Tim Sandefur has been carrying on quite a debate at The Panda's Thumb with someone I thoroughly disagree with on the subject of public education.
Ed Darrell believes that I have an obligation to support state-run public education." Mr. Sandefur disagrees, particularly as he supports vouchers (as I do). But one thing that really revolts me is when people who mindlessly support spending my tax money for public education speak of public education as an "investment."
That's a disgusting metaphor. I have no ownership rights in children (even my own). Nor do I have the right to control children, unless they be my own and not legally emancipated from me. But even if I did, how do measure return on this investment?
I bet Ed Darrell would say something like "Once the kids are employed, and paying social security taxes, the continued prosperity of society and your future social security monies are your return." Poppycock. Forced investment in the national Ponzi scheme at one remove, by funding the public education of future forced dupes of the national Ponzi scheme, is not the sort of benefit that I envision from public education.
As for the future prosperity of society, that possibility is so remote and so dependent on other externalities that I can't measure the value of public education in connection with the return on my investment. Not all public schools are equally good, just as not all teachers are equally good. I went to a very good public school in East Grand Rapids, MI, but now I live in Mississippi, where there is not a single public school that has produced a consistent record of educational success like East Grand Rapids High School has.
This is tangential to Darrell's argument, which is that public education should not allow children to remain rationally ignorant on any subject EXCEPT RELIGION, because that would violate the Establishment Clause. But Sandefur is I think correct that parents are entitled to have their children ignorant of opinions and even facts that are in conflict with their religious beliefs.
Ed Darrell believes that I have an obligation to support state-run public education." Mr. Sandefur disagrees, particularly as he supports vouchers (as I do). But one thing that really revolts me is when people who mindlessly support spending my tax money for public education speak of public education as an "investment."
That's a disgusting metaphor. I have no ownership rights in children (even my own). Nor do I have the right to control children, unless they be my own and not legally emancipated from me. But even if I did, how do measure return on this investment?
I bet Ed Darrell would say something like "Once the kids are employed, and paying social security taxes, the continued prosperity of society and your future social security monies are your return." Poppycock. Forced investment in the national Ponzi scheme at one remove, by funding the public education of future forced dupes of the national Ponzi scheme, is not the sort of benefit that I envision from public education.
As for the future prosperity of society, that possibility is so remote and so dependent on other externalities that I can't measure the value of public education in connection with the return on my investment. Not all public schools are equally good, just as not all teachers are equally good. I went to a very good public school in East Grand Rapids, MI, but now I live in Mississippi, where there is not a single public school that has produced a consistent record of educational success like East Grand Rapids High School has.
This is tangential to Darrell's argument, which is that public education should not allow children to remain rationally ignorant on any subject EXCEPT RELIGION, because that would violate the Establishment Clause. But Sandefur is I think correct that parents are entitled to have their children ignorant of opinions and even facts that are in conflict with their religious beliefs.
posted by Alexander Ignatiev at 8:50:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home