Open question to libertarians

[grasping the after wind]

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.

I did not think that that was necessary to prove since all of our public assistance programs seem to have been initiated only after the advent public education I hardly think the time invested to find statistical analysis would be worth the trouble. And again I was not proposing any link between the increase in dependence of the population and the advent of public education just pointing out that universal public education does not seem to have done a bang up job of preparing a large percentage of the populace from not being 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....

Perhaps a better way to prepare children to take care of themselves as adults would then be to insist that all people be hereditary farmers rather than be educated by public instituions of learning? Of course that is a silly notion because what worked in the past may not be appropriate for the new situation just as the universal public top down model of education that thrived during the days of the industrial society , when the skills necessary to care for oneself were fairly universal and basic, may be as anachronistic in terms of what is needed today as the agrarian model was for those times.

Wouldn't it be more pleasing to be flexible and allow for the possibilities that something might get better results than what we have tried that seems to be somewhat failing to produce as well as it once did? Not achieving the results we would prefer? Rather than to insist that the traditional method we are using is sacrosanct and no other could get better results so let us never give them a chance to prove us wrong?

 

[durangodawood]

I did not think that that was necessary to prove since all of our public assistance programs seem to have been initiated only after the advent public education I hardly think the time invested to find statistical analysis would be worth the trouble. And again I was not proposing any link between the increase in dependence of the population and the advent of public education just pointing out that universal public education does not seem to have done a bang up job of preparing a large percentage of the populace from not being able to care for themselves.

Perhaps a better way to prepare children to take care of themselves as adults would then be to insist that all people be hereditary farmers rather than be educated by public instituions of learning? Of course that is a silly notion because what worked in the past may not be appropriate for the new situation just as the universal public top down model of education that thrived during the days of the industrial society , when the skills necessary to care for oneself were fairly universal and basic, may be as anachronistic in terms of what is needed today as the agrarian model was for those times.

Wouldn't it be more pleasing to be flexible and allow for the possibilities that something might get better results than what we have tried that seems to be somewhat failing to produce as well as it once did? Not achieving the results we would prefer? Rather than to insist that the traditional method we are using is sacrosanct and no other could get better results so let us never give them a chance to prove us wrong?

For sure I'm against Fed govt control over ed standards.

Let it be the 50 states responsibility. Then we can try a variety of approaches.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What is the libertarian solution to the educational needs of children whose parents work too many hours to homeschool, and make too little money to afford a private education?

 

[Albion]

What is the libertarian solution to the educational needs of children whose parents work too many hours to homeschool, and make too little money to afford a private education?

There are many different ideas among Libertarians, but all aim to move in the right direction in order to improve the situation which most people recognize is unacceptable at present.

However, several position statements adopted by the Libertarian Party in recent years emphasized the following:

Parents should have the responsibility for their children's education--the courses of study, content, etc.--and be in control of all federal and state monies being spent on them. This includes the property taxes and other taxes paid by those families. Private schools should also have the benefit of public monies, just as public schools are at present, since it is the delivering of a service that the public deems necessary that is the key factor here.

Most of those families that cannot, at present, afford to have their children educated would be able to do so if these reforms are made. For the remaining poor, a safety net of subsidies would be made available as at present, with freedom of choice of schools included--or so most Libertarians say.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I'm inclined to think that we have to permit people to do things that are injurious to themselves.

Children do not have the ability exercise this right. They lack the experience and maturity to decide their own lives. This is why they have fewer rights than adults.

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.

Kind of the libertarian knee-jerk reaction I was expecting. Of course, it hasn't anything to do with what I'm talking about, but it's nice to know you don't like the government.

1. To the best approximation, we say children are not autonomous.
2. To the best approximation, we say adults are autonomous.
3. This is because autonomy requires the ability to make rational, informed, reflective decisions about your actions.
4. For our decisions to be informed, it helps to be as literate and educated as possible.
5. If education was not compulsory (as enforced by the state), parents could decide not to educate their children.
6. Being uneducated impinges on one's ability ever to be fully autonomous.
7. Therefore, not having compulsory education, while in once sense appearing to allow more freedom, leads to a society of less autonomous individuals.
8. We should care more about the autonomous form of freedom than the non-interference, do-what-you-want form.
9. Therefore, education should be compulsory.

With which number do you have a problem? Presumably, libertarians in general disagree with #8. In this case, I think they've/you've got something fundamentally wrong.

 

[Albion]

Children do not have the ability exercise this right.

That's correct. The parents have the responsibility for raising their minor children.

Presumably, libertarians in general disagree with #8. In this case, I think they've/you've got something fundamentally wrong.

You've made your argument for all of us being governed by what you have concluded is best for us; I still feel that freedom is more important, more ethical, and more efficient.

The next time, if you don't want to hear anyone disagree with your idea, it might be best not to begin your post with "an open question" and close it with "Discuss."

 

[poolerboy0077]

That's correct. The parents have the responsibility for raising their minor children.

And do anything they wish outside of aggression?

You've made your argument for all of us being governed by what you have concluded is best for us; I still feel that freedom is more important, more ethical, and more efficient.

The next time, if you don't want to hear anyone disagree with your idea, it might be best not to close your OP with "Discuss."

I didn't say I didn't want to hear other opinions. Of course I welcome them, I just vehemently disagree.

I left 'education' intentionally vague. Nowhere am I endorsing the current American 'government schools' or anything of the sort. Presumably you would agree that not being able to read would inhibit your ability to make informed decisions. Without being able to make informed decisions, you cannot be autonomous. Not being able to read is an extreme example of being uneducated. Education is required for autonomy.

 

[Albion]

And do anything they wish outside of aggression?

I addressed that in my earlier post. No one's taking an "anything goes" POV.

I didn't say I didn't want to hear other opinions.

I see. I must have misunderstood "Discuss."

I left 'education' intentionally vague. Nowhere am I endorsing the current American 'government schools' or anything of the sort.

Then I would imagine that you'd be open to some suggestions for improvement. I went into some detail explaining some possibilities.

Presumably you would agree that not being able to read would inhibit your ability to make informed decisions. Without being able to make informed decisions, you cannot be autonomous. Not being able to read is an extreme example of being uneducated. Education is required for autonomy.

I don't know where you got the idea that the only alternatives are 1) everyone well educated at the state's expense and according to the state's standards, or else 2) most of us illiterate and, therefore, not "autonomous." The majority of the population in Western countries was literate long before there was public education.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There are many different ideas among Libertarians, but all aim to move in the right direction in order to improve the situation which most people recognize is unacceptable at present.

However, several position statements adopted by the Libertarian Party in recent years emphasized the following:

Parents should have the responsibility for their children's education--the courses of study, content, etc.--and be in control of all federal and state monies being spent on them. This includes the property taxes and other taxes paid by those families. Private schools should also have the benefit of public monies, just as public schools are at present, since it is the delivering of a service that the public deems necessary that is the key factor here.

Most of those families that cannot, at present, afford to have their children educated would be able to do so if these reforms are made. For the remaining poor, a safety net of subsidies would be made available as at present, with freedom of choice of schools included--or so most Libertarians say.

I'm sorry, I don't really understand libertarianism all that well because all I ever really hear of it is from the mouths of self professed libertarians. It was my understanding (from reading the posts prior to my question) that libertarians would prefer there were no public schools at all. Is that correct?

You're saying that the money that's currently spent on public schools would instead be spent on private schools, which I assume would operate as any other for-profit business does. Wouldn't the government using public funds to support a private business be the antithesis of the libertarian ideology? Certainly libertarians don't advocate the government giving "stimulus" money to say auto-manufacturers...I've heard them say as much. How would giving money to private schools be any different? What's more is that under that plan, wouldn't the people who are already paying for their children to go to a private school be, essentially, paying twice? Once for their child's tuition...once through their property taxes...while those too poor to pay for their child's tuition would basically be paying only once? I'm asking because that's how it looks to me, but please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Also, don't you see a problem with schools being a for-profit industry? I know that at the basic k-12 grade levels, this certainly doesn't appear to be a problem. However, you're proposing a total elimination of any government educational standards...instead instituting the curriculum that parents want. Wouldn't you be afraid that this would cause many of the sorts of problems that colleges are currently experiencing? Is there any industry which you believe the government should have control over?

 

[poolerboy0077]

I don't know where you got the idea that the only alternatives are 1) everyone well educated at the state's expense and according to the state's standards, or else 2) most of us illiterate and, therefore, not "autonomous." The majority of the population in Western countries was literate long before there was public education.

You're getting to fixed on "public education." We need to first have a discussion on compulsory education (be it private, public or homeschooling). Presumably you are against any form of this, correct?

 

[Albion]

You're getting to fixed on "public education." We need to first have a discussion on compulsory education (be it private, public or homeschooling). Presumably you are against any form of this, correct?

I'm not sure. I had only meant to give an answer from the Libertarian POV, not to represent myself as an expert on all things Libertarian or, for that matter, to suggest that I have a hard and fast POV on everything that might be in a political platform, although I do have a certain sympathy for the basic idea behind Libertarianism.

To give some answer to your question, though, I'd have to say that I do not favor attempts to junk the present system in favor of an immediate change to Utopia. I believe in moving steadily in a certain direction.

Since there is so much wrong with the present educational system in this country, it only seems right to start making reforms and see how they work before advocating any "clean sweep."