At the heart of almost all ‘redistributive’ statism lies the idea that it is perfectly okay to take money from one person, backed by the threat of state violence, in order to give it to other people deemed more worthy of that money. The ‘worthy’ people are those who have managed to make the political process work in their favour in some manner, such as students in Britain.
People like Will Straw, son of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, call education a ‘public good’ and thus sees that as ample justification for the National Union of Students demanding that students like himself have their education paid for by money taken from others… and yet is not the opening of a corner shop or supermarket a ‘public good’ as well? It offers not just needed products but also employment. Is not almost any lawful economic activity between two willing parties a ‘public good’ for much the same reason, as it generates wealth and satisfies needs?
Yet unlike education funded by theft, these other activities involve only consensual relationships and private capital allocated with private insights and information… If I buy a product or open a shop, it is because I think it is in my interests. However I am not going to use force to extort people into buying products at my shop or acquire things by violent robbery.
Although Will Straw may think it is in my interests for him to be educated, I happen to disagree. However he is quite prepared to have the state use force to compel me to provide for his education. Like most who feed at the public trough, he casually accepts the morality of the proxy violence of the state provided it benefits him.
There are some actual ‘public goods’ in the sense Will Straw uses the word, such as defence, the prevention of crime and perhaps discouraging communicable diseases, but those are really the only legitimate role of state… for the likes of Will Straw to think something like his personal education is something that compares to those true ‘public goods’ is strange thinking indeed, for it violates the true public good of the prevention of crime: he would have the state rob me for his benefit.
It seems tha in the “perfect” world people would who could would give money to worthy causes….
I don’t know I hate politics, why am I even talking?
Bit confused by Blaine’s comment there. A subtle piece of irony on state-funded English teaching?
Keeping Shaw’s remark [about the robbing of Peter to pay Paul always having the political support of Paul] in mind, it’s worth mentioning that taxpayer-funded education was also supported by many business interests when it was introduced.
Our present system, compulsory schooling, is not just state theft from individuals – it came to be favoured by libertarian factory-owners because it:
[1] enabled adults to work in mills full time and have their children watched over in their absence, but not at employers’ expense;
[2] trains children into adults who will obediently turn up at factories or offices at fixed times to become the disciplined, dependent workforce factory-owners want on tap;
[3] made it hard for people to train their children at home to take over their small family-run businesses, therefore cutting down on big factories’ competition and removing alternative places of employment at small firms for skilled workers unhappy to be pulled into full-time employment in big plants;
[4] shifted responsibility for one-time child labourers onto the state once factories were stopped from employing them.
I’m all for recovering liberties – just be prepared to arouse opposition from unexpected quarters to any sweeping reforms of compulsory schooling.
V interested in Mark G’s post. Does anybody know of a good book on the origins of compulsory State education from a Libertarian perspective?
“Does anybody know of a good book on the origins of compulsory State education from a Libertarian perspective?”
I’ve not read them, but I understand that _Education and the State_ and _Education and the Industrial Revolution_, both by E. G. West, will be the sort of books that you’re looking for.
Perry,
These days, are you sure that prevention of crime should be a public good? Agree with you on the Straw point. However, the socialist culture which infects British universities is endemic. I recall hearing that ‘we’re all equal, and can do everything as well as one another’ in an economics class right before a lecture on specialization of capital.
Thanks Andy. Just ordered them online.
Surely any society needs to form rules and norms of behaviour that allow that society to function – in complex societies democratically elected government is probably the least worse way to do this. A modern society needs an educated workforce to compete in global markets – this is not an option but a necessity. Left to themselves, many of society would not seek education or educate their children adequately – leading to the rise of an underclass that threatens the existence of the whole and reduces their quality of life. Therefore for selfish not altruistic grounds supporting state education is sensible. Unlike probably many on this website I still believe in the principle of equality of opportunity – why should I – as a downtrodden pleb- accept the theft of my future by consigning me to a sink education and/or no education at all. I would feel justified to rise up to take the means of your privilege – inherited wealth. For the sake of social cohesion this is a far greater theft, and a far greater threat, than moderate taxation to try to ensure reasonable education for all. God help the society that does not educate its people. Leaving it to hope and charity won’t work. That’s not to say current policy is right – it’s horribly flawed, but not as flawed as acceptance of the doctorine of state education = theft- that’s just crass over-simplification; principle over consequence. I believe society works best that offers equal opportunity (not equality) to all – we won’t get there but if it works it benefits us all, not just the accidentially privileged child.
Glad to provoke, Cydonia! Books? Many years back I read Ivan Illich’s ‘Deschooling Society’ [while at school, natch] …it used to be available in Penguin. As in his better-known ‘Limits to Medicine’, Illich puts forward a pretty far-reaching libertarian position from his own rather unusual perspective – within the Catholic Church.
Those who might feel a little cynical at the idea of a Catholic libertarian [I was brought up as a Protestant myself] should read Illich. Free-thinking people come from every background. Not much history of compulsory schooling, but A.S. Neill’s own book ‘Summerhill’, about the reforming free school he set up in Britain, was also refreshing reading.
In the days before we were all equally brilliant, when university education was a training of the mind for the few not a vocational training course for the barely literate many, the highly intelligent were regarded as a national asset and State funding for our university education an investment because we had the potential to contribute vastly more to society. I do not think, others may correct me, that anyone of any political persuasion had a problem with the State funding of university education until the explosion in ‘student’ numbers.
In the days before we were all equally brilliant, when university education was a training of the mind for the few not a vocational training course for the barely literate many, the highly intelligent were regarded as a national asset and State funding for our university education an investment because we had the potential to contribute vastly more to society. I do not think, others may correct me, that anyone of any political persuasion had a problem with the State funding of university education until the explosion in ‘student’ numbers.
In the days before we were all equally brilliant, when university education was a training of the mind for the few not a vocational training course for the barely literate many, the highly intelligent were regarded as a national asset and State funding for our university education an investment because we had the potential to contribute vastly more to society. I do not think, others may correct me, that anyone of any political persuasion had a problem with the State funding of university education until the explosion in ‘student’ numbers.
In the days before we were all equally brilliant, when university education was a training of the mind for the few not a vocational training course for the barely literate many, the highly intelligent were regarded as a national asset and State funding for our university education an investment because we had the potential to contribute vastly more to society. I do not think, others may correct me, that anyone of any political persuasion had a problem with the State funding of university education until the explosion in ‘student’ numbers.