Public Education in the U.S. is Socialism in action

Perhaps the largest problem facing this country, and the easiest to solve is the U.S.’s woeful underperformance in K-12 education. There are several solutions, all of which are an improvement on the current system, some of which are beiong experimented with right now: vouchers, local control, and the student weighted formula. State and local experimentation is crucial, yet too many states and localities are reticent to try anything new. Why? It certainly isn’t because our current system is adequate. It costs $7000 to educate a kid in the public school system each year, it costs $60,000 to encarcerate them in the California Youth Authority, which is where hopeless kids with bad educations are likely to end up.

The problem, you might think, can be summed up with a roll of the eyes, a look skyward, and the familiar utterance of “the teachers union.” They are certainly part of the problem, but not the whole problem, and a belief that eliminating or crippling the union will result in a successful and happy student population, is a belief that would end in disappointment. The system by which we fund schools, train teachers, and manage programs is a fantastic example of why the Soviet Union collapsed.

The plan? Ask Professor William Ouchi, oracle to Governor Schwarzenegger, and Secretary of education Richard Riordan. Click for an abstract and links.

Government vs. Business

The greatest social plagues in human history have been the result of intolerant, exclusivist ideologies: Crusades, Nazism, Communism, Triumphalism, Imperialism (some but not all), Islamism, Separatism and anti-separatism, despotism, and many more. The greatest triumphs in human history have been the result of inclusivist, human nature exploiting ideologies and movements. Intensive agriculture, democracy, capitalism, advanced medicine, literacy and printing

Maybe the difference is one of human perception. Those events that we consider bad are those that tended to produce unhappiness, disease, and failed to produce human progress. Those events and ideas we consider good are those that tended to produce happiness, healthfulness, and human progress. To some degree, we also tend to consider those ideologies that attempt to impose themselves upon an unwilling population, bad. There are exceptions; racial tolerance, for example, was essentially foisted upon a contentedly intolerant populace via a civil war and governmental regulation. Very few people would argue that racial tolerance is a plague.

Growth is good for the poor

According to a study prepared for the World Bank by David Dollar and Aart Kraay, economic growth as a result of globalization improves the economic plight of the poor in the same proportion as the rich. Tough times resulting from an open economy also hurt the poor in the same proportion as the rich. Certainly a 10% loss hurts a poor person more than a 10% loss to a rich person, but the loss is, nonetheless, proportional.

In the same paper, the study found that cutting inflation and cutting public spending actually improves the distribution of income. The poor benefit twice as much as the rich.

Click here for the paper.

One of the factors most closely corallated to wealth disparity? Education. Surprise!

Conservative Cultures: Gay marriage: Iraq. Connected?

I am for gay marriage. Those of us who believe in limited government intrusion into personal lives must agree.

Those social conservatives (Democrats and Reps) that cry about the degrading of traditional society may actually represent the portion of our culture that recognizes the fact that the behavior of each citizen affects the system under which we exist,and to allow people to deviate from the established norm may do damage to the system that sustains our high standards of living, etc.

I think they're wrong, but only because they don'tknow why they protest. They have only a vague feelingthat something could go horribly wrong if we so fundamentally change the mores upon which our state system is founded, but they have no actual reason for believing it is so.

The term "political conservative" was best explained to me as those that attempt to preserve what is "best" about society. I suspect that it might also be the group of people that are most concerned with maintaining the functioning of society and culture.

If you've got a society wherein the social conservatives are dominant, as they tend to be in traditional cultures (hence the name) and the existing society is one in which loyalty is given to those directly around you, and the rest be damned, it is difficult for progressives who might see the benefit of a system wherein loyalty is given to the broader society, to explain the benefits of that system to others.

This is the problem of Bolshevism. The Bolsheviks couldn't wait for the greater society to buy into their vision of cooperative society instead of fuedalism, so they caused a revolution. The anarchy that was supposed to follow in the communistic life never emerged because there was a need for a secret police to try to mold the very thoughts of the people to ensure that loyaly was given to the state, to the "party" instead of to family and clan. This is why capitalism works. It takes the natural self-interested nature of humans and directs it in such a way that loyalty to the broader society benefits the individual ("serve the market"). There is no need to explain it, it is evident within the system. This is why we have such a distate for nepotism (current crop of politicians exepted), and why others don't understand our revultion. To give to those around you based on relationship rather than ability shows a loyaly to the clan rather than the society.

I think there is an argument that this is what we're talking about on a national level about Iraq. Can we force capitalistic democracy on these people the waythe Bolsheviks tried to force communism on thier populace? Are we even trying to do that? When we talk about the Arabs being "ready" for democracy, we're asking if they have a cultural respect for the state, or are they essentially tribal? The same argument is had for colnial state boundries: can tribal people change their allegiances based on faith? Probably not, and I look for an independent Kurdistan within ten years.