Devil's Advocate Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Ok, so doing a quick search on Google using, "effect of education on crime prevention" led to the following: -- "The report notes that the educational level of offenders is low and that there is a strong link between low levels of education and high rates of criminal activity. It also cites data to show that education lowers recidivism more effectively than currently supported programs."https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=172486 -- "Education has been proven to be a great catalyst for change. These studies find that correctional education works, and that it can be particularly positive for juveniles in helping them acquire the skills they need to be responsible, independent members of society. As a cost-effective and continually beneficial approach, education is one the most successful means we have of preventing and reducing crime." http://ncpc.typepad.com/prevention_works_blog/2007/05/education_as_cr.html#sthash.zvPR6ISC.dpuf -- "We know that criminal offenders often have low levels of education: only 35 percent of inmates in U.S. correctional facilities have earned a high school diploma, compared to 82 percent of the general population. Criminal activity is concentrated among minority males; it begins in early adolescence and peaks when most youth should still be enrolled in secondary school."http://educationnext.org/does-school-choice-reduce-crime/ -- The sections I chose only state explicitly what my position supports and I presented them in order from the first three (non-pdf) results. There's enough there to posit a corrolation between education and security, which was all I'm trying to accomplish at this point; specifically that funding for blanket coverage of educational oppertunities is related to securing rights from social aggression and therefore a legitimate public expense. If further research proves this not to be the case, I'll glady retract my position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Isn't this method of thought an example of rationalism? The reasoning is as follows: the government's job is to extract force from society, properly educated people are less likely to initiate force, therefore it's the government's job to educate citizens. You can see the logic of the argument, except all sorts of relevant context is missing, like what a government has to do to the private citizens in order to provide free education and what make a government different from other institutions in society. I'm not rationalizing if the evidence supports my conclusion, and I'm not endorsing government over the private sector; just suggesting that you choose your poison and act consistently towards socially related goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAthos Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 That was a rather large portion of red meat to serve you. Let's see if I can break it into smaller bites for you to digest. First off, we are agreed that the ideal payment for securing rights is voluntary and that coverage includes everyone. This kind of blanket coverage is necessary for maintainig a free society, i.e., free from aggression. Secondly, a voluntarily financed, free society can choose whatever goals it wants to pursue. If having a literate society is beneficial and education can be paid for and provided to everyone like security is, a Objectivist wouldn't fault the members of that society for doing so. Chew on that for a bit and I'll get back to you. I need to do some research on the impact education has on crime reduction; I suspect quite a bit. If so, then the corrolation of education to security should become apparent. I fail to see what you're currently arguing, or why you expect it to be contended. Could you please clarify? Because I don't see any conflict with Objectivism (individual Objectivists obviously will vary) when you say that "a voluntarily financed, free society can choose whatever goals it wants to pursue," so long as those goals are pursued equally in a voluntary manner. (Meaning: free from force.) This extends to education, and to everything else. Capitalism is a free society choosing whatever goals it wants to pursue. So what is the argument specifically? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Secondly, a voluntarily financed, free society can choose whatever goals it wants to pursue. Actually, no. Individuals and groups of individuals can. This is not synonymous with "society". So, let's drop "society" and talk in terms that are real: e.g. say, "a group of rational people in a capitalist system". Actually, "a group" is pointlessly distracting. Simpler to ask about a rational individual. Now, you could ask two ways: 1. Charity In a free society, could a rational individual be willing to give some of your charitable giving to schools? That way, the obvious answer is "yes, of course that can be rational". Personally, I think helping poorer kids get a good education would be an optional value to many. 2. Non-charity: However, you seem to be suggesting this is not really charity, but a selfish goal, because without it... what? Will they rise up and end the capitalist society? If that's what you're implying, then let's start by calling it an extortionist bribe; but, no it would not be needed in a modern capitalist society. Edited January 9, 2015 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 ... So what is the argument specifically? That education effectively reduces crime and is therefore legitimately part of whatever security coverage is paid for and extended to the community at large, i.e. that security from aggression includes security from ignorance. ... In a free society, could a rational individual be willing to give some of your charitable giving to schools? ... Do you consider your voluntary tax support, which provides justice for all, a charitable donation? Would a rose by another name not be a redistribution of wealth?? In fairness, I think you are primarily objecting to coercive taxation as the means of paying for securing a right to life, and my challenging on this point has had more to do with distinguishing whether paying for anothers security is substantally different than paying for anothers education. In an ideally free society it seems to me that we could accomplish both, and evidence indicates that it behooves us to do so. Education is a form of "insurance" too, that citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleph_1 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 2 Years free community college education for students that can maintain a 2.5 gpa: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/01/08/president-proposes-make-community-college-free-responsible-students-2-years This was just announced by President Obama as a proposal he will address in the upcoming State of the Union. I may end up hating this idea, but it is the kind of tax funded access to education that I've been suggesting is related to security in so far as it promotes greater access to jobs for those who otherwise can't afford to continue on to college. Thoughts? This proposal is just a way for the federal government to take control of what are currently locally governed colleges. Even the states currently provide only a small portion of community college funds. Most CC funding is through student fees and property taxes. If the federal government supplies all student fees, then the federal government will be the largest stakeholder. This should be prevented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAthos Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 That education effectively reduces crime and is therefore legitimately part of whatever security coverage is paid for and extended to the community at large, i.e. that security from aggression includes security from ignorance. I apologize, but this doesn't help me to understand your position. Let's try another approach, and see whether we agree or disagree on some (hopefully) clarifying questions: Do you agree that our goal politically should be the elimination of the initiation of force? Do you agree that the government (i.e. that body charged with responding to the initiation of force with retaliatory force) should be funded voluntarily? Do you agree that education should also be funded voluntarily? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 ... are there periods in history where privatized education existed? .... I think it would be more difficult to identify periods in history when private education didn't exist. You're a parent (I think), has the historically private method of teaching your children to walk and talk so that you can tell them to sit down and shut up any different today than in the past? With or without government help/intervention, "private" education regularily occurs in the home and on the street as it always has. Earlier on in post #14, I posted John Adams premise that, "There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves." I believe this was forwarded (at least in part) to counter the general reliance in his day on churches to educate the masses as a charitable endevour. One of the disturbing consequences of that form of private instruction was the source material being used. The motivation for teaching others to read and write was being provided by parties interested in passing on a religious education. Considering today's western concern about the kind of education being provided in madrassas, I think Adams' point remains relevant. Home schooling can be a double edge sword, dontcha thin?? Presuming an objective code of law is obtainable and of benefit to point to as a single source of justice, wouldn't the same be true of an objective standard of knowledge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 This proposal is just a way for the federal government to take control of what are currently locally governed colleges. Even the states currently provide only a small portion of community college funds. Most CC funding is through student fees and property taxes. If the federal government supplies all student fees, then the federal government will be the largest stakeholder. This should be prevented. So you find a government entrusted with a monopoly on force less problematic than a government entrusted with making education accessible to all?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I apologize, but this doesn't help me to understand your position. Let's try another approach, and see whether we agree or disagree on some (hopefully) clarifying questions: Do you agree that our goal politically should be the elimination of the initiation of force? Do you agree that the government (i.e. that body charged with responding to the initiation of force with retaliatory force) should be funded voluntarily? Do you agree that education should also be funded voluntarily? Yes, yes and yes. My position endorses consistency with regard to paying for services that benefit all individuals. It's worth noting that even in our present, less than ideal society, the service of security isn't forced on victims of crime. They can choose to not file a complaint, which I believe usually halts the pursuit of justice. The thing is, legitimate policework requires the sanction of the victim to engage, and I think education would appropriately be rendered to willing students. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleph_1 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 So you find a government entrusted with a monopoly on force less problematic than a government entrusted with making education accessible to all?? Firstly, I hold that we retain the right to use force in self-defense, and otherwise we defer to an appropriate third-party authority. Secondly, yes, ceding education to centralized government is much more problematic. As an example, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which makes a great number of important decisions concerning courses at colleges and universities in Texas, has as one of its objectives that by 2025 at least half of its members will have college degrees. Trusting education to "experts" usually means trusting the politically connected. There is no magic in the incantation "government education". In fact, this may literally mean trusting the feeble-minded and corrupt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAthos Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Yes, yes and yes. Wunderbar -- we have a bedrock of agreement. Now let's extend slightly further and try to hound out any potential disagreement. Given a society where we have eliminated the initiation of force (as a matter of law, at least; crime still exists), and where the government and education are each funded voluntarily... Do you argue that a quality education is important to maintaining this free society? Do you argue that a quality education will help to reduce crime? Do you argue that, therefore, citizens generally would have an interest in ensuring a quality education for all? That rational citizens should want to work to achieve this end? If these form the crux of your argument in this thread, then I don't see any disagreement between such a position and Objectivism, generally speaking. Politically Objectivism stands against the initiation of force, or coercion. Ethically Objectivism stands against altruism -- acting for the benefit of others as against one's self. But the argument that supporting education for others is in one's self interest (because: it preserves political freedom and reduces crime) -- well, I think that's a fine argument to make, and so long as your proposal is voluntary, and so long as it is an appeal to self-interest, I think it's consonant with Objectivist principles. If we are agreed on all of this (and I don't just mean you, DA, but anyone else may contend as well), then where is the point of disagreement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriticalThinker2000 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Presuming an objective code of law is obtainable and of benefit to point to as a single source of justice, wouldn't the same be true of an objective standard of knowledge? We've already got an objective standard of knowledge: reality. Replacing reality with a gun creates a subjective standard of knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted January 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) I think it would be more difficult to identify periods in history when private education didn't exist. You're a parent (I think), has the historically private method of teaching your children to walk and talk so that you can tell them to sit down and shut up any different today than in the past? With or without government help/intervention, "private" education regularily occurs in the home and on the street as it always has.While yes I am a parent, circumstances were such that her mother raised her.I think we need to discover where and discriminate between the crucial difference on the matter. Parenting is a form of education, yes, but not on par with the formal K-12 currently held as a 'benchmark'. What is learned on the street may also be considered a form of education, but again is not on the same plane as your John Adams citation. Earlier on in post #14, I posted John Adams premise that, "There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves." I believe this was forwarded (at least in part) to counter the general reliance in his day on churches to educate the masses as a charitable endevour. One of the disturbing consequences of that form of private instruction was the source material being used. The motivation for teaching others to read and write was being provided by parties interested in passing on a religious education. Considering today's western concern about the kind of education being provided in madrassas, I think Adams' point remains relevant.But it also runs counter to what I suggested earlier - that education is far too important to be handled in this matter. Just as free enterprise brings the widest variety of products to market, giving the consumers the widest possible selection - I would tend to think that free enterprise in the educational arena is going to bring the widest possible variety of innovative ideas to all areas.The owners of the schools would be motivated by profit and loss to provide either the best education possible - or cater to what niche consumers might want, providing what I believe current private schools try to provide. Home schooling can be a double edge sword, dontcha thin?? Presuming an objective code of law is obtainable and of benefit to point to as a single source of justice, wouldn't the same be true of an objective standard of knowledge?At the risk of appear to make a pet out of dogma - do you envision the current pragmatic mixture in culture implementing an objective standard of knowledge at the core of its curricula? Home schooling, to me, only indicates that parents want their children to get an education, and are taking full responsibility for providing it. Why should they be forced to pay for or subsidize what they perceive as an inferior or in some other way, an undesired product? Edited January 9, 2015 by dream_weaver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 We've already got an objective standard of knowledge: reality. Replacing reality with a gun creates a subjective standard of knowledge. So then, you have but to reduce reality to a GED that can be objectively used to determine when students have sufficiently mastered it and we'll have something worth the cost of administering. BTW, guns are a disturbing part of reality that education plays an important role in getting a handle on, and no one here is proposing delivering education at gunpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted January 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 I don't happen to find guns a disturbing part of reality. How they are used by irrational folk that acquire them is far more disturbing to me. I'm far more impressed by this little weapon. How effectively the little weapon above is used may help to illustrate just how taxpayer supported eduction is ultimately enforced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 While yes I am a parent, circumstances were such that her mother raised her... I'm pretty sure that couldn't have been easy for either of you. ... I think we need to discover where and discriminate between the crucial difference on the matter. Parenting is a form of education, yes, but not on par with the formal K-12 currently held as a 'benchmark'. What is learned on the street may also be considered a form of education, but again is not on the same plane as your John Adams citation... My view is that the objective 'benchmark' would be something like a GED. What is learned on the street is survival, and at home is how parents want you to survive. I consider both sources to be supplemental education. What is needed is access to objective knowledge such that everyone has the opportunity to escape their upbringing, or at least improve upon it. ... But it also runs counter to what I suggested earlier - that education is far too important to be handled in this matter. Just as free enterprise brings the widest variety of products to market, giving the consumers the widest possible selection - I would tend to think that free enterprise in the educational arena is going to bring the widest possible variety of innovative ideas to all areas. The owners of the schools would be motivated by profit and loss to provide either the best education possible - or cater to what niche consumers might want, providing what I believe current private schools try to provide... Governments are paid to administrate, not innovate. Individuals innovate and hire staff to carry out the curriculum, and government is essentially one form of staff. As I mentioned before, a monopoly on force doesn't prevent private security from following the same rules while allowing for a better quality of security. Private schools respond similarily to a better quality of teaching, yet the rules for math and grammer need little innovation any more than facts need innovation. 1+1=2. ... Home schooling, to me, only indicates that parents want their children to get an education, and are taking full responsibility for providing it. Why should they be forced to pay for or subsidize what they perceive as an inferior or in some other way, an undesired product? They shouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 ... Do you argue that a quality education is important to maintaining this free society? Do you argue that a quality education will help to reduce crime? Do you argue that, therefore, citizens generally would have an interest in ensuring a quality education for all? That rational citizens should want to work to achieve this end? If these form the crux of your argument in this thread, then I don't see any disagreement between such a position and Objectivism, generally speaking. Politically Objectivism stands against the initiation of force, or coercion. Ethically Objectivism stands against altruism -- acting for the benefit of others as against one's self. But the argument that supporting education for others is in one's self interest (because: it preserves political freedom and reduces crime) -- well, I think that's a fine argument to make, and so long as your proposal is voluntary, and so long as it is an appeal to self-interest, I think it's consonant with Objectivist principles. If we are agreed on all of this (and I don't just mean you, DA, but anyone else may contend as well), then where is the point of disagreement? Yes, yes and yes again. Unless either of my more recent responses trouble you, I think we are fairly copacetic here and I invite others to respond to your take on this issue as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 ... Secondly, yes, ceding education to centralized government is much more problematic. As an example, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which makes a great number of important decisions concerning courses at colleges and universities in Texas, has as one of its objectives that by 2025 at least half of its members will have college degrees. Trusting education to "experts" usually means trusting the politically connected. There is no magic in the incantation "government education". In fact, this may literally mean trusting the feeble-minded and corrupt. Accessibility and content are two separate issues. The former is appropriately handled by a 3rd party for the same reason force is, and the latter is provided by objectively defined rules. There is no magic in the source of the administration, only adherence to the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted January 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 I'm pretty sure that couldn't have been easy for either of you.True. My view is that the objective 'benchmark' would be something like a GED. What is learned on the street is survival, and at home is how parents want you to survive. I consider both sources to be supplemental education. What is needed is access to objective knowledge such that everyone has the opportunity to escape their upbringing, or at least improve upon it.I'd say that the supplemental side of education as you state it here is a given. You say: What is needed is access to objective knowledge. How might that differ from: What is needed is be taught how to develop knowledge objectively. ? If the latter aspect is properly instilled, escaping an upbringing is replaced with the means to shape ones own character and destiny. Governments are paid to administrate, not innovate. Individuals innovate and hire staff to carry out the curriculum, and government is essentially one form of staff. As I mentioned before, a monopoly on force doesn't prevent private security from following the same rules while allowing for a better quality of security. Private schools respond similarily to a better quality of teaching, yet the rules for math and grammer need little innovation any more than facts need innovation. 1+1=2.I do not have any issue with rules for math and grammar, per se, but the pedagogical approach. I would rather my instructors to teach me, among other things, how a government's only proper function is to uphold and protect individual rights, rather than having the upholder and protector of individual rights saddled with the additional task of trying to identify a proper pedagogical approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) The difference between access to objective knowledge and how to develop knowledge objectively is one primarily of dealing with the "what" vs the "why". The former responds to static information and the latter to discovery and validation. There's more to respond to here, but for now think of it in terms of the difference in presenting the rules of baseball vs developing rules of baseball. Edit: Responding to post #116 http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg Edited January 11, 2015 by Devil's Advocate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted January 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 The difference between access to objective knowledge and how to develop knowledge objectively is one primarily of dealing with the "what" vs the "why". The former responds to static information and the latter to discovery and validation. There's more to respond to here, but for now think of it in terms of the difference in presenting the rules of baseball vs developing rules of baseball. Edit: Responding to post #116 http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg Ok, I'm chuckling at the response to post #116, but wondering if we are making any headway in the aside I made to Williams' baseball analogy. To me, the xkcd illustration exemplifies my point. Your usage of it seems to imply to me that it counters it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 The xkcd illustration, like my previous quote from the movie Serenity, is intended to show sympathy for the concern being expressed here about how thigs are. How things ought to be is another matter, and my argument has been primarily focused in that direction, i.e., how securing a right to life, which necessarily includes access to education, ought to be addressed in a "fully free society" of the kind referred to by Ayn Rand which she noted, "is more than premature today". Her only reference to education in the Lexicon is equally spare to that of Taxation. Nevertheless she does highlight its importance with: "The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life—by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality.The training he needs is theoretical, i.e., conceptual. He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past—and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort." Her reference to education is assertive, "He has to be taught...". Why? Because he needs to know "how to live his life". This is as close to tacitly acknowledging a right to education as can me made, and I think it natually follows from securing a right to life, for how secure is an uneducated life?? Before I get thumped for suggesting such blasphemy, consider this... "The middle class has created an antidote (to wealthy private schools?) which is perhaps the most hopeful movement of recent years: the spontaneous, unorganized, grass-roots revival of the Montessori system of education—a system aimed at the development of a child’s cognitive, i.e., rational, faculty." ~ Education, ARL The pedagogical approach Ayn Rand supports has already been introduced into the public educational system. My own children were students at one of the public schools that initiated this program and today: "More than 400 public schools nationwide offer Montessori programs." http://amshq.org/School-Resources/Public I have already introduced evidence supporting the efficacy of providing education to reduce crime as being correlated to securing a right to life. I have also found that the aversion to free riders is primarily delimited to the present historical model of coercive taxation, which we all agree ought to be replaced by some future voluntary method of payment (which still includes free riders). How's that for headway?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted January 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 That helped put it back into perspective. It's funny. Working with geometry, others have commented on how confusing an intricate combination of line-work appears, while it often helps me to put an overall picture into perspective. From Man's Rights, in The Virtue of Selfishness Jobs, food, clothing, recreation (!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values—goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them? If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. A proper government could probably fit on this list as well. It does not grow in nature either. It is another man-made value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 Interesting... I agree, but would argue that securing a right to life is probably #1 on the list of man-made values, with education being the next item. Those 2 being accomplished, it's doubtful the remaining items would necessarily be provided in a fully free society. As an aside, I was gratified to find myself represented on the xkcd website http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_sake_of_argument.png Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.