Private Schools

Political Philosophy
1

This arguement started off on the death penalty and ended up in taxes. I’ve told him about the immorality of taxes but he seems to think they’re a neccessary evil. He said roads and schools could not run without taxes. I rebutted with privatisation. Now he is saying the prices of all of these privatised things would cause a new depression. Here is his exact response:

"Let me break it to you like this.

The average private school in Canada is nearly $12,000 per year.

The average family has 2 children so we’re looking $24,000/yr.

Teachers aren’t going to want to be paid less, and if soo much money is freed up, this should be no issue.

But guess what. To be eligible to have this money after not paying taxes, you would have to be making nearly 100,000 a year. A task that app. 80% of the population does not do.

So now you want to add in healthcare, increased travel costs, etc etc etc?

Come on.

It’s just not possible without sending the economy into a serious turmoil and creating a new depression. If you can justify why society should willing create an economic crisis based on a concept that cannot be backed up or justified without using hypothetical situation, and “not knowing how society would create the change” you should realize there is a red flag going up.

This is not a good idea.

Interesting concept, but not logical, practical, or worth doing.

Better to continue with the tax system we have, improve and refine it."

Its really frustrating because I have not yet bought any of Ayn Rand’s non fiction (lack of funds). Capitalism is easily my weakest point, I just don’t know very much about how a pure laissez faire system would work yet. I was hoping you guys would help me respond to this.

2

The cost will be taken care of by the law of supply and demand. The number of people who can afford, or wish to send their children to private schools is a pittance compared to the number of students in the country.

When ALL the students are in private schools, there will be a corresponding drop in price because of increased buying power of the schools, due to higher enrolment and increased competition from more schools competing for the publics money. The money the government currently steals from us for School Taxes is returned to the individual and enables the family to have the choice.

Competition breeds utility and excellence.

3

How’s a schooling question different from what you asked in the other thread?

The price of schooling does not have to be that high. One cannot look at a system that is mostly government-funded/run, and use the private fee rates as a benchmark. Such a market is too influenced by government-rates. While rates will probably be over $12,000 for good schools, I would expect them to be significantly lower for average and passable school. I think one way to make a guess would be to start with the current day-care rate ($5000 - $15000 a year outside the huge metros), and assume a 50% higher student-to-adult ratio for the school-going ages. This means about $3,000 per child would be rock-bottom. As a sanity-check, work it forward: 20 kids pay $3000, that makes $60,000 a year for a day-care provider, who keeps $40,000 as salary and uses $20,000 for expenses (this is at the lowest end of the scale). So, a poor three-child family would have to pay at least $10,000 a year to send their three kids to school. If they cannot, why in hell are they having kids!

Nevertheless, one can never win this argument using economics alone. There will probably always be some Americans who earn (in real terms) just enough to have a third-world life-style. Why should the other Americans be forced to provide them an American life-style? The moral argument is the primary one.

4

Nevertheless, one can never win this argument using economics alone. There will probably always be some Americans who earn (in real terms) just enough to have a third-world life-style. Why should the other Americans be forced to provide them an American life-style? The moral argument is the primary one.

Absolutely.

Example of a failed non-moral argument: “A rising tide lifts all boats” is a common “practical” argument for going laissez faire and letting the economy rip–once you persuade your interlocutor that cutting taxes and reducing regulation will help the economy. Unfortunately it’s not true that a rising tide lifts all boats. Some have holes in the hull, some are anchored by very short chains. These would be analogous to people with self-destructive financial and work habits. We will always have these people, the practical argument fails.

I do suggest you be prepared to argue both–in this case demonstrate that his cost numbers are unrealistic and *also* argue the morals. This is the way to demonstrate that not only is it moral, it is practical (as Objectivists, but few others, would expect).

5

Well, that ended fast. Everyone in the thread “found out” I was 16 (it was publicly displayed in my profile) and is now assuming I have no “real world experience”. Then came a full page of me being called an immature child. No one was able to refute any of my claims, and no one will. Needless to say I’ve severed all ties with that forum. Theres no point in going there anymore.

6

Ayn Rand’s non fiction is about 1.99 USD used in good state in Amazon, etc. And Ayn Rand is not the only one to point out that a laissez faire system would work, George Reisman is more of an Objectivist than most of the other free-market economists and his book is free here

When someone asks you how 80% of the population would pay for an education for their “two children” you should point out that

A) since public education is free, then private education is a luxury not a necesity and therefore more expensive than if it was the only alternative (all private). Abolition of the Communist staple of Public Education would mean a drop in prices, and a lot lot many of new flexible small business sprouting up in neighborhoods, then perhaps franchise chains, or internet education, who knows? It would be a free sector, not a coercitive one.

B ) What is education, and is the government providing it through its Public Education system? How much is it education and how much indoctrination?

Is actual education that costy? Need it to be?

but in the end, the argument would be that, who cares how costy a service is, the point is that in a free market everyone would be rich enough to pay it - each to the extent of his own wealth.

7

The Anthem, if you want a solid first read on economics (from a free market perspective), Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson is available online, too, for free (out of copyright) here. Reisman’s book is much more advanced, and should be read after you have a basic understanding of a few economic concepts.

Also, almost all of Rand’s main books are available at libraries all over the place. If they are not at your specific library, libraries have always gone to incredible lengths for me to transfer a book to where I can borrow it from. All you have to do is go to a library and find out, then ask, if need be.

8

true go for Hazlitt’s book which is quiet good indeed. Reisman’s is a 1000+ and not nearly as thrilling as AS

9

Its really frustrating because I have not yet bought any of Ayn Rand’s non fiction (lack of funds).

Try used book stores, there are several online. Powell’s (http://www.powells.com) has very low prices and fair quality, and I think they still ship free to Canada (not to Mexico anymore, alas).

10

Thanks for all the book suggestions. I’m checking them out now.

11

Oh, another thing you’ll probably encounter in this kind of argument, is that it is in your self-interest to support public education. the reasonsing is that an educated populace is more productive than an uneducated one, therefore it’s in your interest that it be educated at public expense, which is to say at your expense.

Now, it is true that educated people are usually mroe productive than uneducated ones, and it’s true that it is better to live in a country where the vast majority receives an education than in one where it does not. The straw man comes in the implication that either you have public education or large amounts of uneducated people.

My answer is that a rational man would recognize his interest in general education and do something about it. For instance, private schools tend to accept a great many students who can’t pay for the tuition on a charitable basis. A rational man would support such endeavours out of his own self-interest. Or he could donate money to charities that use donations to send children to school. In a fully private school system, with costs lower and moneys better employed, this wold represent a fraction of what he pays now for public education.

BTW many private schools are community enterprises set up and supported by parents who want their children to have a good education. These tend to be non-profit and to rely on charity as much as on tuition, and to be very accessible economically speaking.

Yet another point to consider is the cost per student in the public education system. Usually it’s higher than the private school average, and produces less results.

12

I believe it is a simple matter of economics to show that, in fact, private education would be less expensive than public education.

It is always helpful, especially when talking about a government provided service, to remember: there aint no such thing as a free lunch. (TANSTAAFL)

Public education is not free. Public school teachers are being paid right now. That money is coming from somewhere. Now remove the huge government bureaucracy. Will the result be more or less expensive?

13

Here’s a good example involving the poorest of the poorin the poorest countries. It is not just a matter that one costs less than the other but that the socialist approach will never work even if you threw the extra money at it.