Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site Cascade.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!CSL-Vax!Cascade!marks From: marks@Cascade.ARPA Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Libertarianism Message-ID: <1783@Cascade.ARPA> Date: Sun, 9-Dec-84 02:31:01 EST Article-I.D.: Cascade.1783 Posted: Sun Dec 9 02:31:01 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 04:31:24 EST References: <1829@inmet.UUCP> <2812@ucbcad.UUCP> <2815@ucbcad.UUCP> <1597@Cascade.ARPA> <2834@ucbcad.UUCP> Organization: Stanford University Lines: 106 Sorry for the delay; I've been busy this week. -SM >> = me > = faustus@ucbcad >> >> "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are endowed by >> their creator certain unalienable rights ..." >> >> The Declaration of Independence > >Maybe the writers of the Declaration of Independence held them to >be self-evident, but I don't. In the 18th century most philosophy, >including political philisophy, was more inclined than now towards >naturalism, in the sense that it assumed that all sorts of things >like morals and rights existed in the world. I think that this notion >doesn't make sense -- we DEFINE morals and rights ourselves, and only >in a society where there is agreement about them can they have any >validity. We could argue endlessly about rights and the state of nature, but that discussion would lead us off the track. The point is that the entity that legitimizes our rights is NOT the GOVERNMENT. You say "We define morals and rights ourselves" but who are "we" and "ourselves"? Certainly not the government. We define our rights and create the government to protect those rights, not the other way around. The original quote states that Libertarians object to the notion that rights are derived from "a compact with the state." Perhaps rights are derived from a compact with society, but not the state. >I'm not talking about government control, I'm talking about the government >providing free education to people who wouldn't get it otherwise. Sorry, government funding == government control. Those providing the funding always have the power to withhold that funding. A voucher system is a first step in getting government out of the education business. However, the government might allow the vouchers to be redeemed only at "approved" schools, and therein lies the rub. Who sets the criteria for approval? The government! > The >sort of mind control you are talking about doesn't go on in public schools, >and the sort of indoctrination that does occur (pledging allegance to the >flag, etc) is definitely preferable to having a lot of poor, uneducated, >illiterate people around. Better from the standpoint of "the good of >society", that is, and certainly better from the educated individual's >standpoint. How do you know what degree of "indoctrination" is tolerable? How do you know it won't increase beyond a tolerable level, assuming it's tolerable now? A significant amount of indoctrination goes on already. "The Monroe Doctrine was good because it asserted the U.S.'s power over the Western Hemisphere at the expense of the European countries' power...." "FDR instituted the Social Security system as a pension plan to help the poor...." "The Vietnam Conflict was necessary because...." "The Federal Reserve Board is an independent commission formed to...." Do you think that the government will approve a textbook that was written by a Communist? Sure, an "enlightened" politician (if such an animal exists) will, but a politician who's out to get votes won't. The indoctrination is subtle, but it's there. I don't want indoctrination, but I don't want illiteracy either. Private schools will solve both problems (see below). >> This view of education isn't only philosophical; it's practical, too. Has >> the quality of public education in this country risen in recent years? NO! >> Has its cost (per student, even after inflation (which is the government's >> fault, by the way)) gone up? YES! I shall refrain from reiterating how a >> private system could educate EVERYONE better than a public system. >Not exactly everyone, just those who could pay for it. You have to take >a careful look at what you are advocating -- if public education were >done away with, illiteracy would certainly increase dramatically, and >centuries of progress in social welfare would be lost. Public education hasn't done as much for the poor as you think. Why can't Johnny read? Because he went to a public school! Educational quality at private schools is consistently better than at public schools, and the cost per student is lower. Public education serves to keep the poor UNEDUCATED. You have to take a careful look at what you are advocating -- if public education were done away with, the poor could go to private schools and get a good education for a change, and centuries of social stagnation would be lost. The point is: if you want the poor to be educated, public schools AREN'T the way to do it. But where do the poor get enough money for expensive private schools? First, increased competition among private schools would drive the cost down. Second, private schools are beyond the reach of many people because people are taxed heavily in order to fund public schools. Elimination of these taxes would make private education affordable for many more. (Yes, the poor pay taxes, too.) Finally, for the extremely poor, we could have direct government aid, perhaps in the form of a negative income tax (with a tuition credit) or a voucher system. Unfortunately, this last factor still leaves the poor under control of the government. Nevertheless, such a system could educate EVERYONE better than the current system of public education. ---------- Stuart Marks, Computer Systems Lab, Stanford University {ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!glacier!marks, marks@su-cascade.ARPA "The government is a great fiction whereby everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else." -- Frederic Bastiat