Open question to libertarians

[poolerboy0077]

Q: Should education be compulsory?


Minarchists hold that the role of the state should only be to protect individual liberty from being infringed by others. Any role outside of this (e.g., welfare, healthcare, etc.) is coercive and inappropriate. Basically, it's about letting others do as they wish up to the point where one party aggresses against another — what is understood in political philosophy as negative liberty.

However, I contend that "letting others do as they wish" isn't the same as "letting others act autonomously," and that we should concern ourselves more with the latter than the former. Why? Because autonomy is not mere freedom from outside interference but instead is the added ability to have one's decisions be rational and informed. This is why we do not call 5-year-olds autonomous.

A person merely acting on his or her own desires but lacking the ability of reflectively considering their actions is far from being free in the sense we should be interested in. (Think Hume's 'slave of the passions'.) Therefore, if we wish to maximize autonomy, allowing parents (or even the young themselves) to decide not to educate their children, this inhibits said children from ever being fully autonomous, and being able to act freely in the important sense characterized above. To cultivate people's autonomy, and therefore maximize their liberty, while perhaps counterintuitive, we should enforce that all children must be educated.

Likely this might even lead to a growth of government because you'd need to institute a state-sponsored educational system, if not for public schooling at least to regulate homeschooling and the like. Of course this is contrary to libertarian ideology, but it seems that if we concede at least this much, I do not see any reason to not apply similar justifications for at least small welfare and healthcare systems (i.e., positive liberty).

Discuss

 

[Albion]

I'm inclined to think that we have to permit people to do things that are injurious to themselves. The follow-up question then becomes "How do we assess the adverse impact upon other persons that such liberty permits...and what do we do about it (if anything) when it is not clearly a matter of force or fraud?

 

[durangodawood]

If individualism and human freedom are your top values, then the fate of the individual child in the care of adults is rather problematic.

I agree. Parents can infringe on freedom and the development of autonomy just as much, if not more, that government.

 

[Albion]

I agree. Parents can infringe on freedom and the development of autonomy just as much, if not more, that government.

But that's a value judgment I'm not willing to settle in the state's favor.

 

[durangodawood]

But that's a value judgment I'm not willing to settle in the state's favor.

Not sure what you mean.

 

[Albion]

Not sure what you mean.

I mean that, unless we are dealing with the most unconscionable actions of parents towards their children, giving the supervision of those children over to the state is worse.

 

[grasping the after wind]

But that's a value judgment I'm not willing to settle in the state's favor.

Your argument does not sit well with those that find the state to be a compassionate parent rather than an objective referee. When those people can be persuaded to admit that until the state is made to prove that what it demands is objectively correct then it cannot be ethically or morally correct for it to be allowed to be given the power to demand whatever is currently fashionable with the intellectual elite. There is no objective standard to prove that state sponsored education is liberating and non-state sponsored education somehow limits autonomy.

 

[Albion]

Your argument does not sit well with those that find the state to be a compassionate parent rather than an objective referee.

I'll bet it doesn't

When those people can be persuaded to admit that until the state is made to prove that what it demands is objectively correct then it cannot be ethically or morally correct for it to be allowed to be given the power to demand whatever is currently fashionable with the intellectual elite. There is no objective standard to prove that state sponsored education is liberating and non-state sponsored education somehow limits autonomy.

Well said.

 

[durangodawood]

Your argument does not sit well with those that find the state to be a compassionate parent rather than an objective referee. When those people can be persuaded to admit that until the state is made to prove that what it demands is objectively correct then it cannot be ethically or morally correct for it to be allowed to be given the power to demand whatever is currently fashionable with the intellectual elite. There is no objective standard to prove that state sponsored education is liberating and non-state sponsored education somehow limits autonomy.

Most people think public ed is valuable. So I'd hardly call it "the state's" demand.

 

[Albion]

Most people think public ed is valuable. So I'd hardly call it "the state's" demand.

It may well be both. The state today certainly does demand supervision in this area of life. And you probably are correct that "most people" think that's a good idea.

But that isn't the point.

IS it indeed the state's responsibilty, and is a state monopoly in education the best way to handle it?

 

[durangodawood]

It may well be both. The state today certainly does demand supervision in this area of life. And you probably are correct that "most people" think that's a good idea.

But that isn't the point.

IS it indeed the state's responsibilty, and is a state monopoly in education the best way to handle it?

Yes. WE the people should ensure that all kids are educated, so they can grow up to be adults capable of caring for themselves.

As for the state's education monopoly, I havent seen an example of that in action. Perhaps in Soviet Russia? Not in favor of it. Hopefully this doesnt devolve into a tedious discussion of "vouchers". The big picture topic is pretty interesting.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Most people think public ed is valuable. So I'd hardly call it "the state's" demand.

You are correct that most people think public education is valuable but incorrect in not conceding that the state demands it.

 

[Albion]

Yes.

Then we have a fundamental difference of opinion, that's all.

WE the people should ensure that all kids are educated, so they can grow up to be adults capable of caring for themselves.

That doesn't require the state doing it. Numerous studies have shown that even home schoolers, taught by parents who have no formal training from any college of education, come out as well educated as do public school graduates.

As for the state's education monopoly, I havent seen an example of that in action.

Are you somehow unaware that, in every state of the Union, the government determines what and how education of children is to be done?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yes. WE the people should ensure that all kids are educated, so they can grow up to be adults capable of caring for themselves.

Education is a life long activity and we do indeed need to make sure that our children learn how to educate themselves. How we accomplish that task is open to debate.
Funnily enough, prior to the advent of public education there seems to have been a much smaller percentage of the population that was incapable of caring for itself then there is today. We all know that correlation is not proof of causation so do not think I am somehow blaming public education for this situation . I am rather presenting it because it is indicative of the lack of evidence that the proposition that public education is somehow the best of all possible alternatives to prepare children to grow up and to care for themselves is a proposition of faith and not one that has been satisfactorily proven to be the case.

As for the state's education monopoly, I havent seen an example of that in action. Perhaps in Soviet Russia? Not in favor of it. Hopefully this doesnt devolve into a tedious discussion of "vouchers". The big picture topic is pretty interesting.

If you do not approve of vouchers you might well be a libertarian.They are , after all, simply like other forms of public education, the state forcing all citizens to underwirte the formal education of a few. But let us take your advice and not speak of them at all.

 

[durangodawood]

Then we have a fundamental difference of opinion, that's all.


That doesn't require the state doing it. Numerous studies have shown that even home schoolers, taught by parents who have no formal training from any college of education, come out as well educated as do public school graduates.


Are you somehow unaware that, in every state of the Union, the government determines what and how education of children is to be done?

How can you mention the success of homeschoolers and then right after that claim the state has a "monopoly" on education?

 

[durangodawood]

You are correct that most people think public education is valuable but incorrect in not conceding that the state demands it.

I mean the state is simply reflecting the will of the people. Its not the state itself "gone rogue" with its own agenda.

 

[durangodawood]

Education is a life long activity and we do indeed need to make sure that our children learn how to educate themselves. How we accomplish that task is open to debate.
Funnily enough, prior to the advent of public education there seems to have been a much smaller percentage of the population that was incapable of caring for itself then there is today. We all know that correlation is not proof of causation so do not think I am somehow blaming public education for this situation . I am rather presenting it because it is indicative of the lack of evidence that the proposition that public education is somehow the best of all possible alternatives to prepare children to grow up and to care for themselves is a proposition of faith and not one that has been satisfactorily proven to be the case.

Speaking of lack of evidence..... where's the evidence that your initial proposition is correct, that before public ed, people on average were better able to care for themselves.

Maybe that was the case in a pre-technological society where 90% of people were sort of hereditary farmers.... but that was then....

 

[grasping the after wind]

I mean the state is simply reflecting the will of the people. Its not the state itself "gone rogue" with its own agenda.

Then wait until someone says that the state has gone rogue with its own agenda to disagree with them rather than disagree with the statement that the state demands public education.

 

[Albion]

How can you mention the success of homeschoolers and then right after that claim the state has a "monopoly" on education?

I explained that. The state has complete control over education. Yes, it does permit private schools and home schooling to exist, but IT, the state, makes the decisions concerning whether to do it and how they will operate if granted the permission to function.

Maybe that was the case in a pre-technological society where 90% of people were sort of hereditary farmers.... but that was then....

If you somehow think that today's public school grads know much about technology--or that they know more than private school grads--I can only say that you are mistaken.

I mean the state is simply reflecting the will of the people. Its not the state itself "gone rogue" with its own agenda.

That's entirely beside the point. This forum is about Philosophy and the thread raised the issue of the Libertarian POV concerning certain things. If you want to argue for statism or the rule of the majority, its a different subject. The state has power, and today's society probably does want the state to exercise power in many areas of life, but that doesn't mean that this is either more efficient or ethical than letting freedom operate.

 

[durangodawood]

Then wait until someone says that the state has gone rogue with its own agenda to disagree with them rather than disagree with the statement that the state demands public education.

The way you say it, I get the sense you mean the state has departed from its role as by-the-people for-the-people govt, and has become sort of its own animal. Thats not what you mean?