Education funding (split from "Classical Liberals")

[Trausti]

We could fix just about every social ill whatsoever with a steep progressive tax, compulsory busing, and a large investment in improvements to the education system.

It's like the 1960s and 1970s never happened. But my favorite memory-holed progressive success is Missouri v. Jenkins, in the 1980s, when a federal court ordered Kansas City to tax, tax, tax, and spend gobs of $$$ on education with the predictable results.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We could fix just about every social ill whatsoever with a steep progressive tax, compulsory busing, and a large investment in improvements to the education system.

And a big helping of wishful thinking.

 

[Politesse]

We could fix just about every social ill whatsoever with a steep progressive tax, compulsory busing, and a large investment in improvements to the education system.

And a big helping of wishful thinking.

It helps. It really does.

 

[Trausti]

We could fix just about every social ill whatsoever with a steep progressive tax, compulsory busing, and a large investment in improvements to the education system.

And a big helping of wishful thinking.

It helps. It really does.

Hope springs eternal, Baldrick.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

We could fix just about every social ill whatsoever with a steep progressive tax, compulsory busing, and a large investment in improvements to the education system.

And a big helping of wishful thinking.

Alright, so let's instead slash education spending, allow the populace to become hopelessly parochial and insular, and pretend that unchecked inequality combined with a widespread lack of literacy and a culturally balkanized populace will not lead us to living under an authoritarian feudal state. No wishful thinking needed there, and when you find yourself getting punished for engaging in any business you have not bought a royal charter for, let me know how you like it. Prior to Adam Smith's views being adopted, we had very much the inverse of socialism, a corrupted mercantilist economy that dispensed royal charters to the relatives and cronies of the aristocracy and which all but guaranteed the upkeep of anyone born to the right family even while the nation starved, and it was radically leftist for its time. Education is one of the historical underpinings of liberal philosophy, and it otherwise would not exist.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I would clarify, the idea of a free market economy that everybody, regardless of birth or station, was allowed to participate in was radically leftist for its time. I did not recognize the ambiguity until I was far past the time limit to edit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We could fix just about every social ill whatsoever with a steep progressive tax, compulsory busing, and a large investment in improvements to the education system.

And a big helping of wishful thinking.

Alright, so let's instead slash education spending, allow the populace to become hopelessly parochial and insular, and pretend that unchecked inequality combined with a widespread lack of literacy and a culturally balkanized populace will not lead us to living under an authoritarian feudal state. No wishful thinking needed there, and when you find yourself getting punished for engaging in any business you have not bought a royal charter for, let me know how you like it. Prior to Adam Smith's views being adopted, we had very much the inverse of socialism, a corrupted mercantilist economy that dispensed royal charters to the relatives and cronies of the aristocracy and which all but guaranteed the upkeep of anyone born to the right family even while the nation starved, and it was radically leftist for its time. Education is one of the historical underpinings of liberal philosophy, and it otherwise would not exist.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

We could fix just about every social ill whatsoever with a steep progressive tax, compulsory busing, and a large investment in improvements to the education system.

And a big helping of wishful thinking.

Alright, so let's instead slash education spending, allow the populace to become hopelessly parochial and insular, and pretend that unchecked inequality combined with a widespread lack of literacy and a culturally balkanized populace will not lead us to living under an authoritarian feudal state. No wishful thinking needed there, and when you find yourself getting punished for engaging in any business you have not bought a royal charter for, let me know how you like it. Prior to Adam Smith's views being adopted, we had very much the inverse of socialism, a corrupted mercantilist economy that dispensed royal charters to the relatives and cronies of the aristocracy and which all but guaranteed the upkeep of anyone born to the right family even while the nation starved, and it was radically leftist for its time. Education is one of the historical underpinings of liberal philosophy, and it otherwise would not exist.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

Principle of bivalence. You cannot both call for a policy that deprioritizes education and thereby defunds it as a consequence and claim that you are not calling to defund education, or you are an outright liar.

If you are not prepared to own the consequences of having your views implemented, then you should cease to defend them in any pure form at all.

For example, I have anarchist views that would call for limiting the power that people have over what constitutes their property only by a legal technically. I deny that infinite authority is a valid way of treating property.

However, I acknowledge also that the consequences of taking that point-of-view outside of practical application is folly, and if the pursuit of my views were to result in consequences that I would disagree with, I am accountable.

I therefore must be mindful of the realistic, empirically self-evident reasons why I have such views. Tyrannical employers do call for a check on their power. Owners of disused land do not have a right to call every homeless person that passes out from malnutition or exhaustion on it a criminal mastermind. The real world circumstances that compel my views are their only justification, and without those circumstances, they are nonsense and folly. This constitutes an empiricist, rather than continental rationalist, perspective on an ideology.

Therefore, if implementing your views, without modification, would make the population more likely to support a viciously authoritarian regime, then your views are really authoritarian, even if you protest otherwise.

Even if you would rather there be virtually no government at all, the people cannot remain informed on their right to liberty and their duty to respect the liberty of others without an education system to inform them. It is well established that there is a link between an education and an either liberal or libertarian, as opposed to nationalist or communist authoritarian, outlook. You need an education system to protect your liberty as surely as you need an army to defend you from Vladimir Putin's jackboot or a police officer to escort a squatter off of your property or apprehend a thief. Education ought to be the common ground between a liberal and a libertarian, in any reasonable universe.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We could fix just about every social ill whatsoever with a steep progressive tax, compulsory busing, and a large investment in improvements to the education system.

And a big helping of wishful thinking.

Alright, so let's instead slash education spending, allow the populace to become hopelessly parochial and insular, and pretend that unchecked inequality combined with a widespread lack of literacy and a culturally balkanized populace will not lead us to living under an authoritarian feudal state. No wishful thinking needed there, and when you find yourself getting punished for engaging in any business you have not bought a royal charter for, let me know how you like it. Prior to Adam Smith's views being adopted, we had very much the inverse of socialism, a corrupted mercantilist economy that dispensed royal charters to the relatives and cronies of the aristocracy and which all but guaranteed the upkeep of anyone born to the right family even while the nation starved, and it was radically leftist for its time. Education is one of the historical underpinings of liberal philosophy, and it otherwise would not exist.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

Principle of bivalence. You cannot both call for a policy that deprioritizes education and thereby defunds it as a consequence and claim that you are not calling to defund education, or you are an outright liar.

I'm not calling for defunding education. We don't spend enough on it as it is.

What I'm saying is your proposal will not come anywhere near close to fixing just about every social ill because most of them aren't problems that can be solved by throwing money at them.

Consider the extreme example we have: Poland. WWII basically totally obliterated the educational system. The communists rebuilt it as fair as they possibly could make it--and yet we see the result of a strong heritability of whether people end up in thinking work or manual work. Whether it's genetics or parenting there's something that's passed down that makes a big difference. And note that in Poland it certainly wasn't money.

Or consider IIRC Kansas. A judge ordered a huge amount of education spending--which accomplished nothing.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

We could fix just about every social ill whatsoever with a steep progressive tax, compulsory busing, and a large investment in improvements to the education system.

And a big helping of wishful thinking.

Alright, so let's instead slash education spending, allow the populace to become hopelessly parochial and insular, and pretend that unchecked inequality combined with a widespread lack of literacy and a culturally balkanized populace will not lead us to living under an authoritarian feudal state. No wishful thinking needed there, and when you find yourself getting punished for engaging in any business you have not bought a royal charter for, let me know how you like it. Prior to Adam Smith's views being adopted, we had very much the inverse of socialism, a corrupted mercantilist economy that dispensed royal charters to the relatives and cronies of the aristocracy and which all but guaranteed the upkeep of anyone born to the right family even while the nation starved, and it was radically leftist for its time. Education is one of the historical underpinings of liberal philosophy, and it otherwise would not exist.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

Principle of bivalence. You cannot both call for a policy that deprioritizes education and thereby defunds it as a consequence and claim that you are not calling to defund education, or you are an outright liar.

I'm not calling for defunding education. We don't spend enough on it as it is.

What I'm saying is your proposal will not come anywhere near close to fixing just about every social ill because most of them aren't problems that can be solved by throwing money at them.

They also cannot be fixed by defunding them or refusing to fund them, to begin with. If you have other proposals in addition to making sure that our education system is properly funded, then fine. Either you agree that education ought to be a priority, or you do not. If you want to defund the education system, on the other hand, then you should just say so. Acknowledge that we agree on this one, or stop beating around the bush about disagreeing.

Consider the extreme example we have: Poland. WWII basically totally obliterated the educational system. The communists rebuilt it as fair as they possibly could make it--and yet we see the result of a strong heritability of whether people end up in thinking work or manual work. Whether it's genetics or parenting there's something that's passed down that makes a big difference. And note that in Poland it certainly wasn't money.

I am actually a supporter of a eugenic policy, but education itself is eugenic. My views on this are strange in how I talk about them, but they are actually quite normal in actual practice.

I believe that the education itself provides a survival/reproductive advantage to people that tend to be amenable to being improved by it. In the absence of an education system, they have no such advantage. Even though we are not giving orders to people saying, "Only you may have a large family, and you may not," I think that the education system itself works out to contribute to the Flynn effect. Countries that have had strong education systems for a particularly long time tend to have higher educational achievement and tend to be fairly prosperous. I would give you the example of Massachusetts. Furthermore, New Hampshire has both an intensely libertarian culture and historically very high levels of academic achievement while also having a strong economy, but this is also related to the fact that they have made a pretty good investment in their education system for generations. Colorado, which is reasonably economically successful, has long had a respectable education system, and they have also become one of the nation's leaders in the support of personal, off-the-clock freedoms like, for instance, the fact that Denver decided that you should be allowed to trip on magic mushrooms once in a while. I think they were also one of the first states to legalize marijuana.

Therefore, even though there might be some people in Poland, for example, that are slower to catch on, I am still convinced that a strong education system can eventually result in breeding a naturally productive population in that country. I am still convinced that a well-funded education system tends to lead to people that thrive in more benighted cultures tending to have smaller families than they would otherwise, and I think that people with more venturesome personalities tend to thrive in those types of situations.

I think of it as a breeding program. It is a taboo thing to say, and I do not care because I am a dragon. I belch, too.

On the topic of education, liberals and libertarians ought to snuggle together like kittens because it ought to be the one place where we should be able to see eye-to-eye dependably. There is no reason for argument on it, ever, for any reason. In a sane world, we ought to be able to get along, on this one. It is demented for liberals and libertarians to disagree on education. It is common ground where we do not have to quarrel, ever, for any reason.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We could fix just about every social ill whatsoever with a steep progressive tax, compulsory busing, and a large investment in improvements to the education system.

They also cannot be fixed by defunding them or refusing to fund them, to begin with. If you have other proposals in addition to making sure that our education system is properly funded, then fine. Either you agree that education ought to be a priority, or you do not. If you want to defund the education system, on the other hand, then you should just say so. Acknowledge that we agree on this one, or stop beating around the bush about disagreeing.

This is a major case of moving the goalposts!

Consider the extreme example we have: Poland. WWII basically totally obliterated the educational system. The communists rebuilt it as fair as they possibly could make it--and yet we see the result of a strong heritability of whether people end up in thinking work or manual work. Whether it's genetics or parenting there's something that's passed down that makes a big difference. And note that in Poland it certainly wasn't money.

I am actually a supporter of a eugenic policy, but education itself is eugenic. My views on this are strange in how I talk about them, but they are actually quite normal in actual practice.

I see nothing in your response that remotely addresses my point.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

We could fix just about every social ill whatsoever with a steep progressive tax, compulsory busing, and a large investment in improvements to the education system.

They also cannot be fixed by defunding them or refusing to fund them, to begin with. If you have other proposals in addition to making sure that our education system is properly funded, then fine. Either you agree that education ought to be a priority, or you do not. If you want to defund the education system, on the other hand, then you should just say so. Acknowledge that we agree on this one, or stop beating around the bush about disagreeing.

This is a major case of moving the goalposts!

Hooey. We still have not decided whether or not you agree that education should be a budgetary priority. The principle of bivalence asks your opinion.

We are currently on education. The principle of bivalence asks you to make up your mind. Do you agree that we ought to invest in education, or do you disagree?

As far as my ambitious ideas about how much fixing the education system could do, I personally stand by those ideas. I believe that education is much more effective than most other means of improving society. I think that it works substantially better than the welfare state. I think it works substantially better than crime-and-punishment strategies for the improvement of society. I am willing to put aside many other budgetary priorities for the sake of education, even important ones. I like education as a matter of principle. I see education as something that gives people independence.

However, you do not have to agree with my optimistic assessment of the potency of education in order to agree that education ought to be a high budgetary priority. You either agree that the education system needs to be funded, or you do not.

I do not think you really do. You made the argument, "You can't fix a problem by throwing money at it," which implies that you disagree with making an investment in the education system. If that is what you think, then you should say so. Step forward, and say, "I, Loren Pretchel, believe that we should not make an investment in the education system," rather than giving us a parade of phony excuses without owning the conclusion.

Make up your mind: do you agree that we ought to make an investment in the education system? This does not mean that you have to agree with me on every other point. We can discuss my views on soaking the rich another day.

You have attempted to excuse your way out of owning the bottom-line regarding where you stand on education. You have attempted to peddle phony excuses as to why you want to defund education, but you will not admit that you want to defund education.

Declare that defunding education is your stance, or acknowledge that you agree with liberals that education really should be a priority.

Furthermore, if you do not really support an investment in the education system, then I argue that your views are really authoritarian, in consequence. To the end of supporting that viewpoint, I will point you to the research that was performed by Wim Groot in 2010, and I do not believe that his research has been questioned at this point.

https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/24154/ssoar-appecon-2009-3-groot_et_al-the_effects_of_education_on.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-appecon-2009-3-groot_et_al-the_effects_of_education_on.pdf

From the abstract, Groot finds that the only crime that really happens more often as a consequence of funding the education system is tax-evasion. Otherwise, education is not only an effective crime-stopper, but it also, according to Groot, leads to people having more permissive views on social norms in regard to crime, so if you do commit a crime, such as selling magic mushrooms or having sex with your dog, an educated society is less likely to give a shit, even if there does happen to be a law against it. This is generally transmitted through the father, within families. Interestingly, Groot finds that people with more educated fathers are more likely to commit crimes, rather than less, due to the fact that more educated men tend to have more permissive and lenient views. In other words, more educated and therefore more permissive fathers tend to be libertarians.

You know, as in more educated and therefore more permissive fathers tend to vote for the same political candidates as Loren Pretchel.

Now, I am like the educated mother in that scenario, who imparts liberal and peace-loving values upon my children. I am not the same person as the father, who votes for Loren Pretchel's favorite political candidates, but I also happen to exist for the same reason as the Loren Pretchels in this world. I am educated, and because I am educated, I help play a role in making Loren Pretchel's permissive and libertarian society possible. I have the foresight to teach my kids intelligent means of conflict resolution, so they will not need to worry about fucking cops running their fucking lives, which I know would make them unhappy.

By teaching my children norms that help take away the behavior that causes society to believe that we need an authoritarian government, I hope to make my husband and my son happy. I, the educated mother, am doing my damn best to transmit the kind of value system that really can make their permissive society, where people are allowed to trip magic mushrooms if they want to, a successful one and a sustainable one. My views might not really be quite as permissive as theirs, but I do love them. I want them to be happy, and they cannot be happy if they do not know how to make their permissive society a realistic one and a sustainable one.

Therefore, I argue that a generous investment in the education system can produce mothers that are like Massachusetts and fathers that are like New Hampshire. We might not agree on every single stupid nitpicking policy detail, but we can agree that neither of us would exist without a generous investment in the education system. We might never really agree on everything, but we can agree that education makes it possible for us to have a choice between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, even though one might be our first choice and the other might be our second. If we can agree on education, then while one of us might come in first while the other comes in second, both of us will place, which makes both of us winners.

Therefore, I want Loren Pretchel to make up his mind. Does he agree that we ought to make an investment in the education system, or does he disagree?

Do not feed me justifications for why you disagree without acknowledging that you disagree. I do not want to hear you say, "Some people are genetically different," or "Values are passed through families, don't ya know, not through books," and do not tell me, "You can't solve a problem by throwing money at it."

You also cannot fix a problem without putting enough money into it. While there is a need to invest every dime wisely and intelligently, there is a need for them to be invested.

Make up your mind. Do you want us to make the investment in education or not?

If you do not, then I argue that, in effect, your views are really authoritarian. Uneducated fathers tend to have authoritarian views. Uneducated fathers tend to have "crime-busting" ideas about how society. They tend to have a "cops and robbers" social outlook. Uneducated fathers are always authoritarian, and their offspring are always authoritarian.

Own the consequences.

 

[laughing dog]

In terms of testing general intelligence or general educational aptitude, I don't think there are true objective measures.

And this shows that IQs are true objective measures because ..........?

This amazingly is from Slate, just before it became insufferably woke.

IQ Tests and the SAT Measure Something Real and Consequential

The College Board—the standardized testing behemoth that develops and administers the SAT and other tests—has redesigned its flagship product again....

slate.com

What this all means is that the SAT measures something—some stable characteristic of high school students other than their parents’ income—that translates into success in college. And what could that characteristic be? General intelligence. The content of the SAT is practically indistinguishable from that of standardized intelligence tests that social scientists use to study individual differences, and that psychologists and psychiatrists use to determine whether a person is intellectually disabled—and even whether a person should be spared execution in states that have the death penalty. Scores on the SAT correlate very highly with scores on IQ tests—so highly that the Harvard education scholar Howard Gardner, known for his theory of multiple intelligences, once called the SAT and other scholastic measures “thinly disguised” intelligence tests.

Ah, so the logical connection is based on the assumed objective standard of what constitutes "intelligence".

 

[laughing dog]

I think objective measures exist. Something a centimeter long is objectively one centimeter long.

I leave having fun with vacuously true statements to others.

So you're basically saying you're insisting on an impossible standard.

No, I am not. Please stop flinging out straw men.

Sorry, but you don't get to replace an imperfect measure with a worse one just because the first wasn't perfect.

Another straw man.

I am saying I believe in truth in advertising. It is intellectually dishonest to call tests "true objective measures" when you know they are not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Therefore, I want Loren Pretchel to make up his mind. Does he agree that we ought to make an investment in the education system, or does he disagree?

The problem here is you say "education system" as if it's monolithic.

For grade school and high school for the most part we fund it adequately. Poor schools are the result of poor students, not inadequate funding.

However, at the university level we have been cutting funding badly. More funding is definitely needed.

 

[Trausti]

For grade school and high school for the most part we fund it adequately. Poor schools are the result of poor students, not inadequate funding.

It’s such an obvious truth yet forbidden to notice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think objective measures exist. Something a centimeter long is objectively one centimeter long.

I leave having fun with vacuously true statements to others.

So you're basically saying you're insisting on an impossible standard.

No, I am not. Please stop flinging out straw men.

Sorry, but you don't get to replace an imperfect measure with a worse one just because the first wasn't perfect.

Another straw man.

I am saying I believe in truth in advertising. It is intellectually dishonest to call tests "true objective measures" when you know they are not.

You're still evading the issue. What yardstick do you want to replace them?

 

[laughing dog]

I think objective measures exist. Something a centimeter long is objectively one centimeter long.

I leave having fun with vacuously true statements to others.

So you're basically saying you're insisting on an impossible standard.

No, I am not. Please stop flinging out straw men.

Sorry, but you don't get to replace an imperfect measure with a worse one just because the first wasn't perfect.

Another straw man.

I am saying I believe in truth in advertising. It is intellectually dishonest to call tests "true objective measures" when you know they are not.

You're still evading the issue. What yardstick do you want to replace them?

I addressed the issue that you and others are engaging in false advertising.

My view is that institutions should choose whatever imperfect metrics they wise to use that do not violate our Constitution.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Therefore, I want Loren Pretchel to make up his mind. Does he agree that we ought to make an investment in the education system, or does he disagree?

The problem here is you say "education system" as if it's monolithic.

For grade school and high school for the most part we fund it adequately. Poor schools are the result of poor students, not inadequate funding.

However, at the university level we have been cutting funding badly. More funding is definitely needed.

You have finally come clean.

Therefore, we have it in writing that Loren Pretchel is against investing in the K-12 education system. We have it on record that you are against investing in children's education.

Therefore, your views are basically authoritarian, in actual practice. I say that based on the principle that you must own the consequences of the policies that you advocate. For example, if radical Islamists "make war in the name of the peace of Allah," they are still a war-like movement, and it does not cease to be a war-like movement just because they protest otherwise. They are war-like because the consequences of their rhetoric and their practices lead to war.

Your views are really authoritarian based on the same principle. You must own the consequences of your views. They belong to you, no matter how much you might protest otherwise.

Also, the KIND of education that children are given is important for reducing authoritarian inclinations.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2786619

It's an old study, but I am not aware of any study that has contradicted it.

Education on cognitive skills, rather than rote learning, is important for countering authoritarianism, and this is particularly effective after the 8th Grade.

Since you are opposed to funding such an education for our youth, then your views are effectively authoritarian.

What is your justification in advocating for an authoritarian government? How do you think that an authoritarian government will make your life better, @Loren Pechtel?

You must own what the implementation of your views must inherently do. You will not weasel out of taking responsibility for the consequences of your agenda.

If you would turn the nation into an authoritarian cesspool by raiding the K-12 education system, then you ultimately must take responsibility and ownership over the fact that you have an authoritarian worldview.

As far as "bad students," I return to my remarks about education effectively being a eugenics program, even though it is not overtly so. The "good students" in any population do not have a fighting chance, in the breeding population, if they are not armed to defend their place in the breeding population. An education system gives them the cognitive skills they need to make sure that they can prove themselves more worthy than the "bad students." I am not pretending that all of the "bad students" can be fixed. I am not that naive. I am talking about giving the good ones weapons they can use to defend their place in the breeding population, and those weapons constitute cognitive skills that they uniquely have the constitutional ability and the natural desire to learn. It might take a couple of generations, but I think it works. Without an education system that teaches the geeky kid in class to how to turn his natural inclinations into a big house and a nice car, he is nothing more than a socially awkward loser. Such people are not as likely to reproduce when the education system does not support them.

Think of the kinds of people we need in the modern economy as like an athletic breed of horse. I have taken care of athletic breed horses before. Those warmbloods could barely survive in the wild. If you are a horse, then the personality type that makes a good athlete does not make you likely to live long without human intervention. I have seen athletic breed horses break their legs from running too fast just because they got overexcited, and that rarely happens to coldblood breeds. The kind of horse that you need for show jumping, racing, polo, and fancy dressage require substantially more maintenance. They are too high-strung to be left alone for too long, and they can be so dangerously aggressive that they fight like cats if you put the wrong two horses together. The meaner the horse, though, the smoother the ride. For some reason, that predator-like aggression results in them moving like jungle cats. They might be aggressive, but once you get good at handling them without potentially getting killed, they are a dream to ride. Taking a leap while on the back of a good Arabian is like best sex you ever had. It's worth getting bitten over.

As uncomfortable as most people are admitting it, the education system thereby acts like a breeding program. Yes, I would get criticism for saying that in most quarters of society, but we dragons are famous for saying outrageous things.

The education system needs money to run well. I will accept no compromise on it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Therefore, I want Loren Pretchel to make up his mind. Does he agree that we ought to make an investment in the education system, or does he disagree?

The problem here is you say "education system" as if it's monolithic.

For grade school and high school for the most part we fund it adequately. Poor schools are the result of poor students, not inadequate funding.

However, at the university level we have been cutting funding badly. More funding is definitely needed.

You have finally come clean.

Therefore, we have it in writing that Loren Pretchel is against investing in the K-12 education system. We have it on record that you are against investing in children's education.

Therefore, your views are basically authoritarian, in actual practice. I say that based on the principle that you must own the consequences of the policies that you advocate. For example, if radical Islamists "make war in the name of the peace of Allah," they are still a war-like movement, and it does not cease to be a war-like movement just because they protest otherwise. They are war-like because the consequences of their rhetoric and their practices lead to war.

Your views are really authoritarian based on the same principle. You must own the consequences of your views. They belong to you, no matter how much you might protest otherwise.

Also, the KIND of education that children are given is important for reducing authoritarian inclinations.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2786619

It's an old study, but I am not aware of any study that has contradicted it.

Education on cognitive skills, rather than rote learning, is important for countering authoritarianism, and this is particularly effective after the 8th Grade.

Since you are opposed to funding such an education for our youth, then your views are effectively authoritarian.

What is your justification in advocating for an authoritarian government? How do you think that an authoritarian government will make your life better, @Loren Pechtel?

You must own what the implementation of your views must inherently do. You will not weasel out of taking responsibility for the consequences of your agenda.

If you would turn the nation into an authoritarian cesspool by raiding the K-12 education system, then you ultimately must take responsibility and ownership over the fact that you have an authoritarian worldview.

As far as "bad students," I return to my remarks about education effectively being a eugenics program, even though it is not overtly so. The "good students" in any population do not have a fighting chance, in the breeding population, if they are not armed to defend their place in the breeding population. An education system gives them the cognitive skills they need to make sure that they can prove themselves more worthy than the "bad students." I am not pretending that all of the "bad students" can be fixed. I am not that naive. I am talking about giving the good ones weapons they can use to defend their place in the breeding population, and those weapons constitute cognitive skills that they uniquely have the constitutional ability and the natural desire to learn. It might take a couple of generations, but I think it works. Without an education system that teaches the geeky kid in class to how to turn his natural inclinations into a big house and a nice car, he is nothing more than a socially awkward loser. Such people are not as likely to reproduce when the education system does not support them.

Think of the kinds of people we need in the modern economy as like an athletic breed of horse. I have taken care of athletic breed horses before. Those warmbloods could barely survive in the wild. If you are a horse, then the personality type that makes a good athlete does not make you likely to live long without human intervention. I have seen athletic breed horses break their legs from running too fast just because they got overexcited, and that rarely happens to coldblood breeds. The kind of horse that you need for show jumping, racing, polo, and fancy dressage require substantially more maintenance. They are too high-strung to be left alone for too long, and they can be so dangerously aggressive that they fight like cats if you put the wrong two horses together. The meaner the horse, though, the smoother the ride. For some reason, that predator-like aggression results in them moving like jungle cats. They might be aggressive, but once you get good at handling them without potentially getting killed, they are a dream to ride. Taking a leap while on the back of a good Arabian is like best sex you ever had. It's worth getting bitten over.

As uncomfortable as most people are admitting it, the education system thereby acts like a breeding program. Yes, I would get criticism for saying that in most quarters of society, but we dragons are famous for saying outrageous things.

The education system needs money to run well. I will accept no compromise on it.

Moreover, our education system fails in two spectacular ways, and one is one of the ways Loren proposed inversely to the reality: poor schools actually need more funding, because not every student to go to a poor school is a poor student.

Maybe you need more money focused on teachers who are good at teaching poor students, but the second...

We still need teachers at poor schools specialized in teaching poor students, too. Both specializations cost money.

Our next big generational "make a future" job should be "teacher".