From: peercy@dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: In a libertarian society there would be...
Date: 22 Jul 1992 14:13:45 -0500
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu

marotenb@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Mark Rotenberg) writes:

| peercy@dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:

| >The libertarian society, by providing an environment in which one
| >is predictably rewarded in proportion to one's contribution to the
| >society, would _encourage_ him not to drop out.  One would think
| >that the prospect of a future better than burger flipping would be
| >adequate incentive, no?

| In the present society students have this same opportunity, yet the dropout
| rate is astounding.  The difference in a Libertarian society would be that
| the same student would be thousands of dollars in debt (due to the lack of a
| public school system), and banks would not be lending him more.  He
| wouldn't even be offered the option of staying in school if he wanted to
| because nobody could offer him the money.

| The prospect of a better future for the student makes no difference in the
| mind of the banker who ends up determining that student's future.  He's much
| more likely to be flipping burgers or unemployed for the rest of his life in
| a Libertarian Society than in a system with school choice.

| Understand that my problem with Libertarians seeking to eliminate public
| schools is not the liberal ("what about the poor kids?") argument.  It's
| that the quality of the workforce would plummet, and the chasm between the
| average well-educated citizen and the average not-so-well-educated individual
| would widen.  As the engine of society, the middle class would not thrive
| as it has in America.  That frightens me, and should frighten anyone who owns
| part or all of any business (unless it's manual labor 8^) ).

I don't buy this "private education will cause less education to be sold
and hurt the economy" argument at all.  This carries with it the implicit
assumption that public financing of education materializes out of thin air.
If school taxes are eliminated, that is many more bucks in the pockets of
each and every person.  Also, since property taxes hit a huge segment of
the population, there's a huge segment of the population that suddenly has
the money to pay for private education.

I think the only fair (not necessarily valid, but fair) argument for public
financing of education is the poor who can't afford it.  The great mass of
the middle class will not find their finances hurt by switching from public
to private schooling, and the economy will not suffer.

| I completely support school choice, as do some Libertarians.  I brought this
| topic to a "Newcomers' Bull Session" with the local Libertarian party (1
| person showed up) and the man I spoke to said that Libertarians are against
| school choice.  Why?  Because it requires the "initiation of force or fraud"
| to fund it -- not because society would be better off without it.  Bad
| justification.

It is true that "society would be better off" is not valid reasoning to
most libertarians (including myself).  However, being so dogmatic that
one fails to see the steps along the way to a free society is counter-
productive--_especially_ at a "Newcomers" meeting.

| >In fact, I would maintain that it is the government which does the
| >most to discourage long term planning, both through a system of laws
| >which makes long-range planning difficult and through actual incentives
| >for short-range planning.

| In most cases I would agree.  But true Libertarians don't balance the good
| and evil of each plan.  They work on pure principle, which is foolish, IMO.

Who possibly _can_ balance the good and evil of each plan?  You cite high
dropout rates.  I'd like to see a correlation between dropout rates of
students and government support of the students' guardians.  I imagine
it is very high.  If I'm right, this is a long-term effect that was not
dreamed of when the natural order of society (receive nothing unless it
is given you freely) was messed with for "good intentions."

| >That said, in a free society there will still be a significant
| >number of persons whose planning is not long-range enough by the
| >standards of the society.  Nonetheless, it is not government's
| >place to act against the value judgments of those persons.

| As far as education goes, the decisions will ultimately be up to banks, not
| to students and parents.  That's ideal for many sectors of our economy, but
| it's a tragedy if applied to education.  And that's why a fully Libertarian
| society disturbs me.

Assumption 1:  Business and industry would sorely miss an educated workforce.

Assumption 2:  An educated workforce would work for business and industry.

Assumption 3:  (unfounded, in my opinion) Not "enough" people will be able
    to afford educations, and banks will not finance them.

Solution:  Business and industry cooperatives financing education.

Mike Peercy
peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,rec.arts.books