[geeks] education systems around the world

[hike]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Jonathan C. Patschke <jp at celestrion.net>wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, hike wrote:
>
>  don't change the subject--i am not the point of discussion.
>>
>
> I haven't changed the subject.  You're attempting to label me according to
> a perceived effect of the philosophy I'm espousing rather than the
> philosophy itself.  I'm asking to to reflect and ponder whether the effect
> you expect is a certainty.
>
> If I asked you "Since you breathe air, you are a cat.  Are you a
> mouse-killer?" the question would be ludicrous, as the presumption is a
> non sequitur.  Similarly, I don't believe what I'm professing will lead to
> many of thing things people tend to label as "anarchy".
>
>  you have noted that people are not perfect.  that is the proof that you
>> are proposing a system of anarchy.
>>
>
> I'm proposing a system where people interact voluntarily and have the
> exclusive right to the fruits of their labor unless they willingly
> abdicate that right.  Traditionally, I believe that system is called
> capitalism.
>
> All systems of government (whether self-government or authoritarian
> government) carry with them a responsibility for vigilance.  In a republic
> like the US, one has to be vigilant in verifying that one's
> representatives actually represent one's values.  One also has something
> of an implied responsibility to tell others when a representative doesn't,
> so that a new one may be elected that does.
>
> In a socialist system, one has to be vigilant in verifying that the party
> leaders maintain the party's values.  Again, one also has an implied
> responsibility to out party leaders that violate those values so that
> other members of the party may be put into place.
>
> In a system of self-government, one has to be vigilant in verifying that
> he does not engage in aggression against others and be vigilantly prepared
> in case others would visit aggression upon him.  In the interest of
> self-preservation, one has something of a responsibility to inform others
> of the reputations of those we deal with, so that people who treat others
> badly are ostracised and those who treat others fairly are held up.
>
> These responsibilities are really all quite the same.  In any system of
> government, you are deemed responsible for keeping its rules (whether
> self-imposed or externally-imposed), and will meet with consequences if
> you do not.  Also, in any system of government, you are inherently
> responsible for defending against others breaking the rules in a way that
> harms you.  In the case of an authoritarian government with centralised
> power, those in power can break fundamental rules in the creation of
> specific rules that harm you directly, and they will instantly have armies
> at their side to "convince" you that you never had that fundamental right
> in the first place.
>
> I'm just proposing the path where any of us has the least potential for
> acquiring many very very powerful enemies.
>
> The "anarchy" you keep mentioning is what happens when people do not stand
> up against the petty tyrants and violent miscreants who would harm them.
> This utter lawlessness[0] is, indeed, a bad end.  Tyranny and imperialism
> (the roads along which the US has made significant progress) are also,
> indeed, bad ends.
>
> I submit that it would be foolhardy and destructive to attempt to actively
> demolish the system currently in power.  It would be suicidal, needlessly
> violent, and engender well-earned hate and resentment.  This, sir, being a
> government with an approval rating below 25%.  We all know this system is
> impossible to upend and will have to collapse on its own, once it's
> finally run out of steam.  That alone should be empirical evidence that of
> the monster we've created: in an allegedly representative government, the
> overwhelming majority feel misrepresented and powerless to change it in
> any real way besides putting some new idiot in power who will continue the
> stream of disappointment.
>
> This is why I think it's time for something different.  Let's stop trying
> to control each other.  Let's stop robbing each other.  Let's not be so
> damned bent-out-of-shape about whether or not the folks around us are
> doing the right thing.  Mind your own business, do right towards others,
> work hard, and help others as you're able.
>
> Is that really such a horrible idea to represent?
>
>  but you have not answered my question--since you are proposing a system
>> of anarchy, are you an anarchist.
>>
>
> I've already answered this question.  I am what I am.  If you want to call
> me an anarchist, I can't stop you.  I personally don't use that term.
>
>
> [0] I'm using the word "law" in a generic sense pertaining to fundamental
>    rights, not to arbitrary words on paper signed by someone in an
>    opulent office far away.
>
> --
> Jonathan Patschke | "There is more to life than increasing its speed."
> Elgin, TX         |                                   --Mahatma Gandhi
> USA               |
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks
>


Jonathan,

Wrong again!

I just asked a question.  Why won't you answer it?  A simple yes or no is
adequate.

Your avoidance of an actual answer is telling.

Until that is answered, I see the rest of your response as psychobabble.
(Particularly since you are putting word in my mouth that I have not written
or spoken.)