The Public Goods of Tatum O'Neal
I recently finished reading A Paper Life, the autobiography of the movie star Tatum O’Neal. I know, in a time of the ever-growing Leviathan, such a diversion is pure Hollywood puffery. However, tidbits of insight can be found in such a book, as seemingly inconsequential stories shed light on the fallacies of government.
As is well known, Tatum was born into a Hollywood family, destined to be a star. Though she received an Academy Award, money, and fame, she faced many personal hardships. While these hardships make her life interesting and worth retelling, they are not the reason for this article. Instead, I want to focus on one minor aspect of her life: Tatum is a high school dropout.
A high school dropout?!? Indeed, although that revelation is only significant in its insignificance. Let’s see why.
Education is defined as a public good. There is the technical definition of a public good – a good that is nonexcludable, nonrivalrous, subject to free riders, and, hence, only produced through government action – as well as the popular definition – any good where the benefits accrue to the arbitrary aggregation called society. Since the Austrian school has shown that no good can satisfy the former definition, we will set it aside. For the rest of this article, we will focus on the latter definition, as this is the one continually hammered into the minds of public school students and repeated ad nauseam by government agents, the mainstream media, and most economists.
The collectivists love to produce studies that purport to show that government programs are an investment. State-sponsored studies always show that coerced tax dollars invested in public education produce a positive return for society, as well as for the collectivists’ partner-in-crime: government. Raise your taxes today in order to fund failing public schools and the net result will be an improved economy and reduced government expenditures over the long haul. Or, at least that is the storyline.
The inverse is also assumed true. Reductions in taxation, while leading to reduced current government expenditures, greatly increases long-term societal costs, viz., reduced productivity, more crime, etc. In addition, whenever a child drops out of school before the state-mandated years of schooling, he or she becomes a drag on both the economy and society. So, based on this logical syllogism, Tatum O’Neal is now a cost that society must bear.
But, I’ve checked my accounts and have found nothing wanting. And, as evidenced by my willingness to exchange my scarce time for her story, Tatum has added to my life. In my world, she is a benefit and not a cost.
However, that is not the way the collectivists think. They assume that anyone who lives outside their ideals is a burden, and they have the equations, models, and studies to prove it. Though, based on my actions, they are wrong. And, based on my beliefs, they are evil.
My children are educated at home, learning that creationism is truth. Uh, oh, I can almost hear hairs bristling as many collectivists read that statement.[1] They will claim that my children’s understanding of the world will lead to the fall of science and civilization. My instruction is a loss to society, so government must step in. However, I’m not denying gravity or molecular structures; I am only teaching a strongly held belief of mine in an area of science that will always be subject to debate.[2]
However, I am instructing my children on the a priori truths of praxeology. They are learning that government cannot arrange society and direct its path in any manner that does not lead to socialism and slavery. They are learning that praxeology is nonrefutable; it is truth. This, I assume, is even more offensive to the collectivists than creationism. So be it.
The natural sciences are never to be taken as truth since future knowledge can quickly overturn current paradigms.[3] That is understood but never accepted by many collectivists.[4] It’s not enough to mandate years of education, the collectivists also want to mandate the outcome – they desire to indoctrinate. And, they do not care about the institution of family, as family gets in the way of the new order and the new socialist man.
Sure, at some level, most education is indoctrination. Even the a priori truths can be manipulated by those pursuing an agenda of state control – manipulated but never refuted. Because of education as indoctrination, it is the role of the parent to choose the education they desire for their children, regardless of whether it is my children’s homeschooling or Tatum’s no-schooling.
A centralized system of education always leads to an homogenized understanding of the world. With no one able to challenge the status quo, no advancement in science or understanding can occur. That is a true statement – always. If the market place of ideas is substituted for the approved ideas of the governing class, only the ideas of the statists will become education. All other ideas will be declared, by governmental decree, subversive to the collective ends. Those ideas will be banned as treasonous.
The movement of public education is always in the direction of greater centralized control over ideas and outcomes. Since public education is government education, it has to follow the same trajectory as government itself. That has to be so. Therefore, based on the majority’s desire for more interventions, beneficial debate and exchanges of ideas will be banned and the state will assume authority over the mind. This state of affairs is certainly not good for the public, nor is it a public good.
So, believing that society is worse off due to the paths chosen by Tatum and me is to believe that society has a right to intervene, with government its agent of action.
The next time someone places a government program on the balance, claiming that today’s expenditures will yield returns in the future, rebuke them. Rebuke them for robbing you at both ends of the candle. The collectivists desire to steal your tax dollars today in order to make certain that no more autobiographies such as A Paper Life are written tomorrow.
That Tatum is a dropout, only earning a GED later in life, is no debit to my account. That my children are learning creationism at home is no debit to anyone else’s account – excluding, of course, the collectivists who desire full compliance with their ends. Tatum and I are simply two individuals acting in our own best interests. As long as we agree that Liberty and Property are to be protected, with neither of us pursuing government control as our ends, our means are of little consequence. And, in fact, based on the division of labor, our means will support each other’s ends.
What a wonderful way to organize society.
Notes:
[1] Of course, not all collectivists are evolutionist, nor are all libertarians creationists. And, many evolutionists and creationist have looked to government as the means to squash the other side’s views. However, since the current government curriculum includes evolution, I am simply singling out the collectivists who stand with government on the forced instruction of this topic.
[2] Not that teaching gravity and molecules as fiction would change the logic and require government intervention.
[3] Other than the a priori sciences
[4] See [1] above.
Jim Fedako, a homeschooling father of five who lives in Lewis Center, OH, maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist. Send him mail. See his archive.
Comments (50)
I am in total agreement with this. It is often seen as hyperbole to say that the State will eventually ban views it regards as pernicious. Doesn't it already do this though? As for the high pedestal science is put on, Feyerabend is a good antidote, in spite of his somewhat odd conclusions. Too much of science is accepted as dogma, by supposedly 'freethinking liberals'. Science has produced much of value, to be sure, but to some it is a religion.
Published: November 24, 2007 9:27 AM
I don't really know who Tatum O'Neal is. I do know that government education and its importance to society is way overblown. I have always felt like child "stars" were often proof of the validity of alternative education, most of those kids did not go to public school and instead are tutored in between takes and are basically homeschooled, but with a tutor instead of a parent. The most surprising thing here is that she actually went to a high school she could drop out of. A more typical story is these kids are tutored and then about 16 or 17 take the GED. Then use their fame and wealth to buy their way into an Ivy League college, just so they can say they went to Harvard or wherever.
Published: November 24, 2007 11:55 AM
Published: November 24, 2007 12:51 PM
I've never considered the Popperian view healthy for science anyway. Little of science proceeds that why - if it did it is unlikely that it'd go anywhere. I think Kuhn has a more interesting view of science with his notion of paradigms and the like than Popper. Ask most people (familiar with the subject) and they'll trot out some Popperian view of science as if it were *the* Truth.
Published: November 24, 2007 1:07 PM
way*
Published: November 24, 2007 1:07 PM
I admit to not reading too deeply into it, but I never saw Popper as being incompatible with Kuhn. If two theories aren't indirectly comparable via some sort of testing (even idealized, since we can't practically test a great many things), then they don't seem to be rival theories at all.
But then I don't see any problem with many logically conflicting paradigms existing together. We pick what models work best for our situations. Classical physics and quantum mechanics are false in each other's back yards, but the falsification does not make them useless, only shows us the proper bounds of our models.
As to how things really work in science, I wouldn't know, as I'm not a scientist. However, I'd guess that like most everything else, it doesn't work the way philosophers think it should. Also, I think the fact that a great many things are not practically testable (e.g., economics) renders Popper's ideas less useful in many circumstances.
Published: November 24, 2007 2:26 PM
Well I don't agree with Kuhn entirely; when he says paradigms are incommensurable, there I stop. Similarly with Quine when he begins discussing his 'web of beliefs'. I agree with you on Popper. Unfortunately, most people seem to think if something doesn't accord with his ideas, it isn't science. :S
Published: November 24, 2007 5:35 PM
My children are educated at home, learning that creationism is truth. Uh, oh, I can almost hear hairs bristling as many collectivists read that statement.
Well, I am not a collectivist, and I find the last statement as besides the point. You may teach your children whatever you want, that should be your choice, but just because the State schools teach the theory of Natural Selection (which is what Darwin and Wallace outlined, and not evolution per se) does not mean ipso facto the theory must be liberal-statist propaganda.
Published: November 24, 2007 6:22 PM
Francisco,
I find it odd that you chose to drop the footnote flag when cutting and pasting the sentence into your post. In essence the passage reads:
My children are educated at home, learning that creationism is truth. Uh, oh, I can almost hear hairs bristling as many collectivists read that statement. Of course, not all collectivists are evolutionist, nor are all libertarians creationists. And, many evolutionists and creationist have looked to government as the means to squash the other side’s views. However, since the current government curriculum includes evolution, I am simply singling out the collectivists who stand with government on the forced instruction of this topic.
Hmmm...
Published: November 24, 2007 8:15 PM
I agree with everything except the false assertion about "an area of science that will always be subject to debate" - there is no actual debate, of course. But, as Francisco says, you can teach anything you want, as long as you're not forcing your views on anyone (including your kids).
Published: November 24, 2007 9:47 PM
Peter,
I really don't get the "including your kids."
Do you mean that I should say nothing? Should I say that Keynes and Mises are co-equals, just different means to the same end? Or, do I present both views without any personal insight and leave it that?
Or, maybe I tell them nothing and allow government and the media to shape their world view? That would be great. Instead of me, it's Uncle Al that fills my children's brains with global warming mush. I'll find myself planting carbon trees in my backyard in solemn Goreian ceremonies.
Or, I should send them to either public or private schools and not ask about the curriculum. Wouldn't want to include any bias on my part. Simply allow teachers to impart their world view.
Is the parent who decides the private school for their child indicted in your court of ethics? Seems we are back to public education without parental input.
Really, I see your response as the most inane comment that someone can make to a parent. What is education other than indoctrination? And, who decides?
Your line of thinking is aligned with the relativist, Progressive nonsense being taught in any number of subjects, especially the mush called social studies.
By the way, read Mises where he states education is indoctrination. And, that is why government has no business in it.
"There is, in fact, only one solution: the state, the government, the laws must not in any way concern themselves with schooling or education. Public funds must not be used for such purposes. The rearing and instruction of youth must be left entirely to parents and to private associations and institutions." – Ludwig von Mises
Let's cut to the chase: What you are really stating is that a parent can teach their child anything as long as it doesn't offend the sensibilities of you -- Peter.
That logic is the reason we left public education; a system that says you can be the parent as long as you (parent) allow us (school) to do as we please, anything else is simply a reflection of your inability to parent and, hence, the need for our intervention.
Think it through once more.
Published: November 24, 2007 11:01 PM
Another thing Mises was correct on.
Published: November 24, 2007 11:20 PM
A Scientific Prediction From Genesis
Besides myself, all others that try to tell us what Genesis says do not understand the text, and are speaking from ignorance. I’m sorry to have to take this position, but there are too many false teachers and unqualified people talking about “creation\evolution debates” (when no such contest exists), and proclaiming false doctrines about Genesis, such as Creation Science, theistic evolution, progressive creation, and “gap” theories. There is even the fad of “Intelligent Design”, which is a big waste of time, and has almost nothing of value to offer.
There are no “creation accounts” in Genesis. The opposing view of evolution is what I call “the Observations of Moses”, which were visions of six days from the past, given to Moses by God, on Mt. Sinai in 1598 BC. Each day was taken from a different day of the week, each week being the first week from a different geologic age of mankind.
Having said that, I am now making this declaration, so that mankind may know that the words and events written in Genesis are true, and the humanist theories of our origins are false. I predict that secular science shall soon find, if they have not already, solid evidence of prehistoric mankind, which is earlier than 30 million years in age. The book “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!”, states from Genesis that mankind has been in his present likeness for over 60 million years. Moses wrote about extinction and restoration.
Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808
Ephraim7@aol.com
Published: November 25, 2007 4:56 AM
Do you mean that I should say nothing? Should I say that Keynes and Mises are co-equals, just different means to the same end? Or, do I present both views without any personal insight and leave it that?
No, of course not. Teach them whatever and however you like. But I think it'd be nice if you'd avoid teaching them outright lies; i.e., that your opinion is anything other than your opinion. It's your opinion that creationism is true; that's perfectly fine. It's a fact that 2+2=4. Not in the same league. (And the creationist movement tells a lot of lies about evolution; pretending evidence doesn't exist where it does, pretending there are examples of "irreducible complexity" that scientists can't explain, when they have explained it, pretending there have been no advances in the understanding of evolutionary processes since Darwin, etc., etc.)
Published: November 25, 2007 8:22 AM
And I'm not insisting that you may not lie to your kids (like force should be used to prevent it). Just stating my opinion that it'd be better if you didn't.
Published: November 25, 2007 8:28 AM
Peter,
I suggest you read articles such as this from LewRockwell.com before you accuse only one side of lying.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi75.html
That said, must I always pepper my instruction with "in my opinion."
"Son, it's simply your dad's opinion that statistics and econometrics are often used inappropriately. But, again, that's just my opinion. OK, back to the lesson on push/pull inflation in the 70's."
Or ... "Son, it's only my opinion that eating apples is good for you. Keep in mind that there are studies and government reports which have proven that certain residual chemicals in apples can be bad for you -- dare I say Alar. Now, please set those potato chips aside and eat an apple, despite its likely health risks."
We could have the same discussions over any food item in our pantry or refrigerator. But, I must -- in your world anyway -- have those discussion so that I only state a priori truths as facts.
What I think is interesting is that you have made this an issue of religion. The article was simply about the fallacy of public goods -- with the concept of Liberty thrown in. Oh, and a little dig about the belief that the natural sciences are apodictic truth.
You spun it into a religious debate -- well, not actually a debate since you claim textbook evolution is absolute truth, with no room for disagreement.
I have to ask why someone should accept government-funded textbooks in this one area of the natural sciences but not in economics?
And, most importantly, do teachers have to temper instruction with "it's just my opinion" before giving lessons on matters of debate? Or, does the fact that the textbook backs them up provide teachers with a cover?
It sounds like I would be OK to send my children to a school that teaches what I believe, but I cannot teach the same myself -- without including the "in my opinion."
Really, why the assault on parents alone? Sounds like you absolve the collective but not acting parents.
Published: November 25, 2007 9:12 AM
Come on Jim Fedako. Can you seriously say that Creationism on par with evolution? That biology scientists don't do any research rather spend their time making up fanciful stories of how the natural order could have come about without God? For some reason 'creation scientists' primarily keep taking potshots at evolution with some notion that 'if we show that evolution can't fully explain the world then this automatically proves Creationism'. Similarly, which type of Creationism do you prefer 'God created everything billion of years as per science and God then guided evolution' or 'God created everything in the last 10,000 years and the Great Flood was a literal biological bottleneck event occurring some 4,400 years ago'?
On the other hand, if you like, it doesn't matter if people are Creationists or not. No employer would bother asking potential employees about their view of the origins of the universe. Nor does preferred views on origins make a person a better business operator or showbiz entertainer. Similarly, there still people who believe that everything object in the Universe rotates around the Earth and others believe that the Earth is actually flat (which I find incredibly hard to believe) yet these people still make a living. Still I wonder how some people who subscribe to Economic Darwinism can turn around and deny the existence of biological Darwinism?
Published: November 25, 2007 10:09 AM
TLWP,
I think that you and I will always agree on this: I can say and believe whatever I want. That is the beauty of liberalism and a free market in ideas.
We should become alarmed only when someone implies that our free market must be controlled; whether it's a seemingly minor regulation or government edict on educational outcomes.
I became alarmed with Peter when he implied a harm in my instruction of my children. Trust me, there are many, many folks who hear that and conclude that the state must educate the next generation.
Private schools and homeschooling are always under assault by the collectivist set. And, I am certain that you and I agree that there is no good in providing the collectivists additional ammo.
Let me turn your question around: Do you really believe that Nobel-winning economists do nothing other than obfuscate economic truths (other than Hayek, and possibly Buchanan of course)?
In addition, if I grant you your biology statement, then you must also grant Gore his due; he won a Nobel Prize you know -- sure the prize is under the heading of peace, but the committee must have believed his global-warming arguments to be truth.
It used to be that religion and politics were no-no's in social gatherings, with the weather being the only "safe" point of discussion. Yet, even that has changed ;-)
Take care.
Published: November 25, 2007 12:13 PM
I agree again with Jim on this. I am not a creationist myself (borderline irreligious in fact), but one thing I cannot stand is the narrow-mindedness and controlling impulses of statists to stomp out any idea they do not happen to like. They blame homeschooling parents of indoctrinating children, yet what exactly are public schools doing?
Published: November 25, 2007 12:18 PM
Don't confuse creationism with religion. Most (at least, Christian) religious people are not creationists. Religious authorities consider creationists an embarrassment, and outside of the US, creationists are considered about on par with flat-earthers.
Published: November 25, 2007 7:24 PM
Peter,
And, the vast majority of mainstream economists, politicians, etc., consider the Austrians to be anachronistic, yet here we -- you and I -- commune. Go figure.
By the way, you may want to verify your stats. Wikipedia and Gallup have much different figures than you.
wikipedia
Gallup
Published: November 25, 2007 7:41 PM
I didn't give any figures. Your links confirm that in Western countries other than the US creationism barely exists.
(I've just spent a little time googling: apparently young earth creationism is the official position of the Coptic/Oriental Orthodox church, so I was wrong: it's not universally opposed by the religious "leadership"...)
Published: November 25, 2007 8:53 PM
Peter,
We can continue to bash our heads in a debate over religion, creationism, evolution, etc., but such debates are not what this site is about.
Unanswered is whether I -- as parent -- can teach my children my beliefs (regardless of those beliefs), or does the collective decide what is allowed?
The issue is not whether my beliefs offend your sensibilities. But, whether you would defend my right to educate my children as I see fit.
(note: as Mises long ago noted, there is no magical third way, no middle ground or compromise. It's either acting man or the state.)
Which is it?
Published: November 25, 2007 9:50 PM
Depends what you mean by "defend" your right to teach them as you see fit. I've said you can teach them what you want; I wouldn't want anyone to use force to stop you. But if I meet your kids and they start talking creationism, I'm not going to hold back from trying to educate them, either - if you see that as an attack on your "right" to teach them how you want, tough.
Published: November 25, 2007 11:41 PM
. . . there is no magical third way, no middle ground or compromise . . .
Yep a lot of people here seem to love Sorites paradox.
Perhaps it's also interesting how the South Park creators consider themselves somewhat libertarian yet were rather unsupportive of homeschooling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooked_on_Monkey_Phonics
Published: November 26, 2007 12:06 AM
"And, most importantly, do teachers have to temper instruction with "it's just my opinion" before giving lessons on matters of debate? Or, does the fact that the textbook backs them up provide teachers with a cover?"
As a teacher who bailed many years ago because of social promotion (even in private schools), I feel that any teacher worth his/her salt should offer all positions of any particular topic, along with the pros and cons for each. This should be done while maintaining a poker face, and personal preferences need not be divulged.
Published: November 26, 2007 12:55 AM
Peter: "Most (at least, Christian) religious people are not creationists. Religious authorities consider creationists an embarrassment, and outside of the US, creationists are considered about on par with flat-earthers."
So what's your point? Are you saying that truth is determined by vote? As Jim pointed out, Austrian econ isn't well thought of either. Are you going to abondon it because most economists consider Austrianism a joke?
Published: November 26, 2007 8:02 AM
Jim,
Congratulations for the article.
It's cristal-clear application of the basic libertarian principles.
Public education here in Brazil - from pre-school to university - is as well under
full control of statist-minded bureaucrats and collectivist pseudo-intellectuals.
I'm not sure if the Brazilian law allows homeschooling; as I don't feel I've got enough capacity to do that, and have no money to hire a tutor for my 3 children, the best I could do is to send them to a good quality private school - even though the Leviathan steals from me more than enough in the name of education.
I use to check on a regular basis the "educational" material and textbooks for leftist rubbish, and unfortunately the official textbook, forcefully used also at the private schools, are full of junk - especially those related with the so-called "social sciences", history, geography et al.
Occasionally I call my 14-year old boy to talk about school matters and try to explain him some basic ideas, for instance, that there's no such thing as a "class struggle" as many silly texts would suggest, but actually a struggle between State and the individual; also on the essential importance of private property and the role of capital and enterpreneurship etc.
Also my 6-year old twins are not free from PC-rubbish - one of these days they came back home with a shade of concern in their small faces, and they spoke out that they would "fear that the world's water will run out", and even some confused ideas on the global warming hoax. In this case I felt I should wait a little before trying to argue anything against it, I've just got to figure out how to deal with these subjects in respect to the small kids.
Even with all the previously described negative points, the positive aspect of private school is to keep the kids a little more distant from the serious social issues commonly found in public schools - i.e., family desaggregation, drugs, violence of all sorts- and also to prepare them better for a future technical school and/ or career-oriented higher education.
Not to mention the PC-trash against religion, massively spread throughout the public school system, which tries to create in the young minds a "cognitive dissonance" between religion and science.
Keep up the good work, and many thanks for sharing these valuable thoughts.
The Force Be With LvMI!!!
RHU, Mech. Engineer, Rio de Janeiro
Published: November 26, 2007 8:22 AM
Although I support your right to home school your children and to exercise your freedom to religious beliefs, I whole heartedly disagree with your views on the importance of science (especially in light of the scientific method) and the benefits of a government-sponsored educational system.
Published: November 26, 2007 9:28 AM
"So what's your point? Are you saying that truth is determined by vote? As Jim pointed out, Austrian econ isn't well thought of either. Are you going to abondon it because most economists consider Austrianism a joke?"
Funny thing is that it is most petty economists who do so. The big names, like Friedman, Buchanan, Smith etc, although they have their disagreements with Austrians, nevertheless respect them. It's their little disciples who have no tolerance for Austrianism.
Published: November 26, 2007 9:37 AM
"However, I am instructing my children on the a priori truths of praxeology. They are learning that government cannot arrange society and direct its path in any manner that does not lead to socialism and slavery. They are learning that praxeology is nonrefutable; it is truth."
Ah! Excellent. Teaching the kids praxeology. Good on ya Mate and good article.
Published: November 26, 2007 1:18 PM
“Religious authorities consider creationists an embarrassment…”
If this is the case, then good! I consider most religious authorities to be an embarrassment. Perhaps most authorities in the economics profession consider Mises and Rothbard and the Austrians an embarrassment. Who gives a rat’s ass? What is important is the facts and the reasoning one uses to come to his conclusions - not keeping in line with what the authorities think.
Published: November 26, 2007 1:31 PM
Paul: "I consider most religious authorities to be an embarrassment."
So true! And who opposes creation science more than anyone? Public (government-controlled) schools! Who teaches it? Private religious schools, such as Baylor University, the Southern Baptist Notre Dame.
Published: November 26, 2007 5:26 PM
Wow, this thread really got side railed. I guess a lot of people have opinions on whether Jim should teach his kids creationism, but very few have opinions about the mainstream view that dropping out of high school is like a life sentence to poverty and eternal dependence on the state.
Published: November 26, 2007 7:25 PM
So what's your point? Are you saying that truth is determined by vote? As Jim pointed out, Austrian econ isn't well thought of either. Are you going to abondon it because most economists consider Austrianism a joke?
Abandon what? Praxeology? Of course not: it's provably correct. Non-praxeological aspects of Austrian econ? Well, I don't have any "religious" attachment to those, so what's the question?
What is important is the facts and the reasoning one uses to come to his conclusions - not keeping in line with what the authorities think
What facts and reasoning? We're talking about religion here. It's defined by what the authorities think.
Published: November 26, 2007 8:33 PM
'Non-praxeological aspects of Austrian econ?'
I'm curious, what do you mean by this? Economics is a subdiscipline of praxeology. Do you perhaps mean the Austrian School's political-ethical views?
Published: November 26, 2007 9:03 PM
No; the "ethical" views are also in large part praxeological (see Hoppe, etc.). But not all of Austrian economics is based purely on praxeology. E.g., Mises' writing about monopolies, which Rothbard fixed. Rothbard's writing about copyrights, if you count that as economics. I'm sure someone can think of better examples, but I've got to run...
Published: November 27, 2007 1:39 AM
Jim, I agree with you here, and more power to you:
That my children are learning creationism at home is no debit to anyone else’s account – excluding, of course, the collectivists who desire full compliance with their ends. Tatum and I are simply two individuals acting in our own best interests.
My chief comment on your post is your rather broad attribution of everything wrong with public education to unspecified "collectivists". Can't a clearer perspective be gained by simply viewing the problem as one of (i) various interest groups fighting over rents (and costs) relating to public expenditures, and (ii) the predictible polticization, increasing bureaucracy and the comcomitant loss of local control?
Next, while I strongly disagree with creationism, what you teach your kids is up to you. If you are wise, you will also do your best to explain the natural selection/sybiogenesis approaches to explaining both the very exquisite creation that we are now degrading and our ongoing battle with evolving microbes. Creationism too neatly avoids doing any heaving lifting in response to difficult questions by postulating the intervention of a deus ex-machina.
it's Uncle Al that fills my children's brains with global warming mush.
You might not like Gore, but behind his hucksterism are volumes and volumes of science. You might try the latest IPCC synthesis report, released just two weeks ago, along with the other reports released earlier this year: http://www.ipcc.ch/press/index.htm
Regards.
Published: November 27, 2007 3:21 AM
TT,
Regarding:
My chief comment on your post is your rather broad attribution of everything wrong with public education to unspecified "collectivists". Can't a clearer perspective be gained by simply viewing the problem as one of (i) various interest groups fighting over rents (and costs) relating to public expenditures, and (ii) the predictable politicization, increasing bureaucracy and the concomitant loss of local control?
I agree that more should have been written, but length of post v. readers's scarce time has to be a consideration. Let me expound just a little:
I was an elected school board member for almost seven year -- my children were homeschooled for the later portion of that time (read http://mises.org/story/2126).
There are rent-seekers and collectivists. By way of example: The rent-seekers are the parents who demand a new sport, class, or other activity; the parents want these privately-funded activities to become publicly-funded.
Yet, these folks couldn't care less about the situations of Tatum and me. And, I'll venture to say that they are not the cause of the failures of public education. Yes, they increase the need for tax dollars, but they do not influence the programs.
Administrators love these folks since they become dependent on tax-funded programs, and hence supportive of public education -- at least while they benefit financially. In the end, eo one can remember that (say) lacrosse used to be considered a personal expense and not an assumed right.
Then there are the collectivists; those who speak of community, etc. Yes, these folks are also using the school system to gain a rent, yet the rent is not something with a dollar figure. The collectivists want every child to be indoctrinated by the state curriculum. While some fight for curriculum changes that promote their world view, many (most?) simply want to force conformity. When the issue is what is being taught in the schools, these folk have no personal standard other than they desire that all children receive the same -- this they truly beleive is the key to a stonger community.
When my district adds pure nonsense to the curriculum, the collectivists state that all children must be indoctrinated; even when the nonsense is way outside the standard three R's. When you say to them that they can teach the nonsense at home, they typically respond that "all children NEED to hear this also."
My favorite response -- and the typical response -- from the administration on why they do not like to ask for parental permission for the nonsense is, "The children that NEED to hear this are the ones whose parents would say no."
The collectivist are the ones looking to influence social change, and they see the public schools are their agent of change. And, they have been successful at this strategy.
Again, not all collectivists have particular agendas, other than conformity, while some collectivists have agendas that they push. You'll know the former group as they constantly trumpet "social interaction" as a main benefit of public schooling -- substitute indoctrination for interaction.
So, the collectivists are the one who are concerned the I teach creationism and that Tatum is a drop-out. The rent-seeker simply want personal expenses funded through public dollars.
Published: November 27, 2007 7:20 AM
TT: "Creationism too neatly avoids doing any heaving lifting in response to difficult questions by postulating the intervention of a deus ex-machina."
Evolution avoids the heaviest lifting in science by proposing mechanisms that violate the most fundamental laws of physics and biology. But aside from that, if "deus ex-machina" were the truth, wouldn't all the "heavy lifting" of evolutionary science be a waste of time, or worse, it would lead people astray. By assuming that "heavy lifting" is all that is important, you're assuming your conclusion that natural processes are the only acceptable solutions.
As Anthony pointed out, the emphasis should be placed on evidence and logic and people should be willing to accept the results of such regardless of the consequences. When evolutionists insist that only natural processes are acceptable answers to the questions, they short-circuit the process of evidence and logic.
Published: November 27, 2007 8:23 AM
'No; the "ethical" views are also in large part praxeological (see Hoppe, etc.). But not all of Austrian economics is based purely on praxeology. E.g., Mises' writing about monopolies, which Rothbard fixed. Rothbard's writing about copyrights, if you count that as economics. I'm sure someone can think of better examples, but I've got to run...'
Alright, I see what you mean then, and I agree. I'm not so sure about Mises' views on monopoly; these were praxeological, but were improved upon by Rothbard. In the case of copyrights I'd agree though.
Published: November 27, 2007 9:08 AM
Jim, thanks for your response. However, you still really haven`t identified from your point of view who the "collectivists" are. A clue seems to be your references to administrators and administrations, but aren`t these simply bureaucrats who, like bureacrats under any other government programs, push to expand their personal empires (budgets, power, etc.). I presume we should also include the public schools teachers, who I imagine also push an agenda that conveniently suits what they regard as their own best interests, and of course the politicians, who love to trumpet the latest crisis in education, and how THEY are going to solve it?
Sorry, but these look to me like ordinary, run of the mill rent-seekers. Shall we just call everyone who is looking to benefit from the public trough collectivists, or just those who are brazen enough to publicly call for an expanded, more meddlesome government?
Published: November 27, 2007 9:33 AM
Roger, thanks for your observations, though I noted your absence on Jeff Tucker`s post on Garret Garrett`s views on the survival of the fittest. Just what is it about that principle, coupled with the fact that life forms transmit their genetic code to their offspring, that troubles you so? Because it explains the origin of each new life materially, without the specific intervention of a "Watchmaker"?
Apparently you miss the irony when you argue on the one hand that "Evolution avoids the heaviest lifting in science by proposing mechanisms that violate the most fundamental laws of physics and biology", while on the other you suggest precisely that non-natural causes (miracles that would also violate the most fundamental laws of physics and biology) may be the best explanation.
Perhaps, and maybe all the "heavy lifting" of evolutionary science may be shown to be a waste of time, but no one has yet found a case for which only miracles suffice. Of course I don`t assume that "heavy lifting" is all that is important, or concluded that natural processes are the only acceptable solutions. But as I said, positing miracles is hardly the way to enhance one`s understanding of the material world; it is rather an escape from hard thinking and posing questions which one can attempt to prove or disprove.
If creationists could prove that only miracles can explain life, then I would accept it (and presumably most biologists/evolutionists). Your insistence that we accept non-natural processes without proof is the one that short-circuits the process of evidence and logic.
Regards.
Published: November 27, 2007 10:03 AM
TT: "Just what is it about that principle, coupled with the fact that life forms transmit their genetic code to their offspring, that troubles you so? Because it explains the origin of each new life materially, without the specific intervention of a "Watchmaker"?
I would be quite ignorant, or stupid, if I denied either one, wouldn’t I? Your post typifies why I usually quit responding to your posts at some point. You love to twist concepts in previous posts to try to make me look stupid. As you well know, I have no problems with those concepts. However, I have a lot of problem with people claiming that those processes can create new kinds of animals, and science backs me up.
TT: "Apparently you miss the irony when you argue on the one hand that "Evolution avoids the heaviest lifting in science by proposing mechanisms that violate the most fundamental laws of physics and biology", while on the other you suggest precisely that non-natural causes (miracles that would also violate the most fundamental laws of physics and biology) may be the best explanation."
The goal of science should be to seek the truth, whatever it may be. Some answers may lie in natural processes; others may not. Wisdom and a love of truth is required to discern which. When evolution has to violate the fundamental principles of science in order to make natural processes explain what they can't explain, then it becomes obvious that evolutionists don't care about the truth.
TT: "...but no one has yet found a case for which only miracles suffice."
I've given you plenty; you simply ignore them.
TT: "Of course I don`t assume that "heavy lifting" is all that is important, or concluded that natural processes are the only acceptable solutions."
You certainly do. How serious does evolution's violation of the principles of biology and physics have to be for you to accept that natural processes won't do the job?
TT: "positing miracles is hardly the way to enhance one`s understanding of the material world; it is rather an escape from hard thinking and posing questions which one can attempt to prove or disprove."
You try to make the issue either all miracles or all natural processes. Creationism is mostly natural processes with very few miracles. We believe God works most of the time through the natural laws he created. But take the fundamental biological law that life can come only from already living creatures, not from inanimate material. That has been proven many times of the past century. No one has proven it wrong. Yet you, as an evolutionist, without any evidence, declare it to be wrong. Evolutionists, not creationists, propose solutions that can't be proven right or wrong.
TT: "If creationists could prove that only miracles can explain life, then I would accept it (and presumably most bioologists/evolutionists)."
I seriously doubt it. Creationists have presented whole encyclopedias of evidence, but like you, they don't even try to refute most of it, they simply ignore it.
Published: November 27, 2007 12:22 PM
TT,
Simply put: A renter-seeker looks to government to satisfy an "I" while the collectivist looks to satisfy a "we."
Collectivists are our family, friends, and neighbors, anyone who is concerned with the "we."
Example: Last year, Ohio passed a referendum that bans smoking in bars, restaurants, etc. The rent-seeker would be someone who wanted the places he eats and drinks to be smoke-free, while the collectivist wanted all areas smoke-free, regardless of whether or not he frequents -- or plans to frequent -- the establish. I have yet to meet a true rent-seeker in this regard, though I have met many collectivists who supported the referendum.
Public schools by nature are stock full of collectivists. The same holds for your local health department. The health department associates I met who pushed for the smoking ban were not those who drink or bowl. They were not looking for a personal gain -- the "I". They were instead looking out for the "we."
As I mentioned in an earlier response, I sat on a public school board. The health department agents would infiltrate committee meetings regarding student health issues. In this instance, the health department employees were true agents provocateur. Before long, these agents would swing the committee members over to their viewpoint simply by appealing to the collective sense. The individualist -- me -- quickly became the odd-ball out. So, folks who went into a meeting with a certain view would quickly adopted the collectivist -- the health department -- view. Why? Because most of our family, friends, and neighbors are collectivists first and foremost.
Of course, add in psychic profit and we can resolve everything to rent-seeking; where the collectivist is a rent-seeker trying to obtain a psychic profit via government. But, even that definition leaves out the sheep collectivists who simply go along with the consensus view. I would guess their profit is remaining part of the fold.
Published: November 27, 2007 12:28 PM
Fundamentalist,
As I've said before, I believe that God created the universe and it's basic laws and then set it in motion.
Based upon that, anything that results from His initial creation is also His doing, is it not? Even if it were evolution...
Published: November 27, 2007 1:17 PM
IMHO: "Based upon that, anything that results from His initial creation is also His doing, is it not? Even if it were evolution..."
Many fine Christians believe that. Dr. Collins, head of the human genome project, is one. I don't subscribe to it because I think the evidence for evolution is simply too slim to accept, and it violates some fundamental scientific laws.
Published: November 27, 2007 1:58 PM
Jim, thanks for the further thoughts.
It still seems to me that, to a large degree, the "collectivists" you speak of are primarily looking after their own interests. And with a big government, it is natural that many who talk about the "common good" or what is "best for society" are employed in government. They may even believe what they're saying. Okay, call them collectivists.
But if you intend a broader definition of collectivist to include families, communities and other social groups, this hardly seems like a useful term, unless you also say that these groups are collectivist only if they are seeking to use the state to impose their views on others.
Of course we are all collectivists to a significant degree under your broader definition. We all seek to belong to communities for support, and certainly everyone here actively expresses a view about various communities with which they identify and which they desire to protect, improve and sustain.
In this way, the Good Lord made us very much like our primate cousins (though we can cooperate in larger groups given our greater intelligence and ability to communicate - limited by both our fear of outsiders and by our susceptibility to rent-seekers and free-riders).
Regards,
Tom
Published: November 27, 2007 9:50 PM
TT,
"But if you intend a broader definition of collectivist to include families, communities and other social groups ..."
I can see where I wasn't specific enough. I was simply trying to say that anyone can be a collectivist. They wear no uniform. They are, in fact, those you interact with everday. They are not just politicians and bureaucrats.
That said, I use collectivist in its political sense. Yes, families, churches, etc., can -- and do -- hold collectivist views, but my concern is never with acting man absent government. My concern is with acting man partnered with government.
While fraternities and other social organizations can be boarish and tiresome, they are nothing compared with the political social organizations -- the major parties -- that live to rule our lives. You can ignore the former, while the latter have agendas that demand attention.
Published: November 27, 2007 10:30 PM
Roger, thanks for your response, which contains the clearest statements of your views that I can recall. But while you claim I have twisted your position, you return the favor with unsupported statements and strawmen.
Can you further clarify these points?
- You accept the principle of natural selection, coupled with the fact that life forms transmit their genetic code to their offspring. But you do not accept that natural selection can account for the evolution of "new kinds of animals, and science backs [you] up". Then what, if anything, does natural selection explain to you? What is a new "kind" - have all members of the cat family evolved from a common ancestor, or were they created separately? Are humans NOT primates, and not closely related to chimpanzees? Are apples and pears, and ants and wasps, for example, separate creations? If you believe that natural selection only accounts for variations within "kinds" (which appear rather spongy to me), then what accounts for all of the morpological and genetic similarities (the obvious relatedness) ACROSS kinds?
- You say that "Evolution avoids the heaviest lifting in science by proposing mechanisms that violate the most fundamental laws of physics and biology." Can you explain how so? I don't believe that you have before.
- The vast bulk of evolutionary science is concerned with explaining the diversity of life and NOT how life first started. The difficulties scientists have in tracing back and convincingly demonstrating just how life got started is one problem; explaining subsequent evolution is another. When you say that "Creationists have presented whole encyclopedias of evidence, but like you, they don't even try to refute most of it, they simply ignore it", (i) which set of problems are you referring to (origin or evolution) and (ii) what "encyclopedias of evidence" (and when did I ignore it)?
- You say that you've given me "plenty" of cases for which only miracles suffice, but I "simply ignore them". I would be happy if you could demonstrate ANY cases for which ONLY miracles suffice to explain the diversity (and interrelatedness of life); as a bonus, perhaps you can also show where you have previously made, and I have ignored, such a demonstration.
- You say that "Evolutionists, not creationists, propose solutions that can't be proven right or wrong." Do you care to demonstrate?
I do not know how life first arose, nor do I "as an evolutionist, without any evidence, declare" anything. It MAY have had a "miraculous" beginning, but I suppose that a purely material explanation can be found and do not believe that the search is either a waste of time or anywhere near to being exhausted, or has demonstrated that life did start through the direct intervention of God or some other watchmaker.
Roger, I share your frustration on this topic - just as we all have similar frustrations in trying to explain other aspects of our worldviews to others. We all have limited open-mindedness, and our perceptions are subconsciously affected by what we already believe (we have great powers of self-deception). We find it easier to twist what others say to fit into our worldview than it is to actually change our minds.
Published: November 27, 2007 11:44 PM