25 replies to this topic

[CrowEpistemologist]

As taxation in general was left by Ayn Rand as an "implementation detail" (and we know that a "zero tax society" is not something Ayn Rand envisioned as being possible), to me this supports the following construct: that it's proper that we have a government whose job is to secure our Rights and this can cost money--possibly requiring a certain amount of "involuntary" (in the direct sense) taxation--but insofar as it's proper that our Rights are secured, and somebody needs to secure those rights (i.e. the police and the courts and the army), then it would follow that taxation within said context of protection (a fee, really) is proper as well.

Now, in a society which was truly governed by the correct political principles, this would not present a problem, and moreover one would rationally be fine with a "tax" insofar as you could directly attribute such a tax to the task of securing your rights as a citizen and so forth (and hence this cuts out huge parts of our current government--but not all).

Now with the idea that "implementation details" are, within the proper rational context, perfectly able to be "taxes", I wondered if this could extend to public schools.

What if we found out that, in order to successfully pull off a democracy (especially a more abstract one based Individual Rights) we need an educated populace to a certain extent. No, it's not anybody's duty to educate somebody without paying for it, but what if education where a requirement to create a government that secured individual rights--and that nobody had yet invented one that did not?

Now, this may seem rather hypothetical, but I'd submit that we in fact have not yet invented a political system that could successfully operate with, say, an illiterate population. I do not think it's sustainable that a small part of the population effectively "rule" over a larger one (which would be the argument for allowing only educated citizens to participate in the democracy, for instance).

If that's the case, then, isn't it the case that public schools (narrowly defined here) take on a similar status in securing our individual rights as, say, the army?

Mind you, I'm not talking about "higher-level" goals such as economic competitiveness, etc. (as some do these days) but rather the minimum required education necessary to understand the basic tenants of our republic such that you can participate as a citizen.

So is there a case to be made for public schools (again, probably much more narrowly defined than they are today)?

(I vaguely recall the Founding Fathers saying something along these lines--maybe somebody with more readily available brain cells on that can enlighten me).

Thanks.

[softwareNerd]

What if we found out that, in order to successfully pull off a democracy (especially a more abstract one based Individual Rights) we need an educated populace to a certain extent. No, it's not anybody's duty to educate somebody without paying for it, but what if education where a requirement to create a government that secured individual rights--and that nobody had yet invented one that did not?

There are some quotes from Jefferson which indicate that he might argue along those lines.

Education can lead people to an understanding of rights, but it can also lead them to a desire for communism. So, literacy does not ensure support for rights. Nor is literacy a precondition for such support. Illiterate people do have a philosophy of life, including a political philosophy. This might be "loyalty to tribe" in one era, "equality" in another, and "freedom" in a third. One sees educated people who seem to regularly prefer equality and tribalism over freedom. So, there's no link between education and political philosophy. In India, the state with the highest literacy rate (over 90%) -- Kerala -- has historically elected a communist party to state-government. The other communist-leaning state has been West Bengal, which is also fairly literate. In addition, I'd guess that literacy rates are pretty high in most statist countries.

Secondly, if we cannot preserve individual liberty without some factor (XYZ), then we must also ask: would XYZ be forthcoming spontaneously and naturally? Most people see the selfish value of basic literacy. Even very poor, illiterate parents in third-world countries try to have their kids learn to read and write.

I'm not even convinced that literacy ought to be a requirement for voting. I don't think it is illiteracy as such that keeps people from knowing their rights. However, I think that one might make a basic understanding of rights a requirement for voting, even without insisting that the voter be literate.

[Reidy]

You might be right that we need an educated electorate, but this does not entail that government ought to provide education. We need a populace that is healthy and nourished enough to survive to voting age, but this does not show that government ought to run the food or medical businesses. Voters need to get to the polls, but this does not show that government ought to provide transportation. I could go on with examples, but these ought to make the point.

If you could prove that voters need to be educated (softwareNerd makes a case against that in the previous post), that would argue at most for tests as a qualification for voting, something like the citizenship exams required for naturalization. Literacy tests got a bad reputation because states and localities used to use them in arbitrary and inconsistent ways to keep blacks from voting. That's why Congress outlawed them in the 1960s. This is not built in to the notion, though; Congress could repeal the law, and safeguards could straightforwardly be built into the testing process.

Not only does this point (voters need to be well-informed to make good choices) fail to prove the need for government-provided or government-regulated schools, it is a potent argument against it. If elected officials and government employees are in the business of providing people's political education, they'll be in conflict of interest. Their incentives will be to indoctrinate students with just the political beliefs that serve the providers' financial and professional interests. That is exactly what has happened.

[Craig24]

If that's the case, then, isn't it the case that public schools (narrowly defined here) take on a similar status in securing our individual rights as, say, the army?

Not if those schools are teaching against individual rights as the proper principle of politics and the students accept such instruction. Be careful what you wish for.

[CrowEpistemologist]

@sNerd -- Obviously literacy doesn't correlate to anything within the literate world (you missed an even better example in the Wiemar Republic :-)), but the question is, rather, is it a requirement for liberty to exist? Is it, "table stakes" as it were? That's the question I'm trying to answer here.

So yes, there are a lot of other things that might prevent people from knowing enough to participate in our Republic, but I would take those one at a time. Your point about requiring a "basic understanding of rights" does NOT presuppose basic literacy? That doesn't seem realistic. Maybe there's an example somewhere of even a basic democracy being sustainable without widespread literacy?

@Reidy -- That's a great point about food and water and shelter, but these are things that mankind had figured out long before the DOI was signed. The new-fangled government that the Founders had created involved a high degree self-governance and reliance on the individual citizens--more than ever before. Certainly they thought it required training that went above and beyond what most of the ruffians naturally obtained.

And just to level-set here, I'd realistically be talking about a K-4 education here at the MOST, as the requirement would only be basic literacy and basic civics.

To continue with this, a practical way to accomplish this would be a semi-voluntary system wherein you choose (your parents choose for you) to attend a school which gives you the education necessary to secure the right to vote, and in return you are saddled with a debt that you have some reasonably long time to pay for (but which is compelled from you later in life since that is what you chose).

That might work--but I would submit that a large part of our population needs to buy into this for our Republic to have a chance at survival (and to be sure, the US has never existed in the context of a largely illiterate populace AFAIK).

Anyhow, just thinking out loud here...

[Craig24]

No, no, no. Absolutely not. Any school under government control will teach the government's values. If and when the government is run by statists, they will instruct the students to be little conformists and many will grow to be adult conformists that will maintain the status quo. How do you think we got here in the first place? Not a single second of educational instruction should be under government control.

[Nicky]

Objectivism is incompatible with forced taxation, for any end. Objectivism holds that reason is the only tool men have to survive and thrive, and that freedom is the only condition in which men can be rational.

If you throw either of those statements out the window, Objectivist Politics loses the only edge it has over the many other attempts to justify Capitalism: a philosophical foundation anchored in reality.

[CrowEpistemologist]

Objectivism is incompatible with forced taxation, for any end. Objectivism holds that reason is the only tool men have to survive and thrive, and that freedom is the only condition in which men can be rational.

If you throw either of those statements out the window, Objectivist Politics loses the only edge it has over the many other attempts to justify Capitalism: a philosophical foundation anchored in reality.

Well, it gets down to what you mean by "taxation" and "forced". Please see: http://aynrandlexico...n/taxation.html .

The justification for Capitalism is morality and the nature of man, not "no new taxes", which may, or may not be a byproduct.

[IchorFigure]

To continue with this, a practical way to accomplish this would be a semi-voluntary system...

...(but which is compelled from you later in life since that is what you chose).

That's not "semi-voluntary" it's compulsion.

Human beings are not omniscient and fallable. Not somehow deterministically drawn to supporting good politics. You could put someone through the exact same education the founders had and still get an unconvinced statist. I don't find this convincing.

The only interesting argument I've heard for a limited requirement to basic education is from the standpoint that it could be child abuse to deny a child the tools they need to think. I'm talking about extremely basic essentials like the alphabet, capability to read, and the basics of math. And even in this case it's not a societal compullsion. It's a legal issue to be required of parents if they *choose* to have a child. Like basic nutrition.

[Craig24]

Well, it gets down to what you mean by "taxation" and "forced". Please see: http://aynrandlexico...n/taxation.html .

The justification for Capitalism is morality and the nature of man, not "no new taxes", which may, or may not be a byproduct.

Keep in mind that the initiation of force is opposed here. Any "tax" would have to be voluntary. Now we can debate what that will mean in practice.

[Nicky]

Well, it gets down to what you mean by "taxation" and "forced".

It should b pretty obvious that the language I'm speaking is English. With that out of the way, I'm confident that what I wrote is quite clear and whether it is understood depends strictly on the reader's ability to speak English.

[CrowEpistemologist]

How is it forced? It basically says that IF you want to vote and participate in our Republic THEN you must be literate--and in the name of preserving our Republic, we offer to make it a bit easier to do so (but still make you pay 100% ultimately). You're free to say, "fine, I won't vote" and keep your money.

Next, I don't understand the criticisms here that, "public education will necessarily lead to socialism". Please read Peikoff's OP again. It's a little bit more complicated than that, and it doesn't explain why our country was founded by and large by graduates from public schools. Are private schools here in the US more oriented towards reason and rights? Catholic schools anybody? :-) I would submit that schools reflect the culture, not the other way around.

To be sure, when I talk about K-4 education, we're certainly not talking about the level in which one is taught a specific politics, only the baseline skills necessary to participate in our Republic (and I look forward SN's response as to whether there is such a requirement but so far I just can't imagine how an illiterate person would actually do it--and it's never happened in the history of the US so we have to look elsewhere).

[softwareNerd]

...the question is, rather, is it a requirement for liberty to exist? Is it, "table stakes" as it were? ... ...

... ... Your point about requiring a "basic understanding of rights" does NOT presuppose basic literacy? That doesn't seem realistic. Maybe there's an example somewhere of even a basic democracy being sustainable without widespread literacy?

I don't see any evidence that literacy is a requirement for someone to think he deserves individual rights. Historically, progress has meant literacy and also ideas about democracy. However, many other things have gone hand in hand. For instance, better health has gone hand in hand with democracy, but I don't see how it would be a pee-requisite.

I'm not sure what you mean by "widespread literacy" or "basic democracy". India's literacy rate at the time it became independent was under 20%, yet it established a democracy. it's constitution even supported individual rights. As time went by, literacy grew and the country grew more socialist. I don't think general literacy had a role one way or the other. What really mattered was the political ideology of the highly-educate elites.

Anyway, none of this is relevant to a country that is mature enough to actually be enacting a pro-individual rights constitution. Today, literacy is widespread, and this is not something that retrogresses.

Edited by softwareNerd, 04 April 2012 - 05:14 PM.

[Craig24]

How is it forced? It basically says that IF you want to vote and participate in our Republic THEN you must be literate

The 'either/or' fallacy? Freedom means either this or that? What if I want to choose both or neither? Why force me to choose one or the other?

[CrowEpistemologist]

I don't see any evidence that literacy is a requirement for someone to think he deserves individual rights. Historically, progress has meant literacy and also ideas about democracy. However, many other things have gone hand in hand. For instance, better health has gone hand in hand with democracy, but I don't see how it would be a pee-requisite.

I'm not sure what you mean by "widespread literacy" or "basic democracy". India's literacy rate at the time it became independent was under 20%, yet it established a democracy. it's constitution even supported individual rights. As time went by, literacy grew and the country grew more socialist. I don't think general literacy had a role one way or the other. What really mattered was the political ideology of the highly-educate elites.

Anyway, none of this is relevant to a country that is mature enough to actually be enacting a pro-individual rights constitution. Today, literacy is widespread, and this is not something that retrogresses.

I think you're missing my point. My question is, how does an individual, practically, learn about the complexities of our Republic (such that he would able to vote with at least some level of context) without being able to read?

Perhaps another subtlety here is that I'm saying, "All A is B" not "All B is A" in that I am saying that you cannot sustain a Republic based on liberty and individual rights without literacy--not that literacy will lead to liberty.

India is... a caste system... always has been. I think liberty in that context would always be fleeting. And note that I'm concerned here about long term sustainability which clearly India did not witness (unlike our own, publicly educated Republic which despite its issues has more or less held together thus far).

As for it not being something that retrogresses.... you understand that children don't inherit the ability to read genetically, right? :-) Shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves to three generations?

If we pulled the plug on public schools, regardless of the right and wrong of it (and from an ethical standpoint it would be RIGHT modulo this argument), we would clearly see a rise in illiteracy, at least to some extent. Should those people be able to vote? If not, is it healthy for our Republic (which we all have a selfish interest in succeeding) to have a non-voting class? Clearly our Founders saw such a class as a dangerous thing... I'm inclined to agree thus far...

[softwareNerd]

My question is, how does an individual, practically, learn about the complexities of our Republic (such that he would able to vote with at least some level of context) without being able to read?

Nobody needs to learn about "the complexities of our Republic" in order to understand the notion of individual rights and a few such related ideas.

...I am saying that you cannot sustain a Republic based on liberty and individual rights without literacy...

I disagree.

India is... a caste system... always has been. I think liberty in that context would always be fleeting. And note that I'm concerned here about long term sustainability which clearly India did not witness (unlike our own, publicly educated Republic which despite its issues has more or less held together thus far).

The point is, it became more socialist as literacy increased, not as literacy decreased.

As for it not being something that retrogresses.... you understand that children don't inherit the ability to read genetically, right? :-)

You do understand that educated parents general ensure they have literate children., right :-)

If we pulled the plug on public schools, regardless of the right and wrong of it (and from an ethical standpoint it would be RIGHT modulo this argument), we would clearly see a rise in illiteracy

I disagree.

Should those people be able to vote?

Yes, I think they should vote. With a proper constitution, it might be a good idea to have a test that voters understand the constitution, but this has little to do with literacy.

If not, is it healthy for our Republic (which we all have a selfish interest in succeeding) to have a non-voting class?

You are trying to solve a non-problem.

[CrowEpistemologist]

You really don't think we'd see a rise in illiteracy if we abolished public education? Seriously?

Mind you, I'm not one to say, "and that's why we shouldn't do it"--the illiteracy rate is not my problem (modulo our discussion here).

However, I find it hard to imagine that if our free (nearly compulsory) system today were replaced with a system that you would actively have to pay for, clearly there would be a lot of parents who wouldn't do it, no? None at all?

To be sure, in discussing this, I've learned this much:

1. Anything above, say, public K-4 education is clearly unsupportable within the context of "pure" liberty.

2. We should have a "literacy test" as Reidy mentioned above in order to vote (which not only encompasses reading but also includes basic concepts of government such as what a vote means, our branches of government, what a law is, etc.) .

Maybe we can agree to disagree, but: (a) I simply don't see how it's practically possible that somebody who cannot read a word could possibly be taught the basic context of our government and what his vote really means; ( I also think that completely removing all forms of public K-4 education would increase illiteracy; © I think that such a decrease would be damaging to our republic as it would create a "ruled class" who would not be able to vote and that would not be healthy for our Republic--or at minimum not worth the trade-off of the relatively minor cost we'd incur by running such a program (which to be sure would be a fraction of what we have today).

Now, I understand that it may LOOK like a non-problem since here in the USA we've never actually tried this... But insofar as Objectivists advocate abolishing public schools, we should at least think this through...

[aequalsa]

Next, I don't understand the criticisms here that, "public education will necessarily lead to socialism". Please read Peikoff's OP again. It's a little bit more complicated than that, and it doesn't explain why our country was founded by and large by graduates from public schools.

I'm not sure what you're basing this on but it is contradictory to my understanding. Perhaps I misunderstand who you are referring to. Public schools were by and large a product of the mid to late 1800s in the US. There were a few state attempts(Massachusetts mainly) before that, but even in the case of Adams of Franklin from that area, they were privately educated or self-taught. Is there some in particular you are thinking of?

Are private schools here in the US more oriented towards reason and rights? Catholic schools anybody? :-) I would submit that schools reflect the culture, not the other way around.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I started a "private" Montessori School recently and tell you that the kind of regulations we have to submit to heavily impact the content and the way we are required to teach. Easily 50% of Montessori pedagogy is against state regulations. On top of and worse than that, the market is 90% controlled by "free" education causing those attempting to provide a free-ish market solution to try to squeeze out a niche inside that 10% which consists largely of people wealthy enough to double pay(since they pay once already in taxes) for their children's education to avoid the catastrophe that is most public schools, or those ideologically committed enough to avoid public schools through providing their own charity and scholarship. Hence the prevalence of catholic schools. Public education eradicates almost all possibility of alternatives from the free markets since we can't, you know, tax people to support us.

Your fundamental point though is, as pointed out above, something of a non-problem. Most children learn to read between the ages of 4 and 5. In my class it is more common than not that by the end of kindergarten children know how to read at a 4th or 5th grade level, write numerals past 1000, do dynamic division and multiplication and often have understanding of the rudimentary parts of Algebra(slopes, xy plotting, and the like) Literacy alone, the ability to read, could be taught to them by their parents over a summer.

After that, self-education is possible and preferable to the indoctrination which will inevitably ensue in our system. And it does. Far more than you seem to realize even, and especially at these earlier ages. The entire system, top to bottom is designed to indoctrinate. Sitting in rows obedient to the power figure standing at your front providing you with orders; Performing tasks and operations by rote; Changing design and activity at the sounding of a bell; holding your body still in spite of all the research pointing to movement as a driving force in real learning. These are just a few of the ways in which the minds of Americans are currently being contorted into the shapes necessary for our current socialist state.

I got to go. I can write more later, but in short I think that you are largely mistaken in your views of what education is and accomplishes, how small a part of it "literacy" is and how self-reinforcing a compulsory system is whether in education or anything else. Think of it as a state sponsored religion, because it is. Then imagine a state sponsored religion reinforced with money from all other religion's confiscated wealth over the course of 8 generations. It becomes what Kleenex is to the tissue paper industry.

[aequalsa]

You really don't think we'd see a rise in illiteracy if we abolished public education? Seriously?

I would agree quite seriously. Consider this http://educationnext...oolsforthepoor/

and keep in mind the dollar a day incomes that are typical in the slums referenced. Of course some children would slip through the cracks but it is a fiction to think that they don't already. The benefits though of having a large percentage of free thinking autodidacts would be immeasurable and make any value lost in the few children whose parents are so bad that they don't teach them to read, inconsequential. And honestly, if the parents are that bad those kids likely have a whole host of other problems which will be keeping them down anyways and would usually not manage very well later in life regardless of the amount of free educations available to them.

[softwareNerd]

No, I don't see any evidence that abolishing public education will cause a drop in literacy rates. Public schools in some poorer districts produce a certain percentage of illiterates. I doubt they'd do any worse if those public schools did not exist. On the other hand, we have evidence of geographical areas where most schooling is private and yet literacy rates are very high. Anyway, the reason this is a non-issue is because either way we would be talking of a small marginal slice of the population. I realize you think that literacy is important for people to understand freedom etc., I assume you would not argue that a republic with 98% literacy is really safer than one with (say) 90% literacy. That's what I mean by a non-problem: in a modern society -- i.e. in the future -- very high literacy levels are going to be a fact of life.

I understand why a lot of Americans cannot imagine what things would be like without government-provided education. As someone who grew up in a country where middle-class education was almost all private, I've seen enough evidence to know that there's no issue here.

But regardless of the above, I do not see any evidence that literacy is a requirement to preserve a free society. So, the other arguments are moot. I also disagree with a voter literacy test. I think one can test an understanding of basic ideas of political philosophy without needing to test literacy.

Consider some primitive tribal culture where people were not literate. Despite their illiteracy, they had all sorts of ideas about ethics and politics. They would be able to tell fables and give you reasons for their beliefs. The ability to write these down is not a fundamental requirement for a basic layman (grade-8) understanding. A very basic level of literacy is not going to ensure any better grasp of ideas, nor ensure the grasp of better ideas.

Perhaps you could say that the government should hold (say) 1-week purely-spoken classes that explain the basic concepts that will come up on the constitutional test, explaining the right answers and the reasons for those answers. I figure an average teacher would be able to cover about 3 concepts in one class-day, and 15 key concepts is all one would need. I would be against such a government-provided course, because I think it is wrong to try to tackle a problem that does not exist.

Some Objectivists do argue that the government may require parents to give their kids basic literacy skills, just as the law requires people to feed their kids. I think this is a far stronger argument -- though I'm not convinced here either. I would agree with the premise that literacy is increasingly a requirement for even a basic job, and therefore for a shot at some type of life in modern society. Parents ought to teach their kids to read and write, and it is immoral for them not to do so.

However, I don't see any threat to the political system.

Edited by softwareNerd, 04 April 2012 - 08:45 PM.

[Grames]

Percentage wise, there was a higher rate of literacy before the public school system was imposed on America.

I googled "literacy rates in America historical" and came up with this document HISTORICAL LITERACY RATES IN THE UNITED STATES.

[CrowEpistemologist]

I would agree quite seriously. Consider this http://educationnext...oolsforthepoor/

That's great evidence. This renders the rest of the argument moot. Thanks.

As a side note, what school are you at where Kindergarteners are doing algebra?

[CrowEpistemologist]

By the way, what I would add to the conclusion here is this:

Wherein "private schools" in the USA are currently the province of "rich people" (more or less), that is only because there is a free public alternative and there is a government-driven expectation of a very high-degree of quality (using that term loosely) which is not necessary for a "basic" education.

If there was no public education and no particular mandate, two things would happen:

1. There would be a strata of private schools from cheap ones to expensive ones (as opposed to now, where it's almost all expensive ones).

2. There would a strata of products in schools, from full-on "college prep" to "basic reading and writing".

These two things would conspire to ensure that almost our entire population is literate, which would in turn ensure that our Republic is filled mostly with those who can participate in it, thus making it stable. (I still don't agree that in illiterate population would be stable under a system of liberty, but that point as you say is moot in today's context).

[Nicky]

How is it forced? It basically says that IF you want to vote and participate in our Republic THEN you must be literate--and in the name of preserving our Republic, we offer to make it a bit easier to do so (but still make you pay 100% ultimately). You're free to say, "fine, I won't vote" and keep your money.

Oh, ok. I understand what you mean now. You're right, that's not force. It would be fine, as long as it only affects voting privileges, not people's individual rights.

I thought you were referring to actual forced taxation, where people with guns come over to collect.

P.S. Don't get me wrong, the "right to self determination" is absolutely an individual right. But that doesn't automatically make voting a right. Voting is a privilege earned by contributing to the government you're voting about. You have the right to vote, if you contribute your fair share: that is the right to self determination.

I believe that answers your question about extending this practice to education, as well. No, that would not be appropriate, because it would in fact interfere with one's right to self determination. That right carries with it only an obligation to contribute to the legitimate functions of government, not to make sure to give others an education (for whatever reason, even just so that they could vote too: that's their problem, not mine).

It would be legitimate to make sure everyone who votes is educated in the relevant subjects, but not by giving everyone that education: by excluding those who aren't.

Edited by Nicky, 05 April 2012 - 11:21 AM.

[softwareNerd]

If there was no public education and no particular mandate, two things would happen:

1. There would be a strata of private schools from cheap ones to expensive ones (as opposed to now, where it's almost all expensive ones).

True. Analogously, consider the U.K., where the NHS delivers health-care. They still have some private doctors, not just for rock-stars and rock-bands, but even for senior executives -- particularly of multi-national countries. However, these doctors are really expensive.

Since the UK tries to cover a much larger segment of its population via a standard government-provided healthcare system, they end up with that, plus a very expensive system used by a very small segment of the population.

In the U.S., the various state mandates on health-insurance have forced very few stratas among doctors and hospitals. Not as uniform as U.K.'s NHS, and of far better quality, but still nowhere near the stratas that exist in countries where health care is relatively free of government control.

So, you're right and the point applies more broadly: to health care and to any other sector where the government takes over and tries to provide the service to a large proportion of the population. Being the government, it often tries to be "fair".

if people would accept that having various strata of education is fair and moral, and that various levels of health care are fair and moral, we would solve the two biggest problems that the U.S. voter's moral code has caused, via government force.