This is an article by Thomas Sowell about lack of discipline in schools. I’d like to know what do you think about it. Do you agree with him?
Lift restrictions on school violence.
Some people might argue that this would only escalate bullying because it would remove any disincentive for the strong to prey on the weak.
But clearly what would actually happen is one of two things:
- weaker students, free from the threat of detention, would band together to fight the bullies themselves, or,
- weaker students would pay some of the bullies to switch sides to provide them protection (like mini-private defense agencies).
I guess you could worry that even if the weaker students banded together they may still not represent a great enough threat to stop bullies from stealing their lunch money. Or maybe you could argue that a bully could never be incentivised to ever switch sides and protect the nerds (after all, if he stayed with the bullies, the opposing force would be weaker and the potential gains would be greater–i.e. ALL of the nerd’s lunch money and not just a fraction). Or worse you could cry about the poor kids that might not be able to afford protection (assuming it can even be offered).
But honestly!!! come on!!! If you assume an infinite number of students and an equal distribution of fighting ability and allow for competition in defense provision then ALL those problems drop away. So why even worry about it?
ANARCHY FOREVER!
If anarchists suggested we should pay criminals to switch sides to provide us protection, your comment might actually be relevant.
If non-criminals banding together didn’t represent a great enough threat to deter criminals, neither anarchy nor statism would be effective in fighting crime.
No. The problem is not the students themselves but the environment of the school. There are several fundamental problems with public school that exacerbate the bullying:
-
From a podcast by Stefan Molyneux: The public school system is funded by bullying tax payers. So the level theft and hypocracy is very high. Most students pick this up and feel that they can bully other students to get by. Add in an educational bureaucracy accountable to no-one, the product of tax funding, and you have all the productivity and the quality learning environment of a prison. Stefan points out that if you look at a public school you will realize that it is somewhat suprising that the amount of bullying is as low as it is and it is going down.
-
The public school system can not remove students and in fact the government uses bullying to force all students to attend. It forces the good ones who could be productive in their middle teenage years to be bored instead of working(Bob Dylan wrote “Blowing in the Wind” at the age of 17). It then forces the ones who do not need later educations to do the same when they could be working in trades. It then mixes these folks with those who want to be there and then tops it all off by adding the worst kids and you have a Lord of the Flies issue.
-
Punishment does not solve social problems. Freedom does. That would be to un-public the public schools and releive the tax payers the burden of funding this mess. Then you would have a true market process in the education business where students who wanted to be left behind would be. Students who wanted to go forward would be able to do so. And those inbetween would get their educations without all the bullying.
Student and I are in agreeance. Bogart brings up a number of good points as well.
The biggest problem I had with bullying was not the bullying itself. The problem I had is when I defended myself, I’d get in trouble. I didn’t really have friends when I was little and people tried to bully me all the time, but I wasn’t exactly passive. So, I spent a lot of time in the Principal’s office… for defending myself! The excuse they give is that I should have went to a teacher, but anyone who has tried that knows that:
-
That makes bullying worse.
-
Teachers do nothing.
Stop treating our kids like eggs. Learning how to defend yourself in a school setting builds character.
But clearly what would actually happen is one of two things:
- weaker students, free from the threat of detention, would band together to fight the bullies themselves, or,
- weaker students would pay some of the bullies to switch sides to provide them protection (like mini-private defense agencies).
Please tell me this is parody.
I think it is a myth that bullying is the physically strong praying on the physically weak. Those who are bullied are rarely in a position where they couldn’t defend themselves. The problem is that they aren’t allowed to. John Taylor Gatto describes this nicely, government schools are psychopathic police states that have indiscriminate policies against “hitting”. It’s a nice utopian ideal, but in the real world sometimes there has to be a fight. Schools in effect protect the bullies. It’s like gun contol, if the good guys aren’t allowed to defend themselves the bad guys have a field day.
Those who are bullied are rarely in a position where they couldn’t defend themselves. The problem is that they aren’t allowed to.
This is nonsense. People tried to bully me on occasion in school, but I was the type to swing a punch or two and show em who was boss. I never once got in trouble for this as teachers generally know who the trouble makers are and give allowance for those that fight back.
On the other hand, there were those who did end up getting bullied, and the reason was their psychological make-up. Some people are too broken, insecure and vulnerable to defend themselves even if they have the physical strength. Bullying is intrinsically psychological, it cannot be analysed through some market-anarchy obsessed prism.
Then you had some reasonable educators, good for you. Most people aren’t that lucky. Anecdotal evidence aside, it would be hard for you to deny that schools have rules against physical violence while being more lenient about bullying. You’d essentially have to make the case that kids are not fighting bullies exclusively because they are too insecure, and not because there are rules against it. But even if it was all about kids being too “insecure”, that does not really contradict my story. Where did that insecurity come from? It is enough if kids bought into the police state mentality and don’t stand up for themselves for that reason. I always said that culture is more important than actual laws that prohibit action. Besides, your theory does not explain why bullying is a growing problem. Insecure kids would existed two generations ago, but bullying seems to be a newer problem.
I wish I went to a school where one or 2 kids bullying you was a problem and all you had to do was “stand up for yourself” to make them go away. Maybe not the case for all city public highschools, but for mine if you happened to win a fight against someone who wanted to take your wallet(and even the sneakers you have on), be sure he’s going to come back with 15 people or a knife. Educational staff policies didn’t really matter, how was anyone going to get caught? Security guards were routinely socked in the face.
If students weren’t forced to attend, no one would have to deal with the nutjobs that only spread gang activity in school.
Those who are bullied are rarely in a position where they couldn’t defend themselves. The problem is that they aren’t allowed to.
Emperor Nero has it right.
As the situation currently stands the “nerds” have NOTHING to gain from fighting back except detention (except maybe their lunch money if they win…and the respect of his peers…and possibly a reduction in future bullying attacks as winning a fight might incentivize other bullies to find easier marks).
Teaching children to regulate the violent behavior of others through reciprocal violence is part of growing up. A man has to learn to take it! You have to believe that if the going gets rough that you have to hang tough to make it.
History repeats itself. Try and you succeed!
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that punishment within the public school system is akin to handing out popularity points
Well, that’s actual brute force physical violence, I realize there’s a need to for administrators to do something about that. That’s just… crime. Stealing wallets and beatings are illegal no matter where you are. (But I agree that the problem is caused by mandatory schooling.) Bullying is just picking on people without actual violence. That’s why those who stand up for themselves are the ones who get in trouble, because they step past the threshold of physical assault.
Hmm, well I suppose that’s just been my own experience growing up then- reading about bullying problems on the news or seeing it portrayed on TV seem so foreign to me.
Anecdotal evidence aside, it would be hard for you to deny that schools have rules against physical violence while being more lenient about bullying.
But bullying involves violence. Or at least it does in my experience (although not to the extent of violence that actionguy describes from his schooldays - thank goodness)
You’d essentially have to make the case that kids are not fighting bullies exclusively because they are too insecure, and not because there are rules against it.
That’s exactly what I am arguing. I’m not sure what evidence I can provide you other than my own understanding of human behaviour based on my experience. Can you prove that it is otherwise? After all, it is you who is forwarding the theory that bullying is merely a result of the system of rules that a school implements.
Where did that insecurity come from? It is enough if kids bought into the police state mentality and don’t stand up for themselves for that reason.
There are countless places insecurity can come from - overbearing parents, underinvolved parents, genetic predisposition, past experiences and misfortunes etc etc. There is also the impact that social convention can have on a persons acceptance into peer groups - slight differences in appearance or manner can have drastic results in regards to whether or not a person is ‘accepted’ by others.
An individuals responses to life events/circumstances are not uniform across all people - different individuals react differently to the same external stimuli, so arguing that it all results from ‘police state mentality’ is simplistic.
I always said that culture is more important than actual laws that prohibit action.
I agree.
Besides, your theory does not explain why bullying is a growing problem. Insecure kids would existed two generations ago, but bullying seems to be a newer problem.
Do you have any evidence for this?
BTW, I agree with auctionguy that if school wasn’t compulsory then the bullying issue wouldn’t be as bad because people would just go elsewhere. Still, even in workplaces bullying can continue, and those who are bullied in childhood often continue to get bullied as they get older (although the outward expression of that bullying becomes more subtle).
I don’t think there’s any panacea for bullying, it’s part of human nature. But, as was the case in my school, having a few anti-bullies willing to stand up for the little guy really helps. My school never developed a bully problem in our classes because those of us known as the toughest kids in the school wouldn’t stand for it.
Where there was no solution, there was no problem.
Since you can’t change schools or the nature children, neither is a problem.
when you lock criminals and ordinary kids in the same room… what do you expect to happen? I hate how even many anarchists avoid noticing and mentioning this elephant in the room - public schooling and forced education is the problem, not “bullying” per se. Abolish all public schools. School is a prison, so you would rationally expect there to be violence. To solve this problem one should make kids free to go somewhere else or not to go to school at all and choose homeschooling.