My previous post, The Pros and Cons of Education Privatization, contained the 800-plus word rough draft of a 500-word essay due today in my Introduction to Critical Inquiry class at St. Edward's. I've since refined it and hacked it down to 599 words. Thanks to everyone who suggested changes and revisions.
The purpose of this essay was to present my side of a belief and then an opposing side. It was not intended to be a purely persuasive paper. Since I was forbidden to conduct academic citation and research my belief and since the word limit was so tight, I was unable to seriously address the objections I discussed in the latter half of the essay. Though I'd normally not let them go with such a quick dismissal, I had to in order to get a good grade.
Everything for college, I suppose.
Charles Hueter
Rene Eakins
A-NCCI 3330: Belief Paper Essay
August 31, 2004FOR THE PRIVATIZATION OF EDUCATION
Until recently, I uncritically borrowed the common opinion that governments should shoulder at least some of our educational burden. However, upon deeper reflection, I now believe only individuals are responsible for their education and the public school system should be replaced entirely with a privatized and fully independent education system. Parents and students should pay their way through school either by spending their own money or charitable donations given to them.
Why do I believe this? A group is a social abstraction created for purposes of mental organization. However, only individuals can act. Responsibility is a function of causation and therefore only individuals can be responsible for actions. Asserting any collective is responsible for our education perverts the doctrine of responsibility.
An education is the result of a service. This service comes in the forms of home schooling or an organized effort on behalf of hundreds of strangers in exchange for compensation. As such, it's no different than delivering pizza, selling cars, or offering Internet access. The last century has shown us free markets outperform restricted or socialized markets in most - if not all - respects. Glancing at the news reveals many instances of parents vehemently disagreeing with the form and substance of their children's public education - often for very good reason. You don't have a right to any service or its results and parents should have the freedom to choose where and how their children are educated.
There is a moral case against state-funded education. Suppose I don't want to pay for Billy's teaching. I calculate the portion of my taxes that go towards it and withhold that wealth. By refusing to pay, I'd be charged with something I don't recognize as a crime. Unable to get the charges dismissed, I'd be fined, possibly jailed, and could have my wages and assets seized. Declining to pay for Billy's education results in physical violence against my person and my property. I declare that is no different than an armed robber's aggression.
This is an unpopular and controversial viewpoint. Many would object that a true laissez-faire system of education would result in a great portion of children going without an education due to an inability to pay, thereby dooming them to poverty. Most people unable to afford an education reside in the lower strata of society and they need as much help as possible. Education is a right and should not be abridged on the basis of one's class.
In a system unrestrained by government, educators would only have to follow the guidelines set by their employers, guidelines as loose as the school's owner wishes. It's feasible "corners will be cut" and kids will get a quick and cheap education designed to maximize profit at the expense of quality. Also possible is student exposure to false or invalid information and reasoning that may mar their ability to successfully integrate future data. The lack of enforced standards would hurt the nation as a whole.
In addition, opponents of a fully capitalist education system claim that a school system could go bankrupt and close its doors, leaving its students without classrooms and teachers. Business failure could happen and it wouldn't be right to leave students hanging.
Even though the arguments of those who disagree with me have merit, they are based on a faulty understanding of how free markets function. Product and service quality increase within a free system because consumers are king. More importantly, such a system would be based on the principle that aggressing against someone is morally invalid. Forcing citizens to pay for your education is wrong.
UPDATED 3/9/2005 8:47am
I've written another final paper for my Public Finance class: A Conceptual Analysis of Public Goods - The Case of Nationalized Defense
ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.