Main Page/LeftColumn

From Free Talk Live

Featured Article

Systemic problems

Typical socialist logic: does a beautiful school teach any better than a plain one?

Nearly all American public school systems suffer from the same problem: chronic cries of underfunding regardless of their actual income. Despite the fact that they constantly whine about not having enough money, the school systems have a habit of putting the construction of new administrative office buildings above extending the usefulness of the campus for children. Most school districts have little viable competition and have very little incentive to become more efficient; instead pleas for money are organized and politicians are invoked to find more funds. Emotional appeals are generally made instead of analyzing the core problem: monopolistic school systems are inherently flawed.

Side effects

Arguments have been made associating public education with a number of other problems that are common in a socialist society, including:

Obesity - all people are born with a natural inclination to enjoy at least some athletics, but not all will excel in a socialized military-inspired one-size-fits-all gym class. Less athletic kids come associate exercise with embarrassment, and avoid it for the rest of their life.

Unemployment - your prime years are wasted learning things that may not necessarily be useful employment skills, and by the time you graduate the psychological doors are closed; the only thing you've learned that life is unfair, so fuck it.

Irrational Exuberance - the dominant value the schools reinforce is the importance of being "cool", and the idea that material status symbols can help. Everybody talks about how cool your sneakers or your car is, no one talks about assets that appreciate in value.

Depression & Suicide - when no one thinks you're cool, the preprogrammed emotional response is that of misery and desperation, even if you have everything to live for, based on the values enforced during schooling.

Dependence - they might pay lip-service to the idea to clear their conscience, but schools don't teach kids to direct their own studies or acquire information as it becomes relevant to them. If they didn't teach us that in school, the subconscious programming dictates, it must not be very important.

Gullibility - authority is always right, even when it comes from an asshole teacher you have no rational reason to respect. Don't pursue the truth, pursue the lesson plan. Disobedience is punished and psychologically discouraged, far more so than stupidity.

Violence - if you've ever been to a second-rate public school, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Lack of Creativity - also self-explanatory.

Low Birth Rate - shame on you for not being able to take care of an egg! You'll make a horrible parent! (No matter what the teacher says, that's the subconscious message.) And there are many additional psychological reasons for this as well, the more socialist the school system the less fertile the society.

Nationalism - no matter the country, history and literature are always taught from a specific point of view. You're always lucky enough to be born in a country that produced the world's greatest poets, or religious leaders, or most dignified folk culture, or whatever. If you were born in Iceland, braving cold climate is important, if you're born in Russia its conquest of continues territory no matter what you do with it, in China its population, in Egypt its hitting the bronze age first, in Japan it's all about aggressiveness, in India it's all about compassion. This self-centric attitude doesn't only legitimize the power structure and prepare the public for nationalist war, it also creates many of the geopolitical inequalities that exist today. This would still exist without government-controlled education, but to a far lesser degree.

Alternatives

Within the libertarian community, most everyone would like to stop the government school monopoly, but there is strong disagreement over vouchers and other intermediate steps. Anarcho-capitalists would like to end public schooling immediately and completely, while some minarchists believe transition steps are necessary. Possible transition steps include vouchers or tax credits so that anyone who does not have children or who does not have their childen in government school would not be forced to pay for government schools. Minarchists generally see these programs as being "steps in the right direction", whereas anarcho-capitalists see them as another immoral and inefficient government program.

School vouchers

For people who would like to see public funding for education continue, school vouchers are an option. The main proponent of school vouchers is Milton Friedman, although the idea can be traced back to John Stuart Mill in his libertarian treatise On Liberty. A voucher system would allow government funding to be used toward private schools, meaning that schools would have to compete for their students. Note that this has nothing to do with the No Child Left Behind Act, which only allows students of "failing" public schools to attend other public schools.

Although a school voucher program is probably better than the state education monopoly, it is not clear whether such a system is really desirable. It is, after all, just another "reform" with its attendant bureaucracy, and scarcely in the history of government has any "reform" truly been for the better.

A major problem with vouchers is that the amount of money available in a voucher would probably be fixed, meaning that schools would just raise their prices to the value of the voucher. Even if the value could vary, they could adjust their prices to the maximum allowed value, meaning it would not vary for long. If the schools were for-profit entities (or corrupt non-profit entities), why wouldn't they want to increase their revenues? Thus, vouchers provide a major incentive for schools to raise their prices, because they are not subject to laws of supply and demand. It is almost certain that education would cost more under a voucher system than under the free market. Although the cost for the parent would be offset by the voucher, it would impose an undesirable expense on society. The United States' system of government regulation and subsidization of health care experiences similar problems.

Finally, one may ask why a voucher program is needed at all. Why not just let parents keep the money in the first place, rather than tax it away only to give it back to them? School vouchers do nothing but perpetuate the myth that a child's education is the responsibility of "society," rather than his or her parents. If the government wants to force parents to send their children to school, a simple law will suffice; no voucher system is needed.

Tax credits

A much better solution than school vouchers would be dollar-for-dollar tax credit to anybody who paid for a child's private education. It seems, after all, that a quality education for a child must be more important than any government program. Unlike a voucher, the amount of money is not fixed, meaning that schools will not have an automatic incentive to raise their prices to some fixed maximum. This still leaves those with out children left footing the bill for those with children, however, as the person with out a child must still pay the full tax rate with out an option for credit.

Both the voucher and tax credit programs suffer from the problem that any school to which money went would have to be "approved" by the state. Furthermore, some people believe that public money should not be allowed to be used toward religious schools.

Free market

Some libertarians have the radical idea that parents should actually be responsible for making sure their children are educated. It worked before the twentieth century, and literacy rates were actually higher than they are today. Such people are a threat to all reason and civility, saying parents should be responsible for their children, and should be rounded up and placed into camps until further notice.