Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Newsflash! [Subsidized Education]
Message-ID: <1680@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 20:51:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1680
Posted: Tue Aug  6 20:51:10 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Aug-85 02:20:42 EDT
References: <955@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1110@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 63

> > ... Daniel K McKiernan has convinced me (by USPS mail)
> > that the externalities involved are too minor and to hard to identify to
> > justify a policy of subsidized education...
> > 				--Paul V Torek
> 
> Since someone asked:  the only serious externalities I could think of
> involved in education are those associated with research and invention.
> Education keeps people off welfare, but welfare wouldn't exist in a 
> libertarian society, so that wouldn't apply in my antilibertarian argument.
> Education makes better voters, I think, but McKiernan disagreed (which 
> shows, I guess, how subjective that judgement is); and besides, democracy
> wouldn't exist in Libertaria either (except in voluntary organizations).
> 
> Education promotes research and invention, which in turn have positive
> effects on people not party to the relevant transactions.  But only some
> types of education do that, and only indirectly.  And subsidizing education
> in order to promote subsequent activities is bass-ackward; better to just
> subsidize research directly.  And invention wouldn't have significant
> externalities in McKiernan's version of Libertaria, because they would be
> copyrighted and copyrights would *never expire*.  
> 
> One other way in which education of an individual might benefit the public
> at large is that it makes him less likely to turn criminal.  But, again,
> this is only an INdirect effect; if we want to discourage crime, we can
> do that more directly.  (Although, since deterrence is imperfect, there
> will still be some positive externality associated with education's effect
> in reducing crime).
> 
> So that's why I've succumbed to the libertarian argument on education.  
> OK, socialists and centrists, where did I go wrong?
> 
> --Still the reluctant centrist, Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink

   I find here very appealing vision: unemployed starve or hire themselves
for pennys, criminals are shot, children of uneducated poor cannot
afford education, criminals are shot (or banished), if somebody invents
penicilyn, then for eternity he can charge whatever market can bear, etc.

   First problem: who enforces the law? Private agency? How about the 
competition? How assure that a private law enforcement agency uses fair
practices to establish its fee structure (imagine Lebanese militias in
this role?  Perhaps hire another agency to shoot out the first one.
   
Now, assume that law enforcement is public.  That means that it belongs
to the state, and is supported by taxes.  But we have no democracy.
Also, we (owners of education or property) must defend ourself agains
voluntary organisations of poor and uneducated (they could turn, God
forbid, democratic).  Who, in absence of democracy should decide?
Possibly, taxpayers, proportionally to the taxes paid.
   
Conclusion: Libertaria is a police state governed by the rich.  Advocating
democracy there is in effect a conspiracy to deprive people of their full
property rights; as such it is a crime.  Uneducated poor cannot afford
the market value of education, thus they remain (hereditiary) uneducated
poor.

   It occurred to me that this is exactly what our net free-marketeers
(and/or libertarians) have in mind.  Of course, this is a logically
coherent system.  Do we really like it?  I don't.  

  Net.libertarians, please illuminate me where is the error here (if any).

Piotr Berman