Autodidact: The Unnecessary Leper

Donny with an A:

On your point about fighter jets, I'd suggest rereading the post where you got that quotation.  I specifically addressed it.

My original point is: is there any specific example of government funding useful goods? You written that bad scenario implicates that you don't have a good scenario of government funding. Is there any specific cases of good gov't funding?

Donny with an A:

I'm not really sure how to respond to your claim that universities and philosophy departments make "the same errors" that "the state" would if it were hiring professors

The administrators of public schools are appointed by the state. Therefore, the administrators cannot compete with private agencies. Why do they study keynesian?

Donny with an A:

I honestly can't even address your final claim, about philosophers not needing funding.  Find me a philosopher, and I'll show you a philosopher who, at some point, either needed funding, or had sacrificed concentrating on philosophy at some point to do a job that wasn't as fulfilling in order to make some money.

In every free market, a philosopher would be clever and smart enough to find a way to make much money whilst spending little time. Philosophers also need money to do experiments, public funding is too little.

Donny with an A:

There's no question that internal department politics play a role in determining who gets hired, fired, etc.  But that isn't a public university phenomenon.  In fact, it's not even a university phenomenon.  Every employer demands that you prove your worth.

Yes, but his ability to make those specific demands comes from the coercion of those not seeking to satisfy his demands. He is only able to make demands because he is the beneficiary of the coercive actions of the public education system. Nothing wrong with demanding quality from the good or service you're considering the purchase of, its the means by which you attained the power to make those demands.

Donny with an A:

If anything, the better funding available to most public schools' philosophy departments ensure that more different views can be represented without denying the most powerful figures the right to hire the candidates that they prefer. 

But you're only considering 'more different views' w/i the context of the beneficiary of a coercive public education system. 'Better funding' doesn't come from nothing. It comes from a much larger context. 'More different views' is a good, if we assume it's a good, that can reside in any particular place. You're simply looking at a single place and don't consider that this financing of 'more different views' or being made possible by other places where 'more different views' can and do exist. And you're doing this by saying the people in the place that you're discussing are more deserving of such a good, for whatever reason. Why is it better for 'more different views' to exist at that particular set of buildings than at a coffee house or at my home? Why is this place better than that place? If the people in your preferred place decided to change places, would the new place become the important place or does the importance stay at the old place?

Donny with an A:

Find me a philosopher, and I'll show you a philosopher who, at some point, either needed funding, or had sacrificed concentrating on philosophy at some point to do a job that wasn't as fulfilling in order to make some money.

I'm a philosopher. We're all philosophers. We need funding. Are we going to have to sacrifice concentrating on philosophy and go to an unfulfilling job or are you going to go steal some money and fund us?

History:

People in the sciences do not pursue as you state, " what works for one's ends" in fact they apply tests which usually generate theories which are not ascribed to absolutely, which are in turn tested again ad infinitum. But ones own ends usually does not play a role since these theories themselves are judged on their verifiability(Own ends conjures visions of mad scientists bent on world domination). In regards to your tool analogy I am envisioning myself about to perform a surgery without any knowledge of the tools at my disposal as the self-evident use of these scapels etc. will no doubt guide me succesfully. This is intended to be humurous but I am sure you can clarify what you mean with that analogy.

 

I only ment that knowledge, like any other good, has no objective value. It is only valued by individuals who can use it to further their own goals. It so happens that scientists' goals are often the pursuit of truth or otherwise altruistic (though not in the Randian sense of the word), so other's ends are served as well.

Tools can be used to further the ends of the user without knowledge of how or why the tool works, or even what it is beyond a very macro understanding of cause and effect (e.g., "I push the gas pedal and it moves forward"). When incorrect information is used, one's goals are not furthered as well as when correct knowledge is used. This feedback mechanism insures that people will tend to favor correct knowledge over the incorrect, without knowing any epistemological details of why some information isn't proper knowledge. Of course, I don't think it can be stated enough that in the social sciences,this feedback is much, much weaker (so I see a larger need for epistemology). Its hard, for example, not to doubt the engineering knowledge which produced a faulty product or a collapsed bridge.

Grant:

I only ment that knowledge, like any other good, has no objective value. It is only valued by individuals who can use it to further their own goals.

Grant:

When incorrect information is used, one's goals are not furthered as well as when correct knowledge is used. This feedback mechanism insures that people will tend to favor correct knowledge over the incorrect, without knowing any epistemological details of why some information isn't proper knowledge.

 

I am confused what this means so I am going to attempt to suggest why this is probably problematic for an austrian economist(and you may or may not consider yourself one) and why the denial of a verifiably sound knowledge implies that contextual knowledge and skepticism would be the only possible options. You may have unwittingly ascribed yourself to contextual knowledge by defining knowledge in a subjective way with "knowledge, like any other good, has no objective value. It is only valued by individuals who can use it to further their own goals." This is your definiation of knowledge and I am not sure many people would agree with it for several reasons. Particularly becuase, then you go on to invoke the idea of "correct" and "incorrect" as if it still holds objective value, this is problematic because if you deny the existence of objective knowledge then "correct" knowledge would apply only to the way individuals or institutions defined knowledge (which changes). So basically applying your defintion to knowledge you last example does not hold. "It is hard, for example, not to doubt the engineering knowledge which produced a faulty product or a collapsed bridge", yet, if knowledge is the furthering of ones own goals then if you wanted the bridge to collapse (for insurance fraud, another lucrative contract) then according to your definition this would be correct knowledge and thus an individual can go on favoring collapsed bridges.

Basically, if you claim that "I know A=A and A does not equal not A or B" you ascribe to the anglo-analytic school of thought. If you claim the principle of non-contradiction cannot be know for a variety of logical lapses (agrippan trilemma, probalems with perception, etc.) then you have two options you can say things only seem correct but the possibilty of knowing absolutely does not seem to exist (skepticism) or you can go with a post-modernist interpritation where "knowledge" is contextual and judged by the way society, individuals, institutions define it. So "knowledge" is being able to cohere to those definitions and usualy "soft" power plays some role in the predominance of certain "knowledge" as dictated by institutions. I do not think Mises who roots his praxeology in aristotelian apriorism would accept skepticism or contextual "knowledge", since logically his conlsuions follow from a priori axiomatic reasoning. I will take your last post as a statement concerning your prefrence for contextual knowledge, this does not mean you are "wrong" or "right" since simply you ascribe to knowledge so much as it coheres to your defninition. So it seems the question is now, in regards to formal education, for you is how do you get institutions to cohere to your idea of knowledge?      

Donny with an A:

If anything, the better funding available to most public schools' philosophy departments ensure that more different views can be represented 

Better funding (more non-public education people's money?) means more views represented? If you put more money in one place by taking it from another, then there's less money in the other place. Is the 'better funding equals more different views' law universal? If it's universal, then why apply it more vigorously in one area over another? Are we to remain in the darkness while the University folk manufacture our knowledge? Can these university folk think outside the university and w/o my money? If they can't, then neither can I. If they can, then so can I. We are both equally human.  I'm a philosopher. I'm a teacher. I'm a student. I need more funding. We're all philosophers, teachers and students. We all need more funding. We're all equal under the law. We qualify. It's one against one and all against all.

History, though Mises was Aristotelean in practice, his description of praxeology was Kantian. Rothbard was the one who attempted a shift back to Aristoteleanism.

I agree with Donny that government intervention may do some benefits, like the invention of the Internet. But according to extrapolation and statistical analysis, it is less probable that government would do us more good than bad. We individualists generalize the previous statement as an axiom.

IMHO, I agree that certain types scientific funding have been and would be beneficial to our economy. What Donny is advocating is a meritocracy.

libertarian:

I agree that certain types scientific funding have been and would be beneficial to our economy.

libertarian:

I agree with Donny that government intervention may do some benefits, like the invention of the Internet.

Yes, and the slaves picked a lot of cotton. You see government goods because it's easier to see goods than the negation of goods. It's like the FDA. It's easy for people to say the FDA helps save lives by controlling the drug market. What they don't see is the death of millions who die waiting on drug approval or who die because the FDA destroys the incentive for people to invest in drug manufacturing. And when the drugs do FINALLY make it thru, their becoming antiquated and have to be priced sky-high in order to recoup investments. The high cost of these new drugs push out other innovations because there's now less money to be spent on healthcare. 

If we handed over ALL of the economy to the government, we could thereafter give it credit for every new good.

I think Danny will disagree with the positions you're attributing to him Libertarian.

Libertarian:

I agree with Donny that government intervention may do some benefits, like the invention of the Internet.

Politicians did not invent the internet. That's like saying that politicians 'invented' the phone networks, or the transistor, or packet switching or any other technology. The only things politicians invented are fraud, robbery and murder. Force (i. e. government) can only destroy.

Juan:

Politicians did not invent the internet.

Yes they did: http://www.mises.org/story/2211
I am already aware that private agencies invented telephone wires that helped the innovation of the internet.
Do not assume -- Just because I said it, it does not imply any endorsement of government.

Yes, I know that government intervention almost killed the Internet.

If we handed over ALL of the economy to the government, we could thereafter give it credit for every new good.

pairynoid, I know how the FDA and the government kills people. But my point is that government sometimes do good things (yes they are extremely rare)
According to this article, yes they did invent the internet. No, I am not favoring any government nor any scientific funding. (Theoretically, scientific funding may benefit, but it does not: proof: government wasted tens of trillions of dollars in science.)

Well, just because something is written on a Mises' article, it doesn't mean it's true : P. Nobody invented computer networks. They are a natural outgrow of computers and telecoms.

I'm not saying you endorse government. But I'm saying that your analysis of what it does is not accurate. The gov't causes a lot of destruction, and at the same time it can fund some useful activity. But so what ? What follows from that ?

Sorry, I don't have much time to post, but I did want to point out that I'm not advocating a meritocracy at all.  In fact, as far as this thread is concerned, I'm not advocating anything at all.  I honestly can't believe how much exception people are taking to what I've said.  All I've been trying to get across is that public funding likely results in there existing some better philosophy programs.  For all you people disputing that fact, take a moment to think about what your objection is, and ask yourself, "Does my objection entail that public funding produces worse philosophy programs?"  If not (and I promise, no one's made such an objection plausibly here), then you are attacking a straw man.  I have taken no other position than that, except that public funding benefits the people who receive it (which also has been objected to for some inexplicable reason).  These sorts of conversations shouldn't need to be had on an economics message board.

Donny with an A:

All I've been trying to get across is that public funding likely results in there existing some better philosophy programs.  For all you people disputing that fact, take a moment to think about what your objection is, and ask yourself, "Does my objection entail that public funding produces worse philosophy programs?" 

 

Define, 'better philosophy programs'.

Donny with an A:

I have taken no other position than that, except that public funding benefits the people who receive it (which also has been objected to for some inexplicable reason). 

How many people are receiving it? If the US has 300 million citizens, would it benefit the citizens if everyone received public funding?

Donny with an A:

All I've been trying to get across is that public funding likely results in there existing some better philosophy programs

I'm going to say I agree with Donny.  If you subsidize something, you got more of it.  If you subsidize philosophy programs, you get more of them.  That's why people are lulled into philosophy graduate programs when there are no jobs for anyone graduating outside the top 10.  If you disagree with Donny, ask yourself this - would the market have created such a surplus of philosophy PhDs?  If not, then government must have.

We have a local black radio guy that laments high school graduation exams. He says they're institutionally racist because more blacks are failing it than whites. Well, if you buy into public education and kids are failing such a ridiculously easy exam, shouldn't you ask why they're not being taught rather than ask why the test is, ahem, 'so hard'? He talked about how it was hurting 'our children' because 'that diploma' opens doors. lol. 'That diploma' opens doors because of the mistaken belief 'that diploma' means something. Try testing these kids so you know the cold, hard facts. They may be missing opportunities because they're not opportunity producers, meaning their contribution isn't going to be any greater because of that piece of paper. Their contribution is going to be based on whatever it is they know and how beneificial that is to the market.

JAlanKatz:

Donny with an A:

All I've been trying to get across is that public funding likely results in there existing some better philosophy programs

I'm going to say I agree with Donny. If you subsidize something, you got more of it.

But you don't agree with him. What you say is right - if something is subsidized we get more of it. In this case we get more propaganda, not better education.

[edit]
Danny just keeps on repeating that philosophy programs are better...better than what ? He even ackowledges that public funding crowds out free enterprise, but fails to draw the propper conclusions from that premise.

 

I think the problem here is that many libertarians, including very often myself, go from very true statements to sort of false ones by following mistaken chains of logic.  An example is the idea that publicly financed philosophy education must be propaganda.  There are plenty of true statements one can make, such as programs have institutional incentives to not challenge the statist quo, but I don't think you can get all the way to all such programs being propaganda.  The average professor will not directly feel the state over them, nor will they think about it.  If there's more educational programs, because forming such programs is subsidized, won't there be increased competition for students, and increased competition for jobs?  Won't that improve education quality?

That public education is propaganda is not only an idea that can be deduced from libertarian principles and/or political economy : Public education is propaganda. That's a fact - something that's going on in the real world.

If there's more educational programs, because forming such programs is subsidized, won't there be increased competition for students,

Not necesarily.

and increased competition for jobs?

Maybe, but notice that those are jobs in the minister of propaganda. And there's no demand for propaganda. Propaganda is imposed at the point of a gun.

Won't that improve education quality?

No. It will improve the quality of propaganda.

Juan:

That public education is propaganda is not only an idea that can be deduced from libertarian principles and/or political economy : Public education is propaganda. That's a fact - something that's going on in the real world.

Because you say so?  I've worked in public settings, teaching philosophy at a state school.  Yes, there are statist trappings, and pressure not to challenge the state - but these pressures don't filter down too effectively to the level of the individual classroom instructor.  In he classroom, plenty of philosophy professors will ask hard questions.

 On competition for students, do you honestly mean to say that you're not sure that more programs at more schools will lead to increased competition?  No, there is no demand for propaganda - but there is demand for philosophy education.  Doesn't that imply that philosophy education is not propaganda?

So you don't like to admit the statist nature of public education and the people who work for that system ? Fine. You can deny reality as much as you want. But it's still there. As for the libertarian minority working within that system, I wish them good luck, but I don't think it's a good a idea to preach freedom and at the same time work for the state...it's like...contradictory ?

On competition for students, do you honestly mean to say that you're not sure that more programs at more schools will lead to increased competition?

You're talking about competition as if there were a free market in place, but public education is not a free market. More funding can lead to teachers being paid more, for instance. It can lead to more teachers, who would be just as statist.

No, there is no demand for propaganda - but there is demand for philosophy education.

How do you know wich one is wich ? And besides, demand is not the right word, because public education is 'free' and coercively funded at the same time (of course). I demand a million dolars house...except that I can't pay for it. What kind of demand is that ?

Doesn't that imply that philosophy education is not propaganda?

I don't see how that follows.

Well, to start with, if I take my libertarianism to a certain conclusion, but then see that all the people I learned about libertarianism from disagree, it at least leads me to doubt my conclusion.  So, if Murray Rothbard, Roderick Long, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Walter Block, and others work at state schoools, I think there must be a case to be made that it is not contradictory.  Is it a contradiction to work in the private market and yet drive on roads to get to work?  What is private and what is public?  Is Harvard private?  I'd say no - that the state has effectively monopolized education.  So asking an academic to not work for the state is asking him not to work - yet we all agree that the key to libertarian success is teaching people about the message, something that can be effectively done while teaching.

The statist nature of public education is not at dispute.  The issue is whether there can be good public education.  To say that is not to support public education - in fact, increased quality and quantity is not an argument for state intervention given that we live in a world of scarcity, and so that value is coming from elsewhere - and that elsewhere is where people demanded it.

Public education, of course, is not a free market.  Yet Mises himself spoke about how to evaluate demand in an unfree market.  State funding of education increases the supply, and by lowering prices does cause more people to be customers - but it does not invalidate the universal laws of economics.  Public education, by the way, is generally not free, just lower in price.  You can't demand a million dollar house, unless you redefine demand.  You can demand a house, but your quantity demanded at a price of 1 million is 0. 

Now, you correctly point out that no one chooses to expend resources to obtain propaganda.  Yet people do expend resources, at the very least time, to get education in philosophy.  So how can philosophy education be propaganda without there being a contradiction?

So, because some people do something wich is contradictory, it means is not contradictory ? Great argument. Wait. I'd call that a fallacy.

How many university teachers are there in the US ? 100,000 ? More ? And you found that a hundred of them are libertarians (who work for the state...) ? And you still claim that public education is not a propaganda machine for the state ?

The statist nature of public education is not at dispute. The issue is whether there can be good public education.

Okay. So you are a 'libertarian' who thinks that an statist system like public education can provide good education. Now I get it.

Public education, by the way, is generally not free, just lower in price.

I said public education is 'free' - it was a sarcasm. The point is that the price of public education is totally distorted, just like the price of any 'service' provided by politicians.

You can't demand a million dollar house, unless you redefine demand.

It is you who are redefining demand, by analyzing a coercive system, public education, as if it was a free market.

Now, you correctly point out that no one chooses to expend resources to obtain propaganda. Yet people do expend resources, at the very least time, to get education in philosophy. So how can philosophy education be propaganda without there being a contradiction?

Right. So your premises are wrong, or there's a non sequitur, or both. I suggest you try to find your mistake by yourself. It's called self-education. (And it's way better than public education.)

No, the claim is not that if some people do something which is contradictory, it is not contradictory.  The point is that I do not have such confidence in the infallibility of my reasoning that it bothers me not in the least if thinkers who started me down the path I am following have radically different conclusions.  By your reasoning, it follows that Rothbard was not a libertarian.

 Libertarianism is not a religion, it is a political philosophy.  As such, it doesn't have a concept of sins.  Once again, do you ride buses?  Have you ever called 911?  Wait, if I'm a sinner for having worked at a state school, is Ron Paul the ultimate statist for having worked in the government?  Are all doctors sinners if they receive medicare payments? 

There are certain areas of the economy which the state has monopolized.  That is a fact.  We believe that the state shouldn't do that.  We will fight to get the state out of it.  From none of this does it follow that we have to leave that sector of the economy untouched.  It is not the fault of libertarians that the state has seized a monopoly, and there is no contradiction in riding on a bus while advocating for the elimination of the bus service.  After all, the libertarian claim is not that there should be no buses, but rather that the market should provide buses.  We are not anti-bus, and we didn't create the situation where the government owned the buses.  There are reams of literature on this question, which has been looked at by Rothbard, Block, Long, and others. 

Yes, statist systems can accomplish things.  Can they accomplish things in a beter way than the market can?  Only by producing harm in other areas of the economy.  If the state raised taxes to 100% and destroyed every other sector of the economy, it could build a train system with a better on-time record than the market is likely to provide.  That's because people would rather pay less than 100% of their income and accept worse train performance.  Fact still remains that that particular overfunded government program would provide a better service than the market would - because such a high quality service is not desirable or profitable. 

Yes, the price of public education is distorted.  I said that in my first post on this topic.  Once again - the public service produces more philosophers than the market desires.  The philosophers it produces are real philosophers - and increased numbers of programs and of graduates produces higher quality philosophers.  None of this implies in the least that public education is desirable, good, or morally justifiable.  Those unemployed very good philosophers could have been well-paid engineers if the government hadn't distorted the market for education.  No one is analyzing public education as if it existed on the free market.  We are analyzing it as something existing in a distorted market.  Economic laws do not cease to apply because government is involved in a sector.  Austrian economics shows that the laws of economics are universal and apply in all situations.  The analysis is not complete simply because you hiss "state involvement" and it does nothing for your argument to pretend that it is.

If you argue against state education on the basis that it can never, under any circumstances, produce a good product, you will succeed in giving people an excuse to ignore you.

JAlan, I agree with you about hypocrisy. It's about cost and risks. If you oppose the state 100%, the only way you can be of NO benefit to them or they to you is to kill yourself. Now, if you dont kill yourself you can have a net negative effect upon the state, but there'll be somethings in there that benefit the state. You're wanting to try and produce a net negative on Statism if you're truly anarchic or wish to reduce State power. So, if you see other States arraying forces against you, you might decide the cost is too great to yourself to not use the State at that point in time. Avoiding highways would be too great a cost for most. But while you partake in these immoral obtained good and services, you try to overcompensate by weakening the State. It's probably a net negative for the State to have Dr. Long teaching in the Universities. It's really hard to quantify at what point someone is selling their soul to the 'devil'. I know most of you guys aren't religious, but this is how I tend to see man's being born into sin. It's like you can't help but commit some sin, simply because of situations beyond you're control.

Would Long be more effective educating himself and teaching to the free market? Or is he more effective teaching those w/ strong Statist biases? I tend to think there is way too much compromise going on, however. And as far as the State producing higher quality Philosophers than the market would, I think that'd require you to define quality as it relates to philosophy. What are the characteristics of a good philosopher and what has the State produced?

I'm not sure that it's true that Long is teaching those with a strong statist bias - do you remember how your mind worked right out of high school?  The average college student is generally not a strong anything.  Yes, they're conditioned towards statism, but on average they're also pretty open.  A lot of freshmen are looking for ideas and pretty undecided - and excellent people to try to teach about liberty.  I think it's great that Dr. Long is teaching philosophy students at Auburn to think outside the box and to challenge the state. 

I'd say the good philosopher question can be taken care of operationally.  It simply is not the case that the state is saying "we'll pay for philosophy education, but you have to teach them to love the state."  It's much more subtle and, well, incompetent than that.  Philosophy students are still being taught the skills of the philosopher, particularly critical thinking.  State subsidies increase the number, so the competition, so the quality.  Again, this is not a good thing.  We'd be better off with less philosophers and more of - whatever the market would produce. 

Unfortunately, many college students think liberty means universal healthcare. Many have it assbackwards. Also, I think you grossly overestimate the typical student.

I'm not neccessarily referring to top students in top schools. I'm talking about your average guy. I know MANY college grads that are as dumb as a doorbell. There's a guy at my ex-wife's job that has a degree and she has to do all his writing for him! He writes like the average 5th grader and he's a supervising probation officer! I run circles around him and I'm a high school dropout. If you're running a dept of the justice system and I'M running circles around you...WE'RE IN DEEP DOODOO! And I paid for this waste!

We're in agreement for the most part, but I think you're reserving your judgement for college students in the top 1%.

I know a teacher at a historically black college and she said it takes the typical student 2-3 yrs to get to a highschool level. It's a BIG school! She basically has to pass masses of people just to keep the school in business. It's a freaking joke. And I'll see ads about this prestigious school, with this powerful music rumbling away. lol

JAlanKatz:

By your reasoning, it follows that Rothbard was not a libertarian.

Excuse me, Where did I say that ? I think that it's not a good idea for libertarians to teach at public universities. If they do it, it's of course their affair. But you are trying to argue that since there are a handful of libertarians in public universities, then public education is not that bad. Of course, I do not agree.

Libertarianism is not a religion, it is a political philosophy.

I could argue that indeed is a religion, but what's the point ?

As such, it doesn't have a concept of sins.

Did I talk about sins ?

Once again, do you ride buses?

Again, what I do, or Long does, or you do, has nothing to do with valid or invalid reasoning. Public transportation stinks and I do ride buses. What follows from that ?

Wait, if I'm a sinner for having worked at a state school, is Ron Paul the ultimate statist for having worked in the government? Are all doctors sinners if they receive medicare payments?

What you're saying does sound self-serving. Ýou are part of public education so you want to believe it's not that bad. I think it is. No, I don't like Mr. Paul. Yes, he's an statist, that should be obvious.

Yes, statist systems can accomplish things. Can they accomplish things in a beter way than the market can? Only by producing harm in other areas of the economy. If the state raised taxes to 100% and destroyed every other sector of the economy, it could build a train system with a better on-time record than the market is likely to provide.

If the state raised taxes to 100% we would all be dead. Your 'thought experiment' is meaningless.

That's because people would rather pay less than 100% of their income and accept worse train performance. Fact still remains that that particular overfunded government program would provide a better service than the market would - because such a high quality service is not desirable or profitable.

You can't talk about quality if there's no market to assess that quality. This is the core of the the argument, wich you either don't get, or are ignoring.

Once again - the public service produces more philosophers than the market desires. The philosophers it produces are real philosophers - and increased numbers of programs and of graduates produces higher quality philosophers.

Oh my. No it does not. What is a 'good' philosopher ?

If you argue against state education on the basis that it can never, under any circumstances, produce a good product, you will succeed in giving people an excuse to ignore you.

That's right. Public education can never acomplish anything good. If you don't understand why, then in my opinion you don't understand the political philosophy known as libertarianism. Feel free to ignore me.

Bleh, I wrote a long reply which got truncated for some reason. History, I wasn't trying to define knowledge as such, only how individuals valuate knowledge.

Juan:

Public education can never acomplish anything good. If you don't understand why, then in my opinion you don't understand the political philosophy known as libertarianism. Feel free to ignore me.

I don't see any basis for this statement. Consider,

1. It is possible, though likely through chance, for government to force investment which ends up being more valuable than what people would have invested in on their own.
2. If  the government's investment doesn't produce more value than the market's would have, it may still produce some value were it able to be priced on the open market. e.g., its possible for a government service to net a profit, even if its extremely unlikely that this profit would be as high as the one produced by voluntary means.

A good example of the above may be DARPANET.

I think the deciding factor in determining, case-by-case, whether formal teaching is effective for the subject, and/or self-directed education is moreso, is nothing more than the passion of the individual for learning.

 

An applied and passionate student will soak up and flourish in whatever room he stands in, wouldn't you agree?

 

Aside from this one passion, you have no real way to convince one over the other that "their" way of teaching is superior. I don't believe the question even matters, so long as the result is a truly, deeply learning individual that will turn that knowledge to the betterment of mankind. The state of the knowledge is the real answer to efficiency of the instruction in the topic. Who is able to contribute to the state of the knowledge?

Can an "uneducated" man, now having instant access to the collective knowledge and experience of all of humankind, be educated by it?

Why not?

Does your style produce passionate students? Now that is the question each side should ask themselves--and the answer would strengthen (or weaken) the argument. I believe the fact that self-directed students may have more passion- but there are certainly passionate learners in formal education.

Focus and advocate the results, not the method.