Re[2]: DSM: Why is it not the responsibility of society/community to educate the future generation ? (was:The Value of the Sudbury Model)

From: Malc (dow@first-ask.de)
Date: Thu Apr 19 2001 - 17:29:48 EDT


At 21:11 19.04.01 +0200, you wrote:
>If some men are entitled BY RIGHT to the products of the work of others,
>it means
>that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

I know this! I am an artist, and my products as such are the entitlement,
by right, to all. It's up to the individual whether the product is liked or
not, but the right to it, one can't deny. And whadaya know? Deprived of
rights? Well when I ask my bank manager for an overdraft he falls off his
chair and it usually takes him ten seconds to stop laughing as he shows me
to the door, patting the arm in a parental 'you'll understand when you are
older' manner. Yet I know people who sit at a desk all day, flirting with
whoever and generally clock watching, and produce nothing at all except a
lot of paper that doesn't get read, cruise out from the said same bank
manager's office with a new car or a holiday somewhere ridiculous g'teed to
make you jealous. Why this?

Slave labor? Been there, used to have the tee-shirt until it fell apart.

Why isn't there a system in place where the State is obliged to buy the
artists product, at least so the artist can run to a medium decadent
lifestyle. There was such a system in the USSR - but then look what
happened to that. It had to go.
As an analogy for education, state funding, or 'blind' state funding
doesn't bode well.

But the State have all that money, and so much of it being spent on
'education' - so of course the question arises not whether, but how the
State should pay. The way Martin Wilke describes the German political
system, paying without strings, could be a realistic and reasonable goal
when applied to education not political parties.

A correlatable amount of your tax goes on education. Unfortunately income
tax is arranged on a sliding scale - the more you have the more you pay -
sorry, the more you earn, the more you pay, until you earn enough to employ
some real cool people who take care yo' don't pay anything 'cept to them.

So, say I keep my tax and educate my kids, or get together with a group, it
wouldn't work. The earnings aren't enough to make it a worthwhile deduction
never mind education. If the state give you the money they would have
otherwise spent on educating your kid, it would be more than your tax
contribution. So education is anyway being sponsored by big business, the
big tax payers. Are they not subsidizing this? Chrysler (they still going?)
pays a proportion of its tax to education, this sum is going to be somewhat
larger than Mr Brown's; unemployed with two kids going to the local High.

The question here is that society is growing up all on its own. It wants to
spend its pocket money on its own thanks. By this I mean if you liken the
whole of sociological evolution to that of a human being, there is a
pattern. I think we are at about 8 yrs at the moment. Can hold a reasonable
conversation, more or less piss in the pot (though Bush's little Kioto
dance shows bad aim), want things a bit more like this and that, rather
than how the 'parents' want it. Wanna spend our pocket money on what we
want, rather than sensible things designed to enhance the economy. Like
saving the money (don't ever encourage people to save money. Save grain, or
gold, but money... not really ... so many savers, so many fat cats.... but
I digress).

The 'parent - politocos' in this instance are all those who decided early
on to make a life work of pushing other people around. Clinton may be
adored by many, but he was best of a bad bunch. The new USA and UK parents
look dangerous. The rest a bit wishy washy.

Somewhere you must recall the manipulation techniques used on the parents
to get your own way, and redefine what was so upsetting regarding the
parental situation. Here are the tools that we, society, need to combat the
desires and complacency of the government and its parental decisions.

I don't advocate a 'takeover' or a demonstration of any kind. Parents and
Governments like to give - they don't like it taken away from them (I am a
parent and I think of my time - to be honest, I love to give it but, am I
pissed sometimes when it is taken away from me).

So how we gonna get them to buy us a Caddi?

It is going to take a seriously discrete redistribution of wealth.
Yes the government are going to pay - for goodness sake they have so much
money, and waste so much money - it is like watching the parents blowing
the price of a new bike on a dinner for four.

As a baby, asking nicely never got you anywhere. You had to yell. Maybe we
are older now and a different tactic is called for. The drug Mafia
situation in South Africa was sorted out. As a yell it was quiet one, but
look, there were people on the street, and the Internet based politics that
went on behind the quiet yell was interesting. People, us kids, we can do
it you know.

You get what you want if you can define it.

One thing that might be fun here would be to make a 'wish list' for the
government, and start hassling said list, like wave it in their face at
every opportunity.

It would be a start - "OK OK, take the money" they would cry... ("...it's
millions by the way" they would add, "can you count that big?") - where
would it end?

Malc Dow
Berlin



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Nov 05 2001 - 20:24:28 EST