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

[lomiller]

For those silent readers that Malcolm has faith in. Note he ignores the obvious. The world is getting better and the nations getting better the fastest are those with freedom and those that allow the people to elect their leaders. Those that ensure that poor people get an education and health care. Malcolm doesn't want that for the United States. He wants us to go back to the days of child labor and no safety nets for the vulnerable.

Let me post, once again, those nations highest in economic freedom as measured by the heritage foundation and published in the Wall Street Journal.

Hong Kong
Singapore
Australia
New Zealand
Switzerland
Canada
Chile
Mauritius
Denmark
United States

Now the Index of Human Development.

Norway
Australia
Sweden
Netherlands
Germany
Ireland
Switzerland
Iceland
Denmark
Slovenia
Finland
Austria

Malcolm wants us to believe that all of these democratic nations that lead the world in health, wealth and well being are doing it wrong when it comes to education.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick has more than once references writings form from proponents of “Austrian Economics”. An interesting aspect of Austrian Economics is that it formally rejects hypothesis testing. In effect, being wrong will never be enough to convince these people they are wrong because they reject the fundamental idea that outcomes that go against their ideas can ever prove they are wrong.

TBH I can’t see this discussion ever doing anything but continue to go around in circles. He doesn’t value the knowledge and logical skills acquired though education because these run counter to how he thinks correct conclusions should be reached. Without any agreement of this value or even agreement on how we conclude who’s right (us) how can the discussion go anyplace

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... An interesting aspect of Austrian Economics is that it formally rejects hypothesis testing...

Can Lomiller cite an Austrian who rejects hypothesis testing (not a critic who says that they do)? This is not my understanding at all. What Austrians reject is quantitative measures of subjective value. Many economists reject the Keynesian appeal to concepts such as "aggregate demand", not because individual people don't want things or buy things but because the only way to measure aggregate "wants" is to observe total purchases and that tempts political authorities to manipulate numbers (Quantitative Easing). The difference between the Austrian view and the quantitative view (e.g., Leontief) is perhaps analogous to the difference between Synthetic Geometry or Topology, on the one hand, and Analytic Geometry, on the other.
But we wander from our topic.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I rather doubt that a link between military service and crime is as solid as the link between compulsory schooling and crime.

To me this kinda translates as "I believe what I want to believe."

Roland Meighan
"Home-based Education Effectiveness Research and Some of its Implications"
Educational Review, Vol. 47, No.3, 1995.

The issue of social skills. One edition of Home School Researcher, Volume 8, Number 3, contains two research reports on the issue of social skills. The first finding of the study by Larry Shyers (1992) was that home-schooled students received significantly lower problem behavior scores than schooled children. His next finding was that home-schooled children are socially well adjusted, but schooled children are not so well adjusted. Shyers concludes that we are asking the wrong question when we ask about the social adjustment of home-schooled children. The real question is why is the social; adjustment of schooled children of such poor quality?
The second study, by Thomas Smedley (1992), used different test instruments but comes to the same conclusion, that home-educated children are more mature and better socialized than those attending school. ...
...
So-called 'school phobia' is actually more likely to be a sign of mental health, whereas school dependancy is a largely unrecognized mental health problem.

Linda Darling-Hammond
American School Board Journal, September 1999

...(M)any well-known adolescent difficulties are not intrinsic to the teenage years but are related to the mismatch between adolescents' developmental needs and the kinds of experiences most junior high and high schools provide. When students need close affiliation, they experience large depersonalized schools; when they need to develop autonomy, they experience few opportunities for choice and punitive approaches to discipline...

Hyman and Penroe
Journal of School Psychology

Several studies of maltreatment by teachers suggest that school children report traumatic symptoms that are similar whether the traumatic event was physical or verbal abuse (Hyman, et.al.,1988; Krugman & Krugman, 1984; Lambert, 1990). Extrapolation from these studies suggests that psychological maltreatment of school children, especially those who are poor, is fairly widespread in the United States.
...
In the early 1980s, while the senior author was involved in a school violence project, an informal survey of a random group of inner city high school students was conducted. When asked why they misbehaved in school, the most common response was that they wanted to get back at teachers who put them down, did not care about them, or showed disrespect for them, their families, or their culture.
...
... schools do not encourage research regarding possible emotional maltreatment of students by staff or investigation into how this behavior might affect student misbehavior.
...
... Since these studies focused on teacher-induced PTSD and explored all types of teacher maltreatment, some of the aggressive feelings were also caused by physical or sexual abuse. There was no attempt to separate actual aggression from feelings of aggression. The results indicated that at least 1% to 2% of the respondents' symptoms were sufficient for a diagnosis of PTSD. It is known that when this disorder develops as a result of interpersonal violence, externalizing symptoms are often the result (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
While 1% to 2% might not seem to be a large percentage of a school-aged population, in a system like New York City, this would be about 10,000 children so traumatized by educators that they may suffer serious, and sometimes lifelong emotional problems (Hyman, 1990; Hyman, Zelikoff & Clarke, 1988). A good percentage of these students develop angry and aggressive responses as a result. Yet, emotional abuse and its relation to misbehavior in schools receives little pedagogical, psychological, or legal attention and is rarely mentioned in textbooks on school discipline (Pokalo & Hyman, 1993, Sarno, 1992).
As with corporal punishment, the frequency of emotional maltreatment in schools is too often a function of the socioeconomic status (SES) of the student population (Hyman, 1990).

Karen Brockenbrough, Dewey G. Cornell, Ann B. Loper
"Aggressive Attitudes Among Victims of Violence at School"
Education and the Treatment of Children, V. 25, #3, Aug., 2002

Violence at school is a prevalent problem. According to a national survey of school proncipals (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1998), over 200,000 serious fights or physical attacks occurred in public schools during the 1996-1997 school year. Serious violent crimes occurred in approximately 12% of middle schools and 13% of high schools. Student surveys (Kann et al, 1995) indicate even higher rates of aggressive behavior. Approximately 16.2% of high school students nationwide reported involvement in a physical fight at school during a 30-day period, and 11.8% reported carrying a weapon on school property (Kann et al, 1995). Research on victims of violence at school suggests that repeated victimization has detrimental effects on a child's emotional and social development (Batsche & Knoff, 1995; Hoover, Oliver, & Thomson, 1993; Olweus, 1993). Victims exhibit higher levels of anxiety and depression, and lower self-esteem than non-victims (eg., Besag, 1989; Gilmartin, 1987; Greenbaum, 1987; Olweus, 1993).

Linda M. Raffaele Mendez, Howard M. Knoff;
Education and the Treatment of Children, V. 26, #1, Feb. 2003

Results showed that the over-representation of Black males that has been cited consistently in the literature begins at the elementary school level and continues through high school. Black females also were suspended at a much higher rate than White or Hispanic females at all three school levels.

Clive Harber
"Schooling as Violence"
Educational Review p. 10, V. 54, #1

"...It is almost certainly more damaging for children to be in school than to out of it. Children whose days are spent herding animals rather than sitting in a classroom at least develop skills of problem solving and independence while the supposedly luckier ones in school are stunted in their mental, physical, and emotional development by being rendered pasive, and by having to spend hours each day in a crowded classroom under the control of an adult who punishes them for any normal level of activity such as moving or speaking."
...
Furthermore, according to a report for UNESCO, cited in Esteve (2000), the increasing level of pupil-teacher and pupil-pupil violence in classrooms is directly connected with compulsory schooling. The report argues that institutional violence against pupils who are obliged to attend daily at an educational centre until 16 or 18 years of age increases the frustration of these students to a level where they externalise it.

E.G. West
Schooling and Violence

We conclude that so far there is no evidence to support the 19th century Utilitarian hypothesis that the use of a secular and public school system will reduce crime. Beyond this there is some evidence indeed that suggests the reverse causality: crime actually increases with the increase in the size of the public school sector. Such findings will undoubtedly stimulate further work, and clearly more research would be helpful. But if further investigation confirms the findings of Lott, Fremling, and Coleman, we must reach the verdict that the cost of public schooling is much higher than was originally believed. Published figures show that the conventional cost of public schools, on average, are already just over twice those of private schools.11 When we add to this the extra social costs of increased delinquency, the full seriousness of the inefficiency of our public school system is more starkly exposed.

Tim Halliday
"In School and Out of Trouble?"

What happens to crime when 180,000 DOE students and all of their teachers are given the day off? When a fiscal crisis led to 17 "Furlough Fridays" during the 2009/2010 school year, we found ourselves in a unique position to find out. While it is tempting to imagine streets being flooded with idle teenagers up to no good, a new UHERO working paper titled "In School and Out of Trouble? Investigating the Effects of Furloughing Public School Teachers on Juvenile Crime in Hawaii" suggests the contrary.
The authors, Randall Akee (an assistant professor at UCLA), Timothy Halliday (an associate professor at UH-Manoa) and Sally Kwak (an economist at the US Congress Joint Committee on Taxation), used juvenile arrest data from the Honolulu Police Department to investigate the effects of this unusual policy on juvenile crime. Using such a policy to test the effects of shortening the school year on crime is an example of what economists call a "natural experiment;" an observational study that allows researchers to ascertain causal relationships without using a randomized trial.

Contrary to what many would have predicted, their results indicate that the furloughs were associated with fewer juvenile assault arrests for assault and drug-related crimes. Over the course of the entire academic year, there were 20 fewer arrests for assault and 15 fewer arrests for drug offenses due to the furloughs. These reductions are larger than effects produced from national studies. It is hard to say exactly why this is but the authors speculate that, since 1 in 5 students in Hawaii are in private schools, the average socioeconomic status of families who do send their children to public schools may be lower than elsewhere which may enhance the ability of school to facilitate rather than prevent crime.

A statistician in the office of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii gave me these charts. In Hawaii, juvenile crime FALLS when school is NOT in session. According to the Hawaii Health Information Corporation, juvenile hospitalizations for human-induced trauma FALL when school is NOT in session.
US Department of Justice
National Crime Victimization Survey

Students ages 12 to 18 were victims of about 1.5 million non-fatal crimes when they were at school compared to about 1.1 million non-fatal crimes while they were away from school.

The ball's now in your court,
Whacha got?
Let's see the parallel civilian to veteran comparison,

 

[lomiller]

Can Lomiller cite an Austrian who rejects hypothesis testing (not a critic who says that they do)? This is not my understanding at all. What Austrians reject is quantitative measures of subjective value.

I have no interest in arguing the semantics of how Austrian supporters choose to try and frame their opposition to actually having the predictions of their theories tested. The fact that when they are confronted with tests showing their ideas fail in the real world they deny such testing is relevant tells me what I need to know.

Many economists reject the Keynesian appeal to concepts such as "aggregate demand", not because individual people don't want things or buy things but because the only way to measure aggregate "wants" is to observe total purchases and that tempts political authorities to manipulate numbers (Quantitative Easing).

I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. Are you suggesting Austrians also reject the notion of measuring the aggregate of something (I.E. current is aggregate flow of charge in a wire) or are you saying they reject it in this specific case because it would yield an outcome they do not find desirable?

Either way I can’t agree with the logic as you presented it.

 

[jimbob]

Can Lomiller cite an Austrian who rejects hypothesis testing (not a critic who says that they do)? This is not my understanding at all. What Austrians reject is quantitative measures of subjective value. Many economists reject the Keynesian appeal to concepts such as "aggregate demand", not because individual people don't want things or buy things but because the only way to measure aggregate "wants" is to observe total purchases and that tempts political authorities to manipulate numbers (Quantitative Easing). The difference between the Austrian view and the quantitative view (e.g., Leontief) is perhaps analogous to the difference between Synthetic Geometry or Topology, on the one hand, and Analytic Geometry, on the other.
But we wander from our topic.

This was news to me, so I googled some appropriate words, and found this blogpost on the Mises Institute:

Austrian Economics—the Queen of the Experimental Science
By Robert Higgs
Wednesday, January 2nd, 2013

<snip> I have never been a fan of experimental economics. To me, it represents the sort of positivism that Austrian economists reject for good reason.

However, it has struck me recently that Austrian economics itself may be characterized as a kind of experimental economics in that its basic tool of analysis is the thought experiment

In Austrian economics, in contrast, one deduces the relation of X and Y from first principles so compelling that they are accepted as axioms, especially the Action Axiom (that people purposefully use means to obtain ends desired for the removal of their felt unease). In Austrian thought experiments, all other things whatsoever are held constant by a mental strait jacket that immobilizes them completely. Therefore the deduced relation of X and Y is always as strong as the axioms of analysis, provided that no logical mistakes have been made.

<snip>Thus, we understand the workings of the world, at least in some part, even if we cannot predict empirically how the world or some specific element of it will change amid its constant flux.

So, all hail Austrian economics—the Queen of the Experimental Sciences. Long live the properly grounded thought experiment!

Sounds as if Robert Higgs fits in with Lolmiller's description

 

[RandFan]

TBH I can’t see this discussion ever doing anything but continue to go around in circles.

Agreed, there is a fly in the ointment, a couple actually.

• Malcolm trusts the parents more than the government to make decisions for their children's schooling (education, whatever semantic quibble you like). However, when parents have choice, in democratic societies, overwhelmingly they trust their government to make these decisions.
• Nations highest in wealth and well being provide social programs when it is in the best interest of society. The education of children is fundamental to the health, wealth and well being of society. State run compulsory schools are a public good that increases literacy and productive citizens capable of paying taxes. It's in the nations best interest to make the best choices when it comes to education. It makes little sense that all of these nations would make the worst choice when it comes to something so important and yet still lead the world in most if not every measurable index.
• Malcolm wants us to trust that the public sector will provide low-cost, high-quality education for poor children even though we don't find any analogous products and services.
• Malcolm ignores (will not address) the fact that poor people are often poor because they make poor choices. The clichés "A fool and his money are soon parted" and "there is a sucker born every minute" are ubiquitous in part because there is truth to them.
• Discount stores, rent-to-own stores, pay day loan services, are abundant evidence that the free market is quite able and willing to profit from the bad decision making of poor people. If the invisible hand cannot protect consumers from making poor choices when it comes to purchasing and borrowing of money what reason do we have to think that poor parents won't make poor choices when it comes to their children's education?
• After all of that, American parents are not denied choice, they already have private school options.

I see no resolution to this discussion. The evidence is clear that when given a choice citizens in free nations choose state run compulsory schools with some degree of choice for private education. Further, nations highest in health, wealth and overall well being provide state run compulsory schools. Aside from the rhetoric and questionable studies I see no reason to change and I certainly don't see any movement in America to change the system (except perhaps to provide more choices).

 

[RandFan]

• Malcolm ignores (will not address) the fact that poor people are often poor because they make poor choices. The clichés "A fool and his money are soon parted" and "there is a sucker born every minute" are ubiquitous in part because there is truth to them.
• Discount stores, rent-to-own stores, pay day loan services, are abundant evidence that the free market is quite able and willing to profit from the bad decision making of poor people. If the invisible hand cannot protect consumers from making poor choices when it comes to purchasing and borrowing of money what reason do we have to think that poor parents won't make poor choices when it comes to their children's education?

I would like to unpack this point (two bullets but one point, hmm...), in any event, I'm not opposed to the concept of caveat emptor. I think suffering the consequences of one's decisions part of life's lessons. Learning personal responsibility is very valuable to a healthy citizenry. I think there should be a balance between the paternalism of consumer protection and free trade. However, a child's future squandered due to poor decisions of parents is not in the best interest of the child or society. State run compulsory schools have been shown capable of educating poor children so that they can have better lives than their parents. It doesn't always work and there is much we could do to improve public education but getting rid of it is the worst thing we could do IMO.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

This was news to me, so I googled some appropriate words, and found this blogpost on the Mises Institute:.........
..........
Sounds as if Robert Higgs fits in with Lolmiller's description

Not really. Axioms are assertions as to fact with so few exceptions that the exceptions can be ignored without likely serious error. Quine ("Two Dogmas of Empiricism") disputes the distinction between analytic and synthetic truths. The hypothesis of human rationality reduces to the assertion that (human) behavior is predictable, which is a starting point for any science. Whether someone prefers apples to oranges today is a matter of observation (revealed preference). On the assumption that preferences are reasonably stable, certain further assertions follow.

 

[Niche Geek]

To add to the evidence that Austrians reject experimental evidence.

"If anything, the introduction of a laboratory in economics only stifles our understanding."

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

To add to the evidence that Austrians reject experimental evidence.

Source? Context?

 

[lomiller]

Agreed, there is a fly in the ointment, a couple actually.

• Malcolm trusts the parents more than the government to make decisions for their children's schooling (education, whatever semantic quibble you like). However, when parents have choice, in democratic societies, overwhelmingly they trust their government to make these decisions.
• Nations highest in wealth and well being provide social programs when it is in the best interest of society. The education of children is fundamental to the health, wealth and well being of society. State run compulsory schools are a public good that increases literacy and productive citizens capable of paying taxes. It's in the nations best interest to make the best choices when it comes to education. It makes little sense that all of these nations would make the worst choice when it comes to something so important and yet still lead the world in most if not every measurable index.
• Malcolm wants us to trust that the public sector will provide low-cost, high-quality education for poor children even though we don't find any analogous products and services.
  
• After all of that, American parents are not denied choice, they already have private school options.

I see no resolution to this discussion. The evidence is clear that when given a choice citizens in free nations choose state run compulsory schools with some degree of choice for private education. Further, nations highest in health, wealth and overall well being provide state run compulsory schools. Aside from the rhetoric and questionable studies I see no reason to change and I certainly don't see any movement in America to change the system (except perhaps to provide more choices).

Again though, he subscribes to a philosophy that says this type of evidence or what happens in the real world doesn't real mean anything in the face of the "axioms" he's come to believe in.

[*]Malcolm ignores (will not address) the fact that poor people are often poor because they make poor choices. The clichés "A fool and his money are soon parted" and "there is a sucker born every minute" are ubiquitous in part because there is truth to them.
[*]Discount stores, rent-to-own stores, pay day loan services, are abundant evidence that the free market is quite able and willing to profit from the bad decision making of poor people. If the invisible hand cannot protect consumers from making poor choices when it comes to purchasing and borrowing of money what reason do we have to think that poor parents won't make poor choices when it comes to their children's education?

While I don't dispute many poor people make bad decisions, it's worth noting that in many cases markets demand the right decision for the poor is simply more expensive. If the best value car costs $10K and you can only spend $2Kand you need a car, you get the $2K car even if it's ultimately more expensive.

It's actually expensive to be poor and very often being poor forces you into decisions like not getting a good education that are long term bad but when you are poor concern form the future is a luxury and the best decision is often the one that gets you though today. While this is pretty easy understood Malcolm subscribes to a philosophy that doesn't believe this can happen and doesn't accept the fact that it does happen as evidence that philosophy is incorrect.

 

[RandFan]

Again though, he subscribes to a philosophy that says this type of evidence or what happens in the real world doesn't real mean anything in the face of the "axioms" he's come to believe in.

While I don't dispute many poor people make bad decisions, it's worth noting that in many cases markets demand the right decision for the poor is simply more expensive. If the best value car costs $10K and you can only spend $2Kand you need a car, you get the $2K car even if it's ultimately more expensive.

It's actually expensive to be poor and very often being poor forces you into decisions like not getting a good education that are long term bad but when you are poor concern form the future is a luxury and the best decision is often the one that gets you though today. While this is pretty easy understood Malcolm subscribes to a philosophy that doesn't believe this can happen and doesn't accept the fact that it does happen as evidence that philosophy is incorrect.

Perception is reality.

 

[A'isha]

Source? Context?

Um...click the link, there.

 

[jimbob]

Not really. Axioms are assertions as to fact with so few exceptions that the exceptions can be ignored without likely serious error. Quine ("Two Dogmas of Empiricism") disputes the distinction between analytic and synthetic truths. The hypothesis of human rationality reduces to the assertion that (human) behavior is predictable, which is a starting point for any science. Whether someone prefers apples to oranges today is a matter of observation (revealed preference). On the assumption that preferences are reasonably stable, certain further assertions follow.

Read the link I posted again

 

[jimbob]

We're testing the hypothesis that Lomiller knows what he's talking about. Lomiller now rejects an empirical test.
Got a mirror? Can Lomiller cite an Austrian who rejects hypothesis testing (not a critic who says that they do)?
Cite = ___?

This was news to me, so I googled some appropriate words, and found this blogpost on the Mises Institute:










Sounds as if Robert Higgs fits in with Lolmiller's description

Not really. Axioms are assertions as to fact with so few exceptions that the exceptions can be ignored without likely serious error. Quine ("Two Dogmas of Empiricism") disputes the distinction between analytic and synthetic truths. The hypothesis of human rationality reduces to the assertion that (human) behavior is predictable, which is a starting point for any science. Whether someone prefers apples to oranges today is a matter of observation (revealed preference). On the assumption that preferences are reasonably stable, certain further assertions follow.

So you also reject experimental data if it contradicts what you think is axiomatically true? A better approach is to check that one's axioms are actually true.

You seem to be promoting the Aristotelean approach to economic thought.

 

[RandFan]

Yah. Predatory government and rational ignorance.

Ad hoc rationalization. Odd that these predatory governments are all democratic and all rate highest in economic freedom, health, wealth and well being.

At the end of the day I have:

• The science.
• The data.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Ad hoc rationalization. Odd that these predatory governments are all democratic...

But they're not. North Korea and Cuba compel attendance at schools operated by government employees.

"Wealthy countries that compel attendance at school are wealthy and compel attendance at school".

Sure. "A is A" is always true. But it doesn't say much.

 

[RandFan]

But they're not. North Korea and Cuba compel attendance at schools operated by government employees.

One more time, exceptions do not disprove a rule.

"Wealthy countries that compel attendance at school are wealthy and compel attendance at school".

This is not my premise. My premise is that dysfunctional nations are negatively correlated to social services.

Sure. "A is A" is always true. But it doesn't say much.

I did not say "A is A". I said that there is A.) A correlation between nations high in wealth and well being and providing social services. B.) That this is predicted and explained by science.

Social species are successful because some of the population reduce individual fitness for the overall fitness of the group. Illiteracy harms societies. It is in a nation's best interest to ensure high literacy rates. Doing so produces citizens who are more productive.

Finally, I've not even seen a correlation for your thesis. As far as I can tell you have not demonstrated that getting rid of state run schools would improve society. I have given numerous examples of the free market exploiting the poor. Which, I've pointed out, I'm actually fine with to a point (caveat emptor), but sacrificing a large segment of our population so someone can exploit them makes little sense to me. I don't think a Dollar Store education is a good idea. I don't think a Rent-to-Buy education is a good idea. I don't think a Pay-day-Loan education is a good idea. The market is amoral. It only cares about a profit. Rich people demand high quality, high value merchandise and services while poor people demand low cost goods and services. To meet the demand and turn a profit the market typically requires a reduction in quality.

You've not shown that "cheap in the short run" but "expensive in the long run" education, if any education at all, would not result. Life tends to be very expensive for poor people.

 

[Border Reiver]

1. We agree up to this point. For someone to impose his preferences on another is the definition of arrogance. To the extent that the purchase of low-cost, low-quality products is a policy issue, it's because policy has so limited people's options that short-sighted cost accounting is reasonable.

So, you're saying that it is the fault of the free market then that it is better for a business owner to maximize their potential profits by making sure that low cost, low margin items need frequent replacement by persons in a position where they have little to no disposable income to purchase higher quality products, or is it the fault of those persons with little to no disposable income tohave to make a choice between short term needs (I need a can opener now if we are going to eat dinner), over longer term goals (I only have $10 to last the week to payday, if I buy the $1 can opener I still have $9, but it won't work as we'll and will probably break, or I can spend the $10 on a good can opener that will last for years, but means that I might run out of gas I need to get to work to get that paycheque.)?

2. Flat false. I have stated directly and repeatedly that the current system imposes heavy costs on the poor.

And yet the present system does allows the poor to receive a education.

A tax is a State-mandated surrender of resources. Corvee labor is a tax.

Corvee labour is not a taxation system that has been employed in Western democracies, or rather the countries that became Western democracies, for several centuries.

The policy of (a) compulsory attendance at school,

Or homeschooling, as it is a permitted form of education in Western democracies.

(b) State (government, generally) operation of school,

Generally, but not exclusively. And since the government is running the school with tax money, they must therefore prepare a budget, get approval for said budget and then account for the money actually spent.

(c) assignment by district, and

A reasonable process taken to reduce transportation costs, for either the parents or the State. And generally, there are processes available to parents who wish their child to attend schools out of district

(d) policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy to schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel imposes huge opportunity costs on the victims of the cartel's wretched schools.

No, public schools are operated by the state, the state EMPLOYS teachers.

Poor parents buy their way out from under the threat posed by compulsory attendance statutes and educational neglect statutes by surrendering their children's time.

Alternately, they send their children to school so that they have the education and opportunity to move beyond their current status.

 

[jimbob]

Not really. Axioms are assertions as to fact with so few exceptions that the exceptions can be ignored without likely serious error. Quine ("Two Dogmas of Empiricism") disputes the distinction between analytic and synthetic truths. The hypothesis of human rationality reduces to the assertion that (human) behavior is predictable, which is a starting point for any science. Whether someone prefers apples to oranges today is a matter of observation (revealed preference). On the assumption that preferences are reasonably stable, certain further assertions follow.

There are some odd assertions in this post as well.

Axioms are assertions as to fact with so few exceptions that the exceptions can be ignored without likely serious error

No, axioms are the starting point for a chain of logic. If there are exceptions, then the axioms are invalid.

It is axiomatically true that the dc voltage drop across a constant resistance is proportional to the current.

Quine ("Two Dogmas of Empiricism") disputes the distinction between analytic and synthetic truths.

So what?

The hypothesis of human rationality reduces to the assertion that (human) behavior is predictable, which is a starting point for any science.

That is not the starting point of any science - it is not even the starting point for much behavioural science.

Whether someone prefers apples to oranges today is a matter of observation (revealed preference).

The first sentence is a true statement, setting up a rather weak analogy.

On the assumption that preferences are reasonably stable, certain further assertions follow.

That might be how you'd approach a subject - I'd want to check that preferences are actually stable.

In fact the analogy is a good one, because even on something as simple as that, you have stated assumptions that could easily be untrue. If those assumptions are your axioms, than any logic based on them will fall.

A bit like your approach to economics.