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

[RandFan]

I. Let's see:...
(RandFan): "In America, no child is forced to go to state publicized school. Any parent can home school."
(Malcolm): "Flat false. Some States require that homeschooling parents have a teacher's certification."
(Randfan): "Not every parent is competent and capable or has the time and resources to home school children (many are criminals and/or pathological). (still a fact)"
Okay. So Randfan agrees that States disqualify some parents from homeschooling. We agree. What Randfan calls a "fact" turns out to be more of an imperative: " If some states have more difficult standards for home schooling and you don't like it then work to change the law."
So laws in some States prevent some parents from homeschooling. That makes: ...
(Randfan): "In America ... Any parent can homeschool" ...
contrary-to-fact.
Financial realities make: ...
(Randfan): "In America ... Any parent can ... send their children to parochial school" ...
contrary-to-fact.
II. One observes compulsory schooling in many contemporary countries at all levels of economic deverlopment and in all political systems. Therefore, the (spurious) association of compulsory schooling with economically-advanced democratic systems says nothing about the impact of compulsory schooling on economic or political development. Economically-backward totalitarian States like North Korea compel attendance at school.

If you have a problem with a state law then do something about the law. Pointing out that some states have restrictions for homes schooling that make it difficult to home school isn't a positive argument. It doesn't negate the fact that state subsidized public school todate is an effective means of educating the public for the betterment of society. The fact that every nation high in GDP, HDI and economic freedom have compulsory state subsidized education simply demonstrates that it is considered an effective way to educate the population. We are talking about democracies and those nations that have the highest literacy rates have compulsory state subsidized education and you have few if any examples to show a better way.

States like North Korea compel attendance at school.

And they have public roads also. Guess we will need to get rid of those now. (bad argument, not everything NK does is bad or wrong).

III. Yah. State-worshipful indoctrination works, all right. Some people never shake it.

Rhetorical device. Give me examples of other nations with better systems. Show me that your ideas work and I can change my mind. I came here a right-wing theist. If anyone is capable of changing his mind its me.

 

[RandFan]

I've found that you've done a much better job at being civil than I have, but I start getting aggravated by the absurdity of it all.

If we only knew what the feline IQ curve was we could figure it all out.

 

[elbe]

If we only knew what the feline IQ curve was we could figure it all out.

I wonder if all that means he agrees with the pets = slaves opinion some of the radical animal rights activists support.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... Pointing out that some states have restrictions for homes schooling that make it difficult to home school isn't a positive argument. It doesn't negate the fact that state subsidized public school todate is an effective means of educating the public for the betterment of society.

It rebuts the assertion that any parent can homeschool.

... The fact that every nation high in GDP, HDI and economic freedom have compulsory state subsidized education simply demonstrates that it is considered an effective way to educate the population.

Not if compulsory attendance at school is common among poor and undemocratic countries also. Randfan makes an issue of sample size. How many countries qualify as "developed" and "democratic"? Furthermore, since GDP and HDI include government K-PhD budgets, any association is is partly tautological, like the regression (log height, (log height x log weight)).

... We are talking about democracies and those nations that have the highest literacy rates have compulsory state subsidized education and you have few if any examples to show a better way.

That means no more than that politicians everywhere cannot resist imposing State-worshipful indoctrination.

States like North Korea compel attendance at school.

...
And they have public roads also. Guess we will need to get rid of those now. (bad argument, not everything NK does is bad or wrong).

Not everything they do is right, either. The point is a statistical one: the frequency of compulsory schooling is high among poor and undemocratic countries as well as among wealthy, democratic countries. That makes a chance occurance of 1:1 simultaneous (compulsory school, wealthy+democratic) quite high. Of course I would assert that countries would be wealthier if they left education decisions to parents. All RandFan's evidence establishes is that politicians across the spectrum cannot resist the temptation to compel attendance at State-worshipful indoctrination centers.

Voters in nations that are high in GDP, HDI, economic freedom, etc., choose politicians that will support state subsidized public education because it works. (still a fact)

Yah. State-worshipful indoctrination works, all right. Some people never shake it.

... Rhetorical device.

No. It's an alternative explanation.

... Give me examples of other nations with better systems.

Every expansion of parent control is an improvement. Chile, Hong Kong, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Belize, and numerous other countries subsidize policies that allow parents to take some fraction of the taxpayers' pre-college education subsidy to schools outside the State-operated school system. Many US States allow non-union providers to ooperate "charter" schools..

... Show me that your ideas work and I can change my mind.

Randfan has seen much of this evidence: Meighan, Minsky, Lassibile and Gomez, Angrist, et. al. .

... I came here a right-wing theist.

Given Randfan's demonstrated limited acquainntance with the arguments for market-oriented policies, his characterization of his own views as "right-wing" cannot mean much. It's like someone who was baptised Catholic but who never went to church or read the Bible converting to Islam and claiming to have converted from Christianity.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Who gets the wretched schools on the US mailnald? Blacks and Hispanics. Who's overrepresented in prison? Blacks and Hispanics. Who gets the wretched schools in Hawaii? Hawaiians and Samoans. Who's overrepresented in prison in Hawaii? Hawaiians and Samoans.

That's not a cause and an effect, both of those are the effect of the same cause.

We agree. That cause is government intrusion into the education industry.

The cause has nothing whatsoever to do with that. If it was, then it wouldn't be just minorities listed in your example there.

You missed: "Political control of school harms most the children of the least politicaly-adept parents."

 

[A'isha]

You missed: "Political control of school harms most the children of the least politicaly-adept parents."

No, I didn't miss it. I simply rejected it as the unsupported nonsense it is.

 

[Upchurch]

One alternative to OJT is school. Becker defines "school" as an institution whose principal product is education. As the term "principal" indicates, the apparent dichotomous classification {school, job--as in "on-the-job) is more accurately characterized as a continuum.

It has been very big of everyone to not point this out and laugh.



I'm not such a good person. *snicker*

 

[Dancing David]

(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "One alternative to OJT is school. Becker defines 'school' as an institution whose principal product is education. As the term "principal" indicates, the apparent dichotomous classification {school, job--as in "on-the-job) is more accurately characterized as a continuum."
(David): "And so? Employers do not want to provide it, so it was a side trip and an irrelevant one. Employers do not want to train employees, they want them with the skills in place. The reason is not a lack of government subsidies, unless you can support that. The reason is that employers do not want to spend the money and so far have not decided to use contracts to retain employees that they do train. They don't want the expense, facilities, staff and equipment."

So the distinction between "employers" and "schools" breaks down. So generalizations like "employers do not want to train employees, they want them with the skills in place" fail.

More sophistry, so where are these employers who are saying they want to train their employees, in even eight weeks and 16 week certification. Much less multi year things like MCTIP.

Of course "they (employers) don't want the expense, facilities, staff and equipment of training facilities". Steel makers would also like to have tax-subsidized raw ore and tax-subsidized energy to heat the furnace.

So where are these employers who are saying they want to provide long term OJT?

Plate glass manufacturers would like to have tax-subsidized supplies of quartz sand, lime, and energy. That argument fails in most cases, since some unsubsidized industry must supply the subsidies.

The case of investment in human capital is unusual in that in a market-oriented legal environment, employees can end an employment relation and employers may lose their investment in training.

Not really, five years work contracts with penatlies are quite legal. Now the issue is that employers also want to head hunt for people with skills, so it is a tow ways street.
So where are these employers saying that they want to provide OJT in advanced progessional skills, beyond say an eight week certificate.

The defense of the current US tax-subsidized, State-operated K-PhD education system relies on the unstated assumption that the combination of tax subsidies and State operation of schools provides the only way around this difficulty.

Funny I asked you which employers are clamoring for OJT training of their employees and you engage is pretzel sophistry.

Futhermore, many employers currently train employees on the job for jobs specific to that employer (e.g., corporate culture, trade secrets).

Um instead of sophistry and its continued use, how about pointing to employers who do not want their emplyees with skills at the ready on hire.

Employers do not want to train their staff in the skills for entry. Is that better, so where exactly is this pool of employers looking to train entry level employees in their professional skills.

I notice you still have yet to even provide say a large corporation that will train welders. much less those skill sets that require more than an eight weeks course.

So far you haven't pointed to any large corporations , or mid size ones that are demanding to provide OJT.

 

[Chaos]

If we only knew what the feline IQ curve was we could figure it all out.

It´s all a matter of definition, you know.

If he can define employment as school (or what it the other way around?), then surely he can define humans as dogs (or the other way around), so human and canine IQs do indeed overlap.

Of course, by his standards, we could simply define him as having no clue whatsoever of what he´s talking about, and end this discussion.

 

[Dancing David]

Public choice theory. Insiders have more at stake than citizens, generally. Until voters accept the case for markets as a general rule (that's what this conversation is about, ultimately) or until the politics of buying votes of insiders fails from lack of cash (as is happening), political contests favor insiders.

So instead of trying to change policy, by running for office or starting a PAC, you have an excuse.

Free markets and democracy are wonderful, until they are an excuse for you to not want to change something.

Free market employers don't want OJT, so the problem is not free markets.
Democracy has led to public K-12 education, so the problem is not democracy.

I have noticed that the free markets corporations are asking to provide OJT, but please provide more sophistry.

 

[jimbob]

Malcolm, changing the subject slightly, but it is relevant to the child labour part of this discussion.

There has been a factory collapse in Bangladesh. The latest I have heard was that a crack was visible the day before the collapse but that the factor owners "forced" their employees to go to work.

I would say that "force" is the correct term because in such situations, inadequate or ineffective legal protection enables the factory owners to collude and keep working conditions rock bottom - blacklists are a common method - if someone doesn't agree to working in dangerous conditions they will not be allowed to work anywhere and will *definitely* starve as opposed to *possibly* getting maimed.

This is not slavery but is exploitation.

Child labour relies on exploitation, child education is not exploitation.

 

[RandFan]

It rebuts the assertion that any parent can homeschool.

The point was conceded. Change the law. Are you against states rights?

Not if compulsory attendance at school is common among poor and undemocratic countries also.

A.) This has yet to be demonstrated. [sources missing] B.) There are some things that are good that most nations will try and adopt. C.) I never argued that compulsory attendance was just a western or democratic phenomenon. I argued that most if not all nations highest in HDI, GDP and economic freedom have compulsory education. This means that free people in democratic societies support compulsory education.

What I'm looking for, and you can't seem to provide, is the list of nations highest (or at least high) in literacy and/or HDI or GDP or economic freedom or some other positive index that do not have compulsory education. Why can't you show me that? Many nations have different policies and ways of doing things. Yet compulsory education remains ubiquitous in free societies?

the frequency of compulsory schooling is high among poor and undemocratic countries as well as among wealthy, democratic countries.

Facts not in evidence. [sources missing]

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

One alternative to OJT is school. Becker defines "school" as an institution whose principal product is education. As the term "principal" indicates, the apparent dichotomous classification (school, job--as in "on-the-job) is more accurately characterized as a continuum.

It has been very big of everyone to not point this out and laugh. I'm not such a good person. *snicker*

Please elaborate. Do you intend a comment on the difference between "principle" and "principal"? "Principal" means "primary". "Principle" means "rule".

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The point was conceded¹...
A.) This has yet to be demonstrated. [sources missing] B.) There are some things that are good that most nations will try and adopt.² C.) I never argued that compulsory attendance was just a western or democratic phenomenon. I argued that most if not all nations highest in HDI, GDP and economic freedom have compulsory education. This means that free people in democratic societies support compulsory education³.

What I'm looking for, and you can't seem to provide, is the list of nations highest (or at least high) in literacy and/or HDI or GDP or economic freedom or some other positive index that do not have compulsory education. Why can't you show me that? Many nations have different policies and ways of doing things. Yet compulsory education remains ubiquitous in free societies?⁴
Facts not in evidence. [sources missing]

1. Flatt false. "Still a fact" you wrote after I refuted your assertion-as-to-fact.
2. This presumes the conclusion (that compulsory schooling is "good").
3. That's one explanation. Another is that across the spectrum politicians find State-worshipful indoctrination useful.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm, changing the subject slightly, but it is relevant to the child labour part of this discussion.

There has been a factory collapse in Bangladesh¹. The latest I have heard was that a crack was visible the day before the collapse but that the factor owners "forced" their employees to go to work.

I would say that "force" is the correct term because in such situations, inadequate or ineffective legal protection² enables the factory owners to collude and keep working conditions rock bottom - blacklists are a common method - if someone doesn't agree to working in dangerous conditions they will not be allowed to work anywhere and will *definitely* starve as opposed to *possibly* getting maimed.
This is not slavery but is exploitation³.
Child labour relies on exploitation, child education is not exploitation⁴.

1. Be assured that Ant and Randfan will not dump on you for suggesting that an anecdote qualifies as evidence of anything.
2. The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). People do not become more intelligent, better-informed, more altruistic, or (except to the extent that their access to the tools of State violence empowers them) more capable when they enter the State's employ. Regulation may just as well empower the already-powerful.
3. Milton Friedman observed that the best protection a good worker has is a competitive market for his skills. Value is determined by supply and demand. The rate at which humans trade for other resources depends, in part, on the supply of humans.
4. Today, in the US, children work, unpaid, as windowdressing in a make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

No, I didn't miss it. I simply rejected it as the unsupported nonsense it is.

You quoted the support. Children of poor and minority parents are over-represented in the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's wretched schools.

 

[RandFan]

1. Flatt false. "Still a fact" you wrote after I refuted your assertion-as-to-fact.
2. This presumes the conclusion (that compulsory schooling is "good").
3. That's one explanation. Another is that across the spectrum politicians find State-worshipful indoctrination useful.

1. In many states parents can home school their children. If you want to change the law then do so. It doesn't obviate the fact that parents do have some choice.
2. That's false. Given the choice, free and democratic people choose subsidized public education.
3. "State-worshipful indoctrination" is just a rhetorical device. It's not a counter argument or even an explanation of anything. You've not demonstrated that such a phenomenon exists you just assert it without evidence. That's a fallacy.

So, nations like Hong Kong, Australia, Singapore and others high in economic freedom, is it just a coincidence that they are successful or have they seriously tried to find the most effective way to educate children? Do the most successful of modern liberal democracies (by any index you choose) tend to adopt effective policies or ineffective policies?

Western nations disagree on so many different policies, guns, drugs, prostitution, welfare, taxes, etc., etc. But for some odd reason when it comes to their future they rely on subsidized public education.

If you have such a better method why don't we see any movement to adopt it? Do you really think that successful western nations like Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, and others high in economic freedom don't care about their future? Really?

 

[A'isha]

You quoted the support. Children of poor and minority parents are over-represented in the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's wretched schools.

No, that's not the "support". That's your conclusion.

And they're not over-represented in public schools because of "government interference", or because of your nonsense about how "political control of school harms most the children of the least politicaly-adept parents" (in places like Texas and Kansas and Dover, PA, it's the most politically-adept enough to gain control of school boards that are causing the harm to children, by having those school boards then attempt to mandate that their nonsense be taught in schools).

 

[jimbob]

Malcolm, changing the subject slightly, but it is relevant to the child labour part of this discussion.

There has been a factory collapse in Bangladesh¹. The latest I have heard was that a crack was visible the day before the collapse but that the factor owners "forced" their employees to go to work.

I would say that "force" is the correct term because in such situations, inadequate or ineffective legal protection² enables the factory owners to collude and keep working conditions rock bottom - blacklists are a common method - if someone doesn't agree to working in dangerous conditions they will not be allowed to work anywhere and will *definitely* starve as opposed to *possibly* getting maimed.
This is not slavery but is exploitation³.
Child labour relies on exploitation, child education is not exploitation⁴.

1. Be assured that Ant and Randfan will not dump on you for suggesting that an anecdote qualifies as evidence of anything.

The case I was talking about illustrated a common problem. This is different from pointing out that a 19th Century genius benefited from homeschooling and somehow this implies that compulsory education is slavery.

For example here is this PDF from the WHO
This is from 1999 but still is generally valid.

Child Labour: According to the ILO, of the 250 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 working in developing countries today, nearly 70% work under hazardous conditions. Asia has the most child workers with 61% of the global total, Africa has 32%, and Latin America 7%. Africa, however, leads in the proportion of working children, with around 41% of all children aged between 5 and 14; the proportion in Asia is 22%, and in Latin America 17%.

2. The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). People do not become more intelligent, better-informed, more altruistic, or (except to the extent that their access to the tools of State violence empowers them) more capable when they enter the State's employ. Regulation may just as well empower the already-powerful.

In the case I was thinking of , the factory owners being rich manage to buy political influence. After such a public incident, this is overidden, but for less public fatalities they are pretty well protected.

3. Milton Friedman observed that the best protection a good worker has is a competitive market for his skills. Value is determined by supply and demand. The rate at which humans trade for other resources depends, in part, on the supply of humans.

Unless the employers form a cartel to manipulate the market.

This doesn't only happen in developing countries.

4. Today, in the US, children work, unpaid, as windowdressing in a make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

I think the more usual interpretation is that children are being taught by teachers.

 

[Border Reiver]

1. Be assured that Ant and Randfan will not dump on you for suggesting that an anecdote qualifies as evidence of anything.
2. The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). People do not become more intelligent, better-informed, more altruistic, or (except to the extent that their access to the tools of State violence empowers them) more capable when they enter the State's employ. Regulation may just as well empower the already-powerful.
3. Milton Friedman observed that the best protection a good worker has is a competitive market for his skills. Value is determined by supply and demand. The rate at which humans trade for other resources depends, in part, on the supply of humans.
4. Today, in the US, children work, unpaid, as windowdressing in a make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

So rather than address the actual arguments you decide to spout off some of your "greatest hits".