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

[A'isha]

Here's a friendly (to nitwit socialists) site on UAW holdings of GM.

Did you even read that article before you linked to it?

The government of __A__ (locality) is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). Papa John's is a bunch of guys who make pizza. The government of Hawaii is a bunch of guys who draw salaries extracted under threat of incarceration from the productive residents of the Hawaiian archipelago. People do not become more intelligent, better-informed, more capable (except to the extent that their access to the tools of interpersonal violence enhances their capabilities), or more altruistic when they enter the Sate's employ.

Repeating this mantra like a magic spell does not actually make it true. And people do not become more intelligent, better-informed, more capable, or more altruistic when they enter private sector employ, either.

We are all public citizens and private individuals. The performance difference between a State-monopoly enterprise and organizations in a competitive market depends on the incentives that the different institutional structures present to clients and insiders. The most effective institutional accountability mechanism that humans have so far devised is a policy that gives to unhappy customers the power to take their business elsewhere.

Not only is that not true, the current system already allows unhappy "customers" to take their business elsewhere, via elections, changing school districts, home and private schooling, and so on. Your plan won't give parents more choice, it will give them less choice, by taking away free public education and forcing poor parents to devote resources (of both time and money) they can't afford to spend if they want their children to be educated.

It's the equivalent of killing public transportation and the freeway system in favor of forcing everyone to buy cars and drive on private toll roads.

 

[Belz...]

No. The State forces children to attend institutions that its agents call "school". Compulsory education is not possible; the human and canine IQ curves overlap.

Not for adults they don't.

And some people just won't perform, one way or another. Better to identify them through state schools and send them to tutors best suited for their needs.

Allowing the parents, who know nothing about education, to determine what education their children will receive impacts all of society, and therefore it is society's mandate to decide if that is ok or not.

 

[RandFan]

Not only is that not true, the current system already allows unhappy "customers" to take their business elsewhere, via elections, changing school districts, home and private schooling, and so on. Your plan won't give parents more choice, it will give them less choice, by taking away free public education and forcing poor parents to devote resources (of both time and money) they can't afford to spend if they want their children to be educated.

Malcolm should read The Case For Democracy: The Power Of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny And Terror by Natan Sharansky.

 

[Border Reiver]

Here's a friendly (to nitwit socialists) site on UAW holdings of GM.

4 years on, how's that working out?

government of __A__ (locality) is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). Papa John's is a bunch of guys who make pizza.

Who, by your earlier example, will see you assaulted, raped and infected with AIDS if you take one of their pizzas without paying.

The government of Hawaii is a bunch of guys who draw salaries extracted under threat of incarceration from the productive residents of the Hawaiian archipelago. People do not become more intelligent, better-informed, more capable (except to the extent that their access to the tools of interpersonal violence enhances their capabilities), or more altruistic when they enter the Sate's employ.

And people employed in the private sector are exactly the same - their employment doesn't make them more intelligent, better-informed, more capable, or more altruistic either.

Subsidization raises per-unit costs.

Using Canadian figures, it cost $10,678.00 per student on average for a year of education. Inflation adjusted to $11,737.21 in 2013 as per the inflation calculator.

Enrollment at Ashbury College(a local private school) is $13,000.00/year, provided you have already been enrolled; otherwise add $150 for the privilege of filling out the application form, $2,500.00 if accepted, and a (refundable) security deposit of $500.00.

My wife and I make a reasonable combined salary, and even if we received all the portion of my taxes back that pay for education we would not have sufficient funds to pay for ONE of our children to go to school (provided the costs were comparable to Ashbury. It would seem to me that, with society sharing the costs amongst all the taxpayers, we ensure that education is available to all.

Government schooling reduces social mobility.

Any evidence to back this assertion up?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

As a detroit metro native it really makes me sad how often people who don't seem to know much of anything about it's complicated history start trying to use it as some simple object lesson. That was a great city once, it deserves better than that.

The point of the Detroit reference was this: the (government-subsidized, government-operated Detroit Public Schools most certainly do not "ensure that children would be educated". As a criticism of market-delivery of education services, that fails.

 

[A'isha]

The point of the Detroit reference was this: the (government-subsidized, government-operated Detroit Public Schools most certainly do not "ensure that children would be educated". As a criticism of market-delivery of education services, that fails.

Detroit's school problems would not be fixed by making all the kids go to expensive private schools or be homeschooled.

Just the opposite, really.

 

[elbe]

The point of the Detroit reference was this: the (government-subsidized, government-operated Detroit Public Schools most certainly do not "ensure that children would be educated". As a criticism of market-delivery of education services, that fails.

So instead of possibly acknowledging that Detroit has is a complex situation you just doubled down on an overly simple answer? Right now kids in Detroit are lucky to get any kind of proper education, regardless of it's origin. Trying to imply that because a completely bankrupt city from decades of mismanagement, corruption, and race issues doesn't have a functional public education system is somehow a knock against the entire concept of a public education system is naive at best and, once again, an attempt to argue by outlier.

 

[RandFan]

The point of the Detroit reference was this: the (government-subsidized, government-operated Detroit Public Schools most certainly do not "ensure that children would be educated". As a criticism of market-delivery of education services, that fails.

Cherry picking and contrary to all of the other states that don't have the problems of Detroit. There is no evidence whatsoever that had there not been state run compulsory schools that children would have been better educated. Poor parents most certainly could not have afforded expensive private/parochial schools and many poor parents lack the competency and/or time to educate their children. I know, let the kids work in factories and other menial jobs so they can be educated to work menial jobs for the rest of their lives.

The GOP education program for the poor.

 

[Belz...]

Any evidence to back this assertion up?

Keep dreaming.

 

[Belz...]

The point of the Detroit reference was this: the (government-subsidized, government-operated Detroit Public Schools most certainly do not "ensure that children would be educated". As a criticism of market-delivery of education services, that fails.

Syntax Error 0113: Expected ")" but read "." instead.

 

[Doubt]

So instead of possibly acknowledging that Detroit has is a complex situation you just doubled down on an overly simple answer? Right now kids in Detroit are lucky to get any kind of proper education, regardless of it's origin. Trying to imply that because a completely bankrupt city from decades of mismanagement, corruption, and race issues doesn't have a functional public education system is somehow a knock against the entire concept of a public education system is naive at best and, once again, an attempt to argue by outlier.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Some of want to talk about the whole. And one person wants us to only look at his bowl of cherries.

Of course the idea of Detroit could be used as an example if education is defined in binary terms as in educated or not educated. But only when the line between the two is drawn and some arbitrary place selected by person who wants to make an argument that quality of education is so bad the population of Detroit would be better off with nothing at all. But for that argument to hold up at all you have to ignore the confounding factors that has brought the whole city down and pretend that nothing is better than what is there now.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So instead of possibly acknowledging that Detroit has is a complex situation...

However complex, the current system does not "ensure" that all children get a useful education. So as a criticism of suggested alternatives, this fails. Certainty is for children.

Trying to imply that because a completely bankrupt city from decades of mismanagement, corruption, and race issues doesn't have a functional public education system is somehow a knock against the entire concept of a public education system is naive at best and, once again, an attempt to argue by outlier.

1. The current system does not ensure that all children get an education. 2. Since schools are a large part of State and local budgets, their direct operating costs and legacy costs contribute to government's financial problems. 3. Because "education" is vague, corruption is pervasive.
4. Forcing people together exacerbates social tensions.
5. Detroit is an extreme case, but not really an outlier. Costs rise and performance falls as districts increase in size. The pattern is consistent.

 

[A'isha]

However complex, the current system does not "ensure" that all children get a useful education.

It ensures that all children get a chance at a useful education.

Which your alternative system does not do.

 

[RandFan]

1. The current system does not ensure that all children get an education.

The current system ensures that all children have the right to go to school and avail them of the resources provided. I learned math, including algebra and introductory computing in high school. These were necessary for me to be able to be accepted at the University of Utah and take Computer Science in 1983.

My father wanted me to stay home and work on the farm. I would not have had the skills necessary to pass my ACT's and get accepted at a University had I not had those and other critical skills.

You have still not explained how I would have been a computer programmer without a degree. My son is a programmer and no one is offering programming jobs without any experience or training. Just to be a programming intern (work for nothing or very little) one needs to be in school and studying in the field.

So, I've no idea how the vast majority of poor people would get an education and so far your arguments have not been at all compelling. You want us to just trust the private sector.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... I know, let the kids work in factories and other menial jobs so they can be educated to work menial jobs for the rest of their lives. The GOP education program for the poor.

Robert Fitzroy's parents were not poor. He attended the admiralty school for two years and went to sea at 14. He became a captain in the British Navy and founded the British Weather Service.
School can be expensive. Tax-subsidized State-monopoly schools will almost certainly be expensive due to lobbying by insiders. Education is potentially cheap. It does not take 12 years at $12,000 per pupil-year to teach a normal child to read and compute. On-the-job training is as much "education" as it attendance at schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

It ensures that all children get a chance at a useful education.

No. So long as States maintain the system of assignment by district and some parents have no escape options, the current system consigns some children to wretched schools from the start.

 

[A'isha]

Robert Fitzroy's parents were not poor. He attended the admiralty school for two years and went to sea at 14. He became a captain in the British Navy and founded the British Weather Service.

When he went to sea, ships were still sail-powered.

No. So long as States maintain the system of assignment by district and some parents have no escape options, the current system consigns some children to wretched schools from the start.

Since all parents have plenty of escape options in the US educational system, then the current system meets your requirements.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Robert Fitzroy's parents were not poor. He attended the admiralty school for two years and went to sea at 14. He became a captain in the British Navy and founded the British Weather Service.
School can be expensive. Tax-subsidized State-monopoly schools will almost certainly be expensive due to lobbying by insiders. Education is potentially cheap. It does not take 12 years at $12,000 per pupil-year to teach a normal child to read and compute. On-the-job training is as much "education" as it attendance at schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

Good thing teaching is more that learning to read and compute then isn't it?
And among those things is equally exposing children to all possibilities open to them, rather than just apprenticing them to someone and hope they like the job.

I can't speak for the US, but in Europe, there are a number of subjects each child HAS to do before chosing a semi-specialization for the last few years of school. These range from arts, literature, languages, history, geology to the sciences, all of which include large amounts of materials to be taught.
Barring some millionaire prodigy parent that literally has nothing else to do, there is no way any one or two parents can teach this to children.

This means that to give a well rounded education in your system parents will have to hire experts. Which poor parents obviously cannot do, leading to children with lesser skills, who will not be able to compete with better educated children from richer parents, and thus not have good jobs later perpetuating the cycle. Maybe the occasional super child will be able to escape this trap, but exceptions do not make the rule.

Your system also completely neglects the fact that there is a far too significant number of parents who are totally indifferent to their child's education. With the loss of governmental oversight children of such parents will therefore get NO education at all.

Your entire basis for believing that abolishing government mandated education to me seems as devoid of human knowledge as the communism.

 

[RandFan]

Robert Fitzroy's parents were not poor. He attended the admiralty school for two years and went to sea at 14. He became a captain in the British Navy and founded the British Weather Service.

And? I've no idea what this has to do with anything.

School can be expensive. Tax-subsidized State-monopoly schools will almost certainly be expensive due to lobbying by insiders. Education is potentially cheap.

That's like saying that plumbers or doctors are potentially cheap. And what do you mean by "cheap"? My dad didn't have enough money to pay rent or keep up car payments. What makes you think he had any money for school?

It does not take 12 years at $12,000 per pupil-year to teach a normal child to read and compute.

[citations missing] Again. Can we stop with the bald assertions. I could say that it does not take on average $27,000 a year for medical school but that would just be an empty claim. And wrong.

On-the-job training is as much "education" as it attendance at schools...

Poor children being educated:

You are ignoring my premises. By and large, you can't get a job as a computer programmer without experience. You can't get a job as a programming internship or apprenticeship (usually) without having some schooling.

Could you please support your claims? Thanks.

 

[elbe]

4. Forcing people together exacerbates social tensions.

Interestingly that demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the Detroit situation.

5. Detroit is an extreme case, but not really an outlier. Costs rise and performance falls as districts increase in size. The pattern is consistent.

Honestly, if it wasn't an outlier you wouldn't even be bringing it up. If the pattern is "consistent" you should be able to demonstrate that other than just say "see! detroit!"

So I ask again, please don't try and use a city you don't understand for your example. It's insulting to everyone.