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

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm,
Please to address this point.

But parents, whose opinions are what really matter, see things very differently. Seventy-seven percent currently give their local schools an A or a B—the highest grades in the 45-year history of the Gallup-Phi Delta Kappa annual poll.

Parents do not have a basis for comparison. Union-friendly journalists systematically misinform the public about school costs and performance. This is not conjecture. For years reporters parroted claims by Hawaii DOE bureaucrats that Hawaii's students scored below the national average on standardized tests of reading but above the national average on Math. Then Hawaii participated in the 1990 NAEP and our Math scores put us in the national cellar. Later, reporters parroted the DOE line that 65% of Hawaii students performed at average or above on the Stanford Achievement Test. They did not inform the public that test makers and DOE administrators use an idiosyncratic definition of "average" by which (nationally) 77% of students are "average or above". They intend "average" to mean a band two standard deviations wide around the median (23rd to 77th percentile). Between 1994 and 1997 journalists, editorial writers, politicians, and DOE administrators complained about cuts to the Hawaii DOE budget. I gave to reporters and editorial writers copies of a report that the DOE files with the Dept. of Commerce, the National Public Education Finance Survey, that showed monotonic increases in the DOE budget, aggregate and per pupil, for the previous ten years. They continued to lie. I called into a radio show and said this on the air. Jerry Burris (the Advertiser editorial writer) stopped lying about non-existent cuts to the DOE budget. Other people have observed school districts elsewhere colluding with test makers to misrepresent academic performance. Nationally, stories of teachers and administrators changing test papers or assisting students on standardized tests appear every year.

One function of a market is to provide a real basis for comparison. The current institutional structure lacks this.

There's also an element of psychological self-defense in parents' delusions. It's easier to accept the public school lie than to fight city hall or to bite the bullet and homeschool.
"Living is easy with eyes closed". Lennon and McCartney, "Strawberry Fields Forever".

You say you want more choices for parents and I want that also. But, AIU, you want to take the *public option away from parents even though most give their state run compulsory schools a grade of A or B.

Isn't there an inherent contradiction to your position? You put a lot of trust in parents to handle the education of their children yet those parents want state run compulsory schools.

*State run compulsory education

From what post(s) of mine do you construct this understanding? While I believe that society would be better off without a State presence in the education industry, beyond what the State contributes to the lawn care industry and the kitchen utensil manufacture industry, an original assignment of title and a stable system of contract law, that that is not my recommendation. I have said throughout this discussion that I support most expansions of parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy: charter schools, tuition vouchers, education tax credits, subsidized homeschooling, and mandatory (that school districts offer, not that students take) credit-by-exam for a grade. My preferred policy is Parent Performance Contracting.

 

[A'isha]

So you're all for parent choice in their children's education, unless parents choose public schools, in which case they're either victims of union/cartel propaganda or delusional?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So you're all for parent choice in their children's education, unless parents choose public schools, in which case they're either victims of union/cartel propaganda or delusional?

Moderators enjoin us to address the argument, not the arguer. I have been informed that that rule, along with "be civil and polite", only applies to free marketeers. Socialists may adopt any form of argument they like. Still, drop the "you",

Policies that give to individual parents the power to determine for their own children will yield better performance at lower cost than policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy to institutions operated by State (i.e., government, generally) employees.
In some institutional environments (e.g., severe restrictions on homeschooling, no low-cost independent school options), the local government school option beats incarceration for educational neglect and court-imposed loss of custody. A strong-willed child can get a decent education in a wretched school if s/he is willing to ignore her teachers and read on her own. Ever read "The Ransom of Red Chief"?

 

[A'isha]

Moderators enjoin us to address the argument, not the arguer.

Yes.

I have been informed that that rule, along with "be civil and polite", only applies to free marketeers.

I believe you are misinformed.

Socialists may adopt any form of argument they like.

I wouldn't know. There haven't been any socialists posting in this thread.

Still, drop the "you",

It's difficult to specify that I'm talking about your argument without, y'know, specifying that I'm talking about your argument.

Policies that give to individual parents the power to determine for their own children will yield better performance at lower cost than policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy to institutions operated by State (i.e., government, generally) employees.

This is what you're asserting and have so far been unable to prove, yes.

In some institutional environments (e.g., severe restrictions on homeschooling, no low-cost independent school options), the local government school option beats incarceration for educational neglect and court-imposed loss of custody. A strong-willed child can get a decent education in a wretched school if s/he is willing to ignore her teachers and read on her own.

More unsupported assertions.

Ever read "The Ransom of Red Chief"?

Yes.

It's fiction.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

There haven't been any socialists posting in this thread.

Defenders of government-subsidized medical care and government-operated schools qualify.

It's difficult to specify that I'm talking about your argument without, y'know, specifying that I'm talking about your argument.

Not really. Consider...

So you're all for parent choice in their children's education, unless parents choose public schools, in which case they're either victims of union/cartel propaganda or delusional?

Policies that give to individual parents the power to determine for their own children will yield better performance at lower cost than policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy to institutions operated by State (i.e., government, generally) employees.

In some institutional environments (e.g., severe restrictions on homeschooling, no low-cost independent school options), the local government school option beats incarceration for educational neglect and court-imposed loss of custody. A strong-willed child can get a decent education in a wretched school if s/he is willing to ignore her teachers and read on her own.

My response addressed your incorrect assertion, without any personal reference. See how easy that is?

This is what you're asserting and have so far been unable to prove, yes.

Depends on what one calls "proof". I haven't converted any of the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses who come to the door, either.

 

[A'isha]

Defenders of government-subsidized medical care and government-operated schools qualify.

That's a bizarre and useless definition of socialism.

Not really. Consider...My response addressed your incorrect assertion, without any personal reference.

Your response didn't actually have anything to do with what I wrote, but instead was merely a rehashing of your arguments.

It certainly didn't address your attribution of parental preference of public education to propaganda and delusion, rather than, y'know, their reasoned and considered choice.

Depends on what one calls "proof".

Convincing and compelling evidence in support of your claims.

Blatant mis-cites are, obviously, insufficient.

I haven't converted any of the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses who come to the door, either.

What does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

 

[Chaos]

Defenders of government-subsidized medical care and government-operated schools qualify.

So you´ve fallen into the standard ignoramus "I´ll call anything I don´t like socialism, and damn the stupid facts" routine.

Not really. Consider...My response addressed your incorrect assertion, without any personal reference.

Quite accurate, other for the "incorrect" and "address" parts.

See how easy that is?

Debate is always easy when one asserts the right to re-define anything one does not like into anything one wishes it to mean.

Depends on what one calls "proof". I haven't converted any of the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses who come to the door, either.

And there´s the problem - proof does not depend on what one calls it. Baseless assertions, inflammatory rhetoric and calling your opponents names is not proof of anything other than your inability to provide actual evidence for your claims.

 

[Border Reiver]

Policies that give to individual parents the power to determine for their own children will yield better performance at lower cost than policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy to institutions operated by State (i.e., government, generally) employees.

If the above is correct, please explain how Canada's provinces are able to deliver a public option for less than the private schools operating in the same provinces.

In some institutional environments (e.g., severe restrictions on homeschooling, no low-cost independent school options),

There have been a number of requests for examples of these jurisdictions. We're still waiting.

the local government school option beats incarceration for educational neglect and court-imposed loss of custody.

I've asked for examples of parents/guardians jailed SOLELY for non-registration. Given how the school registration laws are structured (as minor regulatory offences with fines) it would take effort to get jail time.

A strong-willed child can get a decent education in a wretched school if s/he is willing to ignore her teachers and read on her own.

Examples where teachers prevent children from reading ahead/reading.

Ever read "The Ransom of Red Chief"?

No

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Moderators enjoin us to address the argument, not the arguer. I have been informed that that rule, along with "be civil and polite", only applies to free marketeers. Socialists may adopt any form of argument they like.

I wouldn't know. There haven't been any socialists posting in this thread.

Defenders of government-subsidized medical care and government-operated schools qualify.

That's a bizarre and useless definition of socialism.

It's not a definition, any more than "lions are mammals and shrews are mammals" is a definition of "mammal". These are examples. The dictionary defines "socialism" as government ownership of the means of production. Socialism is clearly a matter of degree (Ownership of how many industries? What degree of control qualifies as "ownership"?).

It's difficult to specify that I'm talking about your argument without, y'know, specifying that I'm talking about your argument.

Not really. Consider...

So you're all for parent choice in their children's education, unless parents choose public schools, in which case they're either victims of union/cartel propaganda or delusional?

Policies that give to individual parents the power to determine for their own children will yield better performance at lower cost than policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy to institutions operated by State (i.e., government, generally) employees. In some institutional environments (e.g., severe restrictions on homeschooling, no low-cost independent school options), the local government school option beats incarceration for educational neglect and court-imposed loss of custody. A strong-willed child can get a decent education in a wretched school if s/he is willing to ignore her teachers and read on her own.

My response addressed your incorrect assertion, without any personal reference. See how easy that is? Depends on what one calls "proof". I haven't converted any of the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses who come to the door, either.

Your response didn't actually have anything to do with what I wrote, but instead was merely a rehashing of your arguments.

Exactly right. Stripped of personal references, the "rehash" rebuts the (blatantly false) claim:...

So you're all for parent choice in their children's education, unless parents choose public schools, in which case they're either victims of union/cartel propaganda or delusional?

As Ant observes, these are "your (i.e., my) arguments", made without personal references and NOT restrictive or critical of parent choices.

It certainly didn't address your attribution of parental preference of public education to propaganda and delusion, rather than, y'know, their reasoned and considered choice.

Parents chose from among the available options, using available information. Competitive markets in goods and services generate more information than will a State-monopoly enterprise. A State-monopoly enterprise is an experiment with one treatment and no control: a retarded experimental design.

Policies that give to individual parents the power to determine for their own children will yield better performance at lower cost than policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy to institutions operated by State (i.e., government, generally) employees.

This is what you're asserting and have so far been unable to prove, yes.

Depends on what one calls "proof".

Convincing and compelling evidence in support of your claims.

People will vary in the amount and type of evidence that will convince and compel a reassessment of their position.

Blatant mis-cites are, obviously, insufficient.

Readers will note that Ant does not say "misquote". The quotes I supply are accurate. The cites I supply are as accurate as I can make them. To the best of my recollection, I have not supplied a cite that leads to anything other than to the source of the quoted (or referenced) material.

In some institutional environments (e.g., severe restrictions on homeschooling, no low-cost independent school options), the local government school option beats incarceration for educational neglect and court-imposed loss of custody. A strong-willed child can get a decent education in a wretched school if s/he is willing to ignore her teachers and read on her own.

More unsupported assertions.

Hahahahaha. If Ant wants to argue that prison and loss of custody for educational neglect are better options that sending a child to the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's wretched schools, well, I wasn't prepared to dispute that contention.

I haven't converted any of the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses who come to the door, either.

What does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

It relates to the possibility of convincing, compelling and/or converting someone who has been thoroughly indoctrinated since childhood into any religious faith (e.g., socialism).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So you´ve fallen into the standard ignoramus ...


Baseless assertions, inflammatory rhetoric and calling your opponents names ...

Got a mirror?

 

[A'isha]

It's not a definition, any more than "lions are mammals and shrews are mammals" is a definition of "mammal". These are examples.

You were not providing examples of socialists, you were redefining socialism to try and make it apply to posters in this thread who have been contesting your arguments.

The dictionary defines "socialism" as government ownership of the means of production.

Which does not apply to your "examples" without a particularly twisty redefinition of socialism.

Exactly right. Stripped of personal references, the "rehash" rebuts the (blatantly false) claim:

That was what you were arguing in your post. Your response to RandFan pointing out that most parents give public schools the highest rating was to claim that parents are not able to accurate make that assessment because "nion-friendly journalists systematically misinform the public about school costs and performance" and "[t]here's also an element of psychological self-defense in parents' delusions".

Meaning my claim is completely true.

Parents chose from among the available options, using available information. Competitive markets in goods and services generate more information than will a State-monopoly enterprise.

Unsupported assertion.

A State-monopoly enterprise is an experiment with one treatment and no control: a retarded experimental design.

It's not an "experiment", therefore this criticism is a non sequitur.

Readers will note that Ant does not say "misquote". The quotes I supply are accurate.

Then allow me to correct that. You mis-cite and misquote, and the quotes you supply are inaccurate, cherry-picked, and excised of the context which shows they don't actually support the points you are citing them to support.

Hahahahaha. If Ant wants to argue that prison and loss of custody for educational neglect are better options that sending a child to the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's wretched schools, well, I wasn't prepared to dispute that contention.

That's a pretty egregious false dichotomy (not to mention strawman) you have going there.

It relates to the possibility of convincing, compelling and/or converting someone who has been thoroughly indoctrinated since childhood into any religious faith (e.g., socialism).

No, your arguments are simply fallacious and unsupported; that's why they have been singularly unsuccessful at convincing anyone, and not a single poster in this thread "has been thoroughly indoctrinated since childhood into any religious faith (e.g., socialism)".

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Policies that give to individual parents the power to determine for their own children will yield better performance at lower cost than policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy to institutions operated by State (i.e., government, generally) employees.

If the above is correct, please explain how Canada's provinces are able to deliver a public option for less than the private schools operating in the same provinces.

Across industries and across countries, competitive markets will generally deliver superior goods and services at lower costs than will State-monopoly enterprises, for reasons that economists have detailed over the last century (see, e.g., von Mises, Socialism, Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, The Constitution of Liberty, "The Use of Knowledge in Society" (American Economic Review), Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, Dollars and Deficits, Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, Bauer, Dissent on Development, Reality and Rhetoric). "What works?" is an empirical question. A competitive market is an on-going experiment in how to use resources to meet customers' wants. A State-monopoly enterprise is an experiment with one treatment and no controls, a retarded experimental design. Exceptions demonstrate that the rule is not a tautology. What generates a particular outlier? The answer will depend on local circumstances. Without looking at the case of Canada in detail, I can only speculate. Mendacious reporting is one possibility. Different methods of counting costs across sectors is another. There are other possibilities.

In some institutional environments (e.g., severe restrictions on homeschooling, no low-cost independent school options)...

There have been a number of requests for examples of these jurisdictions. We're still waiting.

Too easy. Cuba. North Korea. Any totalitarian State.

... the local government school option beats incarceration for educational neglect and court-imposed loss of custody.

I've asked for examples of parents/guardians jailed SOLELY for non-registration. Given how the school registration laws are structured (as minor regulatory offences with fines) it would take effort to get jail time.

True. Most parents will buckle before it gets to that.

A strong-willed child can get a decent education in a wretched school if s/he is willing to ignore her teachers and read on her own.

Examples where teachers prevent children from reading ahead/reading.

Every school and every class where students read "required" texts or engage in "required" activities.

Ever read "The Ransom of Red Chief"?

No

I recommend it. Satyagraha.

 

[A'isha]

Without looking at the case of Canada in detail, I can only speculate. Mendacious reporting is one possibility.

Ah, of course.

Too easy. Cuba. North Korea. Any totalitarian State.

So then what does your initial statement have to do with public schools here in the capitalist West?

Every school and every class where students read "required" texts or engage in "required" activities.

How does that prevent them from reading ahead or reading additional material? I did that all throughout my time in public school.

 

[Border Reiver]

Across industries and across countries, competitive markets will generally deliver superior goods and services at lower costs than will State-monopoly enterprises, for reasons that economists have detailed over the last century (see, e.g., von Mises, Socialism, Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, The Constitution of Liberty, "The Use of Knowledge in Society" (American Economic Review), Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, Dollars and Deficits, Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, Bauer, Dissent on Development, Reality and Rhetoric). "What works?" is an empirical question. A competitive market is an on-going experiment in how to use resources to meet customers' wants. A State-monopoly enterprise is an experiment with one treatment and no controls, a retarded experimental design. Exceptions demonstrate that the rule is not a tautology. What generates a particular outlier? The answer will depend on local circumstances. Without looking at the case of Canada in detail, I can only speculate. Mendacious reporting is one possibility. Different methods of counting costs across sectors is another. There are other possibilities.

Other than rhetoric then you have no explanation?

The source of the stats on the cost of publically delivered education costs in Canada is provided through StatsCanada - a rather well respected statistical analysis organization, you can check out the numbers yourself, the report being public access.

The costs of private education comes from the web sites of the various private schools.

If you want to compare, feel free to do so. Canadian parents have the free market options of private schools, home schooling, or publically funded schools - most of us choose the publically funded system as it delivers a known product in a cost effective manner.

Too easy. Cuba. North Korea. Any totalitarian State.

So, not the US, Canada, UK, Australia, NZ - and your earlier statements make it look like there are jurisdictions in those countries where homeschooling, etc was illegal were simply an exercise in exaggeration?

True. Most parents will buckle before it gets to that.

Or they will be incarcerated and lose custody for other reasons. The level of absurdity that a person would need to go to end up in jail for not providing for the education of a child would likely be indicative of a far more serious level of abuse or neglect than simply not registering for school.

Looking at both the Ontario and Alaska legislation on schooling it is clear that if a child is not registered for school, all a parent has to do is indicate that they are homeschooling the child.

Every school and every class where students read "required" texts or engage in "required" activities.

There is a level of compulsion present in all schooling regardless of type or source - and at some point in everyone's life they will need to do what someone else tells them to, better to learn that by being required to be able to discuss "Animal Farm" or to have a basic knowledge of how the justice system works by taking the required Civics classes than by arguing to the judge that they are Freemen On the Land and therefore not under the jurisdiction of the court.

I recommend it. Satyagraha.

Why? It isn't well written, not is it a particularly engaging story. (I read it during my luch break). I'd rather read Twain.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...There is a level of compulsion present in all schooling regardless of type or source - and at some point in everyone's life they will need to do what someone else tells them to ...

Most people will experience a broken bone at some time in their life. Does that imply that society would benefit if we gave teachers baseball bats?

 

[A'isha]

Most people will experience a broken bone at some time in their life. Does that imply that society would benefit if we gave teachers baseball bats?

Do teachers in private schools use compulsion on students attending their schools, telling them what assignments to do, what books (or sections of books) to read, what homework to do, what quizzes and tests to take, and when to sit in their desks and pay attention and not be disruptive in class, Malcolm?

 

[varwoche]

Do teachers in private schools use compulsion on students attending their schools, telling them what assignments to do, what books (or sections of books) to read, what homework to do, what quizzes and tests to take, and when to sit in their desks and pay attention and not be disruptive in class, Malcolm?

In the world you and I occupy, of course. Libertopia on the other hand...

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

In the world you and I occupy, of course. Libertopia on the other hand...

Ant repeats objections that appeared earlier in this discussion. We already dealt with this point. Every expansion of the range of options reduces compulsion. Force and freedom are opposites directions on the continuum. A wider range of options means more degrees of freedom.

 

[A'isha]

Ant repeats objections that appeared earlier in this discussion. We already dealt with this point. Every expansion of the range of options reduces compulsion.

Not for the kid being compelled.

You are conflating compulsion of individual children (which is the core of your argument here, the whole "equates to slavery" thing) with the compulsion of their parents. But you have not addressed how expanding the range of options for parents reduces compulsion for their individual children.

If public schools are detrimental because children are subject to violence when they attend a mass-education institution and perform poorly when compelled to attend classes and do specific assigned schoolwork, why does that not also apply to private schools?

So I'll ask you again: do teachers in private schools use compulsion on students attending their schools, telling them what assignments to do, what books (or sections of books) to read, what homework to do, what quizzes and tests to take, and when to sit in their desks and pay attention and not be disruptive in class, Malcolm?

 

[RandFan]

Ant repeats objections that appeared earlier in this discussion. We already dealt with this point. Every expansion of the range of options reduces compulsion. Force and freedom are opposites directions on the continuum. A wider range of options means more degrees of freedom.

That would work great in the private sector. Employees free to come and go as they please and do what is ever they feel productive. Imagine a world where employers did not have the force to fire employees and the employees could do whatever they wanted.

Sounds like pure and unadulterated libertarian to me. Freedom of the proletariat. I say give employees a wide range of options. When to come to work. What to do, or even if they should work at all. Imagine the increased productivity. Once you take away an employers force and give freedom to the worker then there could only be unprecedented increase in production.

I'm sold.