in practice there are always going to be limits placed that reflect public (i.e. majority) views .. so why not at both ends?

I agree that in practice there are many steps in the wrong direction. Why not oppose new missteps?

all I’d like to see is children taught the basic tools for questioning

Me too. How should we do that? We agree that parents will guide their children by instruction and example – even when that instruction and example is odious.

Is there another way to achieve this standardization than government requirements?

I’d define “coercive power of the State” as a government that employs its power to tax, require attendance, and enforce curriculum.

In a free market of education providers, parents pick the learning they desire for their children. My desires might match your desires, or they might not. With a market, we can both choose what we prefer – secular or religious, advanced studies or egalitarian co-dependence. The providers’ profit motive creates incentive to provide the best service at the lowest price. If the service provider (school) fails to deliver the service we want at the price we want, we can fire them and try a competitor. This applies downward pressure on prices, and upward pressure on responsiveness.

In state-run education, one size is provided for all. The provider cannot be fired. There is no motive (other than personal integrity) to provide competitive service. Teachers acquire tenure and become fire-proof. Prices are taxed by “coercive power of the State”. No amount of money thrown at the system by legislators and voters ever seems to result in better education.

The bottom line is: free markets provide better goods and services – more cheaply, more efficiently, and more ethically – than government solutions. This applies to retail goods, doctors, garage mechanics, auto manufacturers, food, shelter, and schools.

On religion and parents rights, I’d repeat again that all I’d like to see is children taught the basic tools for questioning .. questioning the State, questioning their parents, questioning the text books, questioning whether the Earth is really a sphere and not flat. So I’m assuming that parents will still get their beliefs across to their children by some mixture of explicit instruction – or just by example.

On brainwashing I’ll stick to my original definition. I don’t see the need to include coercion as part of the definition (unless you see the removal of the brainwashee’s ability to question as being coercion). I would claim that children who are “taught” using methods that don’t allow them to question are being brainwashed, regardless of the methods used or of the validity or otherwise of the material or attitudes or beliefs being “taught”.

On education, I’m Australian and we have a strong “private” education system running in parallel with the government run system. At the primary/secondary level I can’t think of a single school that isn’t being run by a special interest group (mostly religions). So the answer here is unequivocally that the private schools meet your definition of having a vested interest in “indoctrination”.

Our public services are more independent of government interference than yours so curricula and standards are set by bureaucrats, not “government officials”, and hence are more stable and more open to public inspection and debate. (Of course a stable bureaucracy brings with it its own problems but they are just as present in the work force of large corporations).

Even if your schools are run for profit, does that mean that they aren’t trying to form the student’s basic attitudes?

And both of you (Brad included) could you give me some idea of what indoctrination you believe that the State is trying to do to (you and) your children? What is this “coercive power of the State” . What are people “whose very paychecks are paid by the State” likely to do that those who are paid by a not-for-profit or commercial entity would not do? (my capitalisation).

Your Pre-K sounds a bit iffy to me. My children went to day-care so we could both work, but there was nothing formal about it and they weren’t supposed to be there to prepare them for school. While some of the groups are commercial enterprises, others are run by local councils as a service or even by groups of mothers (all have to meet health and safety standards).

And if you want to spend time on a good conspiracy theory .. choose a non-profit entity that runs schools (probably a religion) and see if you can come up with the proportion of money/resources spent by them on working with children up to say 10 years old versus how much they spend on working with other ages within the population (hospitals and retirement homes and other social services). I think you’ll find the numbers totally disproportionate and hence supportive of the idea that they are aware at some level that they are “brainwashing” the children (they would probably say they were just helping them to form their opinions :-)

Brad .. I’m not going near the idea of when a family is so destructive that the children “should” be taken out. That is a definite lose-lose situation.

We can all make statements about what kids should and shouldn’t be taught, but at what point do you start taking kids away from them?

After all, you think that the burqa ban is legitimate. Do you think that Islamic parents who teach their kids that burqas are appropriate should have their kids taken away?

Children (until around 7?) are uniquely vulnerable in being in an unreasoning state of acceptance … sort of as if they were being given my “drugs” at every meal … and so their rights need to be specially protected.

Okay, so again let’s get to my religion question (since we’re talking about the burqa here). Most religions start their training pretty young, usually pre-7. Here it’s “Sunday School”, although I don’t know what the equivalent is in Islam. And my general take on it is that critical questions (if a kid under 7 were to even come up with one) won’t be exactly welcome in either case.

In both cases I think it’d fit both your and Akston’s definition of brainwashing. Shall we craft an exception to the first amendment, then for kids pre-7? :-)

That is why I said that I would like to see children taught the tools to question and research as early as possible and try to restrict the curriculum to only the vanilla skills and facts such as arithmetic and geography and languages and … until they have moved to an age where they can apply that critical thinking to the more contentious issues.

Again, do you trust the government to do this? This is why I’m opposed to mandatory pre-K. It’s taking some of those most unquestioning, formative years, and putting kids in the hands of people whose very paychecks are paid by the state.

We have laws against public nudity so why not against the other extreme?

I’d support the repeal of all public nudity laws. People wear clothing to conform to social custom, not to obey nudity laws (and I’m glad they do, given the average American shape). And while this wouldn’t even make my top 100 concerns for reform – in a free country, how a citizen dresses should not be controlled by law.

I did say that I’d like the education system to teach them tools to enable them to question and develop their own belief system in parallel before they were taught material which is disputed and upon which I would like to see them form their own opinion.

I don’t assume that an “education system” is required for citizens to educate themselves and their children. Involuntary public education may be well intended, but when there is no way to opt out I’d argue that brainwashing is much more likely in this environment than in a marketplace of schools and consumers.

As you write: “It’s brainwashing because I have done so in a way that makes you accept it as “Truth” without having had an opportunity to filter it for yourself.” I’d agree, and add the element of force. When combined, we arrive at the dictionary definition:

Brainwashing 1. Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person’s basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.

If we compare a free market of education providers versus a state-run mandatory “education system”, which most resembles the definition above?

When faced with “absolute” arguments such as those that you advance, I find it useful to identify the arc upon which the argument rests then create artificial extremes to both sides (a variant of reducto ad absurdum). If the “absolute” argument can’t handle these (absurd) extremes then it is actually a relative argument dressed up and we need to determine the range. I find most “absolute” arguments fail this test.

One extreme for dress might be for people to walk around nude with the other extreme being (say) wearing full battledress, carrying live weapons and wearing an opaque helmet. We have laws against public nudity so why not against the other extreme? Since we have nude (public) beaches maybe we should also have burqa beaches to provide balance – with both extremes limited in public shared spaces?

On the children argument, I didn’t say that you couldn’t teach your children anything. I did say that I’d like the education system to teach them tools to enable them to question and develop their own belief system in parallel before they were taught material which is disputed and upon which I would like to see them form their own opinion.

Children (under 7) are uniquely vulnerable to “brainwashing” as noted in an earlier post so where do you see your limits in your responsibility to protect them and your power over them?

To push it to extremes .. I note that some social groups still advocate genital mutilation for girls and, at one time, Chinese society used to bind the feet of girls so they could never walk properly. Would you support the right of parents to do this to their children?

“Truth” is too wiggly for me so I’ll just define brainwashing.

It’s brainwashing when the recipient doesn’t have the opportunity to question what s/he is being told. “Truth” has nothing to do with it.

It may not be true, but it isn’t brainwashing if I tell you that the Easter Bunny is real and has just signed a contract with Disney since you can question and research any part of it.

It may be true, but it is also brainwashing if I feed you drugs (or hypnotise you or do anything to turns off the reasoning part of your brain) and tell you that the sun rises in the east. It’s brainwashing because I have done so in a way that makes you accept it as “Truth” without having had an opportunity to filter it for yourself.

Children (until around 7?) are uniquely vulnerable in being in an unreasoning state of acceptance … sort of as if they were being given my “drugs” at every meal … and so their rights need to be specially protected.

So yes I teach my children my ideas but paramount amongst them is their right to question anything I say and to disbelieve it unless I can prove it to be correct.

That is why I said that I would like to see children taught the tools to question and research as early as possible and try to restrict the curriculum to only the vanilla skills and facts such as arithmetic and geography and languages and … until they have moved to an age where they can apply that critical thinking to the more contentious issues.

Incidentally … “My ethics say that I have no right to force-feed your children my view of the truth. I also hold that you have no right to do that with mine” … are you saying that it your right to brainwash your own children with your beliefs?

Define truth.
Define brain-washing.

There are some questions of truth that are always under debate. One question of truth is whether there is a god, and whether that god demands women to cover themselves. I personally don’t believe either, and think that the religious (Christian, Muslim, Scientologist, Zoroastrian, etc) are all a bit nutty.

Do you trust me to decide which of your truths to raise your children are wrong and declare them to be brainwashing?

Do you trust to let the government define them for your family?

I don’t trust you or the government to do so for my kids.

The question: Incidentally … “My ethics say that I have no right to force-feed your children my view of the truth. I also hold that you have no right to do that with mine” … are you saying that it your right to brainwash your own children with your beliefs?

My answer: Of course. Young children always learn from their parents’ beliefs and understanding of the world. Anything but the most oppressive state indoctrination will not change this. We all like to think our own views are the most objective and enlightened. We all have bias anyway.

Back to the original thread:

In a free society, I reject the idea of laws prohibiting clothing which make identification of the wearer more difficult. The state should have no blanket need or authority to identify every citizen at all times. Agents of the state do have the authority and the obligation to investigate behavior which raises a reasonable suspicion that a crime is at hand. Private property owners may choose to restrict entry only to those who can be readily identified. But other than those definable situations, your freedom should not be subject to the hysteria of a fearful observer.

Family and cultural oppression, coercion, and physical abuse are separate issues. Many of these are (and should be) crimes of their own accord.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/31/bp-clashes-scientists-sea-oil-pollution

Then look at what another petroleum company (Woodside Petroleum) is currently doing in pushing through another major project, which could be sited on the mainland, against the wishes of the sovereign state (East Timor) which (part)owns the oil field. I assume that Woodside have a commercial reason for wanting to do it this way but it places all the environmental risk onto East Timor .. and minimises the monetary and infrastructure gains for the country.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/timor-ready-to-block-joint-gas-project-says-gusmao-20100530-wnkc.html

So we’re left with assuming that there is some sort of self-balancing of the myriad of decisions. But that can only work when those decisions are truly independent. What is happening is the ever increasing size of the companies (Woodside’s revenue last year was ten times the (2004) GDP of East Timor and the ever increasing power of communications and computing leads companies to make similar decisions or to recognise the decisions of its competitors early enough to piggy-back on their decisions or adopt their strategies.

This creates a market made up of only a small number of independent players – a de facto monopoly.

But surely the increasing globalisation of communications and markets is just as much an instance of Social Engineering as any of the more directed ones? Since the myriad of decisions making up this massive change are driven by monetary considerations, how are they more likely to produce ethical results than decisions made on ethical grounds (which we know from experience too often fail)?

(Much as I’d like to) I can’t agree with your thesis that global markets and global communications are sufficient (or even necessary) to reduce the hostility between groups. We have had 65 years – two to three generations – since the end of the Second World War with ever increasing globalisation of communications and trade with no evidence that a reduction in group-group animosity has followed. If anything the reverse appears to be true.

Think Africa, South America or any members of the former Communist Bloc.

Given that, I have said before that I don’t believe that the Law is the best way to change societies.

Incidentally … “My ethics say that I have no right to force-feed your children my view of the truth. I also hold that you have no right to do that with mine” … are you saying that it your right to brainwash your own children with your beliefs?

At what age do our children gain the right to not be brainwashed?

If you re-read what I said I made no mention of “Truth” (capital T intended). I used the neutral term “facts” intending to cover only things like Arithmetic and Logic and English and Geography and … things that no-one is arguing about. (of course where does that leave Evolution :-)? Maybe Darwin goes into the too-hard-and-bring-out-again-after-7 basket?

My ethics say that I have no right to force-feed your children my view of the truth. I also hold that you have no right to do that with mine.

Isolation breeds intolerance and hostility towards foreign concepts and people. The most effective and ethical way to bring tolerance to cultures is to offer global communication and global markets. Global markets bring these isolated cultures out of grinding poverty. Communication allows them to make more informed decisions.

Cultural oppression is better fought with communication and trade than with well-meaning oppression from outside the culture.

For example http://www.theage.com.au/world/an-infidels-progress-20100515-v5ik.html suggests that “Muslim women in the Hague were found to have high instances of vitamin D deficiency” was due “to the fact they were deprived of sunlight because they didn’t have permission to leave the house until their husbands came home at night.”

Is going out inside a cloth cage better than being de facto locked up in a bricks-and-mortar one?

If you want to change society then the only way that I can see is to target the next generation before it becomes brainwashed into any form of us-good them-bad garbage.

Children are easily brainwashed. They are inherently “programmed” to believe adults during their early years – those that decided to check for themselves whether that “nice pussy” was really the sabre toothed tiger that their parent’s had warned them about didn’t live long enough to pass on their genes :-). I think it was the Jesuits who labelled 7 as being the point where the child starts to question what s/he is told.

So to start breaking the cycle would require a uniform educational curriculum that required that all children up to the age of 7 were only to be taught a very small subset of “facts” (language, arithmetic, geography, social studies etc) – and a large slab of logic and research – basically that they be taught to question everything. This wouldn’t stop their parents from trying to convince their children that their group was somehow special or that other group(s) were bad or anything really – but this false “knowledge” would be balanced by the increasing ability of the child to ask why .. prove it.

Of course this means that all “faith” has to be kept out of classrooms at least until the child is 7 so the chance of it happening in my lifetime is indistinguishable from zero.

Have you read “Nomad” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali? I just read the first two chapters and nearly found myself reversing the skeptism about the burqua ban I showed here. In it she describes women in London who had a whole other layer velcroed over their burqua so that there was no way they could be seen by men.

I’ve had two very good Muslim female friends. They both hung on to an emotional attachment to Islam, but refused to wear the hijab and dressed western. Muslim men, of course, gave them very bad looks of disgust and guilted them constantly. One of them was even scared to be seen with me. The culture is certainly one of extreme oppression of women.