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

[RandFan]

And deaths from Alzheimers.

An understandable point. This has already been addressed. Alzheimers is not part of a feed back loop. It's the result of keeping people alive longer. It's a silly example.

You can disagree until you are blue in the face but there is A.) a theory with an explanation. B.) a theory with explanatory power. C.) Evidence from field research in animals. D.) Evidence from human anthropological studies. D.) Lack of falsification (you've never been able to demonstrate a nation high in wealth and well being that does not offer social benifits).

No "robust scientific model" implies that State control of education enhances aggregate social welfare. Where is this model? Don't just wave your hands and say "the periodic table" or "reciprocal altruism".

It's called evolution and reciprocal altruism. Those things that are a public good increase the over all fitness of the group. It is supported by overlapping disciplines including game theory.

 

[Craig4]

How do you know that you haven't already?

Because engineering companies are generally smart enough to hire people who are actually engineers and in most states the requires a four year degree.

 

[Amazer]

You're arguing with someone who accepts the principle of revealed preference, that people select from the options available to them the most attractive. The options available to children in 18th and early 19th century Britain and the US included factory labor, field labor, weaving, rag picking, etc. They did not include unicorn riding lessons at Club Med. You do not make people better off by depriving them of options.

Of course you can make people better off by limiting options. Especially if the options that you take off the table are poor/bad options to begin with.

 

[jimbob]

Of course you can make people better off by limiting options. Especially if the options that you take off the table are poor/bad options to begin with.

Especially if you are limiting the options that other people can choose for people in their care.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Tu quoque doesn't change anything.

Do unto others, and all that.
Read Axelrod, __The Evolution of Cooperation__. Tit-for-tat is an effective strategy under many circumstances. Of course, if umpires, referees, police, or forum moderators are systematically biased, it doesn't work as well.

 

[Border Reiver]

Do unto others, and all that.
Read Axelrod, __The Evolution of Cooperation__. Tit-for-tat is an effective strategy under many circumstances. Of course, if umpires, referees, police, or forum moderators are systematically biased, it doesn't work as well.

How does "tit for tat" apply to education?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Of course you can make people better off by limiting options. Especially if the options that you take off the table are poor/bad options to begin with.

That assumes that the people whom you deprive of those "bad" options share your evaluation of those options. But then, why would they select those options? If the difference is due to inadequate information, then you can supply the information instead of reducing the options.
I accept the special case of "tragedy of the commons" exceptions (e.g., overuse of antibiotics) but to justify a reduction of options on these grounds, you actually have to make a case, not just assert that a case could be made.

There's a story, apparently apocryphal, that Leonhard Euler (a Christian) used the argument "Sir, (a+bⁿ)/n=x, therefore God exists. Reply." It's a stupid argument. Perhaps someone intended to slander Euler with the claim that he made such a stupid argument. Perhaps someone wanted to make a point about pseudo-mathematical pomposity. To wave in the general direction of the multiplication table or the periodic table or "reciprocal altruism" and assert, as Randfan does, "Sir, ___X____ ('evolution favors kin selection in social species' for example), therefore society benefits when the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in a locality takes control of children's lives from their parents" is to make an equally stupid argument. Or, at least, to omit a lot of steps in the argument.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

It's called evolution and reciprocal altruism. Those things that are a public good increase the over all fitness of the group. It is supported by overlapping disciplines including game theory.

What is "it"? Show us how the theory of kin selection implies that society benefits when the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in a locality takes from individual parents the power to determine for their own children the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction. Seems to me there's considerable evidence for policies that enhance parent control. Seems to me the theory of kin selection would imply that parents are more likely to make life-enhancing decisions than are strangers.

 

[Amazer]

That assumes that the people whom you deprive of those "bad" options share your evaluation of those options. But then, why would they select those options? If the difference is due to inadequate information, then you can supply the information instead of reducing the options.

You seem to be laboring under the illusion that people will always choose the best option that is available to them, if only they have adequate information available to them. I think that is terribly naive of you. Because if that were true, no one would be smoking, drinking, doing hard-drugs, have unprotected sex, etc, etc, .... The reality is that providing adequate information helps to a degree, it doesn't completely solve issues.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You seem to be laboring under the illusion that people will always choose the best option that is available to them, if only they have adequate information available to them. I think that is terribly naive of you. Because if that were true, no one would be smoking, drinking, doing hard-drugs, have unprotected sex, etc, etc, .... The reality is that providing adequate information helps to a degree, it doesn't completely solve issues.

You seem to be laboring under the illusion that people government actors will always choose the best option for other people that is available to them, if only they have adequate information available to them. I think that is terribly naive of you. Because if that were true, no one would be smoking, drinking, doing hard-drugs, have unprotected sex incarcerated for victimless crimes, worked to death in Siberian labor camps, deliberately starved, deliberately denied treatment for syphilis, taxed to subsidize campaign contributors (Solyndra, Fisker, the GM bailout), etc, etc, .... The reality is that providing adequate information helps to a degree, it doesn't completely solve issues.
Even if State actors were altruistic (which they are not), they cannot have the information about individual preferences that they would need to choose for other people. Here.

Ponder the claim of the U.C.L.A. professor who asserts, near the end of this video, that people who complain about Obamacare forcing them to give up their current health-care insurance plans in order to buy instead different and more costly health-care plans really will value these more-elaborate (and more costly) plans once these people discover all the great coverage that the new plans offer. How does this professor know this? He cannot possibly. At best, he mistakes his own preferences for those of others. But a person’s preferences, being subjective, are inherently knowable (or knowable best) only to that individual.

Asymmetric information of the sort that many professional economists get worked up over might in principle be discovered and spread more widely by government regulators. But information about people’s subjective preferences can never, not even in principle, be known by government regulators. And yet much government regulation is proudly justified by politicians, regulators, and intellectuals on the grounds that people allegedly will value X by amount $Y once they actually encounter X.

 

[RandFan]

What is "it"? Show us how the theory of kin selection implies that society benefits when the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in a locality takes from individual parents the power to determine for their own children the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction. Seems to me there's considerable evidence for policies that enhance parent control. Seems to me the theory of kin selection would imply that parents are more likely to make life-enhancing decisions than are strangers.

This has already been demonstrated false many pages ago. There is not a single state that I know of that outlaws private/parochial schools.

And it's the parents that do the forcing whether it is to private school or state run school. The notion that children lay awake at night worrying about state representatives kidnapping them, raping them and infecting them with AIDs is ludicrous.

 

[RandFan]

Even if State actors were altruistic (which they are not), they cannot have the information about individual preferences that they would need to choose for other people. Here.

Catholic schools in the United States

Search for Private Schools - U.S. Department of Education


And don't forget that the PTA and school boards are local bodies.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

What is "it"? Show us how the theory of kin selection implies that society benefits when the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in a locality takes from individual parents the power to determine for their own children the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction. Seems to me there's considerable evidence for policies that enhance parent control. Seems to me the theory of kin selection would imply that parents are more likely to make life-enhancing decisions than are strangers.

This has already been demonstrated false many pages ago. There is not a single state that I know of that outlaws private/parochial schools.

Another pronoun. What is "this"?
How does "(t)here is not a single state that I know of that outlaws private/parochial schools ..." demonstrate that the theory of kin selection and reciprocal altruism implies that society gains when the largest dealer in interpersonal violence takes from individual parents the power to determine for their own children the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction? Why prefer the "altruism" hypothesis over the "predation" hypothesis to explain State-operated schools?
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.

And it's the parents that do the forcing whether it is to private school or state run school. The notion that children lay awake at night worrying about state representatives kidnapping them, raping them and infecting them with AIDs is ludicrous.

The notion that compulsory attendance statutes applied to students (truancy) and parents (educational neglect) and compulsory financing of government schools (taxation) are not backed by the threat of incarceration is ludicrous.

 

[Border Reiver]

The notion that compulsory attendance statutes applied to students (truancy) and parents (educational neglect) and compulsory financing of government schools (taxation) are not backed by the threat of incarceration is ludicrous.

As has been demonstrated earlier in this thread, the sheer level of bloody-mindedness that would be required to get from the actual penalties imposed for non-registration/refusal to declarethat the children are being homeschooled (a fine) to incarceration would likely be indicative of a much more serious issue.

Shall we try and deal with the non-outliers, or are you left with nothing but the reducto ad absurdum?

 

[RandFan]

.... demonstrate that the theory of kin selection and reciprocal altruism implies that society gains when the largest dealer in interpersonal violence takes from individual parents the power to determine for their own children the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction? Why prefer the "altruism" hypothesis over the "predation" hypothesis to explain State-operated schools?

Because nations highest in economic well being and wealth provide are modern liberal societies that value liberty. All have constitutions to protect the rights of citizens. All can choose their destiny via democratic election.

The predation hypothesis is conspiratorial involving lots and lots of actors in many nations acting in direct contradiction to their own goals of providing for the future. It requires poisoning the well and attributing malice on the part of the NEA and other organization.

It's not parsimonious. It's not prosaic. It presumes that many free people in many democratic nations are too stupid to act in the best interest of their children. Which is kinda ironic given the fact that you want parents to choose. Parents DO choose. They choose when they take their children to public rather than private schools. They choose at the ballot box.

Poll: Parents don’t support many education policy changes

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

 

[jimbob]

You seem to be laboring under the illusion that people government actors will always choose the best option for other people that is available to them, if only they have adequate information available to them. I think that is terribly naive of you. Because if that were true, no one would be smoking, drinking, doing hard-drugs, have unprotected sex incarcerated for victimless crimes, worked to death in Siberian labor camps, deliberately starved, deliberately denied treatment for syphilis, taxed to subsidize campaign contributors (Solyndra, Fisker, the GM bailout), etc, etc, .... The reality is that providing adequate information helps to a degree, it doesn't completely solve issues.
Even if State actors were altruistic (which they are not), they cannot have the information about individual preferences that they would need to choose for other people. Here.

Your examples show that one needs checks and balances. And that the Cultural Revolution and Soviet Collectivization were not good for the respective populations of China or the Soviet Union. You could add in the holocaust in there as well.

I certainly am not saying that the state knows better in all, or even most cases. However I'd argue that compulsory education is to ensure that the childrens' interests are looked after in the small number of cases where the parents/guardians would otherwise* make choices that would not be in the childrens' best interest.
To me, your worldview seems to be too optimistic when considering the worst of individuals, and too pessimistic when considering the normal case of democracies.


*For example through wrongheadedness, ignorance, malice or apathy...

 

[Amazer]

Your examples show that one needs checks and balances. And that the Cultural Revolution and Soviet Collectivization were not good for the respective populations of China or the Soviet Union. You could add in the holocaust in there as well.

I certainly am not saying that the state knows better in all, or even most cases. However I'd argue that compulsory education is to ensure that the childrens' interests are looked after in the small number of cases where the parents/guardians would otherwise* make choices that would not be in the childrens' best interest.
To me, your worldview seems to be too optimistic when considering the worst of individuals, and too pessimistic when considering the normal case of democracies.


*For example through wrongheadedness, ignorance, malice or apathy...

You worded rather precisely what I wanted to say.

 

[RandFan]

I certainly am not saying that the state knows better in all, or even most cases. However I'd argue that compulsory education is to ensure that the childrens' interests are looked after in the small number of cases where the parents/guardians would otherwise* make choices that would not be in the childrens' best interest.

And remember, it's the citizens that vote for our leaders. It's citizens that sit on the school boards and are involved in PTA.


There is a certain amount of autonomy which is why we have to go to court from time to time to get the schools to stick to objective facts that and scientific consensus.

If there were no ballot box, if there were no school boards or parent teachers associations then it would be a different story

 

[jimbob]

However Malcolm, I will agree that Stalin and Mao were not good for their populace.

WTH that has with compulsory education in modern liberal democracies, I am bit confused by..

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Your examples show that one needs checks and balances.

We agree. I have repeatedly observed "the most effective accountability mechanism that humans have yet devised is a policy that lets unhappy customers take their business elsewhere."

I'd argue that compulsory education is to ensure that the childrens' interests are looked after in the small number of cases where the parents/guardians would otherwise* make choices that would not be in the childrens' best interest.

"To" is a statement of intention. Intentions are invisible mental events. We will agree on the observable fact (from contemporary newspaper accounts, transcripts of testimony in support of legislation, and the "whereas" prefaces to legislation) that advocates for compulsory schooling made this argument in support of their cause. Wilfredo Pareto observed that people often turn their interests into principles. What I see missing in the "negligent parent" argument is any consideration given to the costs that compulsory attendance policies impose on parents who are not negligent and on their children. If the "negligent parent" consideration really motivates compulsory schooling legislation, why are all parents treated as negligent? I suspect that some people give the "negligent parent" argument considerable weight and couple it with a (racially) "disparate impact" consideration that they will not make explicit.

The cure is worse than the disease.

E.G. West
"Education Vouchers in Principle and Practice: A Survey"
The World Bank Research Observer 1997-Feb.

In economics the three most quoted normative reasons for state intervention in education are to protect children against negligent parents, to internalize beneficial "externalities," and to ensure equality of opportunity. Compulsory education laws are generally regarded as satisfying the first argument for state intervention.
The externalities argument, to be completely persuasive, needs the support of evidence that externalities really exist and are positive at the margin-that is, that people outside the family unit are willing to pay for extra units of education beyond what parents would purchase. In the absence of formal or systematic evidence, most writers simply assume, explicitly or implicitly, that positive marginal external benefits do exist.
The third argument for intervention-the need to ensure equality of opportunity-reflects concern about the distributional implications of purely private provision. Richer parents are likely to spend more than poorer parents to educate their children, just as they spend more on cars, homes, and clothes. The view that children's life chances should not depend on the wealth of their parents or the fortuitous circumstances of the community in which they live is widely accepted. The prospect of upward mobility, of ensuring that one's children will be better off, has been a keystone of political support for the public school system in the past. This "equality" argument for intervention depends on the assumption that governments are best equipped to supply the appropriate institutions. But a public system that confines children to schools nearest their home or within administratively determined attendance zones can actually reduce mobility. And where the quality of public education is better in middle-class zones than elsewhere, upward mobility is obviously blocked. In other words, the public system can often narrow a child's options, forcing the child to attend an inferior school when a superior one may be physically within reach. One of the arguments for vouchers is that they enable families to break through these obstacles to give equal opportunity a genuine chance.

If opposition to parent control (school choice) is not opportunistic, why do you see dedicated opposition to vouchers, charter schools, subsidized homeschooling, and tuition tax credits from the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's defenders?

To me, your worldview seems to be too optimistic when considering the worst of individuals, and too pessimistic when considering the normal case of democracies.

Two people whom I respect and admire, Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, make (in passing) the only good argument that I have seen for policies that compel attendance at government-operated schools: that in Western democracies, these schools could break the intergenerational transfer of Muslim indoctrination. Even malevolent parents who teach their children to hate __X__ (fill in the blank) or to steal do not represent the threat to Enlightenment values that Islam represents. The KKK took a similar position against Catholic schools in the case Pierce versus Society of Sisters. The Klan was wrong. Sultan and Ali have a point.