Washington Knows Best

I haven't read every word of every comment on the page, but I've scanned most of it. There is a stakeholder group that rarely gets represented in these discussions. Non-parents. I'm 35 and don't have kids. The best and brightest friends I have don't have kids and don't really plan on it.

I think increasingly, some section of the populace is enjoying the fruits of prosperity, including the ability to control reproduction. They are delaying having children, or deciding against it altogether.

Vouchers still screw the non-parents. I want people to pay for their education directly. All of these debates still leave non-diners paying for your meal. If and when we decide to have children, we will pay for their needs then. Until and unless, all these systems, be they government or private, should involve rolled back taxes, not vouchers.

No redistribution of wealth. Period.

I agree - and parents get screwed also, every year they have no children in school.

We desperately need a total and absolute separation of school and state. Government should have no input whatsoever into school standards, curricula, funding, attendance, books, staffing, credentialing, facilities, etc.

Given the extremely unlikeliness of that happening anytime soon, vouchers are probably the least objectionable way to have government involved. The obvious down side is the temptation to set "standards" as criteria for receiving the funding.

We, meaning the general public, happily accept educational competition among colleges and universities. Colleges and universities compete with each other for the best students, and students compete to get into the best colleges and universities. We even accept, actually we encourage, public colleges to compete with each other, and nothing about this even excites comment. It's comparatively easy for most parents to separate the best schools from the worst ones. There's no reason to think that the same forces would not be at work if the process of competition were unleashed at the high school level.

The thing is that a vast reallocation of wealth from the richer zip codes to the poorer ones has been happening for the last 40+ years since Johnson's Great Society programs were put in law. Legacy of racism and all.

I think there needs to be an important distinction between "national standards" and "national curriculum." The latter is, to my mind, clearly an overreach of the federal government in traditional state/local role.

However, "national standards" don't necessarily lead to a bad. Without arguing the validity these standards, some standards, such as CAFE standards for cars, can be met by the market participants rather than government funded operations. So if we say that a child educated in the United States must know and understand "xyz" and "123" content standards, that in itself is not a bad if the market participants, i.e. the parents, have the choice of determining how those standards are met.

The problem of course is that there is not likely to be much consensus on what xyz and 123 standards will be. Curricula are political documents and you can bet that national standards would be bitterly political. (for state level evidence, see the political fight in Texas over their history/social studies cirriculum changes.)

From a cost perspective, the federal government would be well-served to stay out of education fights. But this Administration, as well as the previous administrations, has shown no understanding of that admonition.

If we want to guarantee public funding of education, then vouchers.

If we want a standard of educational success, then use uniform achievement tests. "Reads at 12th grade level" tells us much more than possessing a high school diploma.

Markets will sort out how best to allocate the resources (voucher) to obtain the best outcome (achievement), with parents as the decision makers at the individual child level.

Late in the NYT article is the sentance that, I think, says it all: "But it will take more than new standards to rebuild the schools." These standards reek of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic to me.

No one even considers the essential question: Is education a right?

No, I am not convinced. What's more, parents are the only people in a position to know which if any of their children should undergo a formal education. Free and compulsory state education was started in order to indoctrinate children against the rising tide of parochial schools about 150 years ago -- especially to rail against Catholicism. I am an atheist so I don't really feel threatened by these schools but I do feel threatened that too many children are being taught to worship the state and the overlords who control their fates.

As much as I call the US a totalitarian dictatorship at least it is not someplace like Germany where parents are not even allowed to home school their children.

You need to refine your argument.

Education is indeed a right, and you couldn't stop any individual interested in it even if you tried. Even government's massive force can't do it.

Course the fact is that the education individual's get on their own may not be what you think they should have.

Could I ask you if you really meant, "Is formal education a right, or a privilege?"

I would say that "formal" education is a privilege, perhaps granted by parents, a community, or even that far off distant federal government.

One thing remains at the end of the day. Education can be provided, education can be encouraged; but, ain't no way in hell it can be given. You can lead a horse to water and make his sorry ass drink quicker than you can make someone educated.

The individual that wants it gets it, the individual that does not will not.

"Could I ask you if you really meant, "Is formal education a right, or a privilege?" "

I think you're splitting hairs. Your question makes it rather clear that you understood the nuance of my point. I won't bother to ask you to define "formal".

So, yes, "formal" education is not a right.

Sir, note that my reply was to Gubs, not you.

Perhaps I split the hair, but 'twas a hair that needed splitting.

I can get the education necessary to earn a college degree in many subjects simply by spending many hours in a library.

By formal I meant classroom instruction provided by paid trained (hopefully) instructors, and this is a right only in that you have a right to what you can buy with your own money from willing sellers.

Formal education in a "public" system has to be viewed as a privilege for we ordinary people, because there is no way the ordinary can afford it all on their own.

You and I may know the distinction between right and privilege, but I fear there are many that do not, and some of that many inhabit this blog at times.

"Sir, note that my reply was to Gubs, not you."

My apologies.

"Is education a right? No, I am not convinced."

I agree. There may be many cultural and pragmatic reasons for promoting and subsidising education, but it cannot be a right anymore than healthcare or food or shelter can be a right. It is scarce and has cost. To say it's a right is to promote slavery.

It sounds like they also forgot another important stakeholder, The New York Times. If kids can't read, they can't read the New York Times.

You are making the assumption that all children have parents to influence them. The other assumption is that parents are capable of teaching their children what is true. There is a reason that 50% of our country doesn't believe in evolution.

Let's play the evolution game!!!!!

Round one has as its climax, M playford, explaining how the Neanderthal and the Cro Magnon shared this planet for thousands of years with zero indication that one evolved from the other.

But on the light side, and for fun, read Greg Bear's "Darwin's Radio". Hell bells it is as good a thesis as any.

Do you believe that teachers are more capable or likely to teach children what is true?

The reason why 50% of the country doesn't believe in evolution is because it's rammed down the throats of people just like religion is. It is a religion. Plus, who cares if people believe in it or not? In a private school system, it doesn't matter what is taught or what people believe, the two line up in that those who believe in evolution as science and want to study it more, can do so. Those who do not, can go to a religious school that feels evolution is contrary to teachings. Why does this bother you?

I'm sure the government meddling in education, besides being an instrument for the control and reversal of the will of individuals, is the leading cause of human decay in the land ...

The only hope for the public schools is to dismantle the Depts of Education in Washington and all the states and return the schools to local control. Communities with good schools will attract people who are willing to pay higher school taxes and those that don't won't.

Locally controlled and funded free or low cost health clinics are the only way to deliver good cost efficient medical care to those with limited income. Lots of ways that can be done, but removing it from the federal government bureaucracy and the SEIU must be the first step.The only hope for the public schools is to dismantle the Depts of Education in Washington and all the states and return the schools to local control. Communities with good schools will attract people who are willing to pay higher school taxes and those that don't won't.

Locally controlled and funded free or low cost health clinics are the only way to deliver good cost efficient medical care to those with limited income. Lots of ways that can be done, but removing it from the federal government bureaucracy and the SEIU must be the first step.

Don asks "why do you think that tweaking, with national “standards,” the subsidized and largely monopolistic government schools that haunt the land today is the best way to transform these dysfunctional institutions into effective ones."

The answer I heard the head of the Dept. of Ed give today in a FOX interview, yes FOX (what other network is calling BS bullshit?), was tremendous pride over the "unprecedented" amount of money that would be allocated toward education. This is a page out of Timen's playbook ("Low pay, Low quality"); a playbook that is debunked straightforwardly by Richard Vedder:

http://educationnext.org/comparable-worth/

To step away from policy discussions for a moment. There is no mention of parental involvement because public school administrators and associate regulatory groups do not believe parents to be capable of evaluating the content or quality of their children's education.

I am speaking from my observations of homeschooling parents and their interactions with different school districts.

...because public school administrators and associate regulatory groups do not believe parents to be capable of evaluating the content or quality...

Is there any choice that government administrator and regulator folks trust to the individual?

These are people who see the world as comprising of two groups: them (the people capable of making important decisions) and everyone else.

...and the government educational institutions are trying very hard to ban home schooling.

There are a lot of reasons Cafe Hayek is my number ONE source of solid sensible thinking. Mr. Boudreaux's article "Washington knows Best" gets to the heart of it. I ask my friends to check out Jim Rutledge, candidate for US Senate in Maryland. www.youtube.com/jimrutledge2010
"Join Jim in the fight for Educational Freedom.
School Choice - Parents have a fundamental right to educate their children. This right is paramount and is not to be subordinated to the federal government.

School choice should be the parent's right.

Parents' Bill of Rights - The parent shall have the right to opt out of the public school system, and upon opting out, shall have the right to receive a scholarship from the public school board or state government that shall equal the "per pupil" cost that the parent may direct will be paid to the private or parochial school of their choice.

The parent shall have the right to opt out of the public school system by electing to home school their child rather than send them to a private or parochial school." Jim Rutledge March 2009

How about non-parents can opt out of the system too, and keep their tax dollars?

That would be amazing. Just last week, I explained to a friend of mine who is in general, very pro-government, about how much it costs to send a student to a public school from K through 12 in Indianapolis. She was shocked that it ranged from $150,000 to $300,000 depending on the township. Then I told her how it was very unfair that parents cannot choose to opt out of paying their tax money for public education and use it instead of a private school of their choice. She had no idea that parents cannot opt out of paying these taxes and was also shocked that people that do send their kids to private schools must pay these taxes plus the cost of the private school. Amazing, public education costs far more than the elite, college-prep schools in the Indianapolis area.

What is amazing, my friend, no no, what is sad, is that you have an adult friend that wasn't aware of those things. I certainly hope you are successful at taking her under your wing and furthering her education.

Makes me want to get more wine and go sit on the deck and cry.

Seven comments deep and already people are bickering over which public policy works best. Here's the difference between economists (of every stripe, as far as I can discern) and libertarians. Economists ask "does the policy work?" Libertarians ask "does the policy make the individual free?" It's apparent to any objective observer that there are NO public policies that insure the freedom of the individual. When libertarians bog themselves down in arguments over the effectiveness of a public policy they are doomed to failure. They are compromising with a flawed philosophical outlook. They are conceding a moral virtue to evil. Fellas, you are wasting your time arguing over things like OECD tests, whatever the hell those are. The only way to defeat this enemy is through moral argument, not "scientific" numbers.

Hear, hear! I've had enough capitulation to statists.

I agree. Indoctrination may be a "public policy" issue, but education is not. So why not bring 12 year olds in for a year of political indoctrination, and otherwise leave them free to pursue education in whatever form they (in cooperation with their parents) choose.

Could we summarize you by saying it is your public policy to disapprove of others debating public policies that your policy has considered and rejected? :-D

No, that would be an improper conjecture on your part. Vidyohs, you will appreciate this story.

I remember years ago watching Joey Bishop as he guest-hosted on Johnny Carson's show. Joey was explaining how he kicked the cigarette habit. He explained that when he felt the need for a cigarette he would take one out of the package and look at it and say to himself "this cigarette wants to kill me." Then he would toss the unlit cigarette out.

Now he knew that one cigarette wouldn't kill him. It was the cumulative effect of thousands of "compromises" with that knowledge that would kill him. It would take years and years of ignoring the debilitating effects, a process so slow that he wouldn't notice it until it was too late. Better to personify each cigarette, assume that each individual cigarette *wanted* to kill him. And thus he kicked the habit.

So it is with public policy. Statists approach us with their typical whinny tone. "It's for the children," they say. You only have to give up just a smidgen of freedom, and look at the public good it will do. So we compromise, ignoring the loss of that smidgen of freedom. After all, we have lots of freedom left, and look at the good we're doing for the children.

But there is a cumulative effect. We've experienced abut 150 years of subtle smidgens until we now look around and say "what happened to my freedom?"

It is much better if we look at each public policy and say "this policy wants to enslave me," and toss it in the dust bin of history where it belongs.

We got bogged down in arguments over numbers and effectiveness and test scores and all sorts of crap that have been used to get us to take our eyes off the prize of individual freedom. In a sense we have no one to blame but ourselves. We granted a philosophy that advocates evil a degree of respect it doesn't deserve. From day one we should have refused their arguments on moral grounds. That's all I'm saying.

I suppose you could summarize my attitude as this: the only public policy that is worth a damn is one that extends freedom to the individual. There is no such thing as a public policy that extends freedom to the individual. Thus, there is no public policy that is worth a damn.

Evidently my default policy is to be a dismal failure at "tongue in cheek".

excerpts from the linked article:

"A child’s education depends primarily on ZIP code."

Yet you can bet your booty that here they are talking about funding and sticking to the line that more money means better education.

"The standards, based on intensive research, reflect what students must know to succeed at college and to find good jobs in the 21st century."

Can we say crystal ball anyone? Before worrying about content of education it is crucial that the students be taught how to think, reason, and retain.

"This is not a call for a national curriculum."

This is a typical disingenuous statement from government cheerleaders. of course it is a call for a national curriculum, how else could national standards be met. To anyone who has seen government in action it is just a way of backdooring that national curriculum.

"And by 12th grade, students would be expected to solve problems or answer questions by conducting focused research projects — and display skills generally associated today with the first year of college."

Standards that made displaying those skills routine were once pretty much the norm in schools, but those standards were deliberately eroded to nothing by the very same government that is now being called to fix it. The "great socialist experiment" in schools has shown itself to be the dismal failure it is, and as with everything else socialism touches it has produced an inferior product.

http://www.sodahead.com/fun/8th-grade-test-circ...

"The notoriously troubled colleges of education need to prepare teachers who can teach the skills students will need."

Again we are right back to beating the same drum, socialism/communism in the form of unions have been solely responsible for this erosion of quality teachers.

I agree with Don on this one for sure. Parents have the right of responsibility to decide what their children should learn, and while I also believe in standards, rigid standards, I have no faith that government can decide what those are, and it has shown it has no will to enforce them.

Judging educational outcomes is pretty difficult. To the extent that charter schools do perform better than public schools it may be simply because they are freer to "teach to the test." Private education is not a panacea. As someone who is currently working in the education industry in South Korea, a country that does very well on the international score cards, and has a huge private education industry, I actually wouldn't judge Korean students to be noticeably better educated than American students. A good test score need not, and often does not, equal a good education.
With that said there I don't have an alternative answer and am generally in favor of voucher programs and charter schools. I just don't necessarily buy the argument that one can clearly demonstrate that markets in education actually improve students' education, rather than simply their test scores.

"I actually wouldn't judge Korean students to be noticeably better educated than American students."

Then you should be able to educate your children in a manner that satisfies you, but your opinion of the education of Korean students is only an opinion and quite irrelevant. Each individual's opinion of their own education (or in the case of children, the opinion of the parents) is the only opinion that counts. If the individual thinks a private education is better, then it is.

I think it is not irrelevant to examine what other cultures do successfully. If Koreans are better at educating their children, then shouldn't we stop and ask - WHY?

There is nothing wrong with asking why. The problem is when somebody comes to a subjective conclusion that something is 'better' than another thing, and then based on that conclusion forces others to do something they don't agree with.

If something truly is a better, you shouldn't have any problems convincing people to do it, without using force.

"If the individual thinks a private education is better, then it is" and "the opinion of the parents is the only opinion that counts."

Thats pretty extreme don't you think? What if parents decided to teach their children that Jews and Blacks are genetically inferior or a host of other obnoxious ideas? As I said I am for more private education, on this we agree, but lets not walk ourselves into complete moral relativism on the way there.
(And no I am not for the other extreme where the government mandates for everyone what a "good" education is.)

"(And no I am not for the other extreme where the government mandates for everyone what a "good" education is.)"

But you are. If the parents don't get to decide, then somebody else (i.e., the government) does. Who do you think is deciding now what the "good" education is that is taught in government schools?

You may not like if a parent teaches their children things you think are either wrong or even bad (I don't much like it either), but do you really think the public schools will change that? And where do you draw the line? There are plenty of things taught openly in public schools today that I find offensive. Can I have them eliminated? How do I protect my children?

Either parents raise their children, or the government does. You can't have it both ways.

I'm always amazed at the extent to which people tend to think in terms of rigid false dichotomies. Are there really only two choices? Government or parents? Please be a little more intellectually adventurous. There are plenty of conceivable variations in between those two poles and even options outside of them for how children can be raised and educated. In many parts of the world churches play a large role in raising and educated children, in other places NGOs play that role, etc. Broaden thy mind a little.

You're discussing options available (i.e., government, parents, churches, etc.). I'm talking about final decisions. The government might allow you to send your children to a non-government school, but it doesn't allow you to withhold you payment for the government school. The government sets standards for teachers and curricula for non-government schools. The government has set itself up as the final arbiter for all of these decisions.

That is not a false dichotomy. It is a real dichotomy.

Are all dichotomies false?

Yes, and no.

no

Obviously. Equally obvious is that there are plenty of conceivable variations between many polar extremes.

But we want to discuss reality as opposed to "conceivable".

The phrase "rigid false dichotomies" implies that you suppose a lack of consideration of the arguments about government vs alternate provision of education.

It is evident that government provision of services operates on an unlevel playing field.

For one thing, people who choose to pay for alternate means of educating children are not relieved in any degree from an obligation to also pay for government provision of same.

Another issue is that government provision of education tends to cost more, often much more than alternative provision of educational service.

And yet another is that government provision of education is protected from competitive forces because the "customers" are restricted from taking their money elsewhere.

And yet another is that centralized educational bureaucracy has reduced flexibility in meeting the developmental variation that is evident in children.

And then there's the teacher's unions.

Did you read my previous comments? You're preaching to the choir here my friend.
One quibble however, in "reality" most educational systems are in that "concievable" middle ground that I talked about, and which geoih refuses to acknowledge. I think the US education system should be more privatized and more market based, that doesn't mean however that I think governments should have NO role whatsoever or that such a shift would automatically lead to a better educated public.
My point in my last reply was rather that in general I find it annoying (yet surprisingly common) when in a conversation a person tries to bully me into a position that I don't believe in by attempting to impose a rigid and false dichotomous understanding of the issue under discussion, which is what geoih did when he accused me ("But you are") of supporting an educational system in which the government mandates to everyone what a "good" education is.

"I think the US education system should be more privatized and more market based, that doesn't mean however that I think governments should have NO role whatsoever or that such a shift would automatically lead to a better educated public."

But who makes the final decisions on what gets taught? If it's the government, then it's the government that is deciding what a "good" education is, not the parents. You are apprently in favor of making sure schools don't teach certain things. Are you in favor of having the government use its power to force that? Who decides?

Well I agree that geoih was exhibiting a rather simplistic approach.

Now, if I am asked, I will give my position that the state "should" have no active role in providing education. It shouldn't control the funding nor the curricula.

While you may find that rigid, I have come to build an extensive foundation for that position over the past 30 years.

"Well I agree that geoih was exhibiting a rather simplistic approach."

If government shouldn't provide education, funding or curricula, then what role would they play?

It seems to me you have the same "simplistic" approach that I have.

Rather, what I meant is that your approach to the discussion was simplistic. All it produced was a reaction.

Of course that happens a good bit around here and I have no doubt done it myself.

Well, we can suppose that parents can express their desires through government at the local level, even though we are will beyond that in practice.

You left no opening for discussion of why you take your position nor for justinkraus to do likewise.

Either parents raise their children, or the government does. You can't have it both ways.

How is he supposed to respond to that if he believes there can be some place between the two poles? As he complained, you gave him a choice of two positions neither of which he is willing to accept.

In fact you can have a place in between, the problem is that it's very difficult to keep it at or even identify an optimal mix.

My approach was not to tell him what he should think, but to state what I think and suggest that I have a number of considered reasons for thinking that. If he's interested, then we can discuss, if not, then that will be the end of the discussion.

We can have all sorts of discussions on what the best education might be and try to convince each other, but in the end a decision about what is best must be made (for each separate individual). Only one entity can decide: the parents or the government. Both entities might agree, but there will still only be one entity making the decision. If that reality inhibits the discussion, I can't help that.

"Parents" aren't an entity, the category includes at least two entities.
So if two entities can decide, why not three?

IAC, for me, the argument isn't about who CAN decide, but whether we should allow political agency to participate in education in any regard.

Even if one can allow the possibility that parents can participate with government in deciding (seems a stretch, put that way), the historical tendency is for political agency to completely take over the process.

"Judging educational outcomes is pretty difficult."

Could that be because to accurately judge educational outcomes one must evaluate on the individual level? And that, my friend, can be touchy and fraught with potential for misunderstanding.

Not really, although I do agree with you it can be touchy. Rather judging educational outcomes is difficult because defining what education is is difficult. I like Albert Einstein's definition, although from the standpoint of evaluation it is entirely useless. "An education is what you have left when you've forgotten everything you've learned."

We may have said it differently but I see no difference in fact twixt you and I.

looking at OECD tests, some countries with "monopolistic government" schools, beat countries where private schools have a major share of the market hands down.

Finland is the highest rated OECD country and they claim their "students and teachers enjoy large autonomy." Also, U.S. students from wealthy suburbs excel in OECD tests. I can't prove it, but it seems those are the high schools with the most autonomy and the greatest incentive/ threat from private schools. If vouchers were instituted in my state, Illinois, schools like New Trier H.S. in wealthy suburbs would continue to compete but in Chicago, poor students would be given a choice and IMO would be much better off. I don't understand how progressives can support a system that has failed so many minorities and be so against vouchers.

You do realize that Chicago is one of the leading cities in the nation blazing the charter school path? Chicago is getting fairly innovative in trying out many different things for public schools. Now, my knowledge of the details of these things is limited, as this is information fed to me from my brother who lives in Chicago.

Compared to other cities Chicago may be innovative, probably due to Daley's love/hate relationship with unions, but why not go further? Our city and state budgets are a mess and our overall taxes are high. Chicago spends $15,600 per public school student. Daley has almost total power over the schools so why not switch entirely to vouchers over a 5 year period and save $5k per student by giving out vouchers averaging $10k/student? Because there are thousands of bureaucrats making big salaries and getting nothing done. My kids private school delivers a better product for less while paying teachers more because it has less administration expenses.

I agree, I just wanted to make sure you know that Chicago is one of the leading cities in public school alternative innovation. Indianapolis surprisingly isn't too far behind.

why would you assume that the markets for education, groceries, hotel rooms etc all work in the same way?? it been theoretically and empirically proven that competition is not 'one size fits all' cure. there are several, very stringent, conditions that must be met in order for competition to "transform dysfunctional institutions into effective ones"
why would you assume, for example, that information is distributed in the same way in all these diverse markets??? information could be more skewed to the side of producers in some markets than in others. that means those markets work differently. that means that competition will have different consequences for the outcome of those markets.

your analysis seems rather simplistic - and dogmatic

What is more dogmatic than government provided "education"?

If you can stand reading a "conservative" albeit a brilliant one, try reading Thomas Sowell's <ahref="http://www.amazon.com/Inside-American-Education-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0029303303">Inside American Education, or check out John Taylor Gatto's Web Site.

Check out especially his section on the history of public schooling.

Government controlled education unavoidably tends to doctrinal transmission and, under its historical model, is an unhappy fit for many children due to age segregation.

When I look at education market in the US, I typically see that where there's more choice and competition to attract students, there are better choices available and the overall quality is better. And, where there's less choice and competition to attract students, there's less quality. Here are a few examples:

1. Middle and upper income families - Generally, they have more choice about education because they have more flexibility to choose their public school district by choosing where to live or they can afford to send their kids to private schools. The education market for middle and upper income families seems to be functioning fairly well.

2. The education market for low income families who do not have as much flexibility to choose where to live (due to housing prices and transportation costs), which also happens to be served primarily by government with little or no competition, do not seem to be faring as well.

3. A great deal of choice exists at the college level and, as #1, there are more and better options available.

If information asymmetry is a problem in the education market, it doesn't appear to be so for those who can afford to choose where to send their kids.

While the government continues its struggle to find the perfect formula for measuring educational success, parents in middle and upper income brackets seem to do a reasonable job at making the decision for themselves based on the imperfect information they have available.

Why do we want to prevent parents of lesser financial means from having similar choices? The evidence shows that the government-provided choice they have now is not functioning well.

I wouldn't question the value of private competition in providing quality education - but you make an excellent point that Don too often acts like all markets are comparable. I have no idea why he does that.

The important point, I think, isn't "can private competition provide good education". It unequivocally can, and private schools, charter schools, home schooling, magnet schools, etc. all in various ways improve the system by introducing competition and choice into the system. The point, for me, is whether education is properly thought of as a commodity (like groceries and hotel rooms), or not. The question isn't whether the market can provide good education. It clearly can. The question is whether it can provide enough schooling. We don't have "markets" for everything. We don't have markets for national security or property rights enforcement or a host of other things because we don't think these things should be rationed by ability and willingness to pay.

The point, for me, is whether education is properly thought of as a commodity (like groceries and hotel rooms), or not.

If education isn't a service, then how would you classify it?

We don't have "markets" for everything. We don't have markets for national security or property rights enforcement or a host of other things because we don't think these things should be rationed by ability and willingness to pay.

Actually, we do. It has been decided historically that national security shall be provided by an exclusive market monopoly, same for property rights enforcement.

That these are provided by a monopoly makes them no less a "market" than any other. The monopoly provider even features many of the negative characteristics of monopolies for which many expect government to protect them from.

Some of the monopoly services even have some kinds of competition such as arbitration as an alternative to courts.

"If education isn't a service, then how would you classify it?"

It definitely is a service - I don't think I ever said it wasn't. I just said it may or may not be best thought of as a commodity. In the case of education, I think it's best thouhgt of as both - sometimes it's very useful to think of it as a commodity. But it's not necessarily just thought of as a commodity.

"Actually, we do. It has been decided historically that national security shall be provided by an exclusive market monopoly, same for property rights enforcement."

That's sort of my point. We could provide these by market competitors, but we don't. You could think of any number of things - friendship, sex, parenthood, art. All of these could be commodified to a certain extent. But we can't assume their quality as a commodity is going to be comparable to every other commodity (the way Don often assumes). Don't fetishize the market as a social institution and don't fetishize commodities as some sort of totalizing status. Some things are better thought of in this way than others. The market and commodification has a very important role to play for both health care and education - but probably not as important as the role that it plays for "groceries and hotel rooms".

There is an inherent limitation in how we view national security.
Throughout history, conquerors have enjoyed a virtual monopoly on armed force, which has always been a privilege of sovereigns.

As a result, this legacy has imposed a strenuous limitation on how we view the provision of security. It is very difficult to consider other possibilities with any seriousness.

The tradition of state control of armed might is an ideological default originated and maintained by the state.

I think this condition is arguable.

Well put, Sam. And I think you've identified the next major intellectual revolution in human liberty. I won't live to see it, but I suspect it will happen. And it will be sustained by the wealth and technology it produces.

Be careful not to anthropomorphize the state. "The state" isn't a person - it's an institution. And I'm not sure the state has such a monopoly, at least not a complete monopoly - this is why we place such primacy on a well armed populace. But the point is that we don't commodify (or don't completely commodify) national security - security against invasion. We choose to socialize this because we don't like to commodify it. We choose to think of it as a duty for a variety of reasons. The same with parenthood, as I mentioned before. We COULD think of being a parent as a commodity, but we don't. Humans (mostly) just haven't considered that to be an appropriate thing to commodify - it's something we think of as a duty.

Education occupies a bit of a no man's land. There's an extent to which it is quite obviously a commodity - and the market does a fantastic job at providing good educational choices. But it's not as thoroughly thought of as a commodity as other things are. We feel a duty to provide some sort of education to every kid in the community in a way that we don't feel a duty to provide other goods and services.

My problem is twofold - first, that people on this blog too often draw false equivalences based on the assumption that all goods and services are comparable. I don't know how many times Don has made the loaf of bread/health care comparison, for example. Second - whenever anyone says "well, that's not really a commodity" you guys treat it like we're bashing commodities or bashing the market. I'm not. We're not. My friendships are better precisely because I don't pay people to be my friend. It's not some sort of insult to the market to seek out other social institutions to provide certain goods and services.

I'm quite aware of the nature of the state, but as it is manned by human beings, it does exhibit anthropological characteristics, including survival strategies.

It is an organism, an agency of organized functioning.

But the point is that we don't commodify (or don't completely commodify) national security - security against invasion. We choose to socialize this because we don't like to commodify it.

I think this is excessive elaboration and rationalization.

We don't CHOOSE to socialize it, it IS socialized and we are born to this state of affairs and largely accept them as they are because man is a social animal and readily adapts to the social structure in which he lives.

We feel a duty to provide some sort of education to every kid in the community in a way that we don't feel a duty to provide other goods and services.

I think this is an indoctrinated sentiment. And the distinction is kind of weird in that I think we also feel a natural desire to feed those who hunger, clothe the naked, etc, and obviously is more important, or at least more urgent than educating the ignorant.

first, that people on this blog too often draw false equivalences based on the assumption that all goods and services are comparable.

The discussion needs greater specificity. All goods and services are comparable in some regard in that they have value to someone, the must be produced, and there are costs in providing them.

"And the distinction is kind of weird in that I think we also feel a natural desire to feed those who hunger, clothe the naked, etc, and obviously is more important, or at least more urgent than educating the ignorant."

Which is probably why we socialized those tasks long before we socialized education.

"The discussion needs greater specificity. All goods and services are comparable in some regard in that they have value to someone, the must be produced, and there are costs in providing them."

I was using Merriam-Webster's second definition - you appear to be considering their first. That should be all the specificity you need. Certainly all goods are comparable in some regard. That seems obvious enough that I thought you'd know what I meant by context.

Which is probably why we socialized those tasks long before we socialized education.

We also have extensive experience and tend to prefer that the production of food be done on a competitive basis.

Had the government been feeding us throughout our experience, we would likely think that's the only way to do it.

I met a woman from Sweden who was unable to conceive of the possibility of having a baby and raising it without the welfare system provider her with appropriate medical services.

And who is this "WE" you are referring to. I wasn't old enough to vote on the "Great Society" programs, and if such were being offered now, I would certainly oppose it. Your "we" is my "they".

But wait a minute - now you're completely changing the subject. That comment you quote from me is in response to "feeding the hungry" - not producing food. Of course we use the market to produce food because it is by far and away the best way to do it. What we don't use the market to do all the time is "feed those who [sic] hungry" (your words - your initial choice of subject) because the reason why many of them are hungry is that they don't have the means to participate in the market. So we have used charity and the state - not to produce food, but to feed the hungry.

Don't construe what I said to be in any way in contradiction with this: "We also have extensive experience and tend to prefer that the production of food be done on a competitive basis. Had the government been feeding us throughout our experience, we would likely think that's the only way to do it."

As for the pronoun obsession - "you" is not an island. "You" is part of a community.

Sorry, the subject of feeding the hungry led us astray from the subject of a public good that benefits everyone in the same fashion.

As for the pronoun obsession - "you" is not an island. "You" is part of a community.

Yes, but I know the community that I'm a part of and everyone that's in it. Calling the whole nation a "community" really stretches the meaning. And supposing that actions by the state are actually wholly representative of the community really goes overboard given the popular opposition to the bailouts which were carried out anyhow and who voted to make public pensions such a lucrative prize?

I'm sorry, my indoctrination didn't take and so we are at odds here on the proper application of the term "community".

Which is why I asked for greater specificity.

How are they not comparable?

Obviously, goods have distinctions as well.

What qualities make some more amenable to non-competitive provision?

So you asked for something you could have easily gotten from context?

And didn't we just have an extended exchange about this? Add to that some positive externality arguments, and the dependence of children on their parents - things we've discussed over and over again on here - and that's the reason. Do you seriously not understand or forget the argument, or are you just asking again because you don't agree with that argument?

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.

You previous arguments and citations have not persuaded me in the slightest that the education of citizens, who are responsible for confining the power of the state, should in any way be controlled by the state.

Government has been the major provider of education for a very long time, and even advocates are less than satisfied by the results.

If we dismantled the government welfare state and gave back those taxes to the people, I wonder how much of that they would give back to private charity. At the very least with private charity you can vet them to see if they're not corrupt before clicking "Donate".

The thing is that historically speaking the United States has wielded it's virtual monopoly on military force quite benignly. Vaguely analogous to the Pax Romana. There are a lot of parallels between Roman Empire and the USA. Actually that would be an interesting debate topic!

Filipinos may have had a different take after U.S. marines slaughtered many thousands of Filipinos after the defeat of the Spain after the Spanish-American war. Likewise, some Vietnamese rice farmers might have taken an alternate view after U.S. aircraft napalmed their villages.

How about the extensive fire bombing of residential areas of Tokyo toward the end of WWII.

Many Indians might well have protested the slaughter of their tribes.

Actually we have determined that food is a human right. If you fall on really hard times, you can always apply for food stamps in America.

And now that I think about what you're commenting on... nobody was talking about having a "right" to anything anyway... just whether something is best thought of as a commodity or not.

I don't think of a loving wife as a commodity - something to be bought and sold on the market (although certainly many people do). Just because I don't think of my wife as a commodity doesn't mean I think I have a right to have one. Where did all this "rights" talk come in, arrowsmith?

Because liberals believe health care is a right. I know this because just this past Friday I had a liberal hippie tell me how horrible America is that we don't have universal health care like Europe.

And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you were even told this. Of course it's possible that you could have embelished and recalled the conversation differently than the "liberal hippie" would have if I were to ask him. I've had a self-proclaimed libertarian tell me that Obama was the anti-Christ. Should I assume you all think that (he also said that Obama was a socialist, but I imagine that would actually have some currency around here).

Bill Clinton once suggested he was libertarian.

Yeah, but he doesn't know what "is" means either.

That must've been after he didn't inhale...

Yeah Danny he's a real dyed-in-the-wool hippie liberal from the 60s. He really does believe in unlimited welfare, health care and the full meal socialist deal.

Fair enough. I said I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, didn't I :)

What makes you think he speaks for liberals?

Depends, maybe I mean he represents all socialists. But aren't modern liberals simply socialists in disguise? Oh, now they want to call themselves progressives.

If a liberal told you that America was great and that no one has a right to health care, would you believe that all liberals thought that?

Come on, Arrowsmith. Be serious. Even if "liberals" did think this it's not relevant to the conversation Sam and I were having.

I'm not sure that follows... food stamps aren't an entitlement, you know. And even if they were an entitlement, that doesn't make them a right (ie - we offer entitlements to Social Security without making the case that anyone has a right to a pension).

Granted, you know all this - which makes me wonder why half the time you're just trying to bait and troll on here?

How do you figure that food stamps aren't an entitlement? I mean, they're certainly not property.

I bring this up because I was thinking about the difference between property and entitlement just the other day. It seems to me that a useful definition is that while property is something that one creates, an entitlement is a grant from the political class. It is problematic that so many confuse the two. Some even go so far as to insist that all property is entitlement - a useful argument if the goal is to rationalize the taking of property.

I was wrong - it looks like it is an entitlement program. I had thought only Medicare, SS, UI, and veteran's benefits were. Although on the list that I saw naming food stamps, it also mentioned Medicaid - and I know people have been cut from Medicaid simply because funding for that year had been used up. That's not really an "entitlement". Anyway - sounds like foodstamps might be.

As for your distinction - I think it's somewhat silly. After all - if you do have an entitlement, upon receiving it it is your property. And you are "entitled" to your property. I don't know - maybe I'm getting caught up on a side issue, but it doesn't seem that useful to me.

I was also using the word "entitlement" in the sense that it is used for federal programs because that's what we were talking about (ie - "entitlement programs" as opposed to "welfare programs"). I wasn't using this in these sense of "X has a right to this program". They don't.

P.S. You're right that the meanings are ambiguous. In my opinion, it is in the interest of the political class to make them ambiguous. Those who value freedom must therefore make the effort to keep them distinct.

"In my opinion, it is in the interest of the political class to make them ambiguous."

Not ambiguous - diverse. And it is the free interaction of an emergent language like English that makes them that way - and it's a good thing. The political class didn't invent English. Thank God for that - it would be a much less diverse and useful language if they did.

They may not have invented the language, but they use it to their advantage. Politicians are manipulators and exploiters. Playing with language is part and parcel of what they do and who they are.

"if you do have an entitlement, upon receiving it it is your property."

Not true. A Federal Reserve note is an entitlement, not property. What I have is an entitlement which I may be able to trade for someone elses property.

"you are "entitled" to your property"

Not true. My property is what I create. What I create is mine by virture of the fact that I am mine. The state cannot entitle me to the ownership of me - at least, it cannot simultaneously claim to entitle me (own me) and/or my property and to claim that I am free or that I have property rights.

1. Can we please stick to one definition of "entitlement". From the beginning I've been talking about federal entitlement programs, and I was talking about federal entitlement programs in response to this question too.

2. As for the federal reserve note - that note is still your property. It is an entitlement to certain things, yes, but it is your property.

"My property is what I create. What I create is mine by virture of the fact that I am mine. "

Right... I'm not sure what the disagreement is. It is yours by virtue of the fact that you are yours.

"The state cannot entitle me to the ownership of me - at least, it cannot simultaneously claim to entitle me (own me) and/or my property and to claim that I am free or that I have property rights."

Nobody said it could.

I think we have at least three definitions of "entitlement" floating around here - federal entitlement programs, which started the whole discussion, "entitlement" in the sense of a liability (which you used in the beginning of your comment), and "entitlement" in the sense of a state sanctioned title to something.

This is going to be a non-sensical discussion as long as we keep jumping from definition to definition.

My entire point is to challenge the common definitions (see below). By using the word property to describe entitlements, we give the political class an excuse to use the word entitlements to describe property.

Sure Marxists insist that it's all the publicly provided infrastructure that enables huge wealth generation, so it should be taxed at 95%. After all, the super-rich will still be millionaires after having 95% taken away. The argument is against having billionaires.

I agree that anything that is limited can't possibly be a right. Whether it be food, health care, education, iPhones. Those are all products.

All markets don't work the same way, and all central authorities decreeing resource organization by stipulating rules for many others to follow don't work the same way, but Don's assertion, that parents are almost invariably better informed of their children's unique educational needs and options than remote educational authorities, is not simplistic. It's factual.

To dispute the assertion, you need to specify the particular information that authorities in the Federal Department of Education, or even a state board of education or more local political authority, may possess, information not available to parents, students and teachers in an educational market. What is that?

Why would you assume that markets for different products work differently? I think you need to produce some evidence for this. I'm not even sure what it means to "theoretically" prove something. Markets are not a "one size fits all" solution. Free markets allow every customer to pick and choose whatever size or service they're willing to pay for. Government schools are one size, take it or leave it, but you'll pay for it either way.

Its the very fact that information is never distributed evenly that you want free markets. It allows each person to tailor their purchase to the best information available, geographically and temporally. No bureaucrat or politician can do that, not for everybody.

I completely agree. Plus, a market in education provides a process by which failing schools must shut their doors and successful schools gain more money because more parents/students want to send their kids there. At least in Indianapolis, the more a school fails the more tax money they receive. These are also the worst performing schools year after year. Why are these schools not closed down?

Why would not competition in any arena. free of external interference or favor, work the same?

There is a reward, we compete for it. Pretty simple and damned rewarding for those who are willing to strive for the reward.

I have never in all my years, in any circumstance, seen a competition taken seriously that did not improve the performance of all of those who took the competition seriously.

Of course not everyone won, but all were made better in performance.

The most certain way to ensure mediocrity is to praise and reward mediocrity.

ever heard of the tragedy of the commons?!?

(yes i know elinor ostrom showed that it does not always hold. but sometimes it does. it depends on the institutions and norms that govern each particular situation)

Tragedy of the commons? Say what? Oh that was a strange detour off into the land of "too clever by half".

So, in your mind the classroom offers just so much education at any given time, and if I get more out of that time than the boy that sits next to me, we have the tragedy of the commons because, as an individual, I used more than my fair share of education? That is the only conclusion I can come to in order to adjust my thinking to give any teeny measure of credence to the TOTC claim in relation to education.

That being said, it is obvious that I don't see how you wandered off into the TOTC arena.

One of us doesn't understand competition very well, and it isn't me.

The TOTC may indeed come into play as a result of competition, but it in no way reduces the truth of what I said above, I quote myself, "I have never in all my years, in any circumstance, seen a competition taken seriously that did not improve the performance of all of those who took the competition seriously." Please understand, JCE, the competitors became better, regardless of what happened in the commons. The commons and how it is affected by competition is another debate.

If you and I compete for the shortstop position on our town baseball team, we both want it very much, we fill our free time with practice and drills, and in the end one of us is selected as shortstop, you can not deny that both of us will have become better at our play than we were before, and it totally irrelevant how it affected the fan in the stands. We, the competitors, became better because of the competition, without which both of us would quite likely never have reached our full potential.

That same principle holds true through any field of endeavor you care to name. People who take competition seriously and strive to win always improve. Groups of people made up of individuals who take competition seriously will become a more productive group.

Competition, my friend is natural to life, and in humans we are damned good at it in comparison to other life forms. Our response to life's competitions is what has placed us on top of the heap. I embrace that, I don't run from it or feel embarrassed by it. This is not directed at you; but it would be sheer stupidity to erase competition from our lives and attempt to erase it from our nature.

Competition among providers of education can not help but improve the quantity of quality education available.

Do I hear an Amen, brother?

i did not say that the TOTC applied to the education issue. it doesn't
but you said that competition, in any circumstance, is beneficial.
that is just simply not so.
other examples: do you think it would be beneficial to have 15 electric power suppliers in every city competing for the market? (each would have to build their own grid. would be kind of awkward, right?) how about 5 subway firms competing? (each with its own set of tunnels and trains, of course. a bit chaotic no?) or 200 bus firms competing for routes in a city? (there simply would not be enough space for all the buses. total gridlock)
again my point: that competition works in the benefit of all involved depends on the structure of the market and the institutions that govern it.
it is not true that it always works no matter what

oh, i almost forgot: GIVEN all the government regulations in place, all the incentives that existed for the relevant players, a bunch of investment banks freely competing for profits didn't turn out to well, did it? it turned out to be a race to the bottom to see who could create the shittiest loans to securitize.
GIVEN THE INCENTIVES AND STRUCTURE of that market, competition bankrupted them all

AMEN

Re: "do you think it would be beneficial to have 15 electric power suppliers in every city competing for the market? (each would have to build their own grid. would be kind of awkward, right?) how about 5 subway firms competing? (each with its own set of tunnels and trains, of course. a bit chaotic no?) or 200 bus firms competing for routes in a city? (there simply would not be enough space for all the buses. total gridlock)"
Your assumptions are incorrect. Multiple electricity or subway suppliers would not necessarily require completely separate infrastructure. There are obvious options for cooperation/cost-sharing where they would use the same power lines or tunnels, etc. Your bus company example is simply ridiculous.

Your phrasing "banks freely competing" in the context of an extremely non-free (i.e. constrained, highly regulated) market is also rather bizarre.

Moreover, where there is no government monopoly of electrical distribution, you do sometimes find multiple grids. If you ask the people living in those towns what they think of it, they will tell you they don't mind the additional ugliness if it gets them cheaper rates.

To JCE, there is no need to go out an invent a hypothetical scenario, just travel in the US some more, or pick up a history book.

[Edit: I thought Walter Block had a lecture on the topic, but I can't seem to find it right now. I'll be sure to post it if I come across it again]

"oh, i almost forgot: GIVEN all the government regulations in place, all the incentives that existed for the relevant players, a bunch of investment banks freely competing for profits didn't turn out to well, did it? it turned out to be a race to the bottom to see who could create the shittiest loans to securitize.
GIVEN THE INCENTIVES AND STRUCTURE of that market, competition bankrupted them all

AMEN"

Which is it? Was the financial market regulated with all kinds of perverse incentives, or was it a completely unregulated market with purely private incentives that drove that aspect of the market downward?

Also, what's with the closing "AMEN?" Is this a discussion about religion for you? This is supposed to be about a rational discussion. Cite references and examples, not religiousness.

the 'amen' is because vidyohs finished his last reply to me saying "do i hear an amen, brother?"

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Okay once again without any other distractions:

I quote myself, "I have never in all my years, in any circumstance, seen a competition taken seriously that did not improve the performance of all of those who took the competition seriously." Please understand, JCE, the competitors became better, regardless of what happened in the commons. The commons and how it is affected by competition is another debate."

Oh, and reading that last paragraph of yours is a lot like watching a little old lady parallel park in a snug parking spot. Forwards and backwards, forwards and backwards, forwards and backwards.

Make up you mind, either the lenders were regulated or they were in a free market, can't have it both ways.

again my point: competition does not occur in a vaccuum. depending on the context (incentives in place) in which it occurs it can be either beneficial or not.

lenders WERE regulated. of course. but were they not also competing?? can you seriously argue that those banks were not in competition with each other???

subtle point: 'competition' and 'free market' are not the same thing. competition can ocurr in regulated markets

You are absolutely not going to actually read what I wrote, are you?

Let me try again.

Any competition taken seriously by those who are competing will make all competitors better at what ever field of endeavor the competition covers.

It, being the field of endeavor:

If it is stealing, you'll produce better thieves.

If it is killing, you'll produce better killers.

If is baseball, you'll produce better players.

If it is dancing, you'll produce better dancers.

If it is teaching, you'll produce better teachers.

and on and on and on and on.

Individuals who train and practice to win a competition in any endeavor, whether they win or not, become better at that field of endeavor.

Damn, how much more simpler do it gotta be for you to understand?

The commons, the fans, the victims, the mothers, apple pie, and sweethearts are all subjects of another debate.

But by-the-by on that, addressing your rather naive analogies above, exactly what is the tragedy of having multiple electric or phone companies installing their own lines in a public corridor created specifically for that purpose? Inconvenient maybe, tacky maybe, but a tragedy? That strikes me as socialist type melodrama.

Competition for public transportation would most certainly not result in multiple subway tunnels being dug, it would result in one subway system, an above ground light rail, heavy rail maybe, bus lines, taxis, and jitney services; how and why you naively advance the idea that it would result in multiple tunnels is beyond ridiculous.

Do you really seriously think the lenders involved in the meltdown were competing? Colluding certainly, but in serious competition, gimme a break they were all covered and they knew it. Like so many that come here and like you write the regressive view of things, you will go to your grave in denial about the underlying cause of it all being that government you so adore. The government that is bought and sold everyday by big money from unions to industry.

I really think you learned your lessons on competition and business from the same schools muirduck did. moveon.org U.

"The commons, the fans, the victims, the mothers, apple pie, and sweethearts are all subjects of another debate."

yeah... that is the debate that matters. it matters because competition also has consequences on them.

"Do you really seriously think the lenders involved in the meltdown were competing? Colluding certainly, but in serious competition, gimme a break they were all covered and they knew it."

how exactly were they colluding?! they were competing for the profits to be made securitizing subprime loans. again, they were not competing in a vaccuum, they were competing within the framework of certain government regulations

"what is the tragedy of having multiple electric or phone companies installing their own lines in a public corridor created specifically for that purpose? Inconvenient maybe, tacky maybe, but a tragedy?"

exactly, it is inconvenient! it si wasteful! why have many lines when one is enough to do the job? thats exactly the point

"you will go to your grave in denial about the underlying cause of it all being that government you so adore. The government that is bought and sold everyday by big money from unions to industry."

huh???? i have done nothing but agree with the fact that government IS at fault. because it created the perverse incentives in which these banks operated

that human beings don't act in a vaccuum, but in a world ruled by institutions, incentives etc, and that their actions have consequences on others is i think a very basic point

but then again, perhaps i should take a cue from robert solow:

"Suppose someone sits down where you are sitting right now and announces to me that he is Napoleon Bonaparte. The last thing I want to do with him is to get involved in a technical discussion of cavalry tactics at the Battle of Austerlitz. If I do that, I’m getting tacitly drawn into the game that he is Napoleon Bonaparte."

How does TOTC apply here? It doesn't actually seem to support your argument...

because vidyohs said "Why would not competition in any arena. free of external interference or favor, work the same?

There is a reward, we compete for it. Pretty simple and damned rewarding for those who are willing to strive for the reward"

the tragedy of the commons shows some arenas where competition is detrimental to all.

The tragedy of the commons holds for unowned or commonly held properties.

Vidyohs assumes a foundation of property rights.

No, I did not have property rights in mind, you give me much more credit on this than I deserve. My whole thrust was the self evident evidence and truth of life itself regarding competition. Open free competition makes life forms better at what the competition entails, they die, or, if pitied, maybe get to feed off the leavings of the winners.

Please excuse my presumption, vidyohs.

In any case, the tragedy of the commons applies to resources that may not be claimed for private ownership, but is available to anyone to exploit.

Sure, but the tragedy of the commons only applies to publicly owned goods. I don't think privately produced human services really fall under that.

Would you please elaborate on how and why you think TOTC applies to education?

There been studies which have shown that charter schools and public schools that adopt the competitive method actually produce as good or better scores with students for much less than the fully subsidized public schools without competition.

Scores, it seems to me, are like price signals from the market. They will inform quite well, barring cheating or interference, that the student and school are performing as hoped. In my experience, information transmitted from schools in the form of scores is rather transparent and flows fairly freely to most interested parties, the most important being the families.

With that said, no system is perfect, but the competitive model is beginning to hold sway over many educators and families. Moreover, we should welcome the experiment, as the market has more consistently proven effective over other economic dogma than not while simultaneously adding the added bonus of freedom of choice.