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

[Border Reiver]

Einstein, De Sade. How about Plato and Hammurabi, to round things up ?

Not sure if Plato's views on education would be welcomed either...

With Hammurabi we'd at least get beer at lunch...

 

[Belz...]

All that distinguishes extortion from taxation and kidnapping from arrest is that with taxation and arrest, the perpetrators work for the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in the locality of the act.

No, you're still wrong about that. What distinguishes them is the legality of it i.e. that society has sanctioned it.

 

[Belz...]

Colleges of Education have been peddling fraudulent credentials for decades.

Private or public, equally. This has nothing to do with the system in place.

 

[RandFan]

No, you're still wrong about that. What distinguishes them is the legality of it i.e. that society has sanctioned it.

This is what I think the idea is.

• Taxation to pay for military, police, and perhaps firemen and some other civil servants are the equivalent of extortion and kidnapping but in this instance they are necessary evils.
• Taxation to pay for education is the equivalent of extortion and kidnapping, and unnecessary.

The loaded language is getting old. Is there any person lurking that accepts this distinction and use of loaded language? How about "cartel" and "shill"?

Here's what Malcolm's favorite socialist had to say about this kind of rhetorical device and the redefining of words to fit a political agenda.

Politics and the English Language

"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.' The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning."

Many of us, myself included, do this a lot. But at some point we need to put away the loaded language and rhetorical device and engage in logically valid argument.

 

[Border Reiver]

What would you suggest?

To change an undesirable gov't branch?

Start by getting together with several like minded individuals and agree on what you want to accomplish;
Lobby the appropriate branch gov't to get your concerns heard;
Send out press releases, etc to make people aware of who you are, and what you wish to accomplish;
Keep building pressure so that the electorate wants it too;
Success! Or failure.

Convince the public that your ideas have merit and they will elect politicians that think as they do, and then the status quo can be changed. I would suggest upping your game though, your conversational style in this thread will not generally win people over.

 

[RandFan]

What would you suggest?

Become active. That's what the civil rights workers did in the 50's and 60's. They networked and organized. They marched.

Read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. In spite of Gingrich's rhetoric, Alinsky is actually admired by a number of conservative activists. He was brilliant in the arts of strategy and tactics. It would not hurt to read Art of War by Sun Tzu and The Righteous Mind by Haidt. For a perspective of why democracy is so important and so powerful to correct social injustices I would recommend The Case for Democracy by the Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky. There's nothing like a long stint in a Soviet Gulag to focus ones perceptions on the problems of a lack of Democracy.

In the former Soviet Union and North Korea and other such regimes, there is only one party and criticism of govt is a capital crime. The people have little say with those types of ideologies.

Because of human nature (see The Blank Slate and The Righteous Mind), humans are slow to change perspectives. However, relatively speaking, changes happens the fastest in Democratic nations.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That's funny, you didn't respond substantively to the question. Do you or do you not think that there should be a government and do you or do you not believe that it is appropriate for the government to levy taxes to pay for the military? Yes? No?

Ask as many times as you like. The answers will not change. See here. Here.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

Eduardo Zambrano
Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications
Rationality and Society, May 1999; 11: 115 - 138

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.

Here.

Distill this reading list and you'll approximate my orientation: Charles Darwin, G.G. Simpson, Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Freeman Dyson, Matt Ridley, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Thomas Sowell, W. V. O. Quine, Bertrand Russell, and Daniel Dennett. Classical liberal (i.e., free marketer), materialist, with a dash of environmental values (ZPG).

Here.

The government of __A__ (localiy) is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). Where organized violence and threats of organized violence can contribute to aggregate social well-being, there governments can make a positive contribution: some amount of policing, some amount of national defense, some support for legal infrastructure (rules of the road, standardized weights and measures, courts, etc.), some support for communication infrastructure (roads, etc.), some protection of necessarily common property (environmental protection). The list is not exhaustive. ...
5. Refer to #1. In general, performance at any task improves with specialization. I doubt that any Olympic gold-medal decathlete ever out-performed the Olympic gold-medal specialist (sprint, javelin, shot put, long jump, high jump, etc.) in the year of his competition. A government may enhance aggregate well being when its application of violence reduces total violence. Governments may reduce losses from "free rider" issues (and there's the answer to the smallpox question in the post above).

We could go back to the health care argument for more exchanges between Randfan and me on the role of government.

 

[jimbob]

Ask as many times as you like. The answers will not change. <SNIP>
See here. Here.
Eduardo Zambrano
Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications
Rationality and Society, May 1999; 11: 115 - 138 Here. Here.We could go back to the health care argument for more exchanges between Randfan and me on the role of government.

I looked through your links and saw nothing about your stance on military spending

1. My libertarian friends would not call me a libertarian.
2. No. They are mistaken, as are communists mistaken. Libertarian mistakes are less likely to result in mass murder, however.
3. Randfan only knows of me what s/he has observed on public forums. This is a wild (and wildly mistaken) generalization. I have previously supplied evidence to the contrary, which Randfan neglects to mention. S/he disputes a figment of his/her construction.
4. Never said anything like that. Randfan is fabricating.
5. Never said anything like that. What I have said contradicts this. Randfan is fabricating. That's why I grew tired of this discussion, this forum, and JREF. Among other reasons.

<SNIP>

Libertarians will assert 2+2=4. I will assert 2+2=4. Does that make me a Libertarian or a libertarian?
Of course, Marxists also will assert 2+2=4.

We give names to political parties. That is, people who form parties give them names and the rest of us use those names or make childish plays on names ("rethuglicans", "teabagger", etc.). We give names to collections of policies and the people who advocate those policies. Sometimes people imagine that some policy preference implies other policy preferences, that ideology is coherent and comprehensive and applicable to the real world. I don't see what relation any position on drug prohibition has to abortion policy, for example.

You might have seen one of those political classification tests. I typically score pretty close to the center, but on the free-market and social liberal side. It depends on what questions they ask.

It's more interesting to discuss policy than to paste labels on people with whom one argues.

Mind reading, again.Let's see: Socialized medicine: Check. Socialized education: Check. Advocacy of expanded State intrusion into social relations (gay marriage): Check.Except this is not the case: education and medical services."Classical (19th century liberal" fits best. I would add some environmental protection and qualify support for "roads" and "fire protection" with the observation that these are matters of degree.
Randfan did not ask whether the level of education (however defined) would rise or fall; s/he asked how parents would accomplish this in the absence of compulsion. To a free marketeer, this makes as much sense as asking what flavor of jam some stranger will put on his toast next week.Eduardo Zambrano
Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications
Rationality and Society, May 1999; 11: 115 - 138Joel Fried
"Pots and Kettles: Governance Practices of the Ontario Securities Commission"E.G. West
"Education Without the State" There are fundamentally two welfare-economic arguments for a State role in any industry: natural monopoly (with the downside so large and monitoring costs so high that the most effective option is regulation through bureaucratic rules on employees) and "public goods". The education industry is not a natural monopoly and the public goods argument implies subsidy and regulation, at most, not State operation of an industry. Furthermore, corporate oversight is a public good and the State itself is a corporation. Therefore, State assumption of responsibility for the direct provision or even subsidization of "public goods" transforms the free rider problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not eliminate it.School can be expensive. Education is potentially cheap.Randfan has seen this rebuttal before: ...
Marvin Minsky
Interview
Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1994-JulyThere are a lot more "prodigies" out there, in marketable talents that schools do not accommodate.Randfan pretends to read minds. For one who claims to support "capitalism", s/he demonstrates an amazing lack of familiarity with the basic arguments in favor of markets. I suspect moby.
What thesis does Randfan's existence falsify?Also, I don't know what my neighbors will have for dinner. Robert Heilbroner observed that you can walk quickest through a crowd if you can get everyone else to stand in an orderly array. Central planning is wonderful, for the planners.

 

[RandFan]

Ask as many times as you like. The answers will not change.
<SNIP>
See here. Here.

All I see is you denying things. Do you or do you not think there is a role for government? Do you think government is some kind of necessary evil.

Accusing me of lying won't advance the discussion. Neither will blanket denials. Please be substantive and, please, for the sake of all that is holy, make your own arguments. By all means support them with sources but stop arguing via link.

 

[RandFan]

I'll say again to you, exceptions do not disprove the rule.

Bob: As a rule sheep are white.
Tim: No they are not, my uncle has some black sheep.
Bob: I said, "as a rule".
Tim: But my uncle has some black sheep.
Bob: Exceptions do not disprove the rule.
Tim: But my uncle has some black sheep.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I looked through your links and saw nothing about your stance on military spending

Problems with reading comprehension?

The government of __A__ (localiy) is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). Where organized violence and threats of organized violence can contribute to aggregate social well-being, there governments can make a positive contribution: some amount of policing, some amount of national defense, some support for legal infrastructure (rules of the road, standardized weights and measures, courts, etc.), some support for communication infrastructure (roads, etc.), some protection of necessarily common property (environmental protection). The list is not exhaustive. ...
5. Refer to #1. In general, performance at any task improves with specialization. I doubt that any Olympic gold-medal decathlete ever out-performed the Olympic gold-medal specialist (sprint, javelin, shot put, long jump, high jump, etc.) in the year of his competition. A government may enhance aggregate well being when its application of violence reduces total violence. Governments may reduce losses from "free rider" issues (and there's the answer to the smallpox question in the post above).

 

[RandFan]

there governments can make a positive contribution: some amount of policing, some amount of national defense, some support for legal infrastructure (rules of the road, standardized weights and measures, courts, etc.)

And is this extortion and kidnapping? I cannot reconcile your statements. Further, how much is "some"?

 

[jimbob]

I looked through your links and saw nothing about your stance on military spending

Problems with reading comprehension?

The government of __A__ (localiy) is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). Where organized violence and threats of organized violence can contribute to aggregate social well-being, there governments can make a positive contribution: some amount of policing, some amount of national defense, some support for legal infrastructure (rules of the road, standardized weights and measures, courts, etc.), some support for communication infrastructure (roads, etc.), some protection of necessarily common property (environmental protection). The list is not exhaustive. ...
5. Refer to #1. In general, performance at any task improves with specialization. I doubt that any Olympic gold-medal decathlete ever out-performed the Olympic gold-medal specialist (sprint, javelin, shot put, long jump, high jump, etc.) in the year of his competition. A government may enhance aggregate well being when its application of violence reduces total violence. Governments may reduce losses from "free rider" issues (and there's the answer to the smallpox question in the post above).

The styling of the post to which I was referring suggested to me that the last two links were linking to the source of the quote, and not a link to your own opinion.

The first pair of links, which I quoted do not seem to show anything to answer the question.

Posting four links when only one which actually supports what you say is not very helpful.

As an aside; brevity and clarity are admirable goals in writing. I don't think the posts below achieve this.

That's funny, you didn't respond substantively to the question. Do you or do you not think that there should be a government and do you or do you not believe that it is appropriate for the government to levy taxes to pay for the military? Yes? No?

Ask as many times as you like. The answers will not change.
<SNIP>
See here. Here.
Eduardo Zambrano
Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications
Rationality and Society, May 1999; 11: 115 - 138

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.

Here.

Distill this reading list and you'll approximate my orientation: Charles Darwin, G.G. Simpson, Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Freeman Dyson, Matt Ridley, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Thomas Sowell, W. V. O. Quine, Bertrand Russell, and Daniel Dennett. Classical liberal (i.e., free marketer), materialist, with a dash of environmental values (ZPG).

Here.

The government of __A__ (localiy) is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). Where organized violence and threats of organized violence can contribute to aggregate social well-being, there governments can make a positive contribution: some amount of policing, some amount of national defense, some support for legal infrastructure (rules of the road, standardized weights and measures, courts, etc.), some support for communication infrastructure (roads, etc.), some protection of necessarily common property (environmental protection). The list is not exhaustive. ...
5. Refer to #1. In general, performance at any task improves with specialization. I doubt that any Olympic gold-medal decathlete ever out-performed the Olympic gold-medal specialist (sprint, javelin, shot put, long jump, high jump, etc.) in the year of his competition. A government may enhance aggregate well being when its application of violence reduces total violence. Governments may reduce losses from "free rider" issues (and there's the answer to the smallpox question in the post above).

We could go back to the health care argument for more exchanges between Randfan and me on the role of government.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And is this extortion and kidnapping?

Yes. The government of __A__ (locality) is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality. A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue), and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstances. OF COURSE the government calls its activities "legitimate". The government defines "legitimate". Utterly delusional people might deny that government actors back demands for resources that others have produced with the threat of interpersonal violence and detention (extortion and kidnapping). The rest of us recognize this. What distinguishes the government is not what it does but that the government is the largest organization that does this.

... I cannot reconcile your statements. Further, how much is "some"?

How many whiskers make a beard? Welcome to life on the slippery slope.

 

[RandFan]

Yes. The government of __A__ (locality) is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality. A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue), and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstances. OF COURSE the government calls its activities "legitimate". The government defines "legitimate". Utterly delusional people might deny that government actors back demands for resources that others have produced with the threat of interpersonal violence and detention (extortion and kidnapping). The rest of us recognize this. What distinguishes the government is not what it does but that the government is the largest organization that does this.

Do YOU call the government's activities "legitimate" when it comes to "some" police, military, etc.? I still cannot reconcile your statements. Is it "legitimate" when government actors demand resources with the threat of violence in order to collect taxes and therefore to pay for the military? Yes? No?

How many whiskers make a beard? Welcome to life on the slippery slope.

Then your position is a non-starter.

Tim: I'd like to buy some hamburger.
Butcher: How much?
Tim: How many whiskers make a beard?

Can we skip the rhetorical device? How much is some?

 

[RandFan]

I would just like a straight answer. Is government legitimate when it does what you think is a good thing? Yes or no?

A government may enhance aggregate well being when its application of violence reduces total violence.

This is entirely non-controversial and tells us nothing. It's a throw away line that cannot advance the discussion. WHEN, if ever, is government legitimate?

Some policing, some military, etc., does nothing to tell us whether or not government is legitimate. Organized crime has a tradition of giving money to orphans and widows. Does that make organized crime legitimate?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The styling of the post to which I was referring suggested to me that the last two links were linking to the source of the quote, and not a link to your own opinion.

The first pair of links, which I quoted do not seem to show anything to answer the question.

Posting four links when only one which actually supports what you say is not very helpful.

From the first two links:...

... You might have seen one of those political classification tests. I typically score pretty close to the center, but on the free-market and social liberal side. It depends on what questions they ask.

It's more interesting to discuss policy than to paste labels on people with whom one argues.

Eduardo Zambrano
"Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications"
Rationality and Society, May 1999; 11: 115 - 138

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.

I'll grant that the implication is not explicit. I'm fairly standard in my politics ("classical liberal" + green). Given that, it makes no more sense to ask if I support national defense than to ask if I prefer secular market-oriented representative democracy to Islamic theocracy.

Back to the topic: The State's contribution to the education industry, violence and threats of violence, degrades overall system performance.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I would just like a straight answer. Is government legitimate when it does what you think is a good thing? Yes or no?

This is entirely non-controversial and tells us nothing. It's a throw away line that cannot advance the discussion. WHEN, if ever, is government legitimate?

Government is always legitimate, according to the government. Government actors define "legitimate".

 

[RandFan]

FTR: I actually have an answer to the question as to how much should we tax and spend. Enough to ensure the welfare of the nation. Bearing in mind diminishing returns. We should as a nation decide how much we should tax and spend. No more than is needed to meet our obligations and provide safety nets for the poor. Somewhere between what Denmark spends and what America spends. Please note that the generous social programs of Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Denmark, does not reduce the nation's overall Economic Freedom rating.

Rank | Nation | Rating
1|Hong Kong |89.3
2|Singapore |88
3|Australia |82.6
4|New Zealand |81.4
5|Switzerland |81
6|Canada |79.4
7|Chile |79
8|Mauritius |76.9
9|Denmark |76.0
10|United States |76

Points to keep in mind.

• This index is compiled by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation.
• The index is published every year in the conservative publication, The Wall Street Journal.

Why is this true? Humans are an evolved social species. It has been scientifically demonstrated that the most successful species as well as the most successful societies are those where individuals give up some fitness for the overall fitness of the group.


Contempt for social programs is just biting one's nose to spite one's face. Significantly reducing social programs would significantly reduce the wealth of a nation.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Can we skip the rhetorical device? How much is some?

Can we skip the distractions? The topic is the effect of the State's contribution, organized violence, to the education industry, not national defense.