Is School Slavery With Benifits?

[Bottle]

I don't see how it could be seen as slavery more as forced learning and brainwashing the youth by the Government. I would compare public schools more to a form of juvenile prison then slavery, considering that I have heard of a school in the area I live in were students must walk through metal detectors and are not allowed to bring in pencils.(I consider this a lie or otherwise it is possible that some adults out there now believe that pencils are harmful weapons)

My school had metal detectors, and certain types of pens were banned because kids were using them to hide drugs. But pencils were fine, as were most pens and writing utensils.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't see how it could be seen as slavery more as forced learning and brainwashing the youth by the Government. I would compare public schools more to a form of juvenile prison then slavery, considering that I have heard of a school in the area I live in were students must walk through metal detectors and are not allowed to bring in pencils.(I consider this a lie or otherwise it is possible that some adults out there now believe that pencils are harmful weapons)

Metal detectors, and a list of disallowed personal items?

School isn't a prison... it's an airport!

[ZombieRothbard]

I think it should be up to me to decide what economic school is utter garbage or not, which is another reason why i find public education to be oppressive. It is essentially whatever the state feels is correct. Keynesian economics finds its way into macro classes it seems, with little to no mention of other schools.

Bullshit. If I were to introduce a new Unified Field Theory to the Physics department with no mathematical proof, I will be a fucking laughingstock. The same thing with Austrian School. It doesn't have math in it, therefore it's fake.

This is like the evolution/creationism debate. One is a valid biology theory, the other is just bullshit.

You do not believe in anything that does not contain math?

[Wikkiwallana]

I don't see how it could be seen as slavery more as forced learning and brainwashing the youth by the Government. I would compare public schools more to a form of juvenile prison then slavery, considering that I have heard of a school in the area I live in were students must walk through metal detectors and are not allowed to bring in pencils.(I consider this a lie or otherwise it is possible that some adults out there now believe that pencils are harmful weapons)

Funny thing, when kids go on shooting sprees and kill two dozen or so other kids, the media jumps all over it, and then parents freak out and worry that their kids are gonna get shot, even though such things only happen once every few years across the entire country. For some reason people are paranoid when it comes to the safety of their offspring.

[Wikkiwallana]

Bullshit. If I were to introduce a new Unified Field Theory to the Physics department with no mathematical proof, I will be a fucking laughingstock. The same thing with Austrian School. It doesn't have math in it, therefore it's fake.

This is like the evolution/creationism debate. One is a valid biology theory, the other is just bullshit.

You do not believe in anything that does not contain math?

I don't believe in anything that tries to explain a mathematical system without using math.

[Bottle]

Bullshit. If I were to introduce a new Unified Field Theory to the Physics department with no mathematical proof, I will be a fucking laughingstock. The same thing with Austrian School. It doesn't have math in it, therefore it's fake.

This is like the evolution/creationism debate. One is a valid biology theory, the other is just bullshit.

You do not believe in anything that does not contain math?

I don't believe any ECONOMIC theory that doesn't include math. Just like I don't believe any accountant who claims that he can manage my books without doing math.

[ZombieRothbard]

I think it should be up to me to decide what economic school is utter garbage or not, which is another reason why i find public education to be oppressive. It is essentially whatever the state feels is correct. Keynesian economics finds its way into macro classes it seems, with little to no mention of other schools.

I agree that theoretically, if somebody knows a lot about each subject or discipline, they have the potential to make better informed decisions in mutiple areas. However, I still would say a division of labour in both knowledge and talents would make society run far more efficiently. People who are passionate and extremely knowledgeable in their field of study tend to be the most apt. Also, it goes without saying the more knowledge you have the better off you are, in all area's. However, who is to say that time I spent studying physics couldn't have been spent researching commodities, which could result in massive profits from day trading? Isn't it more beneficial for me to receive large quantities of wealth, than to MAYBE be able to use all that time I spent studying the sciences to make better informed food choices? This is assuming I cannot research food choices on my own, and it isn't general/common knowledge that food can be bad for you.

Look, I don't study any schools of economics. I don't know everything and until recently I only had vague ideas about these things.

However, the fact that the Austrian School of economics is opposed to the use of empirical evidence tells me that it is bullshit. It is nothing more than a logical exercise with absolutely no real applications. Additionally, minimal research shows that many of its conclusions and theories seem to be completely false based on empirical evidence (which might be why they're not big fans of it). This tells me that it's utterly worthless to pursue except as an intellectual exercise.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against purely intellectual exercises. However, if you're looking for applications, this seems minimum at best. *

Further, it obviously isn't general knowledge that food can be bad for you. Look at the obesity crisis. Look at the fact that so many people are wasting money on organic produce that doesn't actually involve any benefits (not that there are never issues with chemicals in foods, but some foods have little to no chemicals and aren't worth buying organic since you're getting essentially the same product). Look at the anti-vaccination movement. Scientific literacy is in dire need.


*By the way, these deductions brought about by years of training my critical thinking and problem solving skills. I'm not sure whether to give more credit to the physics, the philosophy or just generally picked up somewhere in my well-rounded and wonderful education, but there they are.

Austrian Economics does not rely on empiricism, because a free market has never existed before. Many of the conditions and phenomenon theorized in Austrian Economics assumes that the entire economy would be free. It is difficult to find empiricism for something that has never occured before.

The anti-obesity crisis could be attributed more towards people lacking self control, or simply not caring about unhealthy foods. I am sure even "uneducated" people would eventually get the correlation between obesity and unhealthy foods.

[Norstal]

You do not believe in anything that does not contain math?

I don't believe in anything that tries to explain a mathematical system without using math.

Exactly this. How are you supposed to explain patterns without math? It's just silly.

Seriously, math isn't hard. It's easy. Try to understand it before completely shrugging it off.

[ZombieRothbard]

You do not believe in anything that does not contain math?

I don't believe any ECONOMIC theory that doesn't include math. Just like I don't believe any accountant who claims that he can manage my books without doing math.

It really comes down to a matter of opinion then dosn't it? Given the fact that modern economists focus so much on modeling economic events, and yet are overwhelmingly unsuccessful in predicting them really shows how flawed the whole subject of economics really is today. What good are numbers if they do not help you predict things? That is the point of modern economics now isn't it? And yet it fails. Perhaps it is because mathematics and economics do not belong together.

[Wikkiwallana]

Look, I don't study any schools of economics. I don't know everything and until recently I only had vague ideas about these things.

However, the fact that the Austrian School of economics is opposed to the use of empirical evidence tells me that it is bullshit. It is nothing more than a logical exercise with absolutely no real applications. Additionally, minimal research shows that many of its conclusions and theories seem to be completely false based on empirical evidence (which might be why they're not big fans of it). This tells me that it's utterly worthless to pursue except as an intellectual exercise.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against purely intellectual exercises. However, if you're looking for applications, this seems minimum at best. *

Further, it obviously isn't general knowledge that food can be bad for you. Look at the obesity crisis. Look at the fact that so many people are wasting money on organic produce that doesn't actually involve any benefits (not that there are never issues with chemicals in foods, but some foods have little to no chemicals and aren't worth buying organic since you're getting essentially the same product). Look at the anti-vaccination movement. Scientific literacy is in dire need.


*By the way, these deductions brought about by years of training my critical thinking and problem solving skills. I'm not sure whether to give more credit to the physics, the philosophy or just generally picked up somewhere in my well-rounded and wonderful education, but there they are.

Austrian Economics does not rely on empiricism, because a free market has never existed before. Many of the conditions and phenomenon theorized in Austrian Economics assumes that the entire economy would be free. It is difficult to find empiricism for something that has never occured before.

The anti-obesity crisis could be attributed more towards people lacking self control, or simply not caring about unhealthy foods. I am sure even "uneducated" people would eventually get the correlation between obesity and unhealthy foods.

What about the correlation between cheap but unhealthy filler and lower prices incentivizing preference of products containing it?

[Grave_n_idle]

Look, I don't study any schools of economics. I don't know everything and until recently I only had vague ideas about these things.

However, the fact that the Austrian School of economics is opposed to the use of empirical evidence tells me that it is bullshit. It is nothing more than a logical exercise with absolutely no real applications. Additionally, minimal research shows that many of its conclusions and theories seem to be completely false based on empirical evidence (which might be why they're not big fans of it). This tells me that it's utterly worthless to pursue except as an intellectual exercise.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against purely intellectual exercises. However, if you're looking for applications, this seems minimum at best. *

Further, it obviously isn't general knowledge that food can be bad for you. Look at the obesity crisis. Look at the fact that so many people are wasting money on organic produce that doesn't actually involve any benefits (not that there are never issues with chemicals in foods, but some foods have little to no chemicals and aren't worth buying organic since you're getting essentially the same product). Look at the anti-vaccination movement. Scientific literacy is in dire need.


*By the way, these deductions brought about by years of training my critical thinking and problem solving skills. I'm not sure whether to give more credit to the physics, the philosophy or just generally picked up somewhere in my well-rounded and wonderful education, but there they are.

Austrian Economics does not rely on empiricism, because a free market has never existed before. Many of the conditions and phenomenon theorized in Austrian Economics assumes that the entire economy would be free. It is difficult to find empiricism for something that has never occured before.

The anti-obesity crisis could be attributed more towards people lacking self control, or simply not caring about unhealthy foods. I am sure even "uneducated" people would eventually get the correlation between obesity and unhealthy foods.

In science, we refer to such paradigms as 'ideal'. And we acknowledge that they can be useful for making the math easier, but do not reflect actual reality.

Realising that we're not dealing with reality - that's important.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't believe any ECONOMIC theory that doesn't include math. Just like I don't believe any accountant who claims that he can manage my books without doing math.

It really comes down to a matter of opinion then dosn't it?

No.

[Wikkiwallana]

I don't believe any ECONOMIC theory that doesn't include math. Just like I don't believe any accountant who claims that he can manage my books without doing math.

It really comes down to a matter of opinion then dosn't it? Given the fact that modern economists focus so much on modeling economic events, and yet are overwhelmingly unsuccessful in predicting them really shows how flawed the whole subject of economics really is today. What good are numbers if they do not help you predict things? That is the point of modern economics now isn't it? And yet it fails. Perhaps it is because mathematics and economics do not belong together.

Or perhaps it's because we keep making assumptions about how people act then trying to interpret the data through that lens instead of gathering data and then making hypothesis based on it. How long did it take before realizing the fact that people aren't rational actors despite having all the evidence right in front of them?

[Bottle]

I don't believe any ECONOMIC theory that doesn't include math. Just like I don't believe any accountant who claims that he can manage my books without doing math.

It really comes down to a matter of opinion then dosn't it?

Not in the slightest. The data don't care about your opinion, and I don't either unless you can provide an empirical reason why I should.

[Dakini]

Look, I don't study any schools of economics. I don't know everything and until recently I only had vague ideas about these things.

However, the fact that the Austrian School of economics is opposed to the use of empirical evidence tells me that it is bullshit. It is nothing more than a logical exercise with absolutely no real applications. Additionally, minimal research shows that many of its conclusions and theories seem to be completely false based on empirical evidence (which might be why they're not big fans of it). This tells me that it's utterly worthless to pursue except as an intellectual exercise.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against purely intellectual exercises. However, if you're looking for applications, this seems minimum at best. *

Further, it obviously isn't general knowledge that food can be bad for you. Look at the obesity crisis. Look at the fact that so many people are wasting money on organic produce that doesn't actually involve any benefits (not that there are never issues with chemicals in foods, but some foods have little to no chemicals and aren't worth buying organic since you're getting essentially the same product). Look at the anti-vaccination movement. Scientific literacy is in dire need.


*By the way, these deductions brought about by years of training my critical thinking and problem solving skills. I'm not sure whether to give more credit to the physics, the philosophy or just generally picked up somewhere in my well-rounded and wonderful education, but there they are.

Austrian Economics does not rely on empiricism, because a free market has never existed before. Many of the conditions and phenomenon theorized in Austrian Economics assumes that the entire economy would be free. It is difficult to find empiricism for something that has never occured before.

You don't have to go the whole way to get a reasonable idea of how things should work. You can examine test cases and compare systems that are closer to a free market to those which are further from it and look at various indicators of the health of both the economies in those cases and the health of the populace (with some good old statistical analysis). You could also attempt to create mathematical and computational models to describe the predicted behaviour of an economic system under a totally free market.

...except that your system not only believes in not examining empirical evidence, but also does not believe in math.

You know how well that would go over in my field? Not well. It would go over about as successfully as time cube.

The anti-obesity crisis could be attributed more towards people lacking self control, or simply not caring about unhealthy foods. I am sure even "uneducated" people would eventually get the correlation between obesity and unhealthy foods.

I was unaware of an anti-obesity crisis. I'm doubtful of your claims however, given that people have known for a long time that some foods are unhealthy and people continue to eat these unhealthy foods.

I notice no commentary on the effect of scientific illiteracy and the anti-vaccination movement.

[ZombieRothbard]

Austrian Economics does not rely on empiricism, because a free market has never existed before. Many of the conditions and phenomenon theorized in Austrian Economics assumes that the entire economy would be free. It is difficult to find empiricism for something that has never occured before.

You don't have to go the whole way to get a reasonable idea of how things should work. You can examine test cases and compare systems that are closer to a free market to those which are further from it and look at various indicators of the health of both the economies in those cases and the health of the populace (with some good old statistical analysis). You could also attempt to create mathematical and computational models to describe the predicted behaviour of an economic system under a totally free market.

...except that your system not only believes in not examining empirical evidence, but also does not believe in math.

You know how well that would go over in my field? Not well. It would go over about as successfully as time cube.

The anti-obesity crisis could be attributed more towards people lacking self control, or simply not caring about unhealthy foods. I am sure even "uneducated" people would eventually get the correlation between obesity and unhealthy foods.

I was unaware of an anti-obesity crisis. I'm doubtful of your claims however, given that people have known for a long time that some foods are unhealthy and people continue to eat these unhealthy foods.

I notice no commentary on the effect of scientific illiteracy and the anti-vaccination movement.

I think there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that minarchism is more effective than larger governments, however the scale of the government does not necessarily make it a fair contest. Large totalitarian governments can have more efficient economies than small minarchies, for reasons other than the size of the state.

And the anti-obesity crisis was a combination of anti-vaccine and obesity crisis . The anti-vaccine movement wasn't based on ignorance of science, I doubt anybody would be capable of reproducing tests about vaccines and their affects with their home chemistry kit. Also, the movement claimed that scientists were lieing, or companies were not being truthful about the contents of the vaccines themselves.

[Wikkiwallana]

The anti-vaccine movement wasn't based on ignorance of science

Blatant misinformation about what's in a vaccine and how autism works say otherwise.

[Dakini]

You don't have to go the whole way to get a reasonable idea of how things should work. You can examine test cases and compare systems that are closer to a free market to those which are further from it and look at various indicators of the health of both the economies in those cases and the health of the populace (with some good old statistical analysis). You could also attempt to create mathematical and computational models to describe the predicted behaviour of an economic system under a totally free market.

...except that your system not only believes in not examining empirical evidence, but also does not believe in math.

You know how well that would go over in my field? Not well. It would go over about as successfully as time cube.


I was unaware of an anti-obesity crisis. I'm doubtful of your claims however, given that people have known for a long time that some foods are unhealthy and people continue to eat these unhealthy foods.

I notice no commentary on the effect of scientific illiteracy and the anti-vaccination movement.

I think there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that minarchism is more effective than larger governments, however the scale of the government does not necessarily make it a fair contest. Large totalitarian governments can have more efficient economies than small minarchies, for reasons other than the size of the state.

I see... and this somehow contradicts the fact that countries with higher taxes and more spending on social welfare (even countries with small populations) tend to do better economically than countries with low taxes and less spending on social welfare? Or that Milton Freedman, a Nobel Laureate in economics has noted that many of the ideas of the Austrian school about how economies function are absolutely false?

The anti-vaccine movement wasn't based on ignorance of science, I doubt anybody would be capable of reproducing tests about vaccines and their affects with their home chemistry kit. Also, the movement claimed that scientists were lieing, or companies were not being truthful about the contents of the vaccines themselves.

No, you don't have to be able to test vaccines yourself to be scientifically literate. This isn't what scientific literacy means. Someone who has never set foot inside a lab past high school science class can be scientifically literate. And the anti-vaccination movement and the fallout from it is totally demonstrative of some of the costs of scientific illiteracy. There are other costs, but here's one that's glaring and in the news recently so it's difficult to ignore. Plus the whole bit about people dying as a result.

[Geniasis]

This is one of the worst thread topics I've read on NS.

You're young yet, give it time.

The Austrian School rejects the notion that mathematics is all that useful in the field of economics.

It is certainly not BAD to be well rounded, but why is well rounded prefered to, say, highly specialized? Why do school's try to make us "well rounded"? And even if you agree with the idea that public education should make us well rounded, why should the state be able to dictate what is best for us to learn and what isn't? And as for biology and climate, I assume you are refering to global warming, in which case I would say that global warming is a good example of what ISN'T desireable making its way into the classroom .

Because a firm grounding in multiple areas tends to prevent the Dunning-Kruger effect.

As for climate change: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=4789542#p4789542

Edit: why is the url tag not working? I can't see what I did wrong.

GODDAMMIT, THAT IS NOT A SUBJECT I AM INTERESTED IN LEARNING ABOUT TAKE IT AWAY AT ONCE

Wait, does it work the other way? Is my lack of confidence proof of my overwhelming competence? My God, I may be the most competent person on the planet.

[Norstal]

GODDAMMIT, THAT IS NOT A SUBJECT I AM INTERESTED IN LEARNING ABOUT TAKE IT AWAY AT ONCE

Wait, does it work the other way? Is my lack of confidence proof of my overwhelming competence? My God, I may be the most competent person on the planet.

THE POWER OF MATH COMPELS YOU! BEGONE SPIRIT OF TROGLODYTE!

*Sprays a super-soaker on Geniasis.*

[Tahar Joblis]

Austrian Economics does not rely on empiricism, because a free market has never existed before. Many of the conditions and phenomenon theorized in Austrian Economics assumes that the entire economy would be free. It is difficult to find empiricism for something that has never occured before.

The anti-obesity crisis could be attributed more towards people lacking self control, or simply not caring about unhealthy foods. I am sure even "uneducated" people would eventually get the correlation between obesity and unhealthy foods.

GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. A school of economics only possesses relevance to the degree that empiricism can validate its operating assumptions and results. A hypothesized discontinuous "perfect" unachievable result ("Well, if we go the REST of the way to a perfectly free market, these problems will suddenly fix themselves") would, even if truthfully existing, be grossly irresponsible to attempt to reach piecemeal. If we have never achieved a "truly free" market by this point in any of the varied small societies of history, we will never achieve a "truly free" market.

I don't think economics is useless. I also don't think that economists are all saying the same thing, or that most economists put any credence in the Austrian school.

[Geniasis]

THE POWER OF MATH COMPELS YOU! BEGONE SPIRIT OF TROGLODYTE!

*hisses*

Ah, math. My least favorite subject because I never had the discipline to do the busywork. Would that I could undo my High school mistakes.

*Sprays a super-soaker on Geniasis.*

You fool, by humiliating me you only serve to increase my competence!

[Vortiaganica]

Austrian Economics does not rely on empiricism, because a free market has never existed before. Many of the conditions and phenomenon theorized in Austrian Economics assumes that the entire economy would be free. It is difficult to find empiricism for something that has never occured before.

The anti-obesity crisis could be attributed more towards people lacking self control, or simply not caring about unhealthy foods. I am sure even "uneducated" people would eventually get the correlation between obesity and unhealthy foods.

GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. A school of economics only possesses relevance to the degree that empiricism can validate its operating assumptions and results. A hypothesized discontinuous "perfect" unachievable result ("Well, if we go the REST of the way to a perfectly free market, these problems will suddenly fix themselves") would, even if truthfully existing, be grossly irresponsible to attempt to reach piecemeal. If we have never achieved a "truly free" market by this point in any of the varied small societies of history, we will never achieve a "truly free" market.

I don't think economics is useless. I also don't think that economists are all saying the same thing, or that most economists put any credence in the Austrian school.

Is School Slavery With Benefits? If so, pleasing to givski reasons, if noski, pleasing to givski reasons. Discusski.

[Thomas206]

School is what you make the best of. Either you learn from it or become a slave and get sucked in. Some people either gain academically or socially from school--I mean, school is something everyone should probably experience, especially attending a campus college. I made the mistake of going to http://www.onlineenglishdegree.com/ for it was an online school, and I got completely nothing out of it. Mainly because I'm a really bad self learner and needed peers to interact with. I finally transferred my credits to http://www.washington.edu/ and started attending the campus--yes I did become a slave to the school work, but I learned so much out of it and building relationships with my peers. I did the most of my growing through college, and I think I definitley benefited from it.

[Itinerate Tree Dweller]

School is expensive babysitting.

Let the willing be autodidacts and just let the others be serfs.

If you consider the number of children a teacher watches over on a daily basis, how many hours they put into teaching, including the hours they spend on lesson plans, after school projects and meetings and factor in their salary, teachers are the cheapest babysitters available.