This is a little overdue, but I tend to go away from computers and other electronicy things on the weekends, and so I didn’t see the request for a new post until this morning. I apologize for the delay.
Late last week, a lively discussion arose in the comments under the Comment of the Week post concerning Penn Jillette, his views on public education, and the libertarian (or Libertarian) wing of the skeptical movement. The problem was, only a handful of the folks posting comments in that thread were involved in the discussion, so we decided to post a main entry for those who may not have been reading the CotW, and to allow the discussion to continue without bogging down Rebecca’s already awesome thread. (Sorry, there aren’t really any twins.)
First, I suggest you read the pertinent comments under the CotW post (comment #s 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 27, 28). That’s where the meat of this discussion is, but I’ll give you a brief back story:
At The Amaz!ng Meeting, during Penn & Teller’s disturbingly weak question and answer session, Penn made what, to me, appeared to be an offhand remark to the effect that all public schools should be abolished. It seemed he was more in favor of making education available within a free market framework than he was for doing away with education completely.
Now, I don’t get tingly with anticipation to find out what Penn’s political views are, so I personally didn’t give it another thought. Thankfully, however, Skepchick readers pay much better attention than I do to these types of things, and our friend, Joshua, very correctly pointed out my mistake by linking to this Penn & Teller interview.
Seems there is more to it than I had originally thought. Both Penn and Teller appear to hold to the notion that nothing resembling any conventional education system is required for every child to learn what most of us picked up in public schools.
In addition to that, there were some questions raised about apparent inconsistencies in Penn’s thinking. Blake Stacey pointed out:
I found it just a little weird when Penn Jillette said that we should abolish the public school system and make ‘em all private and then turned around to complain about what Hearst did to commercialize, sensationalize and ruin the press.
At any rate, we just wanted to make this discussion available to everyone. So take a few moments to read through the comments in the CotW thread, and feel free to continue the discussion here.
I think what Steve Novella said on the live podcast (cause SOME of us unmoneyed folks couldn’t get to TAM to hear it in person. Maybe I’ll publish a TAM wrap up of my week at home…Thursday: Ate a sandwich. Asked for no mayo, but there it is. WTF? Friday: I saw a dog, I think.)…
Anyway… before I got sidetracked, I was just going to say that what Steve said on that show was about right: politics, oftentimes, is about what you value rather than what you can prove or disprove. Sure, some claims can be analyzed and debunked or vetted…but quite often it comes down to what YOU think is best…
I’m going to come right out and say that my LEAST favorite part about the atheistic/skeptical blogosphere is when people’s politics get involved beyond the level of church/state separtion. I’ve talked about this with Joshua and Blake before, I’m sure, but to reiterate: there’s little I find more infuriating than when people on ANY side of an issue just label everyone one way. The point was brought up in the previous thread and, at least, there was some ground given that only SOME libertarians are cooks or suffer cooks lightly.
But as someone who considers himself an independent with empathy for philosophical libertarianism and classical liberalism, there’s nothing that puts me off a discussion sooner than seeing “Libertarians are drug-addicted, Ayn Rand worshipping gunfetishists” or what have you. I don’t own a gun, and have no desire to read anything Rand has written, yet I’m still put off by that.
SO anyway, yeah. When it comes down to what arguing about what one values and, indeed, the right way to preserve whatever that may be, arguments tend to go moot or negative really quickly. Hope we can avoid that.
(By the way “The Drug Addicted Ayn Rand Worshipping Gun Fetishists” would be a great band or album name…)
@Expatria, “kooks” or “cooks”?
I’m still confused about this Penn stuff.. I guess I’m gonna have to go back and read everything..
I listened to Penn’s Radio show back when it was on the air (and on Podcast) and his main point on any issue, was that he wasn’t comfortable with the idea that the government was taking money to do things. That doesn’t change for him if it’s NASA, Science Funding, Schools, Health Care, FDA or any government systems (except Courts, Police and Military). I think he was a little naive in some of his sentiments about he didn’t think the government could do a good job in these areas, but the main points of his arguments has been that we should not be giving the government that much power over our lives.
With that said, I have heard him state, that going private would be a better system in every case, which I think could be addressed scientifically. The SGU specifically addressed the argument that a private watchdog group could work better than the FDA (which is not correct if you look at post-DSHEA). For Penn however this is a value judgment and he would not trust the government to such things.
On a side note, the Radio Show was an excellent one in general. He does push Libertarian ideals a lot on the show, but also science and skepticism (along with guests like Randi, Dawkins, Phil Plait and call in people like Skepchicks’ very own A) along with Monkeys.
I’ll read the comments when I get the time a little later, but I just wanted to hit a couple of points right off the bat:
First of all, Penn should have said “government schools” and not “public schools.” The free market absolutely allows for privately-run public schools.
Second, I think Blake Stacey is confused on the free market vs. corporatism. Hearst did what he did through corporatism. There’s no place for that in a free market. You only get that when the corporations can lobby the government to do their bidding. Hearst used his newspapers to sensationalize events in order to get the government to respond with legislation (sound familiar?) and used them to swing public opinion in favor of candidates he supported (again, sound familiar?). He himself was even elected to the House, remember.
I think the commingling of corporations and government is as dangerous if not moreso than the commingling of religion and government.
I found Shemer’s comment about the fallacy of people assuming the government can always provide service X better to be a bit of a straw man. One could make a similar criticism of libertarianism that they make the assumption that the free market can always provide X better.
The fact of the matter is that this is a caricature, and I think few people make either assumption all the time. Most of us realize there are somethings the government are better suited to do and some things the free market is better suited to solve. However, the free market will not solve every problem because it may be optimizing for the wrong thing.
I wish I had Shermer’s exact words, but I don’t. If anyone knows them, please enlighten me because I may be putting words in his mouth.
i was also a big fan of penn radio, and from listening to that, my understanding of penn’s position is that he is always in favor of more freedom.
the problem, as i see it, is in deciding what kind of freedom you want, and figuring out how to make sure everyone gets that freedom.
if you turn education over to the free market, people’s ability to be educated will become more tied to their economic status than it is now. so you would be giving people the financial freedom of not having to pay the government to administer schools, but they would lose the freedom afforded to everyone by having reasonably equal educational access.
penn has argued that he sees corporations stepping in to fix this problem (eg: microsoft schools). it’s possible this could work, but do we really want our educational system to be administered at the whims of corporations? what happens if they have a bad year and the stockholders decide they don’t want to invest in the school anymore? when it comes down to it, corporations exist to make money, and i’m not sure they’d have the public interest at heart in such an endeavor.
in a lot of ways, it seems to me that the libertarian view is to do away with the idea of “the public interest” entirely. while i agree that government could be better, i think it is pretty much a fact of life if we want to live in any kind of organized society.
i think the market does many things well, and other things not so much. it’s not a panacea. like most things in life, the answer lies not on the extremities, but somewhere in the middle: the grey area. i, for one, like grey.
@Tina: BOTH! Not all Libertarians are totally crazy, and not all of them capable of preparing a souffle! :-P Well-spotted. I’ve been painting little wooden discs all day, I’m surprised my post had even that much lucidity!
carrd2:
That is a nice, to the point version of the 1000 word essay I was contemplating writing. It is eery how similar it is to what was in my head. Not so eery that I believe in psi, though. :-)
Joshua’s assertion that “nearly all” private schools are religious is BOGUS. I’ve done a LOT of research since my son was diagnosed with autism, and although there are a lot of religious schools (most of which are VERY good and teach evolution and everything), there are a lot of secular private schools run by non-profits. By being secular, they can get donations and grants from a wide variety of sources, not just one church or members of a certain denomination.
This fall, my daughter will be going to a charter school, which is EXCELLENT. It’s a privately-run public school, and my tax money which would have ordinarily gone into the local government school system for her instead goes to the charter school. Compare: our county stupidly voted to go ANOTHER $46 million in debt to build new schools. With that money, the Challenge Foundation (who runs our local charter school) could have built SEVEN new school buildings (fully supplied, with athletic fields and everything) and had money left over!!!
Joshua also says there’s no evidence that competition will make schools better. I can only guess that the amount of evidence he’s seen on the subject is, NONE AT ALL. Watch John Stossel’s “Stupid in America” for a lot of good info: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9069323583494421392
You can also look at places where the money follows the students (as it sort of does with our charter schools here). Time and time again, once the schools have to compete for their funding, they ALWAYS improve. School choice makes school better not only for the students who move, but also the students who stay.
Joshua also says, “it’ll just lead existing schools to pander to what rich donors think they should be teaching” and “at least [the government schools] have some kind of accountability.” I’d LOVE to see evidence for EITHER of these assertions.
My daughter spent Kindergarten in the government schools were she was taught, for example, that we only have five senses. If you (with your own government school education) wonder what’s wrong with that, then read my blog: http://www.shanekillian.com/blog/index.php?/archives/112-It-starts-early….html
Finally, let me just link to an article from a wonderful man who was not only a Libertarian but also a consummate skeptic (he would often mention James Randi and other skeptics on his radio show–and yes, that means that we had an agnostic candidate for President, TWICE!), Harry Browne: http://harrybrowne.org/articles/FreeTheSchools.htm
carr2d2:
“if you turn education over to the free market, people’s ability to be educated will become more tied to their economic status than it is now.”
There’s absolutely no evidence of that. In fact, lots of poor kids are going to private school and doing BETTER. They WANT the poor kids. Again, watch the Stossel special.
“do we really want our educational system to be administered at the whims of corporations?”
I don’t. So, we won’t send our kids to a corporate-run school. We’ll send them to one run by a non-profit organization.
“if we want to live in any kind of organized society.”
Who says that organization has to be top-down? There’s nothing unorganized about a free market society, it’s just organized from the bottom up–and that makes it much more efficient, much more flexible, and much more responsive to everybody’s needs.
carr2d2
To take Devil’s Advocate (and Penn did play the Devil on Sabrina) I will simply state that the other side of the argument is that the government has its own agenda. We can see that easily with the pressure from the right to move creationism into school systems. He also makes the point that he doesn’t believe that parents should be forced to send their kids to public schools that teach evolution if they choose not to…That out to make a lot more people interested.
I personally have no idea what we should do about the school systems. I think there is definitely a public interest in giving all members of the population an education, but I have no idea where that falls on. I do not think the government would do the best job, but it might do the best job for the most people. The scary part for me would be if a political party gets into power who decides that all schools should ban Evolution from being taught (or an event like Lysenkoism in Russia), which is a possibility with having a government based education system. I think I would say that with the current system we need to maintain constant vigilance and ensure that the politicians don’t do something like that….(Like in Louisiana).
shanek: i will have to check that out. i do like the idea of schools run by non-profits, though i don’t really see much structural difference between this and government administration (apart from how the money is obtained). i mentioned the corporate idea because that seems to be penn’s main argument for how to solve the problem.
another problem i can see here is with what gets taught. it isn’t much of a stretch of the imagination to think that kids’ choices could be severely limited, especially in rural areas. what if you couldn’t homeschool, and your kid’s only option was to go to a fundamentalist religious school?
i guess i don’t understand how libertarian skeptics can talk one minute about making sure
that our kids are getting proper science education and then turn around and talk about abolishing the only institution that is actually positioned to address this issue.
we have enough trouble with this as it is now. if you remove the public school system, you take away the constitutional protections for secular education.
let’s not forget for a minute that we are a minority in this country. there are certain things that the market just can’t see. scientific truth is not a democracy, and i fear that if education is opened up to the free market, it would be treated as though it were.
protesilaus:
i see what you’re saying, but at least with the government in charge, we have (at least theoretically) constitutional protection that gives us recourse in a doomsday situation like that.
with a free market system, i don’t see what would stop the majority (right or wrong) from dictating what everyone gets taught.
carrd2d2:
let’s not forget for a minute that we are a minority in this country. there are certain things that the market just can’t see. scientific truth is not a democracy, and i fear that if education is opened up to the free market, it would be treated as though it were
Me:
And I think that is also going to be a problem with a government school, except that with privatized schools you get a choice in most cases. If Bush is (was) able to put one more Justice on the Supreme Court, we could lose Evolution from science classes all over the country. All of the Supreme Court decisions on these issues have always been very close, and most are based on political lines and not what the Constitution states. It’s not entirely a Dichotomy though, there is most likely a happy median, but I don’t think anyone has hit on it yet.
carr2d2:
i see what you’re saying, but at least with the government in charge, we have (at least theoretically) constitutional protection that gives us recourse in a doomsday situation like that.
with a free market system, i don’t see what would stop the majority (right or wrong) from dictating what everyone gets taught.
Me:
We posted at the same time (or at least eerily close). I think that in a truly Free Market you don’t get the majority dictating. I think that the internet would be a good analog to that (hopefully). As long as an individual school manages to make money it will survive, so even if we are a minority there could be a niche market for a school system that panders to us.
I also want to say thank you to Sam for pointing this out, since I completely missed this discussion the first time around and I would have loved to give my imput. Your are by far my 4th favorite Skepchick. I think 4th.
Hey, I’m just happy to be in there somewhere.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
carr2d2:
“i don’t really see much structural difference between [a non-profit organization] and government administration (apart from how the money is obtained).”
Well, first off, how the money is obtained is VERY important. Since government just taxes people by force, they have no incentive to spend it efficiently, and they have no accountability for results. That’s not the case with a non-profit.
The second major difference is competition. If a non-profit does a bad job of running a school, parents can take their children elsewhere and donors can donate the money elsewhere. Again, that competition just doesn’t exist with government (although there are ways to partially introduce it).
“what if you couldn’t homeschool, and your kid’s only option was to go to a fundamentalist religious school?”
Sounds like a profitable niche to me!
And even if other competition doesn’t show up, there are bound to be other parents in your area in the same situation. You could all home-school your children together, taking turns teaching or even pooling your money to hire a teacher or tutor. And then you have a community school!
“abolishing the only institution that is actually positioned to address this issue.”
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they aren’t exactly doing a stellar job with science education. They CERTAINLY aren’t teaching critical thinking skills.
“you take away the constitutional protections for secular education.”
Granted, but you add a LOT more protections for problems that can now be addressed a lot more cheaply than going to the courts.
“with a free market system, i don’t see what would stop the majority (right or wrong) from dictating what everyone gets taught.”
It’s the government where you have to worry about that. The free market delights in catering to even the smallest of minorities. That’s the point–they COULDN’T dictate what everyone gets taught! You’re in control of your child’s education.
One of the most common libertarian complaints about government is excessive bureaucracy. Overlooking that corporations produce monstrous bureaucracies themselves, it seems to me that bureaucracy is often desirable. It slows things down, but this also make it more difficult to cheat the system, since more people are checking what’s going on. Also, by having separate institution to monitor others, it circumvents the problem of potential offenders hiding infractions that would harm their image. So, for instance, we cannot reasonably expect McDonalds to accurately report their own sanitary conditions unless they are good, so we create an organization (expanding the bureaucracy) to check into sanitation at restaurants. Private watchdogs won’t cut it, because they can’t force a company to allow them to inspect like the government
I think that, with regards to schooling, who determines the curriculum (I say this should be a government panel of experts in each subject being taught) is more important than who runs the actual schools.
Josh:
“So, for instance, we cannot reasonably expect McDonalds to accurately report their own sanitary conditions unless they are good, so we create an organization (expanding the bureaucracy) to check into sanitation at restaurants.”
The problem is, government bureaucracy is expensive, inefficient, and often corrupt. Let’s consider another example:
We cannot reasonably expect makers of electronic devices to accurately report their device’s safety, so the free market created an organization (Underwriters Laboratories) to test these devices and make sure they’re safe.
UL WORKS. Like no government bureaucracy ever could. They actually do the testing themselves, they underwrite the results, and they have every incentive to spend the money they have efficiently. Since they underwrite the results, they also have every incentive to make their mistakes as close to zero as possible. If they do a bad job, people will just switch to a competitor (CE probably being the biggest one).
“Private watchdogs won’t cut it, because they can’t force a company to allow them to inspect like the government”
So who needs force? UL and CE and the rest don’t use force, and they’re ubiquitous.
Now, if GOVERNMENT were in charge of electronics safety, by their track record it would take ten years to get a new device to market, they’d be hideously expensive, and often need recalling. And we’d still be waiting for this great new technology they’ve been promising us called “cell phones.”
“the free market created an organization”
Getting a bit anthropomorphic, aren’t we?
An independent group can buy electronics and test them, that’s why I used the restaurant example. An independent group cannot simply demand access. And, a restaurant with poor sanitation, but a lot of money, can simply pay some sham organization to claim they’re doing well.
What if I accrue a fortune and then pay random schools to teach that the moon is made of cheese? Then everyone at the school has to either raise more moeny than I’m offering or move to a different school? Is this really a desirable situation? (or do we not think that groups would do this? Coke not pay schools to advertise? Churches pay for them to evangelize? It isn’t as if they don’t try already.)
Democratic governments are designed to protect minorities (this is why we have the constitution/bill of rights), even if they do not do as good a job as desirable. A free market has no such purpose; whatever can be paid for is what you get. Can you afford to trample on the rights of minorities? Then feel free to.
i still don’t see how you think everyone would be served by a free market system. yeah, you say that there might be a niche market for something like a science academy in the back country of the bible belt, but that niche market might consist of just you. nobody’s going to build a school for one person.
i’ll grant you that adding online education into the mix would mitigate a lot of the problems i have with a free market educational system. this is the only way you could reach a critical mass and really make sure that all minority groups are recognized.
but then you get into the issues of internet accessibility and to me it still comes down to freedom for the affluent and take what you can get for the working class.
shanek: “Now, if GOVERNMENT were in charge of electronics safety, by their track record it would take ten years to get a new device to market, they’d be hideously expensive, and often need recalling. And we’d still be waiting for this great new technology they’ve been promising us called “cell phones.—
i mentioned above that there are things that the market does well. one of those things is driving technology. in fact, i think driving technological innovation is what the market does best.
this does not mean that it will do well at everything. as i said above, i suspect that the answer lies somewhere in the grey area.
i’m curious if there has ever been a real attempt to create a completely libertarian state. does one exist? i think a lot of the ideas look good on paper, but i’d love to see it in action; whether it works as well in the real world.
This being my first comment ever posted on here I thought I would throw my hat into the ring. While his opinion of no government involvement in society sounds far-fetched in allowing people in that given society to work things out. An anarchistic way of living in flavor country would mean an end to governments and thus government funding which would then mean that hate-ridden organizations like the church and boy scouts would lose their financial strangleholds and would either have to change their ways or die off. Free-and-public schools would allow any child the same education (plus without the interference, there wouldn’t be the propaganda put upon them). While there is no such thing as a utopian society, maybe Penn is just saying that he has more hope in people making their own decisions than someone telling them what they should think or learn.
Josh:
“Getting a bit anthropomorphic, aren’t we?”
There’s no other way to do it. The free market created this in the same way that evolution created the eye.
“a restaurant with poor sanitation, but a lot of money, can simply pay some sham organization to claim they’re doing well.”
And their legitimate competitors will expose them for the sham they are. That sort of thing just does not work in a free market. You need corporatism to make that happen.
“What if I accrue a fortune and then pay random schools to teach that the moon is made of cheese?”
Then they’ll laugh at you and ignore you, because they care about their own credibility, they want their graduates to be accepted to college, and they don’t want to lose the business of parents who also care about these things and would therefore send their children elsewhere.
“Can you afford to trample on the rights of minorities? Then feel free to.”
There is a word to describe businesses that do this in a free market:
Bankrupt.
Carr2d2:
“nobody’s going to build a school for one person.”
They wouldn’t have to. If it’s just my child, they can do it in my home or anywhere. Besides, what are the chances of there being just one, really? If you REALLY have to go to those laughable kinds of extremes to find a problem with it, I’d say it’s pretty unassailable.
“but then you get into the issues of internet accessibility”
There are a LOT of poor people in this country with computers and internet access. Mostly because the government got out of the way.
It occurs to me that people are basing their argument, as usual, on, “I can’t understand how a free market would do this, therefore I don’t think it can.” It always amazes me that people who apparently have no trouble with the idea that evolution can develop an eye with no intelligent direction just can’t extend their imagination to the free market.
If that’s the case, then there’s an excellent essay you should all read. It’s probably the best economics essay ever written: “I, Pencil” by Leonard Read: http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=3308
but the extremities are where the real problems lie. when it comes down to it, the system needs to serve everyone equally, or at least should be able to in theory. even if it is just one person.
there may be a lot of poor people with computers, but not everyone. and the internet access that many poor people have is provided by public libraries, which are also paid for by the government, so those have to go too.
as i said before, i think a lot of libertarian ideas look good on paper, but have they really been tested in the real world? yes, we know that the market can work out certain things very effectively, but has there ever been an effectively libertarian state?
If McDonalds gave you food poisoning when you ate there would you still go? Or would you wait for some government agency to force it to clean up its act?
My wife stopped going to Taco Bell when she kept getting sick after eating their food. I never saw a Health Department action to clean it up or shut it down.
My daughter goes to a government school and she makes reference to god everyday. At school choir events she sings christian songs, not just xmas carols. I don’t see government doing a thing about it either.
Poor kids in poor neighborhoods go to crappy government schools. Rich kids in rich neighborhoods go to good government schools.
How is government doing anything in schooling that is significantly different than a non-government school?
I just graduated with a degree in elementary education. I will teach in a public school for at least four years (to pay back my scholarship).
I’m not sure how I feel about this whole thing. I don’t know if I’m against the idea of abolishing public schools because it’s all I know and all I’ve been taught, or if it’s because I really think it’s a bad idea.
It’s something I should think about more, especially since it’s so central to who I am. I do feel uneasy at shifting from one extreme to another… that rarely works. This screams of overcompensation, rather than fixing a problem. “We’re so sick of this, let’s do away with it entirely!”
My program focused on fostering critical thinking and integrating all subjects. I really think that the system is changing, however slowly, and headed toward a grey area. If we overshoot and end up at another extreme, we’ll end up with unforeseen problems that we aren’t equipped to fix because the change is so drastic and happened so rapidly.
I really think we should consider all this carefully… this discussion is a good way to do that.
@ fatherdaddy:
The idea of having a government agency to watch over restaurants is to *prevent* you from getting food poisoning in the first place. And just because Taco Bell made your wife sick, doesn’t mean the restaurant is at fault – there are many people that feel ill when they eat cheap beans and cheese. If there was something truly wrong going on, the health department would probably shut them down.
Yes, I realize there are faults… but if nobody has the right to go in and inspect a restaurant, nobody would know it’s bad until people started getting sick, or worse – dying.
Efficiency aside, I think doing away with standard inspections altogether is not the answer.
Carr2d2:
“the system needs to serve everyone equally,”
Then the LAST thing you should do is put it in the hands of government. Government will make sure it serves politicians and politically-connected corporations at everyone else’s expense.
And before you can ask if there’s been an effective libertarian state, you have to ask if there’s been ANY libertarian states. What I can tell you is that, the more libertarian a state is, the better off the people are; the less libertarian, the worse off they are. And that has been shown throughout history.
“My daughter goes to a government school and she makes reference to god everyday. At school choir events she sings christian songs, not just xmas carols. I don’t see government doing a thing about it either.”
The First Amendment isn’t there to eliminate that sort of thing anyway.
Amanda:
“I do feel uneasy at shifting from one extreme to another… that rarely works. This screams of overcompensation, rather than fixing a problem. ‘We’re so sick of this, let’s do away with it entirely!'”
So, is it any more rational to say, “This system really sucks; let’s put MORE money into it”?
But I’m up for a grey area: Let’s have the complete ability to create charter schools and have a “follow the money” policy for every child, even those who go to private school or are home-schooled. The politicians start screaming bloody murder whenever you want to do even THAT much! That just proves it: THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN AT ALL. They just want money and power for themselves.
“There’s no other way to do it. The free market created this in the same way that evolution created the eye.”
This kind of language is definitely the sort of thing that gives the impression of market-worship. The “free market” is not an existent entity, its a state of affairs. It’s important to describe how something actually came about, in the context of the market, so we can see if various situations are really comparable. Otherwise, you end up with ‘the market fixed this, so it can fix that too’ type of arguments.
“It occurs to me that people are basing their argument, as usual, on, “I can’t understand how a free market would do this, therefore I don’t think it can.” It always amazes me that people who apparently have no trouble with the idea that evolution can develop an eye with no intelligent direction just can’t extend their imagination to the free market.”
I could just substitute government for free market.
It occurs to me that people are basing their argument, as usual, on, “I can’t understand how a free market would do this, therefore I don’t think it can.”
uh yeah, why should I believe that the market can do something without evidence? The ability to imagine the market doing it will not suffice.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of evidence of corruption in the market. Just look at things like Enron, or Firestone’s rubber plant. The fact that government is corrupt and inefficient does not necessarily indicate that a private entity would be less corrupt or more efficient.
“Then they’ll laugh at you and ignore you, because they care about their own credibility, they want their graduates to be accepted to college, and they don’t want to lose the business of parents who also care about these things and would therefore send their children elsewhere.”
But if I’m paying them more than the parents who are enrolling children, why should they care? You seem to imagine that private actors are rigorously honest and upstanding, and would never engage in unethical conduct.
In a democracy, politicians are voted for. I could say, the government should control everything because if they manage poorly, someone else will be voted in. They want to keep our votes so they will do good. Of course, this is facile, but it is no different from blithely asserting that companies will always be good so they don’t lose money. Not the way it works.
The ways in which citizens can influence the government are different from the ways in which citizens can influence corporations. It is necessary to keep a healthy balance, because giving one entity too much power will benefit the bulk of the citizenry.
meant to say not at the end, obviously
“If we overshoot and end up at another extreme, we’ll end up with unforeseen problems that we aren’t equipped to fix because the change is so drastic and happened so rapidly.”
exactly…
and josh, i couldn’t have said it better. while things can always be better, i think the ideal we should shoot for is a truly representative government held in tension with a corruption-free market. we’ll never live in utopia, but i think throwing out either element is foolish (we’ve seen what happens when you throw out the market.)
my point about wanting to know if there have been any successful libertarian states was that we don’t really know what a completely market run system would look like. i would love to see it in action…who knows? maybe it would work, just like you say, but i’m not willing to throw out the workable (if imperfect) system we have for one that is untested in the real world.
carr2d2 there is a free state movement, but no there is no actual libertarian country. I don’t even have the data on a country with no public education.
There is one point which is being made over and over again and it is that the Free Market would not be able to cover everybodies niche, so we might as well have government schools. I really don’t understand this argument. The government isn’t covering everybodies niche right now, and the problems we are having with science education in this country is that Fundamentalist Christians don’t want to send their kids to schools that teach evolution. This is happening all over in countries that have public schools and a diverse population. England is having it with their Islamic population (I believe I heard an article on SGU about not teaching about the Holocaust in English schools).
I am not sure if the free market will do a better job to the majority of people, but at the very least parents will have more choice into where they send their kids.
i haven’t said that i think government education is perfect. i just think it’s better to fix the system we have than to throw it out entirely and go to a completely untested system.
this has been an interesting exchange. i’ve enjoyed it.
and now i need to call it a night.
btw, sam, it was really swell of you to shake up the can of bees and run the other way ;)
A free market would produce “a solution” no doubt, and it would be locally optimized towards “some metric”, but what would this metric be?
One thing that we definitely see with free markets is that while they often achieve a great overall metric (like a high GDP or something), they do create great economic disparities to achieve this (I am not arguing for communism here). Let’s just think about what this would mean for education, and if the type of solution it might create would be acceptable.
A very plausible outcome could be that America may have some of the best schools in the world, and we may have the best overall test scores for those who get an education. However, what force would drive the market to bring schools to poor areas. I can certainly see something like natural selection weeding out “bad” schools, but is this always good? A very stable solution could be a clustering of good schools in wealthy areas and areas of dense population. But that doesn’t provide schools everyone.
In addition to a free market not guaranteeing availability to everyone by geography, how can a free market ever provide to someone with no money even if they are near one of the naturally selected “good” schools. There is no economic incentive to give something away. The closest thing we have is someone gives you something to be subjected to advertising, unless your demographic is too poor. What’s the point in advertising to someone who can’t buy your products?
The problem I see is that free markets don’t guarantee everyone gets the service nor that they get the same quality of service (for many things this is acceptable, and preferable to all out Marxism). However, if you believe that everyone has a right to a good education (maybe you don’t, but do we really want a less educated America), then I see no reason to think a free market solution is a good idea. Making such a drastic change would certainly require some more solid evidence than a free market based faith.
Now I don’t think our system is optimal as it is. It guarantees education for all, but of varying quality. And a lot of this has to do with local control of schools and local funding. Poor areas have less money, there are no national standards, etc. I do think that a federal system would be much better than the hobbled together decentralized system we have now.
Protesilaus:
It is not about covering everyone’s niche. It is about at least providing an opportunity for everyone. If they would rather spend more to indoctrinate their children in a parochial school, that’s fine. I am less concerned with everyone finding their “niche” school than at least having the opportunity to get a half decent education. And that much, we have largely done with the current system. Public education has been the great equalizer, allowing people to move through social and economic classes. Because it is not perfect, there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water in a drastic move.
Josh:
“This kind of language is definitely the sort of thing that gives the impression of market-worship.”
Worship? WORSHIP??? I compare one set of scientific laws (economics) to another (biology) and you say that means it’s WORSHIP???
You sound more and more like someone who’s desperately trying to avoid giving up his world-view in the face of contrary evidence.
“The ‘free market’ is not an existent entity,”
Neither is evolution.
“its a state of affairs.”
No, it’s not. It’s a set of scientific principles.
“I could just substitute government for free market.”
Except that the market has been OBSERVED to do this kind of thing. The government ONLY works from the top down, imposing things BY FORCE, and therefore can only do what people can conceive of–and it can’t even do that efficiently or reliably.
“why should I believe that the market can do something without evidence?”
EXACTLY what the creationists say about evolution. But, like evolution, there IS evidence. Just look at the pencil.
“why should they care?”
Asked and answered. You have a VERY screwed-up notion of how the market works.
“You seem to imagine that private actors are rigorously honest and upstanding, and would never engage in unethical conduct.”
No, I “imagine” they act the way they’re incentivized to act–AND THEY ARE.
I STRONGLY suggest you pick up an economics textbook. Or, if that’s too much for you, check out Economics in One Lesson, available for free here: http://jim.com/econ/contents.html
Carr2d2:
“we’ll never live in utopia, but i think throwing out either element is foolish (we’ve seen what happens when you throw out the market.)”
Fine. Now all you have to do is point out who it is that’s wanting to throw out the government (because it ain’t me; I’m not an anarchist, and libertarianism is not anarchism).
“just like you say, but i’m not willing to throw out the workable (if imperfect) system we have”
Okay, now all you have to do is show that it IS workable, because right now that is very much NOT in evidence.
Once again: the more government and less free market, things get worse; the less government and more free market, things get better. If you know of any example in history where the contrary is true, please present it.
Protesilaus:
“carr2d2 there is a free state movement, but no there is no actual libertarian country. I don’t even have the data on a country with no public education.”
Well, you could try this country (which didn’t have government schools for 100 years), which in the years following its founding had (among the non-slave population) universal literacy among men, and near-universal literacy among women, and was praised by de Tocqueville as having the best educational system in the world.
“The government isn’t covering everybodies niche right now,”
Ain’t THAT the truth! I mentioned earlier my son is autistic…he’s in the special program at a government school, but the special program is really the only place where parents have some degree of choice. The class where he’s in now is REALLY good, because they’ve got a great teacher. One of the many great things about her is, she’s not at all shy about fighting the bureaucracy to make sure that No Child Left Behind doesn’t leave him behind.
Unfortunately, not everyone has great teachers like that available to them.
“the problems we are having with science education in this country is that Fundamentalist Christians don’t want to send their kids to schools that teach evolution.”
Actually, I’d say that’s as much a result of bad science education as a cause.
Skepgeek:
“[free markets] do create great economic disparities”
No, they don’t. Free markets ELIMINATE the disparities. It’s corporatism that creates the disparities. I REALLY wish people would learn the difference.
“However, what force would drive the market to bring schools to poor areas.”
The same thing that always drives it: demand. It’s not as if the market doesn’t get food, cars, and even computers to poor people. Even despite the enormous drag the “War on Poverty” has caused, our poor are still among the richest poor people in the world! They’re doing as well if not better than the middle class most anywhere else.
“how can a free market ever provide to someone with no money”
The same way it always does. Ask Dr. Ron Paul how he handled treating his patients who couldn’t afford to pay, for example.
“There is no economic incentive to give something away.”
Okay, someone else needs lessons in basic economics…
I guess the free market companies that donate BILLIONS of dollars per year–more than the government provides in aid and welfare–are just stupid or insane?
“free markets don’t guarantee everyone gets the service”
Neither does government. But the free market comes a LOT closer than government does. Government only seems to be good at creating shortages.
“Making such a drastic change would certainly require some more solid evidence than a free market based faith.”
I’ve presented a LOT of evidence so far. What kind of evidence do you want?
“I do think that a federal system would be much better than the hobbled together decentralized system we have now.”
Then why was the “hobbled together decentralized system” working so much better before Federal intrusion began in the 1960s?
“I am less concerned with everyone finding their “niche” school than at least having the opportunity to get a half decent education. And that much, we have largely done with the current system.”
Ah. So, 38% of graduates being illiterate is decent to you?
“Public education has been the great equalizer,”
Yep: it’s made everyone equally dumber.
“there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water”
Unless it’s Rosemary’s baby.
The idea that anything in economics is sufficiently well established to be regarded as a scientific law is absolutely farcical.
I thought about saying something else in this thread, but now I realize there’s not much point to it.
“The idea that anything in economics is sufficiently well established to be regarded as a scientific law is absolutely farcical.”
I challenge you to support this. Economics has laws that allow observations to be calculated. Economics makes predictions that can be tested. Economics has been consistently tested and retested, and although some forms of economics (like Keynesian economics) have fallen short, others have been shown to be quite sound.
The only problem with economics is that, more so than any other science, the politicians have worked hard to distort what it is.
They also apparently seem to have done an incredibly good job of making people completely ignorant of economics…
“I’ve presented a LOT of evidence so far. What kind of evidence do you want?”
I honestly haven’t seen anything in this thread I would count as evidence? Maybe empirical evidence, like where this has worked (I don’t think the education of the average Victorian Age American male would help you much today)? Maybe a some good models at least?
All I see are statistics that make me question your sources of information (e.g., “Ah. So, 38% of graduates being illiterate is decent to you?”), and some vague notion about how it al used to be so much better.
carr2d2:
Not sure if you are going to catch up after you get up tomorrow (and I don’t have time right now to read some of the essays written on the topic above).
I think that is where the 2 systems will be, in a free market system there will be more choice, but not everyone will be able to get access to the education, and in government schools, there will be to many private interests attempting to bend the education their way (brings to mind my 3rd SGU reference, with the conversation with the Textbook league guy). That is where the 2 systems will get us, both of them have their issues.
I think there is going to be a happy median, which addresses most of the issues, but I don’t know how to get there, and I haven’t heard of anything that I think would bridge that gap.
SkepGeek:
The problem with telling Christians or Muslims (just to name the ones I brought up earlier) that they can spend their money sending kids to private schools is that we live in a Democracy. They both have votes and both groups can attempt to put prayer in public schools or take out evolution. If there is a serious vote in this country to see if we should teach evolution in the schools, odds are we are going to lose. The Bill of Rights was put there to protect the minority, from the majority.
My overall point on this whole thing is that I think there is a center point that everyone will be comfortable with, there may be a way to get more free market pressures into the schools without getting rid of public schools all together. I think we can all agree that the status quo needs to be fixed, and I am not arguing that we should dismantle the existing infrastructure and start from scratch. This cannot be just a dichotomy. Maybe someone in power will be hear this and give me a school district to experiment on….but I am not sure that will happen.
It’s been a wonderful discussion, and I will try and read this all tomorrow morning. I am so happy to have found a community that can openly discuss all of these issues like this. I guess what I am saying is summed up below:
forgive me if this has already been covered, but I have two cents that I can’t spend anywhere else.
Libertarianism in the United States is an odd creature, one borne out of a very strict interpretation of the constitution, and is very reflective of the American character and almost innate distrust of the state. “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” says it all, really.
When I contrast that to the Canadian constitutional example of “Peace, Order, and Good Government”, I find it in striking contrast to the American counterpart, in that, by and large, Canadians are largely trustful of the state (not neccessarily the government at the time, but the idea of a state does not abhor us nearly as much).
The Canadian government doesn’t have as long and well-known history of major snafu’s like the American government does (I’m really not trying to start one of those mindless “which country is better arguments….I hate people who pull that crap). So if I were Penn, and I grew up in the United States, being raised on “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”, I would surely be an ardent libertarian also.
But as it is, I’ve been indoctrinated to believe that “Peace, Order and Good Government” is the ideal structure of a civilization, I’m happy to temper my libertarianism with a modicum of social responsibility. That is to say, that I believe in a free-market, but the government should take sure that the market is TRULY equal….too often (in both countries), the free-market economy is undermined by preferential financial policies that make sure that those who are in the ruling class, STAY ruling class. So here is where Penn and I split….He tends to commit the David Hume naturalistic “is-ought” naturalistic fallacy…that those who are mega-rich are so because they ought to be, due to exceptional skills. A cursory glance at economic policy and the legal system shows otherwise.
My libertarianism is such that it reflects my desire to have the government ensure a TRULY free-market (which has never, EVER been seen in history), and to protect free-speech at ALL costs (I’m looking at you, terrorists who firebombed the Danish Embassy!).
okay….4 cents.
Protesilaus:
Thanks for your response. You have certainly made some interesting points and given me something to think about.
SkepGeek:
“Maybe empirical evidence, like where this has worked”
Provided. Reread the thread.
“Maybe a some good models at least?”
Check ANY good Macroeconomics textbook.
These aren’t “vague notions.” They’re the result of many, many decades of scientific examination, whether you want to admit it or not.
Protesilaus:
“a free market system there will be more choice, but not everyone will be able to get access to the education”
Not everyone can get it NOW. And a lot of them who can get it are being neglected. The Stossel special I mentioned follows one such example.
“there may be a way to get more free market pressures into the schools without getting rid of public schools all together.”
I’ve already mentioned such a way. And again in the Stossel special, he speaks to South Carolina (whose governor wants to implement these reforms) officials and they scream bloody murder. THEY DON’T WANT IT FIXED.
“Maybe someone in power will be hear this and give me a school district to experiment on….but I am not sure that will happen.”
Like I said, I can point you to our local charter school. That’s a GREAT example right there.
See you tomorrow, and a Boom De Yada to you, too!
Some Canadian Skeptic:
“Libertarianism in the United States is an odd creature, one borne out of a very strict interpretation of the constitution,”
Actually, the roots of Libertarianism (classical liberalism) are what the Constitution was born from.
“I believe in a free-market, but the government should take sure that the market is TRULY equal.”
Sure, through police, courts, etc., to make sure that someone doesn’t use force or fraud to gain unfair advantage over another.
“the free-market economy is undermined by preferential financial policies”
Uh, no, in a free market system, there are no financial policies. You’re thinking of corporatism again.
So..I’m at TAM6 where I heard plenty of snickers in the audience about the state of education in this country. We pay more per student than any other western country if I recall.
Why aren’t more people skeptical of the concept of government education? Most of the reasons I’ve seen in the thread for supporting government education has less to do with evidence that it works, and more just the idea that it should be the government’s job out of a philosophical belief.
The goal should be to try different systems to see what actually works best. That’s the ultimate goal.
No, its more than just corporatism…
People who are in the ruling class are born into that class, complete with the social networking conections that make sure they stay in that class, regardless of their individual skills/abilities (President Bush is the easiest, if cheapest, example of this).
Someone from a working poor background is taught all their lives that if they just work hard enough, and if they have enough talent then they can become rich too. Which is a complete load because this is a society which rewards not work, but investment…something no working class person can afford to do.
If our system was even remotely as free-market as is preached (often times by people in the ruling class), then there would be a lot more upward mobility of the poor and talented and downward mobility of the rich and dumb.
Sadly, the message we’re all fed is that if you’re rich, you’ll likely die rich because you deserve it. If you’re poor, suck it up, poor-man. Serves you right for being so lazy.
That’s not corporatism, nor a free-market. It’s wage-slavery. The working poor have almost no chance outside of a lawsuit or the lottery from escaping wage-slavery and being able to invest a bit of money….which is the only thing our system seems to reward. We need work, but don’t reward it. We need consumption, but we don’t protect consumers when products go haywire. But when it comes to investment, governments bend over backwards to make it easier to invest larger and larger amounts of money.
There is nothing “free” about our market.
How would removing government-funded schools work in remote places like Wyoming?
Seems to me there’s a lot of leaps of faith made by the hardcore free-market crowd. That under sucha a system a business can only make a profit by making customers happy. And that if it screws people over, it’ll be punished by another company popping up and providing a better service.
I feel a healthy dose of skepticism is required here. ;-)
The market is a vital tool but i don’t think it’s the answer to all our problems. (and no I don’t think BIG GOVERNMENT ALLCAPS is either, just to stave off the usual retorts).
Some Canadian Skeptic:
“People who are in the ruling class are born into that class,”
WHAT ruling class? That’s just socialist paranoia. What “ruling class” was Bill Gates born into? Or Sam Walton?
“Which is a complete load because this is a society which rewards not work, but investment.”
Tell that to Farrah Gray.
Oots:
“That under sucha a system a business can only make a profit by making customers happy.”
How else could they do it?
Here’s a book that probably everyone should read: The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas J. Stanley.
Although be warned: you might have to shrug off the socialist indoctrination instilled in you by government school teachers who actually think that Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” had any basis in fact at all…
SomeCanadianSkeptic. I agree with you 95%, though I think you are missing the point somewhat. It isn’t that the Captialist System is in someway being distorted away from a “free” market and removing those inequities would make things better but rather those inequities are fundemental to the Capitalist mode of production.
I disagree with you in that I believe it is possible to move up the “social ladder”, it is very hard indeed, but it is possible. The Capitalist System, though bad, is better than the Feudal System it replaced. No one is born into their occupation anymore. One may be born into a particular class (and it may be hard to move from one class to another) but within it there are many subtle gradations.
Another thing I have noticed among the general tone of postings is the general materialist culture, that somehow having more money, allowing one to buy more stuff will make you happy.
I make no secret of my contempt for the advertising industry (who’s motto should be :”Convincing suckers to work jobs they hate to buy sh*t they don’t need”), but I think their methods can be used to show peope that “Stuff” will not make you happy, and once your needs have been taken care of the rest is just gravey.
Why would you want to be Rich? You can only sleep in one bed at a time, only wear one shirt at a time and people respect you for your actions not your possesions.
Sshanek, given that you’re apparently talking about “socialist intdoctrination” with a completely straight face, I’m not sure how productive arguing the details will be.
I don’t buy socialism working, I don’t buy lolbertarianism working either.
Okay, I think I need tags now. Was lolbertarianism a mispelling or a joke?
……I tried to write sarcasm inside of to make a html looking tag for sarcasm, but I was denied.
Okay no Greater than or Less Than tags at all….. I’ll retry this.
Okay, I think I need [sarcasm] tags now. Was lolbertarianism a mispelling or a joke?
Isn’t Bill Gates the son of a well known Seattle lawyer, who went to a private school followed by Harvard? Not to denigrate his rival-crushing prowess but it’s not like he came off the boat with only the clothes he stood up in is it?
Most “Self-Made” men did not come from Humble beginings, rather they moved from a relatively low rank in the upper class into the stratosphere.
The example pushed down our throats in the UK is Richard Branson, who built himself up from “nothing” with the paltry £1,000,000 his father gave him (back in the late 60’s when that was fold’in money), into a Billionaire today
I am not sure that the Free Market exists as Shanek is defining it, anyway. You try to pin him down, and “No, that’s not a free market, its corporatism or its capitalism or something else.” Is there any such free market, or is it a pipe dream, something that looks great on paper but never actually works out that way. While it is almost the opposite of Marxism, the way Shanek argues reminds me of old school Marxists and communists. Sure it sounded great and all to some, but it was never practical to implement. Both the hardcore libertarians like Shanek and the old Marxist intellectuals of the early 20th century seem to be equally out of touch with reality and have thins unbending faith that if you just give their idea a chance it will solve all problems.
Hhm, I reread the thread as shanek suggested, still unimpressed. I was almost convinced by the frequent use of all caps though.
By models, I don’t mean models of free markets and capitalism. Of course that is all over any econ book. I meant of free markets applied to public education to explore the different forces at work, what sort of stable solutions they could lead to. It certainly wouldn’t convince me to make such a drastic change to education on some simple models alone, but it might give me reason to take the idea more seriously.
Maybe if I really thought it was a completely broken and worthless system, I would try what you are saying out of desperation. But I don’t, and I think your personal experiences may be blinding you a bit on this.
“Was lolbertarianism a mispelling or a joke?”
A joke. I’m willing to listen to small-government ideas, but sometimes they get a bit too extreme and the lib becomes lol.
Oots:
Sinclair’s “The Jungle” is ABSOLUTELY Socialist propaganda. By his own admission, that’s why he wrote it! No, arguing isn’t going to be productive, but only because you’re unwilling to consider the facts.
russellsugden:
I notice you conveniently ignored Farrah Gray. I CHALLENGE you to say HE came from an affluent family!!!
And the Stanley book I cited shows that you are quite, quite wrong.
(Am I the only one in this entire discussion who is citing sources???)
SkepGeek:
Stop with the blind rhetorics. If you don’t have anything of value to add, then what are you doing here, other than trying to support your own world-view? Again, why do I seem to be the ONLY one providing evidence and citing sources?