Does the random pair of apple trees growing in a field or the stream that supplies food and water have no value? Human labor didn't produce either of these, so by your definition they cannot have any value. Clearly that can't be the case.
I'm going to assume that you're using the communist definition of value, which is a bit more nuanced, as it determines value from the amount of human labor that went into producing a good. While human labor certainly can create value, it can also destroy value, so simply measuring human labor in terms of hours cannot reflect the actual usefulness that time provided. Hitting a bike in random places with a hammer for eight hours does not produce a more valuable bike; it probably destroys the bike, and no sane person would pay a higher price for that bike. This is one of the most fundamental flaws of communist economic systems.
Contrast this with the capitalist definition of value, which is simply to measure the price one is willing to pay for a good. If the price a consumer is willing to pay exceeds the price for which a seller is willing to sell, then you have a mutually beneficial exchange. Only time will tell whether or not the seller or buyer will actually benefit, but numerous experiments throughout history have shown this to trend upward in terms of improving the standard of living for the poorest in society.
This makes the assumption that all workers require a living wage. When I worked as a teenager and throughout college, I didn't need to make a living wage since I either lived with my parents or with roommates (admittedly funded by a combination of work and student loans). During that phase of my life, I didn't require a living wage. I just needed some extra money, and so I was willing to accept lower paying jobs that wouldn't necessarily support every expense. Someone who required a living wage couldn't have worked those jobs, but they were perfect for me, so I was glad they existed at the time.
My best guess is that he means the author's characterization of the people themselves. The Enlightenment produced the modern scientific revolution, which arguably led to the largest increase in quality of life since man walked the earth. It also produced a focus on reason and empiricism, which ultimately led to modern civil rights movements and subsequent legislation. When the author attempts to discredit these people's contributions by attacking their character via unfounded accusations of misogyny, it significantly harms their credibility.
It would be interesting to see if much of that has changed since the DoE was created in 1980. Do schools in Louisiana currently not teach that the earth is 6,000 years old, that evolution is a farce, and that the US is a Christian nation? Do we no longer have gigantic gaps in educational attainment based on where a child happened to be born? Segregation is federally illegal, so the proposed decentralization would only apply to curriculum and funding. I have no idea how the centralization of the education system has positively or negatively affected education outcomes, so I don't find the outcome of decentralizing it again obvious.
By the way, it's sad that this needs to be written, but I'm commenting in good faith. Without any kids in the education system, and without having been through the education system in many years, I'm not up to date with the latest statistics. All I have to go on is the occasional anecdotes from the people around me, which seem to be largely negative, but which could also be based in fantasy. I recognize that I have these blind spots, which is why I'm asking these questions.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The article you linked says they plan to remove federal involvement in education, delegating that responsibility back to the states. From my perhaps naive viewpoint, decentralizing government education seems like it would allow more competing ideas and approaches into classrooms. It's not clear to me why this approach would dismantle education.
Why do you think this approach would dismantle education?
Does the random pair of apple trees growing in a field or the stream that supplies food and water have no value? Human labor didn't produce either of these, so by your definition they cannot have any value. Clearly that can't be the case.
I'm going to assume that you're using the communist definition of value, which is a bit more nuanced, as it determines value from the amount of human labor that went into producing a good. While human labor certainly can create value, it can also destroy value, so simply measuring human labor in terms of hours cannot reflect the actual usefulness that time provided. Hitting a bike in random places with a hammer for eight hours does not produce a more valuable bike; it probably destroys the bike, and no sane person would pay a higher price for that bike. This is one of the most fundamental flaws of communist economic systems.
Contrast this with the capitalist definition of value, which is simply to measure the price one is willing to pay for a good. If the price a consumer is willing to pay exceeds the price for which a seller is willing to sell, then you have a mutually beneficial exchange. Only time will tell whether or not the seller or buyer will actually benefit, but numerous experiments throughout history have shown this to trend upward in terms of improving the standard of living for the poorest in society.