• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread Does compulsory schooling equate to slavery? (Split from: "Liberal Fallacies" thread)

Malcolm,

1. So payment is irrelevant, it is compulsion that matters. Good. If someone volunteers to work that is not slavery. In this case I'd say the students are compensated with an education.

2. You misunderstood the example. I proposed to assume compulsion and was drawing attention to your linguistic games. You choose to highlight that the words homework and schoolwork contain a common root. So does guesswork and housework.

You've advocated for home schooling, yet I believe it meets your definition of slavery as well. If your child chooses not to participate in home schooling but you force her then she is apparently a slave.
 
Last edited:
That's a blatantly dishonest misrepresentation of the argument. Compulsory attendance at school is a subset of compulsory, unpaid labor. If compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery, then compulsory school attendance is slavery.
Sorry. Not sufficient. I don't accept that sitting in class is labor. I reject your premise. If the children were making things that the schools were profiting from (public schools are not for profit) then you would have an argument.

Markets in people are not a defining characteristic of slavery. No one bought and sold zeks in the katorga (lethal, special regime camps) of the Kolyma River camp system. Would you call zeks slaves or not? A child born to slave parents in Alabama c 1800 who then labored on that plantation until death in 1859 would have been a slave, just as much as rotweiler puppies are the property of the owner of the bitch who delivered them.
Having 24 hour control over another person's life is a defining characteristic. It's called ownership. It doesn't matter if the slave was paid for. If you are my legal property then you are my slave. If I can kill you for not doing as I ask then you are my slave.

Your argument fails. Compulsory != slavery.
 
Prove it: "Let's have author, title, edition, and page number."
Wikipedia does not qualify as a specialist statistical reference here.
Sorry, not playing your game. I've given you scholarly references (every wikipedia reference as a primary source). I'm sorry, but google statistics and anecdote and you will see millions of articles on the subject. The Plural of Anecdote is Not Data

I know you think you have a "gotcha" but the evidence I've provided already is overwhelming. "Statistical significant" and the fact that using an anecdote to make a hasty generalization for a population is a very real term and a very real fallacy whether you choose to accept all of my links are not.

Point blank: You've never heard of "statistically significant" sampling size?
 
Last edited:
Vague. What "text"? What is "it"? Vague again. If David intends that the above relate to anything I wrote, what "obscure theory" have I quoted?Again, what is "it"? Further, why must data be "current"? David's requirement that supporting data be current looks affected to me.
You cited the source, funny how you can't support it.
Navigators can use old charts to find Honolulu. Satelite GPS precision isn't necessary to find the harbor mouth.
I heard phlogiston is making a come back as well.
Chemists can use decades-old periodic tables to deduce chemical properties of elements. Nickel, palladium, and platinum have the same number of valence electrons.
those have metrics, which you did not provide in reference to your source, funny that.
Slavery is still wrong. Compulsion kills motivation.In Physics AND Geometry, the discussion begins with definition of terms. Apparently that point was too "obscure" for David.

And you used the word Euclidean, and were wrong, but admitting that you said something incorrect instead of moving the goal posts...
 
Malcolm,
1. So payment is irrelevant1, it is compulsion that matters. Good. If someone volunteers to work that is not slavery. In this case I'd say the students are compensated with an education2.
2. You misunderstood the example. I proposed to assume compulsion3 and was drawing attention to your linguistic games4. You choose to highlight that the words homework and schoolwork contain a common root. So does guesswork and housework5.
You've advocated for home schooling6, yet I believe it meets your definition of slavery as well7. If your child chooses not to participate in home schooling but you force her then she is apparently a slave.8
1. If it were irrelevant I would not have said compensation is a matter of degree. Compensation is also an indirect measure of compulsion, as I indicated with the comment "The test of whether or not compenstion is enough to make labor adequately paid or not is whether or not the worker stays on the job without duress (compulsion)".
Slavery is a matter of degree because both compulsion and compensation are matters of degree. As Randfan indicated, this is not really a dispute over definitions but an empirical question about the effect of various institutional structure. Laws and institutions shape incentives.
2. The prevalence of this assertion reflects survivor bias and narcissism. Survivor bias because people who did well in school are overrepresented among the ranks of policy makers and people who participate in internet forums. Narcissism because people generally want to think well of themselves and so elevate their particular sort of success. Many people do not regard what schools supply as "compensation".
3. But you introduced a confused concept of "compulsion": (Niche): "If guesswork is involved in completing a puzzle does that make it a potential candidate for slavery as well, assuming I can show that it was compulsory as I had no really logical way to solve it otherwise". Who compels you to accelerate toward Earth with a force proportional to the product of your mass and the Earth's mass, divided by the square of the distance between their centers of mass? This is the politics forum. We discuss the contribution that humans make to society, not gravitatioin, the solar flux, etc.
4. Can we do this without insults? If not, then I suggest that you're playing linguistic games with the above confused conception of "compulsion"?
5. Certainly housework is work. The term for indoor slaves was "domestic" or "household slaves".
6, 7, 8. I'm an advocate for a reduction in the use of remotely-directed interpersonal violence and threats of interpersonal violence (i.e., government) in the education industry. I'm mostly indifferent as to what arrangements evolve as the State retreats from the education industry.
We have already noted the anomalous position that children occupy in economic theory: they are halfway between "property" and "rational economic actor" (the two classes of things in the stripped-down model universe of economic discussion). For each child, somebody or some body will decide how that child spends the time between birth and age 18. Parent control of education does for children what the system of title and contract law does for other resources: unite local knowledge, and control with the incentive to use resources in socially beneficial ways.
 
Compensation is also an indirect measure of compulsion, as I indicated with the comment "The test of whether or not compenstion is enough to make labor adequately paid or not is whether or not the worker stays on the job without duress (compulsion)".

Do children have to be compelled to go to private schools, or do private school pupils do so solely of their own volition?
 
(Malcolm): "Compulsory attendance at school is a subset of compulsory, unpaid labor."
Laws mandate attendance at school. That is, attendance is compulsory. Students are not paid. In school, teachers (overseers) assign classwork and homework.
Compulsory, unpaid labor.

Well, ...

Since one's body is compelled to do some work in order to breathe, process food, have sex, and otherwise stay alive, then I guess all of us are slaves to biology!

:bunpan
 
(Malcolm): "Compulsory attendance at school is a subset of compulsory, unpaid labor."
Laws mandate attendance at school. That is, attendance is compulsory. Students are not paid. In school, teachers (overseers) assign classwork and homework.
Compulsory, unpaid labor.
Since one's body is compelled to do some work in order to breathe, process food, have sex, and otherwise stay alive, then I guess all of us are slaves to biology!
If you want to use words that way, go ahead. Some people do: "a slave to his dick", "a slave to his fascination with __X__ (fill in the blank)". This is the politics forum. I don't see any policy implications. Gravitation, animal O2 requirements, human nutritional requirements, etc. are not policy variables.
 
Having 24 hour control over another person's life is a defining characteristic. It's called ownership. It doesn't matter if the slave was paid for. If you are my legal property then you are my slave. If I can kill you for not doing as I ask then you are my slave.

Your argument fails. Compulsory != slavery.
Malcolm, your argument requires a lot of special pleading to even consider.

  • The free market values public education.
  • Rich people value private education.
  • You need a diploma or GED to get a job.
Your fatal error is to fail to take into account that humans aren't born capable of surviving without parental supervision and they won't get far in life without an education. Which is why most if not all modern liberal democracies compel their children to get an education.
 
Last edited:
(David): "You still haven't shown why the old text is relevant, such as the metrics and data that support it."
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "Vague. What 'text'? What is 'it'?"
(David): "It is great to quote some obscure theory...
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "Vague again. If David intends that the above relate to anything I wrote, what "obscure theory" have I quoted?"
(David): ".... but just as in anything at the JREF, you need to show how it is applicable, and what current data support it."
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "Again, what is "it"? Further, why must data be "current"? David's requirement that supporting data be current looks affected to me."
(Dancing David): "You cited the source, funny how you can't support it."
Vague again. Which source? To what does "it" in the above refer?

(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "Navigators can use old charts to find Honolulu. Satelite GPS precision isn't necessary to find the harbor mouth."
(Dancing David): "I heard phlogiston is making a come back as well."
Does David dispute the continued value of decades-old periodic tables and navigation charts or not? If not, why then does he make the comparison between the material I cite (Becker, Meighan, Hyman and Penroe, etc.) and phlogistan? If he intends to assert that someone has developed a better definition of "school" (Becker), or refuted Meighan's research or Hyman and Penroe's research, let's see the improved definition or the contrary research.
Drop the sarcasm,

(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "Chemists can use decades-old periodic tables to deduce chemical properties of elements. Nickel, palladium, and platinum have the same number of valence electrons."
(Dancing David): "those have metrics, which you did not provide in reference to your source, funny that."
Vague again. "Those..." what? Periodic tables? Elements?
And what does "have metrics" mean? Please elaborate.
Please specify: for which source would you like to see "metrics" (whatever that would mean in this context)?

(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "Slavery is still wrong. Compulsion kills motivation."
(No dispute)...

(David): "What you have presented is not as applicable as speed, acceleration, momentum, inertia, force, energy, power which is also not really Euclidean geometry either."
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "In Physics AND Geometry, the discussion begins with definition of terms. Apparently that point was too "obscure" for David."
(Dancing David): "And you used the word Euclidean, and were wrong, but admitting that you said something incorrect instead of moving the goal posts..."
The point, which still seems to elude David, was that careful discussion (in both Physics and Geometry, Euclidean or otherwise) routinely begins with a careful definition of terms.
 
It was thirty years ago but I don't recall that any of my statistics texts defined "anecdote". The practical statistics classes discuss sources of sample bias. The theoretical classes discuss the relation between sample size and the distribution of sample measures around theoretical population measures (mean, variance, mode, etc.).
Did they define Anecdotal evidence Mine sure as hell did.
Prove it: "Let's have author, title, edition, and page number."
Sorry, not playing your game. I've given you scholarly references (every wikipedia reference as a primary source).
Your Statistics class used Wikipedia at the textbook? Somehow I doubt that.
 
(David): "You still haven't shown why the old text is relevant, such as the metrics and data that support it."
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "Vague. What 'text'? What is 'it'?"
(David): "It is great to quote some obscure theory...
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "Vague again. If David intends that the above relate to anything I wrote, what "obscure theory" have I quoted?"
(David): ".... but just as in anything at the JREF, you need to show how it is applicable, and what current data support it."
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "Again, what is "it"? Further, why must data be "current"? David's requirement that supporting data be current looks affected to me."
(Dancing David): "You cited the source, funny how you can't support it."
Vague again. Which source? To what does "it" in the above refer?

(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "Navigators can use old charts to find Honolulu. Satelite GPS precision isn't necessary to find the harbor mouth."
(Dancing David): "I heard phlogiston is making a come back as well."
Does David dispute the continued value of decades-old periodic tables and navigation charts or not? If not, why then does he make the comparison between the material I cite (Becker, Meighan, Hyman and Penroe, etc.) and phlogistan? If he intends to assert that someone has developed a better definition of "school" (Becker), or refuted Meighan's research or Hyman and Penroe's research, let's see the improved definition or the contrary research.
Drop the sarcasm,

(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "Chemists can use decades-old periodic tables to deduce chemical properties of elements. Nickel, palladium, and platinum have the same number of valence electrons."
(Dancing David): "those have metrics, which you did not provide in reference to your source, funny that."
Vague again. "Those..." what? Periodic tables? Elements?
And what does "have metrics" mean? Please elaborate.
Please specify: for which source would you like to see "metrics" (whatever that would mean in this context)?

(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "Slavery is still wrong. Compulsion kills motivation."
(No dispute)...

(David): "What you have presented is not as applicable as speed, acceleration, momentum, inertia, force, energy, power which is also not really Euclidean geometry either."
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "In Physics AND Geometry, the discussion begins with definition of terms. Apparently that point was too "obscure" for David."
(Dancing David): "And you used the word Euclidean, and were wrong, but admitting that you said something incorrect instead of moving the goal posts..."
The point, which still seems to elude David, was that careful discussion (in both Physics and Geometry, Euclidean or otherwise) routinely begins with a careful definition of terms.


Nice side trip, you still can't support Becker with metrics, or have yet to do so.

Meanwhile you sure don't know the difference between the phrases 'physics' and 'Euclidean geometry'.
 
If you want to use words that way, go ahead. Some people do: "a slave to his dick", "a slave to his fascination with __X__ (fill in the blank)". This is the politics forum. I don't see any policy implications. Gravitation, animal O2 requirements, human nutritional requirements, etc. are not policy variables.

This from the person who seems to think 'Euclidean geometry"="physics"
 
Nice side trip, you still can't support Becker with metrics, or have yet to do so.
See above comment.
Meanwhile you sure don't know the difference between the phrases 'physics' and 'Euclidean geometry'.
David apparently does not know the meaning of "both". In BOTH Physics AND
Geometry (Euclidean and otherwise) a careful definition of terms occurs early in any sensible discussion.
 
Point blank: You've never heard of "statistically significant" sampling size?
Cerainly. That's what likelihood estimates and confidence intervals are all about. The probability that a measure on a sample differs significantly from a measure on the entire underlying population is a function of sample size (sample bias not considered).
Individual observations are anecdotes. "I saw a shark longer than my spear" is an anecdote. Measure 100 grey reef sharks from Johnston Atoll against a yardstick and you have 100 anecdotes with numbers attached. Now you can do statistics.
 
Cerainly. That's what likelihood estimates and confidence intervals are all about. The probability that a measure on a sample differs significantly from a measure on the entire underlying population is a function of sample size (sample bias not considered).
Individual observations are anecdotes. "I saw a shark longer than my spear" is an anecdote. Measure 100 grey reef sharks from Johnston Atoll against a yardstick and you have 100 anecdotes with numbers attached. Now you can do statistics.
When you have a statistically significant sample size you no longer simply have an anecdote.

Anecdotes vs statistics

The Plural of Anecdote is Not Data
 
Your Statistics class used Wikipedia at the textbook? Somehow I doubt that.
Dude, I don't have all of my textbooks. Most of the ones I do have are in storage. But I gave you page numbers of real books discussing the differences between anecdote and statistically significant sample sizes. I gave you multiple references. The truth doesn't change because I don't have your precise requirements. I can demonstrate that an anecdote is not considered by scientists to be statistically significant for groups.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom