Inquisitor:I think Rothbard dealt with this matter well in this excerpt from For a New Liberty.
That excerpt literally has question marks all over it. I mean, every 5 or 6 words there's a question mark sign, which makes it really annoying to read. Is this just my computer or is someone else seeing this?
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity."
I like the idea. Letting parents choose which school to send their children to would allow competition to improve our educational system.
Hi all,
I am new to the forum and libertarian economics. I always thought that education was extremely important to free market society. My question is, wouldn't a completely free market based education system result in (some of) the poor not getting any education at all? Is the argument that either they will find a way to obtain education if they value it or end up contributing to in some "non-educated" way?
I apologize if this question has been posed before. Thanks for your answers in advance.
My question is, wouldn't a completely free market based education system result in (some of) the poor not getting any education at all?
I think the official line is volunteers would take it upon themselves to offer this service or at least pay for it.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Rothbardian so don't take my word as gospel.
There is a $99.00 homeschool curriculum and another one at $195.00, which I use, (Robinson). If you can't afford the printing and binding costs, most likely you could arrange to receive second hand books from somebody who has already used the curriculum. Same with the Saxon math books. So even the dirt poor should be able to educate their kids, and the kids would get a better education than the current public schools.
As for vouchers. Instead of vouchers per se, how about an educational rebate. This could only apply to people who pay property taxes directly. You would be able to rebate your property taxes based on actual educational expenditures. Of course, it presents the problem that occurs with vouchers, namely, will the government recognize all your expenses as legitimate.
docholiday: My question is, wouldn't a completely free market based education system result in (some of) the poor not getting any education at all? Is the argument that either they will find a way to obtain education if they value it or end up contributing to in some "non-educated" way?
If you believe, as I do, that a free market is the best way to supply goods and services that people want and need, then why shouldn't the free market also be able to provide education to people, even to the poor? Businessmen like John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and Sam Walton all made huge fortunes by finding ways to lower their costs and sell their goods to poorer people. Educational entrepreneurs would undoubtedly find ways to lower their costs so that poorer people would be able to get an education.
While I suppose some people might still end up "slipping through the cracks", I think most poor people would get a better education in a free market system than they do now with the public educational system.
docholiday:I always thought that education was extremely important to free market society. My question is, wouldn't a completely free market based education system result in (some of) the poor not getting any education at all? Is the argument that either they will find a way to obtain education if they value it or end up contributing to in some "non-educated" way?
I always thought that education was extremely important to free market society. My question is, wouldn't a completely free market based education system result in (some of) the poor not getting any education at all? Is the argument that either they will find a way to obtain education if they value it or end up contributing to in some "non-educated" way?
I don't think that education is critical for a free market society. Some people are better with their brains while others are better with their hands. I've got several friends that have almost no education to speak of (one stopped going in the sixth grade) but all do very well working with their hands. One is a carpenter and the other, the one with a sixth grade education, is one of the very best welders I've ever seen. They both have their place in a free market society as laborers.
As for some people not getting an education how is a free market education system any different than today's? According to some numbers 1/3 of all high school students will fail to graduate from high school. According to a study by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 32% of all drop outs did it to get a job, 26% left because they had a child and 22% had to help their families. In a truly free market system those people could have found alternatives to not getting an education such as home schooling or other ways. Then again, in a truly free market economy they probably would have been able to land good factory jobs anyway and a lack of education wouldn't affect them that much.
The system we have know isn't working and everyone knows it. A free market system is the only way to go. You're still going to have people who don't get an education. That's just the way things are. But the chances of them receiving one, and at a much lower cost, is much higher in a truly free market system.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
Inquisitor: Excuse my own ignorance, but what is the "Mises-ian" stance on education? I would imagine it would advocate zero government intervention in education, but would this really make our country better off? If poor families chose not to send their children to school at all because it was cheaper not to, how would this help the poor break the "cycle" of poverty? In my opinion, the perfect education system would be one in which there was no federal government involvement (only state gov'ts), and each state participated in a voucher system which allowed individuals/families to choose and therefore gives schools an incentive to compete for customers/students.
Excuse my own ignorance, but what is the "Mises-ian" stance on education? I would imagine it would advocate zero government intervention in education, but would this really make our country better off? If poor families chose not to send their children to school at all because it was cheaper not to, how would this help the poor break the "cycle" of poverty?
In my opinion, the perfect education system would be one in which there was no federal government involvement (only state gov'ts), and each state participated in a voucher system which allowed individuals/families to choose and therefore gives schools an incentive to compete for customers/students.
First of all, most funding for k-12 education comes from the local neighborhoods. There is a little bit of Federal funding, but not enough to make poor schools as good as wealthy neighborhoods. So how does this help poor people? To force them to pay for public education, where half the funds go to beuracrats?
Second of all, the poorest schools have the highest drop-out rates. Again, how is this helping the poor?
"Most voters know nothing about how markets work—or even that they work..." Sheldon Richman
I am in favor of school vouchers, while completley getting rid of all public schools... I think there is something fundametanlly correct concerning the idea of vouchers as poor kids weren't able to choose the family they were born into. This puts every kid at the starting line at the same time. Its not a good thing, its simply the least bad solution...I would also think maybe a tax decductive savings account for education would be a good idea.
docholiday: Hi all, I am new to the forum and libertarian economics. I always thought that education was extremely important to free market society. My question is, wouldn't a completely free market based education system result in (some of) the poor not getting any education at all? Is the argument that either they will find a way to obtain education if they value it or end up contributing to in some "non-educated" way? I apologize if this question has been posed before. Thanks for your answers in advance.
First of all, everyone receives an education, whether or not they attend school. What you are talking about is a formal education. And yes, some people may not receive a formal education. But a formal education is not key to a free society. If it were, we would not be where we are today.
A formal education is not even key to making a lot of money. Some of the richest people in the world never even finished college.
Tuneman: I am in favor of school vouchers, while completley getting rid of all public schools... I think there is something fundametanlly correct concerning the idea of vouchers as poor kids weren't able to choose the family they were born into. This puts every kid at the starting line at the same time. Its not a good thing, its simply the least bad solution...I would also think maybe a tax decductive savings account for education would be a good idea.
Vouchers are paid for by taxes. Taxes always hurt the economy. This results in more poor people, since the beuracrats take half the money. So vouchers would also just hurt the poor.
Would zero government involvement in education make the country better off? This is a silly question. The goal of an education system is to educate individuals not make a country better off. Besides, how do you separate the parts of better off between education and the thousands of other factors that make a country better off. Government theft for education can help individuals obtain an education, but would that individual get an education anyway absent govenrment theft?
If poor families chose not to send their children to school because it is cheaper not to then how would this help poor break the cycle of poverty? Why not trust individuals to purchase the amount of education that they want instead of inserting your ideal of the amount of education they need. As for breaking the cycle of poverty, the poor do it all the time. I doubt that any of the millions of poor folks rising themselves out of poverty is the result of government sponsored education. I tend to believe the opposite that these folks rose out of poverty despite the goodness of government freebies like education. Besides the biggest incentive for individuals not to break the cycle of poverty is from government handouts. Look at the government sponsored education systems in the poorest areas.
The government even at the lowest levels is just too stupid to run an education system. These decisions are best made by individuals and parents who will purchase or obtain other help to purchase the amount of education they desire.
I also like the idea of educational vouchers since,although inferior to completely private education,it at least injects some choice into a system run by the state (especially here in Canada). In my view,we should be completely open about and work toward our desired end of total non-involvement by the state in education (as well as many other things). However, I think you could argue that short-term tactics should allow for an improvement of an existing dysfunctional system so that parents and children are better served by allowing some choice such as through vouchers.
I used to be a HUGE supporter of school choice. Over the years, I've become slightly less optimistic. I still strongly support going from the current system to school choice, but I also know there are unintended effects. Sadly, if school choice did improve schools, the politician would spend it as being proof that government can work when it more responsive to the wishes of the constituents. ..."therefore, we need more government!"
billott1: Would zero government involvement in education make the country better off? This is a silly question. The goal of an education system is to educate individuals not make a country better off.
Would zero government involvement in education make the country better off? This is a silly question. The goal of an education system is to educate individuals not make a country better off.
Well then, why is it important that individuals are educated in a formal educational setting?