Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Why would the constitution not allow government to compete in commerce ?

Posted 9 years ago on Feb. 15, 2012, 7:01 a.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB (1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"For the people by the people" had their hands tied by the architects of the constitution. We can use our tax money to build roads and schools , but not commerce.. ? The capitalists had it all planned from the start. very very clever The best way to profit is to eliminate the competition , and thats exactly what they intended. Capitalism won't even allow a government run health care system.. it would cut into their profit.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23521) 9 years ago

The constitution doesn't actually sanction capitalism either.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

interesting deduction.


[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," few So...some 300 odd years later, the ^ people continue to realize that "We the People of the United States" are being duped by Congress and let the "said" government control everything. But always the few always have stood up in the past and now they take a stand to get the "traitors out of the government!" Some of the founding fathers knew about this continued corruption and fought it tooth and nail....but it is the "people" who truly have the final say...believe it or not!!!

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Perhaps it was all an illusion.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

No, there were no illusions put before the American People..they knew exactly what was happening and why it happened, in the past, present and future. When a man/woman has it in their mind that they're entitled to something at the expense of others ..then let the chips fall where they may...as they have today.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Perhaps the government should be entitled to corporate profits ?

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

The masses are always saying...entitlement is to be earned...

Would one not expect that the government, as well as corporate America..are stating that they have "earned" these entitlements?

Now. the masses have to eat their own words and are suffering the consequences of what they let happen...

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Yes absolutely but saying they have earned doesn't make it true.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 9 years ago

I am in total agreement..

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 9 years ago

us postal services competes directly with UPS and FEDEX. Military competes with Blackwater and other private war contractors.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

what would you say to a nonprofit storefront owned and operated by the government.. something say the size and scope of wal mart in every city..

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

You've confused Capitalism with Statism. It is not a Capitalist society which can (by law) forcefully eliminate competition. In a capitalist society, goods and services must compete for the consent of the "consumer". It is only a government which can implement a coercive monopoly (such as government run health care).

"For the people by the people" "had their hands tied" by Americans who never understood that the constitution is a whole document. The only way to resist government oppression is to know the law and use it. The United States cannot lawfully interfere in commerce (even though it would appear as though they can) because the ninth amendment to the Bill of Rights states that even those rights which are not explicitly mentioned in the bill of rights are protected (from government intervention). That includes property rights. It is not "capitalists" who planned coercive control of this country (or any other). It is statists.

Government never "competes" in commerce. It enforces its will at gunpoint (either directly or through the threat of fines and imprisonment). "Criminal" law deals not with violations of people's rights, but violation of United States edict.

[-] 0 points by jerseydevil (-11) 9 years ago

Excellent post. Notice how FriendlyObserverB couldn't reply to you?....and for that matter any other whack job Leftist here on the Forum.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

Here we ago again - sorry to sound preahcy-
Another BIG American problem - that can be 50% solved ( like almost all BIG American problems )
by getting the bribe money out of politics

get rid of Buckley & Citizens United

Then congress cannot be bribed by insurance companies to stop Medicare for all.
etc.,etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,

[-] 2 points by joethefarmer (21) 9 years ago

The largest national donor in the last presidential election was the National Education Assosiation (NEA)



The top "all time donor" is a PAC called ActBlue which as a federally registered political action committee, it serves as a conduit for online contributions to Democratic candidates and committees.


Take note in that link that the top 20 donors all gave to Democrat candidates.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 9 years ago

etc, etc... now that's a plan.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 9 years ago

You make no sense, capitalism won't allow a government run health care plan? Government run health care, or any government run business is the opposite of what capitalism is. But capitalism as a system doesn't prevent government health care, doesn't prevent communism, earthquakes or any other catastrophes.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

President Obama's original health care plan had a nonprofit clause which had to be removed due to capitalist opposition. Unless you have a better explanation ?

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 9 years ago

oh i see, so capitalist are the bad guys. Who are these mysterious capitalist that opposed Obama's crappy health care plan? what exactly is this non profit clause?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

it was there early in the proposal but removed .. It was either remove it or lose the whole proposal .. I was disappointed with Mr Obama for that .. he should have let the the whole thing die without surrendering the nonprofit aspect.



[-] -1 points by mediaauditr (-88) 9 years ago

Democracy fails when the people learn they can vote themselves gifts. Government and commerce can't mix. Government is the structure that allows for commerce to take place. The government was created to keep corrupt commerce in check, not become a part of it.

Do you believe government workers are above corruption?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

but.. if the government made profits they would share this with the people ..

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 9 years ago

Are you crazy? You said they 'would' share it with the people. What makes you believe they would share it with the people?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

Haven't you noticed, the government doesn't save money. Unlike the the hoarding wealthy elite, the government would spend every penny of the profits they earn. Creating jobs !

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

The government is competing in commerce all over the place:


The administration of thousands of Fed, State , and Local programs like: SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie and Freddie, the list is endless.

Highway Maintenance

Trash collection

Recycling Services

Postal Service


Automobile Inspections

Snow Removal

All of these Gov operations compete with private businesses and in almost all cases do a poor job, but tax payers are forced to prop them up with subsidies. The real sin is the waste. Hundreds of billions of wasted $ that could be used to help people and ease human suffering.

The Gov has the worst performance in commerce where they have a monopoly like: public primary and secondary schools (unless you’re rich, the Obama children go to Sidwell Friends at $ 32k per year), the DMV, public housing, the VA. The people that suffer most from poor Gov performance are the poor. This is a shameful practice.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

how does the government profit by collecting trash ? They pay for it out of property tax .. along with many other items you mention .. schools, road maintenance , snow removal.. ok there is a user fee on postal service .. ..medicare is free right ? no profit there .. Is there one business the government competes for profit ?

private schools are in a profit business .

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 9 years ago

And they do it better and cheaper...

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

For the most part Gov does a poor job when it gets involved in commerce like the activities cited above, and they tend, with some exceptions (they make money selling mining permits), to lose money. That is another good reason for getting them out of the business. The Gov does have an appropriate oversight role. They should award a contract to haul trash for example, and monitor the contractor's performance. If they do a lousy job then fire the contractor and hire a better one.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Medicare and Medicaid alone is far more efficient than anything in the private market.

Technology R&D development as well.

Medical research as well.

So is the National weather Service.

The Postal Service was in the BLACK until congress raided its profits. Its current woes are the result of theft.

Social Security is incredibly cost effective compared to 401k plans.

Rural electrification and the interstate highway system, along with most public infrastructure was ONLY done by government, since there was no profit involved. Without those money losing, "wasteful" programs, private businesses would have a harder time making profits.

The list goes on and on.

Some programs could certainly use streamlining. But many are more efficient that their private counterparts. Yet others can't exist in the private sphere. And many appear to be money losers, but support the infrastructure for private business to operate in.

The assertion that the government has no motivation to strive for excellence is belied by much (though certainly not all) of its accomplishments. The Hoover Dam isn't too shabby, after all. Neither is the NIH.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

My 401K has grown every year since I started putting money into it, I have little hope that there will be any Social Security money available when I retire. It is unwise for anyone that plans to retire in 15 - 20 years to count on SS. We should have converted it to private accounts years ago. Today SS recipients are taking out twice what they put into the system. That is not sustainable in the face of a shrinking workforce.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Nobody is suggesting that you rely solely on SS for retirement income. It is simply not enough money.

And SS has is perfectly solvent for years to come, (mid-century) and would be for far MORE years is the cap in income were removed from payroll taxes.

But neither of those is the point. Your contention was that government programs are wasteful and inefficient. SS is neither of those things. It's payout rate after taxes is far higher than 401k plans. You lose 1/3 of your 401k money in fees alone when you cash it out. That's not the case with SS. Nor is Medicaid. Overhead in private insurance companies is, on average, over 35% . Medicare and medicaid have about 3% overhead. So which is more wasteful?

Whether or not they are funded adequately is a different issue than whether they are efficient and wasteful or not.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

I have issues different from efficiency with SS that I hesitate to bring up for fear that it will quell your blossoming affection for me.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Blossoming affection......LOL!

The other issues might be better left to a different thread. Your hesitation is probably appropriate.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

The Hoover Dam was built by a consortium of private companies. Not the Gov.


[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

It was a government program. Most government programs use private companies to carry our projects.

In 1928, Congress authorized the project. The winning bid to build the dam was submitted by a consortium called Six Companies, Inc.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

nice to hear someone compliment what the government has done.. thanks epa1nter

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Rural electrification was done by private utilities and to a great extent financed by them. The Gov has no capacity to build power plants, construct transmission lines, and service same.


[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

The US highway system was built by private contractors with over sight by the Army Corps. The Gov builds nothing and for good reason, they do not have the capability.


[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

The private contractors were under contract to the Government. They won government bids, were hired by the government to carry out the projects, put the roads where the government directed, (at times on sites the government bought from private landowners) and they were paid with government (tax) money. That's how government projects work.

When the military needs new aircraft, they don't build it themselves. The government does not have an airplane factory. Lockheed or Boeing manufacture them under contract. It is still a government project.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

I believe that we have reached agreement here. The Gov has a perfectly appropriate oversight role for projects like this, particularly when tax $ are being spent. In fact the Gov has a fiduciary responsibility.

The Gov can leverage the free market to get the best value for the people's money. For this reason alone they should stay out of the business of business and use private contractors where ever possible.

Now you're going to yell at me again; an important place where they should start using private contractors is pubic education. Put the free market to work on that problem. Keep public funding but use competition like we do with Universities to push for excellence.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Yup, I'm going to yell at you. Public education is, and must remain, in the public sphere. Universal education is a civic obligation, a function of democracy itself. Period. It would be unconscionable to make public education a for-profit enterprise. Wealth generation for school owners is not the purpose of universal education.

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 9 years ago

Yup...The gov't does GREAT in public education. All you have to do is look at the results...um,...let's see...Why can't Johnny read? hmmmmmmmmmmmm...Get real! Education is the WORST example of government in action. Just TEST the product...and fail those that don't measure up. Education would improve by 25% overnight. That's been proven!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Actually, there is one example that is worse: private charter schools.

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 9 years ago

And they all test higher than the public schools.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

In fact, just the opposite. The data is conclusive. At best, they test the same. Overall, they test worse. And in the meantime they suck money out of the already chronically underfunded public system, which does better in spite of it.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

I agree with you that public education is a civic obligation and am an enthusiastic advocate, however like the construction of roads, the Gov has little expertise (particularly little local Govs). Many private schools are not-for-profit and focus entirely on education, but have the added benefit that the must compete with other schools for students. If they do a poor job they get fired, quickly. Certainly the education of our children must be more important than the collection of rubbish (more than half the nation uses the free market improve trash removal services).

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

That is an experiment that has been going on for quite some time now. It is called the charter school movement. So far, it has proved to be an abysmal failure, with test scores well below those of public schools. And without a mandate to serve everyone equally, the issue of basic fairness comes quickly into play. The best way to support the education of all our children is not to dismantle public education, but redouble the support for it.

(On this issue, in particular, I suggest you tread very lightly. I was a teacher for 15 years.)

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Don't dismantle it, make it better using the same techniques that have worked for Gov in other places.

Japan has an interesting approach. There is no such thing there as special Ed or gifted Ed. They aim for the hump in the Gaussian distribution. That is where the teacher spends all of the time and effort. Tons of $ become available for that effort. The brightest children mentor kids that need extra help. The smart kids learn teaching skills and the material is reinforced, while kids that need it get one-on-one tutoring. Could it work here in the US?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Reply to post below.

Man, that's a complicated question. I think pedagogy has gotten better in urban areas. But I also think the system hasn't. Families have gotten poorer, which means more stress on the kids and more obligations for the schools.

There was a period when teachers were encouraged to discover and apply the best research based methods for teaching to the individual child. For example, research had shown what many teacher already knew: that different kids had different learning styles, and teachers were taught more consistently how to use that knowledge to help. Portfolio based assessment, group learning, less but more focussed homework assignment were becoming more widespread. Critical thinking skills were emphasized. It was getting better bit by bit. Then No Child Left Behind became the law, and all of that was thrown overboard in a flash as mayors, governors, and school administrators alike feared school closures and cut budgets.

And an already demoralized teaching force found themselves with targets on their backs, excoriated by a right wing media that demanded rote learning, conveyor belt education, and weak, compliant workers. The Libertarian push dominating politics focussed on public education in terms of its privatization campaign of public services, and teachers and their unions were standing in the way, so they had to be turned into monsters in the public eye.

And budgets were being squeezed at the same time. The charter schools also picked and chose their students, leaving the ones in the greatest need in those ever more underfunded schools. Te ones who needed most got even less. And with 27% of the kids living in poverty, not even knowing if there would be food at home (if there was a home at all) teachers starting getting overwhelmed helplessly witnessing increasing daily tragedies.

So teachers got better, but schools got worse. Public education became a political batted around for political, ideological reasons that had little relationship to education. And the kids (and teachers) have been losing as a result. Class sizes have begun climbing again with mushrooming charter schools draining already scant resources.

I remember a time when being a teacher, especially a public school teacher, working under bad conditions for low pay, was viewed as doing noble work. As far as I’m concerned, no one in his or her right mind would take that job today.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

There is surprising support for small business from both the right and left in Gov. Everyone seems to want to help small business grow, and almost half of the folks in the US work for small businesses.

It is difficult for small business to compete with the Walmarts of the world but they can because:

  • They can move faster (product to market)

  • They can address small niche markets (big guys don't have the bandwidth)

  • Provide personal service (the customer can often speak to the president)

  • Adapt quickly (take advantage of changing markets)

Is there an opportunity to use the small business model to solve the education problem? It would be hard for the Gov object.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Teaching is today and will remain an noble profession, but only in the minds of people that value the product. In China teachers make more than medical doctors. It is one of the most coveted jobs in the country.

There are other differences in China. They have a six-day school week and parents send their kids to tutors after school and on Sundays. Parents really value education and see it as a way to insure success. The one-child rule in China also lets them focus their financial resources (tutors and universities are not free). They also have important tests that happen as early as age 10. These tests filter students into the better schools that prepare them for the next level of education in an increasingly competitive environment. Students that do poorly on the tests are shunted off to lesser schools that prepare them for a technical vocation. The point is that the tests mean something. The first test that really means something in the US is probably the SAT and is taken when the student is nearly an adult.

Maybe we should treat education in the US like this. The product is not free. Students have to earn it with good grades and good behavior. If parents are faced with the reality that at age 10 their child has to be ready for a test that we set the course of her life maybe the parents will put more energy into getting them ready.

If you give a thing away for free the receiver assumes that it has no value.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

reply to your post below.

Yes and no. I believe our political and economic system has created tremendous inequity and poverty. I think the aftershocks of hundreds of years of racism are still reverberating throughout society. I thinks families and especially children have been abandoned.

Schools, ideally, should not have to take all this on, but we are nowhere near living in ideal conditions, so schools are the one place left that can and must deal with the results. Whether they want to be or not, schools are the repository of all of societies problems and challenges. There is no choice but to deal with those problems. Kids still need to be taught, and they can't learn very well if they are hungry.

"Savage inequalities: children in America's schools" by Jonathan Kozol, is the best book I've ever read on the subject. I can't recommend it highly enough. Although written in the early 90s, it is even MORE relevant today that it was before.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Do you believe that things have gotten better in say the last 50 years or worse?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Reply to post below:

The nationmaster link is not working for me. And the cost of living site makes no mention of education.

Yes, we have to do something, a lot of things. In fact I wrote my main thesis on this (school reform) when I was going for my PhD in education. (Never finished the degree.) The solutions are multifaceted and complex. Obviously I can't post the entire thesis here, even if I could find it.

As to the high cost of education here, don't let the comparative numbers fool you. Other countries organize their budgets differently, and different departments have responsibility for costs that are under educational jurisdiction here. School lunches and breakfast programs is but one example. In Europe, the social safety net takes care of nutrition needs, so there is no added expense to the schools. It is rare to have security services in schools there, since their populations are not as violent as ours by orders of magnitude. Our nation has a 27% (at least) children's poverty rate, something they don't have to contend with, but the schools here do. In many countries, the kids and teacher pitch in each day to clean the schools, so janitorial serves are smaller (something not permitted here by law). Bilingual education is not an issue or expense there. And countless other things that add up. American schools today are responsible for much more than simply reading writing, etc. They are required to fill community center, social services and other roles. That's not true for most of Europe, so the budgets can't be compared accurately.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

In Japan the students clean their classrooms in the morning and again after class. It is said that they do this in order to "cultivate in them a gentle spirit". Also cuts down on the graffiti.

Do you believe that part of the problem is that the schools have taken on too much?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

No, it couldn't. Special needs kids are mainstreamed in American public schools. Teachers, not kids, are trained to work with children of enormously different needs with tremendously different backgrounds. The US is not a homogenous society like Japan. (Japan is the most mono-linguistic developed country in the world.) Our culture is not based on communalism like there's is, and our problems, both historic and current are far different. What works in one culture is not necessarily transposable to another. The very goals of Eastern education are virtually opposite of the goals of Western education. Keep in mind, too, that people with special needs are far most socially isolated in Eastern countries than in Western ones.

I prefer the Swedish or Finish models, even though, given the social and economic differences there, it would be difficult to implement here. It would still be closer to our needs and goals, though. I simply don't believe we have the political will to do it: It costs money.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

We have had charter "privatized" schools for many years. No surveys have shown a significant improvement in those students Privatization of prisons is a great idea too Ditto health insurance Just ask all of the Canadians who died waiting for health care

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

I am not fond of charter schools because they not completely independent from the rest of the local school system.

Suppose you wanted to get your house painted and you got bids from two contractors. Would you be suspicious if the bids were very close and later found out that the second bid came from the first guys brother-in-law?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

right- the government needs corporations to build things -
like the haliburton/kbr showers that electrocuted at least 13 American soldiers
how many American soldiers were electrocuted by Army built showers in Vietnam ?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

If the Gov hires contractor and that contractor performs poorly they get fired, immediately. If a President starts a war in Iraq based on bad intelligence we have to wait 4 years, and even then we sometimes don't get rid of him.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

If the Gov hires contractor and that contractor performs poorly they get fired, immediately ? and w hen was haliburton/kbr fired?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

The contractor's work is overseen and approved by the government. If the contractor performs poorly and is not fired (Haliburton remains a key supplier to the Gov) then you should fire the President in November.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

90 % of all new roads in the US are built by private contractors. They are built in housing developments and deeded to local towns and and cities.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

These same roads are also privately funded with no tax $ used for construction.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

That changes nothing of what I said.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

They deed them out, because they were not paved properly, and those jerks don't want to pay for the repairs.

Consider too, that they don't build, or maintain the main roads that service them.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Nearly all roads and every bridge in the US is serviced by private contractors, not the Gov. The Gov has not capacity to do this work.

Roads (along with other common infrastructure) built in housing developments are bonded by the city or town. The bond is not released until public inspectors approve the work. If the roads are not paved properly and the bond is released you should fire your Mayor in November.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

Yeah, they tend to short the mix too.

I've talked to some folks that work for them.

You really can't tell, unless you're there when they mix it.

So much for inspection.

Vote 'em out!!???

God's luck with that.

Money is very evident in local elections too.

Citizens United will run even deeper.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

Stop voting for (R)epelican'ts that are out to prove government is bad, and things will improve.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Can we live without the insults?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

Hmmmmm........Seems they've insulted me every chance they get.

I believe (R)epelican't is pretty mild, comparatively.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Two wrongs ..........

That said; I agree, pretty mild.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Also, many private schools (Like Sidwell Friends noted above) are not-for-profit and about 10% people in the US (5.5 million) choose to spend the money and send their kids to these schools while they are paying taxes to educate their neighbors children.

Why do you suspect they do that when they can get public education for free?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

in all honesty , in a public school the teachers hands are tied when it comes to discipline.. which perhaps results in a less education .. where as a private school the parent would be more involved in insuring his child remains properly behaved and does well .. after all there is a great expense involved .. There is much improvement needed in public schools , I won't argue there ..

[-] 2 points by Budcm (208) 9 years ago

There really IS no argument there...Public schools have been doing a lousy job fore forty years or more. Someone...somewhere...is soon to realize there is a profit to be made by educating through the internet. It's already beginning.Certainly not in my lifetime (87) but perhaps in yours, public schools will become obsolete...and rightly so.

Children never have learned well in a mass. There are just too many individual differences. The internet will allow them to learn at their own rate..when they need it. Except for some n necessary hands-on areas, (construction, automotive, and the like) everything else is better learned as needed. There is already many programs available out there.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

in a couple posts below I go into a few different techniques for teaching/learning.. but the main point was to find the right technique suited for each indvidual student .. some may do well on the internet , while others not..

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 9 years ago

I retired from teaching in 1985. I received my degree when "Individual differences" was the catch phrase for educational failure across the nation. It's just another pillar for lousy teachers to hide behind. I DO agree with individual differences. Let's not hide our failure behind the facade of it, however. There are ways around it.

It appears, though I'm not sure, that you subscribe to the old saw that "There's a lot of smart kids out there who cannot test well." I never found one. They seem to be as scarce as Sasquatch.

Because Thomas Jefferson said "All men are created equal" did not make it so. The truth is that all men are created unequal. Some have the ability to sing well; others have an ability as artists, writers, and so on. All the government can do is guarantee that all have equal OPPORTUNITY to become everything one can be.

Give me the mentality that can go no further than to become a ditch digger, and I will make him a better ditch digger. Give me a person who has the ability to become a doctor, and I will make them a better doctor. Please do not be so foolish as to believe one can make a ditch digger into a doctor.

It just is not going to happen.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

I find teachers to rebel the most when suggestions are made to improve teaching techniques. With few exception. Ditch diggers are just as needed in society as piano players. But doesn't mean the piano player can handle the rigorous task of digging a ditch. And it doesn't mean a ditch digger is envious of the piano player. A lot of times we are good at what we enjoy doing. Doesn't make it right or wrong. What's important is we find our passions we excel best in. The method of study is important. I gave an example of cd vs tape. But what if students spoke a different language and were tested in a language they did not understand. My point is to learn, the student needs to connect with the information presented. And we all connect differently. Does the teacher connect with all her students? Likely not.

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 9 years ago

"We all connect differently". Granted...absolutely..You make my point....Programmed learning through the internet will become the rage in years to come because it allows the student to connect in his own way and in his own time. The question is, and always has been..Is the student ready mentally.?..That is, does he have the desire to learn what he wishes...Or, as often happens, is he waiting to be fed by osmosis?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Do you think that we should go back to the system where incorrigibles (pernicious bullies, class dissrupters that prevent other kids from learning, armed gang members, etc.) are sent to special schools (they used to be called reform schools). That way children that want to learn have a safe environment surrounded by others that also want to learn?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

A certain amount of segregation may be necessary .. but I would prefer to focus on each childs learning abilities and set up a program on an individual basis .. not a one size fits all .. for example, we all know boys and girls have a different interest .. and style of thinking .. but yet they both use the same text books .. it could be something as simple as placing the predicate before the subject to connect with certain minds .. this needs more study , but improvement has a lot of potential .. look at it this way .. some students bring a cassette player to class and others bring a cd player , but the teacher teaches everything in cd format .. so you can see the results , the students with the cassete player are not being taught.. some students may prefer visual teachings others prefer audible over text .. what ever the method .. the lesson will be the same right .. it's the medium we use to connect with each student is the importance .. have you ever tried to watch television when the sound is too low .. you miss out on most of the movie .. if we are not connecting with our students .. and may I add keeping it interesting .. we will se it in the results.. We need to focus on indivdual learning techniques .. we all learn differently and have different interest .. Do todays teachers even know what their students individual interests are ?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

All learning stops in the class room, regardless of learning style, when someone pulls a knife on the teacher. We need a system that makes disruptions that prevent learning (not to mention creating un-safe schools) punishable by expulsion. Just like in the private schools.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

thats dealing with the sympton and not the problem .. very surfacy

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Agreed, but in the short run it prevents infection of the other, non-delinquent students.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

of course we have to draw a line to violence .. but with a system of individual education , perhaps the violence would be eliminated .. simply by keeping students actively interested in the lessons being presented .. with their focus on their work and future ..

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Do you think that some people might just be born bad?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

your really stuck on this one issue.. of classroom violence. ?

I think anyone cann become bad if they are pushed hard enough .. it's a defence mechanism .. but is it really bad ? or is it justifiable ?

on the other hand when treated with respect is everyone capable of kindness ? these are serious questions that the educaton system should be involved with .. for developing and working with students .. to improve and find proper methods that work .. as I said earlier .. there is huge potential for improvement ..

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

The teacher-knife scenario is a archetype. I am more concerned about the general disruption of the learning process by students that do not value the product. Not only do they fail to learn but also rob their classmates of an education. We should move to a system where the education is not free. It must be earned with good grades and good behavior.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 9 years ago

or perhaps we should move to a system where students are paid .. mon - fri is a huge commitment on their part .. wouldn't you say ?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Monetary rewards for excellence in other life pursuits are common, why not do the same for education?

Teacher bonuses tied to measurable achievement should also be common practice.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 9 years ago

Great idea of the week award!

I would pay them in a second, but they have to start going on Sat as well like our competitors in China . They get paid for grades and good behavior, not merely attendance.