Archives for posts with tag: The Freeman

The problem with education reform is we’ve been doing the same thing over and over for several decades now. It doesn’t work. We need to stop trying the progressivist notions. Progressivism, especially in education, is against the human soul. It is cancer for our very essence. CCSS is just the latest variant.

Our objective toward children is to help them mature to adults, not make them into something. We must not try to fit them into our ideal mold. We know this in sports, the arts, and all things having to do with beauty, but we think we should force our young partners into some mold that we suppose will help society. No! What helps society is free, independent, mature individuals. Education is a necessary ingredient, but a standardize education does not help. It cannot, especially when it is founded on progressivist ideas.

LENORE EALY writes this for the Freeman, http://fee.org/freeman/detail/is-education-policy-economic-policy

“Economic policy is not educational policy. American education has suffered from being made the maidservant of economic growth. Education policy cannot suffice for good economic policy, which should instead be focused on issues such as providing for sound and stable money, constraining government spending and public debt, ending crony capitalism, and repudiating the kind of regulatory and confiscatory despotism that crushes real entrepreneurship and job creation.
Can education promote a prospering economy? Yes, but only when it recognizes the limits of State action on personal moral development and allows schooling to pursue its true end: to help the child grow into a man or woman capable of directing his or her own life with responsibility.”

Our only objective as parents must be to raise our children to be mature and self responsible. Education is important to that, but the rest is between each child and God alone.

The Freeman has interviews with Anne Wortham, the latest here, http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-individualist-part-2-an-interview-with-anne-wortham, and it is an eye-opening review of individualism versus collectivism.

I simply cannot understand why so many people hold the Borg (of Star Trek fame) as an ideal and as an objective to aim for.

In the end, there are only individuals. No set of characteristics is universal. No collective goal is truly good for the individuals absorbed within conformity. I am me, and no one else is sufficiently like me to be grouped with me in a collective that can be treated as a single entity. Perhaps I can try to be a conformist, but ultimately, my only identity is this dying man who is trying to accomplish something worthwhile in the fleeting moment I have on this mortal coil.

All the things I take as part of me, all the things that can group me or categorize with some societal group ultimately mean nothing. No one in such groups cares about me. I’m just one individual, which is exactly the point.

I am just one.

If I can be left to my own, perhaps I can leave this place confident I did my part.

However, if forced to be part of the collective, if coerced into compliance and conformity, then I’m hardly even a statistic, no more significant than the latest victim of some tragic accident.

Be yourself and don’t worry about the group. When each of us focuses on what is right, on what is important to try to accomplish as an individual, true to oneself and what one is inside, then the world will be a better place. I remember someone saying he was going to start with the man in the mirror; going to ask him to change his ways. That individual tried to be unique, and he was right.

At FEE.org I found

Dystopias Seen, Dystopias Imagined

JANUARY 23, 2014 by SANDY IKEDA

(Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/dystopias-seen-dystopias-imagined#ixzz2rX81nvjE) worth the while.

It was his crosslink to http://www.franz-oppenheimer.de/state1.htm, that has me writing.

Mr. Oppenheimer says, “There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. Robbery! Forcible appropriation! These words convey to us ideas of crime and the penitentiary, since we are the contemporaries of a developed civilization, specifically based on the inviolability of property. And this tang is not lost when we are convinced that land and sea robbery is the primitive relation of life, just as the warrior’s trade – which also for a long time is only organized mass robbery constitutes the most respected of occupations. Both because of this, and also on account of the need of having, in the further development of this study, terse, clear, sharply opposing terms for these very important contrasts, I propose i. the following discussion to call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the “economic means” for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the “political means.””

We all know that forcefully taking is wrong. (Coercion of any sort, all the same.) Oddly, nearly half of us think it can be justified by labeling it liberalism or progressivism and claiming it for the greater good, as though inflicting pain on a few is justified if the pain of many is lessened, even if that lessening is demeaning and dehumanizing to all.

We complicate things. The simple rule is to do what is right.

When I am wronged, I must first ensure I do not add to wrong. I must consider, first, how to not be part of the problem, and I had better do what I can to elevate the problem, if I can.  Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: