Black market schools

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The desire for food is a basic need that everyone understands, there is no need for the gov. to pass laws making eating compulsory. Education is different, it's almost as vital but some parents, and a lot of children don't realise this.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have laws that say you're required to feed your kids. I have no problem with these, and I really don't have a problem with laws that require you to educate them as well (the ACists haven't won me over yet). But this is not about making school compulsory, it's about who controls it and who pays for it.

The market provides plenty of food at affordable prices for the vast majority of Americans. There is no reason this wouldn't be the case with education (nor is there any more reason for the government to provide everyone's education than there is for them to provide everyone's food).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there is...except for those on welfare, paid for by taxes, no one "free rides" on the benefits of food. The cost of education, when borne by the users plus a few philanthropists, would be out of reach for most families.

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The desire for food is a basic need that everyone understands, there is no need for the gov. to pass laws making eating compulsory. Education is different, it's almost as vital but some parents, and a lot of children don't realize this.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is public education anywhere close to as vital as food? The stuff we learn in public schools, or even in most private schools, isn't 'vital' at all. Not everyone needs to learn the same stuff, and there are tons of kids who don't want or need to learn a lot of the stuff that they'll never use in their life.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I gather, an AC society would rely a lot of "buyer beware" situations and the ability to read and comprehend contracts for pretty much everything. How long would a person unable to read last? I'd give them 2 weeks, tops.

Even if they could read, ACism seems to be about informed choice and making right decisions, and I can't argue with that. But it seem to me that if an individual lacks a basic level of education, they may not even understand the choices, let alone make an informed decision about them.

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just let each child and their parents decide what stuff is important for them to learn, and let them go about it however they see fit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some parents (and a lot of children) simply do not understand the importance of education. Who, as an 8 year old, never wished they never had to go to school? Now, as an adult, who's glad they stayed?

A lot of parents (especially young ones) may still have bad memories of school, and lack the maturity to see the benefits for their children. If education was non-copulsary and charged a direct fee, the numbers receiving basic education would fall off drastically.

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a world of privatly owned schools there will always be some cost to the parent, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's always a cost to *someone*. Just like there is always a cost to someone in a world of state-run, coercively funded schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. It just so happens in this case, the cost futher down the line could exceed the up front costs. The children of these uneducated people will have even less chance than their parents, when added to the next generation of regular deadbeat offspring you get a kind of negative feedback that can only get worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

It *could*? Well, the death star "could" appear in orbit tomorrow, we better spend a lot of money to cover that situation, too.

If you want to argue on a cost/benefit basis, you need something better than "X could be more expensive than Y, so we need to use force to make sure Y happens." Couldn't Y be more expensive than X?

People say that anarchocapitalists only care about dollars. But time and time again, the arguments used against them are about money, and purposefully ignore the moral implications.


[/ QUOTE ]
The costs I reffered to were more than just financial. The financial cost *could* be higher, the cost to society (crime and an under-educated workforce) *will* be higher. What moral implacations have I ignored?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What happens to the kids of the junky/breadline/neglectful/lazy parent who refuses to, or cannot, pay?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. What would you like to happen? Perhaps someone (like you, perhaps) will think these kids need some education and allocate some funds towards that goal. You seem to think it's a worthy cause, are you willing to pay for it? Or are you only in favor of it when you can make other people pay for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like 95% of the population, I'm lazy, given a chance i probably wouldn't give money if it was strictly voluntary. I'm glad money goes out of my paycheck because i see the long term benefits of lower crime and a competent basic workforce. As everyone in society recieves exactly the same benefits, then i see no problem charging accordingly.

If it was left to voluntary contributions, there would not be enough money. You may veiw taxation as theft, but do you really rate theft as a worse than destroying an innocent childs life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody would stop you from making a deal with some violent thugs to come knock on your door and take X% of your money and give it to charity XYZ.

Nobody would stop you from working for a company that would set this up for you automatically.

Now, please explain why your laziness and your lack of imagination about how you might accomplish your chosen goal creates any obligation on my part to do things your way. Please explain why, even if we share the same goal, I should be compelled to contribute to the same tactic for achieving that goal.

Please explain why you use loaded appeals to emotion? I have a finite amount of resources. If I spend them all on saving children A, B and C, but children D, E and F starve, have I destroyed those innocent children's lives? I *could* have saved them, but I did something else with the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will not work unless everyone is forced to contribute, hence "If it was left to voluntary contributions, there would not be enough money". I'm not saying you have to send your kid to a state school, private or home schooling have their place and should be entitled to some rebate of some kind from the state.

I see my shameless appeals to emotion just as valid as your shameless appeals to greed [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
From what I gather, an AC society would rely a lot of "buyer beware" situations and the ability to read and comprehend contracts for pretty much everything. How long would a person unable to read last? I'd give them 2 weeks, tops.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. Really, I have no idea how many written contracts there would be in an anarchist society. But it certainly isn't true that you have to know how to read for all types of contracts--when you sit down at a restraurant, you 'contract' with the restraunt to pay for the food you order.
So while I'm inclined to agree that reading is a pretty important thing to be able to do, a) it wouldn't be necessary for all types of contracts, and b) why assume you need to pay lots of money (or any money) to learn how to read? My parents taught me how to read--I'm sure lots of others teach their kids as well. I don't understand why you think that basic reading (or other elements of 'basic' education) require a uniform system supported by involuntary taxation, when there are lots of other ways people can learn the stuff they apparently 'need' to know.

[ QUOTE ]
Some parents (and a lot of children) simply do not understand the importance of education. Who, as an 8 year old, never wished they never had to go to school? Now, as an adult, who's glad they stayed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking about 'education' in general or the specific education that you (or I) got? Education IMO is one of the most important things in the world. But a lot of the stuff I actually learned during my years of public education were a complete waste of my time, and I often wish I had spent that time learning something practical and useful than what I actually did.

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of parents (especially young ones) may still have bad memories of school, and lack the maturity to see the benefits for their children. If education was non-copulsary and charged a direct fee, the numbers receiving basic education would fall off drastically.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, your making a big assumption my stating that education in an anarchist society would require a 'direct fee'; it's difficult to say what education would look like in an anacrhist society, but like the market for anything else there are basically 3 types of economies--the market economy (if you need education, you pay somebody to teach you), charity (if you need education, you find somebody to teach you for free), and labor (if you need education, you find a way to teach yourself). So it's not like the only option for eduation would be expensive private education--I would imagine that in a highly decentralized anarchist society, many communities would have educational options that were free.
AS for education being non-compulsory, who the [censored] are you to say that someone else ought to be forcefully educated if they don't want to be? I would agree that a person should get themselves educated (though I might disagree on what constitutes such education), but I haven't the right to force anyone to get educated if they don't want to. Besides creating problems of uniformity and centralization, compulsory education is completely paternalistic and should be resisted on these grounds as well.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The desire for food is a basic need that everyone understands, there is no need for the gov. to pass laws making eating compulsory. Education is different, it's almost as vital but some parents, and a lot of children don't realise this.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have laws that say you're required to feed your kids. I have no problem with these, and I really don't have a problem with laws that require you to educate them as well (the ACists haven't won me over yet). But this is not about making school compulsory, it's about who controls it and who pays for it.

The market provides plenty of food at affordable prices for the vast majority of Americans. There is no reason this wouldn't be the case with education (nor is there any more reason for the government to provide everyone's education than there is for them to provide everyone's food).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there is...except for those on welfare, paid for by taxes, no one "free rides" on the benefits of food. The cost of education, when borne by the users plus a few philanthropists, would be out of reach for most families.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're using a different conception of "free riding" for food than you are for education. You say that I benefit from someone else getting educated, so I should pay for it so that I don't free ride. Under that conception of free riding, I'm also benefitting when that person eats (an educated person who starves to death doesn't help me much), so to be consistent you should also say I'm free riding if I don't subsidize his food.

Either that, or admit that those getting public education are, just as those getting food stamps, free riders, and not the other way around.

Which is it?

Further, your position that education would be out of reach for most families is demonstrably false. There's no inherent reason that education has to be as expensive as you think it is; that's completely a *result* of the government subsidy of it.

For the amount of money spent in some underperforming districts, you could take all the pupils, enroll them in the most expensive english-language boarding school in South Korea, and fly them all home for holidays two or three times per year.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It *could*? Well, the death star "could" appear in orbit tomorrow, we better spend a lot of money to cover that situation, too.

If you want to argue on a cost/benefit basis, you need something better than "X could be more expensive than Y, so we need to use force to make sure Y happens." Couldn't Y be more expensive than X?

People say that anarchocapitalists only care about dollars. But time and time again, the arguments used against them are about money, and purposefully ignore the moral implications.


[/ QUOTE ]
The costs I reffered to were more than just financial. The financial cost *could* be higher, the cost to society (crime and an under-educated workforce) *will* be higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you measuring those costs? Can we see your calculations? And how are you determining that this scenario is actually what "will" happen?

[ QUOTE ]
What moral implacations have I ignored?

[/ QUOTE ]

How you're paying for it, primarily. If I point a gun at you and force you to donate money to charity X, have I done a good thing?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody would stop you from making a deal with some violent thugs to come knock on your door and take X% of your money and give it to charity XYZ.

Nobody would stop you from working for a company that would set this up for you automatically.

Now, please explain why your laziness and your lack of imagination about how you might accomplish your chosen goal creates any obligation on my part to do things your way. Please explain why, even if we share the same goal, I should be compelled to contribute to the same tactic for achieving that goal.

Please explain why you use loaded appeals to emotion? I have a finite amount of resources. If I spend them all on saving children A, B and C, but children D, E and F starve, have I destroyed those innocent children's lives? I *could* have saved them, but I did something else with the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will not work unless everyone is forced to contribute, hence "If it was left to voluntary contributions, there would not be enough money". I'm not saying you have to send your kid to a state school, private or home schooling have their place and should be entitled to some rebate of some kind from the state.

I see my shameless appeals to emotion just as valid as your shameless appeals to greed [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, personal attacks. A common way to end an otherwise poor argument.

The fact that your preferred system doesn't work unless you can force people to pay for it should tell you something.

The ford pinto business model didn't work. Perhaps Ford execs should have looked into making everyone buy one. I mean, people need cars, right? And you wouldn't *have* to drive it, you could still buy a Lexus or a Mercedes, those would still "have their place".

Think about what this would do to the car market. Any other cars that would normally compete with the Pinto would basically be wiped out. All that would be left on the "open" market would be higher end stuff. It wouldn't take long before people would say stuff like "ZOMG if people had to buy their own cars, only rich people would have cars!"

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
The cost of education, when borne by the users plus a few philanthropists, would be out of reach for most families.


[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly do you think the costs of education are? There isnt much in high school that students couldnt be taught by their parents. As for university there is no reason anyone isnt going to be able to secure a loan for a degree that is going to provide a significant ROI. We might lose all those useless arts degrees considering the level of education you recieve from an arts degree is now totally replaced by a $40/month internet connection.

PVN is right when he says the high cost of education is due to government. I dont have a cite, hopefully someone else does, but Ive read that before the government got into education people were better educated.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
The cost of education, when borne by the users plus a few philanthropists, would be out of reach for most families.

[/ QUOTE ]

The cost of education is not fixed. People think education is so expensive because the biggest provider of education has no incentive whatsoever to control its costs. In parts of the world where government provides food in the same manner (North Korea, for instance), the claim is made that, if they didn't, "it would be out of reach for most families." Interestingly enough, these are the same places we see the greatest shortages of food.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
You're using a different conception of "free riding" for food than you are for education. You say that I benefit from someone else getting educated, so I should pay for it so that I don't free ride. Under that conception of free riding, I'm also benefitting when that person eats (an educated person who starves to death doesn't help me much), so to be consistent you should also say I'm free riding if I don't subsidize his food.

[/ QUOTE ]

vnhs
equivocation FTW

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
the cost to society (crime and an under-educated workforce) *will* be higher. What moral implacations have I ignored?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice assumption. Unfortunately crime rates have increased along side of government intervention in the economy.