Salon on compulsory education

[Alan Forrester]

Salon has published an article whose author condemns compulsory education:

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/26/school_is_a_prison_and_damaging_our_kids/

It is good that articles on this topic can be published, but the
content has some flaws.

The author holds up Sudbury as an example of what non-compulsory
education looks like. This is not good because Sudbury still does
compulsory things like punish children for doing bad stuff.

The author also claims that school causes "psychological damage". I
have never seen this phrase used as anything other than a scientistic
catchphrase for the idea that a person is doing something bad as a
result of something that was done to them.

Proponents of compulsory education will wheel out a whole load of
studies saying compulsory education doesn't cause "psychological
damage". There will then be an inconclusive scuffle between the two
sides. Neither side will openly name or discuss the moral issues at
stake and so neither side will win.

The issue at stake is not "psychological damage". Rather, every time a
child is coerced, the process of critical discussion that could
uncover flaws in a position has been sabotaged for both the child and
the adult are both worse off. This is bad every time independently of
whether it makes a person act badly in the future.

Alan

[Elliot Temple]

On Sep 6, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Salon has published an article whose author condemns compulsory education:
>
> http://www.salon.com/2013/08/26/school_is_a_prison_and_damaging_our_kids/
>
> It is good that articles on this topic can be published, but the
> content has some flaws.
>
> The author holds up Sudbury as an example of what non-compulsory
> education looks like. This is not good because Sudbury still does
> compulsory things like punish children for doing bad stuff.

I think you mean "bad" (scare quotes) stuff, or stuff deemed bad by the Sudbury authorities. But it's not clear as written.

There are objections to punishment for bad stuff too (punishment isn't educational!! if a kid is doing bad stuff, doesn't he need help/education?), but one can make a better complaint against Sudbury by factoring in that some punishments aren't actually for bad stuff.

>
> The author also claims that school causes "psychological damage". I
> have never seen this phrase used as anything other than a scientistic
> catchphrase for the idea that a person is doing something bad as a
> result of something that was done to them.

by "bad" here, do you mean something deemed "bad" (scare quotes) by the speaker?

>
> Proponents of compulsory education will wheel out a whole load of
> studies saying compulsory education doesn't cause "psychological
> damage". There will then be an inconclusive scuffle between the two
> sides. Neither side will openly name or discuss the moral issues at
> stake and so neither side will win.
>
> The issue at stake is not "psychological damage". Rather, every time a
> child is coerced, the process of critical discussion that could
> uncover flaws in a position has been sabotaged for both the child and
> the adult are both worse off. This is bad every time independently of
> whether it makes a person act badly in the future.

Also, children are humans. Humans have rights. Violating those rights is bad. People have rights for important reasons. In the West, the same people who advocate violating the human rights of children do NOT advocate violating the human rights of adults. They aren't debating rights themselves; instead they advocate a double standard.

There's many different problems with coercive non-education.

-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/

[Alan Forrester]

On 6 Sep 2013, at 19:54, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

>
> On Sep 6, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Salon has published an article whose author condemns compulsory education:
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/2013/08/26/school_is_a_prison_and_damaging_our_kids/
>>
>> It is good that articles on this topic can be published, but the
>> content has some flaws.
>>
>> The author holds up Sudbury as an example of what non-compulsory
>> education looks like. This is not good because Sudbury still does
>> compulsory things like punish children for doing bad stuff.
>
> I think you mean "bad" (scare quotes) stuff, or stuff deemed bad by the Sudbury authorities. But it's not clear as written.

I did mean stuff deemed bad by the Sudbury authorities. They will often be wrong and may occasionally be right.

> There are objections to punishment for bad stuff too (punishment isn't educational!! if a kid is doing bad stuff, doesn't he need help/education?),

Yes.

> but one can make a better complaint against Sudbury by factoring in that some punishments aren't actually for bad stuff.

Agreed.

>> The author also claims that school causes "psychological damage". I
>> have never seen this phrase used as anything other than a scientistic
>> catchphrase for the idea that a person is doing something bad as a
>> result of something that was done to them.
>
> by "bad" here, do you mean something deemed "bad" (scare quotes) by the speaker?

Yes I mean bad by the speaker's lights.

>> Proponents of compulsory education will wheel out a whole load of
>> studies saying compulsory education doesn't cause "psychological
>> damage". There will then be an inconclusive scuffle between the two
>> sides. Neither side will openly name or discuss the moral issues at
>> stake and so neither side will win.
>>
>> The issue at stake is not "psychological damage". Rather, every time a
>> child is coerced, the process of critical discussion that could
>> uncover flaws in a position has been sabotaged for both the child and
>> the adult are both worse off. This is bad every time independently of
>> whether it makes a person act badly in the future.
>
> Also, children are humans. Humans have rights. Violating those rights is bad. People have rights for important reasons. In the West, the same people who advocate violating the human rights of children do NOT advocate violating the human rights of adults. They aren't debating rights themselves; instead they advocate a double standard.

They are more reluctant to violate the rights of adults than those of children but there are lots of adults who have their rights violated.

> There's many different problems with coercive non-education.

Yes. A short list.

(1) It's very hard to prevent bullying if a person is guaranteed to be in a particular place at a particular time.

(2) If children can go the toilet without asking for permission they can get out of class easily, which is incompatible with forcing them to "learn". If they can't some children will end up defecating in their underwear.

(3) A teacher can say all kinds of false stuff in class and since the teacher has power over pupils the pupils may be reluctant to correct him or even to ask questions about his bad positions.

Alan

[Tom Hall]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 6 Sep 2013, at 19:54, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:

>
> On Sep 6, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Salon has published an article whose author condemns compulsory education:
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/2013/08/26/school_is_a_prison_and_damaging_our_kids/
>>
>> It is good that articles on this topic can be published, but the
>> content has some flaws.
>>
>> The author holds up Sudbury as an example of what non-compulsory
>> education looks like. This is not good because Sudbury still does
>> compulsory things like punish children for doing bad stuff.
>
> I think you mean "bad" (scare quotes) stuff, or stuff deemed bad by the Sudbury authorities. But it's not clear as written.

I did mean stuff deemed bad by the Sudbury authorities. They will often be wrong and may occasionally be right.

Of course, anyone could be wrong or right -  but Sudbury Valley style schools are democratic schools run completely by the students, so in this case, it is the students themselves who are both deciding what "bad stuff" is and giving punishment for it. All school rules are voted on by the students and the judicial system is student run, by a representative group of students of all ages. Anyone who disagrees about the crime or the punishment can go to school meeting and try to change it.

[David Deutsch]

On 10 Sep 2013, at 16:14, Tom Hall <tom...@freeimprovisation.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> >> The author holds up Sudbury as an example of what non-compulsory
> >> education looks like. This is not good because Sudbury still does
> >> compulsory things like punish children for doing bad stuff.
>

...

>> I did mean stuff deemed bad by the Sudbury authorities. They will often be wrong and may occasionally be right.
>
> Of course, anyone could be wrong or right - but Sudbury Valley style schools are democratic schools run completely by the students, so in this case, it is the students themselves who are both deciding what "bad stuff" is and giving punishment for it. All school rules are voted on by the students and the judicial system is student run, by a representative group of students of all ages. Anyone who disagrees about the crime or the punishment can go to school meeting and try to change it.

Is that what non-compulsory education looks like?

-- David Deutsch

[Alan Forrester]

On 10 Sep 2013, at 16:14, Tom Hall <tom...@freeimprovisation.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 6 Sep 2013, at 19:54, Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Salon has published an article whose author condemns compulsory education:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.salon.com/2013/08/26/school_is_a_prison_and_damaging_our_kids/
>>>>
>>>> It is good that articles on this topic can be published, but the content has some flaws.
>>>>

>>>> The author holds up Sudbury as an example of what non-compulsory education looks like. education looks like.

>>>> This is not good because Sudbury still does compulsory things like punish children for doing bad stuff.
>>>
>>> I think you mean "bad" (scare quotes) stuff, or stuff deemed bad by the Sudbury authorities. But it's not clear as written.
>>
>> I did mean stuff deemed bad by the Sudbury authorities. They will often be wrong and may occasionally be right.
>
> Of course, anyone could be wrong or right - but Sudbury Valley style schools are democratic schools run completely by the students, so in this case, it is the students themselves who are both deciding what "bad stuff" is and giving punishment for it. All school rules are voted on by the students and the judicial system is student run, by a representative group of students of all ages. Anyone who disagrees about the crime or the punishment can go to school meeting and try to change it.

A punishment involves deliberately hurting a person. That is, the punisher inflicts something on the punishee that the punishee does not want precisely because the punishee does not want it. There is no such thing as a voluntary punishment.

In Sudbury presumably the point of the punishment is to teach the person being punished a lesson: he should not commit the kind of act for which he is being punished. So Sudbury practises compulsory "education".

I put "education" in inverted commas for two reasons.

First, a punishment isn't an explanation and so can't refute the ideas of the person who broke the rule or the enforcers. So the punishment can't help anybody learn anything.

Second, let's suppose that a group of people all voluntarily break the rule as part of some activity they undertake and everybody participating learns something as a result. If anybody outside of that group sees the rule being broken he can get them all punished. And of course everybody knows that this can happen, so some people who would participate if the rule didn't exist will not participate. So the punishment and the rule prevent learning.

Sudbury is not an example of non-compulsory education.

Alan

[Elliot Temple]

if an authority is deemed representative and has been voted on, then you won't be coerced when they punish you..?

if you disagree with a punishment, but it's forced on you, you won't be coerced because you had the option to try to reason with the people hurting you at some meetings?

[Jordan Talcot]

Do you mean that because the rules are made up by students, they aren't made up by authorities?

Jordan

[Tom Hall]

Individual behavior in any group social setting is never entirely free from compulsion.

Whenever a large number of people come together there is always an implicit or explicit agreement about what is considered acceptable behavior, and that agreement is enforced in some way by the people who are there. When 1) both the choice of what kind of behavior is not acceptable to the group and the consequences of this not acceptable behavior is the result of a freely made agreements by the group  2) all of the people there have the choice to come to that place and accept these agreed upon codes of behavior or not and 3) every individual has the power to change it to something else if they disagree with it, it's about as non - compulsory as any real life group situation could be.

I guess if the most important thing to you as an individual is to not ever be confronted with the possibility of being compelled, then your best choice would be to do everything by yourself.  

[Jordan Talcot]

Children don't actually have free choice wrt going to SVS though. A lot of them *have* to go to school. They are choosing the best option, out of a few things that they are being forced to choose. If they were to quit SVS, that would mean going to something worse. They don't have the choice of quitting SVS and just doing what they want. (Even the ones who are allowed to homeschool don't all have the choice to homeschool as *they* see fit -- they will have to deal with parent interference in their life, which may be even worse than the SVS rules.)

In the case that #2 actually was being met -- i.e., if you were talking about a place people had real freedom to choose to go to or not -- then I don't see why #1 would be necessary. If I am choosing to go somewhere, and know the rules beforehand, what does it matter whether or not I, and the other people there, had a hand in actually making the rules? If I am choosing to go somewhere, I care *what* the rules are -- I want them to be rules that I think are objectively good. I don't care who made the rules in the first place.

Really, only going places where me & all the other people who go there actually *made* the rules sounds rather tedious. I don't have the time to make up rules that I like to all the places I want to go to, or vote on them with other people. I would rather just be able to choose to go to places where I agree with the rules.

> and 3) every individual has the power to change it to something else if
> they disagree with it, it's about as non - compulsory as any real life
> group situation could be.

Again, if #2 were actually being met, this sounds even *worse* than the place just having clear rules, which allow me to choose whether or not I want to attend. This means that the rules can just change at any time, depending on the will of whoever happens to be there.

I much prefer the model of private property, where property owners are allowed to create what they like, with whatever rules they like, and I am free to choose to attend if I would like their product/service and agree to their rules. That way at least I know what to expect.

> I guess if the most important thing to you as an individual is to not ever
> be confronted with the possibility of being compelled, then your best
> choice would be to do everything by yourself.

No. In real life, as an adult, people aren't allowed to just compel you to do things like that. You are allowed to just get up and leave. In SVS, if the child "chooses" to just "get up and leave", then he is also "choosing" to go back to public school, or possibly to coercive homeschooling.

Saying that is "free choice" is like if the government gave you the "free choice" to either live in a commune where you all make the rules together, or go to jail. And that you should be happy with the commune, because you are allowed to take part in making the rules, even if you don't agree with a single one of them -- at least you are allowed to vote! And you can always try to get the rule changed! And how can you say you are compelled or coerced? We also gave you the choice of jail! You are the one who is choosing to be in a commune.

Jordan

[Alan Forrester]

You say in (1) that the group sets the standards of behaviour but in
(3) that an individual can change those standards. If the group sets
and enforces standards then the individual can't change them without
convincing other members of the group.

> I guess if the most important thing to you as an individual is to not ever
> be confronted with the possibility of being compelled, then your best choice
> would be to do everything by yourself.

For any particular activity there is some set of people who want to
participate. They need only agree with one another to the extent
required for that activity. That is, if they initially disagree they
should try to change their positions until each person reaches a
position he prefers to his original position - this is called a common
preference. If they can't reach such agreement then they shouldn't
want to cooperate on it and should not be required to cooperate. They
shouldn't want to cooperate because they disagree about what they want
to do and will work at cross purposes. They shouldn't be required to
cooperate because that will make it difficult for people to avoid
working at cross purposes.

Note that this process doesn't involve starting with rules and then
getting people to vote on them. Nor is the common preference enforced
because it doesn't have to be enforced: everybody involved wants to
enact it. An unforeseen problem could come up and in that case a new
common preference might be needed but this still isn't a rule.

Note also that what is required for this to work is that people should
not want to cooperate unless they can find a CP.

Do you have a criticism or questions about the above argument?

Alan

[Tom Hall]

Yes.  At present children are legally property, so they don't actually have free choice about anything.  Within the legal constraints of our current society, SVS does attempt to create an environment where children have as much choice as possible.  In any discussion about real places that exist in the real world, where children can legally "be in school" and have the least coercion applied to them on a daily basis, SVS would be close to the top of the list.

In the case that #2 actually was being met -- i.e., if you were talking about a place people had real freedom to choose to go to or not -- then I don't see why #1 would be necessary. If I am choosing to go somewhere, and know the rules beforehand, what does it matter whether or not I, and the other people there, had a hand in actually making the rules? If I am choosing to go somewhere, I care *what* the rules are -- I want them to be rules that I think are objectively good. I don't care who made the rules in the first place.

#1 is not neccesary.  I can go to a baseball game, for instance, and enjoy myself whether I have any clue about the social and legal contracts and agreements that created that event and the behavior expected there. If I don't like baseball, I can leave. But that is not what we are talking about here.

If you are a child who has always lived in a world where you are constantly forced to follow arbitrary rules made by your parents and other adult authorities, it is a very real difference to be in a society where all of the rules are established, agreed to, and enforced by your peers.

Really, only going places where me & all the other people who go there actually *made* the rules sounds rather tedious. I don't have the time to make up rules that I like to all the places I want to go to, or vote on them with other people. I would rather just be able to choose to go to places where I agree with the rules.

I believe we are talking about a very specific situation, (SVS) not every situation in your life (although technically, every time you act within agreed upon boundaries, you are recreating those boundaries and enforcing them. So yes, the people who are there actually do create those rules and boundaries at each moment)

> and 3) every individual has the power to change it to something else if
> they disagree with it, it's about as non - compulsory as any real life
> group situation could be.

Again, if #2 were actually being met, this sounds even *worse* than the place just having clear rules, which allow me to choose whether or not I want to attend. This means that the rules can just change at any time, depending on the will of whoever happens to be there.

I much prefer the model of private property, where property owners are allowed to create what they like, with whatever rules they like, and I am free to choose to attend if I would like their product/service and agree to their rules. That way at least I know what to expect.

It's not private property, it is an artificially constructed group.  The way change occurs in these kind of "rules" is by convincing others to agree to the changes.
 

> I guess if the most important thing to you as an individual is to not ever
> be confronted with the possibility of being compelled, then your best
> choice would be to do everything by yourself.

No. In real life, as an adult, people aren't allowed to just compel you to do things like that. You are allowed to just get up and leave. In SVS, if the child "chooses" to just "get up and leave", then he is also "choosing" to go back to public school, or possibly to coercive homeschooling.

Sorry, but other people compel you to do things like that all the time.  Do you pay taxes? Obey traffic laws? wear clothes in public? Etc. etc. you get the idea...

 

Saying that is "free choice" is like if the government gave you the "free choice" to either live in a commune where you all make the rules together, or go to jail. And that you should be happy with the commune, because you are allowed to take part in making the rules, even if you don't agree with a single one of them -- at least you are allowed to vote! And you can always try to get the rule changed! And how can you say you are compelled or coerced? We also gave you the choice of jail! You are the one who is choosing to be in a commune.

Yep, as long as children are property, they do not have actual free choice. But I am still very glad that there are people who try to create situations where they are act as if they do.

Jordan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Taking Children Seriously" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to taking-children-se...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Tom Hall]

>>
>> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Forrester
>> > <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>

You say in (1) that the group sets the standards of behaviour but in
(3) that an individual can change those standards. If the group sets
and enforces standards then the individual can't change them without
convincing other members of the group.

Yes, that is true.
 

> I guess if the most important thing to you as an individual is to not ever
> be confronted with the possibility of being compelled, then your best choice
> would be to do everything by yourself.

For any particular activity there is some set of people who want to
participate. They need only agree with one another to the extent
required for that activity. That is, if they initially disagree they
should try to change their positions until each person reaches a
position he prefers to his original position - this is called a common
preference. If they can't reach such agreement then they shouldn't
want to cooperate on it and should not be required to cooperate. They
shouldn't want to cooperate because they disagree about what they want
to do and will work at cross purposes. They shouldn't be required to
cooperate because that will make it difficult for people to avoid
working at cross purposes.

Yes, that sounds reasonable, except you are leaving out the fact that any activity, by it's very nature, has a set of boundaries and rules already in place before anyone agrees to participate. That is how we distinguish this activity (whether it is "going to SVS", "playing basketball" or "Bandersnatch transgormifying")  from other  activities.

 

Note that this process doesn't involve starting with rules and then
getting people to vote on them. Nor is the common preference enforced
because it doesn't have to be enforced: everybody involved wants to
enact it. An unforeseen problem could come up and in that case a new
common preference might be needed but this still isn't a rule.

In any artificially constructed organization (ie SVS, or The United States of America, or the NBA), the process does indeed involve proposing rules and having people vote on them. The bigger and more complicated the construct, the more planning, voting and negotiating is involved. Perhaps there is a way to construct and run a large organization based on CP, but I haven't ever seen it happen in real life.

Note also that what is required for this to work is that people should
not want to cooperate unless they can find a CP.

I would contend that it's human nature to want to cooperate and do stuff together, and that need is very strong, CP or no CP.   So maybe it can't actually work?

 

Do you have a criticism or questions about the above argument?

Alan

[Alan Forrester]

On 13 Sep 2013, at 18:43, Tom Hall <tom...@freeimprovisation.com> wrote:

>
>> >>
>> >> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Forrester
>> >> > <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> You say in (1) that the group sets the standards of behaviour but in
>> (3) that an individual can change those standards. If the group sets
>> and enforces standards then the individual can't change them without
>> convincing other members of the group.
>
> Yes, that is true.

Do you agree that SVS practices compulsory education?

>> > I guess if the most important thing to you as an individual is to not ever
>> > be confronted with the possibility of being compelled, then your best choice
>> > would be to do everything by yourself.
>>
>> For any particular activity there is some set of people who want to
>> participate. They need only agree with one another to the extent
>> required for that activity. That is, if they initially disagree they
>> should try to change their positions until each person reaches a
>> position he prefers to his original position - this is called a common
>> preference. If they can't reach such agreement then they shouldn't
>> want to cooperate on it and should not be required to cooperate. They
>> shouldn't want to cooperate because they disagree about what they want
>> to do and will work at cross purposes. They shouldn't be required to
>> cooperate because that will make it difficult for people to avoid
>> working at cross purposes.
>
> Yes, that sounds reasonable, except you are leaving out the fact that any activity, by it's very nature, has a set of boundaries and rules already in place before anyone agrees to participate. That is how we distinguish this activity (whether it is "going to SVS", "playing basketball" or "Bandersnatch transgormifying") from other activities.

There are two things I will say about this.

(1) People can engage in activities constrained by rules and benefit, e.g. - a game of chess. In such cases the people concerned want to abide by the rules because those rules help them to do something interesting. So the rules don't need to be enforced. There could be a disagreement about whether somebody has adhered to the rules but then both of the people involved want that to be resolved and the way to resolve it is to find an explanation of whether the alleged rule break is an actual rule break.

(2) Some activities have no rules. Rather, they have an objective and if you have to change your ideas about how things should be done to reach that objective then you should do that. For example, there may have been a time when people thought the best way to explain biological complexity was to find out why god designed it that way. But biologists no longer think that way because evolution is a better way to understand that issue.

>> Note that this process doesn't involve starting with rules and then
>> getting people to vote on them. Nor is the common preference enforced
>> because it doesn't have to be enforced: everybody involved wants to
>> enact it. An unforeseen problem could come up and in that case a new
>> common preference might be needed but this still isn't a rule.
>
> In any artificially constructed organization (ie SVS, or The United States of America, or the NBA), the process does indeed involve proposing rules and having people vote on them. The bigger and more complicated the construct, the more planning, voting and negotiating is involved. Perhaps there is a way to construct and run a large organization based on CP, but I haven't ever seen it happen in real life.
>
>> Note also that what is required for this to work is that people should
>> not want to cooperate unless they can find a CP.
>
> I would contend that it's human nature to want to cooperate and do stuff together, and that need is very strong, CP or no CP. So maybe it can't actually work?

Let's suppose that at present people want to cooperate even when that cooperation is not voluntary. That doesn't really tell us anything interesting. It used to be the case that most people wanted to burn witches. That doesn't mean witch burning is good or necessary.

Do you think compulsory education is good or necessary and if so why?

Alan

[Tom Hall]

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 13 Sep 2013, at 18:43, Tom Hall <tom...@freeimprovisation.com> wrote:

>
>> >>
>> >> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Forrester
>> >> > <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> You say in (1) that the group sets the standards of behaviour but in
>> (3) that an individual can change those standards. If the group sets
>> and enforces standards then the individual can't change them without
>> convincing other members of the group.
>
> Yes, that is true.

Do you agree that SVS practices compulsory education?

Yes, because it practices education in a society where education is compulsory. Outside of some state mandated attendance rules, and a set of organizational rules, all of the educational aspects of the school, including being at the school itself, are completely non-compulsory. But it's really a trick question, because by the definitions you are using here, there is literally no time in our lives where we are existing without compulsion, and no institution that is non-compulsory. 

SVS is the only real life institution I have ever encountered that comes within spitting range of  TCS ideals regarding the treatment of children and their education.  A natural ally of TCS minded people, I would think, and I must admit I'm surprised to see an adversarial attitude towards it.

>> > I guess if the most important thing to you as an individual is to not ever
>> > be confronted with the possibility of being compelled, then your best choice
>> > would be to do everything by yourself.
>>
>> For any particular activity there is some set of people who want to
>> participate. They need only agree with one another to the extent
>> required for that activity. That is, if they initially disagree they
>> should try to change their positions until each person reaches a
>> position he prefers to his original position - this is called a common
>> preference. If they can't reach such agreement then they shouldn't
>> want to cooperate on it and should not be required to cooperate. They
>> shouldn't want to cooperate because they disagree about what they want
>> to do and will work at cross purposes. They shouldn't be required to
>> cooperate because that will make it difficult for people to avoid
>> working at cross purposes.
>
> Yes, that sounds reasonable, except you are leaving out the fact that any activity, by it's very nature, has a set of boundaries and rules already in place before anyone agrees to participate. That is how we distinguish this activity (whether it is "going to SVS", "playing basketball" or "Bandersnatch transgormifying")  from other  activities.

There are two things I will say about this.

(1) People can engage in activities constrained by rules and benefit, e.g. - a game of chess. In such cases the people concerned want to abide by the rules because those rules help them to do something interesting. So the rules don't need to be enforced. There could be a disagreement about whether somebody has adhered to the rules but then both of the people involved want that to be resolved and the way to resolve it is to find an explanation of whether the alleged rule break is an actual rule break.

Yep. This pretty much describes the judicial system at SVS.  The people there want to abide by the rules ( and want other people to abide by them) because that helps them all do something interesting (go to SVS, keep intact the unique culture that makes it an interesting place to be).  If there is a disagreement about whether someone has adhered to the rules, the person who is disagreeing writes a complaint, at which time everyone involved gets together with a representative group of students whose turn it is to serve on the judicial committee to discuss whether the alleged rule break is an actual rule break, and if so, how the issue should be resolved.

(2) Some activities have no rules. Rather, they have an objective and if you have to change your ideas about how things should be done to reach that objective then you should do that. For example, there may have been a time when people thought the best way to explain biological complexity was to find out why god designed it that way. But biologists no longer think that way because evolution is a better way to understand that issue.

>> Note that this process doesn't involve starting with rules and then
>> getting people to vote on them. Nor is the common preference enforced
>> because it doesn't have to be enforced: everybody involved wants to
>> enact it. An unforeseen problem could come up and in that case a new
>> common preference might be needed but this still isn't a rule.
>
> In any artificially constructed organization (ie SVS, or The United States of America, or the NBA), the process does indeed involve proposing rules and having people vote on them. The bigger and more complicated the construct, the more planning, voting and negotiating is involved. Perhaps there is a way to construct and run a large organization based on CP, but I haven't ever seen it happen in real life.
>
>> Note also that what is required for this to work is that people should
>> not want to cooperate unless they can find a CP.
>
> I would contend that it's human nature to want to cooperate and do stuff together, and that need is very strong, CP or no CP.   So maybe it can't actually work?

Let's suppose that at present people want to cooperate even when that cooperation is not voluntary. That doesn't really tell us anything interesting. It used to be the case that most people wanted to burn witches. That doesn't mean witch burning is good or necessary.

No need to suppose.  We are social animals, and all people (except those sociopaths that are psychologically crippled in some way) are genetically engineered to want to cooperate with other people.  This tells us something about how people really are, which I think is very interesting.  If you structure your ideal society around an imaginary way that you think people "should" behave, without considering how people actually do behave, it will not work very well.

Do you think compulsory education is good or necessary and if so why?

Is compulsory education good? No, and it's impossible, really.

Is compulsory education necessary? In 1900, probably.  In 2013 (at least in the USA), probably not, in most cases.

I do think, that until laws are enacted that give children the same rights and protections as other classes of humans, compulsory education does offer some small measure of protection against certain abuses by the children's owners.

[Elliot Temple]

Yes. Good points. Why does anyone disagree?


-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.us/

[Elliot Temple]

On Sep 16, 2013, at 4:44 AM, Tom Hall <tom...@FREEIMPROVISATION.COM> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Alan Forrester <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2013, at 18:43, Tom Hall <tom...@freeimprovisation.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Forrester
>> >> >> > <alanmichae...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> You say in (1) that the group sets the standards of behaviour but in
>> >> (3) that an individual can change those standards. If the group sets
>> >> and enforces standards then the individual can't change them without
>> >> convincing other members of the group.
>> >
>> > Yes, that is true.
>>
>> Do you agree that SVS practices compulsory education?
>
> Yes, because it practices education in a society where education is compulsory. Outside of some state mandated attendance rules, and a set of organizational rules, all of the educational aspects of the school, including being at the school itself, are completely non-compulsory. But it's really a trick question, because by the definitions you are using here, there is literally no time in our lives where we are existing without compulsion, and no institution that is non-compulsory.
>
> SVS is the only real life institution I have ever encountered that comes within spitting range of TCS ideals regarding the treatment of children and their education. A natural ally of TCS minded people, I would think, and I must admit I'm surprised to see an adversarial attitude towards it.

(Sorry about the quoting, Tom Hall broke it, I slightly fixed it.)


Suppose you came and old us that Montessori schools came in spitting range of TCS, and we told you about all the horrible stuff that happens there. What's the difference?


You come tell us how great SVS is, except we're well aware of how truly awful those places are. You seem to like them. We find them disgusting. What's your point other than you lack the sensitivities that we have and want us to stop having them and approve of you and the things you like, such as SVS?

SVS is full of coercive stuff that isn't forced by the Government or Law. For example, sometimes children want to do simple things like run inside and are arbitrarily stopped from doing so. Sometimes, after they are stopped from doing what they want, they are additionally punished at length by being dragged to a boring frustrating meeting – and told to participate and how wonderful it is, and how they have to listen to whatever everyone feels like saying – then they get punished again after the meeting according to the arbitrary whims of some of the kids at the meeting. That's fucking hell on Earth. I use strong words because it's absolutely utterly nothing like TCS. It's cruel and irrational.

-- Elliot Temple
http://elliottemple.com/