What is the libertarian stance on education?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2025
- Welcome to Ask a Libertarian with Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch. They are the authors of the new book The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America.
Go to declaration2011... to purchase, read reviews, find event dates, and more.
On June 15, 2011 Gillespie and Welch used short, rapid-fire videos to answer dozens of reader questions submitted via email, Twitter, Facebook, and Reason.com. In this episode, they answer the question:
"How can libertarianism work without educated masses?"
For the complete series, go to reason.com/arch... and Reason.tv's UA-cam Channel at youtubecom/reasontv
Produced by Meredith Bragg, Jim Epstein, Josh Swain, with help from Katie Hooks, Kyle Blaine and Jack Gillespie.
I'm a Libertarian, but education is one area where I tend to lean left because I am not informed enough as opposed to being misinformed. I'm all for privatization, and free capitalist market, but how would, for the sake of argument, how would a single parent with low income and two children who want education, who lives in a poor neighborhood, be able to afford sending them to a good school under a libertarian system? Finland's system is tax-funded, and they're #1.
yeah, I don't understand it either...
DFDFJ DDD try telling that to the diehards who believe all taxation is theft because vouchers are still fueled by property tax
As with all worst-case scenarios you have to ask "as opposed to what?" How are low-income children from single-parent households doing with the current system? Having free-market entrepreneurs competing to give such children the best future possible is exactly what we need at this moment.
@@DanVantastic ok, but what if those low income households can’t afford to send them to private schools? I mean is better to have some education than have no education at all.
There should be a balance of BOTH systems. Socialist or communist (however u want to call it) and capitalism. U chose what school u want to pay for but there should be a guarantee that ur kid absolutely still gets an education.
My parents refuse to pay education since I was little and my grown years because of my disability. I surf through the net to be a housekeeper.
The real point is that government schooling does NOT promote education. It hinders it.
Finland is a small country about the size of Florida. It is much easier for a small country to have a one-size-fits-all system. Our country is too populated and to diverse for that. I am new to studying libertarianism but I believe if the parent didn't have to pay a property tax for public education, then the parent would be able to find a reasonably priced school for their child, and I am sure the quality would be just as good if not better than a federally funded school.
On that last statement, why won't you send your kids to private school?
Oh, and one other key difference: we don't indulge the childish fantasies of our most deluded citizens and include bullshit like intelligence design in our science curriculum.
A libertarians view on state run education is to first not be educated by the state. After that, there is no need to explain it or anything else anymore because you will know.
Edit: Sorry for writing basically an essay of a comment. I was really interested in the mindset of this political party but they lost me in their education ideology. If the population doesn't have access to education then the whole nation falls apart. Most of us are forced to go to school and look at how the population has turned out (they act uneducated is what I mean). Just imagine how most will act if they cannot afford to go to school and learn the basics like reading and writing. Still, this party does have some good ideas it's just that one of the most important parts about building a nation is education and this idea of leaving it all to the parents doesn't make sense in the long run. I would love to hear other ideas or pov's about this topic!
I do believe that there should be a balance of BOTH systems. Socialist or communist (however u want to call it) and capitalism.
Competition IS GOOD. It gives the consumer more choices that benefit and fit them the best based on ideology or price. For instance, parents can chose what school they want. However, leaving everyone to fend for themselves is not going to help future generations.
Our country is HUGE compared to other smaller and more homogeneous countries that do better than us. The US has too many religions, races, ethnicities, and ideologies. One particular social system will not fit all.
That said, people who are poor (which is MOST of the population) would not be able to afford the freedom this party is talking about. Freedom believe it or not is not free. You can be free to choose but u still have to pay for the choice u want. Be it the type of school, the type of health insurance, the type of college u want to attend, the type of house u can afford, etc. Nothing will actually be free you still have to pay.
In the end this means that poor people (again, the majority of the population) will not be able to afford education and so they will not earn enough money to pay for their choices. Poor people will not be able to afford a home, they won't be able to afford going to the hospital, they won't be able to feed a family or send kids to school.
Basically there will be unending classicism. The poor will stay poor and the rich will stay rich.
However, if we have competition AND allow everyone to gain access to benefits that will guarantee them actual freedom then it would all workout. Which means a capitalist mentality in our society(supporting competition so people chose what they think is best for them) with a somewhat communist/socialist system (everyone has to have access to education, healthy insurance, and basic necessities) will allow our country to prosper.
This is easier said than done but I do think that libertarians have good ideas. The main point is to let people do what they want without violating anyone else's rights which is a really good ideology. The part to figure out is how to give everyone a fair chance to choose.
Why is it wrong to force someone to pay for education but not for police, courts, etc.?
Yes, food is a necessity, so should we socialize the industry?
It's all about gradually changing the public's mind set. Vouchers first, to introduce competition and give control to the parents. That will cause prices to drop as competitive practices increase quality and decrease price. THEN and ONLY THEN can we even have a discussion about lowering property taxes and such.
You should seperate the conservative mindset, which is more "I don't want to pay for other people, it's not fair" from the libertarian mindset, which is more "It's morally wrong for a group of people to force others to pay for things that they want". Conservatives tend to look at it on a pragmatic basis and Libertarians tend to think of it on a moral basis
@reapfreak Whoever said only the government can educate? The people who spend outrageous amounts of money on SSAT, interview, and essay preparation (in addition to the actual private school tuition itself) surely don't believe that! School in many districts are actually just training, and not every school has Latin or even Business Law electives. I largely blame John Dewey for education's decline and whim-based education.
It's the state that is the one granting most of these businesses special privileges. For example, efforts supported by Dick Cheney legalized pollution on other people's land, and since the state has a monopoly on arbitration, there was nothing the victims could do about it. It's the government that pollutes more than any private entity, anyway.
@Rhunidian
A. I think you're confused by what crime is. A crime is an infraction of law, regardless of whether you think the law is valid or not. You don't have drug laws in Canada? Drug legalization is another subject.
Also, please also show me evidence that prison sentences for equivalent crimes is more severe in the US.
B. As a whole European nations are about equal to you guys in spending, on average. (Norway spends more, UK spends less.) Yes, Africa spends less.
@eagleeye1975 - Right with ya, Jared :-)
I personally would like to see a performance-based opt-out of high school. If a 14 year old gets more than a certain score on the SATs, they should be able to opt-out of high school completely. A large majority of the money would follow them, while some stays with the high school, and a percentage is held for a grant fund. As the percentage opting out grows, grants should be given to those districts who have high opt-outs and college scholarship rates.
but what of they cheat through the test or just study to pass that one test alone?
Just like people get tutors for the SATs they can get one for this as well. It's an interesting idea tho
If you want to buy a new TV, that's your choice. I'm not going to go into your house with guns and take your TV -- that would be immoral, even if I gave it to charity. There are billions of starving people in the world, and if you took the money that you would spend on a TV and gave it to those kids in Africa, it would save many lives. However, that is your conscious decision. I cannot violently force you to do that. The same should apply for government.
"Checks and balances" is achieved through the free market, not a massive monopoly on force, aggressing upon the masses. I don't know what is so magical about having a monopoly on coercion, but it does not add any sort of value -- in fact, it is detrimental to the economy. If McDonald's came to your house every month, collecting a monthly fee you are forced to pay in order to get "free" McDonald's, you would probably be pissed, and rightfully so. Yet, this is exactly what the state does.
You have to step back and look at government objectively for a second. Remember, libertarians are all for voluntary cooperation. In fact, there is TONS of cooperation within the free market. However, we are against the initiation of force -- aggressing upon people into this so-called "cooperation." Suppose I want to take the money that I would pay for roads and give it to a charity in Africa. I rather see kids' lives be saved than to see a pothole be fixed. (Continued next post)
@Rhunidian
"White Collar" is just a term like "assault" and "larceny" is a term.
Crimes committed by people in companies.
@liknital07 Why not simply send the bully to therapy or have him talk to a school therapist? Would freshman hazing count as "bullying"? Some traditions need to be kept intact.
@TrueLibertine The answer to that question was that there have been no improvements in results and that the current results are agreed by most to be sub-par.
@Rhunidian
So then we should have very low white collar crime, right? If education produced ethical people we should have very little embezzlement and fraud.
Oh but wait, ever heard of Enron? How about WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia, Arthur Andersen, or Bernie Madoff.
The US spends more of its GDP on education than Canada (17.% vs 12.7%) and accounts for 28 percent of the global education budget but just 4 percent of the world’s children.
But we have 2 MILLION in prison.
Explain that please.
Vouchers are the way forward. K-12 education should be a public good that is provided by private sources. Colleges and universities should not be publicly funded, endowments should be enough. Public funding inspires waste and raises tuition costs.
In a capitalistic society, the gap of poverty is narrowed drastically. Libertarians are not anti-charity. I think most of us would encourage voluntary contribution for children, etc.
Put it this way: what happens if I refuse to fund your government providing system?
What about for *everyone,* just like with socialized healthcare?
I'm pointing out your position. If you don't want to accept it, that fine -- you can live in denial if you choose to do so. You want the government to incarcerate people who don't pay taxes to fund the programs that you propose -- that is merely your ideology from what you have said to me. I did not use the word "tyranny" or "hate" to describe your ideology, but if that what stems from the way I properly rephrased it, maybe you should reconsider your thinking.
You point out imperfections in the market and assume that the state is a magical remedy to the problem.
The state has to be massive to exist. It must institute a monopoly on force.
We need a separation of school and state, for the same reason we have a separation of church and state. Privatize all schools, give them to parent-run boards. As a transition, give a full-ride scholarship (voucher) to all poor kids. Later, this program can be taken over by private tuition grants and scholarships. Allow competition.
@TrueLibertine
They did answer.
School choice. Charter schools, home schooling, competition.
@EuchridEucrow1 Japan, South Korea, and Canada (as well as Western Europe) all benefit from America's larger defense budget. (China and India take in more revenue than the rest of these countries because they practice a lot more free market principles then the "well educated west"). We can spend a lot more of our revenue on education, but most of the educated world will have to spend more on their defense as a result.
@Rhunidian
Hold on.
Haven't we got more access to education now than at any previous time in history?
Isn't spending on education is at an all time high?
Ok, try this:
Pick a random topic. Let's say SCUBA diving.
I know *nothing* about it, not even what 'SCUBA' means.
Now I can do nothing but look online and go to the library and I can become an expert on that subject if I put my mind to it.
Education imparts information, not a work ethic or discipline or self-control.
Stop switching sides!?!?!? Its making me go crazy. Matt stay on the the right (stage)!
If Nick objects to public education so much then why the hell does he allow his two kids to be enrolled in it?
Just because his kids are in the system doesn't mean he supports it. He would prefer to have a robust private system, but that just isn't in place in the US.
@@reygalaxee6128 for me thats contradictory like a communist using an iphone and enjoying all the luxuries from capitalism.
@mmnootzenpoof It wouldn't allow the coercive sort of union that makes up most of todays unions. Coercive unions force new employees to join and coerce their employer with government granted priveledges like forced settlements as well as the government allowing them to surround their employer's land with picketers who don't let scabs or customers through.
A voluntary union would have the right to organize with consenting employees, quit suddenly en-masse and picket in an unobstructive way.
@mmnootzenpoof part 2
It would still be up to the employer whether or not to just fire people for organizing, but if they formed a voluntary union and the employer still fired them he/she would probably look like an ass.
@Rhunidian
The world is unfair.
Also, some people do not want to be educated.
@ILoveTrannys89 - You haven't looked very hard.
I am yet to find a non-white male libertarian... I wonder why.
ILoveTrannys89 you don't have a large enough sample size