[geeks] education systems around the world

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, hike wrote:

> don't change the subject--i am not the point of discussion.

I haven't changed the subject.  You're attempting to label me according to
a perceived effect of the philosophy I'm espousing rather than the
philosophy itself.  I'm asking to to reflect and ponder whether the effect
you expect is a certainty.

If I asked you "Since you breathe air, you are a cat.  Are you a
mouse-killer?" the question would be ludicrous, as the presumption is a
non sequitur.  Similarly, I don't believe what I'm professing will lead to
many of thing things people tend to label as "anarchy".

> you have noted that people are not perfect.  that is the proof that you
> are proposing a system of anarchy.

I'm proposing a system where people interact voluntarily and have the
exclusive right to the fruits of their labor unless they willingly
abdicate that right.  Traditionally, I believe that system is called
capitalism.

All systems of government (whether self-government or authoritarian
government) carry with them a responsibility for vigilance.  In a republic
like the US, one has to be vigilant in verifying that one's
representatives actually represent one's values.  One also has something
of an implied responsibility to tell others when a representative doesn't,
so that a new one may be elected that does.

In a socialist system, one has to be vigilant in verifying that the party
leaders maintain the party's values.  Again, one also has an implied
responsibility to out party leaders that violate those values so that
other members of the party may be put into place.

In a system of self-government, one has to be vigilant in verifying that
he does not engage in aggression against others and be vigilantly prepared
in case others would visit aggression upon him.  In the interest of
self-preservation, one has something of a responsibility to inform others
of the reputations of those we deal with, so that people who treat others
badly are ostracised and those who treat others fairly are held up.

These responsibilities are really all quite the same.  In any system of
government, you are deemed responsible for keeping its rules (whether
self-imposed or externally-imposed), and will meet with consequences if
you do not.  Also, in any system of government, you are inherently
responsible for defending against others breaking the rules in a way that
harms you.  In the case of an authoritarian government with centralised
power, those in power can break fundamental rules in the creation of
specific rules that harm you directly, and they will instantly have armies
at their side to "convince" you that you never had that fundamental right
in the first place.

I'm just proposing the path where any of us has the least potential for
acquiring many very very powerful enemies.

The "anarchy" you keep mentioning is what happens when people do not stand
up against the petty tyrants and violent miscreants who would harm them.
This utter lawlessness[0] is, indeed, a bad end.  Tyranny and imperialism
(the roads along which the US has made significant progress) are also,
indeed, bad ends.

I submit that it would be foolhardy and destructive to attempt to actively
demolish the system currently in power.  It would be suicidal, needlessly
violent, and engender well-earned hate and resentment.  This, sir, being a
government with an approval rating below 25%.  We all know this system is
impossible to upend and will have to collapse on its own, once it's
finally run out of steam.  That alone should be empirical evidence that of
the monster we've created: in an allegedly representative government, the
overwhelming majority feel misrepresented and powerless to change it in
any real way besides putting some new idiot in power who will continue the
stream of disappointment.

This is why I think it's time for something different.  Let's stop trying
to control each other.  Let's stop robbing each other.  Let's not be so
damned bent-out-of-shape about whether or not the folks around us are
doing the right thing.  Mind your own business, do right towards others,
work hard, and help others as you're able.

Is that really such a horrible idea to represent?

> but you have not answered my question--since you are proposing a system
> of anarchy, are you an anarchist.

I've already answered this question.  I am what I am.  If you want to call
me an anarchist, I can't stop you.  I personally don't use that term.


[0] I'm using the word "law" in a generic sense pertaining to fundamental
     rights, not to arbitrary words on paper signed by someone in an
     opulent office far away.
-- 
Jonathan Patschke | "There is more to life than increasing its speed."
Elgin, TX         |                                   --Mahatma Gandhi
USA               |