: SDF: This appears to be a play-on-words on the word "care". Child care is of course a service provided by adult supervisors of children for parents who must earn wages under capitalism. Caring, on the other hand, is a sentiment. I don't see how "caring" can be quantified as an economic force -- can we say the rich care more for their children because they have a lot more money and care-hours to care with?
The point was that parents care more for their own children than other peoples children and thus do not feel guilty over gaining any advantage
: SDF: A lot of this is stuff others have said, most notably Deep Daddio Nine -- what I don't agree with is the notion that all public schools follow this pattern, or that private schools don't. Sure there are plenty of bad public schools. There are also plenty of bad home environments, should we abolish the family on account of this? I'm an advocate of public school reform, not scrapping the public schools. Schooling won't change unless there is a revision of popular attitudes about schooling, as I explained here.
That was an interesting exchange. I am thoroughly in favor of homeschooling, and whatever reform a public schooling would have then the least damaging would be for state to simply supply money and for a parent-teacher association to decide what follows, even that would be replete with endless arguments, favor seeking and other nonsense but there may well be some good schools out of it. Ofcourse, for the state to supply money it would have to remove it from those very people in the first place etc etc. Also, schools which nurture the mind such as montessori schools (from reading their approach/outcomes) are not popular with statists for the same reason as they are effective at producing analytical independant minds.
: SDF: Are you concerned that self-esteem, like proper socialization, be rationed?
Self esteem, by my understanding, is the feeling of self value occuring because a person knows themself, is comfortable and competent dealing with reality, not cowering from life. It is not subject to rationing, but the current public schools seem to think self esteem is a precious baby thing which mustn be upset by suggesting you could work on your math a little.
: SDF: Nope, public and private schools are constrained by the ideology of the people AS A WHOLE.
There a people in America who want to seperate state from school, who want only Christian schools, who want black only schools, who want military only schools. There is no 'as a whole'. Its a hotchpotch compromise pleasing no one.
: SDF: Nope, the 1996 Welfare Bill, which amortized many forms of public assistance, did nothing for the careers of welfare workers.
It did for the policy makers.
: SDF: There is such a thing as preventative medical care.
And you can buy it, or could if the medicare system wasnt set up to simply extend itself ad infinitum.
: SDF: It certainly won't change some offhand remarks by the First Lady into ACTUAL POLICY, although laughing out loud might clear my head about those who think they are the same thing.
It demonstrates the way in which solutions are considered, and it mounts to political rearing of other peoples children. A hitler youth is still a hitler youth even if the content of such a programme is supposedly benign.
: SDF: You keep babbling about how people will lose "comparative advantages" if everyone in society is appropriately socialized. Why? One of the worst examples (IMHO) of inappropriate socialization in today's society, for both mothers and children, is when mothers abandon their babies at a very early age. Who gains a "comparative advantage" from this practice, and why should I care if they do?
If you believed it to be babble you would be unable to answer. Comparative advantage is held onto by those who have it. A state system of 'rescuing' potentially abandoned children may reduce resources for otehr parents - oops, there goes the a little bit of comparative advantage. Nasty, the way parents want more for their children.
: SDF: You're an authoritarian too, Gee, you just won't admit it.
If you mean someone turned up at my door and demanded I feed him then my refusal to do so on demand might be deemed 'authoritarian'. That being different from me going to my neighbours door and demanding that he assist in educating my child.
: SDF: I'm not blaming anyone, I'm outlining the necessary social policies that should compensate for the fact that capitalism throws away people like trash when they are no longer useful to the profit motives of others.
Capitalism doesnt do it, people do it. Throwing people out who are not perceived as useful is not an action wholly determined by free market capitalism - there are many reasons why people might be considered useless in many differerent political - societal structures.
: And children who suckle at their mothers' breasts "will at some point" become murderers. Would that say anything about breast-feeding? Diverting a conversation about opportunities for socialization into a discussion of who's talented is the insertion of a non-sequitur.
Its addressing your dichotomoy between 'innocent children' and changing the system which would necessitate a lowering for some of those children which you must consider appropriate and which those very many parents would not.