Education is important. That’s why the government shouldn’t play teacher.

By Bonnie Kristian at 9:29AM

Aug 26, 2010

Here's en excerpt from a post I recently wrote on my own blog:

Q. What do you make of the Rawlsian idea of “effective freedom”? If I break my leg and am lying in the gutter with no resources to help myself how am I free? If the state is to tax, shouldn’t health and education be the primary services it owes its citizens as a result of the imposition? Protection of property rights might be the sole concern of the ‘night watchman’ state, but, you know, respect for property rights is free, and I would say an excellent side effect of good education. — ninefruits, from tumblr.

A. I’ve read Rawls, though it’s been a while and his ideas are hardly fresh in my mind. At any rate, I’ll go question by question:

What do you make of the Rawlsian idea of “effective freedom”? If I break my leg and am lying in the gutter with no resources to help myself how am I free?

How are you not free? No person is restraining you, and that’s what it is the responsibility of government to stop. (Of course, if someone or their property has broken your leg and put you in the gutter, that is quite a different story. But I’m assuming you just tripped over a…wild bird or something which could not possibly be a human crime.) Basically, this confuses positive rights with freedom, and they are two very different things.

Note: As a Christian, I would certainly feel a responsibility to help you if I found you in the gutter — as I suspect the vast majority of people would, Christian or otherwise. So I’m not advocating not helping such a person (far from it), I’m just saying government isn’t the best man for the job.

Second note: Hypotheticals are fun, but it’s also important to consider things realistically. For instance, if all gun control laws were struck down tomorrow, would every single person be running around with a machine gun, creating armed mayhem? Would teenage girls settle their spats with pistols and children shoot their way through playtime? No, of course not. Most people’s gun ownership status would not change; teenage girls would still have no interest in guns; and children would still have parents and/or lack of money preventing them from getting a firearm. Similarly, we don’t have a big problem of injured people lying in gutters with everyone refusing to help them. Flawed though our charitable system is, you would hardly be left there to freely suffer. And instituting a libertarian government wouldn’t change that — if anything, more charities would spring up to fill the void government programs had left.

If the state is to tax, shouldn’t health and education be the primary services it owes its citizens as a result of the imposition?

Why health and education? Aren’t those just the services you rather like? Why not…aggressive war and military bases in 170 countries around the globe to keep Amurrca safe from the terrrists? Some other people might prefer those primary services.

In fact, the primary services of the state are those (courts, police, defensive military, constitutionally limited legislature…that’s about it) which preserve freedom by guarding our persons and property against aggression, foreign or domestic. If the state is to tax, these should be the result of the imposition and nothing else. Anything beyond this is outside the just role of the state and inherently going to be catering to one group’s preferences at the (literal) expense of everyone else. How would that be free?

Protection of property rights might be the sole concern of the ‘night watchman’ state, but, you know, respect for property rights is free, and I would say an excellent side effect of good education.

Indeed it is. But does the state provide good education? No. No, it does not. Especially not the federal government. We all know this — most public schools suck (and that’s a link to an article from NYC’s 1990 public school teacher of the year). The state of our education system seems to be perpetually declining. So yes, I do think education is important for a free society. That’s exactly why I don’t want the government to continue its “educating.”

And, for the record, I went to four private schools, a highly-ranked public school, and homeschooled twice. I learned less in the public school than I did in both the worst of the private schools and the homeschooling year in which I managed to do next to no school work. The admitted logical problems with use of anecdotal evidence aside, I don’t think my experience was atypical, especially given the supposed quality of the government school.

Posted in:

Blog Policy

Excellent responses, Bonnie!

Indeed, government should be kept out of as many facets within our society as possible, ESPECIALLY where government is not authorized, per the U.S. Constitution. If there is one truth to government, it is that anything done through government can be expected to be done as inefficiently as possible. Specifically, the education system is possibly the LAST place we want the Federal government meddling in. The road to serfdom is paved with the knowledge ALLOWED to the people by those with power...

Submitted by Adam from TX (not verified) on August 26, 2010.

Regarding government and education, I'm not in total agreement here.

I can't speak about anything other than public education because that's all I had through high school. Of the 5 schools I attended, 4 were pretty good. One stank. And I don't think the quality was determined by public/private status. What I do think served me most were the interest and abilities of my teachers, the attitudes of fellow students, the home/culture I grew up in, and my own interests.

I think the problems of our educational system are not so much the system itself as American pop culture that has come to expect opportunity and a wealthy economy, wallows in mutual disrespect, and values ignorance over education. No system, public or private, will have much power over immediate, contemporary culture or the homes of students.

I think it is good for governments to both require education and to set a floor on the quality. I don't see how making it optional or a purely local issue would add any quality. What is not good is the number games that administrators and politicians play to fake performance. But that's more of a quality control philosophy than a public/private problem. Private businesses can lie as good as public ones.

It's easy to blame the system for student performance. Funding and teacher quality can be real problems. But the average parent is going to be less capable than the average professional educator. And both public and private schools hire their teachers from the same places. Local control over curriculum is unnecessary. Physics doesn't change from state to state.

If there's a gap in performance statistics from private to public schools, I'd bet that the most significant factors are cultural and economic. Kids whose families can afford and are sufficiently concerned to provide private schooling are generally in a better position than those who aren't.

Submitted by BBQ Brains on August 26, 2010.

I concur, to a certain degree, on a number of your points. My fiancee is a 2nd grade teacher, and I hear about all the horror stories of parents not taking any interest in their child's education. THAT, maybe more than anything else, is the crux behind a majority of the issues facing the education system.

However, we must recognize that the Federal government has no place within the education of our youth, whereas the people, via their State and local governments, have the right to make the system as they see fit. In the end, the education system is better off with the latter, because those who actually care will move to where there are like minded individuals. The more the Federal government gets involved, the less options families are presented, in relation to, the education of their young, or anything else for that matter.

Submitted by Adam from TX (not verified) on August 26, 2010.

"However, we must recognize that the Federal government has no place within the education of our youth, whereas the people, via their State and local governments, have the right to make the system as they see fit."

I don't really see a meaningful difference between State and Federal control except to the degree that local politics trumps the needs of kids. For example in Texas, the recent conservative curriculum adjustments seem motivated more by cultural and political prejudices than academic shortcomings of the kids. In some ways the more curriculum is distanced from local prejudices and whims, the more objective it becomes.

"In the end, the education system is better off with the latter, because those who actually care will move to where there are like minded individuals."

Like white flight to the suburbs? Isn't it a matter of economic class as well? And if it were completely privatized, would the poor receive an education?

"The more the Federal government gets involved, the less options families are presented, in relation to, the education of their young, or anything else for that matter."

As long as private schooling is allowed, there will be as many options as people wish to provide and can be afforded. The poor are those who really don't have options, and the government provides them an option they couldn't otherwise afford. But I do think there could be more creative ways for the government to encourage competition.

Submitted by BBQ Brains on August 26, 2010.

"I don't really see a meaningful difference between State and Federal control except to the degree that local politics trumps the needs of kids."

Government, that governs closest to the people, will govern best. The difference between State and Federal control is exactly what drove the creation of individual states, as opposed to just one conglomerat of a nation. If I don't like the education system here in Texas, I can move to Tennessee, and still enjoy the same protections from the Federal government. When the Federal government gets involved, I don't have that option, whilst remaining an American. Think of it as competition between the States; competition for your tax dollar. Texas will want a better education system than Tennessee, to attract businesses and families, which in turn, equals more tax revenue. Forget the idea that politics won't play a role in the education system, because it will. The difference between State and Federal politics is simply answered by this question: Which body politic, State or Federal, do you think is more accountable to the people? If you're thinking Federal, you may want to think again.

"Like white flight to the suburbs? Isn't it a matter of economic class as well? And if it were completely privatized, would the poor receive an education?"

Again, the idea behind the individual states was to afford people the option to live with like minded individuals, whilst maintaining certain protections from the Federal government. I'm not advocating for privatized, over public education. Personally, I had a public education, and I durned owt alrite. =) My point is that the States, vis-à-vis, the people, should have the ability to make their education system as they see fit. If the people of a certain State or local community want to only offer private education, then that's their right. Those who do not agree can suck it up, protest (vote), or vote with their feet.

"As long as private schooling is allowed, there will be as many options as people wish to provide and can be afforded. The poor are those who really don't have options, and the government provides them an option they couldn't otherwise afford. But I do think there could be more creative ways for the government to encourage competition."

When the federal government gets involved into anything, competition tends to go away, thus limiting our options. If the poor are worried about their options then they need to find a way to make more money, thus creating more options, or vote with their feet. State governments, just as the Federal, want our tax dollars; they'll find ways to appease the lower income bracket to keep them around, if their interested in more money...which they all are.

Lastly, and possibly more importantly, when the Federal government becomes the financier and/or the arbiter of our education system, they, simultaneously, assume the control over WHAT is taught. No bueno, my friend. Closed societies are created that way. For reference...see North Korea.

Submitted by Adam from TX (not verified) on August 27, 2010.

"Think of it as competition between the States; competition for your tax dollar."

That's a game for the rich. Priority number one is feeding your children. Further down the list comes finding a school with good stats, and all states will have a mix. People don't usually hop states for schools, so this competition is mostly for the corporate tax dollar.

"If the poor are worried about their options then they need to find a way to make more money, thus creating more options, or vote with their feet."

IOW, the solution for the poor is to stop being poor. Sounds like a winner of a plan that completely ignores reality. :/

"..Federal government becomes the financier and/or the arbiter of our education system, they, simultaneously, assume the control over WHAT is taught. No bueno, my friend. Closed societies are created that way. For reference...see North Korea."

Or Texas. The smaller the society, the easier it is to close it. That is why some home schooling can be downright scary. At the national level, one region's prejudices must be sold to everyone. That's how objectivity increases.

I don't think it should be all Federal control. It should be mixed. But a good role that the Federal government can play is to set basic quality standards. If locals wish to surpass it, good for them.

Submitted by BBQ Brains on August 27, 2010.

"That's a game for the rich. Priority number one is feeding your children. Further down the list comes finding a school with good stats, and all states will have a mix. People don't usually hop states for schools, so this competition is mostly for the corporate tax dollar."

Au contraire! A State's education system, specifically, its reputation, is what attracts many businesses into their communities, generating a growth in the local populous, thus increasing the individual and business tax revenue.

"IOW, the solution for the poor is to stop being poor. Sounds like a winner of a plan that completely ignores reality. :/"

And that reality would be?

The ability for one to afford education is not a Federal concern. If a State or local community wants to make it a public issue, they have that right. If Texans want to pay for the education of Texans, who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it, fine. If you have a problem with that, vote with your feet. My point is: Why should a Texan pay for the education of someone living in Tennessee? Let Tennessee take care of Tennesseans, and Texas take care of Texans. Such was the original intent behind the idea of having individual States. =/

"Or Texas. The smaller the society, the easier it is to close it."

When you don't agree with the way a State handles business, you have options; when you don't agree with the way the Federal government handles business, you don't, if you still wish to remain an American.

"At the national level, one region's prejudices must be sold to everyone. That's how objectivity increases."

That's also how Fascist states are created.

The States were to be the laboratories of democracy, and objectivity -- not the Federal government. Again, what recourse does one have when he or she does not agree with the Federal government, whilst remaining an American?

Submitted by Adam from TX (not verified) on August 27, 2010.

"Au contraire! A State's education system, specifically, its reputation, is what attracts many businesses into their communities, generating a growth in the local populous, thus increasing the individual and business tax revenue."

That's pretty much what I said.

"And that reality would be?"

That there are reasons for poverty beyond a person's unwillingness to be something other. Poverty is systemic, a vicious cycle, and 'stickier' when education isn't provided. The more that has to be paid to play, the fewer who'll play that make little pay.

"Let Tennessee take care of Tennesseans, and Texas take care of Texans. Such was the original intent behind the idea of having individual States."

Why should a Dallasite pay for the education of a Houstonian? In this discussion your principle of locality conveniently and consistently stops at the state level.

"That's also how Fascist states are created."

The slope is always slippery wherever you stand.

Submitted by BBQ Brains on August 27, 2010.

"That's pretty much what I said."

Ok. Well my point, which I may not have expressed clearly, is that States use their education system to attract both prospective residents and businesses, thus increasing their tax revenue. If a State's education system is bad enough, people will go elsewhere, considering where they have education on their priority list (hopefully somewhere near the top).

"That there are reasons for poverty beyond a person's unwillingness to be something other. Poverty is systemic, a vicious cycle, and 'stickier' when education isn't provided. The more that has to be paid to play, the fewer who'll play that make little pay."

The advancement of an individual's wealth, whether it be through education or some other means, is not the role of government, at least at the Federal level -- that's Socialism. Though, while I typically find myself to be in the minority with this line of thought, I recognize the right of the individual States to make a person's wealth a public concern, because as we know, what powers are not granted to the Federal government are left to the States. So, in theory, a State government can adopt as many social welfare programs that it wants (i.e. free education), so long as their State Constitution does not prohibit them from doing so.

In short, poverty was never meant to be the concern of our Federal government. So the argument that the Federal government has some role in curtailing poverty, through education, falls flat.

"Why should a Dallasite pay for the education of a Houstonian? In this discussion your principle of locality conveniently and consistently stops at the state level."

That principle is by design. The powers not delegated to the Federal government by the U. S. Constitution, are reserved for the people, or if you prefer, the STATES. =)

The people of an individual State have the right to breakdown how they pay for education any way they want. If someone doesn't agree with it, again, they can protest or vote with their feet.

Submitted by Adam from TX (not verified) on August 27, 2010.

"If a State's education system is bad enough, people will go elsewhere, considering where they have education on their priority list (hopefully somewhere near the top)."

My point was that I don't think people really do that. They follow jobs. I've personally never known anyone to move to another state for schools below the university level. But I have known people to 'flee' to local suburbs where the affluent gather and build better school systems away from the challenges facing urban populations.

"The advancement of an individual's wealth, whether it be through education or some other means, is not the role of government, at least at the Federal level..."

So you are against socialism except at the State level?

I think educational standards are about more than advancing the wealth of an individual or even a class of individuals. And it's not about equality in wealth. It's about promoting strong state and national economies and an informed citizenry that is theoretically in charge of this country. Policies that encourage ignorance, economic weakness, wasted human resources, and decreased social mobility are not good for the states or the country.

"In short, poverty was never meant to be the concern of our Federal government. So the argument that the Federal government has some role in curtailing poverty, through education, falls flat."

The concern of the Federal government is the general welfare of the country.

"That principle is by design. The powers not delegated to the Federal government by the U. S. Constitution, are reserved for the people, or if you prefer, the STATES. =)"
+
"Government, that governs closest to the people, will govern best."

= Contradiction? City government is far more local than State.

Submitted by BBQ Brains on August 27, 2010.

"My point was that I don't think people really do that. They follow jobs. I've personally never known anyone to move to another state for schools below the university level. But I have known people to 'flee' to local suburbs where the affluent gather and build better school systems away from the challenges facing urban populations."

Whether people actually move elsewhere for better education opportunities is irrelevent. The important thing is they have that option.

"So you are against socialism except at the State level?"

Absolutely not. I don't believe Socialism has a place in our society, at any level of government. BUT I do recognize a State government's right to adopt socialistic programs, such as "free" public education for a certain income bracket.

"The concern of the Federal government is the general welfare of the country."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment

Where, within the Constitution, is the Federal government explicity given the power to meddle in the edcuation systems of the individual States?

"Contradiction? City government is far more local than State."

No. There's no contradiction. Are the States not closer to the people than the Federal government? Would city governments govern some things better than the States? Sure. That's left for the people to decide. =)

Submitted by Adam from TX (not verified) on August 27, 2010.

You'll excuse the grammatical errors. It's late. I'm hungry. I'm tired. And I don't care. =)

Submitted by Adam from TX (not verified) on August 27, 2010.

"Whether people actually move elsewhere for better education opportunities is irrelevent. The important thing is they have that option."

An option never used might as well not exist. It has no impact on competition or the economy.

“Where, within the Constitution, is the Federal government explicity given the power to meddle in the edcuation systems of the individual States?”

"Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

There’s a lot of wiggle room in the Constitution for taxation, spending, and legislation. So take the position that floats your boat.

“Would city governments govern some things better than the States? Sure. That's left for the people to decide. =)”

It sounds like at times you are OK with power sharing between local and distant government. Maybe we should agree that ‘closer is sometimes better.’

Submitted by BBQ Brains on August 28, 2010.

"An option never used might as well not exist. It has no impact on competition or the economy."

Hm. The same logic could be used to say that, because no one practices free speech, we don't need it.

Like a true free market, with respect to the economy, the same theory could be used toward competing education systems that, the greater the competition, in the end, the greater return for the consumer, or in this case, the student, because whether you choose to acknowledge this or not, quality of education does factor into where a family decides to reside.

"There’s a lot of wiggle room in the Constitution for taxation, spending, and legislation. So take the position that floats your boat."

Go ask an 80-90 year old German about giving their government some "wiggle" room. Closed societies are not built overnight (in most cases).

My perspective is that of the Founders. That which is not EXPLICITLY expressed within the U.S. Constitution, was to be left to the people. For more on that perspective, I'll direct you to Federalist Papers #41. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

"It sounds like at times you are OK with power sharing between local and distant government. Maybe we should agree that ‘closer is sometimes better.’"

What I am OK with is that the individual States, vis-à-vis, the people, have the right to decide what's best for themselves.

Submitted by Adam from TX (not verified) on August 28, 2010.

"Hm. The same logic could be used to say that, because no one practices free speech, we don't need it."

Exactly. But free speech is used daily by lots and lots of folk. So we're talking apples and oranges, aren't we?

"...quality of education does factor into where a family decides to reside."

I never said it didn't. What I said is that it is low in the list of factors. Up top are jobs and family location. Most cities typically have good schools and bad ones to choose from.

"My perspective is that of the Founders."

The founders were a mixed bag of views, some of which I flatly reject. And they wrote the section I quoted you. I'd guess they meant something by it, but you can ignore it if you wish.

Submitted by BBQ Brains on August 28, 2010.

"Exactly. But free speech is used daily by lots and lots of folk. So we're talking apples and oranges, aren't we?"

Perhaps. Though, we should be careful when we suggest that because a certain right, that is afforded to the States, same as an individual, is not being used, we can simply ignore it. The States have the right to make their education system as they see fit, without Federal coercion; there's no legal way around that. Concurrently, the people have a right to move elsewhere because they prefer one State's education system over another. I wouldn't sooner limit that option than I would the option, or right, to speak your mind.

"I never said it didn't. What I said is that it is low in the list of factors. Up top are jobs and family location."

Whose list? Yours? Mine? My point is, why not let people who value education more than others, live with like-minded individuals? Why should I be subjected to your views of education? Additionally, why should my tax dollars go to another State where education isn't exactly a priority, or rather, a high priority? Let's let the people who want better schools for their State or city pay for it by taxing themselves, instead of placing the burden on others.

"Most cities typically have good schools and bad ones to choose from."

Again, let's let the people of a certain State or city worry about their own schools. When the Federal government gets involved, typically, standards go down (consider the "No Child Left Behind" debacle).

"The founders were a mixed bag of views, some of which I flatly reject. And they wrote the section I quoted you. I'd guess they meant something by it, but you can ignore it if you wish."

Ok. Then think Thomas Jefferson, not Hamilton or those of his ilk, whenever I reference the Founders. In order to understand the words, you must research the intent. The Federal government was never -- even by some Federalist -- intended to be the benevolent provider of the people. Again...reference Federalist Papers #41.

I'll leave the conversation here, because at this point, we're just nit-picking at each other's position, and honestly, I've lost my train of thought on the whole conversation. I appreciate your diligence in keeping the conversation broken up into points, and I have enjoyed the exchange. =)

To that end, I'll leave this quote for you to consider, and I respectfully give you the "last word":

"Whatever arrangements are made to ensure equality, they can be made only at the price of withdrawing some degree of liberty … One would like to think there is some middle way between liberty and equality, and sometimes there is, but just as often the two are in irresolvable conflict; presented with a clear fork in the road -- equality this way, liberty that -- no society can take both simultaneously." - J. Epstein

Submitted by Adam from TX (not verified) on August 29, 2010.

Great post. I particularly like the first point on positive rights and what "freedom" really means. I dealt with that a lot in my graduate thesis.

Here's a related quote from Isaiah Berlin (If you haven't read "Two Concepts of Liberty," it's an interesting read):

Everything is what it is: liberty is liberty, not equality or fairness or justice or culture, or human happiness or a quiet conscience. If the liberty of myself or my class or nation depends on the misery of a number of other human beings, the system which promotes this is unjust and immoral. But if I curtail or lose my freedom in order to lessen the shame of such inequality, and do not thereby materially increase the individual liberty of others, an absolute loss of liberty occurs.

Submitted by Adam Fowler on August 27, 2010.

Submitted by cute quotes (not verified) on October 31, 2011.

I have to say that the information here was the most complete that I found anywhere. I am definitely bookmarking this to come back and read later.

marilyn monroe quotes

Submitted by miraz (not verified) on November 3, 2011.

I have to say that the information here was the most complete that I found anywhere. I am definitely bookmarking this to come back and read later.

quotes about liars

Submitted by miraz (not verified) on November 3, 2011.

I think that it would be really interesting to create such discussion with other this website visitors. Anyway thanks a lot one more time for the great and informative publication

Submitted by facebook statuses (not verified) on November 4, 2011.

I think that it would be really interesting to create such discussion with other this website visitors. Anyway thanks a lot one more time for the great and informative publication

Submitted by confidence quotes (not verified) on November 5, 2011.

What an amazing content is this and surely it makes realize each and everyone who read this. Please keep providing so fantastic and sweet suggestions ….I really appreciate it.Great things you’ve always shared with us.

Submitted by change quotes (not verified) on November 6, 2011.

I was searching the code which is used professionally. Then I saw your blog. I want to congratulate you on such a wonderful blog.

Submitted by Lil Wayne Quotes (not verified) on November 15, 2011.

Its amazing, looking at the time and effort you put into your blog and detailed information you provide. I'll bookmark your blog and visit it weekly for your new posts

Submitted by marilyn monroe quotes (not verified) on November 16, 2011.

<!--[if gte mso 10]>

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

<![endif]-->The article that you have been shared is very awesome. This is a very nice compilation, possibly the best on the web. Hope to see more useful information from this site...

Submitted by coco chanel quotes (not verified) on November 21, 2011.

The thoughts are very well laid out and it was refreshing to read. I was able to find the information that I was looking for. I just wanted to leave a comment as a token of appreciation. Thanks for sharing this on the Net.

Submitted by valentines day quotes (not verified) on January 6, 2012.

facebook status

Submitted by facebook status (not verified) on January 7, 2012.