ninefruits asked: "I’m not interested in the government “investing” or “getting returns.”
Well, you are. Even a night watchman state is investing in something, it is investing in the protection of property rights and preventing of oppression. I am claiming that this investment would be much greater without public education. While your points about the greater quality of private education over public education may be true, they completely ignore the question of access. Private schooling isn't cheap (I know, I went to one), do you believe your faith in charity will extend to those who cannot afford private schooling?
With your Bastiat quote you seem to believe that public schooling is a form of coercion. That is fine, yet I would float that idea that with paleolibertarianism's adherence to social norms that this is a form of societal coercion. Do you believe that paleolibertarianism condones the tyranny of the majority?
“I’m not interested in the government “investing” or “getting returns.”
Well, you are. Even a night watchman state is investing in something, it is investing in the protection of property rights and preventing of oppression.
This may be a matter of semantics, though I don’t think so. The state isn’t investing in anything in the nightwatchman scenario; the citizens are investing in the protection of their own property. They ultimately control the state, which is the investee (Is that even a word? Firefox doesn’t think so XD), not the investor.
I am claiming that this investment would be much greater without public education.
Here we may simply have to agree to disagree. Education is important, as I’ve said, but government schools are not the best option we have.
While your points about the greater quality of private education over public education may be true, they completely ignore the question of access. Private schooling isn’t cheap (I know, I went to one), do you believe your faith in charity will extend to those who cannot afford private schooling?
Yes, I do. Not only do I think charities would step up to the plate, but I think that you’re wrong about private education necessarily costing more. Though there are certainly exorbitantly expensive private institutions, private schools — particularly religious ones — typically spend far less per student to produce better results. In the town where I went to high school, the spending was something like $17,000/student/year at the public school and about $4,500/year at the private, religious school. Again, that’s only anecdotal evidence, but there’s plenty of research to show that is a nationwide trend (see those links for just two examples).
Moreover, private schools are growing by leaps and bounds among the poorest of the poor globally — people whose poverty is unthinkable by American standards:
The accepted wisdom is that private schools serve the privileged; everyone else, especially the poor, requires public school. The poor, so this logic goes, need government assistance if they are to get a good education, which helps explain why, in the United States, many school choice enthusiasts believe that the only way the poor can get the education they deserve is through vouchers or charter schools, proxies for those better private or independent schools, paid for with public funds.
But if we reflect on these beliefs in a foreign context and observe low-income families in underprivileged and developing countries, we find these assumptions lacking: the poor have found remarkably innovative ways of helping themselves, educationally, and in some of the most destitute places on Earth have managed to nurture a large and growing industry of private schools for themselves.
So clearly private education can be done cheaply and effectively for people of all kinds of economic capabilities. In short, accessibility is not a problem. (I’d also note that there’s always the homeschooling option, which is nearly free.)
With your Bastiat quote you seem to believe that public schooling is a form of coercion. That is fine, yet I would float that idea that with paleolibertarianism’s adherence to social norms that this is a form of societal coercion.
First, as I’ve noted, I wouldn’t call myself a paleolibertarian. But nonetheless, paleolibertarianism is still libertarianism: While its adherents live conservative, traditional lifestyles, they don’t seek to impose them on others unless by friendly, noncoercive persuasion.
As for “societal coercion,” well…if by that you mean widespread ideas about right and wrong which may lead people to act certain ways, that’s going to happen regardless of paleolibertarianism. It’s also a misnomer to call it coercion — public opinion never really coerced anyone. So I don’t view that as coercion and I don’t see a problem with it. It’s an inherent factor of human society which would be found even in an anarchist system.
Do you believe that paleolibertarianism condones the tyranny of the majority?
No. Libertarianism is, in fact, quite firmly against that and decidedly for protecting the rights of the minority. It’s not actually too friendly to democracy for this exact reason.
But, as I noted above, I would not consider the social norms you’re discussing (presuming they’re not government-enforced if they don’t pertain to crimes) to be tyranny of the majority.
