Abolition of Public Education

[volco]

Not being able to find an existing topic on the subject I'd like to adress the question for the Abolition of Public Schools as another keystone of the civil rights movement comparable, but of greater importance and implications, to the abolition of compulsory Millitary Service though it would be more accurately to compare it to the separation of state and church since they it deals with freedom of mind.

I understand that publicly funded schools in America date from 1647.

Religion has been a tradition and a requierement for any civilization for centuries, the Reformation, and America's Freedom of Religion have only boosted and the churchs.

Now massive education is seen as both a tradition and a requierement for any country to exist, and holding that argument is it that satists support public compulsory school.

The main argument for the defenders of public funded education is that poor people have a right to it. I'm not going to discuss the self evident distinction betwen right and entitlement, but I will argue that in practice the privatization of all education (including subsidies) should cause a proliferation of schools from the lowest levels of income to the highest.

Others, particularly in my country, argue that not only poors have a right to education, but that we all have an obligation to be equalize, meaning that wealthier kids shouldnt be able to afford a better education. In practice this already happens in public schools, the ones in better neighborhoods though public are still pretty much in control of the neighbor's private donations and even influence in the curricula. So the argument falls as well.

Then, why is liberalization of education not happening? Or how to make it happen? On the personal level I guess the obvious answer is to homeschool. Then another question is raised: should we care to make it happen for the rest of society?

Ths reminds me of a historical paralellism: Was the Civil War America's first foreign intervention? When the south seceded, shouldnt have the Union let them instead of sacrifying millions of their citizens?

[softwareNerd]

Then, why is liberalization of education not happening? Or how to make it happen?

You mentioned the arguments for public education. Enough people buy those arguments; therefore it exists. The long term way to make it happen is to convince people that those arguments are invalid.

On the personal level I guess the obvious answer is to homeschool. Then another question is raised: should we care to make it happen for the rest of society?

Homeschooling is a pretty poor answer for most parents. Most of the time, it means two things: changing careers (at least for the duration of becoming a teacher to one's kids); and, forgoing the income from the other career. So, many parents may not have the interest, or may not be able to afford it (within their other values).

That is one reason to want to see a change in the school system at large. If one is childless, getting rid of public education means lower taxes -- letting parents foot the bill for their own kids. For all, there is the additional motivation that living in a well-educated society is a value. (Of course, this last is a secondary argument used by the pro-public school people.)

[DavidOdden]

You should not argue for the abolition of public education, since it involves a significant misidentification. First, you should argue against compulsory education. Second, you should argue against taxpayer funding of education. These are separate issues. Which issue did you want to focus on?

[volco]

The taxpayer funding of education fits in the same problem as with any other "public service". I guess I'd like to adress the aboliton of compulsory education, and of state-mandated curricula, which I believe are the same issue.

[Sewdo]

It seems to me this question (your re-focus) is subsumed by the larger question of whether or not the State has the authority to force its constituents to do something they do not want to if the degree of harm extends beyond physical harm. Perhaps a strict definition of 'harm' would be a fruitful starting point.

[Zip]

It seems to me this question (your re-focus) is subsumed by the larger question of whether or not the State has the authority to force its constituents to do something they do not want to if the degree of harm extends beyond physical harm. Perhaps a strict definition of 'harm' would be a fruitful starting point.

That has already been done In my opinion...

...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

[Sewdo]

Great quote of Mill's. However, it still leaves the question of definition unanswered. The State, in its many incarnations, has repeatedly stripped the individual of rights, depending, of course, upon the definition of 'harm'.

Zoning laws are a good example of this.

[OA1982]

The main obstacle I see to aboliting compulsory education is the increasingly prevalent attitude that it is the government's job to protect one from oneself. Obviously, the problem is that it is not, in fact, the government's job to do that.

The only way to really advance the abolition of public schools is to change the attitudes of those who believe that the majority of individuals would opt not to send their children to school, or opt not to attend school themselves. Additionally, the idea that the disparity of wealth created between those who choose to educated themselves or their children is harmful would have to be combatted successfully.

The State, in its many incarnations, has repeatedly stripped the individual of rights, depending, of course, upon the definition of 'harm'.

Just because it has been done, doesn't mean it's been done justly, or rationally. I think the quote accurately reflects a rational definition of harm. Whether or not such a definition has been adopted by a government considering a bit of legislation is another question entirely, and usually will depend on the government in question, and the individuals' goals in proposing that legislation.

As to whether a government has the right to force its constituents to do something they don't want to do when the degree of harm caused by that action extends beyond the physical, they do not. Do they do so anyways? Yes. For example, the Transfer Payments program instituted by the Canadian government. In this program, the government harms a portion of its constituents for the benefit of other constituents, by routinely (read: annually) stealing millions of dollars from them and giving those dollars to others who can or will not produce those dollars for themselves. Given that those dollars would otherwise be used to improve the lives of those who were stolen from, that is a form of harm being levied on them by government mandate. In this example, some of that transfer payment money goes towards government mandated education (probably, anyway, since it's actually given with no restrictions on how its spent).

[Sewdo]

While I agree with what you say, I still maintain that an exact working, and yes rational, definition of harm would be the first step. Where you see the usage of the 'harm' as rational within the quote, it isn't spelled out. Which means any reader could read into it anything they want to. Any well-written piece of legislation contains the definitions of the key term. I have yet to see any definition of harm defined in that way I considered to be rational

[FeatherFall]

I think this is a good time to bring up a topic my mother tipped me off to while I was driving down to Phoenix. I think it illustrates how each real-life issue regarding individual rights is like an onion. Each peripheral issue must be peeled off to get to the core, which can't be seen unless a proper philosophy guides light throught the tears.

My mom brought up a situation she heard about on KTAR 92.3. On the radio show, Darrell Ankarlo voiced his displeasure with Arizona State University's partnership with a non-profit organization, Chicanos for la Causa, to offset the cost of tuition so it matches in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. While riding a bus run by ASU contractor, Coach America, a student heard the show and wrote two letters of complaint to ASU administration. ASU spoke to Coach America and suggested that they turn down the volume of the radios or change the station if someone complains. Let's peal the onion.

The first layer involves Darrell Ankarlo's views on immigration. Immigration has been and can be discussed elswere. The next involves Ankarlo's right to voice any opinion (wise or stupid) on his radio station, which must be protected. The next layer involves a student who hears Ankarlo's protected speech, takes offense, and takes action in the form of social pressure to boycot - action which also must be protected.

Here's where the onion gets funky. If ASU were a private institution, it would have options. It could ignore the complaint, gambling on whether or not the student will continue to pay tuition. It could wait for more complaints to take action. It could also act on the complaint immediately by suggesting, requesting or demanding that Coach America make changes of varying severity. In short, ASU would be free to act or fail to act however it chooses, so long as it is willing to suffer the consequences. But ASU isn't a private organization; it exists partly because of coercive, confiscatory taxes - it's public property.

This type of "property" exists, we are told, for the benefit of everyone who contributes to society and is thus "owned" by them. But a proper understanding of ownership endows rights and responsibilities to the owner regarding the use of the property. An owner cannot claim any right to his property if someone else is also capable of exercising control - nor can the owner claim any responsibility for the results of actions someone else takes with the property. Attempting to endow an entire nation with rights and responsibilities over one peice of property is an imposibility. Thus, public property is actually controlled by whatever dictatorial beuraucrat is able to leverage his pull at any given moment, and responsibilities for it are saddled on the powerless in a similar manner. That's a rotten onion.

I applaud the ASU administration for trying to suggest a reasonable conclusion. Unfortunately, such a conclusion is a fantasy. What kind of beuraucrat could possibly be able to simultaneously balance the rights of Chicanos for la Causa, the student's they help, the student who wrote the complaints and others like him, Ankarlo and Ankarlo's on-campus listeners?

Coach America's action in response to ASU's suggestion is poetic in how it illustrates the results of multiple parties trying to restle for controll over the hammer of the state; Coach America has shut the radios off for the time being. No discourse, no solution, no value.

Establishing freedom in education will require broader cultural change, which will require that you systematically dispose of every rotten onion petal you encounter. In a situation like the one I brought up, I see three important petals; Ankarlo, Chicanos for la Causa and ASU students and faculty. Contacting the first two would be easy. But the place to get the most change, the University itself, could be difficult to penetrate in a meaningful way. What sort of strategies are there to penetrate such an organization as someone not affiliated with the institution?

[Qwertz]

You would be amazed at how much constitutional legal doctrine is built up around trying to avoid the contradictions arising out of public property. My con law professor has stopped calling on me in class because he knows my answer is always "but if all property were privately owned, we wouldn't have this problem."

~Q

[FeatherFall]

That's funny. Do you see that as an implicit concession that all property should be private or as simple exhaustion?

Back to topic: I don't know if my post was clear about what I think should be done to abolish public education. The method I would like to suggest is the same method I would suggest for activism of any kind - use recent events to illustrate principles. The Ayn Rand institute does this almost exclusively; I don't recall any op-eds that explain a principle without reference to concrete current events. Capitalize on an issue that is fresh in the minds of many people to put forth a focused philosophic case. Later issues can be used to present a broader philosophic case.

In a case like the one I mentioned, different parties can be "attacked" by different angles. Ankarlo could be taken in by an argument about private property and how public administration interferes with the rights of on-campus students to listen to his ideas, and Chicanos for la Causa could be contacted with an essay supporting proper immigration policy. Most people will not respond to the first wave, but some will have a hard time ignoring the activist after he consistently demonstrates that he can explain different events with the same philosophic viewpoint.

[Mammon]

Like your onion analogy FeatherFall.

On the subject at hand I had a few issues I want to bring up. First is the issue I get all the time "If education was completely private then some kids wouldn't get to go to school, what do we do about them?" I come up with several answers. Like "those kids aren't really my problem" but they kind of are a wasted asset for me in the since that educating them could provide benefit for me.

The only answer I can really come up with it is that most parents would send there kids to school and the ones who cant would recieve assitance from local charities and what have you. Also, I hear a lot of people asking for "proof" that privization works. So I'm looking for some sort of numbers comparision between private and public schools.

[tsprat]

You would be amazed at how much constitutional legal doctrine is built up around trying to avoid the contradictions arising out of public property. My con law professor has stopped calling on me in class because he knows my answer is always "but if all property were privately owned, we wouldn't have this problem."

~Q

LOL! I remember the same thing in my constitutional law class. Every time I asked the professor a question about those sorts of matters, such as Heart of Atlanta v. U.S., which was a case really involving discrimination, but was interpreted just so the Supreme Court could circumvent the issue and made it into a case of "interstate commerce," which resulted in yet another surrender of property rights to the government. I asked my professor why they just didn't tell the hotel that they were violating the Fourteenth Amendment, and he said, "It would have been too controversial." In other words, that makes too much sense.

Anyway, though that case involved private property, it dealt directly with the fine line between "public space" and "public property," an argument which aside from being rooted entirely in esoteric semantics, leads me to believe that it is only a matter of time before all public space becomes public property. Wait for your local governments to buy out the shopping malls.

Back on topic, I see the arguments in favor of compulsory public education of a blatant violation of man's volition. Nevermind the Objectivist arguments against it. I know plenty of libertarians and even conservatives who believe that the government forcing our children to go to school is absolutely ridiculous. Whether or not there is any instance of harm is beside the point. If the government told us all to go grocery shopping at least five days a week, it would be exactly the same justification: it is for your own good. The only difference is food versus knowledge. The government which knows best governs the worst.

[Econ Prof]

Mammon and others:

The E. G. West Centre Website is an excellent resource for those interested in promoting market education. Their website is:

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/index.html

And this list of academic articles is particularly helpful for those looking for "the numbers":

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/egwest/academic_articles.htm

The article "The Political Economy of Public School Legislation" is really superb. It's definitely worth getting a copy. The website above has a link that allows you to request a hard copy (I believe it's free). Or if you're at a college or have access to a college library, you can find the article on the JSTOR database. Ask your librarian if you need help. The article is by E. G. West, and it's in the October 1967 Journal of Law and Economics.

There are also several good books around. I'm currently reading Market Education: The Unknown History by Andrew Coulson, and I'm very happy with it so far. Also worth reading is What America Can Learn From School Choice in Other Countries, edited by David Salisbury and James Tooley (http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=&pid=1441247). Cato actually has a number of books that are highly critical of public education (http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ShowBookIndex&scid=16), but I have only read the Salisbury and Tooley book, so I can't comment on the others.