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

[Chaos]

Is this the thread of a petulant teenager?

"Don't WANNA go to school. It's..it's like slavery or something! Can't make me!"

Not just that. There´s also the petulant teenager who says "Everything means EXACTLY what I want it to mean. I can just DEFINE things to be as I want them to be!"

 

[bruto]

So you consider yourself an authority re. public education, and we should just blindly accept whatever you opinion is??

Perhaps you would have better luck with that if you made a persuasive argument...as opposed to what you've been doing...


How can you equate slavery with education, when one has absolutely no benefits, while the other gives you the tools to do anything you choose to.

Nope...no relevant comparison whatsoever.

In fairness, Malcolm's post was in direct response to a suggestion by Belz that he was unfamiliar with public schools. It's no help for his arguments and opinions, and there was every reason for Belz or anyone else to speculate about his experience, but as a rejoinder to Belz's question it seems appropriate.

 

[R.A.F.]

In fairness...snip...as a rejoinder to Belz's question it seems appropriate.

Yes, but that doesn't address the actual issue, here...is compulsory education slavery?

I say obviously NOT...being "forced" to attend school results in the benefit of an education...

There are no benefits in actual slavery, therefore compulsory education is not slavery.

 

[RandFan]

"More likely than those who drop out" is like saying that slaves who stayed on the plantation ate better than runaways.

Since when did slaves have a choice? I really don't think you are getting this.

 

[bruto]

Yes, but that doesn't address the actual issue, here...is compulsory education slavery?

I say obviously NOT...being "forced" to attend school results in the benefit of an education...

There are no benefits in actual slavery, therefore compulsory education is not slavery.

Absolutely. I agree that Malcolm's arguments are flawed and his conclusions rubbish, but it just happens here that they are based on something other than inexperience. As a matter of principle, I do not think, even when arguing with the worst, that one should draw conclusions that are off base, and one must not read too much into a statement of experience that is responding to an allegation of inexperience. The suggestion that he cited his experience as evidence of unquestionable authority is gratuitous. Evidence suggests anyway that he would consider his authority supreme simply because he believes it so, and he has carried out many many pages of argument on its own merit (or lack thereof).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

IIRC, Malcolm claims not to be a libertarian¹ and he scoffs at them². He acts like one, or some kind of anarcho-capitalist or whatever.³ He values freedom as if freedom comes from not having a government.⁴ He hates violence as if government cannot protect citizens from violence and getting rid of government would get rid of violence.⁵ Or something like that.⁵ I'm not trying to put words in his mouth or define him. I'm trying to say whatever he believes is, IMO, incoherent.⁶

1. My libertarian friends would not call me a libertarian.
2. No. They are mistaken, as are communists mistaken. Libertarian mistakes are less likely to result in mass murder, however.
3. Randfan only knows of me what s/he has observed on public forums. This is a wild (and wildly mistaken) generalization. I have previously supplied evidence to the contrary, which Randfan neglects to mention. S/he disputes a figment of his/her construction.
4. Never said anything like that. Randfan is fabricating.
5. Never said anything like that. What I have said contradicts this. Randfan is fabricating. That's why I grew tired of this discussion, this forum, and JREF. Among other reasons.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

For someone who derides Libertarians,he sure as heck preaches a lot of Libertarian doctrine.

Libertarians will assert 2+2=4. I will assert 2+2=4. Does that make me a Libertarian or a libertarian?
Of course, Marxists also will assert 2+2=4.

We give names to political parties. That is, people who form parties give them names and the rest of us use those names or make childish plays on names ("rethuglicans", "teabagger", etc.). We give names to collections of policies and the people who advocate those policies. Sometimes people imagine that some policy preference implies other policy preferences, that ideology is coherent and comprehensive and applicable to the real world. I don't see what relation any position on drug prohibition has to abortion policy, for example.

You might have seen one of those political classification tests. I typically score pretty close to the center, but on the free-market and social liberal side. It depends on what questions they ask.

It's more interesting to discuss policy than to paste labels on people with whom one argues.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not trying to put words in his mouth or define him. I'm trying to say whatever he believes is, IMO, incoherent.

5. Never said anything like that. What I have said contradicts this.

"Never said anything like that"? What you have said does not contradict that you are incoherent.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

"Never said anything like that"? What you have said does not contradict that you are incoherent.

Randfan means "does not contradict the fact that I (i.e., s/he) don't (doesn't) understand". The arguments for parent control of education parallel the arguments for a legal regime of title and contract lay (i.e., a market economy). Like policies that empower property owners, parent control of education puts control in the hands of people with local knowledge and the incentive to use that knowledge in socially beneficial ways. Of course there are exceptions (e.g., violent Islamic indoctrination).

 

[RandFan]

Randfan means "does not contradict the fact that I (i.e., s/he) don't (doesn't) understand". The arguments for parent control of education parallel the arguments for a legal regime of title and contract lay (i.e., a market economy). Like policies that empower property owners, parent control of education puts control in the hands of people with local knowledge and the incentive to use that knowledge in socially beneficial ways. Of course there are exceptions (e.g., violent Islamic indoctrination).

There are many other exceptions. The propagation of known falsehoods like creation and spurious claims about climate change.

And it should be pointed out again that nations highest in Economic Freedom, Median Income, HDI and pretty much any economic or developmental index have state run public education. If you are going to claim that your ideas will result in better outcomes then you ought to be able to demonstrate that. It's fatuous to state that state run public schools are bad for society in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan means "does not contradict the fact that I (i.e., s/he) don't (doesn't) understand". The arguments for parent control of education parallel the arguments for a legal regime of title and contract lay (i.e., a market economy). Like policies that empower property owners, parent control of education puts control in the hands of people with local knowledge and the incentive to use that knowledge in socially beneficial ways. Of course there are exceptions (e.g., violent Islamic indoctrination).

It would be remiss of me to fail to point out why your argument is incoherent. You claim that compulsory schooling is the same thing as slavery. Yet children who get that education are demonstrably better off than those without it. The children get something extremely valuable from compulsory education as does the state. If it's not slavery for parents to require their children to go to school then it's incoherent to state that it's slavery for the state to require their children to go to school. We recognize that children are not capable of full autonomy and that there is a compelling interest to ensure that they are inculcated with the means necessary for them to care for themselves when they become adults.

To fail to inculcate children to care for themselves when they are adults is irrational and irresponsible.

At the end of the day your claim is per se nonsensical.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

It would be remiss of me to fail to point out why your argument is incoherent.

Right. A Moderator split this thread from a thread entitled "Liberal Fallacies". The topic concerns the role of the State in education. If the argument consists entirely of assertions one way or another about education and observations that some assertions apparently contradict others, we can avoid ad hominem. Just ask "how does this jibe with this?" and we may avoid ad hominem.

You claim that compulsory schooling is the same thing as slavery.

Not quite; compulsory, unpaid labor is slavery. Compulsory school attendance statutes compel children to work, unpaid, as window-dressing in the massive make-work program for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel that we in the US call "the public school system". Compulsory school attendance is slavery. Ultimately, it's a matter of incentives. Because highly credentialed people compose school policy, write laws, and operate State schools, a mismatch results between school activities, on the one hand, and the interests and aptitudes of many normal children, on the other. State compulsion produces this result. Abundant evidence supports the following generalizations:
1. As institutions take from individual parents the power to determine for their own children the choice of curriculum and the pace and method of instruction, overall system performance falls, and
2. Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents.
See James Tooley, The Beautiful Tree, and Chubb and Moe, Politics, Markets, and America's Schools

Yet children who get that education are demonstrably better off than those without it. The children get something extremely valuable from compulsory education as does the state.

The problem here is "that (education)" and "the (children)". "Education" means many different things and much of what happens to kids in the buildings that people commonly call "schools" does not qualify (e.g., getting hijacked for lunch money in the bathroom, waiting for the semi-literate bozo the State calls a "teacher" to settle the class so that s/he can deliver a lesson on material you learned two years previous, etc.).

If it's not slavery for parents to require their children to go to school then it's incoherent to state that it's slavery for the state to require their children to go to school.

The crux of the matter. Parent control and government control produce systematically different results. The difference favors parents for reasons closely analogous to the reasons that market-oriented legal environments outperform socialist legal environments in delivery of most goods and services.

We recognize that children are not capable of full autonomy and that there is a compelling interest to ensure that they are inculcated with the means necessary for them to care for themselves when they become adults.

To fail to inculcate children to care for themselves when they are adults is irrational and irresponsible.

We agree, here. We differ in our assessment of the State's competence to operate in this arena. NOT("good to have"="good for the State to produce"), as any Ukrainian c. 1929 or Chinese c.1960 could attest.

At the end of the day your claim is per se nonsensical.[/QUOTE]

 

[RandFan]

We agree, here. We differ in our assessment of the State's competence to operate in this arena. NOT("good to have"="good for the State to produce"), as any Ukrainian c. 1929 or Chinese c.1960 could attest.

But the Ukraine and the Chinese were not and are not at the top of any economic or development index. That state sponsored education has failed under communist regimes does not invalidate the concept. Further, it's always interesting to note your absolute lack of demonstrable evidence that some other system is superior.

The crux of the matter. Parent control and government control produce systematically different results.

A.) This is not evidence that compulsory education is slavery. B.) Incoherent. Special pleading (see bulleted incoherent claims below). C.) Granting the premise that they produce systematically different results is not demonstrable that parental control results in better outcomes for children. D.) We live in a democracy. Government of the people. By the People and for the people. If parents want to get the state out of the education business they can elect representative to affect that change.

• Compulsory education is slavery when the state compels the education.
• Compulsory education is NOT slavery when parents compel the education.

Pointing out that your argument is incoherent is not ad hominem. It's just a statement of fact.

 

[bruto]

I suppose if you are consistently and obstinately unable to achieve coherence, it's a given that you will not see evidence of incoherence where others do. Blaming the recipient for failure to communicate is usually easy but not always useful.

 

[A'isha]

I see it's back to the cut-and-paste in lieu of actually making an argument.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

But the Ukraine and the Chinese were not and are not at the top of any economic or development index. That state sponsored education...

Ukraine 1929 and China 1959 were allusions to mass famine. State operation of schools in the US has done to education what collectivization of farming did for nutrition in Ukraine and China.

... has failed under communist regimes does not invalidate the concept. Further, it's always interesting to note your absolute lack of demonstrable evidence that some other system is superior.

It's always interesting to note Randfan's utter indifference to plain evidence shoved directly under his nose.

If it's not slavery for parents to require their children to go to school then it's incoherent to state that it's slavery for the state to require their children to go to school.

The crux of the matter. Parent control and government control produce systematically different results. The difference favors parents for reasons closely analogous to the reasons that market-oriented legal environments outperform socialist legal environments in delivery of most goods and services.

A.) This is not evidence that compulsory education is slavery. B.) Incoherent. Special pleading (see bulleted incoherent claims below). C.) Granting the premise that they produce systematically different results is not demonstrable that parental control results in better outcomes for children. D.) We live in a democracy. Government of the people. By the People and for the people. If parents want to get the state out of the education business they can elect representative to affect that change.

In the two systems (parent control and State control) the incentives for children differ systematically. The State's principal instrument is compulsion.

• Compulsory education is slavery when the state compels the education.
• Compulsory education is NOT slavery when parents compel the education.

Pointing out that your argument is incoherent is not ad hominem. It's just a statement of fact.

Pointing out that Randfan ignores the role of incentives in the education industry and in the definition of slavery ("unpaid") is a simple statement of fact.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I see it's back to the cut-and-paste in lieu of actually making an argument.

It's called "citation", dear. I see it's back to insults instead of making a rebuttal.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I suppose if you are consistently and obstinately unable to achieve coherence, it's a given that you will not see evidence of incoherence where others do. Blaming the recipient for failure to communicate is usually easy but not always useful.

I suppose if you are consistently and obstinately unable to comprehend the argument you will attribute your incapacity to the source of the argument.

Blaming the source for failure to communicate is usually easy but not always useful.

 

[RandFan]

The State's principal instrument is compulsion.

Argument by assertion. A fallacy. It is in the best interest of society to have an educated populace. That is why most if not all nations highest in economic freedom, HDI or other developmental index have state run education.

 

[RandFan]

Argument by assertion. A fallacy. It is in the best interest of society to have an educated populace. That is why most if not all nations highest in economic freedom, HDI or other developmental index have state run education.

We've established that an education is in the best interest of the child. Even if the states only instrument were compulsion it would be irrelevant to the fact that it's in the best interest of the child and society for as many people as possible to be educated to the highest level possible.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

It's called "citation", dear. I see it's back to insults instead of making a rebuttal.

It's called citation when the reference supports a particular argument. Otherwise it's just an appeal to authority.