3 ms·

Teachers don't go into teaching for the money or fame, and you'll know they provide a quality service when your bridges stay up and your cars don't explode. Th

Teachers don't go into teaching for the money or fame, and you'll know they provide a quality service when your bridges stay up and your cars don't explode. Their unions might be overly cautious right now, but we should treat them like essential workers if we want them to act like it.

sparkie 6y ago
The problem with the assumption that a quality service is provided, is that when there is a violence enforced monopoly on the service, it is impossible to tell whether or not the service is efficient or where it might be improved because there is no metric to compare it against. The lack of any market signal means you can never really know if your service is providing a meaningful return on investment, and potential ventures which may improve upon it are prevented from doing so by threat of violence. I find the claim that without the State, cars would explode and bridges would fall very bizarre. There is no basis for this assumption but clouded thinking. Bridges build well before modern governments and regulations are still standing, and vehicles from the 70s function just fine. It has always been in the best interest of product providers to have their products certified by reputable organizations, and they'll pay to have it done. The Underwriters Laboratory has been privately certifying products for 126 years. Many of the government regulatory bodies are much younger. There may even be an argument that private certification would improve health and safety because businesses would be in competition to provide the absolute best, rather than merely meeting a minimum requirement set by the State. I wouldn't argue against the fact that teachers are essential workers, but the almost state monopoly on provision of this service can't possibly face the scrutiny of individual's choices and expectations - there is no market. I would take a school voucher system like Sweden has over the public school system in the UK any day. My point about teachers being overly supportive of lockdown is that they have no personal consequence for themselves for doing so. Lets assume for a moment that you are a teacher, but in the private sector. The government enforces a lockdown which prevents you from working, and since you aren't working, the parents of the children you would normally teach are not paying you. You have no income. Do you still support government lockdowns, or do you want to get back to work ASAP and earn money? (You have bills to pay). Public sector workers have no skin in the game - they still have income and they'll have a job to go back to when the government lets them. This drastically affects their ability to THINK, and why they are almost unanimous on their support of lockdowns.

sparkie 6y ago

The problem with the assumption that a quality service is provided, is that when there is a violence enforced monopoly on the service, it is impossible to tell whether or not the service is efficient or where it might be improved because there is no metric to compare it against. The lack of any market signal means you can never really know if your service is providing a meaningful return on investment, and potential ventures which may improve upon it are prevented from doing so by threat of violence. I find the claim that without the State, cars would explode and bridges would fall very bizarre. There is no basis for this assumption but clouded thinking. Bridges build well before modern governments and regulations are still standing, and vehicles from the 70s function just fine. It has always been in the best interest of product providers to have their products certified by reputable organizations, and they'll pay to have it done. The Underwriters Laboratory has been privately certifying products for 126 years. Many of the government regulatory bodies are much younger. There may even be an argument that private certification would improve health and safety because businesses would be in competition to provide the absolute best, rather than merely meeting a minimum requirement set by the State. I wouldn't argue against the fact that teachers are essential workers, but the almost state monopoly on provision of this service can't possibly face the scrutiny of individual's choices and expectations - there is no market. I would take a school voucher system like Sweden has over the public school system in the UK any day. My point about teachers being overly supportive of lockdown is that they have no personal consequence for themselves for doing so. Lets assume for a moment that you are a teacher, but in the private sector. The government enforces a lockdown which prevents you from working, and since you aren't working, the parents of the children you would normally teach are not paying you. You have no income. Do you still support government lockdowns, or do you want to get back to work ASAP and earn money? (You have bills to pay). Public sector workers have no skin in the game - they still have income and they'll have a job to go back to when the government lets them. This drastically affects their ability to THINK, and why they are almost unanimous on their support of lockdowns.