Schooling in an Objectivist Society

Questions about Objectivism
1

I have a few questions about how the United States would move from the current system of schooling to a private and free system.

We can all agree on the fact that a private school system would be moral and proper in a free society. What I am concerned about is how would this system work in theory, since we cannot observe it in practice. It appears to me that there is a difference between ‘education’ and ‘schooling.’ To paraphrase Milton Friedman not all schooling is education and not all education, schooling. It is apparent that government is currently involved in both, as it administers schooling, and sets minimal standards for education.

In an Objectivist society government should do neither of the above, correct? Should we then not be concerned about parents who will inevitably decide not to school and/or educate their kids, either because of financial reasons, troubles at home, personal beliefs, etc? Before you hit reply saying “why should we care for them” think through this. It is not for their benefit, it is for yours. It is in your benefit for my kid to become educated, is it not? An uneducated society will give rise to leaders who appeal to the uneducated (not to mention more criminals). The uneducated will surely elect leaders who will not promote ideas consistent with Objectivism.

I’m sure we can all agree that government should not operate a schooling system. But should government dictate that schooling is a must, or certain standards of education are a must? Moreover, how would any reforms be practically implemented? Surely there is no reason for government to engage in running a schooling system when private enterprise (either for profit or non-profit) could do the same thing better. It seems to me that a first step would be for government to continue using its revenues for schooling but to to let families have more of a choice. Enabling a sort of voucher system, where families can choose at minimum what school their tax money supports seems to be a good short-term idea. If this is the case, should government set minimal education standards for the privately operated schools and then enforce them, in much the same way it sets sanitation standards for restaraunts and enforces them?

Thanks.

2

Before you hit reply saying “why should we care for them” think through this. It is not for their benefit, it is for yours. It is in your benefit for my kid to become educated, is it not? An uneducated society will give rise to leaders who appeal to the uneducated (not to mention more criminals).

I did think it through, and my answer is still “why should we care for them?” Is an educated society in my interest? sure. But someone else’s personal education is MORE in their interest than the general benefit of mine. As such, why isn’t the primary driver their interest? It is in their interest because they stand to directly benefit materially from educating themselves. Why are we so sure that the uneducated are sure to miss that point entirely? Some will, most won’t. Your hypothetical of the uneducated begatting more uneducated is wholy fallacious.

The minute you violate rights in order to force people to be smart enough to realize they have them, don’t you think you’ve taken the first step down the slippery slope?

3

Should we then not be concerned about parents who will inevitably decide not to school and/or educate their kids, either because of financial reasons, troubles at home, personal beliefs, etc?

Yes, we should care to some minimal extent about the flourishing of all humans, so we should care if parents dress their boys in frilly pink dresses, or waste days of shopping time looking for a Wii, or turn their children into vegans. We should care if parents tolerate hip-hop, or whether they have their children work for their allowance. What exactly do you mean by “care”? I only care enough about people who I actually know and who mean something to my life.

But should government dictate that schooling is a must, or certain standards of education are a must?

No.

Moreover, how would any reforms be practically implemented?

Like any government divestiture: sell the assets. I assume you mean "Suppose the Objectivism fairy waves her magic wand and the government gets out of the business of being in the wrong business. If you mean “How do we bring that about?”, well, that’s a tough one. Start working on your neighbors and work colleagues.

It seems to me that a first step would be for government to continue using its revenues for schooling but to to let families have more of a choice.

The first step is to end taxation. I take it you mean “The first step, if not actually ending taxation…”.

Enabling a sort of voucher system, where families can choose at minimum what school their tax money supports seems to be a good short-term idea. If this is the case, should government set minimal education standards for the privately operated schools and then enforce them, in much the same way it sets sanitation standards for restaraunts and enforces them?

If that were the case, the government would impose some kind of state standards, so we don’t need to put this in hypothetical terms. There should of course be standards, but they are not the concern of the state. The first step, IMO, should be to specify particular goals, and find a way to objectively determine how close the student has come to the goal. For example, can the student read and understand simple stuff; can they read a semi-technical manual; can they write a grammatical sentence; can they construct a coherent written explanation? If you have in mind that your child grows up to become a lawyer, you should look for a school with an emphasis on logical skills, reading and writing, and history and politics – not sports, car maintenance or typing skills. We don’t need government offices to tell us what standards must be met, the providers of the product should, rather, say “This is what we do”.

4

Well, it’s in everyones rational self-interest to have an educated society because the more educated the society, the more likely there will be geniuses who will produce, which benefits everyone. It’s also not a matter of forcing this on people, but convincing them it’s within their interest to make sure there are schools and the schools are doing a good job.

5

An uneducated society will give rise to leaders who appeal to the uneducated (not to mention more criminals). The uneducated will surely elect leaders who will not promote ideas consistent with Objectivism.

The system would not be democratic. It would be constitutional republic. The principles governing the government (proper constitution restricting its role) would not be a subject to vote.

But should government dictate that schooling is a must, or certain standards of education are a must?

Standards would be set by a competitive market which creates much better incentive for quality (and that need for improvement is continuous instead static “good enough”)

Moreover, how would any reforms be practically implemented?

There would be no need for educational reforms. Other reforms, if needed, could be written and presented to the public by well qualified portions of the populace (with appropriate qualifications on who is qualified to make such decisions).

If this is the case, should government set minimal education standards for the privately operated schools and then enforce them, in much the same way it sets sanitation standards for restaraunts and enforces them?

Both are not necessary. In a fully competitive market reputation is a great value.

6

the more educated the society, the more likely there will be geniuses who will produce, which benefits everyone.

Geniuses are not created via mandatory education. Those of ability will rise regardless. If there is a will there is a way. There will be private scholarships, there will be people looking for talent, willing to pay for someone’s eduacation who is worth investing. There will be people wanting to pay for university in exchange for this person working for them. Remember that it would be a system based on actual merit.

7

Let me sorta rephrase the original question. We can all agree on the fact that a voluntary system where everybody is fabulously wealthty would be moral and proper in a free society. What I am concerned about is how such a system could come about in theory. Should we not be concerned about people who are not fabulously wealthy and don’t seem to have the gumption or ability to become wealthy? Shouldn’t we all care about our neighbor becoming wealthy, because it’s in our own self-interest?

Premising the discussion on the idea of being “caring” or concerned is a bad start, given the current political climate. There is the distinct possibility that being “uncaring” will be criminalized in the next 200 years, starting in California. Pay attention to what the uncivilized mob and their politicians are saying – the whining is all about governments and businesses “not caring”. I think that “caring” is becoming a very dangerous anti-concept in our society. The question ought to be “what’s in it for me?”.

8

I think voluntary programs to help the poor to become educated are beneficial to me, however, the minute they become mandatory it is unethical.

I’m all for any voluntary programs, even if it was Government organized.

If people don’t trust in others to help voluntarily then too bad, they have no right to demand others to help if they choose not to.

9

We can all agree on the fact that a voluntary system where everybody is fabulously wealthty would be moral and proper in a free society. What I am concerned about is how such a system could come about in theory.

(bold mine)

I think that such situation is impossible. Some don’t have the ability; others are not willing to put the necessary effort. That being said I strongly believe that the overwhelming majority would do quiet well in a free society. Well enough for me to not become worried about their impact (negative) on my life.

It is not true that people can’t or won’t take care of themselves, that they can’t flourish when left alone. I think that flourishing is a natural (I don’t mean automatic) human goal at any level of ability for most. The problem today is that not being responsible for yourself is encouraged.

10

I’m all for any voluntary programs, even if it was Government organized.

In your opinion, what is the proper function of government?

11

Geniuses are not created via mandatory education. Those of ability will rise regardless. If there is a will there is a way. There will be private scholarships, there will be people looking for talent, willing to pay for someone’s eduacation who is worth investing. There will be people wanting to pay for university in exchange for this person working for them. Remember that it would be a system based on actual merit.

I think you missed this part of my post…

It’s also not a matter of forcing this on people, but convincing them it’s within their interest to make sure there are schools and the schools are doing a good job.

I’m not talking about mandatory education, just education period which would be voluntary for everyone involved, you have to convince people it’s better to be educated then not.

12

I don’t necessarily think that you disagree. I am just addressing what you said.

you have to convince people it’s better to be educated then not.

I don’t think that there needs to be an effort directed toward that goal. Private educational institutions would do more than enough to promote education and its benefits as a part of promoting their business.

13

you have to convince people it’s better to be educated then not.

I have to? Why?

I’ll ask the same thing that I asked the original poster…

Why are we so sure that the uneducated are sure to miss that point entirely?

The reality is that it is better to be educated than not. And for that very reason one does not need to convince people of it for they will suffer or benefit by their own recognition of that fact.

14

Well, it’s in everyones rational self-interest to have an educated society because the more educated the society, the more likely there will be geniuses who will produce, which benefits everyone. It’s also not a matter of forcing this on people, but convincing them it’s within their interest to make sure there are schools and the schools are doing a good job.

From what snippets I can remember, the reality of history was that private schools were very common indeed. The vast majority of people did not (and today do not) need convincing of their value. Whenever parents have had the wherewithal to send the kids to school, they did it. Today, wherever parents have the wherewithal to send their kids to private schooling, a substantial number do that too. What governments did was take over a system that was already in full swing, and deserves no credit for the prevalence of education. Quite the opposite - by directing schooling away from proper education and towards social adjustment for collective ends, which most people recognise (dimly or better) as unproductive, it has generated the lack of care about schooling that you seem to be picking up on.

I would go on to say that this underlying sentiment you have isn’t even as prevalent as your assertion of a need to convince people implies it to be. Back in history, I recall how there had to be harsh laws to prevent the kids of slaves from being educated. Today, the same is seen in fundamentalist religious countries where parents and teachers knowingly risk being savagely murdered for educating girls. Here in the west, there is fanatical hatred among pro-public types of making it easier for parents to send kids to private schools of their choice, not because it would be open to only a few parents, but because it would be open to many parents, which would lead to a sizable proportion of the population of ordinary people then not being raised how the social adjusters want. The involvement of authorities in education is not, and never was, about ensuring good education but about indoctrination. You can’t say “but I don’t want to force” because as soon as you introduce authority superseding parental wishes it is inevitable that both force and indoctrination will develop.

Privatise education, get rid of the crap that makes it artificially expensive, and eliminate both compulsory attendance and government oversight of content, and you will find that the number of parents who would not send their kids to school is both very small and will decrease over time. There are no grounds for your fears.

JJM

15

Wow. Thanks for the responses from everyone.

As such, why isn’t the primary driver their interest? It is in their interest because they stand to directly benefit materially from educating themselves. Why are we so sure that the uneducated are sure to miss that point entirely? Some will, most won’t. Your hypothetical of the uneducated begatting more uneducated is wholy fallacious.

I certainly see your point, that everyone raises their economic value by educating themselves. For devils advocate sake: Will a 5 or 6 year old child understand this and make the rational decision his parents don’t make?

The first step is to end taxation. I take it you mean “The first step, if not actually ending taxation…”.If that were the case, the government would impose some kind of state standards, so we don’t need to put this in hypothetical terms.

That isn’t what would happen. Ending taxation will not be the first step. What I am curious about is how these changes would be implemented starting from today.

There should of course be standards, but they are not the concern of the state. The first step, IMO, should be to specify particular goals, and find a way to objectively determine how close the student has come to the goal.

By standards I don’t necessarily mean “your child must read at this level, or do math problems of this nature.” A sort of enforced basic standard might be “This school should use English.”

Lastly,

John McVey: Interesting post. What particular time period and/or countries are you speaking of? I assume you are speaking of 19th century America?

Thanks.

16

By standards I don’t necessarily mean “your child must read at this level, or do math problems of this nature.” A sort of enforced basic standard might be “This school should use English.”

Then the concept of “enforced standards” would be completely indefensible. The language of instruction in a class should not be a matter of law; it is right and proper that The Waswahili League run a school where the language of instruction is Swahili, and whether they fail or flourish will depend on whether they can find customers (and instructors). Mimi, ninafikiri kwamba watashindwa kupata wanafunzi wakutosha, but it is their right to try. Nor should it even me a matter of law whether a school teaches history at all. The content of instruction should be completely at the discretion of the school, and parents would select this school versus that based on the actual content – which would include more detailed specification of the kinds of math problems that would be taught.

Your question is ill-framed because you’ve started by saying “There are certain sacred cows that we can’t address – the main problems”. I suggest going back to the very beginning and ask, “What needs to be changed in education?”. The answer is, (1) the use of taxation as a means of funding and (2) the compulsory nature of education. You’re saying, “Yeah, but let’s not address these points, let’s change something else”. Why then should we change anything? What is the intended goal of the change?

17

Then the concept of “enforced standards” would be completely indefensible. The language of instruction in a class should not be a matter of law; it is right and proper that The Waswahili League run a school where the language of instruction is Swahili, and whether they fail or flourish will depend on whether they can find customers (and instructors). Mimi, ninafikiri kwamba watashindwa kupata wanafunzi wakutosha, but it is their right to try. Nor should it even me a matter of law whether a school teaches history at all. The content of instruction should be completely at the discretion of the school, and parents would select this school versus that based on the actual content – which would include more detailed specification of the kinds of math problems that would be taught.

Absolutely agree with the argument of content. This should be a matter for each school to decide on. I suppose you are right, the language in use should be as well. And therefore on average Spanish immigrants will send their kids to Spanish speaking schools, Portuguese immigrants will send their kids to Portuguese speaking schools, French immigrants to French schools, etc. Now of course, I assume there would be a predominant language in which most business is conducted in, as there are not enough numerals on a telephone keypad to accomodate all languages when you dial a customer service number. So it would be in the kids best interest to learn this dominant language, but he will learn it either as some sort of elective in his school or as a second language when he enters the workforce and discovers it is of use to him. Correct me if I am wrong.

Your question is ill-framed because you’ve started by saying “There are certain sacred cows that we can’t address – the main problems”. I suggest going back to the very beginning and ask, “What needs to be changed in education?”. The answer is, (1) the use of taxation as a means of funding and (2) the compulsory nature of education. You’re saying, “Yeah, but let’s not address these points, let’s change something else”. Why then should we change anything? What is the intended goal of the change?

I certainly recognize that these are the main thoughts that run against a free schooling system. What I am trying to ask, and have thus far been at fault by not communicating clearly, is how can we work within the current underlying thought structures toward a relatively more free system? Or maybe that isn’t possible because we are constrained by existing thought. I take it that what you are saying is that the change is only possible from the ground up? So that instead of addressing the particular problem of schooling we should be addressing the larger problem of improper philosophy?

18

Correct me if I am wrong.

Okay, stand corrected then. :stuck_out_tongue: Not that I am arguing against language education turning out the way you say; however, neither can you assume that it would turn out the way you predict. One could argue that if one language is truly dominant that would end up being the primary medium of education, with different schools still teaching their own language too, as a second language. Given my experience with India sticking with English even after the British left, I think this is just as likely. If I had to guess, I’d predict a mix of both approaches, adopted by different families, based on what they think is important in life.

19

And therefore on average Spanish immigrants will send their kids to Spanish speaking schools, Portuguese immigrants will send their kids to Portuguese speaking schools, French immigrants to French schools, etc.

The facts do not support that assumption. Children manage to learn the local language, whatever it is, with such ease that there is little need to run classes in the immigrant language for very long. Somali immigrants will therefore send their children to an English (ESL) class as long as it takes for the kids to learn sufficient English to survive in a straight English school – not very long. Foreign language schools are really designed either to exploit the ethnic-heritage market (kids in the Swahili school aren’t there because they only speak Swahili, there are there because they or their parents feel some affinity for Africa and Swahili) or because of an active interest in making the child bilingual (on the not totally disreputable theory that there is an advantage to speaking two languages). On average, Portuguese and Norwegian immigrants switch to English (in the US) and beget English monolinguals whose ancestors used to speak Portuguese or Norwegian, and do not on average try to retard the integration of their children into the new society that they moved to.

What I am trying to ask, and have thus far been at fault by not communicating clearly, is how can we work within the current underlying thought structures toward a relatively more free system?

Change the underlying thought structure. Challenge the notion that all good things must come from the government, to be paid for by taxations; challenge the notion that the government know what is “the greatest common good”, that there even is such a thing, and that it is right for the government to impose that view by force. In other words, challenge taxes and compulsory education.

So that instead of addressing the particular problem of schooling we should be addressing the larger problem of improper philosophy?

Instead of addressing the particular problem of schooling, we should be addressing the larger problem of improper philosophy. Address the cause, not the particular symptom.

20

Softwarenerd: Thanks, I gotcha.

The facts do not support that assumption. Children manage to learn the local language, whatever it is, with such ease that there is little need to run classes in the immigrant language for very long.

The children tend to learn the local language with ease because they are sent to public schools in which the main language is English. Without this compulsory aspect I suspect many immigrant parents will send their kids to schools of their native language (not for any good reason, but for the reason you stated, which is, some sort of affinity for their native language and culture and for what is “familiar.” Observe how immigrants tend to form their own communities within particular neighborhoods) and kids would be less likely to “manage to learn the local language” until they grow a bit and realize it is in their best interest.

or because of an active interest in making the child bilingual (on the not totally disreputable theory that there is an advantage to speaking two languages).

Yes, from the brief knowledge I have on the subject, I think there is some truth to that theory. My wife is from Brazil and speaks Portuguese, and we have had discussions and read a few books on whether or not we will raise our children bilingually.

Instead of addressing the particular problem of schooling, we should be addressing the larger problem of improper philosophy. Address the cause, not the particular symptom.

Right. Thanks for the replies, they have been very helpful for me to try to comprehend more of how a free system would operate.