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

[RandFan]

How would you like to have your right leg amputated at the knee?
Depends on the options, doesn't it? If the alternative is to remain healthy and bi-pedal, no, thanks. If the alternative is a slow, painful death from gangrene, slice away.

The problem Malcolm is that you have categorically staked out two silly and absurd positions.

1. It would be better for a child to not be educated than to be subjected to compulsory eduction.
2. Compulsory education is slavery.

1.) Silly overblown rhetoric and contradicted by the facts. There is a negative correlation between compulsory education and illiteracy. There is a negative correlation between a lack of state run education and literacy. And before you trot out the red herring that nations with compulsory education also have private options that cannot account for the literacy rates.

2.) When we apply your definition to compulsory home schooling, compulsory private/parochial education and chores, then we find that all are slavery. So you then move the goal posts of your definition and in an ad hoc fashion state something about degree. Which tells us nothing to determine if one is better than the other. If you changed your premise to, "compulsory education to a degree enslaves children more than home schooling and parochial/private evacuation I would disagree but find the premise arguable. As it is the premise is silly.

We know that lack of education harms children. That's not controversial. If you argued that we could improve state run compulsory education and that increased choice is a good thing then I would be more than happy to have that discussion. We can't because you refuse (AFAIK) to back down from these absurd positions. You might as well advocate that the earth is flat. Not all ideas are worthy of consideration. If you say that you can fly by flapping your arms then that is not a claim that any reasonable person can or should take seriously. Even if Minsky and Einstein say it's possible.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...capitalism at it's root is anti-free market.

Here's the Merriam Webster online dictionary on "capitalism":...

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

. Looks to me as though Randfan is fabricating difference where none exist to explain away his contradictory defense of capitalism and opposition to free markets.

... Most capitalist do not subscribe to the notion that private enterprise is the best solution to ever social issue.

Correct. Hardly controversial.

... I do not subscribe to the idea that free market solutions are not viable. I subscribe to the notion that without public education (state funded in the least) many poor people would not otherwise be educated.

That's the difference that makes this discussion an argument. I don't see how Randfan reconciles his proclaimed Ayn Rand enthusiasm and endorsement of capitalism, on the one hand, with his evident lack of familiarity with the argument for markets as an information-generating mechanism.

...
Malcolm is saying that it would be better for children to not have an education than to be subjected to compulsory education.

Not at all! NOT(education = attendance at school). NOT(compulsory attendance at school = compulsory education).

... Aside from being silly and absurd, the claim does not reconcile with the facts. Nations without public education have illiterate civilians.

This establishes little more than that politicians everywhere can see the advantage of State-worshipful indoctrination and when societies are wealthy enough, politicians can indulge their desire to indoctrinate their subjects. I suggest that Randfan has cause and effect backwards.

...Nations that have compulsory education have high literacy rates.

NOT(compulsory attendance at school = compulsory education). There is no such thing as "compulsory education". Some children are born with barely enough brain tissue to regulate breathing and swallowing. No matter how much time they spend in the sp-ed classroom, they will never learn to tie their shoes or count their fingers. No matter how much compulsion the State applies to them, they can never aspire to a career more involved than "doorstop".

... Regardless if the systems are mixed or not. In short, agree with your premise but that has nothing to do with Malcolm's thesis that it would be better for children to have no education as opposed to attending compulsory eduction.

Randfan's reading comprehension difficulties strike again. That's not my thesis. Competitive markets in educational services will out-perform State-monopoly providers of education services. In an unsubsidized, minimally-regulated legal environment for education services, more children will be better educated (though perhaps not so expensively schooled) than in either (a) a subsidized, competitive market (vouchers, tuition tax credits) or an institutional environment dominated by a State-monopoly enterprise.

...FTR, I have said over and over that Malcolm has some valid points. I want that discussion. I have asked Malcolm to have a civil discussion and to get off of his fatuous claims. He responded by calling me a shill for unions.

It's the wild misrepresentation of the argument and the relentless abusive style ("silly", "absurd", "fatuous", etc.) that incline me to the suspicion that the cartel pays shills to defend its exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy in internet discussions. About Randfan in particular, I'm open to evidence to the contrary. I wrote that the cartel's shills made the reference to slavery the central topic. If Randfan chose to see himself in that, that's his lookout.

 

[RandFan]

Here's the Merriam Webster online dictionary on "capitalism":.... Looks to me as though Randfan is fabricating difference where none exist to explain away his contradictory defense of capitalism and opposition to free markets.Correct. Hardly controversial.That's the difference that makes this discussion an argument.

²I don't see how Randfan reconciles his proclaimed Ayn Rand enthusiasm and endorsement of capitalism, on the one hand, with his evident lack of familiarity with the argument for markets as an information-generating mechanism.

³This establishes little more than that politicians everywhere can see the advantage of State-worshipful indoctrination and when societies are wealthy enough, politicians can indulge their desire to indoctrinate their subjects.

⁴NOT(compulsory attendance at school = compulsory education).

⁵That's not my thesis. Competitive markets in educational services will out-perform State-monopoly providers of education services.

⁶In an unsubsidized, minimally-regulated legal environment for education services, more children will be better educated...

1. I said the two are not mutually inclusive. I said that capitalism is at it's root anti-free market. It is. Without government regulation there is nothing about capitalism that ensure free markets.
2. Can you please stop with the childish and patronizing 3rd party reference? Even if you don't intend to offend it is very patronizing. Try a little civility. I've no idea what you mean be "generating mechanism" or what it has to do with the discussion.
3. Conspiracy theory and doesn't address the negative correlation between nations without public education and illiteracy.
4. Nations that have compulsory school have high literacy rates. Those that don't have high illiteracy rates.
5. In post # 468 you said "Schools do not pay students and many children would be better off following their own interests or learning on the job." Leaving children to their own devices in nations without compulsory education does not result in higher literacy rates anymore than children who left to decide whether or not to do chores results in a cleaner house. Your claim is fatuous.
6. A.) following your logic, if children are not compelled to do their chores or compelled to do study at home or compelled to go to parochial school they would learn more. B.) what is the evidence that prior to compulsory, state funded school, poor children were more likely to go to college or get out of poverty?

 

[Amazer]

B.) what is the evidence that prior to compulsory, state funded school, poor children were more likely to go to college or get out of poverty?

I get the feeling that poor children are not high on Malcolm's list of priorities.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I get the feeling that poor children are not high on Malcolm's list of priorities.

I get the feeling Amazer likes to bake bread with the blood of Christian babies.
Now, how 'bout we deal with what people actually post? Use the JREF "advanced" search function with author = "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" and search for text: "Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents". One could probably locate at least twenty iterations.

 

[RandFan]

I get the feeling that poor children are not high on Malcolm's list of priorities.

I get that feeling also. He says simply that we must trust private enterprise to do the right thing. Here is how private enterprise dealt with poor children in the past. He calls it "on the job training" and believes it preferable to state run compulsory school because the children are remunerated and the parents compel them to work rather than the state. Apparently children love parochial school and/or child labor while they feel enslaved in state run compulsory schools.

Now for the childish and patronizing referral of me in the third person.... As if that is civil.

 

[RandFan]

I get the feeling Amazer likes to bake bread with the blood of Christian babies.
Now, how 'bout we deal with what people actually post? Use the JREF "advanced" search function with author = "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" and search for text: "Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents". One could probably locate at least twenty iterations.

Yet you have offered not one scintilla of evidence that poor children fare better without state run compulsory education. You don't tell us how poor children would be "educated" beyond learning how to farm or work menial jobs. Where is your evidence that private industry will step in and educate poor children?

The idea that private models are best for every social need is a naive belief in private industry. I assume you know nothing of the history of the exploitation of workers by private industry, collective bargaining, natural monopolies and coercive monopolies. The idea that capitalism ensures competition is belied by the fact that many companies prefer to buy their competition rather than compete. You never address that. Competition and capitalism are not mutually inclusive things. Many industries are conducive to natural monopolies.

 

[elbe]

Yet you have offered not one scintilla of evidence that poor children fare better without state run compulsory education. You don't tell us how poor children would be "educated" beyond learning how to farm or work menial jobs. Where is your evidence that private industry will step in and educate poor children?

Clearly you've forgotten how convincing outliers are. Because one person is Beethoven means that any kid can be Beethoven if only we wouldn't forcibly stop them playing the piano!

 

[RandFan]

Clearly you've forgotten how convincing outliers are. Because one person is Beethoven means that any kid can be Beethoven if only we wouldn't forcibly stop them playing the piano!

That's a good point. Which is why rich parents never compel their children to do anything. BTW, that is an excellent example for more ways than one. Beethoven was abused as a child. I suppose that means that every child who has an abusive childhood should turn out to be just like Beethoven. A genius.

Thanks Malcolm.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I said the two are not mutually inclusive. I said that capitalism is at it's root anti-free market. It is. Without government regulation there is nothing about capitalism that ensure free markets.

As indicated, Merriam Webster disagrees.

... childish ...

Also (just a sample), ...
(RandFan): "... truly asinine ... asinine ... It reeks of desperation ... "
(RandFan): "Malcolm would, it seems, would happily sacrifice people like myself for his ideal."
(RandFan): "You don't care if poor people suffer without state run compulsory education."

Can you please stop with the childish and patronizing 3rd party reference?

Can you please stop with the childish and patronizing 3rd party reference? Even if you don't intend to offend it is very patronizing.

The third party form creates distance, and so reduces the temptation to personalize the argument. If Randfan prefers "du" to Sie", let's discuss policy in abstract, without personalization, first.

Try a little civility.

Good idea.

I've no idea what you mean be "generating mechanism" or what it has to do with the discussion.

That's why I find it hard to accept that Randfan is or ever was a Rand fan or that Randfan believes his own expressed admiration for capitalism.
That was "information-generating mechanism".
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): Markets and federalism institutionalize humility on the part of State actors. If a policy dispute involves a matter of taste, numerous local policy regimes and competitive markets allow for the expression of varied tastes while the contest for control over a State-monopoly enterprise must inevitably create unhappy losers (who may comprise the vast majority; imagine the outcome of a nationwide vote on the ons size and style of shoes we all must wear). If a policy dispute turns on a matter of fact, where "What works?" is an empirical question, numerous local policy regimes and competitive markets in goods and services will generate more information than will a State-monopoly enterprise. A State-monopoly enterprise is like an experiment with one treatment and no controls, a retarded experimental design."
Mises discussed the concept in his essay "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" and his book Socialism. Hayek discussed the concept in his 1945 AER article "The Use of Knowledge in Society" and in The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty. Friedman discusses the issue in Capitalism and Freedom. The basic idea applies to the production of apples, the optimal use of a piece of land, or the use to which a child's time may be put.

Conspiracy theory and doesn't address the negative correlation between nations without public education and illiteracy.

The sample size (nations without compulsory schooling) is small. Public choice theory includes politicians among self-interested actors.

In post # 468 you said "Schools do not pay students and many children would be better off following their own interests or learning on the job." Leaving children to their own devices in nations without compulsory education does not result in higher literacy rates anymore than children who left to decide whether or not to do chores results in a cleaner house.

All children? Most children? Some children? The difference between the result that Randfan' expects and that I expect from a minimally-regulated market in education services outcome and mine depends, in part, I expect, on the differing constraints that we suppose parents and children would face in such a legal environment.

Your claim is fatuous.

Try civility.

Good idea.

A. following your logic, if children are not compelled to do their chores or compelled to do study at home or compelled to go to parochial school they would learn more.

State compulsion degrades the learning experience.

B.) what is the evidence that prior to compulsory, state funded school, poor children were more likely to go to college or get out of poverty?

More likely than what? Than other contemporary societies?

 

[RandFan]

Can you please stop with the childish and patronizing 3rd party reference?

The third party form creates distance, and so reduces the temptation to personalize the argument.

It's patronizing and childish. Try a little civility.

More likely than what?

Current policies. You know, the ones that allowed me to go to a university and learn programming where I was able to have a better life than my father. All you can do is assert that private industry will provide for poor people. You've no mechanism for this. You don't tell us how. You just suppose that it will happen.

The sample size (nations without compulsory schooling) is small.

I wonder why that is. Please to look at this list. Then look at this list. Now, explain why less compulsory education is correlated to lower literacy rates. Then explain why nations with longer periods of required schooling are correlated with increased literacy rates.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your argument. You are claiming that a nation high in economic wealth are able to afford state funded compulsory education. I'm claiming that it's a dynamic feed back loop. Nations are not wealthy in spite of state run compulsory education. They are wealthy, in large part because of it. You want to assume that if there were a nation wealthy like the United States and they got rid of state run education they would outperform the United States. You've no evidence for that other than some opinions of a few non-experts and perhaps a few experts in education. One can always find opinions on anything. You should check out the CT forum some time.

 

[RandFan]

A.) following your logic, if children are not compelled to do their chores or compelled to do study at home or compelled to go to parochial school they would learn more. B.) what is the evidence that prior to compulsory, state funded school, poor children were more likely to go to college or get out of poverty?
​

More likely than what? Than other contemporary societies?

So we should ignore the fact that as nations adopted state run compulsory education the literacy rates rose as mere happenstance? We are supposed to pretend that as civil rights increased, as the rights of workers increased, as nations worked to provide social services to the poor, that none of this contributed to a nations increase in wealth and improved social conditions.

You want us to think that if we got rid of most or all social programs and left the fate of the poor to private labor that society would be better off. I see no evidence of that. You certainly have not provided any.

 

[RandFan]

I wonder why that is. Please to look at this list. Then look at this list. Now, explain why less compulsory education is correlated to lower literacy rates. Then explain why nations with longer periods of required schooling are correlated with increased literacy rates.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your argument. You are claiming that a nation high in economic wealth are able to afford state funded compulsory education. I'm claiming that it's a dynamic feed back loop. Nations are not wealthy in spite of state run compulsory education. They are wealthy, in large part because of it. You want to assume that if there were a nation wealthy like the United States and they got rid of state run education they would outperform the United States. You've no evidence for that other than some opinions of a few non-experts and perhaps a few experts in education. One can always find opinions on anything. You should check out the CT forum some time.

BTW, I've never claimed that state run education provided the best outcomes. I claimed that state run compulsory schools increase literacy. That state run compulsory education is a great way to ensure that poor people are educated and that society can best utilize the talents of poor children rather than relegate them to menial jobs like farming and digging ditches. You've never acknowledged those facts AFAIK.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Try a little civility.

Good idea.

... I understand your argument. You are claiming that a nation high in economic wealth are able to afford state funded compulsory education.¹ I'm claiming that it's a dynamic feed back loop.² Nations are not wealthy in spite of state run compulsory education. They are wealthy, in large part because of it.³ You want to assume that if there were a nation wealthy like the United States and they got rid of state run education they would outperform the United States.⁴ You've no evidence for that other than some opinions of a few non-experts and perhaps a few experts in education.⁵ One can always find opinions on anything. You should check out the CT forum some time.⁶

1. That's a decent encapsulation of this argument.
2. Right. That's the claim of defenders of the current system. I suggest it's a negative feedback loop. Inefficient State-monopoly enterprises reduce wealth, resulting in fewer resources available for, among other things, education.
3. Right. That's the claim of defenders of the current system.
4. It's not an assumption so much as a conclusion.
5. And Sociology (Ivar Berg, Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery). And Economics (Milton Friedman, E. G. West, Joel Fried, Eduardo Zambrano)
Eduardo Zambrano
"Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications"
Rationality and Society, May 1999

Aside from the important issue of how it is that a ruler may economize on communication, contracting and coercion costs, this leads to an interpretation of the state that cannot be contractarian in nature: citizens would not empower a ruler to solve collective action problems in any of the models discussed, for the ruler would always be redundant and costly. The results support a view of the state that is eminently predatory, (the ? MK.) case in which whether the collective actions problems are solved by the state or not depends on upon whether this is consistent with the objectives and opportunities of those with the (natural) monopoly of violence in society. This conclusion is also reached in a model of a predatory state by Moselle and Polak (1997). How the theory of economic policy changes in light of this interpretation is an important question left for further work.

Joel Fried
"Pots and Kettles: Governance Practices of the Ontario Securities Commission"

2. The Government’s Principal – Agent Problem
The principal-agent problem for the private sector is well known: the owner/principal delegates to a manager/agent the responsibility to provide some services for the principal.
The problem is one of structuring contracts and institutions to insure that, in carrying out her duties, the agent acts in the principal’s interest rather than her own.
Citizens of a country also face a principal – agent problem. Citizens “own” the machinery of government and employ bureaucrats to act as their agents in running this machinery. To reduce the costs of monitoring, the principals choose a legislature/board of directors to oversee the agents. Monitoring mechanisms are similar to those in the private sector: there are financial accounting standards that are met for each budgetary unit, and an external auditor checks these internal accounts. Transparency is maintained, in part, through freedom of information regulations. Compliance with procedures and other regulations are met both through internal monitoring and checks by units external to the bureau. Finally, contracts are structured, at least in a limited manner, to align the incentives for agents with those of the principals.
There is, however, an additional problem in the public sector that does not exist for private firms. The firm has a well defined objective function – the maximization of profits – whereas the apparent objective for the government is the maximization of some index of a (weighted) level of welfare of the electorate. An unambiguous index of social welfare has been impossible to construct and, in its absence, monitoring the public sector is further complicated because data is generally lacking on whether or not the objective was actually approached and/or achieved and what the costs are that are linked to any specific objective. In effect, because of distribution issues and public goods, the cash flows measured with traditional accounting procedures will be, at best, only superficially correlated with that objective. Thus, looking at cash flows will provide the principals an extremely poor method of monitoring their public sector agents.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

BTW, I've never claimed that state run education provided the best outcomes. I claimed that state run compulsory schools increase literacy. That state run compulsory education is a great way to ensure that poor people are educated and that society can best utilize the talents of poor children rather than relegate them to menial jobs like farming and digging ditches. You've never acknowledged those facts AFAIK.

These purported "facts" are not facts. Please read James Tooley, The Beautiful Tree.

The education industry is not a natural monopoly. Education only marginally qualifies as a public good as economists use the term and the "public goods" argument implies subsidy and regulation at most, not State (government, generally) operation of schools. Natural monopoly is the usual welfare-economic argument for State operation of an industry. Furthermore, since corporate oversight is a public good and the State itself is a corporation, State assumption of responsibility for the provision (or subsidization) of public goods transforms the free rider problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not eliminate it.

 

[RandFan]

Good idea.1. That's a decent encapsulation of this argument.
2. Right. That's the claim of defenders of the current system. I suggest it's a negative feedback loop. Inefficient State-monopoly enterprises reduce wealth, resulting in fewer resources available for, among other things, education.
3. Right. That's the claim of defenders of the current system.
4. It's not an assumption so much as a conclusion.
5. And Sociology (Ivar Berg, Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery). And Economics (Milton Friedman, E. G. West, Joel Fried, Eduardo Zambrano)
Eduardo Zambrano
"Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications"
Rationality and Society, May 1999Joel Fried
"Pots and Kettles: Governance Practices of the Ontario Securities Commission"

Never mind that you've zero real world evidence. Never mind that the thesis is contradicted by real world facts. Theory is great until it meets the real world.

Now, that is not to say that there isn't some merit to advocating more options for parents and children. It is to say that your notion that state run compulsory education is worse than no education is better than state run education is absurd. Until you tell us how poor children could and would be educated without state run compulsory education your thesis is a non-starter. You might as well advocate that the elimination of social services would make nations wealthier and more equal.

 

[RandFan]

These purported "facts" are not facts. Please read James Tooley, The Beautiful Tree.

The education industry is not a natural monopoly. Education only marginally qualifies as a public good as economists use the term and the "public goods" argument implies subsidy and regulation at most, not State (government, generally) operation of schools. Natural monopoly is the usual welfare-economic argument for State operation of an industry. Furthermore, since corporate oversight is a public good and the State itself is a corporation, State assumption of responsibility for the provision (or subsidization) of public goods transforms the free rider problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not eliminate it.

I never said that public education was a natural monopoly. I said that natural monopolies belied the notion that capitalism and free markets are mutually inclusive.

You've failed to demonstrate that a lack of state regulation would result in private regulation that would benefit society. Sometimes the interests of any particular industry are counter to the needs of society. Which is why nations high in economic freedom and HDI tend to provide substantial social services and regulation. A mix of state control and private control. There is a viable scientific model for doing so. There is no viable scientific model laissez-fair capitalism that will tend to the needs of the poor. Social Darwinism is pseudo science. The notion that private enterprise is always better than government services is not demonstrated by any real world example. A mixture of capitalism, private regulation and government regulation are abundant among modern liberal democracies. The nations highest in economic freedom and HDI demonstrate that quite nicely. Capitalism is requisite for a vibrant society. Capitalism is requisite for providing incentives for people to excel. Which is why Denmark has capitalism, private regulation, public regulation and social services. The free rider problem has not prevented the people of Denmark from hard work, thrift, personal responsibility and entrepreneurship. There will always be people who want a free ride and there will always be people who want more, much more.

That is why Denmark is so successful and why they are high in both Economic Freedom and social services. Some nations like Taiwan and Hong Kong have less but both still provide UHC, welfare and state run public education.

When you can provide real world examples and not opinion you will have something. Not until.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Never mind that you've zero real world evidence.

False. Numerous lines of evidence indicate that State intrusion degrades the education industry, in general (specific training for exclusively government jobs such as BUDS, Airborne, Ranger, in-house training in new fisheries regulations, etc., excepted).

Never mind that the thesis is contradicted by real world facts. Theory is great until it meets the real world.

Those facts do not make a conclusive case. They admit other explanations (that wealth precedes schooling, that wealth allows politicians to apply their addiction to subordination of others to the education industry). Further, other facts work against the case for State operation of schools.

Now, that is not to say that there isn't some merit to advocating more options for parents and children.

We agree.

It is to say that your notion that state run compulsory education is worse than no education is better than state run education is absurd.

Would someone diagram that sentence string of English words, please? Is it a sentence? I don't see anyone recommending "no education". NOT(school = education). NOT(State operation of schools = public education).

Until you tell us how poor children could and would be educated without state run compulsory education your thesis is a non-starter. You might as well advocate that the elimination of social services would make nations wealthier and more equal.

Try "until you tell us how poor children could and would be educated fed without state-run compulsory education collective farms and cafeteria, your thesis is a non-starter."

You might as well advocate that the elimination of social services would make nations wealthier and more equal.

Qualify that with the adjective "State-funded and/or State operated" social services and that's pretty much my position. The public goods argument for State provision of charity fails for the reason I gave above: State assumption of responsibility for the provision of the public good of charity transforms the free rider problem but does not eliminate it. I recommend Charles Murray, Losing Ground.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I never said that public education was a natural monopoly.

So what? "Natural monopoly" is the usual welfare-economic argument for State operation of an industry. Since the education industry is not a natural monopoly, that argument does not support the case for State operation of schools.

You've failed to demonstrate that a lack of state regulation would result in private regulation that would benefit society. Sometimes the interests of any particular industry are counter to the needs of society. Which is why nations high in economic freedom and HDI tend to provide substantial social services and regulation. A mix of state control and private control. There is a viable scientific model for doing so. There is no viable scientific model laissez-fair capitalism that will tend to the needs of the poor.

False. Private charity was widespread before the State moved into the charity business.

Social Darwinism is pseudo science.

Dunno what that means. As opposed to what? Intelligent design of society by an omniscient, benevolent God Government?

The notion that private enterprise is always better than government services is not demonstrated by any real world example.

Who advances that notion?

A mixture of capitalism, private regulation and government regulation are abundant among modern liberal democracies. The nations highest in economic freedom and HDI demonstrate that quite nicely. Capitalism is requisite for a vibrant society. Capitalism is requisite for providing incentives for people to excel. Which is why Denmark has capitalism, private regulation, public regulation and social services. The free rider problem has not prevented the people of Denmark from hard work, thrift, personal responsibility and entrepreneurship. There will always be people who want a free ride and there will always be people who want more, much more.

That is why Denmark is so successful and why they are high in both Economic Freedom and social services. Some nations like Taiwan and Hong Kong have less but both still provide UHC, welfare and state run public education.

When you can provide real world examples and not opinion you will have something. Not until.

To me this looks like suggesting that since no society is free of all disease, there's no case for eliminating smallpox.

 

[ehcks]

False. Numerous lines of evidence indicate that State intrusion degrades the education industry, in general

I think RandFan has asked this question enough times. Maybe someone else asking could help.

What are these lines of evidence?