From: leonard@mimsy.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:22:29 GMT
Organization: Deep Thirteen, Gizmonics Institute

Charles L Isbell writes:
>[me:]
>The "level of customer satisfaction" and
>quality aren't necessairly dependent on one another, which is my
>point.

No.  I think they are for schools to a large degree, though.


>|>I didn't say they did.  I'm just trying to get an idea of from where
>|>the market incentive to improve really comes.
>
>|Businesses of any type that are subject to a free market
>|must compete for customers.  They do this either by innovation,
>|pricing, or service.
>
>|The bottom line.  It works.
>
>...except for supermarkets.  Why not?  One possible reason is
>that--for all intents and purposes--the supermarkets in the inner
>cities have a captive market.  The citizens can't leave because it is
>economically prohibitive.

It does not work as well, possibly, due to the captive market effect.
(So this may not in fact be a totally free market.)  Now consider the
sort of markets they had in the ex-Soviet Union.  *That* is what I
call working poorly, and I would analogize the current monopoly school
system more to that than to the current inner city supermarket
problem.  Northeast D.C. is still far better than Moscow as far as
supermarket selection, price, and quality.


>|>MIT--as private school--is much the same way, once you have tenure.
>
>|As is their right.  Maybe schools under the voucher system will resort
>|to tenure as a job incentive, to make up for low pay.  But they will
>|not HAVE to.  That, in a nutshell, is what choice is about.
>
>So?  If the end result is going to be the same, then why go thru the
>trouble (and cost) of changing systems?

I didn't say the end result would be the same.  *Some* schools might
use tenure.  *Some* might not.  Each would be free to use it or not,
as befitted their individual circumstances.  You cannot legislate that
from Washington.  You probably can't legislate that from any level.

In general, you cannot legislate choice.  You can merely legislate
roadblocks for those that would deny freedom, and let freedom take
care of itself.


>|>You do have a choice.  Go build your own private school.  
>
>|And where do I get the capital or students?
>
>As to where you get the students, I'll provide the stock Lib answer:
>"if there are no customers, then the business (by definition) doesn't
>deserve to survive.  Such is the Free Market(tm)."

Only under the Free Market(tm).  The point here is fundamental: the
education market IS NOT FREE!!  Governmental interference in this
"market" is so large that it cannot even really be called a market.

There are plenty of people to attend my school -- but they cannot pay
for it; the government will only help them go to its schools.


>|And what if the state forbids this sort of activity?
>
>The state doesn't... or else there wouldn't be private schools, now
>would there?

The state certainly does forbid my withholding taxes that I am not
using in its schools to pay for my private schooling.


>Let me ask you:  hypothetically, what would you say if we kept the
>system as is, but managed to vastly improve education anyway?  Would
>you still push for the vouchers or would you not really care?  

I would sure care less.  I would still believe that even more
improvement could be made with vouchers, however.


>What if one could demonstrably show that vouchers lead to a weaker
>system?

Then I would come out against them.  Good luck with the demo.


>I'm asking this because I'm curious about the real motivations here
>(someone in emailed asked about the motivation for an opposition to
>choice).

Satan pays me to argue here... what do you think?  I believe in it.

You don't sound opposed to choice to me, merely sceptical about the
marvelous benefits it is supposed to produce.


>|I think that combined
>|political pressure of business and military leaders (from the right)
>|and grassroots activists representing the poor and lower middle
>|classes (the left) would be pretty much unbeatable in congress.
>
>I must ask the obvious question:  given your belief in all the above,
>why do you think that this public pressure isn't brought to bear *now*
>an improve the schools, vouchers or not?  Or would you argue that our
>current fascination with the subject is exactly that?

Yes, partly.  Right now there is TREMENDOUS pressure on, usually I
think at the state level, to do things to improve the schools.  It is
just that most of what they are trying doesn't work.

Just as one can vote for Lower Taxes, More Spending, and a Lower
Deficit, so can one vote for Improved Schools.  Voting for something
does not make it happen, or even possible.  The state monopoly
approach to production cannot succeed in such a diverse and dynamic
market, because the state can never be flexible and responsive to
everyone; it can only determine average responses and fixed
implementations.  It is rather like imagining the ex-East German
government trying to supply its citizens with scores of different car
models, each of high quality.  I'm sure there was tremendous impetus
for change there, too.

The reason vouchers are still not on the legislative agenda everywhere
is simple: there are no powerful interests behind them, indeed, behind
the whole approach of freedom and choice.  The bureaucracy, if it
thinks of solving problems at all, thinks of bureaucratic solutions.
Vouchers run fundamentally against the nature of the system.


>So, then, you think that a choice system will result is a bifurcation
>like we have now, but with the absolute improvement being positive?

Of course.  No utopia can come from vouchers; we must be satisfied
with mere improvement.  I do believe, however, that there would be
measurable and positive change for everyone.  It is not a zero sum
game.

-Leonard