[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post:
Hey Spence, I particularly liked the following part of the article and think it would be a good point of discussion:

Spence replies:
It's interesting...but makes a big error by attributing an obviously false motive to the State's actions.

The State doesn't set up an educational system to exert control over supra-individual identities. The behavior is driven by a belief that more consistently educated children will make for a better Country.

OK. This is a good start. The article speaks to much more than this, and points out things about the modern "liberal" State in a negative way which I think you would see as positive. And you could make a strong case for seeing them that way.

Regarding what you refer to as the author's big error in attributing a false motive for the State's actions, the author doesn't say that the State intends to exert control over individuals through its education system. Rather, it intends to "liberate" them from some ancient things such as being "overly" shaped by family, religion, or any particular community. Which corresponds to your version of the State's motives: "a belief that more consistently educated children will make for a better country." That is, being "overly" shaped" by family, religion, or particular community, would make for a more fragmented instead of a more "consistent" country. Surely, you do see continuing efforts for a more centralized and "consistent" educational curriculum nationwide such as efforts to instill a "common core."

As for this making us a "better" country, that is a thought you should expand. I hope you do. I truly, not sarcastically, think it would be a good discussion. Otherwise, we might think of this cookie-cutter pedagogy not only as one of the many contradictions of our progressive statism, but a peculiar contradiction of the liberal mantra on diversity. Which, if nothing else, could make one think of it in light of the Emerson quote: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."


The author tries to work on the old 'liberals don't have foundation principals so they must worship the State' schtick...but this flies in the face of reality, many liberals embrace religion, community, culture...did they really say culture?

At best it's an academic or nearly theoretical perspective.

-spence

Quite the contrary, the author imputes a strong foundational principle to the "liberal" State: the replacement of all the ancient ties and associations by membership and dependence on the Church of State. Insofar as remnants of old commitments, religion, community, marriage, etc., remain as current associations, they are not to be viewed as "inheritances" but as "memberships of choice." And they are sanctioned and regulated by the State. And, preferably, the individual is to be liberated from any of their constraints which would run counter to the function of the State. The individual ultimately finding self-definition legitimately through the State.

You do not see the little by little encroachments on those "ancient" memberships?

That would be a super discussion. Hope you keep it going.