[SueDeNîmes]

That still doesn't mean enough people could - or would - otherwise buy sufficient education to keep a first world industrialised economy going.

[mikema63]

If the education isn't a worthwhile investment then why should they? Brides as demand falls the price falls as well to the point that the investment is worthwhile.

[SueDeNîmes]

But it is worthwhile. That still doesn't mean enough people could - or would - otherwise buy it.

[mikema63]

You thinking its worthwhile does not translate to it being worthwhile for someone else.

Unless you think everyone else is a stupid puppet that can only be saved by the smart people.

[SueDeNîmes]

Indeed, perhaps a first world industrialised economy isn't worth having and parents who undervalue education accordingly are right. I'll let you defend their assertion. However, parents who couldn't otherwise afford the requisite education make no such judgement. And both groups combined fall a long way short of the "everyone else" you suddenly invoke.

[mikema63]

Actually my point is that if you think it's worthwhile they will come to a similar conclusion.

Though it is amusing to see you purposefully try to take me out of context and create a Strawman you will have to try harder.

[SueDeNîmes]

Actually my point is that if you think it's worthwhile they will come to a similar conclusion.

Patently not. This is the real world where some parents don't value education - don't even send their kids to school unless threatened with prosecution. And, as I said, even that'd be moot in the case of those who couldn't afford private education, or couldn't afford enough of it.

Though it is amusing to see you purposefully try to take me out of context and create a Strawman you will have to try harder.

No, you're actually right - me thinking its worthwhile does not translate to it being worthwhile for someone else.

[Eran]

Most of the children of those parents who have to be sued to send them to school don't benefit from the public education into which they are forced anyway.

Just because a child is forced to spend thousands of hours over a decade or so stuck in a boring class-room doesn't mean that period does him (or society at large) any good. In a separate thread I challenged people to show any evidence that broad higher-education is beneficial for society.

People who do benefit education (either for themselves or for their children) overcome great odds to obtain that education.

The bottom line question you ought to ask yourself is this. Who is more likely to be interested in the good of a child, his parents or strangers? The obvious answer is his parents. There may be exceptions, but as a rule, it is obviously the case. If it is his parents, why do you assume that decisions regarding a child's education are best made by strangers rather than the child's own parents?

[SueDeNîmes]

Most of the children of those parents who have to be sued to send them to school don't benefit from the public education into which they are forced anyway.

I absolutely disagree. Illiterates are more or less helpless in our societies.

Just because a child is forced to spend thousands of hours over a decade or so stuck in a boring class-room doesn't mean that period does him (or society at large) any good. In a separate thread I challenged people to show any evidence that broad higher-education is beneficial for society.

People who do benefit education (either for themselves or for their children) overcome great odds to obtain that education.

Then without giving each child the opportunity, we force them by accident of birth to overcome great odds simply to get that education. Assuming they ever do.

The bottom line question you ought to ask yourself is this. Who is more likely to be interested in the good of a child, his parents or strangers? The obvious answer is his parents. There may be exceptions, but as a rule, it is obviously the case. If it is his parents, why do you assume that decisions regarding a child's education are best made by strangers rather than the child's own parents?

I don't but the answer, sadly, is sometimes strangers, and saying it must be one or the other in cases where there's no conflict presents a false dichotomy.

[Eran]

I absolutely disagree. Illiterates are more or less helpless in our societies.

Many of those children come out of public education practically illiterate. Private education is much more likely to actually help those children learn.

The suggestion that without government compulsion, any parent would decline to send their children to learn to read and write is ludicrous.

Then without giving each child the opportunity, we force them by accident of birth to overcome great odds simply to get that education. Assuming they ever do.

Again, it isn't like public schools are doing those children any good. Giving their parents better and more varied options is much more likely to help those children.

Nobody is suggesting not giving children opportunities. Rather, the point is that it shouldn't be government which provides them with that opportunity. Children need food, clothing and housing, yet government doesn't generally provide them with those.

[SueDeNîmes]

I absolutely disagree. Illiterates are more or less helpless in our societies.

Many of those children come out of public education practically illiterate. Private education is much more likely to actually help those children learn.

Well no, since "those children" are the ones whose parents must be threatened into sending them to school at all.

The suggestion that without government compulsion, any parent would decline to send their children to learn to read and write is ludicrous.

Indeed. Good thing no one's suggesting anything of the kind about "any parent" then.

Again, it isn't like public schools are doing those children any good. Giving their parents better and more varied options is much more likely to help those children.

Which entirely private education wouldn't be giving them.

Nobody is suggesting not giving children opportunities. Rather, the point is that it shouldn't be government which provides them with that opportunity.

But 'shouldn't' and 'isn't' are different things. I'm talking is, not ought.

Children need food, clothing and housing, yet government doesn't generally provide them with those.

No but it guarantees them, which parents couldn't at one time and increasingly can't again.

In any case you're mistaking government in the abstract for the democratic will. The former might or might not provide for the common good, but the latter likely will by definition. Market forces, not so much. Having both means more, not less, pluralism and options.

[Eran]

Well no, since "those children" are the ones whose parents must be threatened into sending them to school at all.

Parents have to be threatened to send their children to school all the way to age 16. Literacy is acquired (or fails to be acquired) at a much younger age.

Which entirely private education wouldn't be giving them.

Neither would entirely public education. But private education is more likely to do a good job, as competition and variety invariably work their ways over time to give superior results.

No but it guarantees them, which parents couldn't at one time and increasingly can't again.

Government guaranteeing rather than providing education would be a good step in the right direction.

The former might or might not provide for the common good, but the latter likely will by definition. Market forces, not so much.

I am not suggesting society is limited to "market forces". I would be very happy to see the "democratic will" operate in any number of ways, provided only that force is not initiated against innocent people.

Charity is an excellent example of the "democratic will" in action, as are mutual-aid societies.

[SueDeNîmes]

Well no, since "those children" are the ones whose parents must be threatened into sending them to school at all.

Parents have to be threatened to send their children to school all the way to age 16. Literacy is acquired (or fails to be acquired) at a much younger age.

Then what you said remains false. Private education wouldn't help them at all.

Neither would entirely public education. But private education is more likely to do a good job, as competition and variety invariably work their ways over time to give superior results.

Well no, since "those children" are the ones whose parents must be threatened into sending them to school at all.

Government guaranteeing rather than providing education would be a good step in the right direction.

I am not suggesting society is limited to "market forces". I would be very happy to see the "democratic will" operate in any number of ways, provided only that force is not initiated against innocent people.

Charity is an excellent example of the "democratic will" in action, as are mutual-aid societies.

I'm guessing that by "force ..initiated against innocent people" you mean taxation and some hogwash about 'men-with-guns' ? In which case you're doubtless aware that your argument re education rests on what is commonly considered rightwing crank hysteria, and that I almost certainly share said perception?

[Nunt]

Free schooling for the world's poorest: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in- ... ml#photo=1

[mum]

My guess would be that the school in that link provides a higher quality of education than the local state school.

[Eran]

Then what you said remains false. Private education wouldn't help them at all.

How do you know?

It is one thing for parents to refuse to send older children to public schools where they clearly don't learn anything. It is a different thing altogether to expect parents to refuse to send their younger children to learn to read and write.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to suggest that any material number of parents/children are likely not to be willing to send their children to an inexpensive school in which they learn the basics?

I'm guessing that by "force ..initiated against innocent people" you mean taxation and some hogwash about 'men-with-guns' ? In which case you're doubtless aware that your argument re education rests on what is commonly considered rightwing crank hysteria, and that I almost certainly share said perception?

I hope you and I continue to converse long enough for you to realise that I am not a "rightwing crank", and for you to understand my position without prejudice.

One doesn't need to be an anti-government anarchist to recognize that government ultimately acts through the threat of force. Many people would agree with that characterisation while justifying it on either principled or pragmatic grounds.

There is a sharp difference between government action and that of any legitimate non-government actor. The former threatens you with force if you don't comply, the latter tempt you to agree to their proposal.

[SueDeNîmes]

Then what you said remains false. Private education wouldn't help them at all.

How do you know?

It is one thing for parents to refuse to send older children to public schools where they clearly don't learn anything. It is a different thing altogether to expect parents to refuse to send their younger children to learn to read and write.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to suggest that any material number of parents/children are likely not to be willing to send their children to an inexpensive school in which they learn the basics?

Yes, for the umpteenth time : the fact that they must be coerced into sending them to free ones. Are you saying there are no such parents?

I'm guessing that by "force ..initiated against innocent people" you mean taxation and some hogwash about 'men-with-guns' ? In which case you're doubtless aware that your argument re education rests on what is commonly considered rightwing crank hysteria, and that I almost certainly share said perception?

I hope you and I continue to converse long enough for you to realise that I am not a "rightwing crank", and for you to understand my position without prejudice.

One doesn't need to be an anti-government anarchist to recognize that government ultimately acts through the threat of force. Many people would agree with that characterisation while justifying it on either principled or pragmatic grounds.

There is a sharp difference between government action and that of any legitimate non-government actor. The former threatens you with force if you don't comply, the latter tempt you to agree to their proposal.

Plenty of "government action" doesn't threaten me with force if I don't comply and most that does isn't "force initiated against innocent people." We could endlessly disagree about whether taxes are your dues for living in civil society and about your freedom to move to some anarchic hellhole - but, meantime, ancap-speak doesn't wash as an a priori argument against public education.

[Eran]

Yes, for the umpteenth time : the fact that they must be coerced into sending them to free ones. Are you saying there are no such parents?

I don't know of any evidence for a material number of parents who have to be coerced into sending young children to school to study reading and writing.

I view that scenario is very different from that of older children.

The reluctance of parents to send their children to public schools cannot be separated from the miserable (sometimes dangerous) nature of those schools, and the lack of actual education taking place in such schools.

For-profit schools would be motivated to create conditions appealing to parents, while public schools aren't. There is therefore every reason to expect that more parents would be happy to send their children to the former over the latter.

Plenty of "government action" doesn't threaten me with force if I don't comply and most that does isn't "force initiated against innocent people." We could endlessly disagree about whether taxes are your dues for living in civil society and about your freedom to move to some anarchic hellhole - but, meantime, ancap-speak doesn't wash as an a priori argument against public education.

All government operations are funded through taxation which inevitably requires the threat of force against innocent people.

I will acknowledge that many reasonable people claim that such taxes are necessary, and we can certainly have a civilised debate over the question. But that collecting taxes requires the threat of force is not really in dispute.

At the very least, government, to be viewed as one, requires enforcing a monopoly over the use of force in its territory. That means that every government will threaten with the use of force those who wish to themselves use force, e.g. by providing services identical to those provided by government itself. Logically, either government services are legitimate (in which case the threat of force against competitors isn't) or they aren't - proving the point that government is necessarily illegitimate.

Finally, all modern government issue mountains of laws, rules and regulations requiring compliance under threat of force. From drug prohibition to professional licensing, the range is huge.

[SueDeNîmes]

Yes, for the umpteenth time : the fact that they must be coerced into sending them to free ones. Are you saying there are no such parents?

I don't know of any evidence for a material number of parents who have to be coerced into sending young children to school to study reading and writing.

Then there's the source of your confusion. It's my sad duty to inform that they exist.

I view that scenario is very different from that of older children.

The reluctance of parents to send their children to public schools cannot be separated from the miserable (sometimes dangerous) nature of those schools, and the lack of actual education taking place in such schools.

For-profit schools would be motivated to create conditions appealing to parents, while public schools aren't. There is therefore every reason to expect that more parents would be happy to send their children to the former over the latter.

Aah, so parents who have to be threatened into sending their kids to school are withholding them as a protest at poor standards and would actually be willing to spend the tax money they probably don't pay anyway on private education. I'm happy to leave that idea standing on its merits.

Plenty of "government action" doesn't threaten me with force if I don't comply and most that does isn't "force initiated against innocent people." We could endlessly disagree about whether taxes are your dues for living in civil society and about your freedom to move to some anarchic hellhole - but, meantime, ancap-speak doesn't wash as an a priori argument against public education.

All government operations are funded through taxation which inevitably requires the threat of force against innocent people.

I will acknowledge that many reasonable people claim that such taxes are necessary, and we can certainly have a civilised debate over the question. But that collecting taxes requires the threat of force is not really in dispute.

At the very least, government, to be viewed as one, requires enforcing a monopoly over the use of force in its territory. That means that every government will threaten with the use of force those who wish to themselves use force, e.g. by providing services identical to those provided by government itself. Logically, either government services are legitimate (in which case the threat of force against competitors isn't) or they aren't - proving the point that government is necessarily illegitimate.

Only if one accepts that tax dogers are innocent and that they aren't free to move to some anarchic hellhole. Which I don't.

Finally, all modern government issue mountains of laws, rules and regulations requiring compliance under threat of force. From drug prohibition to professional licensing, the range is huge.

Yup.

[mikema63]

You can't just say they exist without proof, here let me show you why.

They don't exist, and I'm right because I just say so.