So you want no government involvement in education? You can certainly dislike DOED polices and work to change them, but abolishing it altogether is ludicrous.
It's not ludicrous. Getting rid of the DOEd doesn't remove government from education. It would just make it go back to the way it used to be, where states handled their own schools. Most people tend to forget that the DOEd has only been around for less than 50 years. I don't know, somehow we managed to educate our people for a good 180 years before the government decided to nationalize the system. I don't disagree that there are some things the DOEd could do to make education actually better, but their track record has shown they like to do the opposite.
And you don't think we need national educational standards? If you let each state handle their own curriculum completely, you'll get very different educations depending on where you live. Look at Texas's recent decision regarding intelligent design in science textbooks. I guarantee that if Texas had their way, nobody would be learning evolution. That's a huge problem. We can't allow some states to provide woefully inadequate educations, because that'll make this problem worse.
And you don't think we need national educational standards? If you let each state handle their own curriculum completely, you'll get very different educations depending on where you live. Look at Texas's recent decision regarding intelligent design in science textbooks. I guarantee that if Texas had their way, nobody would be learning evolution. That's a huge problem. We can't allow some states to provide woefully inadequate educations, because that'll make this problem worse.
To the first point, national standardized tests existed well before the DOEd did. My claim is against the department itself, not against having national standards. To the second point, of course you'll get very different educations depending on where you live. It's like that already, national curriculum or not. You learn a shit-ton more at private schools in the this country than at public schools. Even public schools vary greatly depending on where they are. If you want to the make the argument that everyone should learn the same things, why stop at the national level? Why don't we just make it a global standard? That way everyone in the whole world will have to meet the same arbitrary standards, and then inevitably have rampant failure in the whole theatre. Nothing will change, and more likely than not, everything would just get even worse. At the very least, if we did remove the national system and allowed states to control their schools, then you would start to see more competition. If the parents in Texas don't like that their kids aren't learning about evolution, you know what, there are 49 other states that might be teaching it (and honestly, saying that parents don't have a choice is bullshit, families move all the time to try to get their kids into better schools).
Regarding Scott's point, I don't have an internet version of this study, since I only read it on paper, but one study has shown that for the vast majority of children, if they don't become interested in learning about math and science by the time they finish third grade (which is ages 8-10), it is too late. Kids don't have to be proficient at anything by that time, but if they don't at least want to learn those by that time, they most likely never will. The necessity to get kids early is vastly underestimated.
You know what? There SHOULD be a global education standard. That would fix a hell of a lot of problems.
I know that education quality varies a lot right now. Abolishing the DOED will make that WORSE. It's unrealistic to tell families to just uproot if they don't like he schools; in the end, the ones who lose are those who can't afford a private school or to move. The DOED needs MORE control over the education in the states, not less, and they need to raise the bar for education at the same time.
What we need is a DOED and schools that aren't afraid to give failing grades.
This to me, sounds a lot like the issue with a lot of things, the number of awesome computer people is still the same or slightly growing but the amount of crappy people is growing at a record place. Making it even harder to find the quality material, those people who actually have quality backgrounds are already secured early on and you are left looking through the crap to find the gems. Unfortunately this causes the search to find quality people harder and more work intensive then before but the same amount if not more people are quality. It's just harder to pick them out.
Oh and Pete, your one of those freaky commie one world government types :-p go back to the Moon.
*sigh* Arguing with liberals is just no fun at all. To be fair though, at least they're more respectable in general than conservatives.
Oh god, you're a Libertarian aren't you?
I'm saying the DOED is perfect - far from it - but abolishing the agency would really be quite counterproductive. We need to get people on the same page with education, and allowing states like Texas to teach their own facts is a giant problem.
Oh and Pete, your one of those freaky commie one world government types :-p go back to the Moon.
Not one world government; I'm just big on education. If we can get the whole world adequately educated, we'll see a lot of problems disappear.
Anyways, I still think that standardized education up to around high school followed with an integrated internship/apprenticing program is the way to go. Public school systems simply aren't effective at teaching the more specific skill sets needed for many careers. I know that this method is fairly effective because I've actually gone through it, it's called the Career Internship Program, and one of my bosses is the guy I interned with. I basically did a ton of intern (read volunteer) work with him during my later years of high school, then after I knew the ropes already and graduated he hired me directly. By interning you save the company some money during a training phase, and they know for sure that you are trained the way that they want and you are familiar with their system, which is a huge gain for them in the long term.
To clear this up Scott, here's how the intern/apprentice program works. You do work for no money in exchange for training (in medieval times food and board) until you eventually become a journeyman after sufficient training. You then are paid for your work. In the old school apprentice program you then have to create a 'master work' and present it to a guild related to your trade as a kind of 'thesis'. If this piece is of PASSABLE QUALITY to be expected from a professional, you are then given the title of 'master' in the guild. So a master is simply someone who is accredited to start their own business, to clear up what I mean by that, not the Asian influenced perversion of the word referring to 'someone who's skill surpasses all others'.
Anyway once you work with the people in the field for a while you begin to understand what the heck you are doing, then ostensibly you 'graduate' and either A) stay with the company that you are already with maintaining rank etc find another job at another company with whom you would prefer to work OR c) start your own company.
The viability of the different options depends heavily on what kind of trade you're in really though.
Public school systems simply aren't effective at teaching the more specific skill sets needed for many careers.
So much this.
Rym and I were talking about this over the weekend, and we concur on the way it "ought" to work. We need an academic track that pushes the "smartest" kids to their absolute limits, so that they can always find an adequate challenge. You have to expose kids of all types to the same material at this difficulty. When, invariably, some children simply can't make it, you get those kids into alternate "tracks" where they can perform well.
We also need to divest ourselves of the notion that everyone can perform well if they try hard. Some kids are simply better at some subjects than others. Some kids are smarter than others at some things. You will have disparities in performance between students in any given subject; that's why it's important to identify a child's strengths and get them into a track that allows them to develop those.
High school really needs to prepare you for the real world. College should be the thing you do if it's what you need. Not everyone needs it.
Wait what? I'm getting mixed messages...
Something can be flawed but useful. It requires fixing. It doesn't have to be discarded altogether yet.
*sigh* Arguing with liberals is just no fun at all. To be fair though, at least they're more respectable in general than conservatives.
Oh god, you're a Libertarian aren't you?
I don't associate myself with anyone, cause I don't fall under any one guideline. But in most cases, I'm anti-big government.
Rym and I were talking about this over the weekend, and we concur on the way it "ought" to work. We need an academic track that pushes the "smartest" kids to their absolute limits, so that they can always find an adequate challenge. You have to expose kids of all types to the same material at this difficulty. When, invariably, some children simply can't make it, you get those kids into alternate "tracks" where theycanperform well.
We also need to divest ourselves of the notion that everyone can perform well if they try hard. Some kids are simply better at some subjects than others. Some kids are smarter than others at some things. You will have disparities in performance between students in any given subject; that's why it's important to identify a child's strengths and get them into a track that allows them to develop those.
High school really needs to prepare you for the real world. College should be the thing you do if it's what you need. Not everyone needs it.
See, here I'm totally in agreement. In an ideal world, this is how things would be. We just differ in that I doubt any kind of national or global system could ever make it happen.
Wait what? I'm getting mixed messages...
Something can be flawed but useful. It requires fixing. It doesn't have to be discarded altogether yet.
Oh wow, I didn't even notice that. I kept mentally inserting the "not" before "saying." I'm not saying the DOED is perfect - far from it etc. I apologize for the confusion.
We just differ in that I doubt any kind of national or global system could ever make it happen.
Well, I don't think any global or national system that we have now will make it happen either. I just think it's the only route that could possibly make it happen. I'm too cynical to believe that people will actually change, but I'm also too stubborn to not try.
What defines "big" government? Is it "big" government to set minimum standards for clean drinking water or food safety? How about pollution controls, especially for pollutants which present demonstrable harm? Consumer protection from false advertising or misrepresentation? How about tax-funded police, emergency response, or defense? Subsidized roads?
I don't know from where you hail, but I find it ironic that the states which profess the least need for "big" government are the ones subsisting the most on federal subsidy.
What defines "big" government? Is it "big" government to set minimum standards for clean drinking water or food safety? How about pollution controls, especially for pollutants which present demonstrable harm? Consumer protection from false advertising or misrepresentation? How about tax-funded police, emergency response, or defense? Subsidized roads?
I don't know from where you hail, but I find it ironic that the states which profess the least need for "big" government are the ones subsisting the most on federal subsidy.
I believe you mean "l" ;^) I still am, in that I believe personal liberty/responsibility should be the default stance except where this presents demonstrable deficiency or unwarranted harm. Ideologically, people should be free to succeed or fail. Pragmatically, we as a society have a vested interested in preventing many kinds of failure in others.
What defines "big" government? Is it "big" government to set minimum standards for clean drinking water or food safety? How about pollution controls, especially for pollutants which present demonstrable harm? Consumer protection from false advertising or misrepresentation? How about tax-funded police, emergency response, or defense? Subsidized roads?
I don't know from where you hail, but I find it ironic that the states which profess the least need for "big" government are the ones subsisting the most on federal subsidy.
In my definition, "big" government is what happens when a government tries to run everything it possibly can. Not regulate or oversee, but run. Ideally, government, on a national level, would be relegated to only two functions: 1) Ensure the safety and security of the citizens of the nation, and 2) Define trade with other nations. So, under the first point, most of what you said, should be done by the government. Food safety, pollution, consumer protection, police, military, emergency response, even health care, all fine by me. We could certainly do a much better job at not spending so much in all those areas, but that's a whole other issue.
But that's it. You also mentioned roads. That should be a state thing. States, unlike the country level, are who provide the basic services. These include, but are not limited to, real estate management, transportation, education, local police, local emergency response, business trade, port management, health services, utilities, and various forms of licensing. And then when you get down to the county and city level, at that point they can start thinking about things to make their people happy, which includes all of the recreational things like parks and museums.
So this is kind of what I feel the government should be doing. You know, we have this Constitution thingy that pretty well defines what the different levels of government should do. The whole point of what they did was to keep the national government from over-inflating itself. I just can't help but feel like the people in Washington DC, on both sides, want to control everything.
You also mentioned roads. That should be a state thing. States, unlike the country level, are who provide the basic services. These include, but are not limited to, real estate management, transportation, education, local police, local emergency response, business trade, port management, health services, utilities, and various forms of licensing. And then when you get down to the county and city level, at that point they can start thinking about things to make their people happy, which includes all of the recreational things like parks and museums.
In that case, the red states wouldn't be able to provide basic services, while the blue states would be enormously wealthy and prosperous. I don't think anyone believes that's the way to go.
Also, you omit the fact that standardization in many cases is responsible for prosperity. Do you honestly believe that, if each individual state made its own roads, as opposed to the Interstate system (with its immense and practical standards), that we would have nearly the transportation infrastructure we do today? The flyover states would be practically disconnected from the rest of the union were it not for national roads.
There's also the economy of scale. Nevermind the fact that many localities would likely make very, very poor decisions as to what to teach or provide. Would be it acceptable if Utah started teaching religion in public schools? Is it all right if Alabama decides maths and arts aren't important in school (despite the overwhelming evidence that they are)? If not for federal intervention, the south may well to this day have remained segregated. Do you honestly believe it's a good idea to leave incompetent people to their own devices on a large scale and without subsidy?
"L"ibertarion arguers too often forget the deeply interconnected nature of the modern world. To pretend that state borders somehow matter beyond being arbitrary distinctions in land ownership, booze laws, and taxation methods is laughable. To pretend that the actions of one state would not affect its neighbors is ludicrous. Policies in California cities matter to New Yorkers almost more than they matter to Californians outside of those cities. Commerce is so intermingled as to preclude any possibility of compartmentalization.
If you're against the government overruling the states, riddle me this. Should the federal government have stepped in to force integration in the south as it did? If not, why?
I'm a proponent of universal human standardization. One global government is in charge, delegating to lower level governments (a large scale version of the US's system) lesser tasks. Then you have a universal standard that everyone must pass at varying points of their life in order to continue being a citizen of the earth. Otherwise the matter in their body, which is owned by the global government (on loan to you) will be reclaimed, aggressively if necessary. The human gene pool can finally be properly managed and breeding programs will allow for a single, mixed heritage race. Various roles in society could be filled by people tailored from the genetic structure up, then raised and educated by the state to optimize their abilities to perform the tasks which they have been created for.
Diversity of culture and 'uniqueness' are merely outdated human views of deviant behavior, and we must recognize the urgent need to reign them back in. 'Personal liberties' must be forgone for the continuation of the race as a whole. 1984 is an inspirational view into how to ensure our race's continued propagation. The Giver and A Brave New World are also interesting views of possible futures, there are many wonderful books on this topic actually, unfortunately they have been largely misinterpreted in their commentary on civilization.
I suppose I have to actually tell the people on this forum because you don't know me in real life and you can't see me or hear my voice. My point is that if you push anything in a direction far enough it becomes frightening, and also I like to just throw that fear right at people. I'm not the kind of person who says things to make everyone happy, I say the stuff nobody wants to think about for the most part.
Although I personally do like the idea of being more than my individual self. I prefer the idea of being a cell in the laeviathan that is humanity, maybe why I've joined the army. You get the indoctrination pretty strong there.
If I was aiming to do that I would attack them ad hominem rather than suggesting my extremist views. It is worth exploring the extremes of these ideas. Generally I prefer to create an image that lets others formulate their own opinions by doing so rather than flat out telling them 'this is what I think, you should think it too'.
The issue that they are arguing comes down to this: who should have power. The real issue is that this is an infinitely muddy issue due to the sliding scale needed to keep things working properly. One extreme is pure individualism where all you care about is you (the child view) and the other is the one I just suggested (fascism on a global scale). Power meaning the ability to make decisions. Were there to be no organization whatsoever and power were equally distributed then nothing could really get done because by working as a team you are submitting some of your power to a supervisor/team leader/group. Yet the opposite is the picture that I just painted, and people seem to oppose that too. So really developing a system that decides who gets what amount of power when and is totally loophole free isn't going to happen. Someone is ALWAYS going to game the system.
In that case, the red states wouldn't be able to provide basic services, while the blue states would be enormously wealthy and prosperous. I don't think anyone believes that's the way to go.
And I rather doubt that would actually happen. The blue states are already enormously wealthy, so I don't see how that would change. The states already share resources. That's been happening our whole history.
Also, you omit the fact that standardization in many cases is responsible for prosperity. Do you honestly believe that, if each individual state made its own roads, as opposed to the Interstate system (with its immense and practical standards), that we would have nearly the transportation infrastructure we do today? The flyover states would be practically disconnected from the rest of the union were it not for national roads.
Um... yes? How do you think the Interstates were made? Most of them were just existing roads being connected together. Also, many of them, including the longest one in the country, was formed before the USDOT existed. If the federal government didn't make it, who did? Secondly, infrastructures pop up based on need, it doesn't depend on some standard being thought about and put into place beforehand. Our entire communications system was formed by businesses who decided that they wanted to get as many customers as they could. They didn't have to wait for someone to tell them what they should do before they did it.
There's also the economy of scale. Nevermind the fact that many localities would likely make very, very poor decisions as to what to teach or provide. Would be it acceptable if Utah started teaching religion in public schools? Is it all right if Alabama decides maths and arts aren't important in school (despite the overwhelming evidence that they are)? If not for federal intervention, the south may well to this day have remained segregated. Do you honestly believe it's a good idea to leave incompetent people to their own devices on a large scale and without subsidy?
What's wrong with teaching religion? Religion, if anything, is a subject of history and should be taught. I don't advocate teaching it as if it is law, but I would say the same for any subject that isn't a science, math, or language. And forget Alabama, most states have already come to that conclusion. And of course I never believe it's a good idea to have incompetent people running anything, but it happens more often than not.
If you're against the government overruling the states, riddle me this. Should the federal government have stepped in to force integration in the south as it did? If not, why?
Yes. The Declaration and Constitution both give out a bunch of freedoms and rights that we have as people. As such, it should have always been the right of all races to do everything that whites can do. In the same way, there should be no discrimination against the LGBT community whatsoever. But should the federal government force integration? Maybe not always. The American Disabilities Act, for example, has, in a lot of ways, made it more difficult for the people it was designed to help. A lot of things the government has enstated to help other minorities are also looked at negatively by people who want true fairness. But do I believe the government should remove discrimination, and thus fulfill the promise of our founding documents? Absolutely.
And I rather doubt that would actually happen. The blue states are already enormously wealthy, so I don't see how that would change. The states already share resources. That's been happening our whole history.
Umm, that's the point? If local state governments had to fend for themselves without federal subsidy, the flyover states would fall apart. Do you honestly believe a self-interested New York would fund road repair in Ohio? Ohio certainly can't do it. Without a federal system of redistribution, the interior would collapse.
Um... yes? How do you think the Interstates were made?
By federal mandate. When a road today is turned into an "Interstate," it must conform to exacting and largely universal standards enforced by the federal government. The states build them, but the federal government determines how, forces them to comply, and pays for most of it. The federal government also provided the initial planning. Without the strict federal control we had and continue to have, the system would not be universal and uniform as it is today.
What's wrong with teaching religion?
History of religion? That's part of history. Religion as fact? That's outright ludicrous. Utah and other states prove that the federal government needs to ensure that individual states don't tread into the waters of publically teaching patent nontruths to students.
I don't advocate teaching it as if it is law, but I would say the same for any subject that isn't a science, math, or language.
I would argue that arts programs, physical education, and numerous other fields of study are essential to the intelligence and well-being of students. To say that some tiny subset of "subjects" are all you need is to do the children a grave disservice. Are not practical fields, such as economics, more important? Are there not countless studies showing that music and art education drive better overall results across all fields?
The Declaration and Constitution both give out a bunch of freedoms and rights that we have as people. As such, it should have always been the right of all races to do everything that whites can do.
But it wasn't. Several states refused to do what was required by law. Had the federal government not intervened, they would not have integrated.
The American Disabilities Act, for example, has, in a lot of ways, made it more difficult for the people it was designed to help.
Such as?
You try to give all of these examples, but the fact remains: without federal intervention, the states would have continued to deny a large population basic human rights. Was that intervention justified or not?
You vastly underestimate the value provided by our centralized governing body.
Umm, that's the point? If local state governments had to fend for themselves without federal subsidy, the flyover states would fall apart. Do you honestly believe a self-interested New York would fund road repair in Ohio? Ohio certainly can't do it. Without a federal system of redistribution, the interior would collapse.
That is possible. It is also possible that those states could find a way to make themselves more economically viable.
Um... yes? How do you think the Interstates were made?
By federal mandate. When a road today is turned into an "Interstate," it must conform to exacting and largely universal standards enforced by the federal government. The states build them, but the federal government determines how, forces them to comply, and pays for most of it. The federal government also provided the initial planning. Without the strict federal control we had and continue to have, the system would not be universal and uniform as it is today.
I concede this point because I didn't do enough research when I posted the first time.
What's wrong with teaching religion?
History of religion? That's part of history. Religion as fact? That's outright ludicrous. Utah and other states prove that the federal government needs to ensure that individual states don't tread into the waters of publically teaching patent nontruths to students.
I don't advocate teaching it as if it is law, but I would say the same for any subject that isn't a science, math, or language.
I would argue that arts programs, physical education, and numerous other fields of study are essential to the intelligence and well-being of students. To say that some tiny subset of "subjects" are all you need is to do the children a grave disservice. Are not practical fields, such as economics, more important? Are there not countless studies showing that music and art education drive better overall results across all fields?
Either you didn't read what I said or you didn't get what I was implicating. I said very specifically that religion should be taught as a part of history, and not as if it's a patent truth. I would even go so far as to say religion should be taught as a part of political science and international studies because there are plenty of parts of the world today where the politics are still heavily driven by religions. Like it or not, people should understand it. And I never said that we shouldn't teach other subjects, what I was getting at is that science, math, and language are the only subjects that are completely based in fact and don't get swayed by opinion. Every other subject that can be taught is open to some form of interpretation. Which is why I don't advocate any other subject as being taught like it is patently true. That was my point.
The Declaration and Constitution both give out a bunch of freedoms and rights that we have as people. As such, it should have always been the right of all races to do everything that whites can do.
But it wasn't. Several states refused to do what was required by law. Had the federal government not intervened, they would not have integrated.
You try to give all of these examples, but the fact remains: without federal intervention, the states would have continued to deny a large population basic human rights. Was that intervention justified or not?
Um... I agreed with you. Intervention was justified. No need to ask again.
The American Disabilities Act, for example, has, in a lot of ways, made it more difficult for the people it was designed to help.
Such as?
You vastly underestimate the value provided by our centralized governing body.
And I think you underestimate the ability of smaller governing bodies to work with each other and come to the same results without the need of a larger body mandating it.
And I think you underestimate the ability of smaller governing bodies to work with each other and come to the same results without the need of a larger body mandating it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... just a note, how much experience do you have in local politics...
how much experience do you have in local politics...
I've met various people in my state from the local level all the way up to US Senators. By and large, the lower you go, the nicer the people are. But I don't take an active role, my callings are elsewhere.
I've met various people in my state from the local level all the way up to US Senators. By and large, the lower you go, the nicer the people are. But I don't take an active role, my callings are elsewhere.
I've met various people in my state from the local level all the way up to US Senators. By and large, the lower you go, the nicer the people are. But I don't take an active role, my callings are elsewhere.
Have you seen them in action?
Not in person. All information I get is from the news and second hand from people who have.
Comments
Regarding Scott's point, I don't have an internet version of this study, since I only read it on paper, but one study has shown that for the vast majority of children, if they don't become interested in learning about math and science by the time they finish third grade (which is ages 8-10), it is too late. Kids don't have to be proficient at anything by that time, but if they don't at least want to learn those by that time, they most likely never will. The necessity to get kids early is vastly underestimated.
I know that education quality varies a lot right now. Abolishing the DOED will make that WORSE. It's unrealistic to tell families to just uproot if they don't like he schools; in the end, the ones who lose are those who can't afford a private school or to move. The DOED needs MORE control over the education in the states, not less, and they need to raise the bar for education at the same time.
What we need is a DOED and schools that aren't afraid to give failing grades.
Oh and Pete, your one of those freaky commie one world government types :-p go back to the Moon.
I'm saying the DOED is perfect - far from it - but abolishing the agency would really be quite counterproductive. We need to get people on the same page with education, and allowing states like Texas to teach their own facts is a giant problem. Not one world government; I'm just big on education. If we can get the whole world adequately educated, we'll see a lot of problems disappear.
Anyways, I still think that standardized education up to around high school followed with an integrated internship/apprenticing program is the way to go. Public school systems simply aren't effective at teaching the more specific skill sets needed for many careers. I know that this method is fairly effective because I've actually gone through it, it's called the Career Internship Program, and one of my bosses is the guy I interned with. I basically did a ton of intern (read volunteer) work with him during my later years of high school, then after I knew the ropes already and graduated he hired me directly. By interning you save the company some money during a training phase, and they know for sure that you are trained the way that they want and you are familiar with their system, which is a huge gain for them in the long term.
To clear this up Scott, here's how the intern/apprentice program works. You do work for no money in exchange for training (in medieval times food and board) until you eventually become a journeyman after sufficient training. You then are paid for your work. In the old school apprentice program you then have to create a 'master work' and present it to a guild related to your trade as a kind of 'thesis'. If this piece is of PASSABLE QUALITY to be expected from a professional, you are then given the title of 'master' in the guild. So a master is simply someone who is accredited to start their own business, to clear up what I mean by that, not the Asian influenced perversion of the word referring to 'someone who's skill surpasses all others'.
Anyway once you work with the people in the field for a while you begin to understand what the heck you are doing, then ostensibly you 'graduate' and either A) stay with the company that you are already with maintaining rank etc
The viability of the different options depends heavily on what kind of trade you're in really though.
Rym and I were talking about this over the weekend, and we concur on the way it "ought" to work. We need an academic track that pushes the "smartest" kids to their absolute limits, so that they can always find an adequate challenge. You have to expose kids of all types to the same material at this difficulty. When, invariably, some children simply can't make it, you get those kids into alternate "tracks" where they can perform well.
We also need to divest ourselves of the notion that everyone can perform well if they try hard. Some kids are simply better at some subjects than others. Some kids are smarter than others at some things. You will have disparities in performance between students in any given subject; that's why it's important to identify a child's strengths and get them into a track that allows them to develop those.
High school really needs to prepare you for the real world. College should be the thing you do if it's what you need. Not everyone needs it. Something can be flawed but useful. It requires fixing. It doesn't have to be discarded altogether yet.
I don't know from where you hail, but I find it ironic that the states which profess the least need for "big" government are the ones subsisting the most on federal subsidy.
But that's it. You also mentioned roads. That should be a state thing. States, unlike the country level, are who provide the basic services. These include, but are not limited to, real estate management, transportation, education, local police, local emergency response, business trade, port management, health services, utilities, and various forms of licensing. And then when you get down to the county and city level, at that point they can start thinking about things to make their people happy, which includes all of the recreational things like parks and museums.
So this is kind of what I feel the government should be doing. You know, we have this Constitution thingy that pretty well defines what the different levels of government should do. The whole point of what they did was to keep the national government from over-inflating itself. I just can't help but feel like the people in Washington DC, on both sides, want to control everything.
Also, you omit the fact that standardization in many cases is responsible for prosperity. Do you honestly believe that, if each individual state made its own roads, as opposed to the Interstate system (with its immense and practical standards), that we would have nearly the transportation infrastructure we do today? The flyover states would be practically disconnected from the rest of the union were it not for national roads.
There's also the economy of scale. Nevermind the fact that many localities would likely make very, very poor decisions as to what to teach or provide. Would be it acceptable if Utah started teaching religion in public schools? Is it all right if Alabama decides maths and arts aren't important in school (despite the overwhelming evidence that they are)? If not for federal intervention, the south may well to this day have remained segregated. Do you honestly believe it's a good idea to leave incompetent people to their own devices on a large scale and without subsidy?
"L"ibertarion arguers too often forget the deeply interconnected nature of the modern world. To pretend that state borders somehow matter beyond being arbitrary distinctions in land ownership, booze laws, and taxation methods is laughable. To pretend that the actions of one state would not affect its neighbors is ludicrous. Policies in California cities matter to New Yorkers almost more than they matter to Californians outside of those cities. Commerce is so intermingled as to preclude any possibility of compartmentalization.
If you're against the government overruling the states, riddle me this. Should the federal government have stepped in to force integration in the south as it did? If not, why?
Diversity of culture and 'uniqueness' are merely outdated human views of deviant behavior, and we must recognize the urgent need to reign them back in. 'Personal liberties' must be forgone for the continuation of the race as a whole. 1984 is an inspirational view into how to ensure our race's continued propagation. The Giver and A Brave New World are also interesting views of possible futures, there are many wonderful books on this topic actually, unfortunately they have been largely misinterpreted in their commentary on civilization.
EDIT: I hereby vow to read your entire post before replying.
Although I personally do like the idea of being more than my individual self. I prefer the idea of being a cell in the laeviathan that is humanity, maybe why I've joined the army. You get the indoctrination pretty strong there.
The issue that they are arguing comes down to this: who should have power. The real issue is that this is an infinitely muddy issue due to the sliding scale needed to keep things working properly. One extreme is pure individualism where all you care about is you (the child view) and the other is the one I just suggested (fascism on a global scale). Power meaning the ability to make decisions. Were there to be no organization whatsoever and power were equally distributed then nothing could really get done because by working as a team you are submitting some of your power to a supervisor/team leader/group. Yet the opposite is the picture that I just painted, and people seem to oppose that too. So really developing a system that decides who gets what amount of power when and is totally loophole free isn't going to happen. Someone is ALWAYS going to game the system.
That is my point.
You try to give all of these examples, but the fact remains: without federal intervention, the states would have continued to deny a large population basic human rights. Was that intervention justified or not?
You vastly underestimate the value provided by our centralized governing body.