[extropy-chat] Re: Public Schools

[Kevin Freels]

> > Wait a minute. I think we may be on the
> > same page here except for one thing.
>
> I doubt it.  You are not a libertarian.  I am.  I think you and I
> disagree on a lot of issues.

The problem here is the way that we seem to find it necessary to attach a
label to just about everything. Along with a label comes a narrow
definition. If you define a libertarian as a person who finds freedom good
and the socialist re-distribution of wealth bad, I would be a libertarian as
well. I think that seat-belt laws are unconstitutional, I agree with a
fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Some drugs should be legalized.
Taking money from the people to give to others in some kind of Robin Hood
scheme is just plain evil to me and I think it does more harm than good.

But I am not an anarchist. I think that there are some things that the
government has to do.
1.) provide for the common defense of the people
2.) enforce laws when one person tramples on another's rights
3.) regulate interstate commerce and ensure that no tarriffs are placed by
one state or locality onto another.
4.) Ensure the security of our borders
5.) Ensure that products are safe
6.) To generally do those things that the private sector cannot or will not
do.

(This is not meant as a complete list, only a generalization. I don't have
time to go through each and every acet of what I think the government should
and shouldn;t do)

These things do take money. Not nearly as much as we are paying now, but
there is a cost.
>
> > Are you saying that public education is
> > compulsory in your state?
>
> Some form of schooling is complusory.  Whatever form it might be -- and
> homeschooling is only tolerated here -- you still have to meet state
> requirements.  Also, funding for public schools is compulsory.  I don't
> have choice of not paying the taxes for them -- all other things being
> equal.
>
I think that a basic education is not a re-distribution of wealth, but an
investment in the future. The amount that you pay in taxes that goes
directly to education is probably very small. I simply wish that the
education itself was better. The interstate highway system did not build
itself. Private enterprise did not build it either. It didn;t seem
"necessary" and wasn;t necessary to improve the profits of businesses. Only
after it was there did it become a benefit. We have all benefitted from this
investment. I see public education as being the same concept. It needs to be
improved, diversified, and have more options available, but not removed
entirely.


> > I've known several
> > people who benefitted from home-schooling.
>
> I have never met a homeschooled individual who wasn't a success, though
> I admit that I've only met a few.

I have. Many are poorly adjusted for society. Human beings as a social
animal need to learn social skills as well as general knowledge to become
successful.
>
> > Also, I never meant to say that home
> > schooling was wrong, bad, or otherwise
> > inferior to public education.
>
> Okay.
>
> > My point was that the public school system
> > must be there as an option as well since
> > there are many who either can't or won;t
> > home-school.
>
> So the only choice for you is homeschool or send them to public school?
> What about private schools or no schooling?

That is way too narrow an interpretation of my meaning. I suppose I should
spell things out more clearly, but I assumed that you would attempt to
understand my meaning rather than try to point out flaws in my sentence
structure. I will have to be more careful of that in the future. How about
"who either can't or won;t personally ensure that their child receives an
adequate education to survive in today's society.:"?
>
> I disagree about public schools being an option -- unless you mean
> something radically different from existing public schools, such as a
> public school that is not compulsory and not tax-funded -- i.e., not
> public.:)
There are some rather dramatic changes I would like to see. One would be to
offer incentives to parents who want to take their child out of public
school and provide for their child's education. This would reduce the number
of students and probably increase the education that the remaining students
received. It would also lower the cost. It shouldn;t be compulsory and I
would like to see it fully funded by optional government funding sources
such as lottery ticket sales. But if it cost more than the profits from
ticket sales, we should make up the difference. It is an investment and we
all benefit.
>
>
> > The public benefits from the availability
> > of public education in the long run
> > because many children would not learn
> > enough to even do labor or count money
> > if they didn't have it available.
>
> Wrong.  How did people learn these things before public education?  They
> learned them because there was an incentive for it.  In a modern economy
> with the need for these skills, I reckon the incentive will even be
> stronger to acquire these skills.  I've known illegal aliens who acquite
> English skills and the like for similar reasons.

So we agree that in today's society there is an even greater need and
greater incentive
for education yet less people are getting the education that they need when
it is "free" to them. What makes you think that if they had to pay for it
(and/or if the 20 yr old mother of a 1st grader had to "home school" her
child even though she never received her diploma.) their education would be
any better? This is simply not a free market option.

Simply put, the people who pay most for it are those in their higher earning
years while the people who are raising children are not. The only way I
could see this working is if loans were available for young people to put
children through school similar to college loans except that they would not
have to be paid back until the children became adults. These loans would
have to made available to anyone who wanted to put their children in school.
By the sheer number and amounts of long-term loans out there for all
school-children, you would still be paying in the free market via higher
interest rates. This is an interesting concept though that could be studied.



d forever be on the
> > public dole.
>
> You tend to look at things too narrowly.  First, the only options aren't
> public schooling or being on the public dole.  If that were the ways
> things had to be, civilization never would've gotten this far.  There
> were no public schools for most of human history...

Nor were there guns, farms, cars, or even houses yet we seem to find them
necessary now.

 Second, you don't
> consider things like removing incentives not to be productive or
> intelligent -- i.e., removing the public dole.  Get rid of it and then
> there will be no option to live off the productive.
I agree with this, I only disagree as to what you consider to be the public
dole.
>
> > I thought you were making a case for
> > elimination of the public school system.
>
> I am.
>
> > I realize how it has contributed to the
> > cycle of dependency, but that cycle is
> > there and could only be removed by a
> > long term reduction in dependency
> > through several generations.
>
> If that were true -- that dependency were cross-generation -- then we
> would never see people getting out of poverty.  Everyone would be
> destined to either live as their parents lived or just tiny variations
> from there.  In truth, though, if you allow people to voluntarily
> interact, they generally will improve their lot.

In any capitalist society, there will be those who are fortunate enough to
break the cycle of dependency. Some rich kids end up in the gutter, and some
poor kids end up becoming productive members of society and even wealthy.
But most end up living lives similar to their parent(s). In the dependency
class, this tendency is amplified by the fact that the parents do not even
encourage their children to be better. These children are only exposed to
the other options available to them when they are around people who live
different lives. In this sense, the public school can actually be a great
motivator to take advantage of the resources available to them and become
educated even if the parents don;t get involved and never even look at their
report card. The child sees that other kids have it better and may decide to
improve his own lot in life.

>
> > As for paying for it, I would rather pay for
> > public education and have an option to
> > home school combined with a tax-credit
> > than continue to foot the bill for highly
> > marked up big screen TVs. I don;t even
> > have one!
>
> Fine.  You pay for it, but don't force everyone else to pay for it as
> well, especially those who disagree with you.  If enough people agree
> with you, then why can't the system be voluntary?  If not, then maybe
> it's a bad idea.
>

So the government should never step in do something just because a few
disagree with it? I don;t know about this. There are enough people out there
that would like to see our own military disbanded. I am not so sure this is
a good idea considering the threats posed by other countries. Personally I
don;t think that we could defend ourselves without tanks, planes, and
satellites and I doubt the average person could afford to develop and build
these things on their own. The tax money of the countrie's wealthiest people
couldn't even pay for our military. It's just one of those necessary
government functions. Maybe the government should just solicit for donations
to the military? It "Might" work, but is it a risk you are willing to take?

I can say that the federal government should not be involved in the public
schools at all. As far as I am concerned, this should be a local, or at
least state-level matter. Then at least you could choose to live in a state
that didn;t provide public education, while I could choose to be in a state
that had public schools. I think this is the concept that is missing from
the context of this debate. A good starting point would be to return all
state powers back to the states, and to completely re-organize the "dole"
Federal taxes should be cut drastically while state taxes should be
increased to compensate. Then the Fed and states could begin paring down
these taxes since it will at least be clear where the money is and  where it
goes. Each state and locale could then decide what it wants to pay for as a
group and what it wants each individual to pay for. This is the concept that
I think of when I vote Libertarian on election day.