Jan
13
It is often said that education is a birth right. It should be obvious that there are no such free gifts. Education doesn’t grow simply in the nature. It is not absorbed from the atmosphere. It is a service and it ought to be provided by some if others ought to receive them as a gift. . It is not possible to make universal education a goal without initiating force against some, and initiating force is a crime. Taxation is violence, plain and simple.
No man should have the right to say that others should provide him with education or the means to it. Nothing is a birth right. No one says that everyone ought to be provided with food and shelter. No one asks whether people would walk naked if government is not to provide them clothes. Yet, no one opposes public funded education. There is nothing unique about education that would make it a birth right. If so, why is it that such a notion is widespread? It is because the state has emitted propaganda which would make it get a hold on children from the beginning of their lives. If they are taught right from their childhood that their life belongs to the state, it would be hard to take that notion away from them. They would cling to it, like a neurotic. If anyone later tells him that is not the case, they would act as if just a button has been pressed and they have suddenly turned helpless and neurotic.
Public funded education is just a trick of the state and its parasites to control the minds of its citizens. Remarque was right when he said the First World War was created by the tricks of schoolmasters. Bonheoffer was just being honest when he said the Second World War was the inevitable product of good schooling. Mises wasn’t amusing himself when he said “A healthy illiterate is always better than a crippled literate.”He most certainly meant it.
Education is largely controlled by the state in most part of the world. Even in private institutes, the syllabus is decided by the government. Currently, what is taught in schools and colleges as social sciences is mostly government propaganda. Competent teachers in the humanities either have to go without jobs or teach at lower rung institutions. If education were taken from the clutches of the government the schools would compete in deciding their curriculum and finally reach closer to the objective truth.
One of the most fallacious arguments in favor of public funded education is that all children should given ‘equal opportunity’. Left liberals have given their own twists to Adam Smith’s views on the subject. Some of the modern classical economists of now, and the previous century, including Milton Friedman are of the same opinion, which brings into contradiction all of their views. Even Bentham believed children are to be given a firm foundation in Utilitarianism. Come On. Let’s define our terms. What is meant by ‘equal’? What is an ‘opportunity’? How could two children born to different parents be given the same opportunity? Could they be given the same opportunity, even if they were born to the same parents, if born in a different time-space? Aren’t opportunities floating around us all the time? Are they to be thrown into ones lap or to be seized?
It’s usually asked “What would become of them who are not willing to educate their children? Such a question might as well be put as “What would become of the masters if the slaves were let free?”
And the answer is: They’d starve.
Related Posts
1 viewsNo Responses to “Education: A Birth Right?”
Leave a Reply
Destination Infinity Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 8:49 pm// On a free market, no one other than lazy bums would be incapabl of providing their children with education //
That is all the problem. Whether in free markets or otherwise, there is a big hoard of the type of people you mentioned. If around 90% of people are lazy, will your free market succeed?
Destination Infinity
Unpretentious Diva Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 8:59 pmThose 90% people are lazy because of the socialist welfare state and the middle path of mixed economy which people support almost always.
The moment free-market capitalism will be established, 99% of those 90% lazy people will start working for incrreasing their production capacity. About the rest 1% of the 90% of current lazies, they can always seek for voluntary charity.
Who says a capitalist society won’t support naturally impaired, unable and cripples? On the other hand, the genuine needy will get the best help possible in much more efficient way than a welfare state can ever provide.
Destination Infinity Says:
January 13th, 2009 at 11:05 pmI can understand owners want to work to increase their production capacity, but what is the incentive for labour? Secondly, if more money is made by more production, that doesn’t automatically mean more prosperity. In fact the automobile manufacturers are today suffering because of such excessive production. But you may argue that such a situation arised due to Govt. taxes! which neither of us can disprove. Thirdly, the world doesn’t work like a computer which operates in binaries. There will always be elements whose motive is greed, fraud, cheating, robbery, blackmail, wer thirsty, corrupt etc. in a free market too. Just like they will be in any other market.
But as far as this post goes, I accept a lot of points written by you except maybe
points like everyone in a free market will be able to afford private education etc. And the assumption that private education is better. Let us for a moment look at the hoards of engineering colleges(private) across the nation. Do you think about 90% of them are here to provide quality education? Or do you think the technical education and evaluation is even upto the mark, considering that most of these engineering colleges are privately run?
Destination Infinity
city of night Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 12:14 amre : infinity >>
”And the assumption that private education is better. “
.. I think any organisation improves, if the factors hampering it’s growth are removed. The current govt. policies include this fact in their agenda. If the heart has to do more work to meet a strained body’s requirements, it does develop more muscle, and increases in size and functional capacity. Thus middlemen can consume some blood and expect the body to rise up and still manage normalcy, and claim the increase in heart size as “benefits” of their doings.. yet this does not stretch to infinity, there comes a time when the heart quits the struggle for normalcy and collapses. If only the factors damaging the vital systems are reduced, the body lives with the disease in a neutral state. This is the way many parasites choose to thrive for free. Just because a person is functionally normal, doesn’t mean that he is devoid of disease.
re: DMOC >>>>
“Education doesn’t grow simply in the nature. It is not absorbed from the atmosphere. It is a service and it ought to be provided by some if others ought to receive them as a gift. .” >>>
… Education is a by-product of discovery. One man takes himself from A to C and the other learns what A, B and C mean.. he continues from C to E, or passes on C to others who shouldn’t have to start from A. Thus education empowers the natural curiosity, which every person is born with.
renegade_division Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 7:51 pmDestination Infinity Said:
Then they will die of hunger, poverty, illness and suffering, but why do I care because I am among the 10% of the people.
I mean before you thrash me as inhumane brute, seriously, in your example, 90% of the people are lazy, then how the hell you can expect the rest of the 10% of the people to work day and night for these lazy people?
There is no system which can feed 90% of the lazy people, no Capitalism and free market do exact opposite. Even if there is only 1 lazy person in a society, nobody will feed him unless they really wanna feed him.
This question itself is so fully loaded, its like asking, what if people worked in Capitalism, but then not eat anything, surely then they die of hunger in Capitalism, surely then your free market can’t do anything about it. Yes you are right Capitalism cannot feed a person when they don’t wanna eat anything, but what’s your point?
deadmanoncampus Says:
January 14th, 2009 at 9:10 pmrenegade_divison,
What a wonderful comment!
Destination Infinity Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 7:21 am@renegade_division: That’s what I wanted to say too. But the author replies that 99% of these lazy people would become active!, which, at best could be called wishful thinking. And I was trying to highlight the fact that you would have all kind of people in any system, which makes it tough for us to assume perfection. If the author had said that free market is a better system than the available ones, it would have been food for thought. But she chooses to idealize a system irrespective of the type of people adopting that system! That’s why I said the world is not a binary system - 0 or 1, good or bad - as there are a number of qualities inbetween the good and bad, and some times outside it too!
Destination Infinity
deadmanoncampus Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 8:53 amDestination Infinity,
There is nothing in between good and bad.There is good and there is bad.Nothing in between.You might reply that there are shades of gray.But,what is gray? It is a mixture of good and bad.If you know what is good,why would you choose which is mixture of good and bad,which is evil? There is no excuse for choosing gray once you know what is good.
renegade_division Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 8:56 amDestination Infinity:
Dude you posed a hypothetical question, and author misunderstood that presumption(that there are lazy people and they won’t become hard working). Although she is correct in real life, and your presumption is too unreal for real life. The truth is, most people don’t want to be lazy, its just that when hard work just does not give enough return they settle down for the most comfortable position.
city of night Says:
January 15th, 2009 at 3:56 pmre: infinity >>
”And I was trying to highlight the fact that you would have all kind of people in any system, which makes it tough for us to assume perfection.”
re : DMOC >>
“If you know what is good,why would you choose which is mixture of good and bad,which is evil? There is no excuse for choosing gray once you know what is good.”
CON reply >>>
The good and bad are people’s opinions, subject to change, not the rule. The right and wrong set the rule/benchmark. There are 2 ways of seeing a condition : from a cell’s point of view and from a system’s point of view.
The particular shade of gray, black or white which suits a person, change with conditions he is subjected to. . like, I would steal food if i am hungry and in a famine, knowing that my actions be labelled “wrong” . The right and wrong are colourless, the good/bad always coloured.
Every person being unique, defines his own appeal to the system — any system applies equally to all, on a minimal interference basis. A cell thinks in terms of good/bad, the system thinks in terms of right/wrong.
Now, your being lazy and your thinking that you are lazy are two different things. A lazy person has 3 paths :
1. A lazy as well as unproductive person’s survival is at risk to anyone merely working harder than him.
2. A person lazy in effort, yet productive enough to clear a benchmark, survives unchallenged.
3. A person lazy in effort, whose productivity questions the benchmark, survives with possible threats at challenging the system.
Thus, the lazy person is endangered under every system, yet at times survives to challenge it.
P.S.>> A lazy person is someone who will not increase his productivity, if you raise an existing benchmark, but groan/make noise. This is the very thing that prevents a system from becoming a machine. I particularly am not willing to live in a machine. :)