Compulsory Education is communism

It is quite incredible that the state has the power to force people to send their children to institutions until the age of 18 or do home schooling.

I've heard about this, I believe it was Milton Friedman who stated, that the original postulates of the Communist party in America from the 1920/30's had already been fulfilled, by the time Friedman began to proselytize his monetarist ideology in the 80's and forced education till a child is 18 was one of them.

Compulsory education through state coercion isn't 'communism' in principle. It is better defined as statism, the state has removed power from parents and took it upon itself to educate children. Though today we think that 'free' education is a benevolent, this is absolutely not so, as it has taken this freedom and power away from the parents, (the two persons who know the child best) and has placed it in the hands of government bureaucrats. Not quite the same for the UK, but there is still a mandatory need for education in Britain, and this should not be, the parents should have the final say about all matters relating to their child, not the state.

Reply 3

Joinedup

20

Original post by Archdukes

I've heard about this, I believe it was Milton Friedman who stated, that the original postulates of the Communist party in America from the 1920/30's had already been fulfilled, by the time Friedman began to proselytize his monetarist ideology in the 80's and forced education till a child is 18 was one of them.

Compulsory education through state coercion isn't 'communism' in principle. It is better defined as statism, the state has removed power from parents and took it upon itself to educate children. Though today we think that 'free' education is a benevolent, this is absolutely not so, as it has taken this freedom and power away from the parents, (the two persons who know the child best) and has placed it in the hands of government bureaucrats. Not quite the same for the UK, but there is still a mandatory need for education in Britain, and this should not be, the parents should have the final say about all matters relating to their child, not the state.

would you support state intervention to prevent parents
1. neglecting their child
2. physically abusing their child
3. sexually abusing their child

Reply 4

Archdukes

11

Original post by Joinedup

would you support state intervention to prevent parents
1. neglecting their child
2. physically abusing their child
3. sexually abusing their child

To answer your question directly: Yes I would, but sparingly and only if there is no other option. We cannot remove children from their parents custody if they for example, begin to espouse radical - even extreme political viewpoints in the classroom. I'm a disgruntled anarchist who must learn to live with the state.

A little bit of context: I'm a gently conservative person, a firm believer in the idea that Europe was a better society in the 19th century in terms of personal etiquette, cultural norms and virtues. So naturally, I will logically be against further corruption of parental authority and the family unit. However I don't exactly go out wearing a top-hat or anything of that sort. In reality, I'm a disgruntled fanatic who must learn to live with the state.

I believe that once we cross the line of 'the state can interfere in x circumstance', then we open the floodgate to all circumstances becoming potential reasons to take children away from their parents, regardless of whether it is for their good or not. My stance will make me be seen in your eyes as a heartless bastard - but that is only a half-truth. In principle I would be against any state intervention in any form in the family, but it is quite easy to recognise the short-coming of this puritanical approach to ethics. The three points you have mentioned are all justifiable from a practical standpoint, nobody wants our society to be idle while children are being sexually and physically abused or malnourished. Which is why advocate the stance of the American Libertarian Party:

'We believe that families and households are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion and interference. We believe that government involvement in traditional parenting responsibilities has weakened families and replaced family-taught morals with government-taught morals.

Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government, unless they are abusing the children. We recognize that the determination of child abuse can be very difficult. Only local courts should be empowered to remove a child from his or her home, with the consent of the community. This is not meant to preclude appropriate action when a child is in immediate physical danger.'

Hope I have answered your question,
AD

Reply 5

Saftvare Jarb

2

Its arguably an infringement of human rights; forcing someone in to an institution where potentially they could be become a target if they are physically/intellectually inferior. Maybe that individual/the family feels their offspring could get ahead in a different way if they could play to their own strengths rather than do compulsory PE/Maths/French. Even if they wanted to study these subjects intensively, in a lot of cases all pupils are doing are humiliating themselves and setting themselves up for bullying.

Reply 6

High Stakes

18

I don't think you understand what Communism is.

Compulsory Education is communism

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you