Comments on: My response to the GTC’s proposed ‘code of conduct’ for teachers in England. http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2008/12/21/my-response-to-the-gtcs-proposed-code-of-conduct-for-teachers-in-england/ Education. Technology. Productivity. Wed, 23 May 2012 07:20:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: shefi http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2008/12/21/my-response-to-the-gtcs-proposed-code-of-conduct-for-teachers-in-england/comment-page-1/#comment-1498 shefi Fri, 26 Dec 2008 06:17:33 +0000 http://www.dougbelshaw.com/?p=1617#comment-1498 <a href="http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=397" rel="nofollow">The Free Market: Bush's Education Plan</a>. Keep reading. The Free Market: Bush's Education Plan. Keep reading.

]]> By: shefi http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2008/12/21/my-response-to-the-gtcs-proposed-code-of-conduct-for-teachers-in-england/comment-page-1/#comment-5567 shefi Fri, 26 Dec 2008 01:17:00 +0000 http://www.dougbelshaw.com/?p=1617#comment-5567 <a href="http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=397" rel="nofollow">The Free Market: Bush's Education Plan</a>. Keep reading. The Free Market: Bush’s Education Plan. Keep reading.

]]> By: Doug Belshaw http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2008/12/21/my-response-to-the-gtcs-proposed-code-of-conduct-for-teachers-in-england/comment-page-1/#comment-1497 Doug Belshaw Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:06:30 +0000 http://www.dougbelshaw.com/?p=1617#comment-1497 I can't see peer review lasting long. Although I haven't read it myself, I understand that in his book 'Here Comes Everybody', Clay Shirky suggests that everyone should just publish and 'let the network filter'. <br><br>Just because you've got a group of 'experts' together doesn't mean that you're any nearer to intangible concepts such as 'truth'. In fact, as accepted computer-generated articles submitted to journals and the Encyclopaedia Britannica vs. Wikipedia debate show, the opposite can be true... I can't see peer review lasting long. Although I haven't read it myself, I understand that in his book 'Here Comes Everybody', Clay Shirky suggests that everyone should just publish and 'let the network filter'.

Just because you've got a group of 'experts' together doesn't mean that you're any nearer to intangible concepts such as 'truth'. In fact, as accepted computer-generated articles submitted to journals and the Encyclopaedia Britannica vs. Wikipedia debate show, the opposite can be true…

]]> By: Doug Belshaw http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2008/12/21/my-response-to-the-gtcs-proposed-code-of-conduct-for-teachers-in-england/comment-page-1/#comment-1496 Doug Belshaw Thu, 25 Dec 2008 15:03:26 +0000 http://www.dougbelshaw.com/?p=1617#comment-1496 Wow! Thanks Marc. I really don't like the nanny state at all, and the manifestations that of this that then trickle down into other organizations and institutions. As suggested by the marvellous quotation above, the more you legislate for something the less people do it voluntarily.Merry Christmas! :-) Wow! Thanks Marc. I really don't like the nanny state at all, and the manifestations that of this that then trickle down into other organizations and institutions. As suggested by the marvellous quotation above, the more you legislate for something the less people do it voluntarily.Merry Christmas! :-)

]]> By: Doug Belshaw http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2008/12/21/my-response-to-the-gtcs-proposed-code-of-conduct-for-teachers-in-england/comment-page-1/#comment-5565 Doug Belshaw Thu, 25 Dec 2008 14:06:00 +0000 http://www.dougbelshaw.com/?p=1617#comment-5565 I can't see peer review lasting long. Although I haven't read it myself, I understand that in his book 'Here Comes Everybody', Clay Shirky suggests that everyone should just publish and 'let the network filter'. Just because you've got a group of 'experts' together doesn't mean that you're any nearer to intangible concepts such as 'truth'. In fact, as accepted computer-generated articles submitted to journals and the Encyclopaedia Britannica vs. Wikipedia debate show, the opposite can be true... I can’t see peer review lasting long. Although I haven’t read it myself, I understand that in his book ‘Here Comes Everybody’, Clay Shirky suggests that everyone should just publish and ‘let the network filter’.

Just because you’ve got a group of ‘experts’ together doesn’t mean that you’re any nearer to intangible concepts such as ‘truth’. In fact, as accepted computer-generated articles submitted to journals and the Encyclopaedia Britannica vs. Wikipedia debate show, the opposite can be true…

]]> By: Doug Belshaw http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2008/12/21/my-response-to-the-gtcs-proposed-code-of-conduct-for-teachers-in-england/comment-page-1/#comment-5564 Doug Belshaw Thu, 25 Dec 2008 14:03:00 +0000 http://www.dougbelshaw.com/?p=1617#comment-5564 Wow! Thanks Marc. I really don't like the nanny state at all, and the manifestations that of this that then trickle down into other organizations and institutions. As suggested by the marvellous quotation above, the more you legislate for something the less people do it voluntarily. Merry Christmas! :-) Wow! Thanks Marc. I really don’t like the nanny state at all, and the manifestations that of this that then trickle down into other organizations and institutions. As suggested by the marvellous quotation above, the more you legislate for something the less people do it voluntarily.

Merry Christmas! :-)

]]> By: shefi http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2008/12/21/my-response-to-the-gtcs-proposed-code-of-conduct-for-teachers-in-england/comment-page-1/#comment-1495 shefi Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:25:42 +0000 http://www.dougbelshaw.com/?p=1617#comment-1495 From <a href="http://mises.org/story/3257" rel="nofollow">a review of "Inclined to Liberty" by Louis Carabini</a>: "As with any great primer, there are also contributions to broader understanding here. The way the author sees it, there are two general approaches to social affairs:<br><br> There are those inclined to liberty — freedom of the individual to live his or her life in any peaceful way. And there are those who are inclined to mastery — permitting others to live their lives only as another sees fit.<br><br>There is a massive historical infrastructure behind the idea that all social interactions are based on either force or free will, dating even to the ancient world. But it is a lesson that is still unlearned — or rather, it is casually denied by people who recommend what they call humane social policies. Surely the rich should give to the poor. Surely luxury must relent in the face of necessity. Surely those who start life with a boost from wealth or social position should assist those who have neither.<br><br>One can multiply these claims without limit, all with an eye to fairness, equality, safety, security, humanitarianism, and so on. There are many things to say about each claim — for example, that the political means to achieve them often yield the opposite effect. But one point avoided by those who recommend such ideas is that every "humanitarian" policy put into effect makes society more violent.<br><br>They deny this, of course, but violence is intrinsic to their chosen means. They must pass laws enforced by bureaucrats who are empowered to force people to do things they wouldn't do voluntarily, and to take property from those to whom it belongs and give it to those who didn't earn it. This requires violence and the threat of violence, since every edict of the state is ultimately enforced by this means and no other. These impulses increase the role of the master-slave relationship in society and diminish the extent to which society is made up of people involved in voluntary pursuits. Society under the control of the redistributionist mindset will be a police state." From a review of “Inclined to Liberty” by Louis Carabini: “As with any great primer, there are also contributions to broader understanding here. The way the author sees it, there are two general approaches to social affairs:

There are those inclined to liberty — freedom of the individual to live his or her life in any peaceful way. And there are those who are inclined to mastery — permitting others to live their lives only as another sees fit.

There is a massive historical infrastructure behind the idea that all social interactions are based on either force or free will, dating even to the ancient world. But it is a lesson that is still unlearned — or rather, it is casually denied by people who recommend what they call humane social policies. Surely the rich should give to the poor. Surely luxury must relent in the face of necessity. Surely those who start life with a boost from wealth or social position should assist those who have neither.

One can multiply these claims without limit, all with an eye to fairness, equality, safety, security, humanitarianism, and so on. There are many things to say about each claim — for example, that the political means to achieve them often yield the opposite effect. But one point avoided by those who recommend such ideas is that every “humanitarian” policy put into effect makes society more violent.

They deny this, of course, but violence is intrinsic to their chosen means. They must pass laws enforced by bureaucrats who are empowered to force people to do things they wouldn't do voluntarily, and to take property from those to whom it belongs and give it to those who didn't earn it. This requires violence and the threat of violence, since every edict of the state is ultimately enforced by this means and no other. These impulses increase the role of the master-slave relationship in society and diminish the extent to which society is made up of people involved in voluntary pursuits. Society under the control of the redistributionist mindset will be a police state.”

]]> By: shefi http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2008/12/21/my-response-to-the-gtcs-proposed-code-of-conduct-for-teachers-in-england/comment-page-1/#comment-1494 shefi Wed, 24 Dec 2008 19:17:31 +0000 http://www.dougbelshaw.com/?p=1617#comment-1494 Doug,<br>First the GTC, then the RAE. Birds of a feather? "British academics and those working in similar institutions were once famed for their resistance to management, and the resultant harvest of unpredicted discoveries was prodigious.<br><br>Now apparently, it has been decided that freedom is too costly a commodity to be distributed widely. Researchers nowadays must persuade their peers in advance that their work will meet the needs of “users and beneficiaries” before it will be supported. Most applications fail. When they do get support, they must overcome other hurdles before their peers will allow publication of the results. "<br><br>(from the THE <a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=404793&c=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=404793&c=1</a> Doug,
First the GTC, then the RAE. Birds of a feather? “British academics and those working in similar institutions were once famed for their resistance to management, and the resultant harvest of unpredicted discoveries was prodigious.

Now apparently, it has been decided that freedom is too costly a commodity to be distributed widely. Researchers nowadays must persuade their peers in advance that their work will meet the needs of “users and beneficiaries” before it will be supported. Most applications fail. When they do get support, they must overcome other hurdles before their peers will allow publication of the results. “

(from the THE http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=404793&c=1

]]> By: shefi http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2008/12/21/my-response-to-the-gtcs-proposed-code-of-conduct-for-teachers-in-england/comment-page-1/#comment-5563 shefi Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:25:00 +0000 http://www.dougbelshaw.com/?p=1617#comment-5563 From <a href="http://mises.org/story/3257" rel="nofollow">a review of "Inclined to Liberty" by Louis Carabini</a>: "As with any great primer, there are also contributions to broader understanding here. The way the author sees it, there are two general approaches to social affairs: There are those inclined to liberty — freedom of the individual to live his or her life in any peaceful way. And there are those who are inclined to mastery — permitting others to live their lives only as another sees fit. There is a massive historical infrastructure behind the idea that all social interactions are based on either force or free will, dating even to the ancient world. But it is a lesson that is still unlearned — or rather, it is casually denied by people who recommend what they call humane social policies. Surely the rich should give to the poor. Surely luxury must relent in the face of necessity. Surely those who start life with a boost from wealth or social position should assist those who have neither. One can multiply these claims without limit, all with an eye to fairness, equality, safety, security, humanitarianism, and so on. There are many things to say about each claim — for example, that the political means to achieve them often yield the opposite effect. But one point avoided by those who recommend such ideas is that every "humanitarian" policy put into effect makes society more violent. They deny this, of course, but violence is intrinsic to their chosen means. They must pass laws enforced by bureaucrats who are empowered to force people to do things they wouldn't do voluntarily, and to take property from those to whom it belongs and give it to those who didn't earn it. This requires violence and the threat of violence, since every edict of the state is ultimately enforced by this means and no other. These impulses increase the role of the master-slave relationship in society and diminish the extent to which society is made up of people involved in voluntary pursuits. Society under the control of the redistributionist mindset will be a police state." From a review of “Inclined to Liberty” by Louis Carabini: “As with any great primer, there are also contributions to broader understanding here. The way the author sees it, there are two general approaches to social affairs:

There are those inclined to liberty — freedom of the individual to live his or her life in any peaceful way. And there are those who are inclined to mastery — permitting others to live their lives only as another sees fit.

There is a massive historical infrastructure behind the idea that all social interactions are based on either force or free will, dating even to the ancient world. But it is a lesson that is still unlearned — or rather, it is casually denied by people who recommend what they call humane social policies. Surely the rich should give to the poor. Surely luxury must relent in the face of necessity. Surely those who start life with a boost from wealth or social position should assist those who have neither.

One can multiply these claims without limit, all with an eye to fairness, equality, safety, security, humanitarianism, and so on. There are many things to say about each claim — for example, that the political means to achieve them often yield the opposite effect. But one point avoided by those who recommend such ideas is that every “humanitarian” policy put into effect makes society more violent.

They deny this, of course, but violence is intrinsic to their chosen means. They must pass laws enforced by bureaucrats who are empowered to force people to do things they wouldn’t do voluntarily, and to take property from those to whom it belongs and give it to those who didn’t earn it. This requires violence and the threat of violence, since every edict of the state is ultimately enforced by this means and no other. These impulses increase the role of the master-slave relationship in society and diminish the extent to which society is made up of people involved in voluntary pursuits. Society under the control of the redistributionist mindset will be a police state.”

]]> By: shefi http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2008/12/21/my-response-to-the-gtcs-proposed-code-of-conduct-for-teachers-in-england/comment-page-1/#comment-5562 shefi Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:17:00 +0000 http://www.dougbelshaw.com/?p=1617#comment-5562 Doug, First the GTC, then the RAE. Birds of a feather? "British academics and those working in similar institutions were once famed for their resistance to management, and the resultant harvest of unpredicted discoveries was prodigious. Now apparently, it has been decided that freedom is too costly a commodity to be distributed widely. Researchers nowadays must persuade their peers in advance that their work will meet the needs of “users and beneficiaries” before it will be supported. Most applications fail. When they do get support, they must overcome other hurdles before their peers will allow publication of the results. " (from the THE <a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=404793&c=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=404793&c=1</a> Doug,
First the GTC, then the RAE. Birds of a feather? “British academics and those working in similar institutions were once famed for their resistance to management, and the resultant harvest of unpredicted discoveries was prodigious.

Now apparently, it has been decided that freedom is too costly a commodity to be distributed widely. Researchers nowadays must persuade their peers in advance that their work will meet the needs of “users and beneficiaries” before it will be supported. Most applications fail. When they do get support, they must overcome other hurdles before their peers will allow publication of the results. ”

(from the THE http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=404793&c=1

]]>