Schools

[MinorityOfOne]

I've never really given a whole lot of thought to the issue of funding of schools in a free market. I presume that tuitions would go down significantly with the addition of competition into the market... and if charity can take care of anything in a free market, it can take care of education. I'd bet it'd get top donations.

But I think there's a lot more to be said about this. Some interesting ideas came out of a recent conversation I had with a couple of people. (So don't give me credit for them -- I didn't think them up.)

There are certain values that arise in schools which are, as yet, almost totally unexploited. One is advertising. Right now, advertising in schools is practically taboo: hell, some people get outraged when a company produces an educational video and has the nerve to put their own name on it! But say you were running your own private school. Can you imagine how much money you could get from toy producers alone just for putting some ads up on the walls? Another example, and a less obvious one, is the possibility of research programs paying to run experiments on kids -- say, quizzes designed to test certain hypotheses in developmental psychology. Or maybe there could be an opt-in program for kids to be a part of focus groups for new products -- who would complain about being able to test a toy which isn't even on the market yet? And what toy company wouldn't absolutely love the opportunity to take advantage of the biggest gathering place for kids in existence?

And, of course, as with any question of "how would this work in a free market?", we can count on entrepreneurs to think up new and innovative ways to trade with this particular market. I'm now convinced that of all the "problems" people bring up about the free market, education is among the least problematic.

[dondigitalia]

I just sort of skimmed this thread, so this may have already been mentioned, but what about good old-fashioned student loans?

The parent can take them, or the student can take them. The best part is that, with student loans, someone in poverty CAN pay for school, and no repayment is required until the student finishes school and can earn a decent living. No obligation is forced on anyone. If a parent takes out a loan, it is the parent's responsibility to repay it (although other payment agreements may be made between the parent and the student). If the student takes out the loan, it is his.

[stephen_speicher]

There are certain values that arise in schools which are, as yet, almost totally unexploited.  One is advertising.

Yes. Companies pay millions just to have their name put on a building. Betsy always suggests advertising as an unexploited way to finance government, so why not schools. (I think it was The Simpsons who had something like "The Ayn Rand School for Tots" in an episode.)

The motivation is not only name recognition, but goodwill in the community. And, the potential payback could be enormous. Imagine partially making possible the education of a little genius in the community, and to have that genius join your research group and invent a whole new product line. Years ago, before the government took over so much of research, IBM used to support many educational activities, and there research group was always proud when the effort fed back to them. Which is, also, one of the reasons that companies would be willing to finance the college education of promising students.

But, I really like the attitude expressed in your penultimate sentence:

And, of course, as with any question of "how would this work in a free market?", we can count on entrepreneurs to think up new and innovative ways to trade with this particular market.

The genius of American enterprise, when left free to act, will almost always think up a market solution that all the armchair philosophizers never even considered.

[oaktree]

i think you guys are putting to much effort and emphasis on making children go to school.

Excellent point.

[Jerry Story]

If anyone wants an education for free, here is one of many sources. The Gutenberg Project has thousands of ebooks that you can download for free. No doubt in the future this project will expand, and there will be many more projects like it.

http://www.gutenberg.net/find

And of course you can't expect me to omit this one:

http://www.soilandhealth.org/

[AshRyan]

I do NOT think a child is morally obligated to repay his parents for anything, whether food, shelter, or education...

I would like to make clear that while a child does not have a legal obligation to repay his parents for raising him, nor even a moral responsibility to reimburse them monetarily, I think that he is certainly indebted to them. In fact, he owes them his very life. Because of that, at the very least he owes them much more consideration than he otherwise would anyone with whom he had an accidental (not by his own personal choice) relationship--unless giving them such consideration would contradict that by actually harming his life. I think in some cases (though certainly not normally) it might even be appropriate for him to repay them monetarily in some way. I agree that the parents took on the responsibility of paying for the child's proper upbringing when they brought him into the world, but that doesn't change the fact that the value they have given to the child could never be repaid (but any effort the child makes to repay them is probably appropriate).

(I think it was The Simpsons who had something like "The Ayn Rand School for Tots" in an episode.)

Yes, it was, but that was just for the purpose of taking cheap shots at Ayn Rand, depicting the woman teaching the school as a Nazi-like drill sargeant, showing the children cowering in fear, etc. Not one of The Simpsons' finer moments.

[nimble]

to tell you the truth. the simpsons makes fun of EVERYTHING. They dont have any particular ideology that is shoved down your throat or anything. They make fun of anything that can be laughed at. And yes, even Objectivists need to laugh at ourselves once in a while. I wouldnt take the Simpsons too seriously.

[mvkormes]

Nimble says:

And yes, even Objectivists need to laugh at ourselves once in a while. I wouldnt take the Simpsons too seriously.

I disagree (in a sense) on both counts.

"Laughing at ourselves" is a very dubious way to put it. It's okay to laugh at one's foibles or at silly things one may have done--it is a way of trivializing them, of sapping their power, of denying them metaphysical significance. But it is very wrong to laugh at one's virtues. The constant injunction against "taking ourselves too seriously" is often camouflage for an attack on virtues and on values as such.

That said, the following is a humorous list that combines two genuine values, namely Objectivism and sex, without attacking either:

http://savethehumans.com/instantgrat/theli...sex/index.shtml

And, in essence, though I would not have formulated it the way he does, I agree with the author's defense against some students of Objectivism who saw this as an attack on rational values:

http://savethehumans.com/donkeysteak/civil...00nov/OSG.shtml

Furthermore, I take "The Simpsons" very seriously...as a sitcom! I would argue that it is among the best sitcoms ever, particularly if you are putting its best episodes up against those of other shows' best episodes. (As a whole, the series does have quite a few weak episodes.) The "Ayn Rand School for Tots" episode (title: "A Streetcar Named Marge") is pretty darn good in my opinion. I don't see it as an attack on Objectivism at all--I think it's good free publicity for AR. Plus, it's very funny--the "Ayn Rand School for Tots" scenes are a hilarious parody of "The Great Escape." (N.B.: "The Great Escape" is one of my favorite movies and I don't see these scenes as an attack on it either.)

[nimble]

I by no means thought of it as "trivializing virtues." In fact that segment of the show was so small I dont think it can really even be examined in that depth. Simpsons is meant to make a lot of characatures. It portrays everyone in a bad light. It demonizes greedy men in Mr. Burns. It portrays lazy oafs like Homer in a bad way. It pokes fun at democrats, republicans, green party candidates, hippies, beatniks, 80s hair bands, corporate "heartless" women, obsessive compulsive cleaners like marge, little girls who dont make time to "just be kids" like lisa, little brats like bart, and yes it even pokes fun at Ayn Rand in the breifest of segments. I think you may be taking it too seriously. Can you think of any one in the show that isnt being made fun of?

South Park and Futurama both made fun of Ayn Rand as well, but i still love those too. I can overlook that and realize that ITS JUST A CARTOON. I dont base my life and philosophy around cartoons. so i dont take them that seriously.

[AspiringObjectivist]

kormes: that list was absolutely hilarious.

[ex_banana-eater]

I have watched my 5 and 6 year old cousins and neighbour's daughters interact with computers very freely--sometimes being more computer literate than adults I know. The future of education for the poverty stricken will be through computers. The speed of a 500$ Dell is amazing compared to the requirements to run certain educational programs. Computers can teach grade one up to university (see the University of Arizona as an example). If schooling was completely state independant, this option would be available for the poor, and complete curriculums would be available on a few cd-rom, with an instructional one for parents. Computer prices are always coming down, and used computers as well as hand-me-down gifts are easy to find because people upgrade so frequently.

[DPW]

I would like to make clear that while a child does not have a legal obligation to repay his parents for raising him, nor even a moral responsibility to reimburse them monetarily, I think that he is certainly indebted to them.  In fact, he owes them his very life.  Because of that, at the very least he owes them much more consideration than he otherwise would anyone with whom he had an accidental (not by his own personal choice) relationship--unless giving them such consideration would contradict that by actually harming his life.  I think in some cases (though certainly not normally) it might even be appropriate for him to repay them monetarily in some way.  I agree that the parents took on the responsibility of paying for the child's proper upbringing when they brought him into the world, but that doesn't change the fact that the value they have given to the child could never be repaid (but any effort the child makes to repay them is probably appropriate).

I simply cannot understand this attitude. Yes, your response to your parents falls under the requirements of justice, but just as there are no unchosen obligations, so there are no unchosen debts, moral, monetary, or otherwise. To even imply otherwise is wipe out the foundation of justice - it is to substitute "what others do for me" for "what others earn." They are not inherently the same.

[Barstool]

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

Homeschooling, prehaps?

I was homeschooled for three years, so I have a unique perspective.

[AshRyan]

I simply cannot understand this attitude.  Yes, your response to your parents falls under the requirements of justice, but just as there are no unchosen obligations, so there are no unchosen debts, moral, monetary, or otherwise. To even imply otherwise is wipe out the foundation of justice - it is to substitute "what others do for me" for "what others earn."  They are not inherently the same.

How is one's debt to his parents separate from the issue of justice? It might be difficult to see, since it is a unique relationship--the only unchosen relationship that does require some recognition, in justice, by the child of what his parents have given to him, and what he therefore owes them.

To be clear, this is not the "attitude" that my parents have some claim on my life that is in opposition to it.

[DPW]

How is one's debt to his parents separate from the issue of justice?  It might be difficult to see, since it is a unique relationship--the only unchosen relationship that does require some recognition, in justice, by the child of what his parents have given to him, and what he therefore owes them.

It's difficult to see because it doesn't exist. Start here: why, in your view, does the child owe something to his parents? The only possible answer could be: because his parents made choices that benefited him. Once you establish a principle like that, you wipe out the principle that there are no unchosen obligations.

As Peikoff has pointed out, choosing to have a child is a completely one-sided choice. The child owes you nothing because he was not consulted when you chose to bring him into the world.

Justice cannot saddle us with unchosen debts, which is exactly what you're trying to do.

[danielshrugged]

Justice cannot saddle us with unchosen debts, which is exactly what you're trying to do.

I agree that one has no unchosen debt to one's parents. But justice has a wider application than debts and payments. It's also about rewards.

[DavidOdden]

In fact, he owes them his very life.  Because of that, at the very least he owes them much more consideration than he otherwise would anyone with whom he had an accidental (not by his own personal choice) relationship--unless giving them such consideration would contradict that by actually harming his life.

There are two ways in which a child "owes his parent his life". One is the biological "debt", of providing genetic material, and I don't see that as being any kind of debt since you have absolutely no control over incurring this debt. You own nothing at all to the sperm or egg donor. Do you claim that the act of providing the biological foundation for a person's existence entitles you to something special, more than the standard civility that you owe a stranger? Think especially of the anonymous sperm donor. The other sense of "owing your life" pertains to the act of raising a child, which is where the idea of owing a debt can be taken more seriously. But in that case, the special consideration owed a parent beyond that owed to any stranger derives simply from the fact that the parent isn't a stranger. You know what kind of value the parent is, and repay the debt by love or scorn, depending on what kind of parent they were.

[Spearmint]

I know some people here don't like TOC, but they had an article on the child/parent 'debt' that seems spot on

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivi...vism-family.asp

One clearly identifiable obligation is that of parents towards young children, who need to be looked after until they develop the ability to think rationally and independently. In having children of their own free will, parents take on this moral responsibility. Their reasons for having children may range from rational motivations such as the enjoyment of watching a new life develop, to irrational ones such as carrying on their family name. But whatever their reasons, in order to be good parents, it is necessary for them to invest emotionally and financially when their children are young and incapable of taking care of themselves.

This investment however, does not give parents a lifelong claim on their children. When they become adults, children may or may not appreciate their parents, depending on the type of relationship they have had. They should recognize that their parents are the source of their lives, but also realize that this does not constitute an obligation to automatically love their parents. There is also no reciprocal obligation for children to look after their parents when the parents are old. Such a demand or expectation is irrational, since this arrangement obviously cannot be settled on before the child is born.

Obligations on the part of the children arise if they continue to have an emotional and financial relationship with their parents once they are adults. Parents often attempt to provide long-term support and guidance, even when there is no longer need for it, because of the value they gain from seeing their children succeed in life. Similarly, children often choose to care for their parents during old age because of the values their parents have given them, over and above the obligatory minimum. Such actions exemplify the trader principle of offering value for value.

If a parent continues to support a child after the child was able to survive for himself and could feasibly deny the help (say over the age of 14 or something similar), then I would certainly say the child certainly has a moral obligation towards his parents.

[AshRyan]

...The other sense of "owing your life" pertains to the act of raising a child, which is where the idea of owing a debt can be taken more seriously. But in that case, the special consideration owed a parent beyond that owed to any stranger derives simply from the fact that the parent isn't a stranger. You know what kind of value the parent is, and repay the debt by love or scorn, depending on what kind of parent they were.

This is basically what I have in mind. Daniel's comment is also relevant.