My goodness, we are being judgmental today, Peter Hume.

>>No it’s you who are elitist for thinking that some people should be compelled to work against their will for the benefit others to indulge themselves in ineffectuality.<<

Which aspect of education do you regard as "indulging in ineffectuality"?

Some of it? All of it?

You are also making a massive assumption that the good folk who pay their taxes to support the education system in this country are doing so "against their will".

But do tell. Would you prefer i) no taxation at all, and an end-to-end user-pays education system, or ii) just a bit of taxation, but the right to direct it at those subjects of which you approve?

I get a clue from this:

>>Maybe if the government wasn’t taking income from some people to pay for others to saunter in the groves of academe, the first ones might be able to afford to pay for a bit of sauntering of their own – if they wanted it?<<

In theory, this is true. They might.

But you know as well as I do that making education a commodity will ensure that - very quickly - the "best" education will command the highest prices, while a "standard" education will be volume-driven. It is the nature of commoditization, in any field, for quality to remain out of reach of the hoi polloi. Think LVMH, versus Target and Dan Murphy's.

This is perfectly fine for haute couture and vintage champagne. But inappropriate, in my view, for an education system that is intended to provide sound learning opportunities for all.

While demand would remain fairly constant, the supply side would change its characteristics markedly, to optimize profitability. Which is their right.

>>There is no reason to think it’s funded by taking from the rich and giving to the poor.<<

That is not a point that I would make. Rather, that there are some aspects of our society that (almost) everyone would agree are our collective funding responsibility. Education, I submit. is one of those.

Thanks Pelican,
I'm not sure what else to make of Peter's demand that I identify a particular "we" cohort. As I indicated to him, it signified human perception and cognition, which I take to be common, more or less, to the species. What remains is the product of education, experience and preference/cultural bias/idiosyncrasy etc..

So if that's all you've got to challenge me on, Pete, I'll withdraw. Though I'm keen for you to expound your counterarguments and respective "proofs" (including that the globe is cooling!).

Pelican
That’s fine as far as it applies to mere difference of opinion, but not where the differences are to backed up by force, which is the case in all policy discussion.

For an extreme example, if the question is whether to abolish slavery, slave-holders can’t have the argument “We [me and my slaves in their capacity as my slaves] have to think about what’s the most efficient way to produce tobacco”, can they?

Yet we see this tactic all the time in policy discussions “We [I and all the people whom I advocate locking up for not complying with my opinion] should do X”.

The common use of “we” in that way involves a sleight-of-hand. It involves *too little* focus on semantics.

So far as Squeers advocates policy responses for his belief that we’re all going boil to death from catastrophic man-made global warming, it is not legitimate to use an “inclusive” expression to include all those who disagree with him, and whom his policies would expropriate or otherwise violate.

Pericles
If people were willing to pay taxes, taxes could just be abolished, couldn’t they?

My estimate of the value to society of such pieces as the author's is zero. I doubt anyone would pay for it voluntarily. If they want to, they should be free to do so. And if they want not to, they should be free not to do so.

Squeers
Okay, so presumably you mean all the people in the world, including everyone who disagrees with your opinions.

So you’re asking me to answer: “why don’t all the people in the world use objectivity to secure the future?”

I’m not sure I even understand the question. What makes you think they’re not, as best they can according to their value systems?

It’s common ground as between warmists and skeptics that the globe has been cooling since 1998; during all of which time GHGs have been *increasing*.

The onus is on you to prove catastrophic man-made global warming, since you’re asserting it. I know: - there’s a wodge of state-sponsored statistical manipulations somewhere?

Squeers

Peter Hume says you believe “we’re all going boil to death from catastrophic man-made global warming”

I can’t find where you said that. It seems to me he is making it up or is deliberately distorting or misrepresenting you. Can you confirm?

Peter Hume,

“It’s common ground as between warmists and skeptics that the globe has been cooling since 1998”.

You really don’t have to repeat guff to try and prove your assertion. If you don't understand time series analysis, just say so - "we" won't hold it against you.

Moreover, you keep pushing the “denier’s” use of the term “catastrophic”. Really, Peter – it is not as “catastrophic” as you try to infer. Repercussions will be bad enough without extremists (from both sides) trying to paint it that way.

Look I'm not the one asserting the need for any kind of policy on AGW. Those who assert it need to prove what the problem is, how they know, and prove that policy would necessarily improve the situation, and how they know, not just ASSUME they do, refer to absent authority, infer that incanting "time series analysis" supplies what proof they require, assuming that temperature measurements and statistical operations supply the necessary value judgments, and relying on *unscientific* faith in the omnicompetence and goodness of the state to fine-tune the world's climate - by taxation of course.

Peter Hume,
You often impress me mightily with the cutting edge of your thinking, but you're looking like a flee-bitten beggar in this thread and you really ought to shuffle off and save face..
But then the ego is a tyrant, isn't it?

Bonmot,
yes, Poor Peter's feeling the pinch and hyperbole's his only protection.

I agree we have to avoid words like "catastrophic" when it comes to climate change, though like any natural force left unchecked, and unmatched by a countervailing force, the incongruous element can reach catastrophic proportions.
I'm not an optimist when it comes to countering AGW, but more in the James Lovelock camp. Despite our giant brains we seem no more disposed to head off disaster than mice during a good harvest.