![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
taratemimaThe other way of looking at it is that nobody would be a liberal unless they were brainwashed by a socialized re-education system.
1. Is that in response to something I wrote or something Baggeat wrote?
2. It sounds like you are arguing that people become liberals after attending public education. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc."
3. 'Brainwashing'? You mean like Delphi Academy? (Scroll down to 'Boston Herald') You can get an abstract of the article specifically going on about it here. Never mind I call it the Horrid, a stopped watch and all that.[1] Not that they aren't going into public schools, but really.
Private schools are not required to release statistics about budget, staff, and more. See People for the American Way's report on school vouchers, particularly the chapter on accountability. I went to the high school I went to partially because my three aunts went there, and told me what it was like. I remember the school as being fairly open and willing to give information, but it is only my experience.
Religious Right members also are hot to get rid of the public school system, replacing it with sectarian private and home schools. I see no movement for abolishing compulsory attendence among Religious Right, so they are not in total agreement. These two policies make people worry. Some think that this state of affairs would turn out even more 'mediocre, semi-literate students.'
I worry about bigger things. However, I am thinking of the Christian Reconstructionists, or Dominionists. I put in links to their site and some other criticism about them. I'd personally would love to ask Orthodox Jewish folks if they want the Dominionists' version of 'Mosaic law' as the law of the United States, but I digress.
I read articles against Bush's policies in lewrockwell.com. However, I do not find in libertarian writings recommendations when fellow advocates of 'less government' mean 'much less democracy." Mind, certain subsets don't like the idea of democracy either, but that is not the whole.
I see no discussion on how to stop them before they come into power. Odd that Second Amendment enthusasists seem to worry about more about the BATF than armed Neal Horsleys. Who are you more likely to be, a leader of a millennialist cult or someone who doesn't go to church? Point is, much like any extremist group, they mean to do what they say they will. If not by 'intelligent design,' if not by vouchers, then by weapons.
Looking at their beliefs, you could be unkind and call the Christian Reconstructionists' aim 'brainwashing.' Sincere adherents do not see that way (Socialists and Communists included). Actually, I wouldn't call what folks like RJ Rushdoony want 'brainwashing.' They want so much more. Like 'censoring,' 'intimidating,' 'jailing,' 'enslaving,' and 'executing'. At least you have evenings and weekends off from school.[2] I do not think schools that do not tow the 'Old Testament law' line would last long. The affected ones can use 'retaliatory force' by, erm, not sure.
I also find it interesting that liberalism is often conflated with socialism (which I assume you were going for using 'resocialization'). Winston Churchill didn't think so[3], and his 'heart/brain' quotation seems real popular. Others see it too. Someone who identified herself as a leftist says this:
"Liberal philosophy has a concept of individuals as atoms, isolated from society. I see the connections among individuals as vitally important. Liberal philosophy has a faith in the inherent goodness of science, technology and Western-style reason for all things in all respects. Liberal philosophy believes facts and values are inherently separate with no relation between them and tries to be "objective". I think this sort of "objectivity" is impossible. I see their many limitations. Liberal philosophy believes that, on the whole, the current order of things under capitalism is close to just. I disagree." (Emphasis mine, at http://web.archive.org/web/20011101001158/www.geocities.com/SoHo/2842/liberal.htm)
I can see her points, but feel closer to what she objects to. Wait, what does that make me?[4]
But hey, maybe there is brainwashing in public schools. I mean, between study tech and intelligent design, there is an even bigger problem. "Boston University professor Philip Tate has observed that rigid class schedules, reliance on test scores and other traits of public schools were instituted in the name of 'efficiency' and created a 'factory model' of schooling" in "Public Schools and the Challenge of Vouchers," a transcript of remarks delivered at a 2001 forum of Boston University Libraries.
Is there problems in public education? Yeah. Between demands for work skills, the need for abstract and critical thinking, and a need to be aware of what others have done before, the 'great men' and the ordinary schmucks. The solution offered by libertarians are also offered by theocrats. Pardon my lack of enthusasism.
"Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions...What if it needed to force its citizens to become sufficiently educated to sustain a free society?" (from here. Not something I read often or agree with, but it is good point). In this case, free from religious movements that seek to control others.
[1] The man who owns the dental practice I go to was quoted in that article. He took a Dianetics class and they tried to make him and his wife join. Creepy.
[2] Theortically. Out of best intentions and 'OMG if I don't do something, my kid will be a drug abusing high school drop-out' fears, some parents make a point of over-scheduling their child's time. *sigh* I wish I could grab the Psychology Today article about this being a bad idea.
[3]"Liberalism is not socialism, and never will be... Liberalism has its own history and its own tradition. Socialism has its own formulas and aims. Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly."
Winston Churchill, 1908 (It was quoted also in a website dedicated to Churchill, with context.)
[4]JS Mills, an advocate of the liberalism she disagrees with, exempts education from laissez-faire policies. The rest of it is here.
1. Is that in response to something I wrote or something Baggeat wrote?
2. It sounds like you are arguing that people become liberals after attending public education. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc."
3. 'Brainwashing'? You mean like Delphi Academy? (Scroll down to 'Boston Herald') You can get an abstract of the article specifically going on about it here. Never mind I call it the Horrid, a stopped watch and all that.[1] Not that they aren't going into public schools, but really.
Private schools are not required to release statistics about budget, staff, and more. See People for the American Way's report on school vouchers, particularly the chapter on accountability. I went to the high school I went to partially because my three aunts went there, and told me what it was like. I remember the school as being fairly open and willing to give information, but it is only my experience.
Religious Right members also are hot to get rid of the public school system, replacing it with sectarian private and home schools. I see no movement for abolishing compulsory attendence among Religious Right, so they are not in total agreement. These two policies make people worry. Some think that this state of affairs would turn out even more 'mediocre, semi-literate students.'
I worry about bigger things. However, I am thinking of the Christian Reconstructionists, or Dominionists. I put in links to their site and some other criticism about them. I'd personally would love to ask Orthodox Jewish folks if they want the Dominionists' version of 'Mosaic law' as the law of the United States, but I digress.
I read articles against Bush's policies in lewrockwell.com. However, I do not find in libertarian writings recommendations when fellow advocates of 'less government' mean 'much less democracy." Mind, certain subsets don't like the idea of democracy either, but that is not the whole.
I see no discussion on how to stop them before they come into power. Odd that Second Amendment enthusasists seem to worry about more about the BATF than armed Neal Horsleys. Who are you more likely to be, a leader of a millennialist cult or someone who doesn't go to church? Point is, much like any extremist group, they mean to do what they say they will. If not by 'intelligent design,' if not by vouchers, then by weapons.
Looking at their beliefs, you could be unkind and call the Christian Reconstructionists' aim 'brainwashing.' Sincere adherents do not see that way (Socialists and Communists included). Actually, I wouldn't call what folks like RJ Rushdoony want 'brainwashing.' They want so much more. Like 'censoring,' 'intimidating,' 'jailing,' 'enslaving,' and 'executing'. At least you have evenings and weekends off from school.[2] I do not think schools that do not tow the 'Old Testament law' line would last long. The affected ones can use 'retaliatory force' by, erm, not sure.
I also find it interesting that liberalism is often conflated with socialism (which I assume you were going for using 'resocialization'). Winston Churchill didn't think so[3], and his 'heart/brain' quotation seems real popular. Others see it too. Someone who identified herself as a leftist says this:
"Liberal philosophy has a concept of individuals as atoms, isolated from society. I see the connections among individuals as vitally important. Liberal philosophy has a faith in the inherent goodness of science, technology and Western-style reason for all things in all respects. Liberal philosophy believes facts and values are inherently separate with no relation between them and tries to be "objective". I think this sort of "objectivity" is impossible. I see their many limitations. Liberal philosophy believes that, on the whole, the current order of things under capitalism is close to just. I disagree." (Emphasis mine, at http://web.archive.org/web/20011101001158/www.geocities.com/SoHo/2842/liberal.htm)
I can see her points, but feel closer to what she objects to. Wait, what does that make me?[4]
But hey, maybe there is brainwashing in public schools. I mean, between study tech and intelligent design, there is an even bigger problem. "Boston University professor Philip Tate has observed that rigid class schedules, reliance on test scores and other traits of public schools were instituted in the name of 'efficiency' and created a 'factory model' of schooling" in "Public Schools and the Challenge of Vouchers," a transcript of remarks delivered at a 2001 forum of Boston University Libraries.
Is there problems in public education? Yeah. Between demands for work skills, the need for abstract and critical thinking, and a need to be aware of what others have done before, the 'great men' and the ordinary schmucks. The solution offered by libertarians are also offered by theocrats. Pardon my lack of enthusasism.
"Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions...What if it needed to force its citizens to become sufficiently educated to sustain a free society?" (from here. Not something I read often or agree with, but it is good point). In this case, free from religious movements that seek to control others.
[1] The man who owns the dental practice I go to was quoted in that article. He took a Dianetics class and they tried to make him and his wife join. Creepy.
[2] Theortically. Out of best intentions and 'OMG if I don't do something, my kid will be a drug abusing high school drop-out' fears, some parents make a point of over-scheduling their child's time. *sigh* I wish I could grab the Psychology Today article about this being a bad idea.
[3]"Liberalism is not socialism, and never will be... Liberalism has its own history and its own tradition. Socialism has its own formulas and aims. Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly."
Winston Churchill, 1908 (It was quoted also in a website dedicated to Churchill, with context.)
[4]JS Mills, an advocate of the liberalism she disagrees with, exempts education from laissez-faire policies. The rest of it is here.
