Privatizing Education

Political Philosophy
21

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.

22

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.

23

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? :homestar:

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.

24

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.

25

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.

26

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.

And the couple of million NEA members would go on welfare? :slight_smile:

Realistically, if government-funded education were scrapped private schools would fill the gap easily. People would spend the money that would otherwise have been taken from them forcibly to pay for schools. If schools were free from government rules, a basic education would not be all that expensive.