Mises.org article:http://mises.org/story/2090
Quality is a Market Notion
by Jim Fedako
For generations, products have advertised themselves as "new and improved." We are too quick to dismiss this phrase as a promotional boilerplate. The market really does generate unrelenting improvements in our living standards. Meanwhile, the public sector is forever promising to improve its services and products but every attempt creates only conflict and eventual stalemate.
For example: the proposed solution to the ills of public education is for government to raise the quality of teachers by increasing salaries and certification requirements. The belief is that a better workforce will lead to better educational outcomes and an improved economy.
Of course the adjective better has no agreed upon definition. Every pressure group and political faction has its own definition of better. Mostly these disparate definitions contradict each other. Regardless, the call for better continues to grow louder each election cycle.
There are perceived ills in the free market too — not ills in the same sense as discussed above, but ills in that all consumers have wants that are unmet. The argument for better can be applied to any sector of the economy. Better factors of production are always sought since acting man desires improvements in consumer goods; improvements that are reflected in increased selection and quality, as well as lower price.
In this case, the adjectives better, improved, and increased can go undefined since they are subjective value judgments of each individual consumer. No one needs to define them in literal terms; the actions of consumers define those terms as ends that are either satisfied or unsatisfied. More importantly, acting man does not need government bureaucrats or commissions to codify such terms for quality. The entrepreneur knows he matched the market definitions of better, improved, and increased simply by looking at his profit-and-loss statement at the end of each accounting cycle.
That better factors are not simply added to each and every recipe — the directions for producing desired goods — is explained in one simple word: scarcity. Scarce factors have to be correctly employed in the production of the most sought-after ends. Any other application leads to accounting losses and financial ruin for the entrepreneur.
Entrepreneurs have more solutions to the unmet wants of man than capital goods. Capital goods are required in the creations of factors of production, which are themselves required in the production of consumer goods. Using resources to produce goods other than those most wanted leads to economic losses, as does using goods inefficiently to produce most-wanted goods. Consumers buying and abstaining from buying along with double entry bookkeeping provide guidance for the allocation of factors of production.
The socialist utopian belief that the burden of scarcity can be lifted with the correct utilization of current capital and factors of production is still prevalent. The line of thought goes that once the altruistic and omniscient bureaucrat grabs the reigns of the economy and guides the factors to their correct application, scarcity will fade away and the Land of Cockaigne will appear on the horizon.
But this is not reality. Scarcity will always be with us as long as man's desires exceed his ability to satisfy them. Of course, once scarcity is lifted, once all desires are met, society will meet the same fate as the ants in an Uncle Milton's Ant Farm: it will quickly die off.
At any given point in time, each factor is limited. Successful entrepreneurs recognize this and direct scarce resources to the most pressing needs. Government, on the other hand, recognizes no concept of scarcity. It only sees one side of the equation, or only one result of its actions. Government functions counter to Hazlitt's admonition to see the unseen; to look for secondary effects of any proposed action.
It's important to employ resources and factors where they will have the greatest effect. The successful entrepreneur would not use a high-quality diamond in a simple industrial process when a low-quality one would work fine. A CEO would not place his or her CFO in the company cafeteria to run the register simply because a $10 cash-versus-sales shortfall was being reported on a daily basis. To employ a highly skilled and hence scarce resource to chase the odd $10 would be wasteful and inefficient.
Human qualities are indeed scarce resources. No one would suggest that Joe Paterno would be most efficiently employed as a high school junior varsity coach. Would Joe Pa be effective? Of course he would. Would it be the best use of such a quality resource? Of course not. Many less experienced coaches could achieve the same result, though those same coaches could not generate Joe Pa's lifetime college win record.
The same goes with other scarce resources. Would Mises have generated the greatest bang for the buck teaching eighth grade economics? Would the resource known as Bill Gates be most efficiently employed as a ninth grade business teacher? How about Einstein as an AP physics instructor? It depends on who you ask.
The socialist utopians truly believe that a Mises, a Gates, or an Einstein would be most efficiently employed in the classroom. They have no concept of scarcity of human qualities and have adopted Trotsky's vision of all men rising to the height of Goethe and beyond. A utopian's fantasies do not allow him to see the world as it is. His epistemology is invalid so his beliefs and conclusions are errant.
Mises said that only a handful of any generation has the abilities to advance economic knowledge, and indeed he was correct. But to coerce the best and brightest to become primary and secondary teachers is to rob future generations of essential knowledge. The same can be said of the use of tax dollars to guide such geniuses into the primary and secondary classrooms by raising the incomes of teachers above their marginal product.
The unhampered free market correctly allocates resources to their best use. Interventionism changes the allocation so that resources are applied to uses that are not beneficial to a society. Government loves to create roadblocks to entry into fields of choice.
Raising teacher certification standards above that required by the desires of man simply creates shortages where none should exist. Attracting the best and brightest with too-high salaries — salaries above their marginal product — or by creating shortages (real or perceived) succeeds only in raising the cost of education; it does nothing to solve the ills of a government-run education system.
Because of this, education is best left in the hands of the free market. Under a free market, the allocation of scarce human qualities and knowledge will be matched to the desires and wants of man. Public school math teachers, gym teachers, librarians, etc., would be paid exactly what they produce; no more, no less.
Should the desire for knowledge garnered in a ninth grade business class exceed that of the desire for faster and cheaper personal computers, Gates would find his most remunerative employment in the classroom. Otherwise, keep the Miseses, Gateses, and Einsteins of the world out of primary and secondary classrooms, and keep government out of education. We will all be better off.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Government in your child's head. Is it 1984 already?
Digg it!
"What's in your head, in your head
Zombie" from Zombie by The Cranberries
It appears it's the government ... well, they want to be in your child's head at the very least.
Who knows best, the parent or the bureaucrats and elected officials?
The push to have universal mental health screenings of all teens in the US is increasing. The opinions of the screener become the permanent record of the child. Consider signing a petition to let Congress know that there are limits to government interventionism. In addition, call or write you representatives and tell them to stop this nonsense.
Old English common law guaranteed that "a man's home is his castle." Pressure groups via government interventions crossed that threshold years ago, and now they are looking to enter the cranial cavity. Enough already. It's time to reread the Declaration of Independence and Constitution one more time.
As a parent, you have the legal right to request a preview of any survey your child will be asked to take at school. Exercise that right.
"What's in your head, in your head
Zombie" from Zombie by The Cranberries
It appears it's the government ... well, they want to be in your child's head at the very least.
Who knows best, the parent or the bureaucrats and elected officials?
The push to have universal mental health screenings of all teens in the US is increasing. The opinions of the screener become the permanent record of the child. Consider signing a petition to let Congress know that there are limits to government interventionism. In addition, call or write you representatives and tell them to stop this nonsense.
Old English common law guaranteed that "a man's home is his castle." Pressure groups via government interventions crossed that threshold years ago, and now they are looking to enter the cranial cavity. Enough already. It's time to reread the Declaration of Independence and Constitution one more time.
As a parent, you have the legal right to request a preview of any survey your child will be asked to take at school. Exercise that right.
Voting with Our Feet? Local Government "Services" and the Supposed Tiebout Effect
Posted at EducationNews.com
Since Paul Samuelson defined the term some fifty odd years ago, public goods has entered the popular lexicon and become an established belief. From the simple technical definition as a good that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, thus subject to free riders, and therefore can only be produced by government or through governmental action, public goods now encompass almost any good that a statist desires, whether neo-con or liberal. To question the concept of public goods is to attack mom and apple pie.
In 1956 Charles Tiebout extended the concept of public goods to the local level and created a model of a pseudo market for local government services (police, fire, schools, parks, etc.) whereby individuals sort themselves in such a manner that their preferences for government services match the services provided by the local government where they chose to reside. And just like Samuelson's public goods, Tiebout's local public goods plays a major role in how taxpayers view government expenditures.
The Tiebout Effect, the sorting of services and taxpayers, is supposed to provide a market solution that leads to a Pareto-Optimal equilibrium, guiding local governments toward providing only those services and quality of services that their respective residents want at a price they are willing to pay. Residents who don't like the mix of service, quality, and tax rate, "vote with their feet" and move to areas that better provide a mix that meets their preference rank. As residents either plant "for sale" signs and purchase homes elsewhere, or as prospective residents build new homes or buy existing homes, local governments recognize these activities as signals to either increase or reduce their service levels, depending on the perceived desires of the voting majority of community.
On the surface, the Tiebout model makes for a great justification for devolving a centralized government that can't provide for preference differentiation into many smaller local ones that can market themselves to individuals. Local governments are able to be as lean and mean as any private sector firm, at least according to Tiebout's model. But models are not reality.
Decentralized governments do compete with regard to tax incentives and public financing when trying to entice businesses to move into their area. But governments do not compete with each other by offering services in the same manner as entrepreneurs in the market place.
The easiest way to dispense with Tiebout is to recognize that the Austrian School has demolished the concept of public goods. Public goods simply do not exist. Sorry mom and apple pie. I am not going to address this here since there are many excellent articles and papers on the fallacy of public goods in general available at Mises.org .
The Rothbardian argument that a majority of voters does not speak for everyone also dispels the belief that the mix of so-called public goods, and local public goods, is a reflection of anyone's preference rank. No market in any sense exists where the majority plus one of those who chose to vote dictate the expenditures - through taxation - of all other. This is not a market, it as a coerced redistribution of wealth. Those in the voting majority simply become the net tax consumers while all others become the net taxpayers.
Despite the Austrian refutation, mainstream economists still cling to the public goods fallacy. In particular, many papers are written that cite the Tiebout Effect, especially in reference to local public schools and property values. Economist use Tiebout models in attempt to show that individuals voting with their feet drive improved school performance and increase property values.
While it may be true that individuals on initial draw seek communities that best match their preference mix of services and tax rate, individual preferences change as does the local government's mix of services and tax rate. Since the taxpayer is unable to simply move without incurring expense and the local government is a area-wide monopoly, local governments are under no pressure to satisfy changing preferences [1]. Entrepreneurs in the market, on the other hand, must quickly respond to any change in preference or suffer financial loss or ruin. Governments as monopolies are immune to such market pressures.
For sake of argument, let's agree that there is such a beast as public goods and that government is the entity most capable of supplying such services. The question I want to address is: Does the concept of local public goods provide a market that is driven to efficiency through the movements and sorting of individuals?
Like the often used example of the frog that blissfully allows itself to be boiled if the water temperature is slowing increased from lukewarm to boiling, taxpayers can also be boiled under rising tax rates simply because the marginal cost of moving exceeds the marginal cost of almost any new property tax. This has a piecemeal effect as taxes are increased every so often but each new step in tax rate does not warrant a move. Slowly the tax rate brings the homeowner to the boiling point, boiling under the collar anyway.
People tend to fall on the sword of collectivism and believe that a community is based on homogenous preferences. Nothing could be farther from the truth. School districts like to create the ideal-type resident and then assign attributes. Districts say that, "Our residents want program x." Does their community -- an aggregation of individual acting residents -- really want program x offered at the local schools? No, some parents want program x offered because they would rather not pay the full cost themselves but favor having their neighbors forced to split the bill. Districts like having program x simply because they now have a dependent constituency that will support additional tax increases.
Assume that you are offended by this machination of democracy or recognize yourself to be a net taxpayer for someone else's wants, what do you do? Is moving to another school district that has a better mix of service and tax rate the efficient and rational response. Not usually since the likely closing costs, moving expenses, and other real estate fees, drain about 10% off of the paper value of a house. The cost, real and assumed, to the owner of a $250,000 house is close to $25,000 with each move. It becomes obvious that it make sense to let the tax temperature rise just a few more degrees, even though the boiling point is rapidly approaching.
What about improved efficiency and performance of the local public school system due to the Tiebout Effect? From a market standpoint, the consumer must be able to operate in an free, unhampered market in order to guide the economy. The public school market is neither. Given that my singular vote has no impact on a tax levy and that I can't simply cross district lines without incurring a large cost, I am captured by the school market. If I am a regular at Burger King and the service or price changes in a manner I do not like, I can easily cross the street to McDonald's, Wendy's, etc., without having to bear any additional cost. In fact, the managers of the other restaurants will welcome me with open arms. There is no system of local public goods ready to serve me in the manner of the fast food market since I can't really "vote with my feet." The school system recognizes this and therefore sees no need for improvements in services relative to costs.
Oh, sure there are studies that show the occasional Tiebout Effect in the housing market, but here are also many studies showing no effect whatsoever. Certainly acting individuals sort themselves on any matter in question, but we can never know what the true reason for the sorting is. When econometricians use models that are based on the idea-type community member and then make assumptions about preference rankings, they are operating without a solid epistemology.
The above analysis shows that no free market for supposed public goods exists, local and otherwise. But if you require empirical data, just look around. Have you ever seen school districts, or any other local political entity, embrace improvements in order to capture a better market share? What you will see is school districts spin any change in outcome, whether positive or negative, as improved academic performance, and any additional cost as improved service. You will also see school districts claim that the school market is such that any reduction in funding or salaries will hurt student outcomes even though government expenditures and quality outcomes are inversely related.
School districts do not fear rising costs the same as the local businessman. Districts show no concern when their tax rates begin to exceed neighboring districts, in fact they will sell their need for operating levies on the basis that they spend less then neighboring districts -- cost equal service.
Imagine if McDonalds refused to acknowledge the hamburger price at Wendy's across the street. Imagine if consumers of computers could be led to believe that quality cannot go up even as prices go down. That would make for a strange market, but it is the market for supposed local public goods.
In addition, as Rothbard showed, taxation reduces the value of the item taxed. There you have it, schools don't improve, but taxes rise and potential property values fall.
A Tiebout Effect? Local public goods? No, you have been convinced by the fallacies and captured like the soon-to-be-boiled frog. It's not you choosing the mix of service and tax rate, it's the school system, or other governmental entity, making the choice for you.
Note:
[1] Due to government being an area-wide monopoly, school districts, and individual schools for that matter, typically cannot be switched without a move. This creates an issue that is not a concern where area-wide monopolies do not exist, namely the issue of switching suppliers requiring the selling of one's home. I can switch between McDonalds and Burger King as often as I like and not incur moving expenses. If McDonalds was granted an area-wide monopoly which forced me to buy Big Macs based on my current address, I would end up in the same situation as that with public schools. Unlike the standard neoclassical transaction cost, the cost of moving is the result of a government-imposed monopoly. End the area-wide monopoly and the moving cost issue disappears.
Jim Fedako, a former professional cyclist who lives in Lewis Center, OH, is a member of the Olentangy Local School District and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.
Since Paul Samuelson defined the term some fifty odd years ago, public goods has entered the popular lexicon and become an established belief. From the simple technical definition as a good that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, thus subject to free riders, and therefore can only be produced by government or through governmental action, public goods now encompass almost any good that a statist desires, whether neo-con or liberal. To question the concept of public goods is to attack mom and apple pie.
In 1956 Charles Tiebout extended the concept of public goods to the local level and created a model of a pseudo market for local government services (police, fire, schools, parks, etc.) whereby individuals sort themselves in such a manner that their preferences for government services match the services provided by the local government where they chose to reside. And just like Samuelson's public goods, Tiebout's local public goods plays a major role in how taxpayers view government expenditures.
The Tiebout Effect, the sorting of services and taxpayers, is supposed to provide a market solution that leads to a Pareto-Optimal equilibrium, guiding local governments toward providing only those services and quality of services that their respective residents want at a price they are willing to pay. Residents who don't like the mix of service, quality, and tax rate, "vote with their feet" and move to areas that better provide a mix that meets their preference rank. As residents either plant "for sale" signs and purchase homes elsewhere, or as prospective residents build new homes or buy existing homes, local governments recognize these activities as signals to either increase or reduce their service levels, depending on the perceived desires of the voting majority of community.
On the surface, the Tiebout model makes for a great justification for devolving a centralized government that can't provide for preference differentiation into many smaller local ones that can market themselves to individuals. Local governments are able to be as lean and mean as any private sector firm, at least according to Tiebout's model. But models are not reality.
Decentralized governments do compete with regard to tax incentives and public financing when trying to entice businesses to move into their area. But governments do not compete with each other by offering services in the same manner as entrepreneurs in the market place.
The easiest way to dispense with Tiebout is to recognize that the Austrian School has demolished the concept of public goods. Public goods simply do not exist. Sorry mom and apple pie. I am not going to address this here since there are many excellent articles and papers on the fallacy of public goods in general available at Mises.org .
The Rothbardian argument that a majority of voters does not speak for everyone also dispels the belief that the mix of so-called public goods, and local public goods, is a reflection of anyone's preference rank. No market in any sense exists where the majority plus one of those who chose to vote dictate the expenditures - through taxation - of all other. This is not a market, it as a coerced redistribution of wealth. Those in the voting majority simply become the net tax consumers while all others become the net taxpayers.
Despite the Austrian refutation, mainstream economists still cling to the public goods fallacy. In particular, many papers are written that cite the Tiebout Effect, especially in reference to local public schools and property values. Economist use Tiebout models in attempt to show that individuals voting with their feet drive improved school performance and increase property values.
While it may be true that individuals on initial draw seek communities that best match their preference mix of services and tax rate, individual preferences change as does the local government's mix of services and tax rate. Since the taxpayer is unable to simply move without incurring expense and the local government is a area-wide monopoly, local governments are under no pressure to satisfy changing preferences [1]. Entrepreneurs in the market, on the other hand, must quickly respond to any change in preference or suffer financial loss or ruin. Governments as monopolies are immune to such market pressures.
For sake of argument, let's agree that there is such a beast as public goods and that government is the entity most capable of supplying such services. The question I want to address is: Does the concept of local public goods provide a market that is driven to efficiency through the movements and sorting of individuals?
Like the often used example of the frog that blissfully allows itself to be boiled if the water temperature is slowing increased from lukewarm to boiling, taxpayers can also be boiled under rising tax rates simply because the marginal cost of moving exceeds the marginal cost of almost any new property tax. This has a piecemeal effect as taxes are increased every so often but each new step in tax rate does not warrant a move. Slowly the tax rate brings the homeowner to the boiling point, boiling under the collar anyway.
People tend to fall on the sword of collectivism and believe that a community is based on homogenous preferences. Nothing could be farther from the truth. School districts like to create the ideal-type resident and then assign attributes. Districts say that, "Our residents want program x." Does their community -- an aggregation of individual acting residents -- really want program x offered at the local schools? No, some parents want program x offered because they would rather not pay the full cost themselves but favor having their neighbors forced to split the bill. Districts like having program x simply because they now have a dependent constituency that will support additional tax increases.
Assume that you are offended by this machination of democracy or recognize yourself to be a net taxpayer for someone else's wants, what do you do? Is moving to another school district that has a better mix of service and tax rate the efficient and rational response. Not usually since the likely closing costs, moving expenses, and other real estate fees, drain about 10% off of the paper value of a house. The cost, real and assumed, to the owner of a $250,000 house is close to $25,000 with each move. It becomes obvious that it make sense to let the tax temperature rise just a few more degrees, even though the boiling point is rapidly approaching.
What about improved efficiency and performance of the local public school system due to the Tiebout Effect? From a market standpoint, the consumer must be able to operate in an free, unhampered market in order to guide the economy. The public school market is neither. Given that my singular vote has no impact on a tax levy and that I can't simply cross district lines without incurring a large cost, I am captured by the school market. If I am a regular at Burger King and the service or price changes in a manner I do not like, I can easily cross the street to McDonald's, Wendy's, etc., without having to bear any additional cost. In fact, the managers of the other restaurants will welcome me with open arms. There is no system of local public goods ready to serve me in the manner of the fast food market since I can't really "vote with my feet." The school system recognizes this and therefore sees no need for improvements in services relative to costs.
Oh, sure there are studies that show the occasional Tiebout Effect in the housing market, but here are also many studies showing no effect whatsoever. Certainly acting individuals sort themselves on any matter in question, but we can never know what the true reason for the sorting is. When econometricians use models that are based on the idea-type community member and then make assumptions about preference rankings, they are operating without a solid epistemology.
The above analysis shows that no free market for supposed public goods exists, local and otherwise. But if you require empirical data, just look around. Have you ever seen school districts, or any other local political entity, embrace improvements in order to capture a better market share? What you will see is school districts spin any change in outcome, whether positive or negative, as improved academic performance, and any additional cost as improved service. You will also see school districts claim that the school market is such that any reduction in funding or salaries will hurt student outcomes even though government expenditures and quality outcomes are inversely related.
School districts do not fear rising costs the same as the local businessman. Districts show no concern when their tax rates begin to exceed neighboring districts, in fact they will sell their need for operating levies on the basis that they spend less then neighboring districts -- cost equal service.
Imagine if McDonalds refused to acknowledge the hamburger price at Wendy's across the street. Imagine if consumers of computers could be led to believe that quality cannot go up even as prices go down. That would make for a strange market, but it is the market for supposed local public goods.
In addition, as Rothbard showed, taxation reduces the value of the item taxed. There you have it, schools don't improve, but taxes rise and potential property values fall.
A Tiebout Effect? Local public goods? No, you have been convinced by the fallacies and captured like the soon-to-be-boiled frog. It's not you choosing the mix of service and tax rate, it's the school system, or other governmental entity, making the choice for you.
Note:
[1] Due to government being an area-wide monopoly, school districts, and individual schools for that matter, typically cannot be switched without a move. This creates an issue that is not a concern where area-wide monopolies do not exist, namely the issue of switching suppliers requiring the selling of one's home. I can switch between McDonalds and Burger King as often as I like and not incur moving expenses. If McDonalds was granted an area-wide monopoly which forced me to buy Big Macs based on my current address, I would end up in the same situation as that with public schools. Unlike the standard neoclassical transaction cost, the cost of moving is the result of a government-imposed monopoly. End the area-wide monopoly and the moving cost issue disappears.
Jim Fedako, a former professional cyclist who lives in Lewis Center, OH, is a member of the Olentangy Local School District and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Research? Are you kidding?
Digg it!
Phi Delta Kappa International, the self-proclaimed professional association in education, is an influential voice in the current education debates. The organization's mission is "to promote quality education as essential to the development and maintenance of a democratic way of life by providing innovative programs, relevant research, visionary leadership, and dedicated service." OK, let's see what they consider to be the promotion of quality education and relevant research.
An article in the current issue of their noted magazine, Phi Delta Kappan, claims to provide enlightened insight on what is wrong with public schools.
The findings: Of the 13 middle school students surveyed, all agreed that having personal responsibility for critiquing each book they read improved their reading skills more than being in a traditional classroom. This sounds like wonderful data, but is absolutely devoid of meaning and value.
First off, a qualitative study [1] of 13 students has no statistical merit, it is simply someone's story. As a study, it is simply a waste of time and effort. How in the world can students honestly state that a certain program improved their performance relative to some other program - a program in which they were not currently participating? They can because they were simply answering an invalid question on someone's survey.
Another finding: 10 of the 13 said that their overall social skills improved as a result of a curriculum integration experience. Again, how would they know for certain? The reality is they can't. So why the research and why the findings?
One section of the report is entitled, "Curricular Decisions Belong to Students." Not the parents, not even the teachers, but the students. Since we have all been through the middle school period of life, we know for certain that this statement is absolute nonsense. But it is the agenda that is driving so-called middle school reforms.
You can plainly see this agenda when a teacher decides that the child should moderate a child/parent conference in lieu of the standard parent/teacher setup. Yes, the child critiques his work in front of his own parents in a classroom surrounded by other children doing the same. The teacher floats around the room proud to have implemented this "new experience." And it's the King that has no clothes?
So, there you have it. The responses from 13 students confirm that Progressive Education is the way to go. Don't buy this nonsense. Ask questions at school curriculum nights and conferences. You can be certain that your concerns about your school's low academic performance are correct, regardless of what those 13 students felt on survey day. You have to take the lead in your child's education, otherwise your child will be subject to this foolishness.
Notes:
[1] Qualitative research asks those studied to provide their feelings or beliefs regarding the effectiveness of a program. These type of studies do not even consider improvements in test scores, they simply collate and report responses to questions such as, "Do you think this method improved you abilities?"
Contrast that with quantitative research that employs the methods used by the typical medical study appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine - double-blind studies, etc. Qualitative research has it's place in science but not when testing educational interventions.
The feelings and beliefs of the 13 students do not prove increased performance. It is just as likely that their performance is less even though they report that it has improved. In instances such as this, qualitative research is devoid of scientific meaning, but full of agenda-related meaning.
Phi Delta Kappa International, the self-proclaimed professional association in education, is an influential voice in the current education debates. The organization's mission is "to promote quality education as essential to the development and maintenance of a democratic way of life by providing innovative programs, relevant research, visionary leadership, and dedicated service." OK, let's see what they consider to be the promotion of quality education and relevant research.
An article in the current issue of their noted magazine, Phi Delta Kappan, claims to provide enlightened insight on what is wrong with public schools.
The findings: Of the 13 middle school students surveyed, all agreed that having personal responsibility for critiquing each book they read improved their reading skills more than being in a traditional classroom. This sounds like wonderful data, but is absolutely devoid of meaning and value.
First off, a qualitative study [1] of 13 students has no statistical merit, it is simply someone's story. As a study, it is simply a waste of time and effort. How in the world can students honestly state that a certain program improved their performance relative to some other program - a program in which they were not currently participating? They can because they were simply answering an invalid question on someone's survey.
Another finding: 10 of the 13 said that their overall social skills improved as a result of a curriculum integration experience. Again, how would they know for certain? The reality is they can't. So why the research and why the findings?
One section of the report is entitled, "Curricular Decisions Belong to Students." Not the parents, not even the teachers, but the students. Since we have all been through the middle school period of life, we know for certain that this statement is absolute nonsense. But it is the agenda that is driving so-called middle school reforms.
You can plainly see this agenda when a teacher decides that the child should moderate a child/parent conference in lieu of the standard parent/teacher setup. Yes, the child critiques his work in front of his own parents in a classroom surrounded by other children doing the same. The teacher floats around the room proud to have implemented this "new experience." And it's the King that has no clothes?
So, there you have it. The responses from 13 students confirm that Progressive Education is the way to go. Don't buy this nonsense. Ask questions at school curriculum nights and conferences. You can be certain that your concerns about your school's low academic performance are correct, regardless of what those 13 students felt on survey day. You have to take the lead in your child's education, otherwise your child will be subject to this foolishness.
Notes:
[1] Qualitative research asks those studied to provide their feelings or beliefs regarding the effectiveness of a program. These type of studies do not even consider improvements in test scores, they simply collate and report responses to questions such as, "Do you think this method improved you abilities?"
Contrast that with quantitative research that employs the methods used by the typical medical study appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine - double-blind studies, etc. Qualitative research has it's place in science but not when testing educational interventions.
The feelings and beliefs of the 13 students do not prove increased performance. It is just as likely that their performance is less even though they report that it has improved. In instances such as this, qualitative research is devoid of scientific meaning, but full of agenda-related meaning.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Kindergarten Economics
A cute saying is, “Everything I know, I learned in Kindergarten.” That may indeed be the case for some, but learning doesn't always imply useful knowledge. Sometimes the item learned becomes an axiom of errant logic and false conclusions. These conclusions then drive economic policy toward the -isms of socialism, egalitarianism, utilitarianism, environmentalism, etc., the often-prized third way. But in actuality, Ludwig von Mises showed that the direction provide by these conclusions leads down the one-way street to the socialist cul-de-sac.
The classroom poster reads, “There are no wrong ideas here.” Is this apodictically true? If it is not, where does this false statement lead? What conclusions and actions result from a saying so apparently innocuous? You might be surprised.
Future educators are being indoctrinated by college professors adhering to progressive and socialist educational utopian ideals – just as current educators were indoctrinated during their college years. Mises in Human Action noted that Charles Fourier, the French utopian socialist, believed that man could create a world where the seas are made from lemonade. Mises also quotes Trotsky’s belief that the world in the 1920’s was about to witness the birth of the ideal super human as “the average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.”
These Utopian ideals are certainly powerful statements, but they are a too outrageous for the typical education major. Keep the utopian ideal, but spin the rhetoric into the less offensive Kindergarten concept that no ideas can be wrong and you've hooked the teachers, parents and school board. And, more importantly, you've inculcated a new generation. Gramsci was right, why fight in the streets when patience and time will bring about socialism through lectures and textbooks as each subsequent generation is taught party-line thoughts and ideas at state-run schools.
There are many in my generation who believe that all ideas are good. Failure is not the product of a bad idea; failure is instead the product of market flaws and the sign that government intervention is required.
In reality most ideas are not worthy of consideration; they're inefficient, wasteful and just plain wrong. In Kindergarten and throughout the public K-12 system that statement is politically incorrect.
A little history is in order. Otto von Bismarck’s dream of state socialism was given birth decades before his rise to power when the calls for compulsory public education were heard soon after Napoleon defeated the Prussian army at Jena. The Prussian system supposedly began producing the best and the brightest, at least that’s what Horace Mann, the father of public education in the US, believed. Later, John Dewey, the father of the current pedagogy, was enthralled by what he saw during a 1928 visit to the Soviet Union. Trotsky’s Utopian man was envisioned by the Progressives as the product of public education.
This has left us with a free and compulsory school system that is convinced that five 7th graders sitting around a table can construct the concepts that required the brightest intellects hundreds of years to conceive. It took the likes of Carl Menger and the passage of a century to overthrow Adam Smith’s Classical School and institute the Marginalist Revolution. The discovery of marginal utility, considered the mark of a genius, is now supposed to be replicated by less-than-eager adolescents within a 40-minute class period. The utopian man has arrived.
“No wrong ideas here.” Every thought uttered by any child or adult has to be given equal standing. Consensus, an ideal adhered to by the education monopoly, is the blending of these ideas into an Hegelian synthesis [1] that becomes truth. Synthesis can then be tested using the latest tools of the econometrician. That this new truth stands outside a priori logic is of no consequence. Without a system built on a priori logic to test ideas, anything can be deemed possible. Polylogism is certainly alive and well.
The empiricist’s test of the statement, “No wrong ideas here,” is a view of two snapshots of a local strip mall taken one year apart. Most of the stores open in year one are gone in year two; bad ideas.
Weren't these ideas entrepreneurial dreams? Certainly, but not all dreams lead to viable concerns. Mises considered the consumer a heartless taskmaster. The statement in the Kindergarten classroom fails the empirical test and thus must be concluded as false.
Not so fast. Wasn't the test the result of a flawed system? Didn't the statistical noise from the market cause a false reading of the results? Aren’t we confounding correlation with causation since the market caused the failures? Such ideas are hard to refute since they spin faster than anyone can apply logic to them.
Unlike the Kindergarten teachers who may truly believe that all ideas – dreams – should be allowed to germinate and bloom, the consumer does not see the dream, only the product. We see Wal Mart but we don't see the thousand other stores that opened in the 1950’s that, while being the dreams of entrepreneurs, did not provide for the most urgent wants of the customers. These businesses failed. Their business model was incorrect and inefficient.
But, wait. Failure means that an idea was wrong. We have been taught that ideas are correct; it is the market that fails. Your snapshots from above shows different store fronts because the free market suffers the inherent flaw that the passing fancies of consumers trump the dreams of the child, now entrepreneur. This conclusion is what we were taught in Kindergarten as impressionable and malleable children. It’s the evils of the market that steal the dreams of the Utopian man.
The market didn't steal the dreams, the dreams still exist. But consumers – you and I – shouldn't have to pay for another man’s dream. The dream must simply remain one man’s dream. Under a system of interventionism, the dreams of the entrepreneur are exchanged for the dreams of the elected official or bureaucrat. The entrepreneur that dreamed of building a store on the premise of “always high prices” is now sitting behind an agency desk commanding the economy. Instead of fully stocked Wal Marts carrying fresh foods from all around the globe, the consumer is stuck with the drab, dirty Soviet-quality stores stocked with Vodka, cookies and little else.
Saying an idea is wrong does not mean that ideas shouldn't be tested. IBM thought Gates was off the mark trying to peddle computers for home use. Other examples abound where ideas considered crazy brought innovation to the market and eased the urgent wants of the consumers.
Unlike a lab where all conditions must be controlled for an experiment to work, the market allows someone with an idea, enthusiasm and some financial backing to test that idea at the local strip mall. Should the concept align with the needs of the consumer, the next Subway-style success will begin opening franchises in strip malls throughout the US.
Better the foot-long turkey on wheat served with a smile than the slice of salami on stale bread coming from the scowling apparachik wearing a faded Babushka. The more productive an idea, the more efficient the economy will run. We all benefit when ideas that are wrong are allowed to be discarded in the waste pile.
I will contend that all truths I know about the market I learned through studying Human Action and Murray Rothbard’s classic, Man, Economy and State. Since these books reconstruct economics around solid a priori logic, they are irrefutable. These books deliver conclusions will challenge all that was learned in Kindergarten and beyond, but those very conclusions must be understood as the guiding lights to a brighter future for all.
Jim Fedako
[1] The common usage is Hegelian while this usage is more along the lines of Fichte's system, the predecessor of Hegel.
The classroom poster reads, “There are no wrong ideas here.” Is this apodictically true? If it is not, where does this false statement lead? What conclusions and actions result from a saying so apparently innocuous? You might be surprised.
Future educators are being indoctrinated by college professors adhering to progressive and socialist educational utopian ideals – just as current educators were indoctrinated during their college years. Mises in Human Action noted that Charles Fourier, the French utopian socialist, believed that man could create a world where the seas are made from lemonade. Mises also quotes Trotsky’s belief that the world in the 1920’s was about to witness the birth of the ideal super human as “the average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.”
These Utopian ideals are certainly powerful statements, but they are a too outrageous for the typical education major. Keep the utopian ideal, but spin the rhetoric into the less offensive Kindergarten concept that no ideas can be wrong and you've hooked the teachers, parents and school board. And, more importantly, you've inculcated a new generation. Gramsci was right, why fight in the streets when patience and time will bring about socialism through lectures and textbooks as each subsequent generation is taught party-line thoughts and ideas at state-run schools.
There are many in my generation who believe that all ideas are good. Failure is not the product of a bad idea; failure is instead the product of market flaws and the sign that government intervention is required.
In reality most ideas are not worthy of consideration; they're inefficient, wasteful and just plain wrong. In Kindergarten and throughout the public K-12 system that statement is politically incorrect.
A little history is in order. Otto von Bismarck’s dream of state socialism was given birth decades before his rise to power when the calls for compulsory public education were heard soon after Napoleon defeated the Prussian army at Jena. The Prussian system supposedly began producing the best and the brightest, at least that’s what Horace Mann, the father of public education in the US, believed. Later, John Dewey, the father of the current pedagogy, was enthralled by what he saw during a 1928 visit to the Soviet Union. Trotsky’s Utopian man was envisioned by the Progressives as the product of public education.
This has left us with a free and compulsory school system that is convinced that five 7th graders sitting around a table can construct the concepts that required the brightest intellects hundreds of years to conceive. It took the likes of Carl Menger and the passage of a century to overthrow Adam Smith’s Classical School and institute the Marginalist Revolution. The discovery of marginal utility, considered the mark of a genius, is now supposed to be replicated by less-than-eager adolescents within a 40-minute class period. The utopian man has arrived.
“No wrong ideas here.” Every thought uttered by any child or adult has to be given equal standing. Consensus, an ideal adhered to by the education monopoly, is the blending of these ideas into an Hegelian synthesis [1] that becomes truth. Synthesis can then be tested using the latest tools of the econometrician. That this new truth stands outside a priori logic is of no consequence. Without a system built on a priori logic to test ideas, anything can be deemed possible. Polylogism is certainly alive and well.
The empiricist’s test of the statement, “No wrong ideas here,” is a view of two snapshots of a local strip mall taken one year apart. Most of the stores open in year one are gone in year two; bad ideas.
Weren't these ideas entrepreneurial dreams? Certainly, but not all dreams lead to viable concerns. Mises considered the consumer a heartless taskmaster. The statement in the Kindergarten classroom fails the empirical test and thus must be concluded as false.
Not so fast. Wasn't the test the result of a flawed system? Didn't the statistical noise from the market cause a false reading of the results? Aren’t we confounding correlation with causation since the market caused the failures? Such ideas are hard to refute since they spin faster than anyone can apply logic to them.
Unlike the Kindergarten teachers who may truly believe that all ideas – dreams – should be allowed to germinate and bloom, the consumer does not see the dream, only the product. We see Wal Mart but we don't see the thousand other stores that opened in the 1950’s that, while being the dreams of entrepreneurs, did not provide for the most urgent wants of the customers. These businesses failed. Their business model was incorrect and inefficient.
But, wait. Failure means that an idea was wrong. We have been taught that ideas are correct; it is the market that fails. Your snapshots from above shows different store fronts because the free market suffers the inherent flaw that the passing fancies of consumers trump the dreams of the child, now entrepreneur. This conclusion is what we were taught in Kindergarten as impressionable and malleable children. It’s the evils of the market that steal the dreams of the Utopian man.
The market didn't steal the dreams, the dreams still exist. But consumers – you and I – shouldn't have to pay for another man’s dream. The dream must simply remain one man’s dream. Under a system of interventionism, the dreams of the entrepreneur are exchanged for the dreams of the elected official or bureaucrat. The entrepreneur that dreamed of building a store on the premise of “always high prices” is now sitting behind an agency desk commanding the economy. Instead of fully stocked Wal Marts carrying fresh foods from all around the globe, the consumer is stuck with the drab, dirty Soviet-quality stores stocked with Vodka, cookies and little else.
Saying an idea is wrong does not mean that ideas shouldn't be tested. IBM thought Gates was off the mark trying to peddle computers for home use. Other examples abound where ideas considered crazy brought innovation to the market and eased the urgent wants of the consumers.
Unlike a lab where all conditions must be controlled for an experiment to work, the market allows someone with an idea, enthusiasm and some financial backing to test that idea at the local strip mall. Should the concept align with the needs of the consumer, the next Subway-style success will begin opening franchises in strip malls throughout the US.
Better the foot-long turkey on wheat served with a smile than the slice of salami on stale bread coming from the scowling apparachik wearing a faded Babushka. The more productive an idea, the more efficient the economy will run. We all benefit when ideas that are wrong are allowed to be discarded in the waste pile.
I will contend that all truths I know about the market I learned through studying Human Action and Murray Rothbard’s classic, Man, Economy and State. Since these books reconstruct economics around solid a priori logic, they are irrefutable. These books deliver conclusions will challenge all that was learned in Kindergarten and beyond, but those very conclusions must be understood as the guiding lights to a brighter future for all.
Jim Fedako
[1] The common usage is Hegelian while this usage is more along the lines of Fichte's system, the predecessor of Hegel.
Friday, July 21, 2006
First they have to get a clue.
Latest Mises.org blog post
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005360.asp
The Brookings Institution Press has a new offering, Antitrust Policy and Vertical Restraints. The description of the book includes this sage advice, "In order to formulate economically efficient policies, they (policymakers) must be able to identify and limit those practices that are likely to do more harm than good." Why make this hard? The simple solution is for policymakers to end their interventions in the market and let consumers and entrepreneurs solve - to the benefit of both parties - issues that may arise in exchange. It's either the participants in an exchange solving their own conflicts, or it's the policymaker via their henchmen - the bureaucrats - forcing a less-optimal exchange.
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005360.asp
The Brookings Institution Press has a new offering, Antitrust Policy and Vertical Restraints. The description of the book includes this sage advice, "In order to formulate economically efficient policies, they (policymakers) must be able to identify and limit those practices that are likely to do more harm than good." Why make this hard? The simple solution is for policymakers to end their interventions in the market and let consumers and entrepreneurs solve - to the benefit of both parties - issues that may arise in exchange. It's either the participants in an exchange solving their own conflicts, or it's the policymaker via their henchmen - the bureaucrats - forcing a less-optimal exchange.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Another comment deserving a response
It would be my best guess that the following comments regarding my previous post came from someone on the district's staff.
"I mean you seriously researched where the post came from?"
This is the information age. I would bet that most bloggers take advantage of the host of free blog-related services. Using the free service provided by Sitemeter.com, which is one of many that provide similar services, bloggers get a report of the number of visitors, along with their ISP addresses (AOL, Verizon, TRECA, etc.), page views, etc. This is important data for any serious blogger who wants to know what's being read; what is of interest to visitors and what is not. No serious research required, just a couple of mouse clicks and it's all readily available.
"I am also amazed how you cannot even have the audacity to research the use of young adult literature and its use within a classroom. Students everyday are dealing with a tougher issues than perhaps you dealt with in your day. And, rape is one of those issues. Statistics show that 1 out of 4 women will be raped between the ages of 15-19. Is this not a relevant topic? Do teens who face this violence not have a voice?
So if rape isn't a relevant topic or a relevant "narrator, than would you also state that "Beloved" is not a classic book that speaks towards this issue? Perhaps you should talk to Toni Morrison about its purpose in literature history. Have you read "Beloved"? Rape is an act of violence and unfortunately, it is often without a voice for the victim. Shouldn't all students have an opportunity to hear that voice?"
Olentangy's curriculum - the course of study - is contained in the board-approved maps. The maps define the outcomes and list the associated performance benchmarks. When I say board-approved, I really mean community-approved since the board acts on behalf of the community. The topics listed above are not part of the community-approved curriculum. They are what is commonly referred to as the hidden curriculum; the personal curriculum of those who believe that they know better than parents. Neither the board nor the community approved the learning objectives that Anonymous advocates.
"If teens to not have an opportunity to face these conflicts, “the adolescent will sink into confusion, unable to make decisions and choices, especially about vocation, sexual orientation, and his role in general.” That is why in (Eric) Erikson’s stage “Identity vs. Role” confusion stage of young adults, ages 12-18, is where teenager must achieve a sense of identity in occupation, sex roles, politics, and religion and the most important even is peer relationships."
OK, now you're scaring me.
The topics listed here are extremely sensitive. Who best to help a child make sense of the world; the English teacher or the child's parents? I say it's the parents, but some staff members believe that they are the ones who should be guiding children to adulthood, whether parents approve or not. This from staff members who say the reason they do not like parental notification is that "parents who would say no to these topics are the ones whose children need to be taught the very same topics." Sounds more like indoctrination than education.
Let me leave you with this excerpt:
"Is it better to keep our kids on a bubble to protect them from the "evil world" or to enlighten them and equip them with their own thoughts/ideas and help them to deal with them now versus sending them off to college to deal with such as SERIOUS issues later when their parents are not as aware???"
A very strange form of enlightenment; create false teen issues - crises - so that you can imprint your worldview on unsuspecting minds. As I have written previously, there are those who truly believe that without a unionized workforce inculcating children, nothing of value will ever be learned. Doesn't say much about the role of parents in raising children, but the enlightened few always believe they know better.
The three R's have been replaced with a form of enlightenment that should cause us all a lot of concern. Oh, and we pay teachers to indoctrinate district children into this world of Progressive, pop psycho-garbage.
"I mean you seriously researched where the post came from?"
This is the information age. I would bet that most bloggers take advantage of the host of free blog-related services. Using the free service provided by Sitemeter.com, which is one of many that provide similar services, bloggers get a report of the number of visitors, along with their ISP addresses (AOL, Verizon, TRECA, etc.), page views, etc. This is important data for any serious blogger who wants to know what's being read; what is of interest to visitors and what is not. No serious research required, just a couple of mouse clicks and it's all readily available.
"I am also amazed how you cannot even have the audacity to research the use of young adult literature and its use within a classroom. Students everyday are dealing with a tougher issues than perhaps you dealt with in your day. And, rape is one of those issues. Statistics show that 1 out of 4 women will be raped between the ages of 15-19. Is this not a relevant topic? Do teens who face this violence not have a voice?
So if rape isn't a relevant topic or a relevant "narrator, than would you also state that "Beloved" is not a classic book that speaks towards this issue? Perhaps you should talk to Toni Morrison about its purpose in literature history. Have you read "Beloved"? Rape is an act of violence and unfortunately, it is often without a voice for the victim. Shouldn't all students have an opportunity to hear that voice?"
Olentangy's curriculum - the course of study - is contained in the board-approved maps. The maps define the outcomes and list the associated performance benchmarks. When I say board-approved, I really mean community-approved since the board acts on behalf of the community. The topics listed above are not part of the community-approved curriculum. They are what is commonly referred to as the hidden curriculum; the personal curriculum of those who believe that they know better than parents. Neither the board nor the community approved the learning objectives that Anonymous advocates.
"If teens to not have an opportunity to face these conflicts, “the adolescent will sink into confusion, unable to make decisions and choices, especially about vocation, sexual orientation, and his role in general.” That is why in (Eric) Erikson’s stage “Identity vs. Role” confusion stage of young adults, ages 12-18, is where teenager must achieve a sense of identity in occupation, sex roles, politics, and religion and the most important even is peer relationships."
OK, now you're scaring me.
The topics listed here are extremely sensitive. Who best to help a child make sense of the world; the English teacher or the child's parents? I say it's the parents, but some staff members believe that they are the ones who should be guiding children to adulthood, whether parents approve or not. This from staff members who say the reason they do not like parental notification is that "parents who would say no to these topics are the ones whose children need to be taught the very same topics." Sounds more like indoctrination than education.
Let me leave you with this excerpt:
"Is it better to keep our kids on a bubble to protect them from the "evil world" or to enlighten them and equip them with their own thoughts/ideas and help them to deal with them now versus sending them off to college to deal with such as SERIOUS issues later when their parents are not as aware???"
A very strange form of enlightenment; create false teen issues - crises - so that you can imprint your worldview on unsuspecting minds. As I have written previously, there are those who truly believe that without a unionized workforce inculcating children, nothing of value will ever be learned. Doesn't say much about the role of parents in raising children, but the enlightened few always believe they know better.
The three R's have been replaced with a form of enlightenment that should cause us all a lot of concern. Oh, and we pay teachers to indoctrinate district children into this world of Progressive, pop psycho-garbage.
Friday, July 14, 2006
A challenge and a response (with new info)
"And I would like for you to post the Delaware Gazette letter you submited. Along with the letter, please submit your data stating the number of Olentangy students having to take "remedial English" in college. With the data, I'd like to see its origination, how it was compiled, etc. Such a strong statement should really have statistical proof so it doesn't just seem like psychotic ramblings." Blog comment left by Anonymous
You just have to love people who make such statements under the cover of Anonymous. What is very interesting is that the comment came from TRECA's ISP - TRECA is the internet provider for the Olentangy Local School District. This means that there are staff members who know little about our data and performance but are all fired-up about a reading list. They would rather spend your tax dollars commenting on this blog than reviewing performance data and working for improvements. Humm ... Could this explain the district's lagging performance? Anyway... to the data ...
You can get the data from either the Olentangy Annual Report on Academic Achievement or the Ohio Board of Regents' high school transition report.
The Olentangy report shows a 36% combined remediation rate for district students who were freshmen in 2002 at one of Ohio's colleges and universities reporting to the Board of Regents - including OSU, Miami, etc. Thirty-six percent. The Board of Regents report shows that the percentage increased to 37% for 2003 freshmen. I pushed to have this indicator added to the annual report so I know the data well. These data should be of utmost concern for the district's staff, yet they are not. Why?
It's beginning to sound less like psychotic ramblings and more like a true concern for our future generation. It is a sad refection of the tens, and now hundreds, of millions in tax dollars that the district spends every year.
It would appear that college-prep and district performance are not correlated. Folks, this level of performance is the result of choices made by the staff. Sure, some staff and students may have fun reading the books in question, but the Board of Regents is not looking for fun as an indicator of a potentially successful college student. Allow the English department to push fun as the objective and watch college seats get filled with students from other districts.
Next, Anonymous needs to challenge the staff and have them explain such poor performance. Though I'm certain that Anonymous will remain thusly and keep quiet. It always stings when the data doesn't go your way.
Notes: The Olentangy report annual report on achievement is produced with your tax dollars, but some district staff obviously don't bother reading it. If you don't know your level of performance, or just don't care, how in the world can you ever improve?
In a previous post, I challenged any staff member who agreed with what appears to be a majority of the community to speak out on the inappropriateness of the required reading list. Not only has the challenge gone unanswered, this appears to be a representative response from the staff. Disappointing, and disheartening.
You just have to love people who make such statements under the cover of Anonymous. What is very interesting is that the comment came from TRECA's ISP - TRECA is the internet provider for the Olentangy Local School District. This means that there are staff members who know little about our data and performance but are all fired-up about a reading list. They would rather spend your tax dollars commenting on this blog than reviewing performance data and working for improvements. Humm ... Could this explain the district's lagging performance? Anyway... to the data ...
You can get the data from either the Olentangy Annual Report on Academic Achievement or the Ohio Board of Regents' high school transition report.
The Olentangy report shows a 36% combined remediation rate for district students who were freshmen in 2002 at one of Ohio's colleges and universities reporting to the Board of Regents - including OSU, Miami, etc. Thirty-six percent. The Board of Regents report shows that the percentage increased to 37% for 2003 freshmen. I pushed to have this indicator added to the annual report so I know the data well. These data should be of utmost concern for the district's staff, yet they are not. Why?
It's beginning to sound less like psychotic ramblings and more like a true concern for our future generation. It is a sad refection of the tens, and now hundreds, of millions in tax dollars that the district spends every year.
It would appear that college-prep and district performance are not correlated. Folks, this level of performance is the result of choices made by the staff. Sure, some staff and students may have fun reading the books in question, but the Board of Regents is not looking for fun as an indicator of a potentially successful college student. Allow the English department to push fun as the objective and watch college seats get filled with students from other districts.
Next, Anonymous needs to challenge the staff and have them explain such poor performance. Though I'm certain that Anonymous will remain thusly and keep quiet. It always stings when the data doesn't go your way.
Notes: The Olentangy report annual report on achievement is produced with your tax dollars, but some district staff obviously don't bother reading it. If you don't know your level of performance, or just don't care, how in the world can you ever improve?
In a previous post, I challenged any staff member who agreed with what appears to be a majority of the community to speak out on the inappropriateness of the required reading list. Not only has the challenge gone unanswered, this appears to be a representative response from the staff. Disappointing, and disheartening.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Dewey and Destruction
Response to the Mises.org article, The Welfare State's Attack on the Family.
In addition to the destruction caused by welfare programs, government, through the public school system, has also contributed to the break-up of the family. This has been done by pushing the Progressive ideals of John Dewey, the noted father of the modern American education system and believer in collectivism and socialism.
Dewey, and the other Progressives, adhered, and still adhere, to Trotsky's vision of the ideal superhuman who will arise from the socialist state and it's system of public education. The following quote from Dewey was made soon after his 1928 trip to Soviet Russia: "I have never seen anywhere in the world such a large proportion of intelligent, happy, and intelligently occupied children." Impressions of Soviet Russia, by John Dewey. If you want to learn more, head to the web magazine, TCRecord, published by Columbia University's Teachers College. There you will read that Dewey is still considered a hero of the education establishment.
Public schools, which teach the ideal of a state that has freed man from the burdens of traditional institutions, push a vision of the child untethered from any social norm and unconcerned about family and heritage.
In addition to the destruction caused by welfare programs, government, through the public school system, has also contributed to the break-up of the family. This has been done by pushing the Progressive ideals of John Dewey, the noted father of the modern American education system and believer in collectivism and socialism.
Dewey, and the other Progressives, adhered, and still adhere, to Trotsky's vision of the ideal superhuman who will arise from the socialist state and it's system of public education. The following quote from Dewey was made soon after his 1928 trip to Soviet Russia: "I have never seen anywhere in the world such a large proportion of intelligent, happy, and intelligently occupied children." Impressions of Soviet Russia, by John Dewey. If you want to learn more, head to the web magazine, TCRecord, published by Columbia University's Teachers College. There you will read that Dewey is still considered a hero of the education establishment.
Public schools, which teach the ideal of a state that has freed man from the burdens of traditional institutions, push a vision of the child untethered from any social norm and unconcerned about family and heritage.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
A Listserve Response on Exactness
Note: Running commentary regarding whether some math terms are too rigorous for practical users of math elicited this response:
The reason that India might overtake the US in technology is that they teach strict adherence to the language of math, as they also do with the languages of philosophy and technology.
There are two fields where one might hear the following, "Next we instantiate an new instance of the entity." The fields, philosophy and technology. Search for the definitions of the supposed esoteric words of philosophy and you will likely find the companion definition from an online technical dictionary. The terms in their contexts have exact meanings, there is no room for interpretations from the "practical user" of philosophy, nor the "practical user" of technology. Fail to correctly understand those terms and watch your job get shipped offshore while holding your pink slip.
Also, try discovery-learning your own set of arithmetic order of operations and see how MS Excel processes them. The rules and esoteric language of math have exact meanings, they are beyond debate. Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institute edited an enlightening book, The Great Curriculum Debate, where a contributor lamented the lack of exactness in US math books. The contributor, Richard Askey, noted the incorrect use of the term exponential in a discussion of population growth, the correct term being polynomial. A researcher who casually substitutes one word for another will have results that are unpredictable at best. Certainly the "practical math user" is happy with the use of exponential, but it is absolutely wrong in the context of the discussion. The author of the math book in question was fine with his lazy use of the term exponential and refused to make a change.
A quick note on logic: The strict rules of logic are embedded in computer software. The computer does not care what one's intent was when substituting an and for an or in a logic gate. "Practical users" of internet search engines will find very odd results if they use these terms interchangeably. Sure we can create a gentlemen's agreement that such rigor is too demanding, but we will fall on our faces as we present our results for review.
Of course, law and legal documents rely on exact definitions. Maybe this is the next area of offshoring to the rising giants in the East.
The division of math knowledge into that which is used by "mathematicians" and that which is used by "practical users of math" is a error arising from the Progressive Movement. No wonder education in the US has falling into such a malaise.
Jim Fedako
The reason that India might overtake the US in technology is that they teach strict adherence to the language of math, as they also do with the languages of philosophy and technology.
There are two fields where one might hear the following, "Next we instantiate an new instance of the entity." The fields, philosophy and technology. Search for the definitions of the supposed esoteric words of philosophy and you will likely find the companion definition from an online technical dictionary. The terms in their contexts have exact meanings, there is no room for interpretations from the "practical user" of philosophy, nor the "practical user" of technology. Fail to correctly understand those terms and watch your job get shipped offshore while holding your pink slip.
Also, try discovery-learning your own set of arithmetic order of operations and see how MS Excel processes them. The rules and esoteric language of math have exact meanings, they are beyond debate. Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institute edited an enlightening book, The Great Curriculum Debate, where a contributor lamented the lack of exactness in US math books. The contributor, Richard Askey, noted the incorrect use of the term exponential in a discussion of population growth, the correct term being polynomial. A researcher who casually substitutes one word for another will have results that are unpredictable at best. Certainly the "practical math user" is happy with the use of exponential, but it is absolutely wrong in the context of the discussion. The author of the math book in question was fine with his lazy use of the term exponential and refused to make a change.
A quick note on logic: The strict rules of logic are embedded in computer software. The computer does not care what one's intent was when substituting an and for an or in a logic gate. "Practical users" of internet search engines will find very odd results if they use these terms interchangeably. Sure we can create a gentlemen's agreement that such rigor is too demanding, but we will fall on our faces as we present our results for review.
Of course, law and legal documents rely on exact definitions. Maybe this is the next area of offshoring to the rising giants in the East.
The division of math knowledge into that which is used by "mathematicians" and that which is used by "practical users of math" is a error arising from the Progressive Movement. No wonder education in the US has falling into such a malaise.
Jim Fedako
Standards, Choice, and Scientific Research
Consider Consumer Reports: The magazine reviews consumer goods based on a proprietary set of standards. They test, analyze, test, analyze, etc., until they are satisfied as to the quality of the products under review. CR then assigns individual product ratings and notes one product as a best buy. Though most Americans accept CR's results as being of excellent quality, the noted best buy is not usually the market best-seller. Yes, I will occasionally look at CR prior to purchasing a good, but I almost never buy the best buy. I agree that the CR standard is scientifically valid, but that doesn't mean I am in the market for the scientifically valid, CR best buy product.
What would happen if Consumer Reports had legislative and regulatory authority akin to government? We would all be forced to purchase the best buy and we would all spend our lives unsatisfied. On the surface it sounds great to have a leading research organization setting the market for "the general good and welfare," but consider your own actions vis-a-vis CR's best buys. The same holds for a government-run education system. Some level of government mandates a set of standards that may be scientifically valid according to a certain set of outcomes, but the set of standards and outcomes are not the standards and outcomes all Americans would choose as acting individuals.
Scientific research can create goods that are bigger, smaller, faster, slower, etc. But just because research can create the good doesn't mean that there is a market for it. No one wants a hypodermic needle that is rougher, wider, longer, etc. The superlatives associated with improvements and innovations from scientific research are not always desired.
A free market system of education would create for those who seek different options a system that encourages the implementation of the spectrum of educational choices -- best viewed as experiments, just as each new product, service, store, etc, is a market experiment. The successful experiments become the market standard that new entrepreneurs seek to surpass.
These choices would involve all aspects of education - including pedagogies, methods, etc. - which would afford those who seek scientific research for guidance a system of scientific research needed to support the spectrum of choices.
Parents would choose their standard of results and they would seek out entrepreneurs who would then hire teachers and administrators that share the parents' vision. The entrepreneurs would purchase products to implement the vision and the science community would be engaged to improve old products and innovate new ones - all due to the market pressures of freely acting consumers, the parents. This is the proper direction of improvements and innovations, from the consumer back to the scientist, engineer, researcher, etc.
The standard set by the consumer, the parent, would end up driving the research that would deliver the product, not the reverse. Currently we have a system where the standards are set by a myriad of governments and agencies which no one really agrees with, and we have a spectrum of research whose real goal is to drive the standards.
There are scientific winners in the field of the delivery of quality, basic education [1], such as Direct Instructions, etc., but we know a significant number of parents, staff, and administrators don't give a hoot about reading, writing, and arithmetic. They want affective education and long for the dream of the ideal child, the product of latest version of Progressive thinking.
I disagree with them, but their solutions may actually end up being correct, or they will fail like Enron, etc. Only a market can show whether they are right or wrong.
That said, we have to keep in mind that Consumer Reports creates valid ratings that we mostly ignore, and we are all better off making our own choices. Our individual wants drive improvements and innovations to provide for our greater satisfaction. Why should education be any different?
note:
[1] "Basic" is not to be taking as simple, non-challenging, etc., it is meant to describe the education that is opposite of the ends sought by the Progressive Movement. Basic is best defined by E. D. Hirsch's Cultural Literacy.
[2] The free market is the only economic system where we can disagree yet live peacefully. My wife likes Coke while I prefer Pepsi. In fact, I'd rather drink a glass of baking soda than a glass of Coke (Ok, a little hyperbole for effect). Due to the free market in soft drinks, my wife and I can live happily ever after. Under a hampered economy, or plain socialism, the fight becomes which flavor will be served by the scowling apparachik wearing a faded Babushka? Choose freedom every time.
Jim Fedako
What would happen if Consumer Reports had legislative and regulatory authority akin to government? We would all be forced to purchase the best buy and we would all spend our lives unsatisfied. On the surface it sounds great to have a leading research organization setting the market for "the general good and welfare," but consider your own actions vis-a-vis CR's best buys. The same holds for a government-run education system. Some level of government mandates a set of standards that may be scientifically valid according to a certain set of outcomes, but the set of standards and outcomes are not the standards and outcomes all Americans would choose as acting individuals.
Scientific research can create goods that are bigger, smaller, faster, slower, etc. But just because research can create the good doesn't mean that there is a market for it. No one wants a hypodermic needle that is rougher, wider, longer, etc. The superlatives associated with improvements and innovations from scientific research are not always desired.
A free market system of education would create for those who seek different options a system that encourages the implementation of the spectrum of educational choices -- best viewed as experiments, just as each new product, service, store, etc, is a market experiment. The successful experiments become the market standard that new entrepreneurs seek to surpass.
These choices would involve all aspects of education - including pedagogies, methods, etc. - which would afford those who seek scientific research for guidance a system of scientific research needed to support the spectrum of choices.
Parents would choose their standard of results and they would seek out entrepreneurs who would then hire teachers and administrators that share the parents' vision. The entrepreneurs would purchase products to implement the vision and the science community would be engaged to improve old products and innovate new ones - all due to the market pressures of freely acting consumers, the parents. This is the proper direction of improvements and innovations, from the consumer back to the scientist, engineer, researcher, etc.
The standard set by the consumer, the parent, would end up driving the research that would deliver the product, not the reverse. Currently we have a system where the standards are set by a myriad of governments and agencies which no one really agrees with, and we have a spectrum of research whose real goal is to drive the standards.
There are scientific winners in the field of the delivery of quality, basic education [1], such as Direct Instructions, etc., but we know a significant number of parents, staff, and administrators don't give a hoot about reading, writing, and arithmetic. They want affective education and long for the dream of the ideal child, the product of latest version of Progressive thinking.
I disagree with them, but their solutions may actually end up being correct, or they will fail like Enron, etc. Only a market can show whether they are right or wrong.
That said, we have to keep in mind that Consumer Reports creates valid ratings that we mostly ignore, and we are all better off making our own choices. Our individual wants drive improvements and innovations to provide for our greater satisfaction. Why should education be any different?
note:
[1] "Basic" is not to be taking as simple, non-challenging, etc., it is meant to describe the education that is opposite of the ends sought by the Progressive Movement. Basic is best defined by E. D. Hirsch's Cultural Literacy.
[2] The free market is the only economic system where we can disagree yet live peacefully. My wife likes Coke while I prefer Pepsi. In fact, I'd rather drink a glass of baking soda than a glass of Coke (Ok, a little hyperbole for effect). Due to the free market in soft drinks, my wife and I can live happily ever after. Under a hampered economy, or plain socialism, the fight becomes which flavor will be served by the scowling apparachik wearing a faded Babushka? Choose freedom every time.
Jim Fedako
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Response to Columbus Dispatch Editorial
Letters Editor:
The Dispatch normally hits the mark with its editorials but its editors went wide with their editorial on the Olentangy Libery High School's required summer reading list in the paper's July 6, 2006 editorial, "Offer a choice."
Oh, come one now. There were over 170,000 books published in 2005 alone, nearly a million books published since the year The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time hit the shelves. Choices abound in the US book market. No books were banned, they are still available in district libraries, Delaware County libraries, and at Wal-Mart, Barnes and Nobles, etc.
No one removed any choice from any parent or child in the district. These books can be borrowed, bought, or exchanged in any manner desired. The issue is simply this: Out of the tens of millions of books published over time, which ones are best suited to challenge children in preparation for college and beyond?
Any book that makes it on a required reading list had better be the best of the plentitude available. This means that there has to be a good reason to select a book. None of the books in question are on any college recommended reading list that I have ever seen. In short, they are not college-prep reading material.
The books are popular, but they are not appropriate. In fact county libraries place these books in the adult section, not the teen section. A 14-year-old's description of her own rape is never appropriate for any required reading list. With many classics to choose, not to mention the other millions of books available, the Dispatch should be asking why an Olentangy English department chairwoman believes this book needed to be read; non-college material in a college-prep course nonetheless.
Jim Fedako
Member, Olentangy Board of Education
The Dispatch normally hits the mark with its editorials but its editors went wide with their editorial on the Olentangy Libery High School's required summer reading list in the paper's July 6, 2006 editorial, "Offer a choice."
Oh, come one now. There were over 170,000 books published in 2005 alone, nearly a million books published since the year The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time hit the shelves. Choices abound in the US book market. No books were banned, they are still available in district libraries, Delaware County libraries, and at Wal-Mart, Barnes and Nobles, etc.
No one removed any choice from any parent or child in the district. These books can be borrowed, bought, or exchanged in any manner desired. The issue is simply this: Out of the tens of millions of books published over time, which ones are best suited to challenge children in preparation for college and beyond?
Any book that makes it on a required reading list had better be the best of the plentitude available. This means that there has to be a good reason to select a book. None of the books in question are on any college recommended reading list that I have ever seen. In short, they are not college-prep reading material.
The books are popular, but they are not appropriate. In fact county libraries place these books in the adult section, not the teen section. A 14-year-old's description of her own rape is never appropriate for any required reading list. With many classics to choose, not to mention the other millions of books available, the Dispatch should be asking why an Olentangy English department chairwoman believes this book needed to be read; non-college material in a college-prep course nonetheless.
Jim Fedako
Member, Olentangy Board of Education
Friday, July 07, 2006
This time it's just has to work
Latest Mises.org post
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005294.asp
CNN is reporting that July 1 was the effective date for a host of new state laws, with more laws about to become effective. Not to worry, this latest mix of statist controls will finally order society in the correct manner. You can disregard the prior failed interventions, the capital chefs have finally got the recipe just right. You can sleep easy my friends. Thank goodness, it's about time ...
Read New laws target bird flu, bullies and taxes at CNN.com ...
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005294.asp
CNN is reporting that July 1 was the effective date for a host of new state laws, with more laws about to become effective. Not to worry, this latest mix of statist controls will finally order society in the correct manner. You can disregard the prior failed interventions, the capital chefs have finally got the recipe just right. You can sleep easy my friends. Thank goodness, it's about time ...
Read New laws target bird flu, bullies and taxes at CNN.com ...
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Interventions are always loser
Latest Mises.org blog post
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005277.asp
One truism has never been successfully challenged: Government interventions lead to a less efficient, less well-ordered society.
In his important book, Basic Principles of Economic Value, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk develops, among other important concepts, his basic law of prices and includes a footnote that is both intriguing and worthy of exploration.
In the narrative associated with the footnote (p. 119), Böhm-Bawerk develops his law of prices (pp.107-129) by using the now-standard chart of subjective values of a group of horse buyers and sellers. Chart 1 (reproduced below), shows that five horses will be bought and sold at a market price somewhere between $210 and $215.
Notice that in the market range of $210 to $215, not all horses are sold since some sellers value their horse more than the established market price (sellers 6, 7, and 8). In the footnote, Böhm-Bawerk reorders the values so that the sellers’ valuations are in descending order similar to the buyers’ set of values (chart 2 below). He then notes that if the buyers and sellers sought out each other in this manner, all available horses would have been sold. This intriguing situation is worthy of further exploration since it is always important to investigate the possibilities of a government helping-hand with regard to the market.
A question arises: If government intervened to coercively pair buyers with sellers in the manner that the chart in the footnote details (chart 2 below) and forced exchanges based solely on the pair at hand’s valuations (e.g. Buyer 1 and Seller 8, Buyer 2 and Seller 7, etc.), ignoring an aggregate market price, would the society of horse buyers and sellers be better off?
First, we have to look at how value is increased through voluntary exchange and then apply that knowledge to the intervention.
Value has a subjective magnitude. Individuals participate in voluntary exchanges if and only if they expect ex ante an increase in subjective value ex post due to the exchange.
Based on the market established in chart 1, Buyer 1 will exchange with Seller 1 at some price between $100 and $300. Regardless of the price, an increase of $200 is recorded to subjective valuations of this two-person society since the buyer values the horse $200 more than the seller; while the buyer and seller simply split the cash based on the agreed upon price.
The pre-exchange valuations show the buyer holding $300 in cash with the seller holding a $100 horse. Should the price have been $200 for the exchange, the buyer now has a $300 horse and $100 in cash while the seller has $200 in cash. This shows a $200 increase in subjective valuation.
Any other price for the horse simply moves cash from one holder’s account to the other; buyer's to seller's, or visa versa. The money price has no effect on the increase in the subjective valuation to the buyer over the seller of the exchanged horse. The money price only affects the decision to exchange or hold, money prices do not change valuations subjective to the individual actors.
The aggregate valuation increase for the larger society as detailed in chart 1 is calculated by summing the valuations of the more-capable buyers – those able to purchase a horse on the market – and subtracting from that total the summed valuations of the associated sellers. In the example, the aggregate increase due to the exchanges is $570.
What would be the aggregate increase to society due to a government intervention that coercively paired buyers with sellers?
Using chart 2, sum the valuations of capable buyers and subtract the sum of the valuations of the associated sellers. In this instance, there are eight buyers and sellers. The result, an increase of $435, shows that the coerced exchange reduced the aggregate subjective valuation gain.
More horses were sold but less value was created. This intervention, like all government interventions, is a net loser.
Moreover, and more importantly, the losses due to the coerced exchanges are not found only in the hypothetical market created by Böhm-Bawerk, the loss of subjective valuation occurs regardless of the make-up of the market. In addition, this can be extended to show that government cannot tax valuation "left on the table" [1] and increase the aggregate subjective valuation since all government would be doing is reducing cash-holdings through taxation. The subjective valuations remain what they are regardless of the exchange price.
Additionally, if government would then use the cash generated through taxation to subsidize exchanges that would not have occurred naturally in the market, the aggregate net valuation would suffer a loss – just as it did under a coerced exchange – and the cash-holdings would be reduced by the inefficiencies of government.
Based on a superficial analysis, coerced exchanges appear to lead to greater satisfaction. Aren’t more horses traded? Isn’t more cash passed between buyer and seller? The answer is yes to both. However, the unseen is as important as the seen. On the surface, government appears to be a market catalyst for good, while the hidden results proves that interventions lead to a loss of value and cash-holdings.
Governments opt for the seen as their continued power is based on trumpeting their interventions of the obvious; governments then blame the final results, lost values and cash-holdings, on someone or something else altogether.
Yet, this is exactly what government does when it alters the normal actions of individuals through taxation or other coercive forces, such as subsidies, etc. Nothing good results simply because nothing good can result from coerced changes to the free market.
Footnote:
[1] Valuation “left on the table” is value external to the exchange, viz. the subjective value Buyer 1 assigns to the horse, $300, that is that is greater that the market price, between $210 and $215 in this instance. Some suggest that government should levy a tax of either $90 or $85 respectively so that the value the buyer attributed to the horse is paid in a combination of market price and taxation. The belief is that this combination would capture all value generated by the exchange. As noted above, government simply decreases the aggregate valuation and cash-holdings of society through such interventions.
Jim Fedako [send him mail], a former professional cyclist who lives in Lewis Center, OH, is a member of the Olentangy Local School District and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.
Appendix
Chart 1
Chart 2
note: refer to Mises.org blog posting for chart 2.
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005277.asp
One truism has never been successfully challenged: Government interventions lead to a less efficient, less well-ordered society.
In his important book, Basic Principles of Economic Value, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk develops, among other important concepts, his basic law of prices and includes a footnote that is both intriguing and worthy of exploration.
In the narrative associated with the footnote (p. 119), Böhm-Bawerk develops his law of prices (pp.107-129) by using the now-standard chart of subjective values of a group of horse buyers and sellers. Chart 1 (reproduced below), shows that five horses will be bought and sold at a market price somewhere between $210 and $215.
Notice that in the market range of $210 to $215, not all horses are sold since some sellers value their horse more than the established market price (sellers 6, 7, and 8). In the footnote, Böhm-Bawerk reorders the values so that the sellers’ valuations are in descending order similar to the buyers’ set of values (chart 2 below). He then notes that if the buyers and sellers sought out each other in this manner, all available horses would have been sold. This intriguing situation is worthy of further exploration since it is always important to investigate the possibilities of a government helping-hand with regard to the market.
A question arises: If government intervened to coercively pair buyers with sellers in the manner that the chart in the footnote details (chart 2 below) and forced exchanges based solely on the pair at hand’s valuations (e.g. Buyer 1 and Seller 8, Buyer 2 and Seller 7, etc.), ignoring an aggregate market price, would the society of horse buyers and sellers be better off?
First, we have to look at how value is increased through voluntary exchange and then apply that knowledge to the intervention.
Value has a subjective magnitude. Individuals participate in voluntary exchanges if and only if they expect ex ante an increase in subjective value ex post due to the exchange.
Based on the market established in chart 1, Buyer 1 will exchange with Seller 1 at some price between $100 and $300. Regardless of the price, an increase of $200 is recorded to subjective valuations of this two-person society since the buyer values the horse $200 more than the seller; while the buyer and seller simply split the cash based on the agreed upon price.
The pre-exchange valuations show the buyer holding $300 in cash with the seller holding a $100 horse. Should the price have been $200 for the exchange, the buyer now has a $300 horse and $100 in cash while the seller has $200 in cash. This shows a $200 increase in subjective valuation.
Any other price for the horse simply moves cash from one holder’s account to the other; buyer's to seller's, or visa versa. The money price has no effect on the increase in the subjective valuation to the buyer over the seller of the exchanged horse. The money price only affects the decision to exchange or hold, money prices do not change valuations subjective to the individual actors.
The aggregate valuation increase for the larger society as detailed in chart 1 is calculated by summing the valuations of the more-capable buyers – those able to purchase a horse on the market – and subtracting from that total the summed valuations of the associated sellers. In the example, the aggregate increase due to the exchanges is $570.
What would be the aggregate increase to society due to a government intervention that coercively paired buyers with sellers?
Using chart 2, sum the valuations of capable buyers and subtract the sum of the valuations of the associated sellers. In this instance, there are eight buyers and sellers. The result, an increase of $435, shows that the coerced exchange reduced the aggregate subjective valuation gain.
More horses were sold but less value was created. This intervention, like all government interventions, is a net loser.
Moreover, and more importantly, the losses due to the coerced exchanges are not found only in the hypothetical market created by Böhm-Bawerk, the loss of subjective valuation occurs regardless of the make-up of the market. In addition, this can be extended to show that government cannot tax valuation "left on the table" [1] and increase the aggregate subjective valuation since all government would be doing is reducing cash-holdings through taxation. The subjective valuations remain what they are regardless of the exchange price.
Additionally, if government would then use the cash generated through taxation to subsidize exchanges that would not have occurred naturally in the market, the aggregate net valuation would suffer a loss – just as it did under a coerced exchange – and the cash-holdings would be reduced by the inefficiencies of government.
Based on a superficial analysis, coerced exchanges appear to lead to greater satisfaction. Aren’t more horses traded? Isn’t more cash passed between buyer and seller? The answer is yes to both. However, the unseen is as important as the seen. On the surface, government appears to be a market catalyst for good, while the hidden results proves that interventions lead to a loss of value and cash-holdings.
Governments opt for the seen as their continued power is based on trumpeting their interventions of the obvious; governments then blame the final results, lost values and cash-holdings, on someone or something else altogether.
Yet, this is exactly what government does when it alters the normal actions of individuals through taxation or other coercive forces, such as subsidies, etc. Nothing good results simply because nothing good can result from coerced changes to the free market.
Footnote:
[1] Valuation “left on the table” is value external to the exchange, viz. the subjective value Buyer 1 assigns to the horse, $300, that is that is greater that the market price, between $210 and $215 in this instance. Some suggest that government should levy a tax of either $90 or $85 respectively so that the value the buyer attributed to the horse is paid in a combination of market price and taxation. The belief is that this combination would capture all value generated by the exchange. As noted above, government simply decreases the aggregate valuation and cash-holdings of society through such interventions.
Jim Fedako [send him mail], a former professional cyclist who lives in Lewis Center, OH, is a member of the Olentangy Local School District and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.
Appendix
Chart 1
Chart 2
note: refer to Mises.org blog posting for chart 2.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
A 2006 Modern Minuteman
Many thanks to Peyton Wolcott for selecting me as a 2006 Modern Minuteman in education. Peyton, Your vote of confidence is greatly appreciated.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Comments heard along the way (with responses)
"Lovely Bones is a work of literature." The supporter of some of the books on Olentangy Liberty's mandatory reading lists claim that the books are true works of literature. If those books are works of literature, so is this blog, along with every keystroke and pencil scratch that I have every made.
"They are on the New York Times Best-Seller List!" So what, they are not on any college's list of expected readings for in-coming freshmen - at least not any list that I have every seen.
"It's censorship." No, it's selecting a list of appropriate books. As the woman in the June 30, 2006 Dispatch article notes, she is making Lovely Bones available to her family members. That is still her right and privilege. You can still borrow the book at district libraries and all county libraries, and the book is available at Wal-Mart and Barnes and Nobles, etc. That's a very strange application of the concept of government censorship, and a very weak understanding of the First Amendment - as written and intended, not as applied by activist courts.
"A few pushy parents are getting too involved in the schools." State law in Ohio states that parents are stakeholders and thus equal partners in the school system, though some staff see otherwise. Some parents who complained in the past were harangued and insulted when they wanted less-offensive selections added to required reading lists. Now parents have banded together and are demanding to be heard; that is their right.
"Stop being such a religious fanatic and get a life." Not a very nice way to greet your customers, but it is a very powerful way to get parents to back-off from demanding to be involved in their children's education. Keep in mind that a government-run monopoly will never accept its community as an equal partner.
"Our staff knows best." Really, and this is the reading list they created? Aren't students supposed to be reading the books that will prepare them for college? It would appear from the mandatory list that students are supposed to be reading the top ten list from Oprah and NYT. As one commentator noted, "It is as if some teachers and librarians are working to ban the classics."
"Kids should read these books as they are very interesting." Ok, go ahead and borrow or buy the books and give them to your own children, just don't force them on other's children.
Remember, the flip-side of censorship is indoctrination. The supporters of this list can have their own children read the books, but that is never enough. They DEMAND that your children read them also. In fact, staff has stated that the reason they don't like parental permission slips for controversial - vile - materials and presentations is that "the parents who say no are the ones whose children really need to see the materials." Huh? What makes a unionized labor force, and tax-supported administration, believe they have the right to overrule you in such personal matters? The cry of "censorship" always follows the drive to stop indoctrination.
(If you want to see the heart of the indoctrination efforts, check back later for updates of the platform debates from the NEA annual convention courtesy of Mike Antonucci of the The Education Intelligence Agency.)
Besides the error correction noted in the July 1, 2006 edition of the Dispatch, another error is the claim that this is simply an issue for one Christian parent. In fact, this is an issue for the 70 to 100 parents initially involved, a true cross-section of our community, whose children were effected by the list. The list of concerned parents continues to grow.
Who knows what is best for your children? You, the parent, or someone else? I believe it's you, others do not. They are not concerned about their own children's minds, they are concerned about your child's mind. And that concerns me.
Jim Fedako
note: Some say I'm too critical of all teachers. I would agree if only a few would stand up to this nonsense and be heard. As none have now or in the past, I have no option other than to consider these issues fully supported by the staff. Please, somebody, prove me wrong!
"They are on the New York Times Best-Seller List!" So what, they are not on any college's list of expected readings for in-coming freshmen - at least not any list that I have every seen.
"It's censorship." No, it's selecting a list of appropriate books. As the woman in the June 30, 2006 Dispatch article notes, she is making Lovely Bones available to her family members. That is still her right and privilege. You can still borrow the book at district libraries and all county libraries, and the book is available at Wal-Mart and Barnes and Nobles, etc. That's a very strange application of the concept of government censorship, and a very weak understanding of the First Amendment - as written and intended, not as applied by activist courts.
"A few pushy parents are getting too involved in the schools." State law in Ohio states that parents are stakeholders and thus equal partners in the school system, though some staff see otherwise. Some parents who complained in the past were harangued and insulted when they wanted less-offensive selections added to required reading lists. Now parents have banded together and are demanding to be heard; that is their right.
"Stop being such a religious fanatic and get a life." Not a very nice way to greet your customers, but it is a very powerful way to get parents to back-off from demanding to be involved in their children's education. Keep in mind that a government-run monopoly will never accept its community as an equal partner.
"Our staff knows best." Really, and this is the reading list they created? Aren't students supposed to be reading the books that will prepare them for college? It would appear from the mandatory list that students are supposed to be reading the top ten list from Oprah and NYT. As one commentator noted, "It is as if some teachers and librarians are working to ban the classics."
"Kids should read these books as they are very interesting." Ok, go ahead and borrow or buy the books and give them to your own children, just don't force them on other's children.
Remember, the flip-side of censorship is indoctrination. The supporters of this list can have their own children read the books, but that is never enough. They DEMAND that your children read them also. In fact, staff has stated that the reason they don't like parental permission slips for controversial - vile - materials and presentations is that "the parents who say no are the ones whose children really need to see the materials." Huh? What makes a unionized labor force, and tax-supported administration, believe they have the right to overrule you in such personal matters? The cry of "censorship" always follows the drive to stop indoctrination.
(If you want to see the heart of the indoctrination efforts, check back later for updates of the platform debates from the NEA annual convention courtesy of Mike Antonucci of the The Education Intelligence Agency.)
Besides the error correction noted in the July 1, 2006 edition of the Dispatch, another error is the claim that this is simply an issue for one Christian parent. In fact, this is an issue for the 70 to 100 parents initially involved, a true cross-section of our community, whose children were effected by the list. The list of concerned parents continues to grow.
Who knows what is best for your children? You, the parent, or someone else? I believe it's you, others do not. They are not concerned about their own children's minds, they are concerned about your child's mind. And that concerns me.
Jim Fedako
note: Some say I'm too critical of all teachers. I would agree if only a few would stand up to this nonsense and be heard. As none have now or in the past, I have no option other than to consider these issues fully supported by the staff. Please, somebody, prove me wrong!
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Believe in government, believe in me
New LewRockwell.com article:
If you believe that Government provides the solutions, then you have to believe in me. As a member of an elected board of education I have been granted the power to mandate solutions to local education and health issues, real or perceived. My qualifications: I was elected to my position by receiving sufficient votes to beat enough of the other candidates. I was not elected by a majority, more like a plurality of the 25% or so residents who chose to vote in that election. Not much of a mandate, but I will take what I can get.
You see, once ensconced on the board, the fact that close to 85% of the residents in my district of voting age either voted against me, or decided my election was not worth their time, carries no weight. The power vested in my position, and now in me, by Ohio state law does not depend on unanimity of support. It does not even depend on majority support. All I needed was to be the marginal vote-getter in an off-year election and the board seat was mine.
Interestingly, the same folks who would never accept my omniscience as a friend, neighbor, or community member, accept my omniscience as an elected official. Of course these folks don't consciously acknowledge my omniscience, but they do subscribe to the omniscience of the governmental body, the school board in this instance. It is as if the board as a whole attains a higher plane of reason where the whole is multiples of the sum of the parts. In reality, most board members are simply parents trying to make the best decisions for their own children. Certainly they pray that they are right, but they do not subscribe to their omniscience at home, just in the board room.
Based on lots of research and agonizing internal reasoning, or simply the result of my then-current whim and fancy, I get to make decisions that affect the lives and future of other’s children. All it takes is for an article in an education periodical or posting on a web site to catch my attention and I could be advocating the next nuttiness in your life. Should someone suggest that children today are overfed and under-exercised, I could be writing the new policies, procedures, and guidelines that mandate each child eat nothing but organic carrots at lunch and perform sets of jumping-jacks at their desks on the hour, every hour.
Sound far-fetched? Well, it’s not. Every crazy idea has both advocates and enablers. The advocates push the issue while the enablers nod their collective heads in approval. It really does not matter if the enablers truly agree with the advocates since the enablers will never call the advocates into question. The lovers of Liberty try to make a stand but find their voices lost in the sea of feel-good, collective consensus-building. The crazy idea then ends up before the board and I get to decide. Will whim and fancy, or research and reason, be my guide? You never can really tell.
So I get to decide on the issue while you get to fear the results as the occasional band of roaming morons spray paint SUVs, demand that KFC play Mozart in their slaughterhouses – yes, the chicken we eat must be slaughtered somewhere, and protest McDonalds and Wal-Mart as evil incarnate. These are products of a system that I get to run based on my world-view, or the world-view that piques my interest at any given time.
And I get to change with the winds, not so much based on political pressures, but based on the ideas or ideals that I believe today that all children must believe tomorrow. As my views flutter in the wind, new advocates arrive on the scene and the increase of crazy ideas reaches hurricane speeds while the enablers bob their heads in accelerating unison.
The problem is that local government is simply comprised of friends, neighbors, community members, who you generally appreciate but whose views on very personal matters, such as parenting, are not always the same as yours; just as you do not always agree with the parental decisions of those closest to you – your parents and siblings. In fact, one of the easiest ways to end a family reunion in anger is to begin telling siblings how to raise their children.
In addition, even if I possessed the latest research on education and had advanced reasoning skills, as an elected official, a member of government, the best I can offer is my opinions and beliefs, and I am wrong more often than right. Education research is based on standards that can never match consumer desires, and all opinions and beliefs of that research are nothing more than an individual’s bias. Without a free market and real consumers driving the education system, expect waste and inefficiencies; failures. But give us, your school boards, power and we will decide; we will indoctrinate as we see fit, based on our own biases or those biases fed to us by educationist organizations.
But society must allow parents to raise and indoctrinate their children as they see fit, not as the unionized wing of government sees fit. Thomas Jefferson believed that it was far better to suffer the occasional fool than to create a school system that offends fathers, and mothers. I assume that the majority of parents would opt for their own decision-making skills if pushed to decide, but I may be wrong.
Why do so many people have such little faith in their own parenting, and their neighbors' parenting, that they truly believe that without a unionized labor force inculcating children, nothing of value will ever be learned? Are we really at the point where the future of civilization is in the hands of the public school education monopoly? Maybe preschool should start right after birth so that parents have no adverse influence on their children. And, why do residents feel that I can make the decisions for their children that they would not allow to be made by members of their own family?
The answer is that they have accepted collectivism in the form of government as the solution. Whereas our forebears rebelled against such paternalism – or do-gooder nanny-ism – the current generations have come to accept government in all facets of their lives. We allow the schools to dictate our children’s future and simply assume that the schools are always rights. We allow the local health department and schools to decide what goes in our children’s lunch boxes and accept that mandate as correct.
How in the world did my election to the board cloak me in the cape of omniscience and allow me to be more enlightened than regular folks? Karl Marx and the other socialists and communists saw little need for the family and other institutions; they believed that they knew better. Gramsci, the Italian socialist, believed that socialism would win in the end if it based its means on a strategy of long-term goals; a Fabian approach. Why fight in the streets when the damage can be done by destroying families and institutions?
In many ways, we have allowed socialist collectivism to be the main outcome of public education. The schools create the environment that nurtures the advocate and encourages the complacency of the enabler. It is really no wonder that the collective body, the school board, is assumed to be omniscient while the individual board member, in his non-board role, is simply considered one in the crowd.
Don't simply sit back and be a silent enabler, stand for freedom against the aggressions of the advocator. And remember, if this is so, that the schools and all other local governments are always right, that simply means that I am always right. And even I do not agree with that.
June 30, 2006
Jim Fedako [send him mail], a former professional cyclist who lives in Lewis Center, OH, is a member of the Olentangy Local School District and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.
Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com
If you believe that Government provides the solutions, then you have to believe in me. As a member of an elected board of education I have been granted the power to mandate solutions to local education and health issues, real or perceived. My qualifications: I was elected to my position by receiving sufficient votes to beat enough of the other candidates. I was not elected by a majority, more like a plurality of the 25% or so residents who chose to vote in that election. Not much of a mandate, but I will take what I can get.
You see, once ensconced on the board, the fact that close to 85% of the residents in my district of voting age either voted against me, or decided my election was not worth their time, carries no weight. The power vested in my position, and now in me, by Ohio state law does not depend on unanimity of support. It does not even depend on majority support. All I needed was to be the marginal vote-getter in an off-year election and the board seat was mine.
Interestingly, the same folks who would never accept my omniscience as a friend, neighbor, or community member, accept my omniscience as an elected official. Of course these folks don't consciously acknowledge my omniscience, but they do subscribe to the omniscience of the governmental body, the school board in this instance. It is as if the board as a whole attains a higher plane of reason where the whole is multiples of the sum of the parts. In reality, most board members are simply parents trying to make the best decisions for their own children. Certainly they pray that they are right, but they do not subscribe to their omniscience at home, just in the board room.
Based on lots of research and agonizing internal reasoning, or simply the result of my then-current whim and fancy, I get to make decisions that affect the lives and future of other’s children. All it takes is for an article in an education periodical or posting on a web site to catch my attention and I could be advocating the next nuttiness in your life. Should someone suggest that children today are overfed and under-exercised, I could be writing the new policies, procedures, and guidelines that mandate each child eat nothing but organic carrots at lunch and perform sets of jumping-jacks at their desks on the hour, every hour.
Sound far-fetched? Well, it’s not. Every crazy idea has both advocates and enablers. The advocates push the issue while the enablers nod their collective heads in approval. It really does not matter if the enablers truly agree with the advocates since the enablers will never call the advocates into question. The lovers of Liberty try to make a stand but find their voices lost in the sea of feel-good, collective consensus-building. The crazy idea then ends up before the board and I get to decide. Will whim and fancy, or research and reason, be my guide? You never can really tell.
So I get to decide on the issue while you get to fear the results as the occasional band of roaming morons spray paint SUVs, demand that KFC play Mozart in their slaughterhouses – yes, the chicken we eat must be slaughtered somewhere, and protest McDonalds and Wal-Mart as evil incarnate. These are products of a system that I get to run based on my world-view, or the world-view that piques my interest at any given time.
And I get to change with the winds, not so much based on political pressures, but based on the ideas or ideals that I believe today that all children must believe tomorrow. As my views flutter in the wind, new advocates arrive on the scene and the increase of crazy ideas reaches hurricane speeds while the enablers bob their heads in accelerating unison.
The problem is that local government is simply comprised of friends, neighbors, community members, who you generally appreciate but whose views on very personal matters, such as parenting, are not always the same as yours; just as you do not always agree with the parental decisions of those closest to you – your parents and siblings. In fact, one of the easiest ways to end a family reunion in anger is to begin telling siblings how to raise their children.
In addition, even if I possessed the latest research on education and had advanced reasoning skills, as an elected official, a member of government, the best I can offer is my opinions and beliefs, and I am wrong more often than right. Education research is based on standards that can never match consumer desires, and all opinions and beliefs of that research are nothing more than an individual’s bias. Without a free market and real consumers driving the education system, expect waste and inefficiencies; failures. But give us, your school boards, power and we will decide; we will indoctrinate as we see fit, based on our own biases or those biases fed to us by educationist organizations.
But society must allow parents to raise and indoctrinate their children as they see fit, not as the unionized wing of government sees fit. Thomas Jefferson believed that it was far better to suffer the occasional fool than to create a school system that offends fathers, and mothers. I assume that the majority of parents would opt for their own decision-making skills if pushed to decide, but I may be wrong.
Why do so many people have such little faith in their own parenting, and their neighbors' parenting, that they truly believe that without a unionized labor force inculcating children, nothing of value will ever be learned? Are we really at the point where the future of civilization is in the hands of the public school education monopoly? Maybe preschool should start right after birth so that parents have no adverse influence on their children. And, why do residents feel that I can make the decisions for their children that they would not allow to be made by members of their own family?
The answer is that they have accepted collectivism in the form of government as the solution. Whereas our forebears rebelled against such paternalism – or do-gooder nanny-ism – the current generations have come to accept government in all facets of their lives. We allow the schools to dictate our children’s future and simply assume that the schools are always rights. We allow the local health department and schools to decide what goes in our children’s lunch boxes and accept that mandate as correct.
How in the world did my election to the board cloak me in the cape of omniscience and allow me to be more enlightened than regular folks? Karl Marx and the other socialists and communists saw little need for the family and other institutions; they believed that they knew better. Gramsci, the Italian socialist, believed that socialism would win in the end if it based its means on a strategy of long-term goals; a Fabian approach. Why fight in the streets when the damage can be done by destroying families and institutions?
In many ways, we have allowed socialist collectivism to be the main outcome of public education. The schools create the environment that nurtures the advocate and encourages the complacency of the enabler. It is really no wonder that the collective body, the school board, is assumed to be omniscient while the individual board member, in his non-board role, is simply considered one in the crowd.
Don't simply sit back and be a silent enabler, stand for freedom against the aggressions of the advocator. And remember, if this is so, that the schools and all other local governments are always right, that simply means that I am always right. And even I do not agree with that.
June 30, 2006
Jim Fedako [send him mail], a former professional cyclist who lives in Lewis Center, OH, is a member of the Olentangy Local School District and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.
Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com
Friday, June 30, 2006
Econometrics and knowledge
Latest Mises.org blog post
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005249.asp
The National Bureau of Economic Research has just published a study that purports to answers one of the questions that has stumped men for ages, "Why do high earners work long hours?" Will the next study answer another unsolved mystery, "Why do those who work long hours tend to be high earners?"
There are a number of ways used by men in attempt to discover truth, one way is to employ empirical methods and gather data and generate correlation statistics, while another way is to utilize a priori logic and reason. The first method ends up with "knowledge" that is tempered by the term, suggest, since these studies can prove nothing. The data may suggest this, or it may suggest that. The findings and suggestions depend on the assumptions, equations, models, etc., and are always open to questions and challenges.
On the other hand, a priori knowledge is exact. The only problem with a priori logic is that it does not require a cadre of econometricians and statisticians, and what in the world would the feds do with all those unemployed researchers?
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005249.asp
The National Bureau of Economic Research has just published a study that purports to answers one of the questions that has stumped men for ages, "Why do high earners work long hours?" Will the next study answer another unsolved mystery, "Why do those who work long hours tend to be high earners?"
There are a number of ways used by men in attempt to discover truth, one way is to employ empirical methods and gather data and generate correlation statistics, while another way is to utilize a priori logic and reason. The first method ends up with "knowledge" that is tempered by the term, suggest, since these studies can prove nothing. The data may suggest this, or it may suggest that. The findings and suggestions depend on the assumptions, equations, models, etc., and are always open to questions and challenges.
On the other hand, a priori knowledge is exact. The only problem with a priori logic is that it does not require a cadre of econometricians and statisticians, and what in the world would the feds do with all those unemployed researchers?
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Free web books
Go to Gary North's web site to read excellent books on the Bible and Christian thought. Not only are the books interesting, challenging and timely, they really are free.
Or, go to Mises.org for a host of free books on Austrian Economics and the free market. You can read, or download and read, all the classics, including Human Action and Man, Economy, and State. Enjoy them all.
Or, go to Mises.org for a host of free books on Austrian Economics and the free market. You can read, or download and read, all the classics, including Human Action and Man, Economy, and State. Enjoy them all.
Monday, June 26, 2006
The free market and peace
The free market is the only economic system where we can disagree yet live peacefully. My wife likes Coke while I prefer Pepsi. In fact, I'd rather drink a glass of baking soda than a glass of Coke (Ok, a little hyperbole for effect). Due to the free market in soft drinks, my wife and I can live happily ever after. Under a hampered economy, or plain socialism, the fight becomes which flavor will be served by the scowling apparachik wearing a faded Babushka? Choose freedom everytime.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
A response to A High School Reading List
I'm a 39 year resident of the community, have children in the district's schools, and have been a teacher for the last 16 years, and I trust the people who are trained to teach more than a bureaucrat who is offended by "profane" language that is found in many of the books you would consider classic.
The above comment came from someone who chose to remain anonymous, so I can only assume that the responder has identified himself or herself truthfully. This comment deserves a couple of remarks.
1. None of the books in question deserve to be called a classic. One of the books, Lovely Bones, published in 2002, contains a particularly vile description of rape. Nothing in this book would qualify it as a future classic. We are not talking about different views of the grade appropriateness of true classics. We are talking about a book that is assigned to students by teachers such as the respondent. We are talking about teachers who have no concept of the classics nor any sense of propriety or shame. We are talking about a belief that teachers know what is best for your children. As this responder has shown, unqualified trust in teachers is foolish at best.
2. Where I agree with the responder is the question of why anyone would put unqualified trust in their elected officials. We are simply individuals with our own opinions and beliefs. We are not omniscient and have no more knowledge of raising children than those who elected us. As the responder adequately proved, school staff and administration are also prone to poor decisions. The main difference is that some teachers, and all ardent teacher unionists, adhere to ideologies that are the polar opposite of your beliefs. And, they get to use the classroom to further these beliefs. Beware.
So, what's the solution? A move toward school choice and privatization. Under such a system, parents who want their children indoctrinated will seek out the responder as a classroom teacher. Those of us who don't want such garage filling the heads of our children can opt for other forms of education. And, the good teachers who find themselves surrounded by those such as the responder will be able to work at schools that have philosophies similar to their own.
The free market has the ability to solve these issues. A government-run, unionized education system, simply aggravates the problem.
The above comment came from someone who chose to remain anonymous, so I can only assume that the responder has identified himself or herself truthfully. This comment deserves a couple of remarks.
1. None of the books in question deserve to be called a classic. One of the books, Lovely Bones, published in 2002, contains a particularly vile description of rape. Nothing in this book would qualify it as a future classic. We are not talking about different views of the grade appropriateness of true classics. We are talking about a book that is assigned to students by teachers such as the respondent. We are talking about teachers who have no concept of the classics nor any sense of propriety or shame. We are talking about a belief that teachers know what is best for your children. As this responder has shown, unqualified trust in teachers is foolish at best.
2. Where I agree with the responder is the question of why anyone would put unqualified trust in their elected officials. We are simply individuals with our own opinions and beliefs. We are not omniscient and have no more knowledge of raising children than those who elected us. As the responder adequately proved, school staff and administration are also prone to poor decisions. The main difference is that some teachers, and all ardent teacher unionists, adhere to ideologies that are the polar opposite of your beliefs. And, they get to use the classroom to further these beliefs. Beware.
So, what's the solution? A move toward school choice and privatization. Under such a system, parents who want their children indoctrinated will seek out the responder as a classroom teacher. Those of us who don't want such garage filling the heads of our children can opt for other forms of education. And, the good teachers who find themselves surrounded by those such as the responder will be able to work at schools that have philosophies similar to their own.
The free market has the ability to solve these issues. A government-run, unionized education system, simply aggravates the problem.
Pat Robertson - King of the Leg Press
I used to take pride in the fact that I could squat 495 pounds back when I was a fit professional bicyclist. Now I read on Sportsline.com that Pat Robertson can leg press 2,000 pounds. Even given that performing a leg press is much easier than squatting, leg pressing 2,000 pounds has got to be much harder than squatting 495. Impressive! Of course Pat is 76 and I was 26 - even more impressive. I guess I'll take the next 34 years (I'm 42 now) to see if I can catch him. Go Pat!
Saturday, June 24, 2006
A great weekly news magazine
Read World magazine for a Christian perspective on the news. Every media source has its own bias, so chose the bias that fits with your views. And since there are no "R" or near "X" rated photos and stories, you don't have to be embarrassed leaving a copy around for kids and guests to review. The magazine contains nothing other than the national and world news reported from a Christian perspective. Refreshing, indeed.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?
Now available at Mises.org.
An excellent book! My wife bought this book four years ago to home school our children in economics since many homeschoolers recommend it. I ended up reading it and discovering Austrian Economics for the first time, though I had a concentration in economics in college. After reading the book, I searched the internet for "Austrian School of Economics" and found Mises.org.
Buy it for your children or buy an extra copy to give to your local library or friends.
An excellent book! My wife bought this book four years ago to home school our children in economics since many homeschoolers recommend it. I ended up reading it and discovering Austrian Economics for the first time, though I had a concentration in economics in college. After reading the book, I searched the internet for "Austrian School of Economics" and found Mises.org.
Buy it for your children or buy an extra copy to give to your local library or friends.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Gary North book on the Ten Commandments
Read Gary North's book, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments, to understand how the Ten Commandments work in a modern world. Interesting and enlightening. Available at Salt and Light Books.
Great history book by Ludwig von Mises
Omnipotent Government is one of Ludwig von Mises's best books. Truly a great journey through history, especially the creation of the socialist states and the havoc they wrought. Still relevant!
Available at Mises.org for purchase or to download and read. Buy it so that you can read it and pass it along.
Available at Mises.org for purchase or to download and read. Buy it so that you can read it and pass it along.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Squatter's Rights
Latest Mises.org blog:http://blog.mises.org/archives/005185.asp
Squatter's Rights
Jim Fedako
AOL News is reporting that Daryl Hannah and others were arrested trying to stop a landowner from developing his Los Angeles property. Squatters have been using Ralph Horowitz's 14 acres to grow crops while the he "was paying $25,000 to $30,000 a month in mortgage and other land costs." None of the protestors, including Hannah, Willie Nelson, or Danny Glover, were willing to demonstrate their preference that this land remain undeveloped. Oh, they demonstrated, but they never opened their wallets to show their true preference rank.
AP quotes Hannah as stating, "I'm very confident this is the morally right thing to do, to take a principled stand in solidarity with the farmers." Just try this on her property and see if she still considers squatting a moral right.
Read Police Arrest Tree-Sitting Daryl Hannah for the whole story.
Squatter's Rights
Jim Fedako
AOL News is reporting that Daryl Hannah and others were arrested trying to stop a landowner from developing his Los Angeles property. Squatters have been using Ralph Horowitz's 14 acres to grow crops while the he "was paying $25,000 to $30,000 a month in mortgage and other land costs." None of the protestors, including Hannah, Willie Nelson, or Danny Glover, were willing to demonstrate their preference that this land remain undeveloped. Oh, they demonstrated, but they never opened their wallets to show their true preference rank.
AP quotes Hannah as stating, "I'm very confident this is the morally right thing to do, to take a principled stand in solidarity with the farmers." Just try this on her property and see if she still considers squatting a moral right.
Read Police Arrest Tree-Sitting Daryl Hannah for the whole story.
A listserve riposte
I will cease mentioning government and control as soon as you cease advocating for government to indoctrinate the next generation, captured by a compulsory system of education, in value-laded issues.
These vary same issues have already entered our schools resulting in the occasional band of roaming morons who spray paint SUVs, demand that KFC play Mozart in their slaughterhouses -- yes, the chicken we eat must be slaughtered somewhere, and protest McDonalds and Wal-Mart as evil incarnate.
Where do our students learn such ideas? From public school teachers who manipulate value-laded courses of study in order to project their own agendas. Where do teachers discover their Zeitgeist? From leftist professors and teachers unions. NEA's platform reads more like a green-crazed socialist cult than a professional education organization.
Why do so many people have such little faith in parents that they truly believe that without a unionized labor force inculcating children, nothing of value will ever be learned. Are we really at the point where the future of civilization is in the hands of public school teachers? Maybe preschool should start day one so that parents have no adverse influences on their children.
And, do you really believe that India is clouding their curriculum with issues that are ancillary to education? Is this why the Indian IT professional is in demand worldwide, his knowledge of green-based concerns?
I always find it ironic that the minute we come to terms that our schools' curriculum is a mile wide and an inch deep, the next crisis demands additional time and effort. Why don't we simply forget the three R's and indoctrinate from the first day of Kindergarten. Oh, wait, we do that already.
The reality is this, it's either individual acting humans making the hard decisions, or those decisions will be made by the comrade whose face appears on posters on every corner of every street. Read Hayek's Road to Serfdom (the old cartoon version).
As always, advocate for what you believe in, just don't use government as the means to your end.
Jim Fedako
These vary same issues have already entered our schools resulting in the occasional band of roaming morons who spray paint SUVs, demand that KFC play Mozart in their slaughterhouses -- yes, the chicken we eat must be slaughtered somewhere, and protest McDonalds and Wal-Mart as evil incarnate.
Where do our students learn such ideas? From public school teachers who manipulate value-laded courses of study in order to project their own agendas. Where do teachers discover their Zeitgeist? From leftist professors and teachers unions. NEA's platform reads more like a green-crazed socialist cult than a professional education organization.
Why do so many people have such little faith in parents that they truly believe that without a unionized labor force inculcating children, nothing of value will ever be learned. Are we really at the point where the future of civilization is in the hands of public school teachers? Maybe preschool should start day one so that parents have no adverse influences on their children.
And, do you really believe that India is clouding their curriculum with issues that are ancillary to education? Is this why the Indian IT professional is in demand worldwide, his knowledge of green-based concerns?
I always find it ironic that the minute we come to terms that our schools' curriculum is a mile wide and an inch deep, the next crisis demands additional time and effort. Why don't we simply forget the three R's and indoctrinate from the first day of Kindergarten. Oh, wait, we do that already.
The reality is this, it's either individual acting humans making the hard decisions, or those decisions will be made by the comrade whose face appears on posters on every corner of every street. Read Hayek's Road to Serfdom (the old cartoon version).
As always, advocate for what you believe in, just don't use government as the means to your end.
Jim Fedako
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
One half of a running listserve dialog
The main issues that binds this listserve were born in the acculturation of the past 100 years, with its noticeable acceleration these last 30 odd years. The ills of our schools are the result of the continual inculcation of subsequent generations by the academic left. I absolutely agree that we need to undo the problems created by the neo-whatever that was in-vogue at any given time throughout these past decades. This is why you are much, much more likely to see the Che t-shirt in schools and on campuses than you are likely to ever see a Jefferson one.
On that, I can compromise on John's terms that the goals of education are the three R's, plus science and history. Sure, even these subjects are prone to agendas, but they at least are central to a continued US culture.
Students who can't read are powerless to fight for their own freedom. Ideologies are never the products of the illiterate. The convoluted and muddled, yes, but never the illiterate. Karl Marx, etc., all had years of education before they wrote the tomes that enslaved the masses and resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths last century.
The central focus needs to be on how can schools improve their delivery of the three R's, plus science and history. Any other agenda or issue or idea does nothing more than take the focus off of what needs to be taught. Jay and I will say that the market will provide this, others say different. Regardless, as long as we advocate for those ancillary issues, we change education, whether public or market-driven, from a system of learning to a system of indoctrination.
Allow the parents, like myself, to indoctrinate our children as WE see fit, not as the unionized wing of government sees fit.
I like to push the envelope farther than some since I truly believe in a free market solution, and I bristle at government solutions.
Jim Fedako
On that, I can compromise on John's terms that the goals of education are the three R's, plus science and history. Sure, even these subjects are prone to agendas, but they at least are central to a continued US culture.
Students who can't read are powerless to fight for their own freedom. Ideologies are never the products of the illiterate. The convoluted and muddled, yes, but never the illiterate. Karl Marx, etc., all had years of education before they wrote the tomes that enslaved the masses and resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths last century.
The central focus needs to be on how can schools improve their delivery of the three R's, plus science and history. Any other agenda or issue or idea does nothing more than take the focus off of what needs to be taught. Jay and I will say that the market will provide this, others say different. Regardless, as long as we advocate for those ancillary issues, we change education, whether public or market-driven, from a system of learning to a system of indoctrination.
Allow the parents, like myself, to indoctrinate our children as WE see fit, not as the unionized wing of government sees fit.
I like to push the envelope farther than some since I truly believe in a free market solution, and I bristle at government solutions.
Jim Fedako
Listserve post on the role of public education and immigration
Whenever the majority of a society democratizes an issue, watch out. Those who advocated for the rule of the majority enforced by government better pray that they always remain in the majority. Once the center of opinion switches and the opposition ascends to power, the same process that worked wonders is now your worst nightmare.
A compulsory system of education controlled by the majority through government is a double-edged sword. It cuts in your favor when you are a member or fellow traveler of the ruling coalition, but it as easily dismembers your gains once power changes hands in a subsequent election.
If the fear is that the radical left will use public education to inculcate Mexican culture throughout the western states, the position should not be to strengthen public education while a more-moderate majority exists since all you will be doing is creating the beast that will ultimately destroy you -- Hegelian Dialectics.
And why shouldn't the radical left, or any group for that matter, work the system in order to use public schools for their purposes? We have been having a running debate as to how government can best indoctrinate for our purposes.
Many of our Founding Fathers came to the realization that decentralized control is the only way to guarantee Liberty. A market system of education would solve the indoctrination battles and allow us to live as free Americans. The founders of our great country were all educated privately, and their diverse opinions and heated debates guided the creation of our founding principles, which are forever documented in the Declaration and Constitution. We did not need a party-line to beat Liberty into the minds of the Patriots.
With greater effort, spread the ideas of Liberty. Otherwise you are educating the masses to accept centralized control. Once that has been accepted, if it already hasn't, it very easy to turn from one side of control to the other. Ludwig von Mises showed conclusively that Nazism and Marxism are not continuum opposites, they are simply collectivism and socialism in different packages. In fact Mises notes that Hitler favored ex-communists since their ideas of control were similar to his.
Liberty my friends, Liberty.
Jim Fedako
A compulsory system of education controlled by the majority through government is a double-edged sword. It cuts in your favor when you are a member or fellow traveler of the ruling coalition, but it as easily dismembers your gains once power changes hands in a subsequent election.
If the fear is that the radical left will use public education to inculcate Mexican culture throughout the western states, the position should not be to strengthen public education while a more-moderate majority exists since all you will be doing is creating the beast that will ultimately destroy you -- Hegelian Dialectics.
And why shouldn't the radical left, or any group for that matter, work the system in order to use public schools for their purposes? We have been having a running debate as to how government can best indoctrinate for our purposes.
Many of our Founding Fathers came to the realization that decentralized control is the only way to guarantee Liberty. A market system of education would solve the indoctrination battles and allow us to live as free Americans. The founders of our great country were all educated privately, and their diverse opinions and heated debates guided the creation of our founding principles, which are forever documented in the Declaration and Constitution. We did not need a party-line to beat Liberty into the minds of the Patriots.
With greater effort, spread the ideas of Liberty. Otherwise you are educating the masses to accept centralized control. Once that has been accepted, if it already hasn't, it very easy to turn from one side of control to the other. Ludwig von Mises showed conclusively that Nazism and Marxism are not continuum opposites, they are simply collectivism and socialism in different packages. In fact Mises notes that Hitler favored ex-communists since their ideas of control were similar to his.
Liberty my friends, Liberty.
Jim Fedako
Monday, June 12, 2006
Letter to the Columbus Dispatch
Dear Letter Editor:
In his June 10, 2006 letter (State Teachers Retirement System in need of repair), Jim N. Reed correctly notes the financial mess of the State Teachers Retirement System. The solution implicit in his letter is for the state to increase the share of retirement paid by citizens via their local boards of education.
STRS is currently lobbying the state legislature to increase the percentage of salaries that school districts pay in teacher retirement from the current 14% to the proposed 16.5% -- not a bad publicly-funded retirement plan.
In order to pay for the increase, school districts will need to raise additional local property tax dollars.
So what Reed is really advocating is for everyone not in STRS to pay his increasing healthcare costs.
Along with ever Ohioan, I am also seeing rising healthcare costs. I will agree to assist Reed if he will assist me. Or, better yet, we both keep our own money and fund our own increases ourselves. That's really the only fair solution to everyone's problems.
Jim Fedako
In his June 10, 2006 letter (State Teachers Retirement System in need of repair), Jim N. Reed correctly notes the financial mess of the State Teachers Retirement System. The solution implicit in his letter is for the state to increase the share of retirement paid by citizens via their local boards of education.
STRS is currently lobbying the state legislature to increase the percentage of salaries that school districts pay in teacher retirement from the current 14% to the proposed 16.5% -- not a bad publicly-funded retirement plan.
In order to pay for the increase, school districts will need to raise additional local property tax dollars.
So what Reed is really advocating is for everyone not in STRS to pay his increasing healthcare costs.
Along with ever Ohioan, I am also seeing rising healthcare costs. I will agree to assist Reed if he will assist me. Or, better yet, we both keep our own money and fund our own increases ourselves. That's really the only fair solution to everyone's problems.
Jim Fedako
Saturday, June 10, 2006
False Crisis and Immigration
Recent Mises.org blog post
False Crisis and Immigration
Jim Fedako
As immigration reform debates continue to heat up Washington and rankle the folks on talk radio and cable, in barber shops, and throughout the Web, we need to remember similar incidents throughout our history. As each new wave of immigrants entered the US, false crises were created and used to crackdown on the newcomers and expand government.
My grandmother was a Polish immigrant who never learned to read or write in English. She would, though, despite her poverty and 10 children, chase any government worker off her property with a broom. And she was not alone as her neighbors also refused to welcome government aid.
Contrast that with the trend started during the Great Society when government workers and their associated minions - the do-gooders - became more aggressive and pushed government services on anyone deemed in need of assistance, creating a dependent constituency and assumed positive rights.
Eliminate aggressive government interventions and the so-called immigration problem would cure itself. Absent government, those who immigrate would either have a job and be able to find housing and other essentials on their own, or they would be truly illegal trespassers and squatters.
As always, the problem is government and the solutions cannot be found in additional Progressive governmental interventions, such as welfare, etc., nor in statist forms of control
Absent government interventions, all will work itself out well.
False Crisis and Immigration
Jim Fedako
As immigration reform debates continue to heat up Washington and rankle the folks on talk radio and cable, in barber shops, and throughout the Web, we need to remember similar incidents throughout our history. As each new wave of immigrants entered the US, false crises were created and used to crackdown on the newcomers and expand government.
My grandmother was a Polish immigrant who never learned to read or write in English. She would, though, despite her poverty and 10 children, chase any government worker off her property with a broom. And she was not alone as her neighbors also refused to welcome government aid.
Contrast that with the trend started during the Great Society when government workers and their associated minions - the do-gooders - became more aggressive and pushed government services on anyone deemed in need of assistance, creating a dependent constituency and assumed positive rights.
Eliminate aggressive government interventions and the so-called immigration problem would cure itself. Absent government, those who immigrate would either have a job and be able to find housing and other essentials on their own, or they would be truly illegal trespassers and squatters.
As always, the problem is government and the solutions cannot be found in additional Progressive governmental interventions, such as welfare, etc., nor in statist forms of control
Absent government interventions, all will work itself out well.
List Serve Post on Immigration
I read the running comments on immigration and am shocked that we have lost knowledge of our history. As each new wave of immigrants entered the US, these same false crises were used to crack down on the newcomers and expand government. My grandfather and grandmother sent all four of their boys to the military without objection though neither could read or write in English till the day they died. We have a family reunion each year in Eastern PA and the physical features of those in my extended family and many others at the park show their Eastern European heritage, yet they are all Americans through and through.
My grandmother was a Polish immigrant who never learned what could be considered fluent English. She would, despite her poverty and 10 children, chase any government worker off her property with a broom.
Contrast that with the trend started during the Great Society when government workers became more aggressive and pushed government services on anyone and everyone, thereby creating a dependent constituency.
Eliminate aggressive government handouts and a large portion of the immigration problem would cure itself. Then, those who immigrate would either have a job and be able to find housing and other essentials on their own, or they would be truly illegal trespassers and squatters.
As always, the problem is government and the solutions cannot be found in additional Progressive governmental interventions, such as welfare, etc.
The only difference now is a hyperactive government and its minions of do-gooders. We have government schools that can't teach the wonders of the US and Western Civilization due to their blind adherence to multiculturalism.
Absent government interventions, all will work itself out well.
Jim
My grandmother was a Polish immigrant who never learned what could be considered fluent English. She would, despite her poverty and 10 children, chase any government worker off her property with a broom.
Contrast that with the trend started during the Great Society when government workers became more aggressive and pushed government services on anyone and everyone, thereby creating a dependent constituency.
Eliminate aggressive government handouts and a large portion of the immigration problem would cure itself. Then, those who immigrate would either have a job and be able to find housing and other essentials on their own, or they would be truly illegal trespassers and squatters.
As always, the problem is government and the solutions cannot be found in additional Progressive governmental interventions, such as welfare, etc.
The only difference now is a hyperactive government and its minions of do-gooders. We have government schools that can't teach the wonders of the US and Western Civilization due to their blind adherence to multiculturalism.
Absent government interventions, all will work itself out well.
Jim
Friday, June 09, 2006
The Bible and the Estate Tax
In Proverbs 13:22, the Bible states that a good man leaves an inheritance to his grandchildren. Therefore, what affords government the right to confiscate such wealth? And, by the authority of which Bible passage do fellow Christians desire and seek such governmental confiscation?
Read Gary North's article at LewRockwell.com for more details.
Read Gary North's article at LewRockwell.com for more details.
Free Christian Books
Go to Gary North's web site www.freebooks.com to read excellent books on the Bible and Christian thought. Not only are the books interesting, challenging and timely, they really are free.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Parents v. Government -- A Listserve Post
John,
Dr. Groff's reference to education and the federal constitution is not a matter of debate. Convolution, certainly, but not debate. The US Constitution is a short, easy read, well worth the time and effort.
Ludwig von Mises of the Austrian School of Economics observed years ago that it is disingenuous to claim on one hand that the masses have no ability to correctly decide for themselves while claiming on the other hand that democracy works. Either the masses can run the economy by their individual decisions to buy or abstain from buying, or the omnipotent planning board must make all of the choices for them.
The often sought-after middle ground is simply the temporary balancing act before we tip toward either freedom or socialism, with the subtle and persistent influence of the socialists slowly tipping the scales in their favor.
Mises believed in freedom. Can I assume that you are not an advocate of freedom since you put such little faith in the masses?
As I have said before, it's either the parents making the decisions or we turn all children over to the likes of you and me. I will assume that the majority of parents would opt for their own decision-making skills, and I will assume that they will be right many more times than I.
Jim Fedako
Dr. Groff's reference to education and the federal constitution is not a matter of debate. Convolution, certainly, but not debate. The US Constitution is a short, easy read, well worth the time and effort.
Ludwig von Mises of the Austrian School of Economics observed years ago that it is disingenuous to claim on one hand that the masses have no ability to correctly decide for themselves while claiming on the other hand that democracy works. Either the masses can run the economy by their individual decisions to buy or abstain from buying, or the omnipotent planning board must make all of the choices for them.
The often sought-after middle ground is simply the temporary balancing act before we tip toward either freedom or socialism, with the subtle and persistent influence of the socialists slowly tipping the scales in their favor.
Mises believed in freedom. Can I assume that you are not an advocate of freedom since you put such little faith in the masses?
As I have said before, it's either the parents making the decisions or we turn all children over to the likes of you and me. I will assume that the majority of parents would opt for their own decision-making skills, and I will assume that they will be right many more times than I.
Jim Fedako
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
A High School Reading List - Back by popular demand
It doesn't take much effort to find a recommended reading list for high school students. Many learned minds have taken the challenge of creating a list and deciding which books make their list and which do not. There are many great books to choose from, and only four years of high school to read them. Time is the only limiting factor for facilitating maximum learning.
Just like any top 10 or top 100 list, we all can argue over which books deserve to be mentioned, and which books do not. Half the fun of reading such lists is debating which books were left out, and which ones should have been. Again, time forces the list to be limited, with many excellent books always left out.
So what does the Olentangy School District do when confronted with the challenge of creating a reading list from the many great classics? It assigns some of its college prep students to read Mark Hadden's The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. I found this book on no list of classic must-reads. In fact, this book published in 2003 is as profane as it is vacuous. The question is what teacher in his or her right mind would assign this book to students? And what administrator would back up the teacher's selection of this book?
The beauty of the internet is that anyone with web access can go to Amazon.com and search books for various words. This allows parents and community members to see what students are reading without having to purchase or borrow the book. Want to search the content of The Curious Incident? Just click over to Amazon and enter profane words in the search box. You'll be shocked, as are many parents in this district.
With so little time between 8th grade and freshman year of college, the Olentangy District has chosen a peculiar approach to its mission of facilitating maximum learning for every student.
This all leaves me wondering what the staff and administration consider classics? And what they consider maximum learning? And I'm a board member.
Jim Fedako
Member, Olentangy Board of Education
Just like any top 10 or top 100 list, we all can argue over which books deserve to be mentioned, and which books do not. Half the fun of reading such lists is debating which books were left out, and which ones should have been. Again, time forces the list to be limited, with many excellent books always left out.
So what does the Olentangy School District do when confronted with the challenge of creating a reading list from the many great classics? It assigns some of its college prep students to read Mark Hadden's The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. I found this book on no list of classic must-reads. In fact, this book published in 2003 is as profane as it is vacuous. The question is what teacher in his or her right mind would assign this book to students? And what administrator would back up the teacher's selection of this book?
The beauty of the internet is that anyone with web access can go to Amazon.com and search books for various words. This allows parents and community members to see what students are reading without having to purchase or borrow the book. Want to search the content of The Curious Incident? Just click over to Amazon and enter profane words in the search box. You'll be shocked, as are many parents in this district.
With so little time between 8th grade and freshman year of college, the Olentangy District has chosen a peculiar approach to its mission of facilitating maximum learning for every student.
This all leaves me wondering what the staff and administration consider classics? And what they consider maximum learning? And I'm a board member.
Jim Fedako
Member, Olentangy Board of Education
A Philosophical Divide
Latest Mises.org blog:http://blog.mises.org/archives/005122.asp#more
A Philosophical Divide
Jim Fedako
A philosophical divide between classic liberalism and the political forms now in vogue is manifest in the phrase, "Let's agree to disagree." To the classic liberal, this means we agree to end our discussion, debate, or argument and go about our separate ways. The phrase is the end as such. Certainly the classic liberal may engage the next person in a similar discourse and attempt to sway a new opinion, whether in person or by letter, handbill, pamphlet, etc., or through the more current versions of email, blog, or website. Additionally, the classic liberal assumes that his verbal opponent will also engage others in the marketplace of ideas. The understanding is that one is attempting to sway an opinion by the use of knowledge and logic.
Contrast that with the current use of "let's agree to disagree."
The statist version indicates that the statist will end the discourse and use whatever power and influence he has in order to have government -- the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion -- codify his views into law. What the statist is saying is, "Since your opinion holds no power, let's agree to end this pointless debate. I am wasting my time trying to convince you when I can use government to force you." You see it all the time as individuals lobby and pressure government to enforce their opinions and beliefs.
CS Lewis wrote that we need to fear those who claim to have our best interests in mind. Unlike the tyrant who will sleep every now and again, the do-gooder will work without rest in order to enslave you while claiming to protect you. I think that if Lewis were alive today he would have to extend that observation to include the do-gooder employed by government, no matter the level. Not only do they not sleep as they invade your rights, your taxes pay them to do it.
You can debate them and agree to disagree, but remember, as you sleep, they are drafting laws, rules, and regulations in order to control you life.
Jim Fedako, a former professional cyclist who lives in Lewis Center, OH, is a member of the Olentangy Local School District and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.
A Philosophical Divide
Jim Fedako
A philosophical divide between classic liberalism and the political forms now in vogue is manifest in the phrase, "Let's agree to disagree." To the classic liberal, this means we agree to end our discussion, debate, or argument and go about our separate ways. The phrase is the end as such. Certainly the classic liberal may engage the next person in a similar discourse and attempt to sway a new opinion, whether in person or by letter, handbill, pamphlet, etc., or through the more current versions of email, blog, or website. Additionally, the classic liberal assumes that his verbal opponent will also engage others in the marketplace of ideas. The understanding is that one is attempting to sway an opinion by the use of knowledge and logic.
Contrast that with the current use of "let's agree to disagree."
The statist version indicates that the statist will end the discourse and use whatever power and influence he has in order to have government -- the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion -- codify his views into law. What the statist is saying is, "Since your opinion holds no power, let's agree to end this pointless debate. I am wasting my time trying to convince you when I can use government to force you." You see it all the time as individuals lobby and pressure government to enforce their opinions and beliefs.
CS Lewis wrote that we need to fear those who claim to have our best interests in mind. Unlike the tyrant who will sleep every now and again, the do-gooder will work without rest in order to enslave you while claiming to protect you. I think that if Lewis were alive today he would have to extend that observation to include the do-gooder employed by government, no matter the level. Not only do they not sleep as they invade your rights, your taxes pay them to do it.
You can debate them and agree to disagree, but remember, as you sleep, they are drafting laws, rules, and regulations in order to control you life.
Jim Fedako, a former professional cyclist who lives in Lewis Center, OH, is a member of the Olentangy Local School District and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
An Old Letter to the Editor That Was Never Published
Dear Letters Editor:
"Then he whomps the other student with a pillow." (from "Hilliard students take law into own hands", September 16, 2005.)
Let's see, Constitution Day was passed by a Congress that does not understand state's rights and the role of the federal government and is being implemented by schools that confound the US Constitution with codes of conduct and civil law. Is this really as wonderful as it seems?
Students in Hilliard are being taught that a good constitution enumerates the behaviors which govern good citizens. It would appear to me that teachers at Horizon Elementary understand a constitution to be a document that empowers citizens to enforce vague "feel-good" terms under the threat of violence (see first sentence).
Our Constitution was drafted in order to limit the powers of the federal government, though Sen. Byrd -- D-W.Va., sponsor, and the rest of Congress missed that lesson. Or, maybe they also spent their youth writing school constitutions similar to those being created in elementaries in Central Ohio.
A true school constitution would have to be constructed in a manner that circumscribed the powers of the staff within the God-given rights of the students. That would be an interesting exercise to say the least. Instead, the teachers had students codify classroom behavior expectations and called them a constitution.
I know, this all sounds like a fun activity, but what is really being taught? And, most importantly, what does this say about the teachers' understand of such valuable concepts as the guarantees of freedom from government contained in the document signed by our Founding Fathers?
Constitution Day failed in Hilliard.
Jim Fedako
"Then he whomps the other student with a pillow." (from "Hilliard students take law into own hands", September 16, 2005.)
Let's see, Constitution Day was passed by a Congress that does not understand state's rights and the role of the federal government and is being implemented by schools that confound the US Constitution with codes of conduct and civil law. Is this really as wonderful as it seems?
Students in Hilliard are being taught that a good constitution enumerates the behaviors which govern good citizens. It would appear to me that teachers at Horizon Elementary understand a constitution to be a document that empowers citizens to enforce vague "feel-good" terms under the threat of violence (see first sentence).
Our Constitution was drafted in order to limit the powers of the federal government, though Sen. Byrd -- D-W.Va., sponsor, and the rest of Congress missed that lesson. Or, maybe they also spent their youth writing school constitutions similar to those being created in elementaries in Central Ohio.
A true school constitution would have to be constructed in a manner that circumscribed the powers of the staff within the God-given rights of the students. That would be an interesting exercise to say the least. Instead, the teachers had students codify classroom behavior expectations and called them a constitution.
I know, this all sounds like a fun activity, but what is really being taught? And, most importantly, what does this say about the teachers' understand of such valuable concepts as the guarantees of freedom from government contained in the document signed by our Founding Fathers?
Constitution Day failed in Hilliard.
Jim Fedako
The Gnawing Rats -- A Listserve Post
Mona,
The reality is that socialism won the Cold War. Antonio Gramsci, the Italian socialist from early 20th century, realized that there was no way to fight a pitched battle against the Western industrial societies. The socialist instigators would not be able to sway the workers nor gain popular support for revolution. Gramsci believed that socialism could win the day if it supported a lengthy insurgency that slowly destroyed the bedrock institutions of our free societies; family, church, etc. So while we stared-down the Evil Empire, the rats slowly gnawed holes in the concepts of liberty that founded the US and made England great. Gramsci never lived to see the dawn of the forthcoming new age (he died soon after Benito Mussolini released him from jail), but his like-minded minions proved that nuclear power is no match for an uncoordinated subversive attack against the mind.
A good source to understand our current mess is the classic treatise Theory and History, Ludwig von Mises. Mises exposed the flaws in the concepts of socialism and other strains of such thought.
Jim Fedako
The reality is that socialism won the Cold War. Antonio Gramsci, the Italian socialist from early 20th century, realized that there was no way to fight a pitched battle against the Western industrial societies. The socialist instigators would not be able to sway the workers nor gain popular support for revolution. Gramsci believed that socialism could win the day if it supported a lengthy insurgency that slowly destroyed the bedrock institutions of our free societies; family, church, etc. So while we stared-down the Evil Empire, the rats slowly gnawed holes in the concepts of liberty that founded the US and made England great. Gramsci never lived to see the dawn of the forthcoming new age (he died soon after Benito Mussolini released him from jail), but his like-minded minions proved that nuclear power is no match for an uncoordinated subversive attack against the mind.
A good source to understand our current mess is the classic treatise Theory and History, Ludwig von Mises. Mises exposed the flaws in the concepts of socialism and other strains of such thought.
Jim Fedako
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Life Without Government Equals Chaos. Hardly!
Latest Mises.org blog:http://blog.mises.org/archives/005122.asp#more
We tend to assume that without an interventionist government – a government that extends beyond the enumerated powers in the Constitution - life would resolve into chaos. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
In the nineteenth century, French economist Frédéric Bastiat remarked on the wonder of that phenomenon by exclaiming, "Paris gets fed!" The same can be said of New York, Tokyo, Mexico City, etc. It's doesn't take the intervention of a governmental planning board to ensure adequate food for all of us. Entrepreneurs seeking profit make certain that eggs and milk are readily available for tomorrow's breakfast.
Consider the alternative: In the late 1970's and early 1980's I spent three weeks in the then-socialist countries of Yugoslavia and East Germany. If it wasn't for the illegal food market there would have been nothing to eat other than cookies, Vodka, and stale bread. Keep in mind that the brightest minds planned these economies. Not much to be said for central planning.
But we tend to forget these real-world examples of governmental planning. Maybe we assume that our bureaucrats are more omniscient and brighter than those of Yugoslavia and East Germany. Ludwig von Mises of the Austrian School of Economics proved over 80 years ago that all attempts at central planning lead to chaos. He was correct then, and he is still correct today.
Yet we still believe in governmental solutions. As I have previously written, if government is omniscient, I am omniscient. And even I don’t believe that to be true. Parents allow school officials, such as me, to make important decisions for their children because there exists the belief that school officials somehow are unbiased and altruistic, and better at guiding children than their own parents. While it is certainly true that most school employees like working with students, they can’t possible have a child’s best interests in mind. That is the realm of parents only.
School officials have jobs, careers and families of their own. They also have biases and beliefs that greatly differ from individual parents. There is nothing wrong with differing views, but parents should not simply hand over their children to the schools and assume the best. We bristle at the idea of our friends, neighbors and family members guiding our parental decisions, yet we readily give school officials, who are nothing more than friends, neighbors and family members, the power to make those very same decisions. The robe of omniscience does not come with school employment. In fact, there is nothing unique and special about school employment.
Remember, it's the entrepreneur who will truck the eggs and milk so that you can eat tomorrow.
Jim Fedako
We tend to assume that without an interventionist government – a government that extends beyond the enumerated powers in the Constitution - life would resolve into chaos. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
In the nineteenth century, French economist Frédéric Bastiat remarked on the wonder of that phenomenon by exclaiming, "Paris gets fed!" The same can be said of New York, Tokyo, Mexico City, etc. It's doesn't take the intervention of a governmental planning board to ensure adequate food for all of us. Entrepreneurs seeking profit make certain that eggs and milk are readily available for tomorrow's breakfast.
Consider the alternative: In the late 1970's and early 1980's I spent three weeks in the then-socialist countries of Yugoslavia and East Germany. If it wasn't for the illegal food market there would have been nothing to eat other than cookies, Vodka, and stale bread. Keep in mind that the brightest minds planned these economies. Not much to be said for central planning.
But we tend to forget these real-world examples of governmental planning. Maybe we assume that our bureaucrats are more omniscient and brighter than those of Yugoslavia and East Germany. Ludwig von Mises of the Austrian School of Economics proved over 80 years ago that all attempts at central planning lead to chaos. He was correct then, and he is still correct today.
Yet we still believe in governmental solutions. As I have previously written, if government is omniscient, I am omniscient. And even I don’t believe that to be true. Parents allow school officials, such as me, to make important decisions for their children because there exists the belief that school officials somehow are unbiased and altruistic, and better at guiding children than their own parents. While it is certainly true that most school employees like working with students, they can’t possible have a child’s best interests in mind. That is the realm of parents only.
School officials have jobs, careers and families of their own. They also have biases and beliefs that greatly differ from individual parents. There is nothing wrong with differing views, but parents should not simply hand over their children to the schools and assume the best. We bristle at the idea of our friends, neighbors and family members guiding our parental decisions, yet we readily give school officials, who are nothing more than friends, neighbors and family members, the power to make those very same decisions. The robe of omniscience does not come with school employment. In fact, there is nothing unique and special about school employment.
Remember, it's the entrepreneur who will truck the eggs and milk so that you can eat tomorrow.
Jim Fedako
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)