as everyone else

[DarkAsmodeous]

1: Please respond to my whole post, not a phrase.

2: Unwillful taxation is that which I argue against, there are other precedents for public schools, like in guatemala.

3: Market is a term refering to a competative environemnt of some kind in which new solutions are created, think hard, you can manage to find examples that aren't purely "capitalist based" as you put it, though you argue not against capitalism, but mercantalism.

[Seniosh]

1) I'll respond to whatever i feel inspired and able to respond to, but to oblige you, Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried. Deciding what to do with tax money is in no way evil or use of force. An individual may persue his own interests, but i would argue that a 10 year old doesn't have the logic to see that he should stay in school, or recognize biased information.

2) I'd say taxation is necessary. If you don't want to be taxed, move elsewhere. I personally happen to like roads, schools, police, firefighters, and other things such as those. You let people chose to not be taxed, and you say goodbye to many vital tax-reliant services.

3) Though i said capitalism, because it is what pops into my head when you say "market" I didn't really say much about businesses being funded by private investors, i talked about how schools are not competative, and how a unified curriculum is a good thing to have, because it ensures equal opportunity. Who is going to run a school which will not make money? Only the government, thus in a market not regulated by the government, a school must be for profit.

and mercantilism?? that's the theory that countries should strive to have more exports than imports, and thus make money. I argue against a system of schooling where everything is privately controlled.

[DarkAsmodeous]

So your assumptions are that the government is equiped with the knowledge, capable, and moraly justified in determining what that unified standard of education is taht allows for equal opportunity,and that democracy inherantly implies force (or you have another arguement you haven't yet revealed against my critique of force on one's behalf).

However, its clearer where our stances differ now, on the justness of delegated force, and on children's ability to choose. The second is a deep issue that you could very well be in the right about, I won't contest it. the first however I must take issue with, are you ever justified in taking another's property to do with it what you want? Are you justified in stealing your neighbours wood to build a shelter for the homeless? Of course not. However, asking the government to take the wood and build the shelter is accepted, and that is because the government is percieved to have moral authority, something it has no claim to, it must opperate within the same bounds we do, no that's wrong, tighter bonds. Where as we can pursue our interests however we want except for what's forbidden, a proper government may only do that which is permitted.