Egalitarianism: Education Discussion with my Socialist Friend

Everytime I run into a wall while discussing politics with my friends of the socialist slant, you guys are here to help. So I seek your help again.

I usually smack right into that wall when they come back at me with an emotional response or question. This time was no different. The topic was public education and their answers involved equality.

I argued for a free market education system with no government involvement and they supported government sanctioned education. At times their answers alleged that I was against education (which I am obviously not) while not giving thought that it was the system I was attacking. Anyways, while I could easily brush those answers aside their final answer boiled down to this: without some centralized educational authority there would be inequality in the country. Rich areas would have better schools, while poor areas would have worse schools.

I couldn't seem to explain the free market philosophy in a way that made sense to them because they trumped me, personally, with their response of inequality.

There has got to be some sort of compassionate response to that answer. I culturally lean left and was taught to help others growing up (which might not matter but I was hoping to give you a drift of where I am coming from). I know what they mean and would never want that situation to happen. Is there a free market solution to this that might please my socialist friends.....and this former "progressive democrat*."

 

*who was freed from the state's brainwashing. Thank you Austrians!

It is challenging to explain the free market to socialists.  Many socialist see the free market compassionate towards corporations and not benefiting individuals.  Until they have an understanding of how a true free market works, you will make little leeway.  

IMHO, it would help to bring it down to terms of which we all can understand and at least agree on definitions as much as possible.  I think the Constitutional approach (I know the Constitution isn't completely libertarian, but if we lived true to its word, we would be closer to a libertarian society) may be a good avenue to start.  No where in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the centralized authority to oversee the schools.  That power was left either to the States or the Individuals (ideally the individuals, but the Constitution is not specific in that respect.)  We have only had the unconstitutional that Department of Education since 1980, basically since I was born, ~28 years.  That means that the US had an educational system was decentralized for 200 years!  Have schools gotten better or worse since centralization?  Have they gotten better or worse since No Child Left Behind in 2000?  I would say worse on both counts.

All the DOE did was create a hierarchy, but it did nothing to improve the situation of our schools.  At the very least, it would be ideal for the decision making of school and content to occur closer to the local level as much as possible, instead of 3000 miles away in Washington.

On a side note, have you made any progress under any other arguments with your socialist friend?

Two false premises - one, that everyone must be educated; two, that the market intensifies inequalities. In the first place, it is a novelty of the present age for everyone to attend school, right up to high school. Most people would be better off with a basic education and training for a profession. The idea of using schools as training grounds is abhorrent. Secondly, markets do not increase inequality. On a competitive market (that is to say, one in which government is absent), competition tends to whittle profits down, increase wages and lower prices. The wealthier individuals will have access to top schools, but so will those poorer individuals who want to pay for them; they'll also have  access to perfectly fine middle-of-the-range schools, homeschooling &c., unlike now where their children rot away in state prisons which do in fact exacerbate inequality. The key is to understand we do not presently have a free market.

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

In the first place, it is a novelty of the present age for everyone to attend school, right up to high school. Most people would be better off with a basic education and training for a profession. The idea of using schools as training grounds is abhorrent.

Socialists often argue that too many parents don't care about their offspring's education and therefore would simply choose the cheapest service avaible, regardless of quality (or one-sidedly indoctrinate their children with "radical" ideas, for that matter). So, they conclude, government must step in to guarantee the basic and "wholesome" education you're talking about for everybody. "No child left behind".

The reason why we need 12 years of government training is quickly blamed on the "complexity of today's world". So, even if Ben Franklin became a genius by self-studying while helping his candlemaking father, this is "18th century logic" (just like the right to keep and bear arms, we see a pattern here) and inapplicable today.

Explaining the benefits of a free market to a socialist is like trying to sell pagan idols to a Southern Baptist. Both have a very firm belief that you must be of the devil.

dreamingoffreedominma:

without some centralized educational authority there would be inequality in the country. Rich areas would have better schools, while poor areas would have worse schools.

Doesn't that happen under the current system anyway?

They like to pretend that all is equal but the truth is that it is not. Rich areas have better schools than some ghetto neighborhood or affluent parents send their kids to *gasp* private schools.

Just imagine what it would be like for teachers (who aren't really in it for the money) if the kids genuinely wanted to be there instead of being forced by a law that punishes parents if their children don't attend. What would be so bad about a society where people were forced to take personal responsibility for their actions--why that would lead to anarchy and we can't have that...

How someone like myself who attended all of two years of high school could manage to get themselves a college degree is beyond the conception of the Nanny State cheerleaders. I should have been destined to flip burgers for the rest of my life, become a professional ditch digger or end up living on government assistance after my prison time because no one will hire a high school dropout.

And, the most important point of all, there is no reason to believe that some charity organization wouldn't set up free schools for the poor like the Sisters of Mercy or some secular group. I haven't looked into it much but I do believe there is historical precedence for these types of groups engaging in this sort of activities throughout human history. Quite common from what I understand.

One thing that helped me to get to grips with those ideas of being compassionate and being pseudo-compasionate was the story of the good smatarian.

I am not going to repeat it here in full, but the story goes like this as it is written in the New Testament. Samatarian walks the perilious road from Jerich to Jerusalem. He finds a robbed and injured jew, changes his way and takes the victim to a resort, pays the host out of his pocket to ensure the jew get proper treatment and goes on to his way.

A real good example for compassion.

The collectivst version must be something like this:

Same samatarian walks the same perilous way from Jericho to Jerusalem. He finds the robbed and injured jew, jumps behind a bush and waits until other wanderers come by. That moment he unsheath his sword and threatens the newcommers with death if they do not give him their money so he can pay for the transportation and the recovery cost of the injured jew. Ohhh, and by the way, a small administration fee he keeps for himself.

Compassion is an individual emotion, and not a group thing. There are no compassionate groups, as groups are mere concepts and I never heard of a concept having any emotions for that matter. There will always be humans that want to educate others and promote education and science with their wealth and money, even if those to be educated do not have any means,yet. The idea, that humans are such bad predators and only the concept of a state or whatever óther group can keep them in line, is simply destructive and at the end of the day a death cult. If people learn to understand, that their good and gelpful emotions are just exploited by people that are happy to cover their phoney goals with the remark of working for the common good, they will become much more sentsitive to the luring speeches of those Masters

 

dreamingoffreedominma:

I couldn't seem to explain the free market philosophy in a way that made sense to them because they trumped me, personally, with their response of inequality.

You will never get past this.  It's a fundamentally different view of the world, a fundamentally different set of values.  You can never convince someone to go against their values. 

They value equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.  You can argue that free-markets tend to reduce inequality, but that won't be good enough.  People like that want guarantees, and for equality to be an explicit goal of the system.  You can argue that they can't have both, that making equality a goal will reduce the actual equality, but they won't see it. What we know is an irreconcilable contradiction they see as a matter of trying harder, learning more, getting better people involved, and changing human nature if that's what it takes. They hold an ideal of absolute equality, and so long as they do, no free-market approach will satisfy them.

You can argue that value directly, with some chance of success.  But it's a long shot, and doing so is very likely to alienate your friends rather than win them to your side. But unless you can find a way to succeed at that, all the other arguments are stillborn.

It ultimately comes down to "how many people are you willing to kill to pursue this ideal?"  I've had a few particularly naive socialists go white on that question, but not many, and not with lasting effect.

Thank you all so much. These are great answers!

ViennaSausage:

On a side note, have you made any progress under any other arguments with your socialist friend?

I make progress here and there usually in areas of war and civil liberties. The discussion usually ends with them listing off the horrors of life without government: racism and "lynchings" (no joke - that was a response I received last night), social inequality, gang/warring factions, widespread corruption, etc. It makes me look like I have never even thought about those things. Most of the time they fail to remember the number one thing I always try to drive home: a libertarian/free market perspective is rooted in non-violence and non-aggression. Law would see to it that you are punished in some way if you violate those conditions.

I always try to stay offensive by asking them questions in response to their proposal/questions but they always have these fall backs, typically very emotional, that they pull out just when I think I have made them understand.

One other area that I just thought about in which I have made progress is economics. As soon as I start showing them how different practices do not work economically it sort of gives them nothing to come back with. They sort of just nod their head and "uh huh" me.

For example, I explained the inflation tax to them last night and got a good response. I was able to show them how government directly causes an inequality. It was some progress, anyway.

Honesty is the best approach. Yes, the rich will have better schools then the poor, just like they have better houses, better cars, better food and better talents.

What matters is that the poor who can choose their education will have better schools than the poor who are forced into public education. If they object to that, shame them for punishing the poor.

There are three fundamental issues at stake here.  First the socialist will tell you that everyone has the right to an education.  Second, everyone must attend formal education in order to be successful in today's world.  Third, they will attempt to say that the market has failed to provide education for everyone, therefore we must have government step in and do it or that the market will create some form of inequality.

The first assumption, that everyone has a right to an education, is false.  You do not have a right to an education any more than you have a right to a car or a television.  Education, like cars and televisions, is a marketable product.  More correctly, it is a service that can be sold on the free market.  Services, products, things the market provides you do not have a right to.  But you do have the right to seek an education.  But you also have the right to not seek an education.  And no one has the right to steal from another so that they can go to school (taxation to fund public schools). 

The second assumption is that everyone must receive formal education if they are to "make it" in the world.  This is false.  The truth of the matter is that most people are not cut out for long term formal education.  There is the small group of people who are the more intellectually gifted that will do better going through elementary school, middle school, high school and on to college.  These are the ones that become economist, engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc.  Then you have a whole host of people who are better suited for some schooling and then entering the workforce.  I've known lots of people who weren't so bright when it came to book learnin' but put a welding torch in their hands or a hammer and they'll build you whatever your heart desires and build it well.  These guys are the same guys that dropped out of high school because all they wanted to do was build things.  Now they own successful construction companies or making good money as welders for the oil and gas industry.  Most people in this world would do fine with basic education (reading, writing and basic math skills) and learn a skill or trade while entering the workforce at an earlier age.  And it would certainly give them a head start on life.  Things like construction, business, even law and engineering, can be learned through on the job experience with the employer providing an apprenticeship program.  Much of the world and many of the innovations we have today came from this very set up.  Today, the deck is stacked against these types of people -- the kind that neither want to be educated for long periods of time and just want to start working.  The state, in all its infinite wisdom, has created a compulsory education system where these people are forced to go to school.  These people either drop out as soon as they are legally allowed or simply fail or squeak by in school (I'm a squeaker).  And because of these compulsory education laws employers have shifted from the ones who do the training (thus bearing some financial burden) to allowing the state to do the educating (saving them some money but not much).  So in order to compensate for these people that don't excel in reading, writing and arithmetic, the state has to continually dumb down the courses taught so that the stupidest kid in the class can grasp what is being taught.  That is unfair to the smart kids and to the average kids and it ends up hurting employers who must now train their employees anyway.

The third false assumption is that if the state does not provide education then the free market will not be fair or equitable.  Rich will go to good schools and the poor would go to bad schools.  The problem with this is that even with the socialist education system we have today the rich go to good schools and the poor go to bad schools and the poor are forced to go to these bad schools when they'd be better off working and learning a trade.  Here's an great comparison:  How much better are the public schools in Beverly Hills as compared to the public schools in Watts or Compton?  Are they not both funded with taxpayer dollars?  Has the socialist system created equality in the education standards of Beverly Hills and Compton?  I highly doubt it.  So even in this socialist world the rich kids go to good schools and the poor kids to go bad schools.  At least under a free market system the poor kids could go to charitable schools (which would be infinitely better than public schools) or could land an apprenticeship position and learn a marketable skill.

 

Yeah, call them out on it! Let them prove the alleged goodness and superiority of egalitarianism.

Sphairon:

Socialists often argue that too many parents don't care about their offspring's education and therefore would simply choose the cheapest service avaible, regardless of quality (or one-sidedly indoctrinate their children with "radical" ideas, for that matter). So, they conclude, government must step in to guarantee the basic and "wholesome" education you're talking about for everybody. "No child left behind".

This is, historically, very inaccurate.  Some few parents do, indeed, not value education for their children. (With the quality of public education in the USA today, one can see their point.)  However, if public education were the answer to this problem, it would not have been going steadily downhill for the past 100 years.  Levels of literacy were higher before government-sponsored basic education was available than they are now.  Acknowledge the problem of uncaring or indifferent parents, point out that it's a very small segment of the population, point out that public education doesn't correct that problem anyway, and point out that home-schooled children usually outperform public-schooled children educationally, even without the benefit of economies of scale.  The literature on school quality is pretty easy to find - there's a ton of it out there.  E. D. Hirsch, Jr. is particularly good at showing why the public system isn't working, with no focus on statist/libertarian issues - his focus is entirely education.  His _The Schools We Need & Why We Don't Have Them_ is a good place to start.

The reason why we need 12 years of government training is quickly blamed on the "complexity of today's world". So, even if Ben Franklin became a genius by self-studying while helping his candlemaking father, this is "18th century logic" (just like the right to keep and bear arms, we see a pattern here) and inapplicable today.

Agree with them - an education is extremely important, so people must be free to try for the best they can arrange for their children.  Nobody is going to effectively claim that parents will take their children out of effective schools to put them into ineffective schools - if they try, ask for actual examples.  The proposed voucher system is opposed because current educators are afraid of level-field competition, and rightly so.  If vouchers won't release children from the requirement (wrong, but harder to argue) that they attend school, and parents aren't likely to take children from good schools to enroll them intentionally in bad schools, then the opponents of the voucher system are proving your point - the current system is bad, and they know it - but their goal is to continue the system, regardless of how poorly it is educating the children.

Statism has been tried, and is failing, in education - statistics are overwhelming and easy to find.  Prior to statist schools, levels of education were much higher than they are today.  My grandfather never finished High School - but, in a one-room 'little red schoolhouse' (it was really red, too), he was taught more Latin than I know.  We're going downhill, and supporting the system that is demonstrably failing is to prevent today's children from getting the education they'll need to have.  In private schools, at least some of them will have a chance of a good education, rather than condemning them all to a poor education in the name of "equality".

Speaking of equality, ask your socialist friends where other factors are equal - point out that it may be an emotionally worthy goal, but it's not being achieved anywhere, no matter how hard anyone tries.

They may comment on how racist education is, using racially-separated test results as proof.  Ask them if the current system favors Asian-Americans, since they outperform any other racial group.

Explaining the benefits of a free market to a socialist is like trying to sell pagan idols to a Southern Baptist. Both have a very firm belief that you must be of the devil.

This is, indeed, taught in school.  Good luck to you.

Danno

Here's an interesting article by Lew Rockwell on what things would be like if public schools were abolished.

http://mises.org/story/2937 

And in today's global economy, a basic 12th grade " American education" would be totally useless. People complain of how the job rates are shrinking in engineering and tech, but nobody seems to question why AT&T should not open their own school. It would be a great capital investment. Probably some dumb law that says they can't do it.

Division of knowledge is rapidly expanding and State education will need to focus on certain skills( such as teaching us Stateology.LOL). There is no way that any government can afford to treat people on an individual basis, for both economic reasons and it's power to enslave the mind. Industry and others will have to take up teaching if they wish to continue making profit and expanding. People would be sought out to go to certain schools like now with high ranking school graduates.

  Just a story on how screwed up curriculum is in public schools. My school is full of drugs and dealers. I can just never stop wondering how much of an education they got in horticulture growing different strains of weed, instead of reading some book, and how much money they could make by making a great product, if they did not fear arrest or murder from their competitors. And, if the U.S. really wanted to change to the metric system, I know some fine people to teach them

About private schools in poor areas, read into Harlem Prep. Milton Friedman uses it a lot as an argument against State schools and regulations by teachers unions and others crap.

Andrew:

( such as teaching us Stateology.LOL)

Actually the word statistics comes from the similar greek word for the state. It meant the science of the government, accounting, census of the people, administrating taxes and the like, I think. Another reason I hate statistics.