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

[RandFan]

¹ Numerous lines of evidence indicate that State intrusion degrades the education industry, in general (specific training for exclusively government jobs such as BUDS, Airborne, Ranger, in-house training in new fisheries regulations, etc., excepted).

² They admit other explanations (that wealth precedes schooling, that wealth allows politicians to apply their addiction to subordination of others to the education industry). Further, other facts work against the case for State operation of schools.We agree.Would someone diagram that sentence string of English words, please? Is it a sentence?

³I don't see anyone recommending "no education".

⁴Qualify that with the adjective "State-funded and/or State operated" social services and that's pretty much my position.

1. None that counter the empirical fact that nations highest in economic freedom and well being have compulsory education.
2. I assume you mean "omit". I'm not criticizing as I live in a glass house when it comes to typos. In any event, Education is critical to a nation. The idea that all of these nations act in their worst interest and simply don't give a damn about the future of their nation is rather absurd. Why on Earth would a nation invest in infrastructure but work to undermine their future to enrich educators? It makes zero sense.
3. You still have not explained how poor people would be educated. Not providing free Mercedes Benzes and mansions does not preclude the poor from having them but that's a poor argument that private enterprise would provide them.
4. And you have zero evidence for that. You are operating under the presumption that nations highest in wealth and economic growth don't care about the future. Again, that buggers logic. These nations invest heavily in their futures by building infrastructure and investing in R&D and you want us to believe that they care nothing for their greatest asset, children. If we were talking about corrupt regimes I could get behind your argument. We are not. We are talking about the most successful nations the world has ever known. The greatest amount of health and well being the world has ever known. You want us to believe that these nations are smart when it comes to planning for the future when it comes to everything else but that they just don't give a damn about their children. How do you expect to convince people of that?

 

[RandFan]

¹So what? "Natural monopoly" is the usual welfare-economic argument for State operation of an industry.

²Since the education industry is not a natural monopoly, that argument does not support the case for State operation of schools.

³False. Private charity was widespread before the State moved into the charity business.

⁴ Dunno what that means. As opposed to what? Intelligent design of society by an omniscient, benevolent God Government?

⁵Who advances that notion?

⁶ To me this looks like suggesting that since no society is free of all disease, there's no case for eliminating smallpox.

1. "So what"? It falsifies your claim that's what.
2. Straw man argument as I never made it.
3. Argument by assertion. And even if I grant you your premise it does not demonstrate that it was sufficient to meet the needs of the poor.
4. As opposed to the scientific model I provided a link for. Odd that I can provide a model with explanatory and predictive power and one that explains why nations that are highest in economic health and the highest ratings for well being and you can provide zero examples of your position.
5. You.
6. No, it is the equivalent of saying that the nations with lowest amount of disease are those who invest the most resources to decrease disease. The health and well being are important to a society. You would have us believe that on one hand nations care about their future and on the other they don't. The scientific model I've provided predicts that nations who care about their future will spend the most on the future. And that is exactly what we find. Which raises a curious question, why would nations who are according to you are so uninterested in the future of their children so as to employ the worst system to educate their children give a damn about childhood diseases? It makes no sense. If politicians in modern liberal democracies don't care about their future then why bother to cure disease and invest in infrustructure?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

None that counter the empirical fact that nations highest in economic freedom and well being have compulsory education.

They also have the common cold. Two problems with the asserted relation between compulsory attendance statutes and wealth: (a) most poor countries also have compulsory attendance statutes, and (b) politicians everywhere find State-imposed State-worshipful indoctrination useful.

I assume you mean "omit". I'm not criticizing as I live in a glass house when it comes to typos.

No. "Admit" (i.e., "allow").

In any event, Education is critical to a nation. The idea that all of these nations act in their worst interest and simply don't give a damn about the future of their nation is rather absurd.

So is nutrition important. Are collective farms a good idea?

Why on Earth would a nation invest in infrastructure but work to undermine their future to enrich educators? It makes zero sense.

Corruption happens. The education industry is a particularly lucrative scam. The US system originated in theocratic indoctrination, got a boost from anti-Catholic bigotry, and survives on strident lobbying by well-funded and well-coordinated insider interest groups.

You still have not explained how poor people would be educated. Not providing free Mercedes Benzes and mansions does not preclude the poor from having them but that's a poor argument that private enterprise would provide them.

Neither have I explained what people I have never met will put on their toast next Thursday morning. Freedom means people's choices are not predictable. School can be expensive. Education is potentially cheap. Some employers will pay you to learn. More would in the absence of minimum wage laws and child labor laws.

And you have zero evidence for that. You are operating under the presumption that nations highest in wealth and economic growth don't care about the future....

Nations are aggregates of people. Individual people care (or not). Aggregates don't. Nations are not giant people.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...Don't get me wrong, I understand your argument. You are claiming that a nation high in economic wealth are able to afford state funded compulsory education. I'm claiming that it's a dynamic feed back loop. Nations are not wealthy in spite of state run compulsory education. They are wealthy, in large part because of it. ...

1. That's a decent encapsulation of this argument.
2. Right. That's the claim of defenders of the current system. I suggest it's a negative feedback loop. Inefficient State-monopoly enterprises reduce wealth, resulting in fewer resources available for, among other things, education.
3. Right. That's the claim of defenders of the current system.
4. It's not an assumption so much as a conclusion.

Never mind that you've zero real world evidence. Never mind that the thesis is contradicted by real world facts. Theory is great until it meets the real world.

False. Numerous lines of evidence indicate that State intrusion degrades the education industry, in general (specific training for exclusively government jobs such as BUDS, Airborne, Ranger, in-house training in new fisheries regulations, etc., excepted). ...

I think RandFan has asked this question enough times. Maybe someone else asking could help. What are these lines of evidence?

Randfan has a way of asking repeatedly questions to which he has received answers.

Here's an outline. I can, with some digging, support and expand each line.

(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "1. Homeschoolers routinely outperform conventionally-schooled children. There is abundant support for this proposition.
2. Independent and parochial schools outperform the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools in the US. Independent and parochial schools outperform government schools in other countries. There is abundant evidence for this.
3. The correlation (district enrollment, score) is negative, where "score" is NAEP 4th and 8th grade Reading and Math scores. States with numerous small school districts outperform States which compel a large percentage of total student population to attend schools in large school districts. Smaller is better. There is abundant evidence for this.
4. The correlation (age start, score) is positive, where "age start" is the age at which States compel attendance at school and "score" is NAEP 4th and 8th grade Reading and Mat score. States which compel attendance at seven or eight have higher 4th and 8th grade Reading and Math scores than States which compel attendance at five or six. There is abundant evidence for this.

The above indicators indirectly measure the relative power of individual parents' control against the control over educational options that remote authorities exercise.

Additionally:...
5. States which impose few teacher certification requirements on school districts outperform States which require NTE or Praxis test scores. Teacher certification is bogus. Colleges of Education contribute less than nothing to teacher competence."

Furthermore, Randfan dismissed as "theory" my citation of Ivar Berg, Milton Friedman, and E. G. West, Eduardo Zambrano, and Joel Fried. Berg (Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery) is very empirical. West (e.g., Education and the State) combines historical research with economic theory. He persuaded Friedman to change his mind about State-supported schools. One can trace the evolution of Friedman's thought from his essay "The Role of the Government in Education", through the (subtly different) chapter by that name in his Capitalism and Freedom, to his contributions to the Cato collection Liberty and Learning: Milton Friedman's Voucher Idea at Fifty (Enloe and Ealy, eds.).

Zambrano and Fried are more strictly theoretical, but that does not mean "imaginary". Theory summarizes observations.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The education industry is not a natural monopoly. 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 (government, generally) operation of schools. Natural monopoly is the usual welfare-economic argument for State operation of an industry. Furthermore, since corporate oversight is a public good and the State itself is a corporation, State assumption of responsibility for the provision (or subsidization) of public goods transforms the free rider problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not eliminate it.

I never said that public education was a natural monopoly. I said that natural monopolies belied the notion that capitalism and free markets are mutually inclusive.

So what? "Natural monopoly" is the usual welfare-economic argument for State operation of an industry. Since the education industry is not a natural monopoly, that argument does not support the case for State operation of schools. ...

"So what"? It falsifies your claim that's what.

Which claim does "it" (what is "it") falsify?

Straw man argument as I never made it.

No strawman; We discuss arguments for a government role in the education industry. Natural monopoly is the usual welfare-economic argument for State operation of an industry. The education industry is not a natural monopoly. That's no rebuttal to anything Randfan wrote, just clearing the ground.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... The notion that private enterprise is always better than government services is not demonstrated by any real world example....

... Who advances that notion?

You.

Flat false, and easily demonstrated to be false with links to posts in threads to which Randfan and I both contributed. The problem, of course, is with "always".

 

[RandFan]

Flat false, and easily demonstrated to be false with links to posts in threads to which Randfan and I both contributed. The problem, of course, is with "always".

Again with the childishness and patronizing rhetoric.

What is it that you think government does better and why? If private enterprise isn't as you claim then why is my premise false? It's always easy to throw in a caveat of "usually" or "mostly" but your arguments simply do not match your rhetoric. When is govt better and why? Why is it okay for parents to compel their students to go to Catholic school were kids are, from time to time, raped and abused when you are against the state going to private schools?

 

[RandFan]

Which claim does "it" (what is "it") falsify?

I argued that capitalism and free-markets are not mutually inclusive and you took umbrage with that.

[/QUOTE]No strawman; We discuss arguments for a government role in the education industry. Natural monopoly is the usual welfare-economic argument for State operation of an industry. The education industry is not a natural monopoly. That's no rebuttal to anything Randfan wrote, just clearing the ground.[/quote]Yes it IS a straw man. I did not use "natural monopoly" to defend state run education. I used it to show that your claim about capitalism and free-markets is nonsense. Capitalism does not necessarily lead to free-markets as you imply. Do you deny that "natural monopolies exist? Do you deny that the invisible hand is only as good as government's ability to enforce anti-trust laws? How other people may or may not use the term "natural monopoly" has nothing to do with my argument. You are fallacously trying to force my argument into something I never argued.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan has a way of asking repeatedly questions to which he has received answers.

Here's an outline. I can, with some digging, support and expand each line.

(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "1. Homeschoolers routinely outperform conventionally-schooled children. There is abundant support for this proposition.
2. Independent and parochial schools outperform the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools in the US. Independent and parochial schools outperform government schools in other countries. There is abundant evidence for this.
3. The correlation (district enrollment, score) is negative, where "score" is NAEP 4th and 8th grade Reading and Math scores. States with numerous small school districts outperform States which compel a large percentage of total student population to attend schools in large school districts. Smaller is better. There is abundant evidence for this.
4. The correlation (age start, score) is positive, where "age start" is the age at which States compel attendance at school and "score" is NAEP 4th and 8th grade Reading and Mat score. States which compel attendance at seven or eight have higher 4th and 8th grade Reading and Math scores than States which compel attendance at five or six. There is abundant evidence for this.

The above indicators indirectly measure the relative power of individual parents' control against the control over educational options that remote authorities exercise.

Additionally:...
5. States which impose few teacher certification requirements on school districts outperform States which require NTE or Praxis test scores. Teacher certification is bogus. Colleges of Education contribute less than nothing to teacher competence."

Furthermore, Randfan dismissed as "theory" my citation of Ivar Berg, Milton Friedman, and E. G. West, Eduardo Zambrano, and Joel Fried. Berg (Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery) is very empirical. West (e.g., Education and the State) combines historical research with economic theory. He persuaded Friedman to change his mind about State-supported schools. One can trace the evolution of Friedman's thought from his essay "The Role of the Government in Education", through the (subtly different) chapter by that name in his Capitalism and Freedom, to his contributions to the Cato collection Liberty and Learning: Milton Friedman's Voucher Idea at Fifty (Enloe and Ealy, eds.).

Zambrano and Fried are more strictly theoretical, but that does not mean "imaginary". Theory summarizes observations.

None of this, not one bit, explains how poor people would be educated sans state run compulsory schools. Nothing. It's by and large opinion that is controverted by other experts.

Oh, and you have not explained how nations will care for their future and invest billions of dollars on infrastructure, planning, R&D, etc., etc. but harbor contempt for the greatest asset of their future. Their children. The wealthiest and most successful nations in the world compel students to go to school. Just as a parent would and do. Parents do compel their children to go to state run compulsory schools. You have no answer for that. You have no answer for the scientific model of reciprocal altruism, nor have you a scientific model to justify social Darwinism. You've no evidence or scientific model for why "free rider" is something we should be significantly concerned about. Nations that provide substantial social services like welfare, universal health care and state run social services are highest in economic freedom.

If you were to argue that communism harms society because of the free rider problem then I would agree. There is much evidence that the attempt to make everyone equal doesn't work. There needs to be incentive to motivate people to work. No communist nation has never risen to the top of any list for economic growth and overall well being.

But that cannot be said for nations that provide for the freedom of choice of individuals to compete in the market place of services, products and ideas. In Denmark people are allowed to own property. They are allowed to own businesses and to control those businesses within a framework of regulation. People are allowed to engage in entrepreneurship, take risks by investing and to be the masters of their destiny. And for that there are many wealthy people in Denmark. Denmark does not try to make everyone equal. On the other hand, Denmark ensures that there is minimal welfare for its citizens. By doing so they along with other Scandinavian nations rate high in most categories like low crime, low incarceration rates, high literacy rates, etc., etc.

If the free rider problem were significant in Keynesian nations or, if you prefer, nations that have monetary policies and fiscal policies, government regulation and social services like welfare, UHC and state run compulsory schools then those nations would loose in the market place of ideas. Just like Communism lost in the market place of ideas.

I keep asking you for real world evidence and you keep giving me opinions.

Let's get this out of the way. Are there lines of evidence that private schools can be better than state run compulsory education (schools)? I concede the point. But it has no bearing on our discussion.

The question is how to be ensure that all people have access to education? More importantly, how do you ensure that poor children with the potential to be managers and physicists and doctors and lawyers receive the primary education they need to fulfill their potential? Most parents who are poor lack the skills and often the time to home school their children. Many are abusive and neglectful. You would waste the potential of those children on some vague "trust private industry" theory.

Human genetics ensures that there will be many incompetent rich children and many poor children who have the potential for higher academics. It would be foolish to waste the talents of a group of people just because they are poor. And if you want to discuss "free rider", idiot rich people who are born with trust funds do it all of the time. Parents don't mind if their children are free riders. They just don't want some unknown child to get a free ride.

 

[RandFan]

Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment

“Silver” Winner of the 2008 Foreword Magazine Book of the Year Award, Religion CategoryBefore he began his recent travels, it seemed to Phil Zuckerman as if humans all over the globe were “getting religion”—praising deities, performing holy rites, and soberly defending the world from sin. But most residents of Denmark and Sweden, he found, don't worship any god at all, don't pray, and don't give much credence to religious dogma of any kind. Instead of being bastions of sin and corruption, however, as the Christian Right has suggested a godless society would be, these countries are filled with residents who score at the very top of the "happiness index" and enjoy their healthy societies, which boast some of the lowest rates of violent crime in the world (along with some of the lowest levels of corruption), excellent educational systems, strong economies, well-supported arts, free health care, egalitarian social policies, outstanding bike paths, and great beer.Zuckerman formally interviewed nearly 150 Danes and Swedes of all ages and educational backgrounds over the course of fourteen months. He was particularly interested in the worldviews of people who live their lives without religious orientation. How do they think about and cope with death? Are they worried about an afterlife? What he found is that nearly all of his interviewees live their lives without much fear of the Grim Reaper or worries about the hereafter. This led him to wonder how and why it is that certain societies are non-religious in a world that seems to be marked by increasing religiosity. Drawing on prominent sociological theories and his own extensive research, Zuckerman ventures some interesting answers.
This fascinating approach directly counters the claims of outspoken, conservative American Christians who argue that a society without God would be hell on earth. It is crucial, Zuckerman believes, for Americans to know that “society without God is not only possible, but it can be quite civil and pleasant.”

Why is it that nations that have free markets and generous social services score highest in overall health and well being? How is it that Denmark and Sweden don't succumb to the same fate of communism? Could it be that given the fact that we are a social species that the best socioeconomics are those that balance the needs of the individual with the needs of society. Obviously, yes. Duh. Communist nations fail because they ignored the fact that people are individuals. Laissez-faire capitalism fails because it ignores the fact that humans are a social species. As a nation increasingly balances the needs of society with the needs of the individual you get exactly what is predicted, high functioning societies.

Modern liberal democracies are far and away the most successful because modern liberal democracies understand human nature and do not try to force a people into an extreme ideology that seeks to make everyone equal or ignores the plight of the poor. If generous social benefits were as corrosive as you suggest then Denmark would not be high on the list of both Economic freedom, per capita GDP and HDI.

I'm sorry but the real world facts are not on your side Malcolm.

 

[A'isha]

Private charity was widespread before the State moved into the charity business.

So? Is it less widespread than it is now that the State moved into the charity business? Are less people being aided by charity now that the State moved into the charity business?

To me this looks like suggesting that since no society is free of all disease, there's no case for eliminating smallpox.

I find that analogy amusing, considering that it was a government program, and not private enterprise, that started and carried out the Smallpox Eradication Program.

 

[RandFan]

To me this looks like suggesting that since no society is free of all disease, there's no case for eliminating smallpox.

I find that analogy amusing, considering that it was a government program, and not private enterprise, that started and carried out the Smallpox Eradication Program.

Thank you. Exactly. I will once again ask my question of Malcolm, why is it that government was willing to expend resources to prevent deadly childhood diseases to aid in their welfare but that same government is also willing to sacrifice children for the benefit of unions and teachers? It's a schizophrenic view of government. Where is the evidence that private industry will ensure the safety of citizens? America did not suffer the affects of Thalidomide that other nations suffered because our regulations to protect citizens were stronger.

Now, you could make an argument that government has good intentions but that the government's paternal attitude toward citizens causes more harm than good (and this I think is demonstrable in many instances). Such an argument is not incoherent like your argument. You argue that government is malicious or apathetic to the plight of children in order to enrich unions and teachers on one hand and on the other the government is capable of and is motivated to expend resources because it is apathetic to the plight of its citizens. Either it is mere coincidence that vaccines helped people in spite of the governments best efforts to harm them or the government truly has the interest of citizens in mind. The malevolent argument is incoherent.

And let us not forget that Jonas Salk did not patent his Polio vaccine and thereby lost billions. That is spelled with a "b". He believed that a profit motive is not always best for society.

 

[catsmate]

No, from your point of view.

Has MK provided any evidence he is a taxpayer?

I find that analogy amusing, considering that it was a government program, and not private enterprise, that started and carried out the Smallpox Eradication Program.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(Insults deleted) ...
What is it that you think government does better and why?¹. If private enterprise isn't as you claim² then why is my premise³ false? It's always easy to throw in a caveat of "usually" or "mostly" but your arguments simply do not match your rhetoric.⁴ When is govt better and why?⁵ Why is it okay for parents to compel their students to go to Catholic school were kids are, from time to time, raped and abused when you are against the state going to private schools?⁶

1. Here we have one of those questions that Randfan has asked repeatedly and I have answered, repeatedly.

Eduardo Zambrano
"Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications"
Rationality and Society, May 1999

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.

Joel Fried
"Pots and Kettles: Governance Practices of the Ontario Securities Commission"

Government’s Principal – Agent Problem
The principal-agent problem for the private sector is well known: the owner/principal delegates to a manager/agent the responsibility to provide some services for the principal.
The problem is one of structuring contracts and institutions to insure that, in carrying out her duties, the agent acts in the principal’s interest rather than her own.
Citizens of a country also face a principal – agent problem. Citizens “own” the machinery of government and employ bureaucrats to act as their agents in running this machinery. To reduce the costs of monitoring, the principals choose a legislature/board of directors to oversee the agents. Monitoring mechanisms are similar to those in the private sector: there are financial accounting standards that are met for each budgetary unit, and an external auditor checks these internal accounts. Transparency is maintained, in part, through freedom of information regulations. Compliance with procedures and other regulations are met both through internal monitoring and checks by units external to the bureau. Finally, contracts are structured, at least in a limited manner, to align the incentives for agents with those of the principals.
There is, however, an additional problem in the public sector that does not exist for private firms. The firm has a well defined objective function – the maximization of profits – whereas the apparent objective for the government is the maximization of some index of a (weighted) level of welfare of the electorate. An unambiguous index of social welfare has been impossible to construct and, in its absence, monitoring the public sector is further complicated because data is generally lacking on whether or not the objective was actually approached and/or achieved and what the costs are that are linked to any specific objective. In effect, because of distribution issues and public goods, the cash flows measured with traditional accounting procedures will be, at best, only superficially correlated with that objective. Thus, looking at cash flows will provide the principals an extremely poor method of monitoring their public sector agents.

The government of __A__ (localiy) is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). Where organized violence and threats of organized violence can contribute to aggregate social well-being, there governments can make a positive contribution: some amount of policing, some amount of national defense, some support for legal infrastructure (rules of the road, standardized weights and measures, courts, etc.), some support for communication infrastructure (roads, etc.), some protection of necessarily common property (environmental protection). The list is not exhaustive.
2. Please clarify which "claim" is at issue here.
3. Please clarify which "premise: is at issue here.
4. Please explain: which "arguments" and how the term " your arguments" and "your rhetoric" differ. In normal English, arguments are rhetoric, and vice versa.
5. Refer to #1. In general, performance at any task improves with specialization. I doubt that any Olympic gold-medal decathlete ever out-performed the Olympic gold-medal specialist (sprint, javelin, shot put, long jump, high jump, etc.) in the year of his competition. A government may enhance aggregate well being when its application of violence reduces total violence. Governments may reduce losses from "free rider" issues (and there's the answer to the smallpox question in the post above).
6. The government's intrusion into the market for education services adds to total violence with no compensating gain over a minimally-regulated market in education services. See "deadweight loss due to taxation".

My turn. I have asked repeatedly, in this thread and previously, and received no answer:

For those here who approve the current policy which prevails across most US States, which reserves to schools operated by government employees an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy, a thought experiment. Compose answers to the following questions:...

1. From State operation of what industries does society as a whole benefit? You may suppose either a dichotomous classification, A=unlikely candidate for State operation, B=likely candidate for State operation, or a continuum,
(highly unlikely) -1________.________+1 (highly likely).
2. Now consider the further question: What criteria determine an industry's categorical assignment or position on the continuum?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

None of this, not one bit, explains how poor people would be educated sans state run compulsory schools. Nothing. It's by and large opinion that is controverted by other experts.

"Opinion"? Not at all. Randfan demonstrates complete unfamiliarity with the sources I cited (and also demonstrates the typically socialist incomprehension of market order).

Oh, and you have not explained how nations will care for their future and invest billions of dollars on infrastructure, planning, R&D, etc., etc. but harbor contempt for the greatest asset of their future. Their children. The wealthiest and most successful nations in the world compel students to go to school. Just as a parent would and do.

No. Nations are not giant people. They are aggregates of greedy, generous, intelligent, stupid, lazy, striving, compassionate, sociopathic individuals.

 

[A'isha]

My turn. I have asked repeatedly, in this thread and previously, and received no answer:

The military, the police, firefighters, road construction and maintenance, prisons and jails, the judiciary, and basic utilities.

Oh, and education.

 

[A'isha]

Nations are not giant people. They are aggregates of greedy, generous, intelligent, stupid, lazy, striving, compassionate, sociopathic individuals.

So are private-sector companies. People do not become more intelligent, better-informed, more altruistic, or more capable when they enter a private-sector company's employ.

 

[RandFan]

1. Here we have one of those questions that Randfan has asked repeatedly and I have answered, repeatedly.
The government of __A__ (localiy) is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). Where organized violence and threats of organized violence can contribute to aggregate social well-being, there governments can make a positive contribution: some amount of policing, some amount of national defense, some support for legal infrastructure (rules of the road, standardized weights and measures, courts, etc.), some support for communication infrastructure (roads, etc.), some protection of necessarily common property (environmental protection). The list is not exhaustive.
2. Please clarify which "claim" is at issue here.
3. Please clarify which "premise: is at issue here.
4. Please explain: which "arguments" and how the term " your arguments" and "your rhetoric" differ. In normal English, arguments are rhetoric, and vice versa.
5. Refer to #1. In general, performance at any task improves with specialization. I doubt that any Olympic gold-medal decathlete ever out-performed the Olympic gold-medal specialist (sprint, javelin, shot put, long jump, high jump, etc.) in the year of his competition. A government may enhance aggregate well being when its application of violence reduces total violence. Governments may reduce losses from "free rider" issues (and there's the answer to the smallpox question in the post above).
6. The government's intrusion into the market for education services adds to total violence with no compensating gain over a minimally-regulated market in education services. See "deadweight loss due to taxation".

1. The are two fatal flaws to this. A.) private industries are only interested in innovation if there is competition. Removing the government will not gurantee that there will be no natural monopolies. B.) Competition does not always gurantee the best outcome. It's possible for competitors to colude overtly or invertly to forgo innovation or services. Further I reject your argument by assertion about the government and violence. Why is the government better at providing these things and not others? If is it is such a violent entity it seems very foolish to give it control over them.
2. Your claim that capitalism will result in better outcomes.
3. The premise that governments highest in Economic Freedom and Human Development are negatively correlated to no state run compulsory education.
4. You are wrong. While argument is a form of rhetoric we distinguish between the two in "normal english". Just as science is a branch of philosophy we distinguish between the two in day to day speech. In this instance rhetoric is a form of persuasion absent argument. Hitchens and Robert Ingersol being exellent examples of the use of rhetoric and logic. Rhetoric devoid of a logically valid argument is sophistry. You just made the claim that one of my premises was faulty because you do not use the term "always".
5. I've no idea how your conclusion follows from your premise. What does specialization have to do with government violence?
6. Instead of copying and pasting other people's arguments could you provide examples of this violence and also provide statistics showing that the violence meted out by government is less than the violence, abuse and rape of students by parochial schools?

You utterly failed to address why government would harm children when it invests in R&D to reduce childhood diseases but are apathetic to children when it comes to state run compulsory school.

My turn. I have asked repeatedly, in this thread and previously, and received no answer:

I concur with ANTPogo

 

[RandFan]

"Opinion"? Not at all. Randfan demonstrates complete unfamiliarity with the sources I cited (and also demonstrates the typically socialist incomprehension of market order)

Again with the childish patronization.

By your logic every nation high in Economic Freedom and Human Development is socialist. Or as the writer John Meacham put it, We Are All Socialists Now. Or to put it another way, the vast wealth of modern liberal democracies is the result of socialism. I don't call myself a socialist because I believe in the importance of the ownership of property, both real and intellectual. I believe that private industry to be generally better than public (not always). See John Locke, and John Stewart Mill. IMO: The vast wealth of modern liberal democracies is primarily the result of private industry. Various communist regimes around the world, IMO, demonstrated that clearly. While I don't refer to myself as a socialist I'm fine if you call me that. I have one request, define your terms.

BTW: you have not addressed the fact that Denmark is among the top 10 nations for economic freedom. If socialism is such an evil why does it rank so high in a conservative developed and conservative published publication? Is it because social policies that provide generous social programs like welfare, universal health care and stat run compulsory school don't really bread dependance because the vast majority of citizens want more than government will provide by dole? Denmark does not provide free cars, free computers, free travel vacations, free trips to restaurants, etc., etc. Yet there is no evidence that Denmark is breeding ever greater dependency or lower economic freedom. Again, real life trumps the theory. And so does the science. We have a scientific model backed by field research from animals (human and non-human) that explains why social animals improve the overall fitness by reducing by some degree individual fitness. The model both predicts and explains the success of nations that provide generous social services to the poor including welfare, universal health care and education.

Oh, and you have not explained how nations will care for their future and invest billions of dollars on infrastructure, planning, R&D, etc., etc. but harbor contempt for the greatest asset of their future. Their children. The wealthiest and most successful nations in the world compel students to go to school. Just as a parent would and do.

Nations are not giant people. They are aggregates of greedy, generous, intelligent, stupid, lazy, striving, compassionate, sociopathic individuals.

This isn't an answer. Not even close. How is it that nations high in Economic Freedom manage to pass sociopathic laws regarding education but pass compassionate laws when it comes to disease. Please to explain. Simply declaring that governments are composed of good and bad people doesn't explain how sociopaths universally hold sway over education but not funding of research to end childhood diseases. Please explain that.

These questions are not going to go away.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...childish patronization.

Try civility.

... By your logic every nation high in Economic Freedom and Human Development is socialist.

A. This has next to nothing to do with my observation that Randfan displays the typically socialist unfamiliarity with the basic arguments for a legal regime of markets and freedom of contract.
B. Socialism is a matter of degree.

...Or as the writer John Meacham put it, We Are All Socialists Now. Or to put it another way, the vast wealth of modern liberal democracies is the result of socialism.

No. Modern soft-socialist governments coast on the wealth amassed by more market-directed legal environments.

... I don't call myself a socialist because I believe in the importance of the ownership of property, both real and intellectual. I believe that private industry to be generally better than public (not always). See John Locke, and John Stewart Mill. IMO: The vast wealth of modern liberal democracies is primarily the result of private industry.

We agree here. Perhaps Randfan could have an interesting argument with the person who wrote:....

... the vast wealth of modern liberal democracies is the result of socialism.

... How is it that nations high in Economic Freedom manage to pass sociopathic laws regarding education but pass compassionate laws when it comes to disease. Please to explain. Simply declaring that governments are composed of good and bad people doesn't explain how sociopaths universally hold sway over education but not funding of research to end childhood diseases. Please explain that.[/QUOTE]Please read (and try to actually comprehend, for once) that Eduardo Zambrano quote.