What In The World Is Wrong With American Kids?

[John F Kennedy III]

What In The World Is Wrong With American Kids?


Michael Snyder
The American Dream
July 25, 2012

What in the world has happened to the children of America? All over the United States kids are acting like half-crazed monsters, but most people seem to think that this is “normal”.


American kids today are selfish, self-centered, sadistic, cruel, disrespectful, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, boastful, unforgiving, incredibly brutal and they possess very little self-control whatsoever. They feel entitled to everything, but they don’t want to work for any of it. They are absolutely addicted to entertainment, and they know very little about self-sacrifice. Disciplining children is not considered to be “politically correct” in America today, and with each passing year these little hellions get even worse. So what in the world is our country going to look like when all of these out of control kids grow up?

Below I have posted a video that is likely to make you very, very angry. It is video of two 15-year-old bullies torturing a little 10-year-old boy in the back of a school bus. What makes it even worse is that the boy is a special needs student.

The short video below only shows some of the key moments, but the truth is that the bullies physically abused this poor boy for the entire 40 minute bus trip. They constantly used racial and sexual slurs and at one point they held a very hot cigarette lighter against his skin which made him howl in pain.

This video is a perfect example of what is wrong with the kids of America today….


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZsZ6shYG4I&feature=player_embedded


Sadly, this was not an isolated incident.

The truth is that hellish scenes play out on the school buses of America every single day.

In a previous article, I discussed an incredibly shocking video that showed a group of school kids taunting an elderly school bus monitor so ruthlessly that she broke down in tears.

The video has been viewed more than 8 million times on YouTube and if you have not seen it yet you can watch it here.

It is time to face reality – American kids are really, really messed up.

This is one of the reasons why I am encouraging parents to get their children out of the government schools. I went to public schools all my life, and they were horrible enough back then. I feel really badly for any child that has to endure the hellholes that we call “public schools” today.

Sadly, there are endless examples of how out of control American children are these days.

For example, teens all over America are now playing something called “the knockout game”.

The idea is that you pick out a random stranger on the street and then you see who can run over and knock that person out first.

The following is from an article about one recent incident in Chicago where a group of teens actually killed an elderly man while playing the knockout game….


Three teenagers accused of killing a 62-year-old father-of-12 in West Rogers Park were playing a game called “Pick ‘em out and knock ‘em down” when they videotaped themselves punching him in the face, prosecutors say.

Malik Jones, 16, Nicholas Ayala, 17, and Anthony Malcolm, 18, were caught after the video of Jones fatally punching Delfino Mora was posted on Jones’ Facebook page, according to authorities.

The three were playing a “game where the offender picks an innocent victim and knocks him out by striking him and likely robbing him as well,” Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney Terry Clancy told Judge Israel Desierto in court Monday.

How would you like to be walking down the street one day only to have a group of teens savagely attack you for no reason and try to knock you out?

Something has changed in America.

Our country is becoming very sick and twisted.

Meanwhile, our kids are becoming increasingly stupid at the same time.

For example, according to a survey conducted by the National Geographic Society, only 37 percent of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 can find the nation of Iraq on a map.

Sadly, there are many other surveys that have also shown how stupid our kids have become.

Posted below is an excerpt from a recent article that I wrote entitled “Dumb As A Rock: You Will Be Absolutely Amazed At The Things That U.S. High School Students Do Not Know“….


The following are some of the absolutely amazing results of a study conducted a few years ago by Common Core….

*Only 43 percent of all U.S. high school students knew that the Civil War was fought some time between 1850 and 1900.

*More than a quarter of all U.S. high school students thought that Christopher Columbus made his famous voyage across the Atlantic Ocean after the year 1750.

*Approximately a third of all U.S. high school students did not know that the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion. (This is a topic that I touched on yesterday).

*Only 60 percent of all U.S. students knew that World War I was fought some time between 1900 and 1950.

Even more shocking were the results of a survey of Oklahoma high school students conducted back in 2009. The following is a list of the questions that were asked and the percentage of students that answered correctly….

What is the supreme law of the land? 28 percent

What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution? 26 percent

What are the two parts of the U.S. Congress? 27 percent

How many justices are there on the Supreme Court? 10 percent

Who wrote the Declaration of Independence? 14 percent

What ocean is on the east coast of the United States? 61 percent

What are the two major political parties in the United States? 43 percent

We elect a U.S. senator for how many years? 11 percent

Who was the first President of the United States? 23 percent

Who is in charge of the executive branch? 29 percent

Are you surprised by those numbers?

You shouldn’t be.

Anyone that cannot see that there is something fundamentally wrong with American kids these days is being delusional.

Yes, there are exceptions. There are some young people out there today that are absolutely extraordinary.

But overall, the kids of America are a total mess.

Not only are our kids stupid and violent, they are also very sexually active.

In the United States today, 47 percent of all high school students have had sex.

All of that loose sexuality has some very negative consequences.

For example, the United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate on the entire planet.

Is that something we should be proud of?

In the United States today, one out of every four teen girls has at least one sexually transmitted disease.

And there is no cure for some of those diseases. They can be treated, but they will stay with those girls for the rest of their lives.

Are you ready for some more shocking numbers?

The following statistics are from a survey of teen girls done by Tyra Banks….

On average, girls are losing their virginity at 15 years of age.
14 percent of teens who are having sex say they’re doing it at school.
52 percent of survey respondents say they do not use protection when having sex.
One in three says she fears having a sexually transmitted disease.
24 percent of teens with STDs say they still have unprotected sex.
One in five girls says she wants to be a teen mom.

Not that our boys are doing any better.

In fact, our boys are probably doing even worse than our girls are.

In a previous article, I quoted a recent Business Insider article that listed some amazing statistics about boys in America….


-In 2011, young men’s SAT scores were the worst they had been in 40 years.

-Even Hollywood has caught on: films like Failure to Launch, Knocked Up and Jackass mock the ineptitude of this generation.

-Boys account for 70 percent of D’s and F’s given at school.

-Research shows guys aren’t interested in being husbands, fathers or the head of the household.

-Boys are four to five times more likely than girls to have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Two-thirds of students in special education programs are guys.

-The average boy spends 13 hours a week playing video games. The average girl spends 5. The average young American will spend 10,000 hours playing video games by age 21. That’s twice the time it takes to earn a bachelor’s degree.

-The average high school boy spends two hours watching porn every week. Men can’t escape porn: 13,500 full-length commercial porn films were released in 2011, compared with 600 Hollywood films.

-Researchers claim that internet pornography is hurting young boys’ ability to form meaningful romantic relationships because they objectify their partner.

-It’s predicted that 60 percent of bachelor’s degrees will go to women by 2016.

After reading all of that, is there still anyone out there that doubts that there is something fundamentally wrong with American kids?

It is so sad to watch what is happening to future generations.


So what is causing all of this?

There are a lot of factors of course, but the breakdown of the family is definitely one of them.

According to the Pew Research Center, only 51 percent of all Americans that are at least 18 years old are currently married.

Back in 1960, 72 percent of all U.S. adults were married.

The United States has the highest divorce rate in the world by a very wide margin, and America also has the highest percentage of one person households on the entire planet.

Our families are weak and they are getting weaker, and our children are suffering.

It is this type of environment that produces monsters such as James Holmes. When the basic building blocks of society break down, people tend to lose it.

Don’t let this happen to your family or to your children. In a world that is becoming crazier and more unstable with each passing day, there is more of a need for love and family than ever before.

So what do all of you think about the behavior of American kids these days?


hyperlinks in article here:
http://www.infowars.com/what-in-the-world-is-wrong-with-american-kids/

originally here:
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/what-in-the-world-is-wrong-with-american-kids

[QuickZ06]

"One in five girls says she wants to be a teen mom."

Thank you parents for letting your kids watch that show!!!

[LibertyRevolution]

You cant beat your kids no more without them threatening to call CPS on you.
Both parents have to work now, so children spend most of the day in school and childcare.
After working all day, parents don't have the energy to deal with kids, so they sit them in front the TV.
Young kids don't really understand the difference between reality and fiction, so there brains begin to think like the TV.
So far as they are concerned, Jersey Shore and 16 and pregnant is "normal" life.

I say blame the government. If they didn't keep 1/3 your wages, steal your savings through inflation, and regulate who can watch your kid..
Then maybe both parents wouldn't have to work just to scrape by, and they could actually raise their children properly.

[DamianTV]

These are ALL Learned Behaviors.

Every single problem that these "unruly" kids have been instilled into their fragile psyches by Public Schools. This is what they are taught in Math Class. Math Class doesnt teach Math, it teaches students to have nothing but contempt for every other student. History Class teaches Intellectual Submission, and whatever answers the students come up with of their own realizations is wrong because it is not in the book. Any thoughts they thought they have must be approved by the Teacher. This teaches Disobedience.

We could go on and on and on about the specifics of the Name of the Class and what is actually Learned from the Class, but to keep this short, and sweet, this is what our entire Society has instilled into children. To teach them the behavior that is expected to be able to survive in Society is the exact opposite of what is desired. They know at some level that they have absolutely no future, and they are angry at us for destroying it.

[hazek]

You cant beat your kids no more without them threading to call CPS on you.
Both parents have to work now, so children spend most of the day in school and childcare.
After working all day, parents don't have the energy to deal with kids, so they sit them in front the TV.
Young kids don't really understand the difference between reality and fiction, so there brains begin to think like the TV.
So far as they are concerned, Jersey Shore and 16 and pregnant is "normal" life.

I say blame the government. If they didn't keep 1/3 your wages, steal your savings through inflation, and regulate who can watch your kid..
Then maybe both parents wouldn't have to work just to scrape by, and they could actually raise their children properly.

Aside from beating you identified all the real culprits of this problem.

[Nickels]

Disrespectful kids are a sign of a free society, moral fascists somehow want parents to spank and punish so the state won't have to. There are two ways to teach a kid, spank or spoil, both have consequences, that's why most parents choose the middle ground, the fact there are extreme anomalies should surprise nobody, we just hear about it more because we have mbetter media and communications

[GunnyFreedom]

Disrespectful kids are a sign of a free society, moral fascists somehow want parents to spank and punish so the state won't have to. There are two ways to teach a kid, spank or spoil, both have consequences, that's why most parents choose the middle ground, the fact there are extreme anomalies should surprise nobody, we just hear about it more because we have mbetter media and communications

Categorically untrue. If it were, then white landowners children from 1770 to 1850 would have been running far more amok than they are today, and that did not happen. We as a society (aside from the minority racial civil rights struggle) are markedly less free than we were in the 1960's, and the kids today are far worse and more violent. Sure, there have always been hooligans, going back thousands of years I am sure, but your idea that freedom necessarily means that kids will be disrespectful is first rate poppycock. Not only does correlation not imply causation, but there is no correlation in the first place. A fallacy built on a falsehood. Folks around here are too smart for that action.

[2young2vote]

We have to remember that people are animals. Just like some are more attractive than others, there are some who are more intelligent, while at the same time there are people who are more capable of morality (self control). For some reason many people are lacking whatever part of their brain that helps them make moral, logical decisions. I've yet to meet someone my age who has a more traditional Christian behavior than myself, and i'm as hardcore an athiest as you will ever meet. I behave the way i do for a reason, because it results in the greatest benefit for everything. Why does my co-worker go out partying? Because it makes her feel good. There is a notable difference in reasoning.

[Nickels]

Categorically untrue. If it were, then white landowners children from 1770 to 1850 would have been running far more amok than they are today, and that did not happen.


Which is exactly why I never said they were free or freer than today. Kids back then feared their parents, or had no means of transportation, communication which allow them to disrepect their parents today. How is that "freedom"?



We as a society (aside from the minority racial civil rights struggle) are markedly less free than we were in the 1960's,


Says who?



and the kids today are far worse and more violent. Sure, there have always been hooligans, going back thousands of years I am sure, but your idea that freedom necessarily means that kids will be disrespectful is first rate poppycock.


No, disrespect and freedom are not synonymous, our tolerance of it is an indication of their freedom though. Disrespect for parents and authority do not take away freedom of the parent or authority, so that is ultimately MORE freedom for the children (and the population, unless it comes at another's expense).



Not only does correlation not imply causation, but there is no correlation in the first place. A fallacy built on a falsehood. Folks around here are too smart for that action.

never said there was any causation or whatever the hell. I simply said toleration for disrespect is a form of freedom.

[GunnyFreedom]

Which is exactly why I never said they were free or freer than today. Kids back then feared their parents, or had no means of transportation, communication which allow them to disrepect their parents today. How is that "freedom"?

In the 1770's kids had access to horses, which could carry you more places than a car. Communicating 'faster' is not automatically communicating 'freer.'


Says who?

Do you really think America is more free in 2012 than we were in 1962? Say instead 1952 to make it easier. Seems to me the more freedom individuals had, the more respect kids had. Not less.


No, disrespect and freedom are not synonymous, our tolerance of it is an indication of their freedom though. Disrespect for parents and authority do not take away freedom of the parent or authority, so that is ultimately MORE freedom for the children (and the population, unless it comes at another's expense).

Tolerance of disrespect is not an indication of freedom, it is more an indication of being cowed into submission by an overarching and interventionist state apparatus. Teaching kids respect will make them far more free over the course of their lives than letting them be disrespectful and feral. We as a society are too consumed by the moment that we fail to take into account the long vision. The first 18 years of your life are but the blink of an eye compared to the remaining 70 years you live as an independent adult. Respect and discipline teaches responsibility. Without responsibility there can be no liberty.

Any parent who cares about their kids freedom and liberty will do whatever it takes to teach them respect and discipline for that very reason. I would argue that parents who let their children run wild and feral do so because they specifically do not care about their kids freedom and liberty, or else they do not know enough about what freedom and liberty is in the first place to understand that you can't have it without responsibility.


never said there was any causation or whatever the hell. I simply said toleration for disrespect is a form of freedom.

No, you said, "Disrespectful kids are a sign of a free society," and I will say again that is categorically untrue. If we actually lived in a free society, then parents would feel free to discipline their children without fear of being sent to prison and having their children seized by CPS. Parents don't fail to discipline their kids because they respect their freedom, parents fail to discipline their kinds for 2 major reasons - 1) fear, they are afraid of government repercussions for disciplining their children, and 2) lack of knowledge, since the tyranny of fear started some 20-30 years ago, there are parents today who were not raised with discipline and therefore do not know how to discipline their kids.

No parent wants their child to grow up and be a failure or a mass murderer or such. Most everybody knows that discipline is the primary key to success. If parents knew how to discipline their kids and weren't too afraid of the government to do so, then they would, precisely because they respect their kids' liberty in a free society.

The flip-side of liberty is responsibility. The primary component of responsibility is discipline. If you really want your kids to be free and you respect their right to liberty, then you should be doubly adamant to teach them discipline as a child so that they can in fact grow up free.

[DerailingDaTrain]

American kids today are selfish, self-centered, sadistic, cruel, disrespectful, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, boastful, unforgiving, incredibly brutal and they possess very little self-control whatsoever. They feel entitled to everything, but they don’t want to work for any of it. They are absolutely addicted to entertainment, and they know very little about self-sacrifice.

I can count on one hand the amount of times I've been disobedient to my parents. Selfish, self-centered, cruel, incredibly brutal? That's not me at all but I guess it just depends on how well you were raised

[Nickels]

In the 1770's kids had access to horses, which could carry you more places than a car. Communicating 'faster' is not automatically communicating 'freer.'


Actually it makes a big difference. Try replacing every kid's car now with a bicycle, and take away their phone access. See how far they can run and hide without arranging with their friends to meet.



Do you really think America is more free in 2012 than we were in 1962?


Yes, I do. Why shouldn't I. Can you tell me why you don't?



Say instead 1952 to make it easier. Seems to me the more freedom individuals had, the more respect kids had. Not less.


Seems to you, that's the problem. How about we first establish if people were actually freer in 1952 vs 2012, and let's see your definition of freedom. It wouldn't surprise me at all if we have complete opposite ideas.



Tolerance of disrespect is not an indication of freedom, it is more an indication of being cowed into submission by an overarching and interventionist state apparatus.


You mean because the state is giving parents less freedom to spank, children have more freedom to disrespect?



Teaching kids respect will make them far more free over the course of their lives


Who asked you about "more free over the course of their lives"? You are really good at changing the subject to make your point. is this your way of avoiding admitting the obvious? Why do you bother saying "Yeah but in the long run I am still right" if you can simply say "I am right, now, period".



than letting them be disrespectful and feral. We as a society are too consumed by the moment that we fail to take into account the long vision.


Yes, we value short term freedom and instant gratification. You seem to call that non-freedom. Right?



The first 18 years of your life are but the blink of an eye compared to the remaining 70 years you live as an independent adult. Respect and discipline teaches responsibility. Without responsibility there can be no liberty.


You don't need responsibility or discipline if people continue to tolerate disrespect. Just like you don't need to teach your kids racism or black kids to avoid racist neighborhoods if people continue to leave back the outdated beliefs of racism.



Any parent who cares about their kids freedom and liberty will do whatever it takes to teach them respect and discipline for that very reason.

Any parent who wants their kids to be happy for the moment will do nothing and let them be. Just like how libertarians want the government to treat them, to be left alone and free to make mistakes, not breastfeed them from harm. You don't want the government telling you to be fiscally responsible or watch every move you do, because you want the freedom to f- up and get arrested, that's the CHOICE you make and PRICE you pay for "freedom". Do you want the government to "care about your freedom and liberty"? Or just leave you alone?



I would argue that parents who let their children run wild and feral do so because they specifically do not care about their kids freedom and liberty, or else they do not know enough about what freedom and liberty is in the first place to understand that you can't have it without responsibility.


Yes, you would argue that. Because you don't agree with their idea of freedom. Their idea of freedom is letting their kids do what they want, either without punishment, or let others punish them.



No, you said, "Disrespectful kids are a sign of a free society," and I will say again that is categorically untrue. If we actually lived in a free society, then parents would feel free to discipline their children without fear of being sent to prison and having their children seized by CPS.


Ok cool. So we agree on something. Freedom is a zero sum game, if parents are less free to spank their child into submission, children are MORE free to be wild and happy. Unless freedom children get for dissing parents comes at the expense of parents (and it might not, not if parents voluntarily give it up), it's still more freedom overall.



Parents don't fail to discipline their kids because they respect their freedom, parents fail to discipline their kinds for 2 major reasons - 1) fear, they are afraid of government repercussions for disciplining their children, and 2) lack of knowledge, since the tyranny of fear started some 20-30 years ago, there are parents today who were not raised with discipline and therefore do not know how to discipline their kids.


I call that respect for freedom, or tolerance of disrespect.



No parent wants their child to grow up and be a failure or a mass murderer or such.


But no parent wants their child to be unfree to make their choices if that's actually what they want....



Most everybody knows that discipline is the primary key to success. If parents knew how to discipline their kids and weren't too afraid of the government to do so, then they would, precisely because they respect their kids' liberty in a free society.

The flip-side of liberty is responsibility. The primary component of responsibility is discipline. If you really want your kids to be free and you respect their right to liberty, then you should be doubly adamant to teach them discipline as a child so that they can in fact grow up free.

What if I could raise children to be tyrants, isn't that another way they can be free without regard to other people? Oh nevermind, even tyrants need discipline first.

[John F Kennedy III]

I can count on one hand the amount of times I've been disobedient to my parents. Selfish, self-centered, cruel, incredibly brutal? That's not me at all but I guess it just depends on how well you were raised

Exactly. It's mostly about parental responsibility. Generally the less responsible the parents are, the worse the kid is.

[Nickels]

Exactly. It's mostly about parental responsibility. Generally the less responsible the parents are, the worse the kid is.

so the question is , what is Mr. Snyder suggesting? Should we have more government punishment or rewards for parents to be responsible? Or just accept that parents who are not, will be irresponsible and we continue to complain about their kids?

[awake]

They are acting like and emulating the biggest and most diffuse influence in their lives: the state. The state schooled and taught them violence and welfare are the divine right of the most rigorous people to ever walk the Earth. Easy Bernanke money lets them enjoy the rewards of production while not having to be productive.

Debasing the currency of a nation is tantamount to debasing its moral foundation...

Sorry to say, the state that occupies America is a fascist warmongering imperialistic nation of righteous and arrogant busybodies. Bullies, blowhards and ignoramuses that preach "world democracy", which is nothing more than a soft form of communism.

[awake]

Exactly. It's mostly about parental responsibility. Generally the less responsible the parents are, the worse the kid is.

The more responsibility the state takes for your children (from you by force), the worse they will tend to turn out. The family and parental responsibility has been under tremendous attack by the state...In fact, the state apparatus was used to try and destroy the family unit - and still is. This was admitted quite openly for socialism to work as planned.

[Nickels]

The more responsibility the state takes for your children (from you by force), the worse they will tend to turn out. The family and parental responsibility has been under tremendous attack by the state...In fact, the state apparatus was used to try and destroy the family unit - and still is. This was admitted quite openly for socialism to work as planned.

do you have data to back this up? or is that just your ideological assumption?

[Zippyjuan]

I blame it on safety regulations. Before they came around, if you were stupid you got injured or even killed for doing something dumb. Now you really have to work at it. If you were killed or maimed, you couldn't breed and pass on the dumbness genes. Now they are allowed to multiply.

[awake]

do you have data to back this up? or is that just your ideological assumption?

Not just my assumption, Rothbard and notable socialists all admit as much...I believe Rothbard pointed out the socialists goal of state ownership of children in public schools in his Essay Education: Free or Compulsory. Public schooling was the direct effort to undermine the role of family in eductation of the children. The public school system is simply a half measure currently...they never got the full plan in place.

When your child comes home spouting about enviromental hollocaust and inspecting your garbage you know what public school was designed for.

The total state needs total control.

[Pauls' Revere]

Reminds me of the Pink Floyd Meatgrinder.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs35t2xFqdU

:cool:

[Nickels]

Not just my assumption, Rothbard and notable socialists all admit as much...I believe Rothbard pointed out the socialists goal of state ownership of children in public schools in his Essay Education: Free or Compulsory.


What was their basis? there is a difference between goal and actual result.



Public schooling was the direct effort to undermine the role of family in eductation of the children. The public school system is simply a half measure currently...they never got the full plan in place.

When your child comes home spouting about enviromental hollocaust and inspecting your garbage you know what public school was designed for.

The total state needs total control.

where was that data again?

[awake]

What was their basis? there is a difference between goal and actual result.



where was that data again?

"Wright and Owen advocated that the states simply organize a
series of institutions for the “general reception” of all children liv-
ing within that district. These establishments would be devoted to
the complete rearing of the various age groups of children. The
children would be forced to live at these places twenty-four hours
a day. The parents would be allowed to visit their children from
time to time. From the age of two every child would be under the
care and guidance of the State.
In these nurseries of a free nation, no inequality must be allowed to enter. Fed at a common board;
clothed in a common garb...raised in the exercise of common duties... in the exercise of the same
virtues, in the enjoyment of the same pleasures; in the study of the same nature; in pursuit of the
same object...say! Would not such a race...work out the reform of society and perfect the free
institutions of America?

Owen was quite insistent that the system not “embrace any- thing less than the whole people.” The
effect will be to “regenerate America in one generation. It will make but one class out of the
many.” Frances Wright revealed the aim of the system starkly, call- ing on the people to overthrow
a moneyed aristocracy and priestly hierarchy. “The present is a war of class.”
Thus, we see that a new element has been introduced into the old use of compulsory education on
behalf of State absolutism. A second goal is absolute equality and uniformity, and a compulsory
school system was seen by Owen and Wright to be ideally suited to this task. First, the habits and
minds and feelings of all the chil- dren must be molded into absolute equality; and then the nation
will be ripe for the final step of equalization of property and incomes by means of State coercion.
Why did Owen and Wright insist on seizing the children for twenty-four hours a day, from the age of
two on, only releasing them when the school age was over at sixteen? As Owen declared:

In republican schools, there must be no temptation to the growth of aristocratical prejudices.
The pupils must learn to consider themselves as fellow citizens, as equals. Respect ought not to
be paid to riches, or withheld from poverty. Yet, if the children from these state Schools are to
go every evening, the one to his wealthy parent’s soft
carpeted drawing room, and the other to its poor father’sor widowed mother’s comfortless cabin, will they return
the next day as friends and equals?

Likewise, differences in quality of clothing invoked feelings of envy on the part of the poor and
disdain by the rich—which should be eliminated by forcing one uniform upon both. Through- out his
plans there runs the hatred of human diversity, particularly of the higher living standards of the
rich as compared to the poor. To effect his plan for thoroughgoing equalization by force, the
schools must receive the children, not for six hours a day, but altogether must feed them, clothe
them, lodge them; must direct not their studies only, but their occupations and amusements and
must care for them until their edu- cation is completed.

It might be asserted that the Owen–Wright plan is unimportant; that it had purely crackpot
significance and little influence. The contrary is true. In the first place, the plan had a great
deal of influ- ence: certainly the ideas of promoting equality were dominant in the thinking of the
influential group of educationists that estab- lished and controlled the public schools of the
nation during the
1830s and 1840s. Furthermore, the Owen plan pushes the whole
idea of compulsory state schooling to its logical conclusion—not
only by promoting State absolutism and absolute equality—to
which the system is admirably suited, but also because Owen rec-
ognized that he had to educate the “whole child” in order to mold
the coming generation sufficiently. Is it not probable that the “pro-
gressive” drive to educate the “whole child” aims to mold the
child’s entire personality in lieu of the complete Owen–Wright
compulsory communist seizure, which no one in America would
accept?
The influence of the Owen–Wright plan is attested to by the fact that a contemporary laudatory
historian of the public-school movement places it first in his story, and devotes considerable
space to it.17 Cremin reports that a great many newspapers reprinted Owen’s essays on the plan,
and approved them. Owen began expounding his project in the late 1820s and continued on until the
late 1840s, when he wrote the elaborated plan with Miss Wright. It had a considerable influence on
workers’ groups. " - M. Rothbard, Education:Free & Compulsory

[Nickels]

"Wright and Owen advocated that the states simply organize a
series of institutions for the “general reception” of all children liv-
ing within that district. These establishments would be devoted to
the complete rearing of the various age groups of children. The
children would be forced to live at these places twenty-four hours
a day. The parents would be allowed to visit their children from
time to time. From the age of two every child would be under the
care and guidance of the State.
In these nurseries of a free nation, no inequality must be allowed to enter. Fed at a common board;
clothed in a common garb...raised in the exercise of common duties... in the exercise of the same
virtues, in the enjoyment of the same pleasures; in the study of the same nature; in pursuit of the
same object...say! Would not such a race...work out the reform of society and perfect the free
institutions of America?

Owen was quite insistent that the system not “embrace any- thing less than the whole people.” The
effect will be to “regenerate America in one generation. It will make but one class out of the
many.” Frances Wright revealed the aim of the system starkly, call- ing on the people to overthrow
a moneyed aristocracy and priestly hierarchy. “The present is a war of class.”
Thus, we see that a new element has been introduced into the old use of compulsory education on
behalf of State absolutism. A second goal is absolute equality and uniformity, and a compulsory
school system was seen by Owen and Wright to be ideally suited to this task. First, the habits and
minds and feelings of all the chil- dren must be molded into absolute equality; and then the nation
will be ripe for the final step of equalization of property and incomes by means of State coercion.
Why did Owen and Wright insist on seizing the children for twenty-four hours a day, from the age of
two on, only releasing them when the school age was over at sixteen? As Owen declared:

In republican schools, there must be no temptation to the growth of aristocratical prejudices.
The pupils must learn to consider themselves as fellow citizens, as equals. Respect ought not to
be paid to riches, or withheld from poverty. Yet, if the children from these state Schools are to
go every evening, the one to his wealthy parent’s soft
carpeted drawing room, and the other to its poor father’sor widowed mother’s comfortless cabin, will they return
the next day as friends and equals?

Likewise, differences in quality of clothing invoked feelings of envy on the part of the poor and
disdain by the rich—which should be eliminated by forcing one uniform upon both. Through- out his
plans there runs the hatred of human diversity, particularly of the higher living standards of the
rich as compared to the poor. To effect his plan for thoroughgoing equalization by force, the
schools must receive the children, not for six hours a day, but altogether must feed them, clothe
them, lodge them; must direct not their studies only, but their occupations and amusements and
must care for them until their edu- cation is completed.

It might be asserted that the Owen–Wright plan is unimportant; that it had purely crackpot
significance and little influence. The contrary is true. In the first place, the plan had a great
deal of influ- ence: certainly the ideas of promoting equality were dominant in the thinking of the
influential group of educationists that estab- lished and controlled the public schools of the
nation during the
1830s and 1840s. Furthermore, the Owen plan pushes the whole
idea of compulsory state schooling to its logical conclusion—not
only by promoting State absolutism and absolute equality—to
which the system is admirably suited, but also because Owen rec-
ognized that he had to educate the “whole child” in order to mold
the coming generation sufficiently. Is it not probable that the “pro-
gressive” drive to educate the “whole child” aims to mold the
child’s entire personality in lieu of the complete Owen–Wright
compulsory communist seizure, which no one in America would
accept?
The influence of the Owen–Wright plan is attested to by the fact that a contemporary laudatory
historian of the public-school movement places it first in his story, and devotes considerable
space to it.17 Cremin reports that a great many newspapers reprinted Owen’s essays on the plan,
and approved them. Owen began expounding his project in the late 1820s and continued on until the
late 1840s, when he wrote the elaborated plan with Miss Wright. It had a considerable influence on
workers’ groups. " - M. Rothbard, Education:Free & Compulsory

I didn't see anywhere in here that said

compare country A to country B
see how differently the government is involved in 2 countries?
see? The one where there's more government, children are worse off.
Change country to era, do you have an answer?

[Eagles' Wings]

I can count on one hand the amount of times I've been disobedient to my parents. Selfish, self-centered, cruel, incredibly brutal? That's not me at all but I guess it just depends on how well you were raised+rep for being a good son/daughter.

[Origanalist]

They are acting like and emulating the biggest and most diffuse influence in their lives: the state. The state schooled and taught them violence and welfare are the divine right of the most rigorous people to ever walk the Earth. Easy Bernanke money lets them enjoy the rewards of production while not having to be productive.

Debasing the currency of a nation is tantamount to debasing its moral foundation...

Sorry to say, the state that occupies America is a fascist warmongering imperialistic nation of righteous and arrogant busybodies. Bullies, blowhards and ignoramuses that preach "world democracy", which is nothing more than a soft form of communism.

+1 from me on that post, and the posts following it.

[awake]

I didn't see anywhere in here that said

compare country A to country B
see how differently the government is involved in 2 countries?
see? The one where there's more government, children are worse off.
Change country to era, do you have an answer?


If you want data and statistical comparison of country A vs. country B, that's an altogether different realm. Not one that I rely a whole lot on due to the nature of statistical data interpretation. Not to mention ease of statistical manipulation. The truth be told, many countries, comparably speaking, are modeled off of one another which is more or less the "public model". There is not a truly private system in place anywhere to make a difinative comparison ...One could make comparisons between home schooled children vs. state schooled children, but that would be a Child A vs. Child B scenario.

I would recommend Rothbards essay. He builds a daming case.

[Cowlesy]

I blame it on safety regulations. Before they came around, if you were stupid you got injured or even killed for doing something dumb. Now you really have to work at it. If you were killed or maimed, you couldn't breed and pass on the dumbness genes. Now they are allowed to multiply.

Wtf, Juan!!! lolol Sadly, probably a bit of truth to that. Not to mention the huge welfare state.

[Nickels]

If you want data and statistical comparison of country A vs. country B, that's an altogether different realm.


That's like, the first and pretty much only thing I asked for.



Not one that I rely a whole lot on due to the nature of statistical data interpretation.


So your interpretation based on a person's opinion of reality makes more sense then people who actually know numbers, facts, data...etc?



Not to mention ease of statistical manipulation. The truth be told, many countries, comparably speaking, are modeled off of one another which is more or less the "public model".


But not all. So you still have yet to make a case. Yes, statistics can be manipulated, but give me the best you got, even if it goes against your argument, I want you to tell me why you believe the exact opposite of a statistical finding.

Let's try this
1. can you find me 2 countries which are completely equal, but vastly different on either education or government role on children
2. If so, can you tell me how you measure the "well off, worse off" the children are, forget anybody else's findings, I'll let you draw that conclusion.

So there, you only have to find ONE statistic, if you're going to tell me you can't find ONE good statistic on government involvement and public education among countries, then I really have no reason to take you seriously.



There is not a truly private system in place anywhere to make a difinative comparison ...One could make comparisons between home schooled children vs. state schooled children, but that would be a Child A vs. Child B scenario.


Which is all the more reason why you're convinced your ideals are perfect, because it's never been tested, therefore never proven wrong?



I would recommend Rothbards essay. He builds a daming case.

based on his opinions.

[Nickels]

Wtf, Juan!!! lolol Sadly, probably a bit of truth to that. Not to mention the huge welfare state.

is he equating population reduction and intelligence selection with quality of life?

[Cowlesy]

is he equating population reduction and intelligence selection with quality of life?

You're trying too hard.

[UpperDecker]

Working with the public, I personally see it getting worse by the day. I am currently a waiter while I finish school and I cannot tell you the amount of times each day I shake my head at terrible parenting. We literally have had kids running through the restaurant running into my co-workers and disturbing the other guests' meals and the parents couldn't give a shit. Kids jumping up and down in booths and screaming, completely misbehaving and the parents do NOTHING. One time my manager told a couple that they needed to get their child under control because it was a hazard, but they didn't do anything. So next thing you know, a busser is walking by with an arm full of plates and the kid runs into him knocking him down, which caused broken plates to slice his leg wide open. Our staff was visibly pissed while the medics stretchered him out of there. Another thing I see is kids completely ignoring what their parents say because the family can't go out to dinner without bringing a video player or a game for them to cram their face into. It bums me out.

[awake]

That's like, the first and pretty much only thing I asked for.



So your interpretation based on a person's opinion of reality makes more sense then people who actually know numbers, facts, data...etc?



But not all. So you still have yet to make a case. Yes, statistics can be manipulated, but give me the best you got, even if it goes against your argument, I want you to tell me why you believe the exact opposite of a statistical finding.

Let's try this
1. can you find me 2 countries which are completely equal, but vastly different on either education or government role on children
2. If so, can you tell me how you measure the "well off, worse off" the children are, forget anybody else's findings, I'll let you draw that conclusion.

So there, you only have to find ONE statistic, if you're going to tell me you can't find ONE good statistic on government involvement and public education among countries, then I really have no reason to take you seriously.



Which is all the more reason why you're convinced your ideals are perfect, because it's never been tested, therefore never proven wrong?



based on his opinions.


Ok, I see what you are doing...

1. Equality doesn't exist in individuals let alone whole countries.
2. You can't "measure" this. Economics is not an empirical science. Child A can not be said to be not 2.5 times better off than Child B.

Your "tested" and "proven" bias gives you away. You are wanting to apply positivist approaches to Praxeological questions. It's simply inappropriate application; an incorrect means.

Is a child better off being fed a steady diet of lies and fallacies (which public school is notorious for) all his life, which cause him to error more than he would otherwise, or is he worse off had he been told the truth in which he had the opportunity to avoid some, not all, of the errors?

Is a child better off for being taught to be productive; to save and invest in his future, or is he better or worse off if he is told to spend every cent he has and borrowing himself into bondage to be a good democratic citizen?

Is a child better off for being taught Austrian economics in school, or is he better off learning Keynesian economics? Both lines of thought do not produce the same outcomes. In fact, setting ones actions to the Keynesian line of thought has led the children of the world to the brink of financial serfdom.

Your fanatical belief in statistics and empirical methods; testing and proving, will do no good in the world of economical problems.

[John F Kennedy III]

do you have data to back this up? or is that just your ideological assumption?

Did you know that family court started out as eugenics court?

[John F Kennedy III]

I blame it on safety regulations. Before they came around, if you were stupid you got injured or even killed for doing something dumb. Now you really have to work at it. If you were killed or maimed, you couldn't breed and pass on the dumbness genes. Now they are allowed to multiply.

+rep for channeling your inner George Carlin :D

[Nickels]

Ok, I see what you are doing...

1. Equality doesn't exist in individuals let alone whole countries.


So MLK and Thomas Jefferson are wrong?



2. You can't "measure" this. Economics is not an empirical science. Child A can not be said to be not 2.5 times better off than Child B.


WOW, thanks for such an admission. Somehow you are still convinced that less government will be better for sure, even though you admit there no science to measure this.



Your "tested" and "proven" bias gives you away. You are wanting to apply positivist approaches to a Praxeological questions. It's simply inappropriate application; an incorrect means.


Guilty as charged, I am instead supposed to just take one guy's book's word for it?



Is a child better off being fed a steady diet of lies and fallacies (which public school is notorious for) all his life, which cause him to error more than he would otherwise, or is he worse off had he been told the truth in which he had the opportunity to avoid some, not all, of the errors?


I can answer this if I know what you mean by better or worse first (but I don't think you'll take me up).



Is a child better off for being taught to be productive; to save and invest in his future, or is he better or worse off if he is told to spend every cent he has and borrowing himself into bondage to be a good democratic citizen?


If those are the only two options, I don't know. There's nothing wrong with spending if you have enough. There's nothing good about saving or investing until you know what you are saving and investing for.



Is a child better off for being taught Austrian economics in school, or is he better off learning Keynesian economics?


Economics is not an empirical science according to you, so you tell me.



Both lines of thought do not produce the same outcomes. In fact, setting ones actions to the Keynesian line of thought has led the children of the world to the brink of financial serfdom.

Your fanatical belief in statistics and empirical methods; testing and proving, will do no good in the world of economical problems.

So what WOULD do good in the world of economic problems? And why should I trust your suggestion?

[Nickels]

Did you know that family court started out as eugenics court?

they were making sure people didn't commit incest?

[John F Kennedy III]

they were making sure people didn't commit incest?

*facepalm*

[awake]

So MLK and Thomas Jefferson are wrong?



WOW, thanks for such an admission. Somehow you are still convinced that less government will be better for sure, even though you admit there no science to measure this.



Guilty as charged, I am instead supposed to just take one guy's book's word for it?



I can answer this if I know what you mean by better or worse first (but I don't think you'll take me up).



If those are the only two options, I don't know. There's nothing wrong with spending if you have enough. There's nothing good about saving or investing until you know what you are saving and investing for.



Economics is not an empirical science according to you, so you tell me.



So what WOULD do good in the world of economic problems? And why should I trust your suggestion?

Here is a data and bar chart report from the CATO institute (http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/coulson_comparing_public_private_market_schools_js c.pdf)...It backs up what I say...but of course another body can interpret the data and explain away the differences...Or better yet, simply compile their own data to say what ever they wish.

[Sola_Fide]

They are acting like and emulating the biggest and most diffuse influence in their lives: the state. The state schooled and taught them violence and welfare are the divine right of the most rigorous people to ever walk the Earth. Easy Bernanke money lets them enjoy the rewards of production while not having to be productive.

Debasing the currency of a nation is tantamount to debasing its moral foundation...

Sorry to say, the state that occupies America is a fascist warmongering imperialistic nation of righteous and arrogant busybodies. Bullies, blowhards and ignoramuses that preach "world democracy", which is nothing more than a soft form of communism.


Absolutely agree. There is no virtue in dishonest scales. Everyone is affected by the immorality because everyone is forced to transact with a system of debasement.

[ShaneEnochs]

I'd like to know what happened between my generation and this one. When I was a kid, my parents basically kicked me out of the house and made me go play in the woods until it was either meal time or it was getting dark.

I'd be absolutely terrified to do the same to my children, and I have no idea why. My parents were very good parents, but I feel like if I gave my children the same freedoms I enjoyed, I'd be a bad parent.

Weird.

[Demigod]

I'd like to know what happened between my generation and this one. When I was a kid, my parents basically kicked me out of the house and made me go play in the woods until it was either meal time or it was getting dark.

I'd be absolutely terrified to do the same to my children, and I have no idea why. My parents were very good parents, but I feel like if I gave my children the same freedoms I enjoyed, I'd be a bad parent.

Weird.

My guess it is the media and all the child protection agencies who are most often run by women who don't have kids but keep little mouse sized dogs at home.The other day there was a 2 hour debate about how letting your kids play in mud or grass can get them killed and how instead they should play games that will challenge their intelligence.

[Bruno]

I will be sharing this with our 15 year old son. Thanks for posting.

[Philhelm]

they were making sure people didn't commit incest?

I'm thinking the prevention of interracial marriage.

[moreliberty]

Most children today are just doing what they have been taught. The older generation is just as selfish and rude and greedy. That's where they get it from. The adults of this country are to blame, not the children.

I honestly can't believe that someone posting in this place said it's because we are more free. I think you may want to try posting in a different forums, lol. I doubt many here would agree that we are more free. In fact we are fight for our freedoms, which we have few of let.

I have had many arguments wih my grandfather about the "youngsters" today and how they are so immoral, I finally got him to realize how immoral most adults are and that helped him to realize children are just a product of that. When the leaders of this country become more moral, and other adults, I have a feeling the children will follow.

[Pericles]

My guess it is the media and all the child protection agencies who are most often run by women who don't have kids but keep little mouse sized dogs at home.The other day there was a 2 hour debate about how letting your kids play in mud or grass can get them killed and how instead they should play games that will challenge their intelligence.

My mother wouldn't let me play in the mud when I was a kid, so I got even by joining the Army.

[Southron]

I just don't think your average modern person has any foundation for acting better.

[AuH20]

Most children today are just doing what they have been taught. The older generation is just as selfish and rude and greedy. That's where they get it from. The adults of this country are to blame, not the children.

I honestly can't believe that someone posting in this place said it's because we are more free. I think you may want to try posting in a different forums, lol. I doubt many here would agree that we are more free. In fact we are fight for our freedoms, which we have few of let.

I have had many arguments wih my grandfather about the "youngsters" today and how they are so immoral, I finally got him to realize how immoral most adults are and that helped him to realize children are just a product of that. When the leaders of this country become more moral, and other adults, I have a feeling the children will follow.

Two words. Baby boomers, AKA Wards of the Ever Growing State. So we really shouldn't be surprised that collectively their progeny are headcases.

[Pericles]

I blame it on safety regulations. Before they came around, if you were stupid you got injured or even killed for doing something dumb. Now you really have to work at it. If you were killed or maimed, you couldn't breed and pass on the dumbness genes. Now they are allowedencouraged to multiply.

Slight correction

[belian78]

They are acting like and emulating the biggest and most diffuse influence in their lives: the state. The state schooled and taught them violence and welfare are the divine right of the most rigorous people to ever walk the Earth. Easy Bernanke money lets them enjoy the rewards of production while not having to be productive.

Debasing the currency of a nation is tantamount to debasing its moral foundation...

Sorry to say, the state that occupies America is a fascist warmongering imperialistic nation of righteous and arrogant busybodies. Bullies, blowhards and ignoramuses that preach "world democracy", which is nothing more than a soft form of communism.
+ Rep
Wish I could rep this more than once. I hope you dont mind, but I'm going to share this quote as it nails it on the head.

[belian78]

I blame it on safety regulations. Before they came around, if you were stupid you got injured or even killed for doing something dumb. Now you really have to work at it. If you were killed or maimed, you couldn't breed and pass on the dumbness genes. Now they are allowed to multiply.
Didn't think I'd ever +rep you Zippy, but I just did. I say this all the damn time, let stupidity wean it'self out of the gene pool. LOL

[belian78]

I'd like to know what happened between my generation and this one. When I was a kid, my parents basically kicked me out of the house and made me go play in the woods until it was either meal time or it was getting dark.

I'd be absolutely terrified to do the same to my children, and I have no idea why. My parents were very good parents, but I feel like if I gave my children the same freedoms I enjoyed, I'd be a bad parent.

Weird.
Fear... That's what happened, FEAR. Movies/games/tv/news... all media sensaionalized violence and 'stranger danger' to a point that we as a society are afraid to talk to our neighbors and build the bonds that were imperitave to survive upon a time. Without that community bond, and with the errosion Awake spoke of earlier, it's been a downward spiral, fast.

[dannno]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWLByMshYIU

[heavenlyboy34]

Didn't think I'd ever +rep you Zippy, but I just did. I say this all the damn time, let stupidity wean it'self out of the gene pool. LOL
lolz...that kind of brings back the "nature vs nurture" debate, it seems. Are stupid people necessarily stupid because they were born that way or because they were taught to be stupid? I'm inclined to believe the latter in most cases now. One of my aunts had 2 daughters. One turned out quite "normal" and the other got knocked up and became a drug addict/thief who stole from her parents every chance she could to get more drugs. My sister is obese, lazy, and can't get along with other people. She would be homeless if left to herself (she currently lives with our parents because she's not able to keep a full-time job and support herself.) I'm the opposite.

[Danke]

Didn't think I'd ever +rep you Zippy, but I just did. I say this all the damn time, let stupidity wean it'self out of the gene pool. LOL

Zippy:

http://www.mcsfa.org/images/fishing.jpg

[dannno]

WOW, thanks for such an admission. Somehow you are still convinced that less government will be better for sure, even though you admit there no science to measure this.


Economics IS science, and Austrian Economics has by far the best assessment of the effects of government on the populace.

[RabbitMan]

As a product of public schooling, of which so many of you despise, I can tell you upfront that its not our schools creating such monsters. Nobody is taught to 'spend all of your money and go into debt to be a good consumer'. History never taught you to 'shut up and know your place'. That is utter bullshit, and I'm incredibly offended that anyone would believe such crap. Not all teachers are great, and 'teaching to the test' curriculum doesn't help, but in general most of the teachers/professors I had were good people who believed they were trying to do a service to the community. Instead there are two areas I would point my finger at:

(a) External factors, be it family values, time with family, financial situations at home, etc. It's nearly a proven fact that students with a stable and supportive home-life are better able to concentrate and challenge themselves at school. There are a lot of opportunities to be had at a school, regardless of its 'public'ness. When students choose NOT to challenge themselves, to take the barebones, the easiest classes, that is when disaster strikes. I've been in a couple of these classes and while I wouldn't say they were mind-numbing, it was close. Worksheets, boring course-work, boring teacher, rote memorization. This is the student's choice though. Which leads me to...

(b) Public schools are now deathly afraid of failing students. Now that school funding is so tied to statistics, performance on tests, and graduations rates, schools are encouraged to make a Curriculum for Everybody! As long as people under the age of 18 are sitting in the building and can answer a set of standardized test questions, nobody loses their job and nobody takes a paycut.

So what you get are many students unable or unwilling to challenge themselves, due to familial, societal, or personal factors, getting stuck in this cycle of moronic curriculum that's goal is to keep you there so that the school doesn't lose funding. Blame federal standardization, blame the idiocy of educational bureaucracy, blame teacher's unions, blame today's economic pressures on a family, and blame the student for not trying hard enough, but don't bastardize an entire system that's meaning today is perhaps very different from when it was founded. If you send your child to public school, she will not become a government slave and taught to worship constant warfare and welfare. Teachers are not taught to indoctrinate children to be servile pieces of meat. I swear, its like some of you are home-schooled or something! ;)

[Zippyjuan]

"Kids these days! Man, when I was growing up, things were different....."

This mantra has been repeated for generations.

[John F Kennedy III]

I'd like to know what happened between my generation and this one. When I was a kid, my parents basically kicked me out of the house and made me go play in the woods until it was either meal time or it was getting dark.

I'd be absolutely terrified to do the same to my children, and I have no idea why. My parents were very good parents, but I feel like if I gave my children the same freedoms I enjoyed, I'd be a bad parent.

Weird.

http://www.onlygoodmovies.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/pennywise.jpg

?

[Sam I am]

What happened?

Nothing happened to the children.

It's just that all of the adults suffer from this early form of Alzheimer's disease which is commonly called 'nostalgia'

[EvilEngineer]

Why are kids so horrible today?

The PARENTS... or lack there of.

People can blame culture, games, schools, etc... but at the end of the day it comes down to the parents not doing their jobs.

[Nickels]

Economics IS science, and Austrian Economics has by far the best assessment of the effects of government on the populace.

good descriptive power does not equal good predictive power.

Now, since you do believe there is some science to this, can you answer my question of using data to back up the claim that "government involvement will children will always and only make them worse at any stage, any time"?

[Nickels]

Why are kids so horrible today?

The PARENTS... or lack there of.

People can blame culture, games, schools, etc... but at the end of the day it comes down to the parents not doing their jobs.

is that a problem? and if so, what do we do about it? If not, then good.

[Nickels]

Here is a data and bar chart report from the CATO institute (http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/coulson_comparing_public_private_market_schools_js c.pdf)...It backs up what I say.


Except now you dug a hole for yourself. I get to use "statistical manipulation" and "bias" to ignore the evidence if I wanted to. But I won't, at least not automatically, I'll take a look.



..but of course another body can interpret the data and explain away the differences...Or better yet, simply compile their own data to say what ever they wish.

exactly, which is why we will look and see if this is reliable, you're the one claiming government involvement will always and only lead to children be "worse off".

Public schools vs private schools is not the same as "government vs less government".

[ZenBowman]

American kids today are selfish, self-centered, sadistic, cruel, disrespectful, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, boastful, unforgiving, incredibly brutal and they possess very little self-control whatsoever. They feel entitled to everything, but they don’t want to work for any of it. They are absolutely addicted to entertainment, and they know very little about self-sacrifice. Disciplining children is not considered to be “politically correct” in America today, and with each passing year these little hellions get even worse. So what in the world is our country going to look like when all of these out of control kids grow up?

Maybe the children in your family fit that stereotype, the ones in mine certainly do not. Most of the kids in my family and friends circle that I meet are incredibly nice, conscious of the world around them, tremendously capable, and far kinder than I ever remember being.

If the kids you encounter are really so demonic, I think that says more about you and where you live than the children.

My guess is that the writer is a religious nut and lives in a cesspool of an area where the religious crazies dominate and kids are punished for independent thought, thus acting out the behaviors he mentions.

My relationship with my parents is also a lot richer, deeper and more respectful than between them and their parents (they of course lived in a time when disrespect towards parents was never shown openly, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily felt the deep respect for their parents that I do for them).

[Nickels]

Maybe the children in your family fit that stereotype, the ones in mine certainly do not. Most of the kids in my family and friends circle that I meet are incredibly nice, conscious of the world around them, tremendously capable, and far kinder than I ever remember being.

If the kids you encounter are really so demonic, I think that says more about you and where you live than the children.

My guess is that the writer is a religious nut and lives in a cesspool of an area where the religious crazies dominate and kids are punished for independent thought, thus acting out the behaviors he mentions.

My relationship with my parents is also a lot richer, deeper and more respectful than between them and their parents (they of course lived in a time when disrespect towards parents was never shown openly, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily felt the deep respect for their parents that I do for them).

and he hates WalMart

[John F Kennedy III]

My mother wouldn't let me play in the mud when I was a kid, so I got even by joining the Army.

Lol that'll show her.

[PaulConventionWV]

We have to remember that people are animals. Just like some are more attractive than others, there are some who are more intelligent, while at the same time there are people who are more capable of morality (self control). For some reason many people are lacking whatever part of their brain that helps them make moral, logical decisions. I've yet to meet someone my age who has a more traditional Christian behavior than myself, and i'm as hardcore an athiest as you will ever meet. I behave the way i do for a reason, because it results in the greatest benefit for everything. Why does my co-worker go out partying? Because it makes her feel good. There is a notable difference in reasoning.

I don't believe people are animals. That is just propaganda which causes our kids to behave like animals. The statement itself is not supportable. It is simply a dogmatic assertion that has no logical grounds in reality.

[jonhowe]

"52 percent of survey respondents say they do not use protection when having sex."

Wait, I thought condoms were BAD???

[jonhowe]

I don't believe people are animals. That is just propaganda which causes our kids to behave like animals. The statement itself is not supportable. It is simply a dogmatic assertion that has no logical grounds in reality.

Are we... plants?

[Sam I am]

I don't believe people are animals. That is just propaganda which causes our kids to behave like animals. The statement itself is not supportable. It is simply a dogmatic assertion that has no logical grounds in reality.

People have the following traits

They're alive
They're composed of large numbers of cells
They move around

Sounds like animals to me.

[dannno]

good descriptive power does not equal good predictive power.

Now, since you do believe there is some science to this, can you answer my question of using data to back up the claim that "government involvement will children will always and only make them worse at any stage, any time"?

First you need a basic economics lesson that won't seem related at first, but will make sense later. If there are 100k people on a giant island with no outside contact, they would be relatively well off if they had 25k small homes. Average of 4 people in small homes. But I think we could all agree that they would be better off, or have a higher standard of living, everything else equal with 25k small homes and 15k larger homes. Same with # of cows, # of chickens, # of peppers, potatoes, eggplants, etc..

In other words, the more that is produced, the better off everybody is. So maximizing production is the most important thing in any society, allowing people to choose freely what they may purchase and create. If they have free choice, people will create more and be able to get the things they want. This is called growing the pie. If you can't get past that concept of growing the pie and how it increases standard of living, you won't get Austrian Economics.

So back to education. Parents want their kids educated. In a free society they will put as much resources into education as they believe will maximize their and their children's standard of living. A rich person, not one who steals or commits fraud like bankers do today because that is not allowed in a free society, but a rich person who creates a lot of items for people grows the pie and raises everybody's standard of living more than almost everybody else in the entire town. They use their wealth to invest back into their businesses which create even more items for everybody and make everybody's lives better. When the government instead steals from the rich person and puts it into schools, they are stealing future productivity and shrinking the pie, decreasing everybody's standard of living. These resources would have been best served increasing the standard of living for everyone. As productivity rises in a society with low tax rates and an honest monetary system, people will have to work much less to have the same standard of living. Thus more free time for everybody and more time to dedicate to learning about our world.

So yes, in a free society it is never good for the government to take resources from everybody, especially the most productive (richest) and use them on education because it will not provide as high of a rate of return as investing back in their business. If it did, then somebody would figure it out, it would be a business and it would already be happening.

The problem we have today is that many of the richest in our society are not productive, they have simply found government created loopholes to gain wealth by siphoning it from hardworking people, both rich and poor. Taking money from them and using it for education would likely create positive gains as compared to not. However we shouldn't model our economic system around a corrupt system, we should instead work on getting rid of the corrupt system.

[John F Kennedy III]

Are we... plants?

I don't know about you, but I'm Bose–Einstein condensate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate)

[jbauer]

Sweet, another person that believes in nature weeding out the stupid!!!


I blame it on safety regulations. Before they came around, if you were stupid you got injured or even killed for doing something dumb. Now you really have to work at it. If you were killed or maimed, you couldn't breed and pass on the dumbness genes. Now they are allowed to multiply.

[PaulConventionWV]

In the 1770's kids had access to horses, which could carry you more places than a car. Communicating 'faster' is not automatically communicating 'freer.'



Do you really think America is more free in 2012 than we were in 1962? Say instead 1952 to make it easier. Seems to me the more freedom individuals had, the more respect kids had. Not less.



Tolerance of disrespect is not an indication of freedom, it is more an indication of being cowed into submission by an overarching and interventionist state apparatus. Teaching kids respect will make them far more free over the course of their lives than letting them be disrespectful and feral. We as a society are too consumed by the moment that we fail to take into account the long vision. The first 18 years of your life are but the blink of an eye compared to the remaining 70 years you live as an independent adult. Respect and discipline teaches responsibility. Without responsibility there can be no liberty.

Any parent who cares about their kids freedom and liberty will do whatever it takes to teach them respect and discipline for that very reason. I would argue that parents who let their children run wild and feral do so because they specifically do not care about their kids freedom and liberty, or else they do not know enough about what freedom and liberty is in the first place to understand that you can't have it without responsibility.



No, you said, "Disrespectful kids are a sign of a free society," and I will say again that is categorically untrue. If we actually lived in a free society, then parents would feel free to discipline their children without fear of being sent to prison and having their children seized by CPS. Parents don't fail to discipline their kids because they respect their freedom, parents fail to discipline their kinds for 2 major reasons - 1) fear, they are afraid of government repercussions for disciplining their children, and 2) lack of knowledge, since the tyranny of fear started some 20-30 years ago, there are parents today who were not raised with discipline and therefore do not know how to discipline their kids.

No parent wants their child to grow up and be a failure or a mass murderer or such. Most everybody knows that discipline is the primary key to success. If parents knew how to discipline their kids and weren't too afraid of the government to do so, then they would, precisely because they respect their kids' liberty in a free society.

The flip-side of liberty is responsibility. The primary component of responsibility is discipline. If you really want your kids to be free and you respect their right to liberty, then you should be doubly adamant to teach them discipline as a child so that they can in fact grow up free.

It's really quite simple. The more freedom we have as a society, the more freedom parents have to raise their kids. No self-respecting parent would raise a child carelessly. In the beginning of our nation, from the 1770s to 1850 or so, parents were able to raise their own kids however they wished, and many chose to do so to support their interests by introducing them early on into their field of work. Discipline was necessary. When parents discipline their children as they see fit, successfully, the child will inevitably grow with a sort of respect for their parents. Less and less kids are being disciplined by their parents these days.

So when parents have the freedom to discipline their kids, the kid is usually forced to mould their behavior to closely resemble that of their parents, who support them. Who supports our kids these days? Some distant, far-off government daddy who puppeteers the public school system by indoctrinating our kids with lies. No wonder kids act up. The public school experience is hellish and there is not much time to actually discipline the kids except for the random teacher or supervisor telling the kids to "sit down and shut up" whether that be in the classroom, lunchroom, or elsewhere in the public school. There is no personal connection like with a father or mother. Instead, the majority of their time is spent babbling with kids of their own age who know as little as they do about the real world.

[PaulConventionWV]

I blame it on safety regulations. Before they came around, if you were stupid you got injured or even killed for doing something dumb. Now you really have to work at it. If you were killed or maimed, you couldn't breed and pass on the dumbness genes. Now they are allowed to multiply.

The "dumbness gene" is referred to quite alot, although I've never heard any substantiation of its existence. After all, being accident-prone doesn't necessarily make you stupid. That's just an unfounded assumption of many people who seem to think everyone who makes a bad decision should get killed.

[ZenBowman]

I don't believe people are animals. That is just propaganda which causes our kids to behave like animals. The statement itself is not supportable. It is simply a dogmatic assertion that has no logical grounds in reality.

Good example of what's wrong with America. People are so scientifically illiterate that even scientific truths are some kind of "political issue".

[PaulConventionWV]

Good example of what's wrong with America. People are so scientifically illiterate that even scientific truths are some kind of "political issue".

So let's examine this. What makes a person an animal, scientifically? Is it the common feature of being composed of flesh and blood? Then why are we using the "people are animals" mantra to define a human being's mental behavior? Is it the existence of forces in nature which force both humans and animals to accept and live with reality, giving us similar "instincts"? Perhaps, but why is it that we feel the need to call humans animals? We could say humans and animals share some common characteristics in their response to the world around them, but does that necessarily make them animals?

What is it that forces us to accept the presumption that sharing the world with animals and being composed of the same materials actually makes us animals? Any human being can tell you the big differences that exist between an organism that simply lives to survive and one that seeks to fulfill its quest for the most profounding questions in life and understanding of its existence.

What makes "humans=animals" some kind of unquestionable truth? Anyone can see that there are differences in the way we act and the way we think, the way we behave, the way we create. Animals live with no regard for others except when it serves their own self-interest while humans have compassion and morality. There is no denying the uniqueness of man. The statement "human=animal" requires some sort of standards for classification as an animal, so pray tell, what are the standards for defining something as an animal?

[Zippyjuan]

There are not traits which humans have which are not also seen in other animals.

[ZenBowman]

What makes "humans=animals" some kind of unquestionable truth? Anyone can see that there are differences in the way we act and the way we think, the way we behave, the way we create. Animals live with no regard for others except when it serves their own self-interest while humans have compassion and morality. There is no denying the uniqueness of man. The statement "human=animal" requires some sort of standards for classification as an animal, so pray tell, what are the standards for defining something as an animal?

There is no denying the uniqueness of a rhino either.

http://www.awf.org/files/3794_file_Black_rhino_Balfour.jpg

Pretty damn unique, isn't it?

You see plenty of compassion and morality among animals as well.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvCjyWp3rEk

As to what defines something as an animal:

1) Multicellular
2) Motile
3) Reproduce sexually
4) Must ingest other organisms to survive (in contrast with plants, which can photosynthesize energy from the sun)

In addition, humans are mammals, which are defined as:

5) Animals that give birth to live young
6) Reproduce sexually
7) Breathe air
8) Four chambered heart, have red blood cells

How is it that you can grow to whatever age you are and not know what an animal is (serious question)? Did you go to some kind of wacky religious school?

Shocks me completely that there is no basic requirement of literacy prior to being able to vote.

[PaulConventionWV]

Are we... plants?

No, we are human beings. We don't have to fit into some grand category that includes other organisms on this earth. We are just... human.

[PaulConventionWV]

People have the following traits

They're alive
They're composed of large numbers of cells
They move around

Sounds like animals to me.

If those are the only requirements to be called an "animal", then yes, but the real fault of modern science (not good science, mind you) is that it makes no distinction between humans and soulless creatures that care only for their own survival. The worst kind tyranny happens when people are taught at a young age in their public school system that they have no special purpose that distinguishes them from other forms of life. People like that are more easily controlled. People like that have no agenda except their own personal satisfaction.

[AuH20]

No, we are human beings. We don't have to fit into some grand category that includes other organisms on this earth. We are just... human.

Higher level brain functions raise man above his animal brethren. The ability to distinguish between right and wrong, which is seriously in jeopardy after reading this thread. LOL

[Zippyjuan]

What traits do you believe "separates us from the animals"?

[ZenBowman]

If those are the only requirements to be called an "animal", then yes, but the real fault of modern science (not good science, mind you) is that it makes no distinction between humans and soulless creatures that care only for their own survival. The worst kind tyranny happens when people are taught at a young age in their public school system that they have no special purpose that distinguishes them from other forms of life. People like that are more easily controlled. People like that have no agenda except their own personal satisfaction.

Proof that humans have a soul?
Proof that animals are soulless?

[AuH20]

What traits do you believe "separates us from the animals"?

Compassion - Ever seen a pride of lions back off a young cape buffalo that was impaired by a leg injury?
Ingenuity - I'm patiently waiting for a 10 story condominium complex to be erected at the metro chimpanzee exhibit.

[1stAmendguy]

If those are the only requirements to be called an "animal", then yes, but the real fault of modern science (not good science, mind you) is that it makes no distinction between humans and soulless creatures that care only for their own survival. The worst kind tyranny happens when people are taught at a young age in their public school system that they have no special purpose that distinguishes them from other forms of life. People like that are more easily controlled. People like that have no agenda except their own personal satisfaction.

Not good science? Let me correct you sir, I think you're confusing "modern science" with the dominant paradigm behind science today that is naturalism. Science cannot address moral speculation because it is not based on empirical evidence. You're entering into the realm of philosophy here. Stop bashing the factual evidence of modern day science. What you seem to have a problem with is the naturalist worldview.

[PaulConventionWV]

Compassion - Ever seen a pride of lions back off a young cape buffalo that was impaired by a leg injury?
Ingenuity - I'm patiently waiting for a 10 story condominium complex to be erected at the metro chimpanzee exhibit.

This. And the quest for knowledge for knowledge's sake.

[Zippyjuan]

Compassion - Ever seen a pride of lions back off a young cape buffalo that was impaired by a leg injury?
Ingenuity - I'm patiently waiting for a 10 story condominium complex to be erected at the metro chimpanzee exhibit.
Termites build incredible structures- compared to their size, some would be up there with our biggest skyscrapers. And the design includes air conditioning to control the interior temperature. Bees and wasps build elaborate structures. Many species build nests and shelters. Animals use tools- monkeys have been observed making and using spears to either kill prey or even attack each other and dig out grubs and termites from logs to eat. Birds use twigs for the same purpose. And are you saying that dogs are not compaionate?

Other examples: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2570.htm

[PaulConventionWV]

Not good science? Let me correct you sir, I think you're confusing "modern science" with the dominant paradigm behind science today that is naturalism. Science cannot address moral speculation because it is not based on empirical evidence. You're entering into the realm of philosophy here. Stop bashing the factual evidence of modern day science. What you seem to have a problem with is the naturalist worldview.

You are correct. That is what I meant by modern science, by which I am implying a sort of pseudo-science which is popular but loaded with bias and fallacies. Naturalism is not part of science, although it is assumed to be so today, since we have been told the only legitimate science is that which reaches a naturalist conclusion.

[lx43]

Categorically untrue. If it were, then white landowners children from 1770 to 1850 would have been running far more amok than they are today, and that did not happen. We as a society (aside from the minority racial civil rights struggle) are markedly less free than we were in the 1960's, and the kids today are far worse and more violent. Sure, there have always been hooligans, going back thousands of years I am sure, but your idea that freedom necessarily means that kids will be disrespectful is first rate poppycock. Not only does correlation not imply causation, but there is no correlation in the first place. A fallacy built on a falsehood. Folks around here are too smart for that action.

+Rep

[AuH20]

Termites build incredible structures- compared to their size, some would be up there with our biggest skyscrapers. And the design includes air conditioning to control the interior temperature. Bees and wasps build elaborate structures. Many species build nests and shelters. Animals use tools- monkeys have been observed making and using spears to either kill prey and dig out grubs and termites from logs to eat. Birds use twigs for the same purpose. And are you saying that dogs are not compaionate?

But how structurally sound are these termite hills? I could probably take them down with a shovel. These simple structures aren't built to last like modern day skyscrapers that are outfitted with the necessary horizontal and vertical support to withstand seismic activity as well as high altitude wind shear. Just examine the intricate process that goes into purifying and smelting steel. The animal kingdom is several notches below man in terms of intelligence, problem solving and application.

[MelissaWV]

But how structurally sound are these termite hills? I could probably take them down with a shovel. These simple structures aren't built to last like modern day skyscrapers that are outfitted with the necessary horizontal and vertical support to withstand seismic activity as well as high altitude wind shear. Just examine the intricate process that goes into purifying and smelting steel. The animal kingdom is several notches below man in terms of intelligence, problem solving and application.

If a giant alien swatted at a skyscraper with a shovel the size of 1/3-1/2 of the building, I don't think it would do so well. Similarly, if some giant anteater alien started to poke its face into the windows of the 50th floor or so, I really would fear for the people inside of the building.

Of course, this is more instinct than innovation, but still.

[PaulConventionWV]

Termites build incredible structures- compared to their size, some would be up there with our biggest skyscrapers. And the design includes air conditioning to control the interior temperature. Bees and wasps build elaborate structures. Many species build nests and shelters. Animals use tools- monkeys have been observed making and using spears to either kill prey and dig out grubs and termites from logs to eat. Birds use twigs for the same purpose. And are you saying that dogs are not compaionate?

So why don't animals that are our own size create things as big and ingenious as what we create? Why don't they have the ability to use complex equations for optimal building of things they desire simply for the sake of recreation? We have amusement parks and seek knowledge while animals seek only to survive and reproduce. We are not the same as animals in that sense. We have a sense of special purpose that distinguishes us. No animal spends idle time jotting down their thoughts on the meaning of existence so that others can read it and also seek to understand the meaning of existence. What's more, they don't engineer tools that help them achieve the optimal design that will allow them the freer transport of information merely for the sake of understanding it. They don't mass produce idle time-wasters in the quest for capital. In fact, they don't even use capital.

[1stAmendguy]

You are correct. That is what I meant by modern science, by which I am implying a sort of pseudo-science which is popular but loaded with bias and fallacies. Naturalism is not part of science, although it is assumed to be so today, since we have been told the only legitimate science is that which reaches a naturalist conclusion.

And you don't think creationism to some degree is a pseudoscience? Creationism is not loaded with bias and fallacies? There are many touted theories in creationism which have no bases in scientific method. Can creationism provide evidence that a banana is perfectly designed by God for humans to hold in their hand.

[PaulConventionWV]

And you don't think creationism to some degree is a pseudoscience? Creationism is not loaded with bias and fallacies? There are many touted theories in creationism which have no bases in scientific method. Can creationism provide evidence that a banana is perfectly designed by God for humans to hold in their hand.

Creationism is not science. Neither is evolution. I am not trying to include my worldview in science, rather, I am trying to get naturalists to stop calling their worldview science.

I am also not claiming that there is no bias. Rather, I am trying to get people to understand that there is inherent bias in all interpretation or extrapolation of facts as it concerns origins. For instance, one person may see the similarities between living things and say that it is because they share a common ancestor. Another person may see the same similarities and say that it is because all living things share a common creator. It all depends on your interpretive paradigm. The bias of today's "science" is that it intentionally excludes any non-naturalist explanation.

[Zippyjuan]

But how structurally sound are these termite hills? I could probably take them down with a shovel. These simple structures aren't built to last like modern day skyscrapers that are outfitted with the necessary horizontal and vertical support to withstand seismic activity as well as high altitude wind shear. Just examine the intricate process that goes into purifying and smelting steel. The animal kingdom is several notches below man in terms of intelligence, problem solving and application.

Science is looking at how the termites create their structures for cement replacement:
http://www.irinnews.org/Report/72896/ZAMBIA-Termite-technology-boosts-road-infrastructure

Lusaka, 22 June 2007 (IRIN) - Engineers are mimicking the technology of termites to build cheap, durable, environmentally friendly and desperately needed road infrastructure in Zambia and, in the process, providing jobs at grassroots level.

The almost indestructible nature of termite mounds and the realisation that this technology could be adapted to build roads even more hard wearing than those made from asphalt came at the cost of a broken limb.

"The idea came from my best, best friend, a South African named Henry Halle, who, in his garden, tried to kick those [termite] hills away. On his third try he broke his leg," said Kim Anderson, a Danish national working in the Zambian capital, Lusaka. "After that he came to me and said, 'This is something! We need to replicate this technology for construction.'"

Anderson, a regional manager for a Danish air service company, secured financing from the European Union and the Danish government for a road construction pilot project in South Africa, based on termite technology, and a recent initiative in Zambia.

It is not the first time that termite technology has been used to build man-made structures: the Eastgate shopping centre in the Zimbabwean capital, Harare, was modelled on termite mounds, using the design for energy-saving ventilation;

In Europe architectural firms are researching and copying mound technology in the design of high-rise buildings, in an attempt to replicate the termites' ability to create climate control in their relatively mammoth structures

[PaulConventionWV]

Science is looking at how the termites create their structures for cement replacement:
http://www.irinnews.org/Report/72896/ZAMBIA-Termite-technology-boosts-road-infrastructure

There is a difference between ingenuity and being a building machine. Termites always create the same kind of structure. It's what they were made to do, and they always do it the same way with the same tools. What's more, termites aren't aware of what they're doing. The key difference between animals and humans is awareness. We are aware that there is something bigger than us, and that is why we constantly search for truth, regardless of its practical applications. We constantly seek amusement and pleasure, sometimes at the expense of what's practical and necessary for our survival. We don't just do what we need, we do what we want. Termites don't build for the artistic expression, nor do they even know why they build. They are simply programmed to know how. Know, in fact, is a strong word. They do not understand how their buildings differ from other types, so they don't really know what they are building. They are biological robots.

Also, animals have no individuality. We do, whether we want to or not. We stand apart from others. Have you ever seen an animal build a statue of another animal? Have you ever seen animals celebrate heroism? No, they simply function how they were made to function. We do pretty much the opposite.

[Revolution9]

Termites build incredible structures- compared to their size, some would be up there with our biggest skyscrapers. And the design includes air conditioning to control the interior temperature. Bees and wasps build elaborate structures. Many species build nests and shelters. Animals use tools- monkeys have been observed making and using spears to either kill prey or even attack each other and dig out grubs and termites from logs to eat. Birds use twigs for the same purpose. And are you saying that dogs are not compaionate?

Other examples: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2570.htm

Well you go right along and be an animal. I happen to belong to a higher functioning order of beings in the 3D laboratory Universe. The elaborate structures you speak of are one and the same across species. We can make any kind of structure we put our minds to. We even have the ability to understand cause and effect along an extended timeline and can engineer structures without having genetic blueprint for such. Of course, your political camp would love for us to view ourselves as animals so they can skin us for our fur.

Rev9

[jonhowe]

No, we are human beings. We don't have to fit into some grand category that includes other organisms on this earth. We are just... human.

We don't have to, but we do.

[jonhowe]

Of course, your political camp would love for us to view ourselves as animals so they can skin us for our fur.

Rev9


You realize we're in the same political camp, right? We're all here on a Ron Paul message board...

And PaulConventionWV, I've said this before, you're a really bright guy and I know your heart/mind are in the right place. I feel like we'd be friends in "real life". However, your lack of understanding of the natural world is really quite astounding. When you say things like "The key difference between animals and humans is awareness", and "Naturalism is not part of science," I can't help but shake my head.

[Revolution9]

You realize we're in the same political camp, right? We're all here on a Ron Paul message board...

ZippyJuan is a mouthpiece for the gubmnt and left wing agenda. He is not rude about it but he always has the official party line going on. So, no...we are not all on the same team. His team's ideology killed 700 million people in the last century.

Rev9

[LibertyEagle]

There is a difference between ingenuity and being a building machine. Termites always create the same kind of structure. It's what they were made to do, and they always do it the same way with the same tools. What's more, termites aren't aware of what they're doing. The key difference between animals and humans is awareness. We are aware that there is something bigger than us, and that is why we constantly search for truth, regardless of its practical applications. We constantly seek amusement and pleasure, sometimes at the expense of what's practical and necessary for our survival. We don't just do what we need, we do what we want. Termites don't build for the artistic expression, nor do they even know why they build. They are simply programmed to know how. Know, in fact, is a strong word. They do not understand how their buildings differ from other types, so they don't really know what they are building. They are biological robots.

Also, animals have no individuality. We do, whether we want to or not. We stand apart from others. Have you ever seen an animal build a statue of another animal? Have you ever seen animals celebrate heroism? No, they simply function how they were made to function. We do pretty much the opposite.

You were doing good until you got to the bolded part. You are wrong. Animals do have individuality. Each one is unique. If you haven't noticed this, you haven't interacted that much with animals.

[Nickels]

You were doing good until you got to the bolded part. You are wrong. Animals do have individuality. Each one is unique. If you haven't noticed this, you haven't interacted that much with animals.

I think he means they have no humanity or personality, no legal rights, or shouldn't have any.

[Nickels]

First you need a basic economics lesson that won't seem related at first, but will make sense later. If there are 100k people on a giant island with no outside contact, they would be relatively well off if they had 25k small homes. Average of 4 people in small homes. But I think we could all agree that they would be better off, or have a higher standard of living, everything else equal with 25k small homes and 15k larger homes. Same with # of cows, # of chickens, # of peppers, potatoes, eggplants, etc..

In other words, the more that is produced, the better off everybody is.


I don't think that's a bad definition. But how is that not a socialist advocacy argument. If material production is the primary measure of well being, assuming well being is a good goal to have.



So maximizing production is the most important thing in any society


Can't say I disagree. So why shouldn't the government or tax payers stimulate, encourage or otherwise force what is good and important?



, allowing people to choose freely what they may purchase and create.


That doesn't produce though. Choosing is not always productive.

If you can choose to be unproductive, why would you be productive?



If they have free choice, people will create more and be able to get the things they want.


No, they will create only as much as they want, and always demand what they want.



This is called growing the pie. If you can't get past that concept of growing the pie and how it increases standard of living, you won't get Austrian Economics.


Can't say I heard of it.



So back to education. Parents want their kids educated.


No, they don't. No more than they want kids to have jobs. People only do this because they are forced to by law or economic necessity. There are people who are curious for knowledge for knowledge's sake, this is much like people who enjoy music and art just for entertainment.



In a free society they will put as much resources into education as they believe will maximize their and their children's standard of living.


Agreed.



A rich person, not one who steals or commits fraud like bankers do today because that is not allowed in a free society


Your idea of freedom is freedom from fraud?



, but a rich person who creates a lot of items for people grows the pie and raises everybody's standard of living more than almost everybody else in the entire town. They use their wealth to invest back into their businesses which create even more items for everybody and make everybody's lives better. When the government instead steals from the rich person and puts it into schools, they are stealing future productivity and shrinking the pie, decreasing everybody's standard of living.


This is only true if you admit that education doesn't always increase standard of living, which is what you sounded like saying.



These resources would have been best served increasing the standard of living for everyone.


I totally agree. Not sure if we agree how to spend money to increase standard of living though. If your idea is "give people money and let them freely choose how to spend it" as quality living, then welfare recipients and section 8 people are living the dream. Welfare recipients can't choose mansion or fancy restaurants, but they sure as hell have lots of freedom for doing nothing.



As productivity rises in a society with low tax rates and an honest monetary system, people will have to work much less to have the same standard of living.


Funny, because that's been happening ever since the industrial revolution. Even with a dishonest money system.



Thus more free time for everybody and more time to dedicate to learning about our world.

So yes, in a free society it is never good for the government to take resources from everybody, especially the most productive (richest) and use them on education because it will not provide as high of a rate of return as investing back in their business.


Ok. I think I get it now. Basically you first establish a utopia, then you say "once I get to my imaginary utopia, then I can make my argument". So is it fair to say "before you get to your utopia, it's not always true that government is bad"?



If it did, then somebody would figure it out, it would be a business and it would already be happening.


isn't government investing in education and getting a nice return on their investment if their goal is to recruit more government employees?



The problem we have today is that many of the richest in our society are not productive,

agreed. sounds like you want to force them to be.



they have simply found government created loopholes to gain wealth by siphoning it from hardworking people, both rich and poor. Taking money from them and using it for education would likely create positive gains as compared to not. However we shouldn't model our economic system around a corrupt system, we should instead work on getting rid of the corrupt system.

it's not corrupt or undesireable if you're the one benefitting from it. So basically you're saying you want to shift the wealth today from the wrong people to the right people. You want to reward labor and hard work, not brains and trickery.

[MelissaWV]

From skimming through this thread, what is wrong with American kids appears to be that they are not termites.

Barring that, what is wrong with American kids might be that they have American parents.

[heavenlyboy34]

Compassion - Ever seen a pride of lions back off a young cape buffalo that was impaired by a leg injury?
Ingenuity - I'm patiently waiting for a 10 story condominium complex to be erected at the metro chimpanzee exhibit.
Don't forget language. And the cerebral cortex. And brain:body mass ratio.

[bolil]

The biggest thing wrong with American kids is that most of em have been sold out by their parents.

[ClydeCoulter]

The biggest thing wrong with American kids is that most of em have been sold out by their parents.

Who were sold out by theirs, if we are talking about grouping evey generation into a single entity.

I don't have the time for more on the subject right now, but "sociopaths" comes to mind if we want to bore down into smaller groups.

[thoughtomator]

When kids tried to bully me on the bus, the situations resolved themselves with many kicked testicles, poked eyes, screamed-out eardrums, and bloody bite wounds. One time a smaller but more aggressive kid tried to bully me and I nearly killed him.

The problem with kids these days is that they sit there and take it rather than fighting back.

[showpan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6wOt2iXdc4&feature=player_detailpage

[LibertyEagle]

I think he means they have no humanity or personality, no legal rights, or shouldn't have any.

But, they do have a personality.

[Sematary]

You cant beat your kids no more without them threatening to call CPS on you.
Both parents have to work now, so children spend most of the day in school and childcare.
After working all day, parents don't have the energy to deal with kids, so they sit them in front the TV.
Young kids don't really understand the difference between reality and fiction, so there brains begin to think like the TV.
So far as they are concerned, Jersey Shore and 16 and pregnant is "normal" life.

I say blame the government. If they didn't keep 1/3 your wages, steal your savings through inflation, and regulate who can watch your kid..
Then maybe both parents wouldn't have to work just to scrape by, and they could actually raise their children properly.

I have raised seven children and more than one has threatened to call DHS when I disciplined them (I don't believe in spankings or anything like that but punishment needs to be meted out at times) and I told them to go ahead - I wouldn't be the one leaving. That put an end to THAT crap.

[Sematary]

So my two cents. I am down to the last of seven children - my adorable little 12 year old who is now starting to hit her new hormone stride and making my life miserable, just like the other 6 before her.
After reading the initial article it really seems that what the author is describing is a combination of several things (including poor government schools). It also seems that the cities are the worst areas. I believe alot of this is due to anonymity. With so many other children and people in an area, it makes it easier to do things that you wouldn't dare try in a small community because EVERYONE knows everyone or at least can find your parents if you get out of control. Not that bullying and such don't happen in the "country" but it seems to be less frequent and far less abusive than what I've seen in some of these videos.

I've noticed (and I blame this on the video game culture) that the girls have grown up. The boys haven't. Even my oldest son, at 26, is still living his life as if he were 17 and had no worries. And, really, he doesn't. Nor does his step brother. They both work. They both pay their bills. They both take responsibility for their lives - because I wouldn't just give them stuff on a silver platter. I made them earn it. So, even though I'm not too thrilled that neither one of them seems to have a life outside of work that doesn't involve "Battlefield", or some other useless gaming endeavor, at least they are responsible enough to hold down a job and take care of themselves. The girls (for whatever reason) don't seem to pick up this video gaming obsession as easily as the boys in our country and seem more likely to move onto adulthood and do what people have always done - raise a family, go to college, whatever.
I have to say - I'm glad I don't live in the cities because, even though I grew up in them (New York, Boston, Worcester), I hate them as places to live. Great to visit though. The above mentioned anonymity is one of the reasons. Another is that (unlike the country) teenagers get involved in gangs and other groups that are counterproductive to normal growth and the culture within those groups is what becomes "normal" as opposed to being taught how to be an adult.
Just my two cents, like I said.

[PaulConventionWV]

You realize we're in the same political camp, right? We're all here on a Ron Paul message board...

And PaulConventionWV, I've said this before, you're a really bright guy and I know your heart/mind are in the right place. I feel like we'd be friends in "real life". However, your lack of understanding of the natural world is really quite astounding. When you say things like "The key difference between animals and humans is awareness", and "Naturalism is not part of science," I can't help but shake my head.

Your naivete astounds me as well. It's funny how that works. I'm glad we could be friends, though. I think it is you who lacks understanding of the natural world. First of all, it's simply a fact that naturalism is not a scientific view. If I said it could never be a part of science, then I was wrong. It is simply not a scientific view to only accept naturalistic explanations of the world and the universe. It's a logical axiom and a self-evident truth that naturalism cannot be assumed with any reliability. If you find a computer in the wilderness, are you only going to accept naturalistic explanations for how it got there?

[PaulConventionWV]

You were doing good until you got to the bolded part. You are wrong. Animals do have individuality. Each one is unique. If you haven't noticed this, you haven't interacted that much with animals.

Did I say they weren't unique? Maybe I should have said they have no sense of individuality.

[PaulConventionWV]

I think he means they have no humanity or personality, no legal rights, or shouldn't have any.

Yes, that.