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

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Some parts of it, anyway. To a degree.

Throughout the US and Canada the option exists to send your child to private school. Where's the degree? There are options available to all parents.

The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". The State's operational definition reduces the range of educational options. Policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' education subsidy to schools operated by State (government, generally) employees produce a crowding-out effect. It can be hard to sell steak if the butcher down the block is giving away "free" hamburger, if your customers have been taxed into poverty to pay for the "free" hamburger, and if the brother of the butcher who operates the "free" hamburger shop directs the Health Department inspectors.

I understand that some Canadian provinces subsidize a parent's choice of parochial school. Every expansion of options will reduce the malign impact of State compulsion on education system performance.

First, it's ALL provinces and territories.

Second, education services, whether publically or privately funded, have provincially set standards that students are expected to achieve.

Again, the State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education".

A monopoly is a sole seller. A monopsony is a sole buyer. Policies in many US States give to the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy. The cartel's schools qualify as a monopoly.

The existence of options other than public schools, means that there is no monopoly on the provision of educational services.

In many US States, schools operated by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel are the sole provider of education services to the State. They qualify as a monopoly.

private schools don't get public money. Just like private armies don't get public money.

That depends on the jurisdiction. Many countries subsidize a parent's choice of school.

 

[RandFan]

My guess is that it would be helpful if such a person would take a long hard look in the mirror. That person might have the temptation to project.

Good idea.

Oh, BTW, I have admitted my mistakes. I'm not perfect. I can blindly condescend and patronize as much as anyone. But when I find out that I'm doing it and it is limiting the discussion I change course. Like when I stopped using the term "public education" even though the word is perfectly appropriate. It's just a good faith thing to do.

I'm sincerely trying to have a productive discussion. I need someone else to meet me half way and not deflect every request with a tu quoque from weeks ago.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I'm glad you agree. Hopefully, from now on, we won't have any misquoting of Einstein...

There was no misquote. Randfan might intend "selectively quote" here. Einstein attributed to compulsion a malign impact on motivation. He indicated that English and US schools might be exempt from this effect. They are not. He observed that he had no direct experience with English or US schools. He spent part of his school years in German schools, which he regarded as rigid and authoritarian, and part of his pre-college school years in Swiss schools, which were an enormous step up.

 

[RandFan]

In many US States, schools operated by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel are the sole provider of education services to the State. They qualify as a monopoly.That depends on the jurisdiction. Many countries subsidize a parent's choice of school.

1. The term, "cartel" is loaded language. The use of loaded language is a fallacy. It also is presumptive and controversial to say the least.
2. The citations for the above claim are missing.
3. I doubt your claim because such regulations would hinder freedom of religion of Catholics and others to provide parochial education.

Got evidence?

 

[RandFan]

He indicated that English and US schools might be exempt from this effect.

"Might be exempt"? No, that's misrepresenting what Einstein said. Let me quote.

... [T]he aim must be the training of independently acting and thinking individuals, who, however, see in the service of the community their highest life problem. As far as I can judge, the English school system comes nearest to the realization of this ideal.

"Nearest to the realization of this ideal" isn't the same as "might be exempt".

He indicated that English and US schools might be exempt from this effect. They are not

So, let me see if I got this right, we are supposed to accept Einstein's views when it comes to education except when it conflicts with your thesis.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

1. The term "cartel" is loaded language. The use of loaded language is a fallacy. It also is presumptive and controversial to say the least.
2. The citations for the above claim are missing.
3. I doubt your claim because such regulations would hinder freedom of religion of Catholics and others to provide parochial education.
Got evidence?

1. In many US States, schools operated dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel occupy an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' age 6-18 subsidy. In some States the NEA and AFT share representation duties and dues. The NEA and AFSCME coordinate lobbying efforts (COPE). The term "cartel" applies. I do not use the term "monopoly" to describe the US education industry as a whole but to designate the State-operated school system. If "cartel" is loaded language, it's because cartels have malign anti-competitive effects. For example, the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's impact on the US market for education services.
2. Which claim needs a cite? Which claim do you doubt?
3. Which claim? Yes, policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' age 6-18 subsidy to schools operated by government employees interfere with freedom of religion. Religion and freedom of speech are related. Boalt Hall Professor John Coons argued that parents have a right to speak through their children in their choice of educational institutions. Restricting subsidies to non-sectarian schools operated by government employees is like tax-subsidized NPR employing only socialist reporters or like IRS agents subjecting free-market, traditional marriage, or anti-abortion voter-education groups to more stringent scrutiny than they apply to groups that advocate for an intrusive State, gay marriage, or legalized abortion.

 

[bruto]

I have a basic question on tax funds for public schools. Mr. Kirkpatrick seems to believe that it is wrong for only public schools to receive public funds, because it is unfair to the parents who do not wish to send their children to public schools, but what about those who have no children in school at all?

This is a very basic question regarding what among those things a state regards as a public good, that state is entitled to charge non-users for. I have heard it brought up from time to time by taxpayers who believe that, lacking educable children, they should pay no education taxes at all. Others chime in that they should not pay for other public services they do not directly use. The usual response, which I think has some merit, is that society in general benefits from the provision of certain services, and that billing for services only to those who use them would deny such services to the poor.

So, I would be interested in how Mr. Kirkpatrick resolves this issue. If it is unfair for the parents of home schooled children to pay school taxes, is it also unfair for me to pay school taxes now that my children have grown up? How about other taxes for things I do not use, or for things I do not like? Should only those who use government services be the ones who pay for them?

 

[RandFan]

1. In many US States, schools operated dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel occupy an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' age 6-18 subsidy. In some States the NEA and AFT share representation duties and dues. The NEA and AFSCME coordinate lobbying efforts (COPE). The term "cartel" applies. I do not use the term "monopoly" to describe the US education industry as a whole but to designate the State-operated school system. If "cartel" is loaded language, it's because cartels have malign anti-competitive effects. For example, the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's impact on the US market for education services.
2. Which claim needs a cite? Which claim do you doubt?
3. Which claim? Yes, policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' age 6-18 subsidy to schools operated by government employees interfere with freedom of religion. Religion and freedom of speech are related. Boalt Hall Professor John Coons argued that parents have a right to speak through their children in their choice of educational institutions. Restricting subsidies to non-sectarian schools operated by government employees is like tax-subsidized NPR employing only socialist reporters or like IRS agents subjecting free-market, traditional marriage, or anti-abortion voter-education groups to more stringent scrutiny than they apply to groups that advocate for an intrusive State, gay marriage, or legalized abortion.

1. Citations missing.
2. The ones for the claim that in some states, state run compulsory schools are the sole option (the state is the sole provider. see below).
3. You claim that private markets can compete against the state. Well, can they or can't they? You keep arguing that if the state got out of the school business then private market would offer better solutions for less money. Now you are moving the goals posts and declaring that private enterprise needs government funding in order to be competitive.

...schools operated by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel are the sole provider of education services

What do you mean by "sole provider"?

 

[RandFan]

So, I would be interested in how Mr. Kirkpatrick resolves this issue. If it is unfair for the parents of home schooled children to pay school taxes, is it also unfair for me to pay school taxes now that my children have grown up? How about other taxes for things I do not use, or for things I do not like? Should only those who use government services be the ones who pay for them?

What about people who do not want to pay for the military and sincerely believe we do not need to spend so much? To bad so sad for them.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I have a basic question on tax funds for public schools. Mr. Kirkpatrick seems to believe that it is wrong for only public schools to receive public funds, because it is unfair to the parents who do not wish to send their children to public schools, but what about those who have no children in school at all?

This is a very basic question regarding what among those things a state regards as a public good, that state is entitled to charge non-users for. I have heard it brought up from time to time by taxpayers who believe that, lacking educable children, they should pay no education taxes at all. Others chime in that they should not pay for other public services they do not directly use. The usual response, which I think has some merit, is that society in general benefits from the provision of certain services, and that billing for services only to those who use them would deny such services to the poor.

So, I would be interested in how Mr. Kirkpatrick resolves this issue. If it is unfair for the parents of home schooled children to pay school taxes, is it also unfair for me to pay school taxes now that my children have grown up? How about other taxes for things I do not use, or for things I do not like? Should only those who use government services be the ones who pay for them?

Thanks for this non-accusatory and thoughtful expression of the issues. Not("good to have" = "good for government to supply or subsidize"). The "public goods" argument makes sense and may yield decent policy conclusions when the "good" is easy to define, broad consensus can be reached on the wisdom of subsidization (or direct provision), and performance of producers is easy to monitor. National defense, roads, crime control, and environmental protection come to mind. Neither "easy to define" nor "easy to monitor" characterize the education industry. What is "education"? How much does any teacher contribute to any particular student's performance? Cartel defenders are always reminding us that schools have to deal with the children of abusive and/or neglectful and/or retarded parents.

I don't recall using "fair" in this discussion. More materialistically, policies that restrict tax subsidies to institutions operated by government employees yield less benefit to students and society at large than would policies that empower parents to determine for their own children which institution (if any) shall receive the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy. When a good or service is as vaguely defined as "education" and policy restricts subsidies to one supplier of education services, regulatory capture and corruption are inevitable. See Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, Hirschliefer, "Anarchy and its Breakdown" (Journal of Political Economy), and Prendergast, "The Market for Yes Men" (American Economic Review).

I do not believe that society as a whole benefits from a State (government, generally) role in the education industry beyond the role that it plays in the lawn care industry or the kitchen utensil industry: an original assignment of title and a stable system of contract law where non-State actors may resolve contract disputes. The current legal environment in which the education industry operates is far from that. Society has a large investment in the current institutional structure. Revolutionary change imposes large costs in lost information. Incremental change makes more sense than revolutionary change. Within the current framework of tax support of schools, government operation of schools, accreditation of schools by quasi-independent accreditation agencies, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and compulsory attendance laws, I support most expansions of educational options for children and parents: vouchers, subsidized homeschooling, charter schools (with any accredited post-secondary institution authorized to create a charter school), "virtual" enrollment in on-line accredited schools, mandatory (for government school districts) credit-by-exam for all courses required for graduation, and (my preference) Parent Performance Contracting.

 

[jimbob]

Really? ...

Yes, really.
Here. We could have an interesting discussion that relates to our topic. How would one test the hypotheses that compassion and reading comprehension had significant hereditary components? It is hard to conduct properly controlled experiments on humans in a free society, but put that objection aside for the moment. It is also hard to disentangle environmental variables from genetic variables. Adoptive twin studies provide one possibility. Here's another: Suppose we want to investigate the genetic component of compassion. Suppose we have the resources to conduct background checks on prospective parents. We could rank 200 parent pairs for compassion (by, say, neighbors' opinions, by frequency of assault arrests, by charitable giving, etc.). We could then steal 100 babies post-delivery and switch children of compassionate parents into families of abusive parents, and vice versa. Someone who supposes that both environmental and genetic factors contribute to "compassion", however defined, will predict that the switched children will score between the unswitched children of compassionate parents and the unswitched children of abusive parents.

One could probably design an analogous experiment on the genetic and environmental contributions to reading comprehension.

Just how would a compulsively abusive person with limited reading comprehension conduct an argument? Wouldn't such a person be less charitable, less restrained by the possibility that s/he simply misunderstood the argument from the other side than would a compassionate person?

I followed your link, which pointed to another post, and followed the link on that which pointed to another post, which pointed to a google book of Steven Pinker. Searching for that phrase I do see that Pinker has indeed written that and then qualified it by saying that (for the major personality traits, about 40%-50% of the variability is genetic) and the rest environmental.

That doesn't disagree with what I wrote. I think it would be clearer to say that "all human behavioral traits have heritable components".

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... Now you are moving the goals posts ...

The cartel's shills cannot resist accusing their opponents of arguing in bad faith. Randfan blames his problems with reading comprehension on the opposition.

... In many US States, schools operated by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel are the sole provider of education services to the State. ...

What do you mean by "sole provider"?

Many US States buy education services exclusively from the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That doesn't disagree with what I wrote. I think it would be clearer to say that "all human behavioral traits have heritable components".

Then your argument is with Pinker. What sociobiologist or ethologist would have asserted otherwise? What else could "all human behavioral traits are heritable" possibly mean?

 

[RandFan]

The cartel's shills cannot resist accusing their opponents of arguing in bad faith. Randfan blames his problems with reading comprehension on the opposition.Many US States buy education services exclusively from the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

Non responsive. Do these states prohibit competition (do they outlaw paroachial school)?

 

[RandFan]

Many US States buy education services exclusively from the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

Cartel = loaded language, a fallacy.Are there any states that make it illegal for parochial schools?

 

[Belz...]

"12. “Address the argument, not the arguer." Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer.E8"

What in the blue hell does this have to do with my post ?

In the English language, when speaking to someone, you use the word "you". Addressing someone by using their name can be seen as avoiding speaking to them directly, and is considered rude. Don't try to cloak your rudeness in a veneer of politeness. No one here believes you.

Apparently, according to your (fake) argument, we can never address each other's arguments without addressing the arguer also. That is patently ridiculous, and an obvious attempt to deflect the discussion toward irrelevancy.

 

[Amazer]

What in the blue hell does this have to do with my post ?

In the English language, when speaking to someone, you use the word "you". Addressing someone by using their name can be seen as avoiding speaking to them directly, and is considered rude. Don't try to cloak your rudeness in a veneer of politeness. No one here believes you.

Apparently, according to your (fake) argument, we can never address each other's arguments without addressing the arguer also. That is patently ridiculous, and an obvious attempt to deflect the discussion toward irrelevancy.

This is what happens when one's arguments fail and one isn't yet ready to give up.

 

[Border Reiver]

The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education". The State's operational definition reduces the range of educational options.

And private industry would be unable to provide educational services without a definition of "education" either.

Other than attempting to poison the well against state involvement in education, all your statement means is that the body responsible for the provision of a service needs to know what is to be provided, and from that can make decisions on how it can be provided. Given that in a democracy such as the US, Canada, the UK, etc. there is often considerable public input on policy, and the way and means to achieve policy goals this does not exclude interested parties from making their views known. Government does not act in a vacuum, nor is separate from the society that it serves.

Policies that restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' education subsidy to schools operated by State (government, generally) employees produce a crowding-out effect. It can be hard to sell steak if the butcher down the block is giving away "free" hamburger, if your customers have been taxed into poverty to pay for the "free" hamburger, and if the brother of the butcher who operates the "free" hamburger shop directs the Health Department inspectors.

The above analogy fails, as it does not mention that the butcher giving away the "free hamburger" bought said hamburger with money collected from the customers and is now distributing the prepaid orders.

Again, the State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education".

Rather like a business cannot provide goods or services without a business plan?

In many US States, schools operated by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel are the sole provider of education services to the State. They qualify as a monopoly.

No, that qualifies them as the unionized employees of a corporation. The state, as the employer of teachers in the publically funded school system is able to get their teachers from outside these unions after the existing contract expires.

 

[Belz...]

The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education".

I think I can punch someone in the face without a definition of "face".

 

[Belz...]

"Might be exempt"? No, that's misrepresenting what Einstein said. Let me quote.

"Nearest to the realization of this ideal" isn't the same as "might be exempt".

Belz... thinks RandFan may be correct. Belz... also thinks that Malcolm Kirkpatrick is wrong. Pretty much always.