Skepticism and Libertarians

[pipelineaudio]

I tend to find many (at least my age, at university etc) that are leftists tend to not be skeptics much at all, often buying in to some wild 9/11 conspiracy theories and such - It's rather disheartening.

This is my finding too, and it causes me to think of Atheists vs atheists but I am probably counting wrong

 

[Admiral]

I wasn't advocating socialism. I was pointing out that if you want to live in a society full of doctors, nurses, lawyers, and other educated professionals to provide you needed services, someone needs to provide them with the access to education, from grade school on. Public education is a public good. Even if you don't have children, you benefit.

Public education isn't about the public good- it doesn't work, especially for the people that it claims to help (the underprivileged).

There are two issues at work here, though- government subsidy of education, and government control of education (the system of school districts). Let's look at government control first.

Here's an analogy. Imagine that you established a restaurant for each district, and said "If you live in this district, we're going to force you to go to this restaurant. You'll pay for it through your taxes, and you're not allowed to go anywhere else."

What would happen? Well, each individual restaurant would have no incentive to offer good food- they wouldn't care! You're forced to eat there! Imagine a law that said you had to go to Applebee's for dinner. Do you think they'd bother being polite at the door? (Continuing the analogy, you'd be banning all tips, since teachers don't get any reward for satisfying parents. Their rewards, if they exist, are based on test scores, which leads to teachers cheating, teaching to the test, and generally ignoring the student's real education).

Now, in wealthy suburbs with high real estate prices, the restaurants would be great- that's the reason people move there. And rich people could go to private restaraunts, but they would be the only ones who could afford to pay for their food TWICE- once for their local public restaraunt, and once for the private restaurant. But in the poorer districts of cities, the restaurants would be horrible, badly organized messes. After all, they basically have a gun to the customers' heads, so they could have any kind of restaurant they want and the customers wouldn't be allowed to eat anywhere else.

What's more, people couldn't choose the kind of restaurant they went to- it would be decided by the government, which is controlled by the majority. If 75% of people wanted to eat Italian food, and 25% wanted to eat Chinese food, too bad for the 25%- the government would take everyone's money and give it entirely to the Italian restaurants. What's more, they'd only get influence during election seasons, the elections would be decided on a thousand different topics only one of which is what kind of restaurant to fund... can you see why this system would fail miserably?

Compare that to what we have now. The free market allows people to choose what restaraunt they go to- the government doesn't choose one particular restaurant and back it up with law. For that reason, capitalism suddenly kicks in- restaurants are springing up everywhere that they're needed (after all, an area that needs a restaurant is an area where a restauranteur can get rich), restaurants are improving their service to try and win people over, they're being as efficient as they can be, since inefficiently run restaurants go out of business, and they're serving a wide variety of needs- there can be an Italian restaurant, a Chinese restaurant, and a steakhouse all on the same block, if there's a demand for it.

Back to schools. Imagine the government gave parents the power to choose where their students went (for the moment, let's assume government's still paying for it). The government would offer vouchers that would be good at any private school, equal to the amount the government was paying for that student (which, by the way, is much higher than you think- the average is over $7,000 nationwide. In Washington DC, known for its generally underperforming public schools, the average is $9500!) Imagine how this much money, given to each parent (in the form of a voucher), would help students- entrepueners would rush to poor districts to create private schools that would replace the underperforming public schools. Instead of heading to Wall Street, the top minds in the country would start new schools and try to outperform competitors by offering new innovations in education. And all this would be happening even in the poorest of districts.

Now, whether government should fund schools at all is a more complex issue (we can argue that seperately). However, school choice is a no-brainer. It SHOULD be a liberal issue- it's offering the poor opportunity, choice, and control over themselves. Publicly controlled schools are a paternalistic way of saying "We're going to let you learn, but only as is strictly controlled by us. Oh, and you don't have any choice of where to go, so if you don't like your school, tough." And most importantly- it doesn't work nearly as well as the free market would.

 

[UserGoogol]

Now, whether government should fund schools at all is a more complex issue (we can argue that seperately). However, school choice is a no-brainer. It SHOULD be a liberal issue- it's offering the poor opportunity, choice, and control over themselves. Publicly controlled schools are a paternalistic way of saying "We're going to let you learn, but only as is strictly controlled by us. Oh, and you don't have any choice of where to go, so if you don't like your school, tough." And most importantly- it doesn't work nearly as well as the free market would.

There is no choice in any system of education. With privately-owned restaurants, the people who are going to benefit from the food are the ones who get to make the decision. Quite a reasonable method, since everyone has different tastes, and generally the most knowledgable person to ask about a person's preferences is the person themself. But education is different. The people who benefit from an education are children, and (quite reasonably) we do not give children free reign over their fates. The difference is not between "choice" and "paternalism," it is a difference between who gets to make the decision for the child. At one extreme, parents control the decision, and at the other extreme, the government controls the decision. And unlike in the restaurant situation, parents do not have any magical insight into what would be best for the child. (Additionally, of course, the positive externalities of some guy eating at a restaurant are fairly neglible, while the positive externalities of people being educated are insanely huge. The existance of educated people makes everyone's lives better.)

If it's paternalistic when governments do it, what the hell do you think it is when actual parents do it?

 

[Admiral]

If it's paternalistic when governments do it, what the hell do you think it is when actual parents do it?

It's paternalistic! I'd rather have parents be paternalistic than have government be paternalistic.

Now, this means, yes, that I support the right of parents to send their kids to creationist schools. I even support their right to send their children to schools that advocate beliefs I disagree strongly with- racism, xenophobia, socialism... Of course, the issue of "When does having control of one's children turn into child abuse" is a very debatable one- I certainly don't support any form of physical, emotional or sexual abuse, and believe that the government should intervene in such cases.

However, letting people choose their child's school is a long, long way from any kind of abuse. It is, instead, making the school accountable for its quality! The government doesn't care nearly as much about the quality of Timmy Thomson's education as Mr. and Mrs. Thomson do. We have to give them the choice, instead of saying "Well, don't worry, the bureaucrats will give them a good education. There's no need to let them decide for themselves."

Indeed, I find the belief that the poor don't know what's best for themselves and their children to be a decidedly non-liberal belief.

However, you don't give your specific opinion- what point on the spectrum of parents vs. govenment do you support?

 

[PogoPedant]

restaurants are springing up everywhere that they're needed

Well, anywhere the market can support a resturant, anyway.

(after all, an area that needs a restaurant is an area where a restauranteur can get rich)

Since a resturant is a luxury, this is largely correct. Is education a luxury? I think not.

 

[Admiral]

Well, anywhere the market can support a resturant, anyway.

Since a resturant is a luxury, this is largely correct. Is education a luxury? I think not.

You misunderstood me a little. In the situation I suggested (vouchers), the government would still be paying for education- every kid in the country would have about $7000 a year attached to him, which is the same amount the government is paying per kid right now. (The cost is larger now, actually- $7000 a year comes from 1995, and I can't find a more recent price. It has, however, steadily risen for the past century). So the market would support education everywhere, since every parent would be able to pay for their kid's education.

As for a luxury- since in this system, parents automatically have a way to pay for schooling, not being a "luxury" is irrelevant.

 

[Darat]

Classical liberals, which are close to libertarians.

Which Founding Fathers were interested in nationalization of health care, or providing social security, and so on? That's what I'd like to know.

Why?

 

[UserGoogol]

It's paternalistic! I'd rather have parents be paternalistic than have government be paternalistic.

Why? With governments, at least, there's a proccess that tries to assure that government officials kind of know what they're doing (it's flawed, but it's something) while a person can become a parent simply by having unprotected sexual intercourse. To let people have that much power over a child for such an assinine reason as that is completely insane.

The government doesn't care nearly as much about the quality of Timmy Thomson's education as Mr. and Mrs. Thomson do.

I dunno, maybe. I'm probably too cynical, but it seems like an assumption to say that parents are just going to care about their children's education.

And it occurs to me that there's also the opposite concern that parents might be too involved in their children's futures, and therefore have them go to a school that will help them be successful rather than a school that will raise them to become intellectually strong.

Indeed, I find the belief that the poor don't know what's best for themselves and their children to be a decidedly non-liberal belief.

As I said, there is no "themselves" involved in the equation at all. Parents don't go to school, they don't learn, they are in no way effected by the educational proccess except for the warm fuzzies of having a well-educated kid. (And warm fuzzies are a lame way to evaluate anything.) Additionally, I don't see what poor people have to do with it; rich people don't know what's best for their children either.

And I think the idea that people don't know what's best for other people is fairly fundamental to classical liberalism.

Parents have information available to them that government agents will generally find it difficult to acquire, (that is, because they live with the child, they will have an insight into the child's behavioral patterns) and for this reason their opinions are certainly worth something.

However, you don't give your specific opinion- what point on the spectrum of parents vs. govenment do you support?

I don't really have that much of a specific opinion, public education is a complicated issue and there are a lot of factors that need to be considered. I'm vaguely of the opinion that compulsory public education is a very good thing, in that it assures that absolutely everyone has the benefits of an education, although a bit more choice in the matter might be a good idea. For instance, you said that people had to choose what school they go to based on where they live, which I was not even aware of: I think that the ability for parents to choose which public school to send their children to seems like a fairly good idea. I might not even be opposed to some sort of voucher system, although I would still probably prefer some significant government regulation of the voucher-recieving schools.

 

[Admiral]

Why?

I believe his argument is that we've drifted away from the ideals of the Founding Fathers. While I agree with him that we have, and I agree with his positions, I don't support this argument (which is common among libertarians). Just because Thomas Jefferson and James Madison supported something doesn't in itself mean it's the right thing to do- that's an unskeptical attitude. We've shifted away from the original constitution in many ways- some, in my opinion, are bad (like the examples he mentioned), and some are good (universal suffrage, abolition of slavery...).

We should examine these issues on their merits rather than on who believed them back in 1787.

 

[dann]

... restaurants are springing up everywhere that they're needed ...

Well, anywhere the market can support a resturant, anyway.

Right! Market = people with money to spend. The poor may need proper food and enough of it, but that is a demand that the free market doesn't supply!

 

[Admiral]

Why? With governments, at least, there's a proccess that tries to assure that government officials kind of know what they're doing (it's flawed, but it's something) while a person can become a parent simply by having unprotected sexual intercourse. To let people have that much power over a child for such an assinine reason as that is completely insane.

That's a philosophical issue that is impossible to resolve quickly. However, the consequentialist benefits of the system are clear.

I dunno, maybe. I'm probably too cynical, but it seems like an assumption to say that parents are just going to care about their children's education.

They're much, much more likely to do so than the government (parenting is a natural, very strong instinct). Is it possible that the parents just won't care, and will send their kids to a worse school? Yes, and it absolutely happens. However, since, in a free system, schools get more students when they're high quality, pretty much EVERY school will do everything it can to improve.

Let me give you an example. Imagine an underperforming high school in a very underprivileged area. Let's say that this school is so bad that only half the teachers are qualified enough to teach, and their facilities are so small that the school is twice as crowded as it should be.

Now, imagine that vouchers are suddenly offered. Now, the worst case scenario is that even though there are other options, no parents care about their kids' situations, and no parents take their kids out. In other words, the worst case scenario is that things stay the same.

However, it's almost certain that a huge number- let's say one half, though that's a very low figure as to how many parents care about their children- will take their kids out to put them in the better private schools that suddenly show up in their districts ($7000 a head will do that). Now half the students have a better education. But what about the ones left behind, whose parents didn't care enough to switch their school? Aren't they harmed?

NO. Actually, they will get a much better education. Why? Because the public school just lost half of its students and half of its funding. Now, the school's administrators will have to make some major cutbacks. Who will they fire? The worst teachers, of course- now they have an incentive to make their school better. They certainly don't want to lose any more students, and they're hoping to gain some back, so at the very least they'd fire the bottom half of the teachers.

Now that that's been done, these kids- whose parents didn't bother to switch their school- are in a school with entirely qualified teachers that is no longer overcrowded. What's more, the school administrators no longer get to relax- if the school's quality doesn't increase, it won't gain back any students, and might lose them now or in future years.

So everyone gets helped. Obviously those with parents that feel their child's education is important are helped more- that's the way it goes. However, all the children end up better off.

And it occurs to me that there's also the opposite concern that parents might be too involved in their children's futures, and therefore have them go to a school that will help them be successful rather than a school that will raise them to become intellectually strong.

Do me a favor- name such a hypothetical school that makes people successful, but isn't known for making them intellectually strong. Seriously. The best private schools in the country are known both for the success of their graduates and for their intellectually rigourous curricula.

Or look at higher education instead. The best schools- the Ivy League, MIT and Caltech, UC Berkeley and UVA, whatever- they're all known for having successful graduates, but also for having the best education in the arts, philosophy, pure sciences... where are the schools that produce successful and intellectually weak people?

And most importantly- what right does government have to say "Children should go to schools that will make them intellectually strong rather than schools that will make them successful." That's an elitist argument- it involves forcing your will onto other people. Of course parents are still forcing their will onto children, but at least it's a decision made by individual families rather than a one-size-fits-all policy applied to the overall country.

Why is this one-size-fits-all policy a bad thing? Because not everyone in the country has to go to college, not everyone in the country has to become a scientist, and not everyone in the country has to read Shakespeare. Some people become plumbers, others run restaurants... the government must not be in the business of saying that people should all be the same. I support freedom over this standard of being "intellectually strong."

Additionally, I don't see what poor people have to do with it; rich people don't know what's best for their children either.

Rich people have a choice of where to send their children to school- they can move to wealthy areas with great schools, they can pay for private schools on top of property taxes... it's the poor that are forced into particular schools based on where they live.

And I think the idea that people don't know what's best for other people is fairly fundamental to classical liberalism.

Yes. Which is exactly why they don't think government knows what's best for children. However, parents are much, much closer to the children than the government is- a system where one or two people have control over a few children is much better than a system where a couple thousand buearacrats rule over millions of children.

Do you actually think that government making decisions for children is more liberal than parents making decisions for children? (Of course, there are limits- I already mentioned abuse).

Parents have information available to them that government agents will generally find it difficult to acquire, (that is, because they live with the child, they will have an insight into the child's behavioral patterns) and for this reason their opinions are certainly worth something.

Agreed. It's ridiculous to think that a government agent could understand what's best for a particular kid- which is why its even worse for a government agent to be expected to know what's best for thousands of kids, every one of them different.

I don't really have that much of a specific opinion, public education is a complicated issue and there are a lot of factors that need to be considered. I'm vaguely of the opinion that compulsory public education is a very good thing, in that it assures that absolutely everyone has the benefits of an education, although a bit more choice in the matter might be a good idea. For instance, you said that people had to choose what school they go to based on where they live, which I was not even aware of: I think that the ability for parents to choose which public school to send their children to seems like a fairly good idea. I might not even be opposed to some sort of voucher system, although I would still probably prefer some significant government regulation of the voucher-recieving schools.

Great. I also part ranks with the more extreme libertarians to support a certain level of regulation- schools should have to be approved to get vouchers, though I'm very worried about this because it opens an easy possibility for abuse by the government (the government approval committee, whatever it is, could just refuse to allow vouchers to go to private schools whenever they want, and there'll political pressure from teacher's unions and the Department of Education to keep private schools closed).

However, the choosing what public school to go to idea... there are a LOT of problems with that, simply because the public schools can't respond to demand well. In areas that use that system (like parts of Boston), there is a lottery process for the more in-demand public schools, while plenty of students still get stuck in the worst schools. This means that the worst schools STILL don't really care, since they get to keep their students no matter how bad they are.

Also, transportation is a serious issue in most of these cases. If there's no decent public school that's less than 45 minutes away (particularly since underpriviledged students would often use public transportation), it's unreasonable to expect parents to send them there. However, if private schools could get vouchers, they'd do everything they could to get to areas where its convenient for students to commute there (since the more well-placed they are, the more money they can make).

Think of it this way- imagine an area in Manhattan that didn't have a Starbucks, but where Starbucks could make a lot of money. Having trouble imagining it? That's because it doesn't exist- Starbucks goes to a lot of trouble to make sure their stores are placed in extremely convenient areas. With vouchers, entrepueners could make a lot of money by starting schools, and they'd do a lot of research on where to place them to be most convenient for everyone in the community.

By the way, when you mentioned you weren't aware of how the public school system worked, I wondered- are you not from the United States? I'm sorry, because my arguments tend to be very America-centric.

 

[Admiral]

Right! Market = people with money to spend. The poor may need proper food and enough of it, but that is a demand that the free market doesn't supply!

As I already said- vouchers are a system where the government PAYS for education, it just doesn't build schools and force people to spend their money on that particular school.

So if a poor family has one kid, they'll get (let's say) $7,000 to spend on education in the form of vouchers that can be used at private schools. Therefore, they DO have the money to spend, and the demand exists.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I believe his argument is that we've drifted away from the ideals of the Founding Fathers. While I agree with him that we have, and I agree with his positions, I don't support this argument (which is common among libertarians). Just because Thomas Jefferson and James Madison supported something doesn't in itself mean it's the right thing to do- that's an unskeptical attitude. We've shifted away from the original constitution in many ways- some, in my opinion, are bad (like the examples he mentioned), and some are good (universal suffrage, abolition of slavery...).

We should examine these issues on their merits rather than on who believed them back in 1787.

I disagree with much of what you say in this thread, but you're right on the money here. I feel somewhat bemused by the way some Americans cite the founding fathers as if they were the founders of a religion rather than a nation.

 

[dann]

As I already said- vouchers are a system where the government PAYS for education, it just doesn't build schools and force people to spend their money on that particular school.

So if a poor family has one kid, they'll get (let's say) $7,000 to spend on education in the form of vouchers that can be used at private schools. Therefore, they DO have the money to spend, and the demand exists.

I thought you were talking about restaurants!