Tenured failure and self-indulgent pedagogy

May 20, 2009 06:46

If one judges matters by intentions (such as by presuming that effects flow from intentions), one lives in a very congenial world. You are always right, because your intentions are always good. Those who disagree with you must, therefore, have “wrong” intentions and so always be wrong ( Read more... )

friction, education, pomo, property

Leave a comment

Comments 25

sacred_chao May 19 2009, 21:12:33 UTC
Doesn't this then mean that the government shouldn't be providing *anything* as far as the regulator/provider thing goes? So, no public health care, police forces, defense forces, emergency services and so on. How do you start to apply these things on a user pays basis? I also can't help wondering what happens to the families living near, at or under the poverty line who either can't afford to pay market rates for schooling nor can they afford the fine for failing to send their children to school. Or do we make it non-compulsory to school your children again? Some things really do need to be provided at no immediate cost to the end user or enough of the community misses out that you start getting significant dysfunction in that community.

Reply

Alternatives erudito May 20 2009, 20:21:22 UTC
Yes, public provision is always a problem because of the regulator-is-also-provider difficulty.

But sometimes the alternatives are worse. There are obvious difficulty with privately provided defense forces, for example. (Though I would point out there are also notorious difficulties with peacetime defense forces performing poorly in the first stages of conflict.) And there are private security forces to cover gaps in police services.

Just because the government may not provide schooling directly itself, does not mean it cannot fund it. It would be perfectly possible to fund students--with extra grants for students suffering indicators of educational disadvantage--without the government running any schools. You could even pay by results.

Similar point can be made about health funding.

Reply


catsidhe May 19 2009, 22:18:50 UTC
That's not just nonsense, it's offensive nonsense.The real reason to have government-provided schooling is to control the socialisation of students so as to control socialisation of belief.
is simply bullshit.

Your ‘example’ of totalitarian regimes is a furphy: they want to control education, like they want to control everything else, because that is what they do. They eliminate private schools because they eliminate all opposition, competition and choice, because that is what they do.

That is a very different thing from providing a service. A service which, don't forget, was provided by the government in the first place out of the socialist, dare I say communist, idea that poor children deserve education too ( ... )

Reply

Hysteria erudito May 20 2009, 20:33:11 UTC
A service which, don't forget, was provided by the government in the first place out of the socialist, dare I say communist, idea that poor children deserve education too.You should check your history. There was already extensive provision of private education, even catering for quite poor student, before state education. It was quite explicit in its original provision that state education had specific socialisation aims ( ... )

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

Re: Hysteria erudito May 24 2009, 10:22:55 UTC
I should make it clear I mean 'socialisation' with a small 's' (not "Socialism"): hence religious schools being a common competitor.

"Making little Americans" was an explicit part of having government schooling in the US. Such "nation building" was, in one form or other, a pretty common aim, including in Australia. The story out here was not quite as different as all that.

I am a little confused about how providing education is seen as discouraging a wish to get educated.

That there was going to be a push to increase provision for education is more or less a given. Besides, we all have an interested in a literate citizenry. The issue is more why the government would do it. It persistently came down to some form of "because we do not trust anyone else to do it the way we want".

My point about intentions was not to complain that people or policies have them, but about using them as a basis judgments about policy effectiveness/goodness.

Reply


Some extra thoughts on intnentions and public education provision alp_centauri May 19 2009, 22:58:50 UTC
Willingness to look at results and learn from mistakes is more helpful than good intentions.

On the topic of private provision of education, check out the great website dedicated to the late Ed West.

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/

As for providing education and other services to poor people, that could he handled without intervention by the state if all the people who care (including all the libertarians who I know) contribute to a voluntary fund and/or appropriate agencies which you can guarantee would be more effective than the current state provisiom!

Reply

Re: Some extra thoughts on intnentions and public education provision erudito May 20 2009, 20:34:20 UTC
Thanks for the website tip!

Reply


notebuyer May 25 2009, 14:04:13 UTC
Excellent discussion of intentions as a judgement tool: really excellent.

Thanks.

Reply

My pleasure erudito May 25 2009, 20:39:50 UTC
Glad you appreciated it :)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up