Privatizing Education

[mweiss]

In late April, I wrote a carefully-researched "Viewpoint" article and sent it into our local paper. The paper just published it last week after numerous "delays." Interested readers can find it here:

http://www.newmilfordspectrum.com/acrossstory.php?id=64136

Well this week, I got a load of rebuttals, one from a regular citizen and one from a high school teacher. While some of the points raised ring hollow, or are mere cliche, others are open to debate.

Take this rebuttal:

http://www.newmilfordspectrum.com/acrossstory.php?id=64236

The writer feels that most of the education would be stripped down to core essentials and that the quality of education would become utilitarian and bland. Furthermore, the writer urges that salaries would become even larger for teachers, than they are now, in addition to a whole slew of administrative officers taking large "corporate" salaries.

The educator also responded:

http://www.newmilfordspectrum.com/acrossstory.php?id=64244

The writer, when presented with one alternative, insurance policies, states:

"...in charge of my fire, police and emergency medical services. Can you imagine the conflicts of interest if doctors worked directly for insurance companies? "

When I spoke of the only moral purpose for the existence of government, he responds:

"...There is a moral reason for the existence of the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Unfortunately, we cannot leave it up to the good will of individuals (individuals either alone or working for a private company) not to provide citizens with contaminated meat and polluted water. "

I have to partially agree here, because historically, industry has had little regard for where it poops, as long as it is in someone else's back yard.

The writer also errs in calling me an "extreme Libertarian". Apparently he has never heard of Objectivism.

He points out an interesting paradigm in the merit pay issue that I raise with regard to rewarding teachers for good work: The same system of standardized testing, which is designed to make teachers look good, would most likely also be used to evaluate teacher performance for merit raises.

What other method of testing teacher performance would be a rational one?

He wrote:

"Although the process sounds good on the surface, if put into practice it would encourage teachers to teach only to a particular type of test. Student performance on this test would thus, at least in theory, mirror teacher performance and be used to justify pay differences among teachers. "

And this point raises an interesting question of just how DO you judge a teacher, when the product is beyond the teacher's control as in:

"But even a “perfectly designed” standardized test would not be entirely fair. The teachers who teach the students with the least natural abilities would appear to be less qualified. "

What would prevent privatizing from causing a greater disparity between the rich and the poor? If public education were eliminated, the poor would not be able to afford an education, is what the writer concluded with and finally ends on the famous quote from Derek Bok.

These are some good points that I can't provide easy answers to.

But there are better Objectivist minds than mine on this forum, so I present the problem for discussion.

How do we address the valid concerns over privatized education, as expressed by my two rebuttals?

[ChristopherSchlegel]

In late April, I wrote a carefully-researched "Viewpoint" article and sent it into our local paper.

You wrote a good, organized essay. Congrats!

Well this week, I got a load of rebuttals, one from a regular citizen and one from a high school teacher.

Not terribly surprising, eh?

These are some good points that I can't provide easy answers to.

But there are better Objectivist minds than mine on this forum, so I present the problem for discussion.

How do we address the valid concerns over privatized education, as expressed by my two rebuttals?

I don't necessarily think mine is a "better" mind than yours but I have thought about these issues before & I want to make some comments.

[ChristopherSchlegel]

I sure would not want an insurance company (insurance policies being one of the alternatives to taxation that Mr. Weiss sees as holding promise) in charge of my fire, police and emergency medical services. Can you imagine the conflicts of interest if doctors worked directly for insurance companies?

Because individuals that work at insurance companies are automatically less virtuous than those that work for the government? But for the record I don't think the Police force should be privatized. I don't have to "imagine...if doctors worked directly for insurance companies", that's part of the problem as medicine is currently practiced! Thanks to the rigidly stratified level of socialism already in place across the board in the medical industry, doctors (& health care providers in general) can't even look at a patient without calling an insurance company to make sure they might get paid for the work they do & they hopefully won't get sued out of existence.

He states further “the only moral purpose of government is to protect individual rights — to protect individuals from the initiation of physical force by other individuals or foreign armies.” That definition is a bit narrow.

That's not an argument. "Narrow" does not equal "inaccurate".

There is a moral reason for the existence of the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Unfortunately, we cannot leave it up to the good will of individuals (individuals either alone or working for a private company) not to provide citizens with contaminated meat and polluted water.

Because, as Mr. Weiss says in reference to teachers’ unions, “all organizations pursue their own interests,” good will toward others eventually loses when competing against the insatiable desire for profit. I do not wish to take any chances. I will gladly pay higher taxes to avoid being poisoned.

It is admittedly a stretch, but I can see that the FDA &/or the EPA might be useful but only if they acted consistently on the principle of individual rights. For example, the EPA could be a branch of the govt. that would handle making Exxon pay for ruining someone's beach front property. As opposed to how they operate now, which is to use taxpayer money to clean up Exxon spills through the SuperFund parasite program. I was told this by a friend that is an environmental engineer, so I don't know exactly how accurate that is. I am assuming what he told is factual.

But again, why will Mr. Boothby not be poisoned by the govt. but he will by greedy companies? How will the companies satisfy their insatiable greed if they kill all their customers? How does a higher rate of taxes equal being safer from poison? Does that mean if Mr. Boothby gives all of his money to the govt. he is guaranteed to be safe from poisons?

Also recommended is a charitable system, which, although I would love to believe would work, most likely would not. This is precisely the reason we have government, to do the jobs individuals cannot or will not do for society as a whole.

No, Mr. Boothby, does not believe it would work. He is being dishonest there, because several paragraphs before he was busy insisting that the world is full of maniacs that want to get rich by poisoning everyone. & also that they would be able to if it wasn't for our govt. that is 7 trillion dollars in debt. Furthermore, notice the sloppy definition offered as "precisely the reason we have govt.". Under that definition, it could be the proper function of the govt. to set up concentration camps to imprison jewish people & burn them in giant ovens. It's a job that an individual certainly couldn't do; you'd need the full force of an armed govt. to get it done.

Moving along to education, I am sure many people particularly enjoyed the timing of Mr. Weiss’s extreme libertarian ramblings in saying “public education is not in your child’s best interest.” Meanwhile, in the past week or so more than two million high school seniors have graduated from public high schools across the country...

Contrary to what most critiquers of public education say, I generally say I am quite impressed that public schools are able to accomplish the things they do. I am quite surprised that more public schools aren't complete hellhole dens of drugs, guns, chaos, etc.

The Real Problem with Public Education is how it's funded.

Like every collectivist program/dream/ideal, there is a system by which x amount of people pay in & x plus more people expect to get something out of it. It's constantly a losing proposition. I really don't see a problem with public education as long as I am not required to fund it, unless I want to use it. It's not a "noble goal"; it's a half-assed solution to a serious problem: there are many poor people that are uneducated, specifically meaning that they are unable to deal effectively with reality on a level at which they can be productive in society & thereby support themselves & their families.

Furthermore, public educators, or “experts” (quotes by Mr. Weiss), to whom he sardonically refers, mistakenly believe they know more than the average person because the teachers possess a few worthless degrees.

Mr. Weiss, teachers must actually attend many “classes” run by “professors” who possess their own advanced “degrees” as a part of their educational quest to become a teacher.

Thus, teachers generally receive six years of education beyond high school...

Is this whole process a bunch of garbage? Are students who study to become teachers, like the students they will be teaching, also not learning anything useful?

THIS is where it gets ugly. Because the vast majority of "this whole process" of higher ed these teachers go through is literally, unfortunately GARBAGE. I work at a private college where they offer a Masters Degree in Ed. Some of the stuff I have seen that passes for coursework, thesis work...imagine Rand's "The Comprachicos" written not as a warning of what NOT to do when teaching children, but instead, written seriously as a method book of how to teach children.

I am not exaggerating. I wish I was.

I do admit that, in some districts, it would be beneficial overall to put a system in place that could remove the worst teachers. This should not be done, however...

Teachers are evaluated regularly in most districts, as they should be, but introducing merit-pay, as suggested by Mr. Weiss, would have a deleterious effect on the school atmosphere...

Our society does not rank doctors at the bottom of the heap if they have a lower proportion of patients survive treatment. Cosmetic surgeons would surely be at the top, whereas oncologists who see the sickest cancer patients (usually the best doctors see the most severe cases) would appear to be failing. Why should teacher pay succumb to this type of assessment?

Actually, our society does rank other professions in this manner. Furthermore, it is usually due to effectiveness & then market forces. Also, notice Mr. Boothby recognizes it would be beneficial to remove the worst teachers...but it shouldn't be done! Let us apply his standard to the medical field, as he suggests: a doctor is guilty of performing an operation intoxicated & removes a person's healthy kidneys, what should be done? Should he be fired? Possible jailed? Or should he just be ignored & allowed to continue operating on patients?

Public education, although not perfect, is one of the great equalizing forces in America today. Privatizing education would increase the disparities between rich and poor and contribute to the further polarization of our already stratified society.

That is true. Of course, "equalizing" means "dragging down to the lowest common denominator"; just like "socialism" means "equally spreading the misery". However, we've had public schools for about 80 years (yes? no?). So why is our society still "stratified" into disparities between rich & poor?

I’m glad that approximately 61 percent of my property taxes (not 80 percent of total taxes, as quoted by Mr. Weiss) goes to education.

Mr. Boothby's emotional state is not justification for socialism.

As Derek Bok, the former Harvard president once famously stated, “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.”

That's an excellent quote. Unfortunately, it does nothing to support his claims. A good education IS expensive & probably will always be fairly expensive. The point is that I am willing to pay for mine & my child's education. I have no moral obligation to pay for anyone elses.

[ChristopherSchlegel]

Consider education first. Private schools, colleges and universities now must compete with public educational institutions for students and meet specific criterion for federal and state grants.

Is this a defense of a mixed economy? of socialism? capitalism? Does he really not understand the contradictions involved in his statement?

To privatize all education without any government supervision gives the new corporate entity complete control over the curriculum. Being a business, it is only interested in profit. It would quickly eliminate classes with smaller enrollments in the name of “efficiency.”

Objectivism does not say private educational institutions are "Above the law". They would be "supervised" in the same manner as any business: the govt. would protect individual rights against force & fraud.

& isn't this the problem public schools are already facing? Programs are being cut because there's not enough money. If this argument was true for private schools, then why are there so many private schools for music (& other arts)?

Unsupervised privatized education would result in the best interests of business taking precedence over the best interests of students.

False dichotomy. Exchange any another industry & it becomes apparent: private supermarkets result in best interest of business over the shopper. etc.

Consider next the cost of privatized education. There would still be teachers’ unions, as unions are in the business world now. Teachers’ salaries would remain at the same or higher levels.

Privatization always costs more than taxation because of the profit margin. (Forget the myth of efficiency saving money.)

Irrelevant. The point is NOT how much or little teachers are paid. The point is how they are funded. Taxation always looks cheaper because the debt is "hidden" by the govt.

After all, it has already happened with the privatization of Medicare. Some HMOs have abandoned unprofitable coverages.

Who is to stop corporate education from leaving the students with no resource for education?

Consider Mr. Weiss’ other ideas. Some were real humdingers.

For instance, paying for roads with toll booths on every corner. Each road owner could set rates as high as he wished, enjoying no regulation (without government) and no competition on any particular stretch of road.

Remember, privatization always costs more than taxation because of the profit margin. In this case, taxation is both a lot cheaper and a lot more convenient.

Consider charity under privatization. When one finds so much stress put on the widely held conservative tenet that no one has a right to any of my money, even those who are in dire straits, one would find it difficult to underestimate the charitable nature of these people, especially without the incentive of a tax deduction.

If privatization wins out, the poor, elderly, disabled and those not able to compete in the rarefied atmosphere of big money had better look for a home in another country. Because of the increased cost of everything, privatized America is only for the rich and privileged.

Being on a limited income, I find paying property taxes very painful. But I am thankful to Mr. Weiss for so vividly presenting the alternative. It makes it much more agreeable to write this check today to the town of New Milford.

This poor man simply cannot grasp ANY alternative to a mixed economy. Every scenario he offers of "privatization" contains some version of govt funding. & why are there so many NON rich & privileged people still alive & not starving to death in the completely privatized world of supermarkets?

[mweiss]

Excellent points, Chris! You've cleared the path for a decent rebuttal on my part. I hope you don't mind if I use some of your examples, as they are so illustrative.

I was a little unclear about the following statement though:

False dichotomy. Exchange any another industry & it becomes apparent: private supermarkets result in best interest of business over the shopper. etc.

The 'business over the shopper' portion seemed contradictory to what you were saying here. Did I read it wrong? A tiny bit of clarification/rewording might help me to grasp clearly the exact intent of that sentence.

The time is growing near for the need for me to start an Objectivist talk show on cable public access. I'm thinking about this more and more, although I don't know where I will find the time to produce it. But we need it!

[softwareNerd]

I think Chris's point was that the interest of a business and a consumer, or a teacher and a student, do not clash.

The time is growing near for the need for me to start an Objectivist talk show on cable public access. I'm thinking about this more and more, although I don't know where I will find the time to produce it. But we need it!

We have a commie talk show on our public access. Do you think there is an audience for those shows? Do you watch those channels?

[mweiss]

I think Chris's point was that the interest of a business and a consumer, or a teacher and a student, do not clash.

We have a commie talk show on our public access. Do you think there is an audience for those shows? Do you watch those channels?

I see his point now. That makes more sense. Conflict of interest and ulterior motives, removed from the scenario.

As for public access, I don't even own a television set. I just don't watch TV as it irritates me every time I see it at someone else's house.

[ChristopherSchlegel]

Excellent points, Chris! You've cleared the path for a decent rebuttal on my part. I hope you don't mind if I use some of your examples, as they are so illustrative.

You are welcome to use anything & everything I've said. Glad to help.

I was a little unclear about the following statement though...

I think Chris's point was that the interest of a business and a consumer, or a teacher and a student, do not clash.

I see his point now. That makes more sense. Conflict of interest and ulterior motives, removed from the scenario.

Exactly. Mark, I apologize for not making this as clear as possible the first time. softwareNerd, thanks for clarifying my point!

Also, I just recently posted an essay on my website I wrote a while back that involves this issue & others related to it.

[mweiss]

You are welcome to use anything & everything I've said.  Glad to help. 

Exactly.  Mark, I apologize for not making this as clear as possible the first time.  softwareNerd, thanks for clarifying my point!

Also, I just recently posted an essay on my website I wrote a while back that involves this issue & others related to it.

Thanks, Chris. I've submitted my article/rebuttal to the paper's editorial e-mail after staying up past 3am to finish writing it.

I've begun reading your essay now.

After watching the news coverage of Hurricane Dennis in FL and AL, the sight of all that destruction raised another interesting question: because it takes a huge amount of resources to clean up the damage and rebuild, should there be a role for government in such a situation? Is insurance and locally-paid for services enough, or do these circumstances warrant a larger role by the government/FEMA?

There are some extraordinary situations where the test of privatized municiple services raises new questions that I have not seen addressed by the Objectivist thought process. What do we do in cases like this?

[Yes]

Mark, although I think your article makes many good points, I do have the following thoughts to offer:

1. The concept of Education being a necessity does not mean it needs to be run by the State

2. While I agree with your view of the function of unions you discuss, I don't think that privatizing education will obviate the need for unions, especially when education is run by large private concerns.

And I definitely don't fully agree with this:

The teachers unions need to be controlled — through new laws that, among other things, drastically limit (or prohibit) collective bargaining in public education, link teachers’ pay to their performance, make it easy to terminate mediocre teachers, give administrators control over the assignment of teachers to schools and classrooms, and prohibit unions from spending a member’s dues on political activities without prior consent.

The privatization of education would eliminate any need for such government regulation of unions. The solution offered by you here starts to contradict your original point that eduction should be privatized.

also:

Standardized testing is all about benchmarks designed to make the teachers and system look good. Schools “teach the test,” but the students learn little that will stay with them and be of use in practical living.

The premise of public education is that these “experts” with their degrees know far more about what and how our kids should learn than do we “uneducated” citizens. Yet they’re so desperate to shift the blame for their failures, that they seek a way to document “budget cuts” as the main culprit.

So a privatized education would not also rely on such "experts" and their "expertise?" And it would not have it's own set of standards which happen to be developed by private education-oriented think tanks rather than those developed by the State?

The greatest benefit of a privatized education system is currently realized in some private college campuses, where those who are practicing professionals in the business world are teaching the subject matter. When this is the case, there exists the greatest opportunity to learn your subject matter based upon reality.

Also, based upon my experience and that my wife taught in the public school systems for 35 years, this statement, I regret to say, is patently false:

Teachers unions have more influence over the public schools than any other group in American society. They influence schools through collective bargaining activities that shape virtually every aspect of school organization and through political activities that shape government policy.

That is not the case as the government is the one who dictates the curriculum of the state-run school system. So the prime responsibility of the education of children in the public schools lies in the government, who foists upon every teacher in the school system their curriculum.

That is why Ayn Rand wrote many times that education by the government is not education but brainwash. The teachers are mere instruments of such brainwash. The government forces the teachers to teach such material according to their agenda.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Yes

[Yes]

And John Boothby's rebuttal is full of deceit. Wow.

But what does this so-called “noose of government oppression and control” actually provide for the average citizen?

It provides a justice system and environmental protection, as well as free public education to all American children, not to mention all of the emergency services that help to keep us safe.

How is public education "free?"

Free from government influence? NOT.

Free from tuition and fees? He has to be patently naive to believe that! As Mark deftly pointed out, the reality is that your tax dollars go for education. And enough of these to matter.

Moving along to education, I am sure many people particularly enjoyed the timing of Mr. Weiss’s extreme libertarian ramblings in saying “public education is not in your child’s best interest.” Meanwhile, in the past week or so more than two million high school seniors have graduated from public high schools across the country.

Why is that considered an achievement? The extent of such "achievement" will be realized in one of these ways:

1. The difficulty of those graduates to adopt to the rigors of college, especially private institutions.

2. The difficulty of those graduates to adopt to the rigors of the workplace, with their lack of cognitive skills.

As a high school teacher, I greatly enjoy my job. Even taking into account the positives of this profession, however, the salaries of teachers are not commensurate with the level of education and myriad responsibilities necessary for the job. That is why there is a teacher shortage across the country.

I do admit that, in some districts, it would be beneficial overall to put a system in place that could remove the worst teachers. This should not be done, however, by creating a negative, confining work environment that saps creativity and makes teachers reticent to take any chances in the classroom

There are far greater reasons why there is a teacher shortage in this country.

Those coming out of colleges who have any cognitive skills realize that teaching in public schools is an exercise in futility. You as a teacher in a state shool are forced to teach material to your students. That curriculum comes from the government. In addition, you are forced to deal with methods of teaching which are alien to the development of individuals who can think cognitively- an especially daunting problem with the so-called Special Education students in America. So instead of, for example, Individual placement programs for such students which attempt to rectify the cognitive weaknesses of such through focused skills, the current track is to place such students in the main classroom for 80% of the time- a process know as "inclusion"- thereby denying them of any such rectification of their handicaps.

The future producers of this country see quite clearly what a sham public education is, and how such sham actually got worse, so they simply eschew education- a wise decision for their own well-being. Many current teachers cannot cope with the demands of the emboldened antagonistic parents, and, as a result, are quitting en masse and getting better jobs in the private sector.

I'm not saying that Mr. Boothby is wrong in citing salary as a reason for the teacher shortage. It's just his being short-sighted.

I’m glad that approximately 61 percent of my property taxes (not 80 percent of total taxes, as quoted by Mr. Weiss) goes to education.

As Derek Bok, the former Harvard president once famously stated, “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.”

In many cases 61% of your property taxes could amount to more than enough dollars to send your child or children to a good private school where they can get a REAL education.

Let's just do the math on a home assessed at, say, $300,000. with a mill rate of .31.

That homeowner pays $9,300 a year in property taxes.

Now $9,300 times 61% gives you $5,173 which you can apply to tuition for your kids.

And that amount gets even greater when state and federal funds are factored into the equation, that are not required now that eduction is privatized.

So that might actually approach the level, or even exceed the level, of public funding per student.

All yours. To spend on getting a real education for your kids.

[Yes]

How do we address the valid concerns over privatized education, as expressed by my two rebuttals?

First of all, I don't mean to sound even the least bit antagonistic towards you with my discussion of your essay, as I do think it raises a solidly valid point. My apologies if you think so.

So here's more food for thought:

1. We need food, clothing and shelter. Those necessities are far more basic to the sustenance of life than education. We get all those things thorugh the private sector.

So why not education?

2. In my opinion, there is no valid concern over private education. Ask anyone who has benefitted from private education.

3. Stress the major weakness of government education, which is that the government dictates, by force, the curriculum. Find examples anywhere on the Internet, and even in your own personal experience.

4. Expounding on (3) above is the actual curriculum itself. Its content, how it is conducive to brainwash, how Whole Language has supplanted Phonics in teaching reading, and how Whole math has supplanted traditional mathematics with its penchant towards estimating as a higher value than absolutes.

5. The Teachers Unions may think they have power, but it is the government who has been emboldened by this symbiotic relationship.

In concentrating your arguments on the benefits of private education, as well as the fundamental weakness in the philosophy of education run by the government, your argument becomes imminently stronger.

[derEikopf]

Contrary to what most critiquers of public education say, I generally say I am quite impressed that public schools are able to accomplish the things they do. I am quite surprised that more public schools aren't complete hellhole dens of drugs, guns, chaos, etc.

You'd be surprised...

I went to one of the best public high schools in my state. Over 75% of the student population regularly got drunk, smoked marijuana, had promiscuous sex, orgies and gangbangs, got in fights, stole, lied, cheated, abused, pranked, etc. Almost every time I went into the bathroom, a haze of marijuana smoke was present. People regularly came to school drunk, high, rolling, or even occasionally tripping. There were girls who would give football players "warm-ups" before each game in the locker room. People would defocate in the urinals and throw toilet paper rolls down the hallways. I regularly got a stream of water in my face as I went to turn on the water fountain and someone had put a piece of gum over the spigot. I had all four of my tires slashed in a random attack (over 20 cars had their tires slashed). We had over 20 bomb threats in one year (most by my fellow students to get out of class). And we were ranked an "A" school. It is quite obvious that the public school system is rapidly declining, while everyone yells "MORE MONEY MORE MONEY!" when, in fact, that is what caused the decline at the start.

[mweiss]

Excellent points, everyone, especially regarding the fact that we get our most important sustenance--food--from private industry sectors, so why not education.

There is only one official unspoken answer that I can think of and that's CONTROL. When you control the minds of the young, you control the future of the nation.

And true too about the schools in expensive areas are not without problems. Spoiled kids are not cured by more education budget.

I plan to continue my writing series in the New Milford Spectrum, and also plan to put together a public access cable TV talk show, so I need to keep the 'intellectual ammunition' coming. You've all been a terrific help so far. This is going to be an interesting autumn, as I contemplate the insane burden of producing a television show, in addition to the radio show I already produce, in addition to work, family and renovating my old house. But someone has to do it, and if it doesn't get done, New Milford will fall to totalitarian rule and all private property, over time, will be seized and sold to wealthy incoming New Yorkers.

[JGdisciple]

To anyone who hasn't, I'd recommend reading Rothbard's book "Education, Free and Compulsory." It takes you through the history of public and compulsory education and emphasizes how it is most often used for indoctrination, as it is now.

It disgusts me how public schools teach children that democracy is a great system and that the will of the majority is absolutely correct. This government is using its school systems to brainwash children. Thinking back on my public education, it becomes all too apparent. They taught me that the New Deal ended the Great Depression, I actually wrote essays about how great it was that Teddy Roosevelt broke up monopolies, because that's what I was taught. They teach diversity and equality, and ignore the basic fact that people are not equal (after all, it says it in the Declaration of Independence, so it must be true). Of course, I learned better eventually, but the vast majority do not, and it's a travesty.

The fact that children are forced to go to school only points to the fact that it is in fact indoctrination. Not all children are fit for schooling. Many are dimwitted and would be better off entering the work force or learning a trade from a young age. Parents are the best to judge this, as they deal directly with the child and have its best interests at heart (usually, in cases where they are abusive, parents must of course be checked), unlike the state, which is cold and impersonal, and couldn't give a damn about an individual kid.

Private education has its problems too. Foremost among these is that private schools most often have no owners, only a board of directors. With no owners and no profit motive, it is hard to understand how a school is driven to be better. It has to rely on the benevolence of a board of directors that want to do good through no self interest. We all know this cannot be counted on. Someone should develop a private, for profit school with owners' equity and supplant the current system. Of course, we need to do alot more things like ending government pilfering before this is feasible, or maybe profitable schools will lead to a revolution to end government pilfering, I can't foresee that, but I do know this is the best system.

[JGdisciple]

I just read the first rebuttal about how private education would eliminate classes like the arts and make education extinct. It's so ludicrous I should be rolling on the floor with laughter. But I'm not laughing, I'm seething with anger.

First of all, I don't know if the author presupposes the inherrent goodness of the arts (which we all know is wrong), or if she deems these to be good because of a demand for them (which is the only way something can be good, it has to be good TO SOMEBODY). If there is no demand for it, it is not a good and should not have to be provided. If it is a demand for it, the free market will provide it, because it can be profitable. She seems to think that only government can provide the arts. Do we not have private music teachers as it is? Secondly, if there is a demand from it, then someone can profit. She assumes that businesses desire to cut costs, and as a general rule they do. But in her analysis, she seems to think that all businesses provide goods in high quantity and low specialization. We all know this is a fallacy. The free market provides specialized, highly diverse products as well as common commodities. Bottom line, if there is a demand for it, it will be supplied, as we have seen before in free markets. I hope all of our opponents' arguments can be disposed of this easily.

He says "privitization always costs more than government spending because of profit" and "forget 'myths' about efficiency". How are these myths? Where is the evidence that privitization costs more? Of course, he fails to consider that in any business, profit over the long term becomes negligible because of competition. Also, he says businesses want profit.

Let's look at this: Profit = revenues - expenses

So if you reduce expenses, you raise profit. Therefore, efficiency is not a myth. An institution that has an inexhaustible stream of revenues and is not run for profit (the government) has no incentive to reduce expenses, and will cost much more than a private venture. Of course, this is all very simple for most of us, but amazingly there is a person on this planet (the one who wrote the rebuttal) who does not understand it. I find it hard to believe, and yet there it is.

He says that private roads will lead to toll booths on every corner and a monopoly on transportation, allowing the road owners to charge exhorbitant prices. Clearly, this person underestimates human incentive to profit. Monopolies cannot exist over the long term in a free economy. For one thing, human ingenuity inevitably produces new inventions to meet the same demands, and also devolops ways to make the current technology more cost efficient. There will not be a monopoly on roads, companies will build vast networks of light rail, and even new technologies will develop that will keep the prices of roads competitive. I have actually heard of a feasible prototype for a hover car that wouldn't need roads of course. New technologies will always be developed as long as man lives freely on this earth, and even if he lives in slavery, albeit less quickly.

Bottom line, government costs much more than private enterprise. Government forces people to buy its against their will under penalty of imprisonment. Because government can force people to attend its schools (or will be able to eventually, as it is they strongly encourage it through economics) and so can brainwash children to support it. Privatize education.

With regard to standardized testing being the only rational test for teachers, I must beg to differ. There is a much, much better one: public opinion, which dictates demand. Children know which teachers are the good ones. Good teachers explain things well. Children can tell this, and perceptive parents can also tell when their children are learning. Furthermore, analytical teacher rating agencies that look beyond standardized tests would develop, and they would try to make their opinions valid and verifiable so that people listen to them and they maximize the value of their product (opinion) and therefore their profit over the long term. There is a business in place to do this at the moment. It's called consumer reports, which is an invaluable business reporting on products to the consumer. They are rational in that they value their integrity and realize it is integral to their long term profitability. There are obviously many more ways to judge teachers than standardized test scores. Admittedly, these measures can be subjective, but this is not always bad. More accurately, they are not subjective, but non-quantifiable. Non-quantifiability is not a bad thing necessarily. Judgments that can accurately predict how a teacher will educate students are valuable, even if such judgments are based on non-quantifiable. As parents are the guardians of children and have their best interests at heart, they will wish to see their children educated by the best teachers, and they can judge for themselves the value of teachers based on their own observation and based on profitable teacher ranking agencies. Judgments such as these, even non-quantifiable scores are better than test score that are more reliable but less relevant.

[Edit -- No "anarchy" nonsense allowed in non-debate forums. -f]

Edited August 12, 2005 by Felipe

[JGdisciple]

Sorry about all the redundant posts, I'm new at this.

With regard to poor people not being able to afford education, the answer is private scholarships. Consider all the tax money that corporations pay, and then think about what they would do with it if they had it to use freely. The demand for knowledge and ingenuity is extremely high in a free market. Because of fierce competition, the company that develops the best product will almost always be the most successful. Therefore, it is essential for companies to develop the best products possible. To do this, they require people of knowledge, skill and ability, and they will pay to develop it by awarding scholarships for big money to the most able students, of rich and poor parents alike, and of course there will be ways to find talent in the very young, and reward and develop it. I have seen this work myself on a much smaller scale when I and friends of mine get the costs of professional exams paid for by companies. Of course, children without ability will not receive these scholarships, but why should they? They will be saved from school and be able to pursue a more suitable profession. If you don't think companies will spend enough money in this fashion to make a difference, just think again about the demand for people of knowledge, and how unbridled competition makes this demand extremely high. It will work.

[Edit -- No "anarchy" nonsense allowed in non-debate forums. -f]

Edited August 12, 2005 by Felipe

[mweiss]

Excellent points, all of them!

What concerns me in convincing the public is that the idea that dimwitted children don't deserve the same education as bright children won't go over well with the general public.

Another issue about corporate profit motive and quality of services is that the public does not trust unregulated business. They are convinced, and bolstered by the recent free-for-all ripoffs by several major corporations like Enron, Global Crossing, MCI, etc., that corporations are the worst entities to put in charge of educating children because they would shortcut the process to maximize profits for themselves.

I myself am unsure whether an unregulated business world would not lapse into the era of 12 hour workdays, low pay and injured workers. It seems that many big businesses have brought this on themselves.

I fully agree with the notion that indoctrination is the goal of public education. Control the minds of the young and you control the country of tomorrow.

I really do have to come up with a way to produce a cable public access TV show on this general topic of individual rights and how these government programs violate them daily.

[ChristopherSchlegel]

Of course, this is all very simple for most of us, but amazingly there is a person on this planet (the one who wrote the rebuttal) who does not understand it.  I find it hard to believe, and yet there it is....

I think the reason the rebuttal writer & so many others do not seem to understand has more to do with faulty ethics & epistemology than a misunderstanding of politics (i.e. politics, proper governmental functions).

Bottom line, government costs much more than private enterprise....

With due respect to your fine reasoning. This is essentially the argument that conservatives have used unsuccessfully for decades "Govt is more expensive, less efficient", etc. The statement is correct & provable & you have done a fine job illustrating your point.

However, until a person acknowledges the underlying premise of egoism vs. altruism all these arguments are beside the point. Who cares what is more or less expensive, efficient if the poor kids NEED it? You see?

The real issue is Freedom vs. Slavery. Am I morally responsible for providing others with an education against my will? Every argument for public education ultimately rests on answering THIS question with a "Yes". THIS is the issue that must be illuminated if we are to win this battle.

With regard to poor people not being able to afford education, the answer is private scholarships....

Again, that is an excellent point. But it is NOT "the answer" in it's essential form. "The answer" is free trade: Voluntary payment for education vs. Coercive payment.

What concerns me in convincing the public is that the idea that dimwitted children don't deserve the same education as bright children won't go over well with the general public.

But, Mark, you don't have to convince them. If a parent of an unintelligent child can afford to send their child to school that is their choice. If they can't afford to send them to school they must rely on the voluntary charity of others. And they must do this with the explicitly stated premise that someone else is voluntarily helping them.

This is the problem: Freedom vs. Slavery!!!

Everything else just muddies the water & makes it easier for proponents of public education to continue their monopolistic stranglehold on education in our country.

[gags]

Nice job Weiss. Very good letter to the ed.

[donnywithana]

Let me try my hand at this one.

Let's say public education vanished from the face of the Earth today. With the current schools in existence, only the rich elite would have access to education, resulting in a huge drop in overall academic level.

This scarcity of educated individuals would cause businesses to pay much more for an employee with an educational background. Banks would see granting loans as a safe investment of their money, because they could be confident that anyone with an education would be able to find a job.

Businesses know today what colleges correlate to what levels of education; universities know the high schools. In a privitized system, the best institutions would be able to charge the highest fees. The schools with inept staffing and poor management would eventually disappear and be replaced with better and better institutions.

Because of the value of an education, the best individuals would have even more incentive to become teachers, because the best schools would be competing for their presence. Schools with large classes would be able to charge less, but if small classes really are better, people would be willing to pay for them. In my experience, it's most often the public schools being forced to settle for large classes and lower quality proffessors anyway (this is not overly biased, I attend a public college).

The problem with abolishing public schools is the status quo. If there were no public education in this country, businesses could go overseas for employees. Their governments, through force, would have been able to provide them with the education that we were too virtuous to steal for them. The only environment that can support many Objectivist theories is one where use of force is equally prohibited for everyone. Anyone who uses force will have a distinct advantage over anyone who doesn't.

[Felix]

But again, why will Mr. Boothby not be poisoned by the govt. but he will by greedy companies? How will the companies satisfy their insatiable greed if they kill all their customers? How does a higher rate of taxes equal being safer from poison? Does that mean if Mr. Boothby gives all of his money to the govt. he is guaranteed to be safe from poisons?

If you hire people to control the quality of food, its quality remains high. Even if they do a poor job, some surveillance is better than nothing.

The 'kill all the customers'-argument went a bit too far, I think.

But on the main point I agree with you.

The point to make here is that companies won't kill anyone. Companies fear bad press more than anything else. What do you think will happen if the press finds out that a company is producing poisonous food?

They might well go bankrupt and get sued beyond belief. Why DO companies have their own quality assurance? To avoid this.

Edited September 25, 2005 by Felix

[ChristopherSchlegel]

How does this sentence:

This scarcity of educated individuals would cause businesses to pay much more for an employee with an educational background.

Lead to this sentence?

Banks would see granting loans as a safe investment of their money, because they could be confident that anyone with an education would be able to find a job.

Huh?

If all the public schools vanished today, most people & current politicians would simply howl about their "right" to an education at someone elses expense until new schools were built to replaced the vanished ones.

If there were no public education in this country, businesses could go overseas for employees.

I have no idea what you mean here. Businesses can & do currently get employees from other countries. What does that have to do with public education?

The only environment that can support many Objectivist theories is one where use of force is equally prohibited for everyone. Anyone who uses force will have a distinct advantage over anyone who doesn't.

The only "environment" in which Objectivist theory may be put into practice is reality. Those who use force only have an "advantage" in destroying values; not in achieving anything productive.

[ChristopherSchlegel]

The 'kill all the customers'-argument went a bit too far, I think.

How far is "too far"? What is your standard of judgment in making that measurement?

Did you see the original context (i.e. read the original articles Mark linked)? I was responding to a person that made the claim that businesses would poison him if the government did not regulate them. I thought my response was appropriate to his false assertion.

But on the main point I agree with you.

Therefore your objection is to the manner or style in which I made my argument?

The point to make here is that companies won't kill anyone.

But it is entirely possible that a company could kill someone (through negligence or evil intention). Therefore, it is necessary for individuals to have recourse to objective law (police, courts, etc.). So, the point here is that the assertion made by Mr. Boothby "Paying high taxes to the government will result in not being poisoned by private companies" is false:

There is a moral reason for the existence of the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Unfortunately, we cannot leave it up to the good will of individuals (individuals either alone or working for a private company) not to provide citizens with contaminated meat and polluted water.

Because, as Mr. Weiss says in reference to teachers’ unions, “all organizations pursue their own interests,” good will toward others eventually loses when competing against the insatiable desire for profit. I do not wish to take any chances. I will gladly pay higher taxes to avoid being poisoned.

In other words, he starts out by claiming "free trade is not compatible with good will". Then ends by claiming that, "desire for profit will lead to being poisoned, but taxation to support coercive government departments will lead to safety".

Companies fear bad press more than anything else. What do you think will happen if the press finds out that a company is producing poisonous food? They might well go bankrupt and get sued beyond belief. Why DO companies have their own quality assurance? To avoid this.

This is an ineffective way of making an argument for capitalism. Companies probably fear not being able to make a profit & continue being a company more than anything else. But a bigger problem with your argument is your focus on fear as a motivator. This is the same underlying psychological premise the anti-capitalist uses. But as Rand said: Avoidance of death is not the same thing as pursuit of life.

The issue here is Freedom vs. Slavery.

[donnywithana]

How does this sentence:

QUOTE(donnywithana @ Sep 15 2005, 04:39 PM) *

This scarcity of educated individuals would cause businesses to pay much more for an employee with an educational background.

Lead to this sentence?

QUOTE(donnywithana @ Sep 15 2005, 04:39 PM) *

Banks would see granting loans as a safe investment of their money, because they could be confident that anyone with an education would be able to find a job.

Huh? confused2.gif

Supply and demand. If there is a scarcity of a product (in this case, educated labor), its price will rise, and entering the market as a producer (going to school) becomes more profitable. Thus, loan granting agencies will be more willing to provide loans to those seeking the means of production (an education), because it's a safe investment for them. Banks don't just give out loans to anyone, you have to give them reason to believe that you're a good investment of their resources.

If all the public schools vanished today, most people & current politicians would simply howl about their "right" to an education at someone elses expense until new schools were built to replaced the vanished ones.

I don't see how that's relevant, we already agree that they're wrong.

I have no idea what you mean here. Businesses can & do currently get employees from other countries. What does that have to do with public education?

What I meant was that if we supply our citizens with only what they deserve, and other countries prey on their citizens to provide public education, the ones who benefitted from the predation will have an advantage because they stole and weren't punished. If you and I are store owners, and I have to buy my products, while you steal them off the supply truck and aren't caught, you have the advantage. Thus, in order for me to survive, the status quo has to be set at not using force to acquire the means to survival.

The only "environment" in which Objectivist theory may be put into practice is reality. Those who use force only have an "advantage" in destroying values; not in achieving anything productive.

Right, that's why Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged. The fact is, people don't know that there's an alternative because they don't understand that the predation is even predation. If everyone understood the ideals we're shooting back and forth, we wouldn't have this problem. It's as if the world's population has been thrown in jail without having their rights read to them.