The definition of rudimentary education depends for its efficacy on the notion of a sovereignty. The nations of Europe may be candidates for adopting a standard definition of the term that would encompass all such nations. But normally, as the term will be used in an economic sense, it is important to remain within a sovereignty where the monetary, legal, and fiscal authority all coincide and where there are societal norms for education and language. The manifestation of "rudimentary education" may be quite different in Portugal than it would be in Sweden or in Zaire. At this point we are interested in defining the term within the sovereignty of the United States of America.

Rudimentary education is simply that level of education which is supported by public means and that level of education which can be and is generally utilized by the public. In most states in the USA there are laws compelling parents and students to attend some acredited offerings of education, even if that education is supplied at home. The notion of a sovereignty is important. In different sovereignties the level of rudimentary education will create a different level of economic interaction, and a different opportunity for the distribution of wealth and goods. It would seem that the vast majority of the jobs in what we would call the basic or root level of the US economy can be addressed by individuals with 9 years of education or less. We all hear a lot about high school dropouts and seem to fret over it quite a bit. But it is difficult to see how the extra 3 years in high school actually do any good for anyone other than those truly interested in a liberal arts education. And even then, such education should probably be pursued by those who wish it and not forced down the gullets of those that do not. The teens are totally preoccupied with sex and with breaking out of the prison daddy has created for them. That is due to nature and has nothing to do with decaying morals or any of the rest of the stupidity normally spooned around by our fearless leaders (including daddy). It is difficult to see any rationale behind the curriculum currently followed in high school. The things that need to be addressed in addition to what has already been addressed in the first 9 years are probably limited to serious consideration of economics and political theory. And the reason is quite simply that these will be people are supposed to be able to govern themselves through their elected representatives. And when they enter that voting station they are supposed to be able to defend themselves from the shysters and the hucksters that currently inhabit the halls of government. Other than the necessary awareness of the political economy which seems to be purposefully omitted in the education of the young, the "trades" and the "sciences" should be matters of personal commitment rather than "enlightened leadership" and "guidance".