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

[RandFan]

Your generalization does not differentiate between actual slavery, forced labour, compulsory public works, or household chores.

It is the equivalent of saying that mammals and birds are the same because they share one or two points of similarity.

And he never explains why the act of reading a book and doing homework is unpaid labor when compelled by the state but not unpaid labor when compelled by the parent. Earlier he said that children are compensated with love when a parent teaches his or her child. But state run schools does not entail shipping children off to be wards of the state. I compensated my children with love for attending state run schools. I also compelled them to go because it was clearly in their best interest to go. I did not feel I was qualified to educate my children myself. I wanted a professional. And as far as I can tell he has never addressed the very real fact that children get something very, very valuable by attending state run schools. The means to a career. That other forms of education likewise provide this isn't evidence that compulsory education is slavery.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... I could not have gone if I hadn't had a primary education in math, science, English, etc. I'm very grateful for that as my parents were poor and could not have afforded to pay for 5 children to go to school. They had a very difficult time just paying bills. My father was bi-polar, ruled the home with an iron fist and often made bad decisions when it came to raising children. I could very well have grown up illiterate without state run education. I didn't like school but then most people don't like their job and many who don't have an education are forced to work in miserable conditions with lives enslaved to poverty.

Coincidentally, I found this, which doesn't relate directly to our topic but which you might find interesting.

... You've not shown how getting the govt out of education would increase literacy rates and/or improve society.

Again: ... In abstract, the education industry is an unlikely candidate for State subsidy or operation. The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". Official State definition of "education" works to the advantage of distinctly unrepresentative politically adept people and against blue-collar types. Consider Common Core or the usual K-12 curriculum: why 12 years of Social Studies and one or two years of Shop instead of 12 years of Shop and one year of Social Studies, for example? Education only marginally qualifies as a public good as economists use the term and the "public goods" argument implies subsidy and regulation, at most, not State operation of an industry. Beyond a very low level, there are no economies of scale at the delivery end of the education industry as it currently operates. "Natural monopoly" is the usual welfare-economic argument for State operation of an industry.

Across industries and across countries, subsidized goods are overconsumed and monopolies deliver wretched goods at high per-unit costs. Entrepreneurs in competitive markets have more incentive to innovate than do bureaucrats in State-operated industries. Children of low-income, and/or negligent and/or abusive parents have the most to gain from the improvements in education services that a competitive market in education services would generate.

... So long as modern governments remain democratic ...

... Democracy is a feedback mechanism. So also is consumer choice in a competitive market a feedback mechanism. Each has it's place. Democratic processes do not work well when options are numerous. Why not vote on the one size and style of shoes we all must wear? Let's have a nation-wide vote on how often I must chew my next bite of toast. Will you grant that democracy fails here?.

... and so long as we remain an evolved social species I can't think of any reason why nations highest in economic freedom or any other measure of development like HDI and GDP won't have state run education. All available evidence indicates a strong correlation between state run education and the best outcomes for the most people.

That last I doubt. You find compulsory school attendance in totalitarian third-world hell-holes as well as in advanced, market-oriented democracies. HDI and GDP contain a significant loading of bias in favor of government provision of goods and services. They don't measure health but State expenditures on health. They don't measure education but State expenditure on education, for example.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And he never explains why the act of reading a book and doing homework is unpaid labor when compelled by the state but not unpaid labor when compelled by the parent. Earlier he said that children are compensated with love when a parent teaches his or her child. But state run schools does not entail shipping children off to be wards of the state. I compensated my children with love for attending state run schools. I also compelled them to go because it was clearly in their best interest to go. I did not feel I was qualified to educate my children myself. I wanted a professional. And as far as I can tell he has never addressed the very real fact that children get something very, very valuable by attending state run schools. The means to a career. That other forms of education likewise provide this isn't evidence that compulsory education is slavery.

You betrayed your children when you surrendered them to strangers for 12 years of abusive incarceration. That is not love. It is sloth.

 

[jimbob]

You betrayed your children when you surrendered them to strangers for 12 years of abusive incarceration. That is not love. It is sloth.

That is just a silly statement.

Especially as you don't seem to see anything wrong with child labour.

 

[RandFan]

Coincidentally, I found this, which doesn't relate directly to our topic but which you might find interesting. Again: ... In abstract, the education industry is an unlikely candidate for State subsidy or operation. The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". Official State definition of "education" works to the advantage of distinctly unrepresentative politically adept people and against blue-collar types. Consider Common Core or the usual K-12 curriculum: why 12 years of Social Studies and one or two years of Shop instead of 12 years of Shop and one year of Social Studies, for example? Education only marginally qualifies as a public good as economists use the term and the "public goods" argument implies subsidy and regulation, at most, not State operation of an industry. Beyond a very low level, there are no economies of scale at the delivery end of the education industry as it currently operates. "Natural monopoly" is the usual welfare-economic argument for State operation of an industry.

Across industries and across countries, subsidized goods are overconsumed and monopolies deliver wretched goods at high per-unit costs. Entrepreneurs in competitive markets have more incentive to innovate than do bureaucrats in State-operated industries. Children of low-income, and/or negligent and/or abusive parents have the most to gain from the improvements in education services that a competitive market in education services would generate. ... Democracy is a feedback mechanism. So also is consumer choice in a competitive market a feedback mechanism. Each has it's place. Democratic processes do not work well when options are numerous. Why not vote on the one size and style of shoes we all must wear? Let's have a nation-wide vote on how often I must chew my next bite of toast. Will you grant that democracy fails here?.That last I doubt. You find compulsory school attendance in totalitarian third-world hell-holes as well as in advanced, market-oriented democracies. HDI and GDP contain a significant loading of bias in favor of government provision of goods and services. They don't measure health but State expenditures on health. They don't measure education but State expenditure on education, for example.

I don't see an argument to counter my point that nations highest in economic freedom, HDI and other indexes have state run education. Hell holes around the world have commerce. That doesn't mean that commerce isn't critical to a nations health.

My point is that eliminating state run education might be better but you've no evidence that it does. There are hell holes around the world that don't have state run education.

You still haven't told me how I would have gotten an education had there not have been compulsory education. My father damn sure would not have made me go to school. He would have preferred to put me to work.

The state has a compelling interest to ensure that parents don't neglect or ignore their children. To ensure that they don't make bad decisions when it comes to the future of children. Compulsory education is a very good way to do that.

If you want to increase private options then we can have that discussion but it's OT.

 

[RandFan]

You betrayed your children when you surrendered them to strangers for 12 years of abusive incarceration. That is not love. It is sloth.

Argument by assertion. The education my children received has allowed for them to become autonomous. You've stated you don't have a problem with parochial schools. That involves surrendering children to strangers for 12 years and many of those students claim that those schools are abusive. The students are not free to do as they please and they are subject to discipline.

I guess when I took my children to the emergency room I was surrendering them to strangers. I should treat them myself.

BTW: Your argument is an emotional and fallacious appeal to ridicule.

 

[RandFan]

And as far as I can tell he has never addressed the very real fact that children get something very, very valuable by attending state run schools. The means to a career. That other forms of education likewise provide this isn't evidence that compulsory education is slavery.

Still waiting for this to be addressed. Unless of course Malcolm has abandoned the thesis of this thread.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That is just a silly statement.

Meaning you disagree. Like we didn't expect that.

Especially as you don't seem to see anything wrong with child labour.

That's like saying I don't see anything wrong with recreational drugs. I oppose drug prohibition laws. Not the same thing.

Depends on the labor. I have objected specifically to child labor laws, which put on-the-job training off limits to many children.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Still waiting for this to be addressed. Unless of course Malcolm has abandoned the thesis of this thread.

We have discussed this repeatedly. Recently here. Some children get less than nothing from the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools.

 

[A'isha]

Some children get less than nothing from the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools.

And most gain quite a bit from schools (not least because private-sector employers tend to not hire school dropouts for anything but the most menial, low-paid work).

 

[RandFan]

We have discussed this repeatedly. Recently here. Some children get less than nothing from the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools.

And I've addressed this.

• There is no perfect system.
• The problems are not intractable.
• I'm not opposed to additional private options.
• That there are bad outcomes for some does not mean that state run schools are A.) Bad B.) slavery.

Your use of the word "cartel" is rhetorical and an argument by assertion.

 

[RandFan]

And most gain quite a bit from schools (not least because private-sector employers tend to not hire school dropouts for anything but the most menial, low-paid work).

And just because the same benefit can be had from private schools does not mean that state run schools are slavery. That's a nonsensical argument.

 

[A'isha]

And just because the same benefit can be had from private schools does not mean that state run schools are slavery. That's a nonsensical argument.

I wonder if Malcolm also thinks that students at private schools in America are slaves of the private schools and their teachers and administrators.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And just because the same benefit can be had from private schools does not mean that state run schools are slavery. That's a nonsensical argument.

Correct. Also, "2+2 = 7 1/2 therefore school is slavery" is a nonsensical argument. Since that's not my argument, how is Randfan's comment relevant to our discussion?

 

[Mister Earl]

Correct. Also, "2+2 = 7 1/2 therefore school is slavery" is a nonsensical argument. Since that's not my argument, how is Randfan's comment relevant to our discussion?

Your argument is that the public education system is the same as slavery. The burden of proof is on you to support that assertion. You tried, and you can't.

Your premise fails.

 

[Mister Earl]

Here's my argument. Equating public education to slavery is nothing short of vapid sillyness.

On one side, slavery, you have forced manual labor you do not profit from, on pain of beatings or death.

On the other side, public education, you get something of value that you didn't earn, just by virtue of living in the right place with the public being taxed for it, with the promise of you being a good little socially-productive person in the future.

Seeing the two of those in any similar form simply strengthens the argument that public education is necessary.

 

[RandFan]

Since that's not my argument...

How many times have I said something about "public" education or "school" and you pointed out that it's possible to get an education without state run school.

If it wasn't your intention that the distinction was not important then why on earth did you go through so much trouble to keep making the distinction?

 

[RandFan]

Unaddressed propositions.

• The act of reading a math book is the same from the perspective of a child, regardless of whether he or she is attending state run school or parochial school.
• The purpose and functional result of parochial school and state run school are the same. Both allow a child to be autonomous and to persue happiness. Poor people who are not educated are not likely to get good jobs and enjoy the fruits of capitalism.
• Attending school, public, parochial, state run, etc., are critical to autonomy and being gainfully employed.
• Humans are born incapable of autonomy without education. In a modern society this requires a formal education. It is demonstrable that the best outcomes for society and individuals is to have an educated society.
• Lack of state run schools harms poor people the most. Absent state run schools, children in poverty are far more likely to remain in poverty.

These premises have been made over and over only to be willfully ignored over and over. These premises are fundamental and cannot simply be hand waved away or ignored by any intellectually honest person. They must be addressed. That they have been ignored for so long is quite telling.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Your argument is that the public education system is the same as slavery. The burden of proof is on you to support that assertion. You tried, and you can't.

Your premise fails.

Compulsory unpaid labor is slavery (definition). Compulsory school attendance is (a) compulsory and (b) labor.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Here's my argument. Equating public education to slavery is nothing short of vapid sillyness.

On one side, slavery, you have forced manual labor you do not profit from, on pain of beatings or death.

Correct.

On the other side, public education, you get something of value that you didn't earn

False on two counts: (1) Many children lose, relative to what they would have received in an uncoerced environment (2) those students who get something of value from a school often earn the transcripts they receive.