What do you all think of this idea? I assume we can all agree that it is better than the socialist education system we have today, but do you all object to it on the grounds that the government should not be involved in education at all?
I generally believe that all taxes (welfare, for example) are a form of stealing, but I must admit -- I really like the voucher system advocated by Milton Friedman and many other economists. I'm interested to see what you guys/girls think about it.
Heres an article from The Economist regarding the voucher system for some additional info: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9119786
libertarian:Voucher systems are bad. They are egalitarian. Not all students require the same time. It is the parents' job. It is impossible to implement a successful voucher system without regulating education. Is a school that only teaches "education-unrelated" be funded? If so, then what is considered "education-unrelated"? This can get arbitrary. Should a school that only teaches mathematics be funded? No. The government has to choose the topics that schools should teach.
It depends on the ultimate outcome. If it resulted in more regulation over private institutions, it is to be avoided.
Inquisitor:It depends on the ultimate outcome. If it resulted in more regulation over private institutions, it is to be avoided.
Excuse my own ignorance, but what is the "Mises-ian" stance on education? I would imagine it would advocate zero government intervention in education, but would this really make our country better off? If poor families chose not to send their children to school at all because it was cheaper not to, how would this help the poor break the "cycle" of poverty?
In my opinion, the perfect education system would be one in which there was no federal government involvement (only state gov'ts), and each state participated in a voucher system which allowed individuals/families to choose and therefore gives schools an incentive to compete for customers/students.
wgeary:If poor families chose not to send their children to school at all because it was cheaper not to, how would this help the poor break the "cycle" of poverty?
I'm sure there would exist cases where sorry parents don't do much for their child. However, I submit that a LARGE number of publicly educated children, children that attended public schools for 12 or more years, aren't substantially any better off than the neglected children. What I think would occur is that any level of neglect would be more than offset by the overall rise in levels of education. This overall rise would fuel a better economy and any affects of neglect would be mitigated by proxy and would most likely deliver an economic net gain when comparing even the most uneducated to the typical student of today. It sounds reasonable to in some way ensure that 'no child is left behind' but all this does is leave behind a whole lot more. Socialistic solutions sound quite rational because you're attributing to the collective the sentience of an individual. You must remember that you're dealing with an entirely different beast. It's like assuming Leonardo da Vinci and Paris Hilton will contribute equally to the progress of civilization.
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
I think the ongoing case favors vouchers, but I have an unusual concern I think is worthy of consideration. I'd like everyone's input. I haven't thought it thru and I'm a slow thinker, so maybe the answer is simple.
I'm concerned about how this new dependent class will affect taxation. I know the educational system is currently well populated. I also know that many work in this system for over 20 yrs. I'm wondering if replacing this special interest with the parental special interest will lend more extortionist tendencies to the government. Will this changing from one special interest to another change the nature and demands of that special interest?
Inquisitor:I think Rothbard dealt with this matter well in this excerpt from For a New Liberty.
As usual Rothbard rarely fails to deliver the goods... if only he had been given ten more years to live!
The "Voucher System" is inherently flawed. It's the same old "free meal" theory exposed countless times by respectable authors like Gary North, worse yet the money will have to be spent on State-sanctioned and approved goods. The only difference will be that people would delude themselves into thinking they are "free to choose".
milton friedman did advocate voucher,s however in his later lifve he was quite explicit that they were only an improvement, and ultimately fully free market would be best. but as a form of transition, as an achievable short term goal, they were a relatively better option. just wanted to make the point that friedman didnt advocate vouchers as the best system.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
wgeary:I generally believe that all taxes (welfare, for example) are a form of stealing, but I must admit -- I really like the voucher system advocated by Milton Friedman and many other economists. I'm interested to see what you guys/girls think about it.
I think that vouchers are a bad compromise that will eventually do more harm than good. Allow vouchers, and you leave the State in the business of redistributing money. You still have the state taxing people, and then giving back some of that money so they can send their children to school. Why not just let the people keep their money, and deprive the state of the ability to indoctrinate children via compulsory education?
wgeary:I was wondering how the rest of you on this board feel about voucher systems in education, in which the US government would continue to fund education but parents would be able to choose which school to send their children to.
This statement contradicts itself. If the government funds education, then it chooses who is or isn't apt to receive these funds, ipso facto it is the government that continues to choose what schools parents may send their children to.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Vouchers are BAD for these reasons:
1. Slippery Slope Argument Against Vouchers: Once the government pays it will place more and more stipulations on that money until it completely controls the institution. What is worse is that the institution grows to depend more and more on that money until it can't resist the pressure to conform.
2. Stolen Money Bad Argument Against Voucers: The government has received less than 100 million in donations in 3 years with a budget averaging 2.8 trillion. That is 3.33 x 10^7. So 3.33x10^7/2.8 x 10^12 = 1.2 x 10^-5 or 0.000012 or 0.0012% of the federal budget comes voluntarily. The rest is stolen. All money stolen is not efficiently used. Consumers are worse off and the stealer must confiscate more and more to keep the system running. Furthermore it costs a lot to steal money, about 1/3 of the take. Charitable organizations average getting 90% of the take to the beneficiaries.
Also, in the somewhat glorious history of the USA, tax payer provided education is a relatively new thing. When tax payer provided education did not exist the literacy rates were much higher than what we have now. Also the USA is the most generous population in the world. Anyone who can not afford a private school need only seek help from one or more of thousands of organizations and millions of individuals to pay for. For example: If there was no tax payer stolen funded education system, I would give the highschooler next store 1 thousand to go to school. I will not pay that on top of the 3600 per year I pay in school taxes but I would in the absence of them.
I view vouchers as good and bad. First, they are a step, albeit a small one, in the right direction. The problem lies with governments willingness to interfere in the schools who accept the vouchers. For a voucher system to work-ish...you can't have any new regulations. Giving people a "choice" is always a good idea but that choice really isn't a choice if the government forces private and parochial schools to follow the same guidelines as public schools. If you can get a system in place that does not add any further regulation then it is a better option than what we currently have. However, vouchers are not a great option because you are still stealing private monies for the "public" good. That is, you are taking what is rightfully mine and giving it to someone else just because they have children.
I like vouchers because they are better than what we currently have but the idea is to completely eliminate public funding of schools altogether.
End.
Mitchell.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
I'm not really sure that vouchers are a good idea. But the resistance to vouchers from the educational associations and other statist types is so strong that I'd be willing to give it a go, if only to piss them off.
lol. Hey mac, that's a good idea for a litmus test. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Sooooo, you MUST be guilty!
I do wonder, however, how transferring the largesse from the public education system to the parents will affect the politics. Will the parents' political empowerment be a net gain or a net reduction in my loss of property? This isn't addressing the quality of education (as a counter to the possible negative affects, i.e., higher taxation ). I do believe the quality of education is the worst a particular society can 'achieve' when that education is administered by the state. That doesn't mean that if a school is run by the government everyone will become illiterate. It means that the society is a given. The quality of it's inhabitants will be assumed to be the same, whether employing corecive measures or allowing voluntary pursuits of education. Total government control of education contrasted with total voluntarism in education would yield the greatest possible difference between the levels of education that society X would produce. Non-coercive educational system compared with a fully coercive: Non-coercive MINUS Coercive = GREATEST difference. That difference means that the goodness of education is maximally minimized. Even though education remains a net benefit, the State's negation does not equal the intrinsic value of knowledge, i.e., God > State.
Personally, I think it should be 100% free market, no doubt! But why dont the cancerous bastards just evaluate how good we little ignorant, common folk are educatin their, I mean, our children, by simply testing them? Why govern how they get an education? They could simply use the current tests to evaluate kids and see how it's going. They could compare results to the public system's results and, if they want, international results. Just have freakin faith in the people that are financing your schemes and see if we can 'get 'er done' w/o their obnoxious involvement. They'll say some BS like they don't want to leave any kids behind, but what they're afraid of is that once parents get a taste of freedom and a taste of what a free market education system can do, it'll make them obselete. "They don't need us anymore! Boo-hoo!"
Let us breathe the fresh air for a millisecond for pete's sake!
John_galt: It is surprising to me that anyone on this board would support a voucher system.
I would certainly prefer to get rid of public education altogether and just have a free market in education. Since I don't see public education drying up and blowing away any time soon, the real question is whether or not vouchers is a step in the right direction or not. Giving parents more control over their children's education strikes me as a good idea. And while I agree that vouchers could be used to advance government regulation over private schools, anyone who supports vouchers is essentially agreeing that yes, private schools do a better job than public schools. From there, how far a step is it to say that people should just pay for their education directly, instead of going through the "middleman" of government?
Matthew Graybosch: wgeary:I generally believe that all taxes (welfare, for example) are a form of stealing, but I must admit -- I really like the voucher system advocated by Milton Friedman and many other economists. I'm interested to see what you guys/girls think about it. I think that vouchers are a bad compromise that will eventually do more harm than good. Allow vouchers, and you leave the State in the business of redistributing money. You still have the state taxing people, and then giving back some of that money so they can send their children to school. Why not just let the people keep their money, and deprive the state of the ability to indoctrinate children via compulsory education?
Because an incrementalist approach works better. When Socialists realized that the "great proletarian revolution" wasn't coming anytime soon, they threw their support to liberal and "progressive" groups and over a few generations have come very close to achieving their ultimate goals. Until the libertarian movement learns to do the same (advocate for successive approximations to what we desire) we will always be a marginalized fringe group pushing for radical changes in society. Government-funded voucher systems are still a form of theft and unnecessary government regulation, but they are less egregious than the full-out government-run schools we have now. Go to the voucher system to get students out of government-owned schools, then gradually decrease the scope of the voucher program until education is given over to the market like it should be. Besides, a sudden shock in aggregate demand for private education services would cause too much havoc, better to have a slight transitional period. Permanent change comes not by revolution but be evolution.
That excerpt literally has question marks all over it. I mean, every 5 or 6 words there's a question mark sign, which makes it really annoying to read. Is this just my computer or is someone else seeing this?
I like the idea. Letting parents choose which school to send their children to would allow competition to improve our educational system.
Hi all,
I am new to the forum and libertarian economics. I always thought that education was extremely important to free market society. My question is, wouldn't a completely free market based education system result in (some of) the poor not getting any education at all? Is the argument that either they will find a way to obtain education if they value it or end up contributing to in some "non-educated" way?
I apologize if this question has been posed before. Thanks for your answers in advance.
My question is, wouldn't a completely free market based education system result in (some of) the poor not getting any education at all?
I think the official line is volunteers would take it upon themselves to offer this service or at least pay for it.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Rothbardian so don't take my word as gospel.
There is a $99.00 homeschool curriculum and another one at $195.00, which I use, (Robinson). If you can't afford the printing and binding costs, most likely you could arrange to receive second hand books from somebody who has already used the curriculum. Same with the Saxon math books. So even the dirt poor should be able to educate their kids, and the kids would get a better education than the current public schools.
As for vouchers. Instead of vouchers per se, how about an educational rebate. This could only apply to people who pay property taxes directly. You would be able to rebate your property taxes based on actual educational expenditures. Of course, it presents the problem that occurs with vouchers, namely, will the government recognize all your expenses as legitimate.
docholiday: My question is, wouldn't a completely free market based education system result in (some of) the poor not getting any education at all? Is the argument that either they will find a way to obtain education if they value it or end up contributing to in some "non-educated" way?
If you believe, as I do, that a free market is the best way to supply goods and services that people want and need, then why shouldn't the free market also be able to provide education to people, even to the poor? Businessmen like John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and Sam Walton all made huge fortunes by finding ways to lower their costs and sell their goods to poorer people. Educational entrepreneurs would undoubtedly find ways to lower their costs so that poorer people would be able to get an education.
While I suppose some people might still end up "slipping through the cracks", I think most poor people would get a better education in a free market system than they do now with the public educational system.
docholiday:I always thought that education was extremely important to free market society. My question is, wouldn't a completely free market based education system result in (some of) the poor not getting any education at all? Is the argument that either they will find a way to obtain education if they value it or end up contributing to in some "non-educated" way?
I always thought that education was extremely important to free market society. My question is, wouldn't a completely free market based education system result in (some of) the poor not getting any education at all? Is the argument that either they will find a way to obtain education if they value it or end up contributing to in some "non-educated" way?
I don't think that education is critical for a free market society. Some people are better with their brains while others are better with their hands. I've got several friends that have almost no education to speak of (one stopped going in the sixth grade) but all do very well working with their hands. One is a carpenter and the other, the one with a sixth grade education, is one of the very best welders I've ever seen. They both have their place in a free market society as laborers.
As for some people not getting an education how is a free market education system any different than today's? According to some numbers 1/3 of all high school students will fail to graduate from high school. According to a study by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 32% of all drop outs did it to get a job, 26% left because they had a child and 22% had to help their families. In a truly free market system those people could have found alternatives to not getting an education such as home schooling or other ways. Then again, in a truly free market economy they probably would have been able to land good factory jobs anyway and a lack of education wouldn't affect them that much.
The system we have know isn't working and everyone knows it. A free market system is the only way to go. You're still going to have people who don't get an education. That's just the way things are. But the chances of them receiving one, and at a much lower cost, is much higher in a truly free market system.
Inquisitor: Excuse my own ignorance, but what is the "Mises-ian" stance on education? I would imagine it would advocate zero government intervention in education, but would this really make our country better off? If poor families chose not to send their children to school at all because it was cheaper not to, how would this help the poor break the "cycle" of poverty? In my opinion, the perfect education system would be one in which there was no federal government involvement (only state gov'ts), and each state participated in a voucher system which allowed individuals/families to choose and therefore gives schools an incentive to compete for customers/students.
First of all, most funding for k-12 education comes from the local neighborhoods. There is a little bit of Federal funding, but not enough to make poor schools as good as wealthy neighborhoods. So how does this help poor people? To force them to pay for public education, where half the funds go to beuracrats?
Second of all, the poorest schools have the highest drop-out rates. Again, how is this helping the poor?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
I am in favor of school vouchers, while completley getting rid of all public schools... I think there is something fundametanlly correct concerning the idea of vouchers as poor kids weren't able to choose the family they were born into. This puts every kid at the starting line at the same time. Its not a good thing, its simply the least bad solution...I would also think maybe a tax decductive savings account for education would be a good idea.
docholiday: Hi all, I am new to the forum and libertarian economics. I always thought that education was extremely important to free market society. My question is, wouldn't a completely free market based education system result in (some of) the poor not getting any education at all? Is the argument that either they will find a way to obtain education if they value it or end up contributing to in some "non-educated" way? I apologize if this question has been posed before. Thanks for your answers in advance.
First of all, everyone receives an education, whether or not they attend school. What you are talking about is a formal education. And yes, some people may not receive a formal education. But a formal education is not key to a free society. If it were, we would not be where we are today.
A formal education is not even key to making a lot of money. Some of the richest people in the world never even finished college.
Tuneman: I am in favor of school vouchers, while completley getting rid of all public schools... I think there is something fundametanlly correct concerning the idea of vouchers as poor kids weren't able to choose the family they were born into. This puts every kid at the starting line at the same time. Its not a good thing, its simply the least bad solution...I would also think maybe a tax decductive savings account for education would be a good idea.
Vouchers are paid for by taxes. Taxes always hurt the economy. This results in more poor people, since the beuracrats take half the money. So vouchers would also just hurt the poor.
Would zero government involvement in education make the country better off? This is a silly question. The goal of an education system is to educate individuals not make a country better off. Besides, how do you separate the parts of better off between education and the thousands of other factors that make a country better off. Government theft for education can help individuals obtain an education, but would that individual get an education anyway absent govenrment theft?
If poor families chose not to send their children to school because it is cheaper not to then how would this help poor break the cycle of poverty? Why not trust individuals to purchase the amount of education that they want instead of inserting your ideal of the amount of education they need. As for breaking the cycle of poverty, the poor do it all the time. I doubt that any of the millions of poor folks rising themselves out of poverty is the result of government sponsored education. I tend to believe the opposite that these folks rose out of poverty despite the goodness of government freebies like education. Besides the biggest incentive for individuals not to break the cycle of poverty is from government handouts. Look at the government sponsored education systems in the poorest areas.
The government even at the lowest levels is just too stupid to run an education system. These decisions are best made by individuals and parents who will purchase or obtain other help to purchase the amount of education they desire.
I also like the idea of educational vouchers since,although inferior to completely private education,it at least injects some choice into a system run by the state (especially here in Canada). In my view,we should be completely open about and work toward our desired end of total non-involvement by the state in education (as well as many other things). However, I think you could argue that short-term tactics should allow for an improvement of an existing dysfunctional system so that parents and children are better served by allowing some choice such as through vouchers.
I used to be a HUGE supporter of school choice. Over the years, I've become slightly less optimistic. I still strongly support going from the current system to school choice, but I also know there are unintended effects. Sadly, if school choice did improve schools, the politician would spend it as being proof that government can work when it more responsive to the wishes of the constituents. ..."therefore, we need more government!"
billott1: Would zero government involvement in education make the country better off? This is a silly question. The goal of an education system is to educate individuals not make a country better off.
Would zero government involvement in education make the country better off? This is a silly question. The goal of an education system is to educate individuals not make a country better off.
Well then, why is it important that individuals are educated in a formal educational setting?
I also like the idea of educational vouchers since,although inferior to completely private education,it at least injects some choice into a system run by the state (especially here in Canada).
The biggest problem with that is that the government ends up regulating anything that it subsidizes. So the end result is that good education everywhere will be subverted and reduced to the statist lowest-common-demoninator.
--Len.