Re: [Phys-L] Economist Kern Alexander Explains the Problem with School Choice

[Ze'ev Wurman <zeev@ieee.org>]

On 2/4/2013 8:22 PM, Bernard Cleyet wrote:
> On 2013, Feb 04, , at 14:27, Ze'ev Wurman <zeev@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >   Neither has a "strong component of monarchy" but both are strongly hierarchical …
> Huh?    An oxymoron?

No, not an oxymoron. But perhaps I should have added "hierarchical and 
controlling."

Monarchy has someone at the top. Beyond that, it varies. Some monarchies 
were somewhat loosey-goosey -- think Poland, or even England in certain 
periods. Some were more centralized and controlling -- think France in 
17th and 18th centuries. The key is that monarchy is -- as a rule and 
with very few exception -- dynastic, and the monarch has (had?) absolute 
power independent of his ideology -- he serves by the will of God. 
Beyond that, details vary. But, vary as they may, rarely did monarchs 
expect their subject to agree with their ideology. They were supposed to 
pay their taxes, serve when called upon, and swear allegiance to the 
monarch (and often, his church). Beyond that, they were most often 
reasonably free in their private lives.

Totalitarian systems are quite different. They have someone at the top 
-- a person, a committee -- that rules by his purported allegiance to 
the ideology he represents. Citizens are supposed to profess their 
allegiance to that ideology but, since allegiance to non-dynastic head 
figures and to ideologies has proven to be rather weak, the state 
constantly attempts to weed out the non-believers among them. So 
totalitarian systems build elaborate networks down to the level of 
private citizens to monitor their beliefs ... and most-often provide a 
generic element of fear, just in case (smile).

To put it very(!) crudely, kings want to be loved and admired. 
Totalitarian systems want to be feared.

If you hear echoes of Kirkpatrick's Dictatorships and Double Standards 
you are not mistaken.

> and
>
> > Actually fascism, in its primacy of state over the individual, is not an extreme form of "social control gone wild" and had been tried in one form or another for centuries. Modern mass media and mass educational system just allowed it to become ever more encompassing and controlling, and ever harder to resist.
>
> bc  remembers D. Webster's definition:  "Education is a wise and liberal form of police by which property and life and peace of society are secured."

I don't believe anyone would use it as a *definition* of education, 
including Daniel Webster himself. As an aphorism? Sure. He is not saying 
in effect anything different from what Jefferson had said. But take it 
out of the American context, and who knows? The Jacobins were highly 
educated as far as I know. So was Lenin.

> p.s.  Which is worse, Brave New World, or 1984?

Literary-wise, Brave New World. Vision-wise, 1984.

Ze'ev

Ze'ev