All, notice how some people think that children shouldn't be educated?

I wonder why?

Straw man. Nobody's saying children shouldn't be educated. You're confusing state education under compulsion, with education per se. You're only proving that you've been brainwashed.

You're also assuming that state education is better, when we have just seen that you are completely unable to defend that belief system without irrationality.

Its irrationality is proved by the fact that no-one can defend state interventions in education without instantly falling back to
1. self-contradiction - it's compulsory but it's not really compulsory
2. circular argument - it's better than the alternative because it's better than the alternative
3. ad hominem - anyone who questions it is acting in bad faith
4. misrepresentation - anyone who questions it is opposed to education per se.

Come on guys. Can't you do any better than that? It's pathetic.

Try actually being honest for a start. Admit that you favour compulsion as a means. Then come to terms with what that actually means in terms of real live human beings. Stop pretending it doesn't exist, or is not significant or irrelevant.

You're the ones arguing that compulsion is necessary and desirable, remember? Have the decency to own up to it, and show how you have taken it into account.

So far you haven't even done that. From the fact that you start from this squirming self-contradiction
a) it's hardly any recommendation of the alleged quality intellectual standards of state education is it?, and
b) you are in no position to conclude or assume that compulsion produces ethically, socially or pragmatically superior results, if you can't even acknowledge that it is compulsory in the first place and explain how or why that works to produce better value, and
c) that's a complete fail.

Come on. Try harder.

You guys are like one of those old-fashioned plastic punching clowns, biased at base, that just keeps bouncing up with a silly grin on its face after being repeatedly smashed down.

Jardine,
"Notice how no-one can defend state interventions in education other than by denying that it's compulsory?"
Notice the pink elephants flying above your head while you're at it, for they're just as real as your claim!

(NOTE: before you jump to another illogical conclusion, this means not real at all.)

I can defend state education on the basis of the opportunities it gives people. As can nearly anyone; it's blatantly obvious to most people. But you seem to care not about people but about deeply theoretical concepts. And worse still, they're concepts you don't understand, though of course you think you do.

Therefore the argument I made was not a general defence of state education; it was a rebuttal of your claims.

The argument you made was against state education, not education in general. You specifically asked if it was compulsory. Though education is compulsory, you don't have to get it from the state, therefore the answer is NO.

Whether something is state funded is not the determining factor as to whether something is compulsory; whether people have a legal right not to participate is.

"But of course if it's not compulsory, then you would have no objection to the abolition of the state's interventions, wouldn't you?"
Of course I would have an objection!

Can you really not see how totally idiotic that question was?

There are many cases where I support state intervention. Most of them have nothing to do with compulsion.

State intervention in education produces an overwhelming net benefit for human values, both ethical and economic.

Aidan

What kind of idiot asserts a net benefit by ignoring the costs?

But the costs are what's in issue remember, you fool, otherwise you would not need compulsion to obtain funding, would you? That's what you still haven't admitted, remember?

You can pretend all you like that the funding state education is voluntary, and you can pretend all you like that attendance is voluntary, but it only means you're either dishonest or stupid. Not even the State pretends that it's voluntary.

All you have offered in support of state education is self-contradiction (it's compulsory but it's not compulsory), circularity (it's good because you think it's good) and equivocation (state education means private schooling).

When confronted over your support for violence-based child abduction and indoctrination, you just go into a tail-spin of Stockholm syndrome, believing the abuser is doing good, even though if a private party did it, you would condemn the same behaviour as criminal.

Thus you are a perfect example of the state indoctrination producing a docile mind incapable of critical thinking as concerns the State.

You are your own proof against your own arguments.

All
Therefore no-one has been able to defend state education without self-contradiction or unfalsifiable open-ended statements of faith without evidence or reason such as Aidan's last sentence.

Therefore the author's thesis is completely disproved and indefensible.

The welter of evasion, illogic and blatant dishonesty in ALL defences of state education is not some kind of strange coincidence. It's all they've got. If this were not so, you'd think they could actually bring themselves to admit that compulsion is the foundation of what they advocate, wouldn't you, because if it wasn't, they would have no objection to abolishing state education, would they?

They must think everyone else is as docile and brainwashed as they are.

Jardine,
"What kind of idiot asserts a net benefit by ignoring the costs?"
Probably a politician.

But presuming you're accusing me of doing so, you're making the false assumption that asserting something requires every detail to be explained. By asserting an overwhelming net benefit I'm not ignoring the costs, I'm implying the costs are tiny compared to the benefits.

"But the costs are what's in issue remember,"
Look back over the thread and you'll see they're not. What's at issue is the role of the state. You seem to be under the delusion that any state involvement requires, and indeed equates to, violence. You're so far removed from reality that you can't accept that the state can have the opposite effect!

You claim "All you have offered in support of state education is self-contradiction (it's compulsory but it's not compulsory), circularity (it's good because you think it's good) and equivocation (state education means private schooling)." But the equivocation was on your part (I merely identified it) and was the reason for the illusion of self contradiction. As for the circularity, that occurred in your imagination not my argument. The reason why I say state education is good is that it enables people to do worthwhile things that they would otherwise be unable to do.

You are such an imbecile that you believe anarchy to be the LEAST violent situation despite overwhelming evidence! Is it possible to get any dumber than that? You prove it is by assuming anyone who takes an opposing view to be stupid!

Meanwhile I've maintained a consistent position, and explained all the apparent contradictions. And yet you keep accusing me of supporting things that I've said I oppose (and when challenged, explained why I oppose).

One of us is his own proof against his own arguments, but it ain't me!

All,

I don't think there's much point continuing this discussion with Jardine, as he seems unable to tell the difference between my arguments and his own strawman, and he seems unwilling to question his own ideology no matter how much the facts contradict it. But if you think he has made any valid point that I haven't addressed, let me know and I will address it.