Autodidact: The Unnecessary Leper

Economics Political Theory
101

So you don’t like to admit the statist nature of public education and the people who work for that system ? Fine. You can deny reality as much as you want. But it’s still there. As for the libertarian minority working within that system, I wish them good luck, but I don’t think it’s a good a idea to preach freedom and at the same time work for the state…it’s like…contradictory ?

You’re talking about competition as if there were a free market in place, but public education is not a free market. More funding can lead to teachers being paid more, for instance. It can lead to more teachers, who would be just as statist.

How do you know wich one is wich ? And besides, demand is not the right word, because public education is ‘free’ and coercively funded at the same time (of course). I demand a million dolars house…except that I can’t pay for it. What kind of demand is that ?

I don’t see how that follows.

102

Well, to start with, if I take my libertarianism to a certain conclusion, but then see that all the people I learned about libertarianism from disagree, it at least leads me to doubt my conclusion. So, if Murray Rothbard, Roderick Long, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Walter Block, and others work at state schoools, I think there must be a case to be made that it is not contradictory. Is it a contradiction to work in the private market and yet drive on roads to get to work? What is private and what is public? Is Harvard private? I’d say no - that the state has effectively monopolized education. So asking an academic to not work for the state is asking him not to work - yet we all agree that the key to libertarian success is teaching people about the message, something that can be effectively done while teaching.

The statist nature of public education is not at dispute. The issue is whether there can be good public education. To say that is not to support public education - in fact, increased quality and quantity is not an argument for state intervention given that we live in a world of scarcity, and so that value is coming from elsewhere - and that elsewhere is where people demanded it.

Public education, of course, is not a free market. Yet Mises himself spoke about how to evaluate demand in an unfree market. State funding of education increases the supply, and by lowering prices does cause more people to be customers - but it does not invalidate the universal laws of economics. Public education, by the way, is generally not free, just lower in price. You can’t demand a million dollar house, unless you redefine demand. You can demand a house, but your quantity demanded at a price of 1 million is 0.

Now, you correctly point out that no one chooses to expend resources to obtain propaganda. Yet people do expend resources, at the very least time, to get education in philosophy. So how can philosophy education be propaganda without there being a contradiction?

103

So, because some people do something wich is contradictory, it means is not contradictory ? Great argument. Wait. I’d call that a fallacy.

How many university teachers are there in the US ? 100,000 ? More ? And you found that a hundred of them are libertarians (who work for the state…) ? And you still claim that public education is not a propaganda machine for the state ?

Okay. So you are a ‘libertarian’ who thinks that an statist system like public education can provide good education. Now I get it.

I said public education is ‘free’ - it was a sarcasm. The point is that the price of public education is totally distorted, just like the price of any ‘service’ provided by politicians.

It is you who are redefining demand, by analyzing a coercive system, public education, as if it was a free market.

Right. So your premises are wrong, or there’s a non sequitur, or both. I suggest you try to find your mistake by yourself. It’s called self-education. (And it’s way better than public education.)

104

No, the claim is not that if some people do something which is contradictory, it is not contradictory. The point is that I do not have such confidence in the infallibility of my reasoning that it bothers me not in the least if thinkers who started me down the path I am following have radically different conclusions. By your reasoning, it follows that Rothbard was not a libertarian.

Libertarianism is not a religion, it is a political philosophy. As such, it doesn’t have a concept of sins. Once again, do you ride buses? Have you ever called 911? Wait, if I’m a sinner for having worked at a state school, is Ron Paul the ultimate statist for having worked in the government? Are all doctors sinners if they receive medicare payments?

There are certain areas of the economy which the state has monopolized. That is a fact. We believe that the state shouldn’t do that. We will fight to get the state out of it. From none of this does it follow that we have to leave that sector of the economy untouched. It is not the fault of libertarians that the state has seized a monopoly, and there is no contradiction in riding on a bus while advocating for the elimination of the bus service. After all, the libertarian claim is not that there should be no buses, but rather that the market should provide buses. We are not anti-bus, and we didn’t create the situation where the government owned the buses. There are reams of literature on this question, which has been looked at by Rothbard, Block, Long, and others.

Yes, statist systems can accomplish things. Can they accomplish things in a beter way than the market can? Only by producing harm in other areas of the economy. If the state raised taxes to 100% and destroyed every other sector of the economy, it could build a train system with a better on-time record than the market is likely to provide. That’s because people would rather pay less than 100% of their income and accept worse train performance. Fact still remains that that particular overfunded government program would provide a better service than the market would - because such a high quality service is not desirable or profitable.

Yes, the price of public education is distorted. I said that in my first post on this topic. Once again - the public service produces more philosophers than the market desires. The philosophers it produces are real philosophers - and increased numbers of programs and of graduates produces higher quality philosophers. None of this implies in the least that public education is desirable, good, or morally justifiable. Those unemployed very good philosophers could have been well-paid engineers if the government hadn’t distorted the market for education. No one is analyzing public education as if it existed on the free market. We are analyzing it as something existing in a distorted market. Economic laws do not cease to apply because government is involved in a sector. Austrian economics shows that the laws of economics are universal and apply in all situations. The analysis is not complete simply because you hiss “state involvement” and it does nothing for your argument to pretend that it is.

If you argue against state education on the basis that it can never, under any circumstances, produce a good product, you will succeed in giving people an excuse to ignore you.

105

JAlan, I agree with you about hypocrisy. It’s about cost and risks. If you oppose the state 100%, the only way you can be of NO benefit to them or they to you is to kill yourself. Now, if you dont kill yourself you can have a net negative effect upon the state, but there’ll be somethings in there that benefit the state. You’re wanting to try and produce a net negative on Statism if you’re truly anarchic or wish to reduce State power. So, if you see other States arraying forces against you, you might decide the cost is too great to yourself to not use the State at that point in time. Avoiding highways would be too great a cost for most. But while you partake in these immoral obtained good and services, you try to overcompensate by weakening the State. It’s probably a net negative for the State to have Dr. Long teaching in the Universities. It’s really hard to quantify at what point someone is selling their soul to the ‘devil’. I know most of you guys aren’t religious, but this is how I tend to see man’s being born into sin. It’s like you can’t help but commit some sin, simply because of situations beyond you’re control.

Would Long be more effective educating himself and teaching to the free market? Or is he more effective teaching those w/ strong Statist biases? I tend to think there is way too much compromise going on, however. And as far as the State producing higher quality Philosophers than the market would, I think that’d require you to define quality as it relates to philosophy. What are the characteristics of a good philosopher and what has the State produced?

106

I’m not sure that it’s true that Long is teaching those with a strong statist bias - do you remember how your mind worked right out of high school? The average college student is generally not a strong anything. Yes, they’re conditioned towards statism, but on average they’re also pretty open. A lot of freshmen are looking for ideas and pretty undecided - and excellent people to try to teach about liberty. I think it’s great that Dr. Long is teaching philosophy students at Auburn to think outside the box and to challenge the state.

I’d say the good philosopher question can be taken care of operationally. It simply is not the case that the state is saying “we’ll pay for philosophy education, but you have to teach them to love the state.” It’s much more subtle and, well, incompetent than that. Philosophy students are still being taught the skills of the philosopher, particularly critical thinking. State subsidies increase the number, so the competition, so the quality. Again, this is not a good thing. We’d be better off with less philosophers and more of - whatever the market would produce.

107

Unfortunately, many college students think liberty means universal healthcare. Many have it assbackwards. Also, I think you grossly overestimate the typical student.

I’m not neccessarily referring to top students in top schools. I’m talking about your average guy. I know MANY college grads that are as dumb as a doorbell. There’s a guy at my ex-wife’s job that has a degree and she has to do all his writing for him! He writes like the average 5th grader and he’s a supervising probation officer! I run circles around him and I’m a high school dropout. If you’re running a dept of the justice system and I’M running circles around you…WE’RE IN DEEP DOODOO! And I paid for this waste!

We’re in agreement for the most part, but I think you’re reserving your judgement for college students in the top 1%.

I know a teacher at a historically black college and she said it takes the typical student 2-3 yrs to get to a highschool level. It’s a BIG school! She basically has to pass masses of people just to keep the school in business. It’s a freaking joke. And I’ll see ads about this prestigious school, with this powerful music rumbling away. lol

108

Excuse me, Where did I say that ? I think that it’s not a good idea for libertarians to teach at public universities. If they do it, it’s of course their affair. But you are trying to argue that since there are a handful of libertarians in public universities, then public education is not that bad. Of course, I do not agree.

I could argue that indeed is a religion, but what’s the point ?

Did I talk about sins ?

Again, what I do, or Long does, or you do, has nothing to do with valid or invalid reasoning. Public transportation stinks and I do ride buses. What follows from that ?

What you’re saying does sound self-serving. Ýou are part of public education so you want to believe it’s not that bad. I think it is. No, I don’t like Mr. Paul. Yes, he’s an statist, that should be obvious.

If the state raised taxes to 100% we would all be dead. Your ‘thought experiment’ is meaningless.

You can’t talk about quality if there’s no market to assess that quality. This is the core of the the argument, wich you either don’t get, or are ignoring.

Oh my. No it does not. What is a ‘good’ philosopher ?

That’s right. Public education can never acomplish anything good. If you don’t understand why, then in my opinion you don’t understand the political philosophy known as libertarianism. Feel free to ignore me.

109

Bleh, I wrote a long reply which got truncated for some reason. History, I wasn’t trying to define knowledge as such, only how individuals valuate knowledge.

I don’t see any basis for this statement. Consider,

  1. It is possible, though likely through chance, for government to force investment which ends up being more valuable than what people would have invested in on their own.
  2. If the government’s investment doesn’t produce more value than the market’s would have, it may still produce some value were it able to be priced on the open market. e.g., its possible for a government service to net a profit, even if its extremely unlikely that this profit would be as high as the one produced by voluntary means.
    A good example of the above may be DARPANET.
110

I think the deciding factor in determining, case-by-case, whether formal teaching is effective for the subject, and/or self-directed education is moreso, is nothing more than the passion of the individual for learning.

An applied and passionate student will soak up and flourish in whatever room he stands in, wouldn’t you agree?

Aside from this one passion, you have no real way to convince one over the other that “their” way of teaching is superior. I don’t believe the question even matters, so long as the result is a truly, deeply learning individual that will turn that knowledge to the betterment of mankind. The state of the knowledge is the real answer to efficiency of the instruction in the topic. Who is able to contribute to the state of the knowledge?

Can an “uneducated” man, now having instant access to the collective knowledge and experience of all of humankind, be educated by it?

Why not?

Does your style produce passionate students? Now that is the question each side should ask themselves–and the answer would strengthen (or weaken) the argument. I believe the fact that self-directed students may have more passion- but there are certainly passionate learners in formal education.

Focus and advocate the results, not the method.