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

[RandFan]

1. (a) there is a better term: "price". "Cost of entry" (or, "barriers to entry) normally refers to the problems that producers face, not to the cost to consumers.
(b) We agree here. This has nothing to do with the problem I illustrate with the analogy between voting on the one size and style of shoes all 14 year-olds must wear and the one curriculum and pace of instruction all 14 year-olds must pursue. Brains vary more than feet. Aggregation of decision making authority into processes ruled by remote authorities must produce, for many students, a poor match between the individual student's interests and abilities, on the one hand, and the uniform pace at which students must move through the single curriculum, on the other.

A.) I disagree. We are talking about an investment so that one can be gainfully employed. Cost of entry is much closer. That said, shoes are still much, much, much, much cheaper and are therefore, IMO, an invalid reductio absurdum argument. B.) Wile I agree with you that the key here is "education" and not "school", to date there is no example of a nation high in both health and well being that did not have some form of state paid for public education.

That's nearly circular: poor societies are poor.

I'm talking about societies with both rich and poor citizens. In such societies, where there is no public option the poor go without education but they do have shoes. But even in the societies that are almost entirely poor, shoes are still cheaper than an education. The shoe metaphor is simply fatally flawed.

Perhaps. "Education" is too vague for this to be a testable proposition. Comparatively, "compulsory attendance at school" is not "fundamental to the health and well being of a society".

To date, nations highest in human development and economic freedom have some form of state paid public school and most are compulsory. It's not simply a correlation. An illiterate populace is not likely to produce much wealth. If you could show that education for anything other than menial jobs is possible without schooling then you would have a point.

BTW: You have on more than one occasion agreed that an individual with a high school diploma is preferred over one without (when it comes to hiring in the private sector, public also) and you have also agreed that a person with a college degree is preferred even more. These fall into the category of "schooling" and "education". Schooling is the mark by which the private (and public sector) determines the education level of prospective employees. The proposition has been tested over and over and it stands.

The historical record provides numerous counter-examples.

None that I know of, especially when it comes to a high tech world that relies heavily on advanced math, physics, engineering and other college level disciplines.

Sow me a society that succeeds without "schooling". You want to separate schooling from "education" but I say that while the two are not mutually inclusive most people will not get an education sufficient to compete in today's marketplace without gaining an education from schooling. An education sans school would leave most poor people destitute and illiterate.

That's the "public goods" argument for charity, which does not imply State (government, generally) operation of an industry (consider Food Stamps).

What about food stamps? The education of children is a public good and one that private industry has not demonstrated a willingness to underwrite or invest in, at least not in any measure commensurate with public school (state run compulsory education).

The argument for State operation of school, from "negligent parent" considerations, is different. That's the argument for compulsory attendance at school. Compulsory attendance laws don't mean much unless there exists some school for children whom all other schools have rejected. Call these default-option schools "the public schools". Likely, working in these schools would be less pleasant than working in schools in which students and teachers come together by mutual agreement. It would be reasonable to pay these schools a premium above the per-capita subsidy (e.g., vouchers) that taxpayers would offer to independent schools. Periodically putting out to competitive bid the contract to operate default-option "public" schools would address the "regulatory capture" issue that operation by unionized public sector workers currently creates.

Sounds interesting. Vouchers have the problems that we've discussed but I'd like to hear other poster's take on the matter.

 

[Dcdrac]

And the Social mobility Commission of the UK has got a report out apparently going to keep an eye on their website for an electronic copy

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...=social-mobility-and-child-poverty-commission

The upshot is social mobility has actually gone into full reverse in the UK and a way to address it is through education.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

A.) I disagree. We are talking about an investment so that one can be gainfully employed. Cost of entry is much closer. That said, shoes are still much, much, much, much cheaper and are therefore, IMO, an invalid reductio absurdum argument.

That's like saying water is cheaper than gold. Some amount of water is cheaper than some amount of gold.

B.) Wile I agree with you that the key here is "education" and not "school", to date there is no example of a nation high in both health and well being that did not have some form of state paid for public education.

"High" relative to other contemporaries? Great Britain, prior to 1870.

I'm talking about societies with both rich and poor citizens. In such societies, where there is no public option the poor go without education...

No. They go without school.

Here.

Freedom to quit distinguishes employment from slavery

The same principle also applies in the workplace. If you can’t quit your job because you are owned by or legally bound to your employer, or because economic necessity prevents you from quitting, then your employer can brutalize and exploit you and get away with it. If you can walk away, then your employer must treat you well if he or she wants to retain your services. The legal and economic capacity to quit is the force that tends to equalize the relationship between employer and employee. There is no mystery here.

In school, children are not free to quit, so what are the consequences?

In general, children are the most brutalized of people, not because they are small and weak, but because they don’t have the same freedoms to quit that adults have.

Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery. Attendance at school is compulsory. In the US today, children work, unpaid, as window dressing in a massive make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And the Social mobility Commission of the UK has got a report out apparently going to keep an eye on their website for an electronic copy

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...=social-mobility-and-child-poverty-commission

The upshot is social mobility has actually gone into full reverse in the UK and a way to address it is through education.

Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents. Government schools reduce social mobility.

 

[RandFan]

That's like saying water is cheaper than gold. Some amount of water is cheaper than some amount of gold.

I've no idea how this is at all responsive to what I said. Shoes are not comparable to and education (school) because just about anyone can scrape together enough money for shoes. The same can't be said for a formal education that includes advanced math, physics, liberal arts, etc.

"High" relative to other contemporaries?

Right now. I've posted the evidence over and over.

Compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery.

No one buys that. I've no idea why you keep arguing it ad nauseam. Children are forced to go to school by their parents whether it is home schooling, parochial or state run compulsory schools. We've done this to death. You complain about the thread title and when we get away from the claim you come right back to it. Why?

Your definition is so vague as to be meaningless. Everything is slavery and slavery wasn't slavery because the slaves got room and board. By definition that is remuneration. Children get a valuable education. My education at a state run compulsory school allowed me to avoid menial work. It's allowed my children to get good jobs and it insured that they are not illiterate. All 3 no advanced math and one son is a well paid programmer. He, like me, is very grateful for the education. I could not begin to see it as slavery.

So, I've no idea why you decided to go back to the tired rhetoric when we were actually starting to have a conversation.

ETA: One should be careful of his grammar when claiming to be educated, "no"? It's "Know", that's pretty embarrassing.

 

[RandFan]

Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents. Government schools reduce social mobility.

Yet the nations highest in economic freedom have state run public schools. The nations highest in measurable well being have state run public schools.

Further, I've provided a scientific model to explain why this is so. The model makes predictions and has explanatory power.

I'm not sure why this thread is still going on but so long as the evidence and science is clear that there should be a public option I'll keep posting it.

 

[RandFan]

In school, children are not free to quit, so what are the consequences?

• In parochial school children are not free to quit.
• In private school children are not free to quit.
• In home schooling children are not free to quit.
• When it comes to chores children are not free to quit.

When will this tired nonsense end? Children are not autonomous, they are not emancipated, they are NOT adults! They are forced to do chores, go to the doctor, go to church, go to aunt Millie's house, they are forced to go to bed, they are forced to get up.

When are you going to understand that children are not free to decide most things? They are not free to opt out of school (education), etc.

I could not tell my father I wasn't doing chores for the day. I could not tell my father "I quit". Well, I could tell him that but I would have gotten severely disciplined.

If there was some nation where children could do whatever the hell they pleased and that nation were higher in economic freedom and measurable well being then you would have a point.

Such a place only exists in Disney movies like Peter Pan and Pinochio. In the real world children are required to go to school by their parents. The child has no idea that the state has mandated that the child go to school. And largely it wouldn't matter because many if not most parents want to force their children to schools to get an education.

Now, the parents CAN QUIT. They can take their children to private or parochial schools. So the notion that there is no private option is a big lie. A big fat one.

Private Schools by State - A List of Private Schools in U.S. States

News for catholic schools by state

Homeschooling in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yet the nations highest in economic freedom have state run public schools. The nations highest in measurable well being have state run public schools.

They also have the highest rates of death from Alzheimers/dementia. Wealth permits the development of some adverse conditions that poor societies cannot afford. Whales have enormous intestinal parasites.

Perfection is not of this world. Politicians everywhere are only human. Some scams are too attractive to resist.

Further, I've provided a scientific model to explain why this is so. The model makes predictions and has explanatory power.

No. It's not "Science" to wave in the direction of one through ten addition tables or say "reciprocal altruism". Here.

Anytime someone says Finland (or Massachusetts or whoever) is doing well because they have high standards or little choice or no school athletics, or whatever, they are just engaging in quackery — pure BS.

It is a matter of basic logic that one cannot know what causes success only by looking at a successful place (or set of successful places). You cannot know whether any factor contributes to success without also considering unsuccessful places and examining whether that same factor tends to be more present or absent in successful relative to unsuccessful places. This is an error known as “selection on dependent variable” and it is taught in any decent introduction to research methods course.

I'm not sure why this thread is still going on but so long as the evidence and science is clear that there should be a public option I'll keep posting it.

We agree on the evidence. Freedom (economic and otherwise) enhances aggregate wealth, per capita income, and other measures of wellbeing. Somehow, from this, the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's defenders conclude that the opposite of freedom in the education industry enhances wellbeing. I don't see what makes the education industry an exception to the rule that competitive markets outperform State-monopoly industries.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

ETA: One should be careful of his grammar when claiming to be educated, "no"? It's "Know", that's pretty embarrassing.

To what did this refer?

 

[Border Reiver]

We agree on the evidence. Freedom (economic and otherwise) enhances aggregate wealth, per capita income, and other measures of wellbeing. Somehow, from this, the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's defenders conclude that the opposite of freedom in the education industry enhances wellbeing. I don't see what makes the education industry an exception to the rule that competitive markets outperform State-monopoly industries.

Except you are ignoring the fact that there is NO monopoly in the provision of education in the United States (or Canada, or the UK, etc).

There are private schools, home schools, and publically funded schools. And parents can choose to send their children to which ever one they wish to.

This would seem to argue against there being a cartel denying parents the freedom of choice in how their children are to be educated.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Here.We agree on the evidence. Freedom (economic and otherwise) enhances aggregate wealth, per capita income, and other measures of wellbeing. Somehow, from this, the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's defenders conclude that the opposite of freedom in the education industry enhances wellbeing. I don't see what makes the education industry an exception to the rule that competitive markets outperform State-monopoly industries.

Except you are ignoring the fact that there is NO monopoly in the provision of education in the United States (or Canada, or the UK, etc).
There are private schools, home schools, and publically funded schools. And parents can choose to send their children to which ever one they wish to.

"Ignore"? Hardly. The multi-dimensional variation in the structure of the education industry across the US aids in the analysis of educational policy. "What works?" is an empirical question to which an experiment (federalism and markets) will provide better answers than will reliance on the Divine inspiration of megalomanic politicians or their appointed bureaucracy.

In many US States, Constitutional provisions, statutes, district policies and/or case law give to schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' sub-adult education subsidy. In those States, the cartel is a monopoly provider of education services to the State. Restrictions on homeschooling vary; some States require that a homeschooling parent have a teacher's certificate. Tuition puts even cheap parochial schools out of reach for many poor parents.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."--Anatole France

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

When will this tired nonsense end? ....
When are you going to understand ...
...
I could not tell my father I wasn't doing chores for the day. I could not tell my father "I quit". Well, I could tell him that but I would have gotten severely disciplined.
...
(All human behavioral traits are heritable. Anyone else wonder whether Randfan's parenting style mirrors his interpersonal style? MK)
...
If there was some nation where children could do whatever the hell they pleased and that nation were higher in economic freedom and measurable well being then you would have a point.

Such a place only exists in Disney movies like Peter Pan and Pinochio...
...
...the notion that there is no private option is a big lie. A big fat one.

Someone once said:...

... I'm not exactly enthralled with the state of American education. The truth is that it's a complex problem that is not easily resolved with silly absolutist rhetoric (like compulsory schooling equates to slavery). I'd like to have that discussion and I have invited Malcolm and any others to have a substantive discussion on the merits of both only to be rebuffed.

Sadly my sig file is proven once again.

 

[RandFan]

They also have the highest rates of death from Alzheimers/dementia. Wealth permits the development of some adverse conditions that poor societies cannot afford. Whales have enormous intestinal parasites.

They keep people alive longer. Yeah, there are some downsides. But I'm talking about economic freedom, wealth, health and well-being. You are cherry picking some downside to keeping people alive longer.

I don't see what makes the education industry an exception to the rule that competitive markets outperform State-monopoly industries.

I've explained it over and over and over. A.) Poor people make poor decisions and buy junk and bad services. B.) If you have zero it doesn't matter how cheap it is. Many poor people cannot afford cars so it doesn't matter how cheap on average cars are. Thankfully there is a public option.

 

[RandFan]

Someone once said:...

????

Do you have a point? I stand by what I said in both instances. You are caught up in dichotomies. You are excluding the middle. My position lies there.

 

[RandFan]

To what did this refer?

I made an error. I highlighted it rather than simply correcting it. Instead of the word "know", I wrote "no". It's embarrassing when a person, (in this case me) makes such a mistake while claiming to be educated.

 

[RandFan]

It's not "Science" to wave in the direction of one through ten addition tables or say "reciprocal altruism".

It's published science. It makes predictions and provides explanations. It is proven in the animal kingdom and human anthropology. The societies with the greatest health, wealth and well-being are those that provide generous social benefits and care for the disadvantaged and ensure that everyone have an opportunity at education and health.

We agree on the evidence. Freedom (economic and otherwise) enhances aggregate wealth, per capita income, and other measures of wellbeing.

Somehow you can't show me nations that succeed without providing social services to the poor and disadvantaged. UHC, state run public education, these are universal because they work.

Somehow, from this, the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's defenders conclude that the opposite of freedom in the education industry enhances wellbeing. I don't see what makes the education industry an exception to the rule that competitive markets outperform State-monopoly industries.

I'm not against freedom and there are private options. You can keep denying it and going back to your CT and engaging in ad hominem accusing me of being a shill but that's a lie. I'm no fan of them. I'm only a fan of making certain that poor people like myself get the help they need to succeed as I have. If you had the opportunity you would deny that to them.

 

[Border Reiver]

Tuition puts even cheap parochial schools out of reach for many poor parents.

And taking government funding away from education is going to make these schools or others cheaper?

Tuition at a private school costs approximately $13,000/year now before additional fees are added. The amount of taxes collected from me that goes towards education is considerably less than that, and would represent approx. 1/3 to 1/6 of a middle class person's annual pay, which generally puts most people in a position of eating or educating. I believe that by not pooling the resources of the entire tax base, you are creating a nearly permanent semi-literate underclass which would consist of the vast majority of the population.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... the nations highest in economic freedom have state run public schools. ... he nations highest in measurable well being have state run public schools.

They also have the highest rates of death from Alzheimers/dementia. Wealth permits the development of some adverse conditions that poor societies cannot afford. Whales have enormous intestinal parasites.

They keep people alive longer. Yeah, there are some downsides. But I'm talking about economic freedom, wealth, health and well-being. You are cherry picking some downside to keeping people alive longer.

State-mandated attendance at school is a downside of wealth.
I've explained it over and over and over. Poor people make poor decisions and buy junk and bad services elect megalomanic economically illiterate politicians.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And taking government funding away from education is going to make these schools or others cheaper?

It would. Besides, much of the compulsory 12-year curriculum is fluff. Minimum wage laws, child labor laws, and compulsory attendance laws put on-the-job training off limits to many children.

Tuition at a private school costs approximately $13,000/year now before additional fees are added. The amount of taxes collected from me that goes towards education is considerably less than that, and would represent approx. 1/3 to 1/6 of a middle class person's annual pay, which generally puts most people in a position of eating or educating. I believe that by not pooling the resources of the entire tax base, you are creating a nearly permanent semi-literate underclass which would consist of the vast majority of the population.

I believe that is mistaken, but I grant the argument for the sake of compromise. How 'bout tuition vouchers, tuition tax credits, subsidized homeschooling, or Parent Performance Contracting at 2/3 of the regular-ed budget of the cartel's schools?

How do you split a dime bag if you don't have a scale? Every street-smart kid knows the strategy: I cut, you choose. Let's take the cartel's promoters at their word and accept their claim that the budget they request is necessary. Then it should be impossible for parents empowered with vouchers to accomplish the job for less.

 

[Niche Geek]

I believe that is mistaken

What is the basis for this belief?