Schools

[Praxus]

I was discussing ways for people in poverty to get into school in a pure Capitalist system.

So say a person is in poverty, the parents sign a contract with a company that states that the childs school will be payed for by the company and in return that child when he is an adult has to work for the company for said ammount of years.

Would this be allowed in a Capitalist society?

[danielshrugged]

This happens to be an area of great interest for me. One of my long term goals is to help with the pioneering of the theory and practice of education, which has been so wonderfully begun by Lisa VanDamme.

Your proposal, in which a company pays for a child's tuition in exhange for the child's working for the company for some specified number of years when he is older, is possible and would definitely be allowed under capitalism (there would have to be some legal limit to the number of years allowed in such a contract; I think 4-8 would be appropriate). However, I think there are many better proposals. First of all, why have the child wait to work until he is an adult? An adult, after all, would not want to be stuck with a job he hates. Let him work part-time while he is still in school. Many high school students do this already, but they typically spend the money on cars, music, and other luxuries.

One of the most intriguing proposals (I don't remember whether this is mine or not) is for the school simply to take a share of a man's income when he becomes an adult, for a fixed number of years. This has the virtue of rewarding a school more for turning out more successful graduates. (This, I'm sure, would be an advertising wonder for a school. It would tell parents, "We're so confident of our ability to educate that we're putting our pockets in the hands of your child's success.") This proposal is intruguing, but I'm not sure if it's the best. It might be better just to have a fixed tuition which is paid off on some installment plan when the child grows up.

Other than these, there are, of course, simple charity or scholarships given by the school to needy but deserving students.

All this said, there will be people under capitalism who do not go to school. It's not really all that hellish a thing. They can still become successful people.

[stephen_speicher]

Your proposal, in which a company pays for a child's tuition in exhange for the child's working for the company for some specified number of years when he is older, is possible and would definitely be allowed under capitalism (there would have to be some legal limit to the number of years allowed in such a contract; I think 4-8 would be appropriate).

I do not understand how a child could be held responsible as an adult for a decision made by his guardians. How can you justify this, both morally and legally?

[danielshrugged]

Stephen,

You do have a point. I agree with the principle that a child should not be held responsible as an adult for the decisions made by his guardians. However, I think that there are ways to implement everything I discussed in a way consistent with that principle.

The basic way I would deal with the problem is to state in the contract signed by the guardians that the child may voluntarily work for the company/pay the school when he is an adult, but should he choose not to, the guardian will have to work/pay instead.

[stephen_speicher]

Stephen,

You do have a point. I agree with the principle that a child should not be held responsible as an adult for the decisions made by his guardians. However, I think that there are ways to implement everything I discussed in a way consistent with that principle.

The basic way I would deal with the problem is to state in the contract signed by the guardians that the child may voluntarily work for the company/pay the school when he is an adult, but should he choose not to, the guardian will have to work/pay instead.

Well, perhaps such a contract would be legal, but I do not know enough about the law to say for sure. Regardless, it does not seem to be very practical.

Presumably the company would invest so as to reap the benefit of whatever specialty was honed through the education of the child. But if the child as an adult did not care to work for the company then the company would have a (presumably) untrained guardian to work for them instead. That does not seem to be much of a motivation to sign such a contract, and make such an investment, at least as far as the company is concerned.

[Betsy]

I was discussing ways for people in poverty to get into school in a pure Capitalist system.

Look at all the ways they learn non-compulsory things like computer programming.

Some pay to go to a trade school. Some pay for school out of savings and some take out a loan. Some go to school full-time and some part-time while they work. Some don't go to school at all but learn on the job, get a book and teach themselves, or take courses on the web instead. Some prove their skills by taking an exam. Some prove their skills by the work they do.

Under Capitalism there are many options and person is free to choose the kind of education that fits his situation, preferences, and goals.

[danielshrugged]

But if the child as an adult did not care to work for the company then the company would have a (presumably) untrained guardian to work for them instead. That does not seem to be much of a motivation to sign such a contract, and make such an investment, at least as far as the company is concerned.

I'm not saying that's my favorite solution (I favor payment of the tuition on an installment plan), but this would be a question for any outside company. Personally, I think that most graduates, presumably thankful for their education, would voluntarily pay the price/work for the company. They would really have to be bad people not to.

[stephen_speicher]

Personally, I think that most graduates, presumably thankful for their education, would voluntarily pay the price/work for the company. They would really have to be bad people not to.

Daniel, you are suggesting that a child, who is indebted by his parents, is an example of "bad people" because as an adult he does not want to work for "4-8" years for a company that he did not choose? I do not think that is a fair assessment Daniel.

Let me ask you a different, but related question. Do you think that a child is morally obligated to his parents to repay them for his childhood education when the child becomes an adult? As an adult is he then also "bad people" because he does not reimburse his parents for the money that they spent on him?

In today's world, I would say that an education is the right of a child just as much as it is his right to be provided food, clothing and shelter by his parents. I do not think it morally proper for people to have a child if they are not able to provide their child with what he needs to prepare himself for adult life. If some future circumstances occur -- illness, death, disability, etc. -- where the parent cannot provide what is needed, then the child must make due with whatever options are open to him.

But, extenuating circumstances aside, the parent is morally responsible for the child's education. It would be an inversion of justice to expect the child to be responsible financially as an adult for what was due him by right as a child.

[danielshrugged]

While I agree that good parents will be able to provide for the education of their children, I don't think all parents will be good parents any time soon. Poor families will have children, but might still wish for a professional, top-notch education for them.

I do NOT think a child is morally obligated to repay his parents for anything, whether food, shelter, or education. However, this is not a case of repaying parents, since the parents never paid and never were able to pay. In this case, the choice for the parents was to provide minimal education, say, in a trade (without in the future asking him to pay/work anything), or to send the child to a top-notch school (and afterwards asking him to volunteer his money/time). The parents decided on the latter.

The child, in this case, received something of tremendous value (I'm also assuming that he understands this value; if he does not, or if his school actually is bad, I don't think it's bad of him not to voluntarily pay/work). While some minimal education has to be provided by parents, I don't think it qualifies as child neglect if he does not get to go to a top-notch school. Since the parents provided this tremendous value in the hopes that the child, when he grows up, would be willing to pay for it, I think the decent thing for him to do is just that.

Here's what I consider a related situation. A woman is shopping and sees a dress she imagines a friend of hers would love. The dress is one-of-a-kind and this is the only chance to buy it. The woman buys the dress for her friend, thinking it likely that the friend will buy it from her (but also ready to accept the consequences should the friend choose not to). Now the friend might not like the dress, just as the child might grow up not to think his education was valuable; but if she loves the dress and would have bought it in the store, just as the child grows up to love his education and would have chosen it himself if he could have, it would be crazy of her to tell the woman, "I didn't ask for this dress; I have no obligation to buy it from you."

[Prometheus]

the parent is morally responsible for the child's education. It would be an inversion of justice to expect the child to be responsible financially as an adult for what was due him by right as a child.

I agree with that. Parents have to be sensible enough to plan for the child's future.

I'd like to pose another question, what about orphaned kids? Is there any sort of mechanism that would enable them to get an education?

Dinesh.

[AwakeAndFree]

I think forced slavery, by the parents or the state, is the same thing in essence. Parents cannot sell the future of their children.

Once a child is legally adult, he has to decide what to do with his life, and not be bound by the parents decisions.

In Japan, I hear parents sometimes bind a child to a school, a university, and a job - even before he is born. I think in this case the company or university can sue the parents, if the child refuses to go. But not the child himself.

This is from a book I read many years ago, and I'm not sure I remember it so well - so if anyone knows anything about it, or wants to correct me - please go ahead.

[Spearmint]

Look at all the ways they learn non-compulsory things like computer programming.

These people normally tend to be 14+. I can't imagine many 6 years olds learning to read on the job, or teaching themselves out of a book. The issue here seems to be young children, not college students.

Regarding the 'parents selling their children into slavery' thing, I have to agree with Steven. I don't think a person can morally be held responsible for a contract which they did not sign.

[stephen_speicher]

However, this is not a case of repaying parents, since the parents never paid and never were able to pay.

Daniel, I think you may have missed the point of the analogy. Just as a child might feel gratitude towards deserving parents as a consequence of their good will in raising him, so too a child might feel gratitude towards a company which chose to invest in his education. But, gratitude is freely given and is not an obligation, so I do not think it proper to call that child "bad people" because he might judge not to be obliged to honor a contract he did not make.

[stephen_speicher]

I'd like to pose another question, what about orphaned kids? Is there any sort of mechanism that would enable them to get an education?

First, I would argue that in a proper and truly free society there would be more real charitable organizations, providing real services, than whatever charity currently exists in our mixed state.

Second, there exists an enormous market for free adoption. If the state did not impose some of their politically correct restrictions I doubt that any child would go long before being adopted, in our rich world.

True benevolence towards your fellow man is greatly enhanced when your fellow man, through the government, does not typically have his hand in your pocket, on your wallet.

[Spearmint]

But, gratitude is freely given and is not an obligation, so I do not think it proper to call that child "bad people" because he might judge not to be obliged to honor a contract he did not make.

I think the comparasion to 'arranged marriages' seems worthwhile here. There seems to be very little moral difference between a parent agreeing to a contract where the child is educated in exchange for the promise of work in the future, and the parent signing a contract where the daughter receives gifts in exchange for the 'promise' to marry a certain individual when she is older.

[danielshrugged]

But, gratitude is freely given and is not an obligation, so I do not think it proper to call that child "bad people" because he might judge not to be obliged to honor a contract he did not make.

Assuming the child valued his education (and I'll add, assuming he is better able to pay for it than his parents were), I do not see why this doesn't fall under the virtue of justice.

This might be a better analogy: tipping. In most cases, one never agrees beforehand to tip anyone, whether a waiter, a pizza deliveryman, a taxi driver, etc. But what sort of view would you have of a person who never tips? In order to make this an exact analogy, suppose you forget something inside a taxi cab, and five hours later the taxi returns to your house to return that thing to you. You never asked him to do that, but assuming you valued what he returned, it's only just to pay him for his time and effort involved in driving back to your house.

I think the comparasion to 'arranged marriages' seems worthwhile here. There seems to be very little moral difference between a parent agreeing to a contract where the child is educated in exchange for the promise of work in the future, and the parent signing a contract where the daughter receives gifts in exchange for the 'promise' to marry a certain individual when she is older.

All right, I'll concede that there is little moral difference. If a daughter grows up and is in love with the person her parents chose for her, I think it would be crazy for her not to marry this person. However, if the daughter does not love the person her parents chose for her, she should not marry him, just as the child should not pay for his education if he doesn't value it.

[Praxus]

I tend to agree with Stephen here, it seems to me that it would essentially be slavery. That once the child is an adult he is forced to do something he did not consent to, so he will have to be coerced into it and that has no place in Capitalist society, or at least that is the conclusion I have come to.

Also in a Capitalist society would you be able to go before a judge at any age say 14+ and be declared a compotent adult if there is evidence to back it up?

[stephen_speicher]

Daniel, first, as a procedural matter, if you choose to respond to more than one person in a post then please attribute to each person the words each wrote. I assume responsibility for what I write and do not want other people's words to be mistaken for my own. I realize you had no bad intention here, but proper attribution is important. Thanks.

Assuming the child valued his education (and I'll add, assuming he is better able to pay for it than his parents were), I do not see why this doesn't fall under the virtue of justice.

Of course it falls under the virtue of justice. However, I am suggesting that you are misapplying justice when you refer to a child, now adult, as "bad people" because he does not choose to express his gratitude the way you think it should be done.

This might be a better analogy: tipping.

Tipping is a "better analogy?" Daniel, how can you possibly compare "tipping" to your idea of having a child be morally obligated to express his gratitude by working 4 to 8 years for an employer as an adult to honor an agreement he did not, and, as a child, could not make?

I really think you need to re-evaluate your approach here.

[stephen_speicher]

Also in a Capitalist society would you be able to go before a judge at any age say 14+ and be declared a compotent adult if there is evidence to back it up?

There is a whole body of State law that currently exists under the heading of emancipation of minors. I do not know enough about these laws to say if they are all rational and just, but certainly such an option should exist in a completely free society.

[nimble]

Just as a matter of personal opinion, i think you guys are putting to much effort and emphasis on making children go to school. First, the system of pure capitalism shouldnt be judged on what it provides for its constituents. Freedom is all that should be garuanteed not an education. Also, I have noticed that a lot of good paying jobs dont require that much education, although they do require college degrees. Why? Why do you need an education if you dont need it in your occupation? Also, scholarships are an option, for occupations that need a lot of education. Also, what would make sense to me, is that it be the responsibility of the parents. It should be a legal responsibility to take care of the children you bear. That responsibility would include feed, clothe, shelter, and provide an adequate education for the child. This should be much easier to do with the technology of computers. WE can take classes on line. I find it only fair that the possession of a minor, entail some responsibilities legally. If you dont want those responsibilities there is always abortion or adoption.

[DavidV]

I like Daniel’s idea.

There are four conditions that I believe need to be met: 1. Parents should be responsible for primary non-specialized education while the student and future employer split responsibility for vocational instruction. 2. Incentives should be set up for all parties involved to have an interest in choosing the best possible future for the child. 3. Even if parents cannot pay for the entirety of their children’s education, they should an incentive to contribute whatever they can. 4. The student cannot incur any contractual obligations until he is (about) 16.

There are two periods to consider: a general education from about 6 to 13 years old, and a trade-specific education from 13 to about 16. I think this is all the education that most people would need in a rational society. If a child from a poor family shows promise, it would fall on charity to provide for a university prep school at that age. A university education would only be expected of intellectuals, engineers, doctors, and other fields that require a lengthy period of specialized education.

Here is a way it could work:

When the child is 6, the parents send him to a general primary school, which provides him with a basic education. When he turns 13, either a trade school or a university prep school pays the primary school for seven years of education minus whatever the parents were able to pay. At this time, the child has some ability to choose which field to go into; even though he is too young to sign a contract. When he turns 16, the trade school sells a contract for employment to an employer for a lengthy apprenticeship, during which the student earns skills and pays the trade school and/or his employer for a portion of his education. If he chooses to reject the apprenticeship, there are several possible consequences: (a) the parents are responsible for a portion of the debt, the rest of which is written off by the school (and perhaps the employer, if he quits during the apprenticeship) ( a charity may pay (or pre-pay) for the parent’s debt (c ) the student can transfer his apprenticeship to another trade, and pay it off there or (d) the student does not pay off the apprenticeship, and risks rejection by wary companies in his chosen trade, and a lack of skills in others.

Oh, and if parents can't afford to help with their children's education at all, they shouldn't have them. If they are they are that irresponsible, I would question whether they are qualified to be raising children at all.

[danielshrugged]

Daniel, first, as a procedural matter, if you choose to respond to more than one person in a post then please attribute to each person the words each wrote. I assume responsibility for what I write and do not want other people's words to be mistaken for my own. I realize you had no bad intention here, but proper attribution is important. Thanks.

Sure.

Tipping is a "better analogy?" Daniel, how can you possibly compare "tipping" to your idea of having a child be morally obligated to express his gratitude by working 4 to 8 years for an employer as an adult to honor an agreement he did not, and, as a child, could not make?

Four to eight years was mentioned as a maximum specified in law. If the tuiton is absurdly expensive, or if the number of years the child had to work caused significant disturbance to a person's plans in life, I don't think there is any moral obligation. I'm not making any blanket condemnation here. But assuming a context that makes it reasonably easy to work/pay, I don't understand the motivation for not doing so. I think the analogy to tipping the cab driver who returns to your home after you forget something is rather exact (of course, they both depend on context).

[Betsy]

These people normally tend to be 14+. I can't imagine many 6 years olds learning to read on the job, or teaching themselves out of a book. The issue here seems to be young children, not college students.

My point was that, without compulsory education, there would be many, many options education-wise.

Even now, many young children teach themselves to read and do other things before they learn them in school, many families home-school their kids, and there are all kinds of private schools with many different approaches. Here in California, children working in films are provided with schooling on the set by their employers. Also look at all the things a First Grader might learn outside of the government school system: music, sports, religious education, language instruction, etc.

[stephen_speicher]

Four to eight years was mentioned as a maximum specified in law. If the tuiton is absurdly expensive, or if the number of years the child had to work caused significant disturbance to a person's plans in life, I don't think there is any moral obligation. I'm not making any blanket condemnation here.

But that is exactly what you did when you said:

"Personally, I think that most graduates, presumably thankful for their education, would voluntarily pay the price/work for the company. They would really have to be bad people not to."

It is that to which I have responded in the past couple of posts. You have decided that this child should work 4 to 8 years, and you condemn him as an adult, being "bad people" if he does not want to live up to an arrangement which he did not make. That, and your using "tipping," a simple social custom, as an analogy to this child-work issue, which seems incommensurate to me.

But assuming a context that makes it reasonably easy to work/pay, I don't understand the motivation for not doing so. I think the analogy to tipping the cab driver who returns to your home after you forget something is rather exact (of course, they both depend on context).

I guess I have really said all I can on this issue in the past several posts, and anything further would just be repetition. So, all I can say now is that I strongly disagree, and refer you to my previous reasons as to why.

[danielshrugged]

But that is exactly what you did when you said:

"Personally, I think that most graduates, presumably thankful for their education, would voluntarily pay the price/work for the company. They would really have to be bad people not to."

It is that to which I have responded in the past couple of posts.

I was admittedly imprecise when I stated that originally. I thought others would just take for granted an appropriate context. As I became aware that that wasn't the case, I began to specify.

I guess I have really said all I can on this issue in the past several posts, and anything further would just be repetition. So, all I can say now is that I strongly disagree, and refer you to my previous reasons as to why.

Okay.