Well wait, are you saying that our goal in educating people is to make them better workers (which sounds almost, I don't know, Stalinist or something), are you saying that you achieve that improvement in efficiency through happiness from education, or are you saying that the goal is to make the people happier, which we hope will also lead to increases in efficiency?
I have to say, I'm not sure that happiness always leads to efficiency.
What's with the fixation on states? We have 50 states, whose populations range from the size of a medium sized city to bigger than many countries. They aren't somehow the perfect size to determine these things, because they are very different sizes. Many states are comprised of many different regions and sub-cultures, as well, making the same problems as you see at a national level.
I think I addressed some problems with parents deciding everything in my post above. You didn't reply to any of what I wrote about protecting kids from ignorant or fanatical parents, or about the lack of viable options for a good marketplace in many situations.
Nor did you address my concern that many states are still very backwards on the whole, and that the education of their children can suffer if only the state or local governments determine what is taught.
You seem to be under the impression that most employers give a shit if their employees are happy, fulfilled people. I promise you that just about any successful company would prefer miserable drones to happy, empowered employees, if the drones are better for the bottom line.
I'm pretty sure there is already enough red tape. The point would be to make the red tape we already have work better.
Okay, that's an interesting thought. I'm not sure I share your love of proximity, though. I grew up near some pretty stupid fuckers. The last thing I'd want is for many of them to have any say in my life or education.
Ah, that was mostly a rhetorical comment. You were complaining about someone's logical fallacy in the same section as you said "Everything falls under the commerce clause", so I jumped on it and made a somewhat tenuous connection. But I'll explain what I meant.
You know how when you say that every little kid is special, you actually dilute or destroy the meaning of special (because if everybody is "special", then "special" loses its meaning of being something not everybody does or has)? In fact, it has almost become cliche' to say "if everybody is special then nobody is special". Same idea here - if you try to apply one clause to every situation, then you make the clause meaningless, because it doesn't specify anything. Get it?






Reply With Quote

Bookmarks