5 ms·

Any form of government subsidized education is immoral. The universe doesn't owe you an education, which, like all values, is inherently expensive, and must be

by javert 13y ago

Any form of government subsidized education is immoral. The universe doesn't owe you an education, which, like all values, is inherently expensive, and must be produced. Neither does society; and neither do I. This may seem cruel, but it's actually kind. Were it not for government control of education, education would have already undergone the same kind of massive transition that has happened to every free-market industry: much better, much cheaper, much more widely available. If you want to see what happens to an economic sector as the government becomes more invasive, look at the finance sector, which is the most controlled sector in the US, or look at the "federal telecom bureaus" (AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon).

chrisrhoden 13y ago
I really, really wish all objectivists had been born (actually) underprivileged.
- maxharris 13y ago
  It is better to take cognizance of how things really are rather than how you really, really wish them to be. Where you start in life doesn't matter, but how big a jump you make in improving your lot does, and that's something that's entirely up to you. Please lay off the Rawlsian stuff - it doesn't square with the things I've observed in my own life. Nor does it square with the experiences of many of my friends that started life out poor, and chose to make something of themselves. At this point, some might say, "you didn't earn your brain/parent's money/etc." I say that's nonsense, because the entire idea of "earn" arises in order to distinguish real people who choose to act toward a goal from those that choose not to. To do that, we have to look at adults - lots of them, ranging from bums to billionaires, across time and professions, on and on. Then at young adults, then at small children (to fully see the contrast with adults). Choice is the crucial thing here: nobody could arrive at the idea of "earning" or "deserts" or "justice" by studying newborns or fetuses. Relying on "earn" (which depends on the idea of choice and free will, as I've indicated above) in a statement intended to undermine the idea of choice and free will is bogus. EDIT: I am making some serious points here. Disagree all you want in comments, but downvoting me reflexively does not refute my argument.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    >>Where you start in life doesn't matter, but how big a jump you make in improving your lot does, and that's something that's entirely up to you. How big a jump you can make in improving your lot is a function of where you start in life. It is significantly more difficult for someone born into a poor, single-parent household to bootstrap and "choose to make something of themselves" compared to someone who is born into a white middle-class family.
    - maxharris 13y ago
      "How big a jump you can make in improving your lot is a function of where you start in life." Says you, but my experience contradicts it. You have not convinced me. "It is significantly more difficult" So? Why does that matter? None of us are equal in any way, and none of us ever will be. You might as well decry the fact that some people are taller, or have an eye color that you prefer, or keep a head full of hair into old age. In a just (my definition of that word, not necessarily yours) society, we are equal in one respect alone: equal before the law. Before you rattle off a point about "justice," see my amended comments in the post above. The concept of justice pertains to choice, and applying it to situations where there is no choice involved (e.g., who your parents are, how much money they have) is not a valid use of the concept.
      - gems 13y ago
        "Says you, but my experience contradicts it. You have not convinced me." Your experience is dependent on several factors including how willing you are to listen to and engage people with different lives than your own. I can close my eyes and shout that there are no colors, but that doesn't invalidate everyone else's experience. Don't pretend like you have an authoritative background to make general conclusions.
        maxharris 13y ago
        I'm not invalidating anything you've observed - I'm just challenging your conclusions. One of my friends left home (when he was ~19) with little more than the shirt on his back, a pickup truck, and ruined credit. He managed to rebuild his life, and he did it all on his own. This was ~15 years ago. Great guy! I don't want to get too autobiographical on you, but I didn't have the smoothest time myself: I bombed out of college before my first semester was up. I spent years working (and not on anything that you could call high-paying). I went back to school as an adult, graduated with distinction, and got a better job. I'm 32 now, and I've met enough people to know what I'm talking about.
- javert 13y ago
  I'm calling you out. Attacking the arguer instead of the argument is a logical fallacy. What you're actually implying, which wouldn't be a logical fallacy, is that my view is subjective, because of the circumstances of my (middle class) upbringing. I don't think that argument holds water. The subjectivity or not of things is probably too big of a discussion to really tackle on hacker news, though.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - chrisrhoden 13y ago
    a) I wasn't attacking you. An ad-hominem attack in this case would be, "Javert is an idiot, therefore this viewpoint is wrong." I don't believe that you're an idiot. On the contrary, I believe that you are probably a smart person who has had a particular set of experiences. b) The statement was made to draw attention to what I perceive as weakness in your argument. c) Notwithstanding the points made by others in the comments below, it should be said that I completely understand how and why people are objectivists. If, as I proposed, all (or even most (or even a significant number of)) objectivists had been born underprivileged, I think that I might be more inclined to agree with it. d) > If you want to see what happens to an economic sector as the government becomes more invasive, look at the finance sector, which is the most controlled sector in the US, or look at the "federal telecom bureaus" (AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon). In the finance sector, people broke the rules or rushed to fill in spaces where the rules were rolled back. Then things went really bad. In the telecoms, they are breaking the rules but not being held accountable by the government. In both cases, the fact that they are not following the rules is the actual problem. I'm not sure how this supports your claim.
krichman 13y ago
Having education available to everyone is a net gain for society, like having public roads. Also, the "lazy poors" "stealing" your money to educate their children have snatched up the slightest fraction of what the wealthy extract from the economy, so I don't see why that's the problem to focus on if your concern is "entitlements". > Were it not for government control of education, education would have already undergone the same kind of massive transition that has happened to every free-market industry: much better, much cheaper, much more widely available. Yes, like the for-profit prisons.
- javert 13y ago
  > Having education available to everyone is a net gain for society, like having public roads. I completely agree. A better example is food, clothing and shelter. Those are available to most people without government coercion. We could easily handle the remainder with charity, if it weren't for government programs that breed endemic poverty. > Also, the "lazy poors" "stealing" your money I did not say any of that, and I definitely don't think about it that way. I don't think poverty is a problem of laziness, but of ignorance. And I don't think the poor are stealing from me. If anyone is, it's Republicans and Democrats, with broad support from the middle and upper "classes." But I don't even think of it that way.. it's more of a societal decision. And we have a much better society, in many ways, than most of those in the past, so overall, I'm pretty thankful. > Yes, like the for-profit prisons. That's a highly government-regulated industry, so it's not a valid counter-example. The prison system is corrupt for the same reasons the finance system is. (I wouldn't have any problem with prisons being completely government run, since prisons are a function of law enforcement, which is a necessary and proper function of government.)
  - krichman 13y ago
    I misunderstood you, sorry. I disagree that the problem is the government exactly. The problem tends to be administration is allowed to capture a great deal of government spending. That's the reason the free market does better in certain cases, it doesn't tolerate middlemen with no significant function (or overpriced function). I'd like to have education be free for anyone that wants it well into the university level, but it's probably correct that having the government pass out checks isn't the right way to do it. But allowing it to be free market seems like it would exclude poor people from good opportunities, sacrificing them to improve it for the middle class.
sliverstorm 13y ago
The universe doesn't owe you K-12 education, and neither does society, but society has decided it is worth the expense to have a populace that knows how to read, write, and do arithmetic- skills that most people simply did not have two hundred years ago.
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  You don't need 12 years of education to learn reading, writing and arithmetic. K-12 does teach a lot more, but most students seem unwilling/unable/disinterested in more than the basic stuff (in my experience). Do we really want to throw money at educating people who aren't interested?
- javert 13y ago
  It's wrong to think that without publicly-subsidized education, most people would not get any education.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    But will all people who can be educated get education?
    - maxharris 13y ago
      Will all people who can benefit from a romantic relationship find their ideal mate? Will everyone (regardless of who they are, where they are, and what else they're doing) that wants an ice cream sandwich have one? This is boil-the-ocean, god's-eye-view thinking. Moral ideals cooked up in this style are unreal and utterly unachievable as practical goals.

by javert 13y ago

chrisrhoden 13y ago

I really, really wish all objectivists had been born (actually) underprivileged.

maxharris 13y ago
It is better to take cognizance of how things really are rather than how you really, really wish them to be. Where you start in life doesn't matter, but how big a jump you make in improving your lot does, and that's something that's entirely up to you. Please lay off the Rawlsian stuff - it doesn't square with the things I've observed in my own life. Nor does it square with the experiences of many of my friends that started life out poor, and chose to make something of themselves. At this point, some might say, "you didn't earn your brain/parent's money/etc." I say that's nonsense, because the entire idea of "earn" arises in order to distinguish real people who choose to act toward a goal from those that choose not to. To do that, we have to look at adults - lots of them, ranging from bums to billionaires, across time and professions, on and on. Then at young adults, then at small children (to fully see the contrast with adults). Choice is the crucial thing here: nobody could arrive at the idea of "earning" or "deserts" or "justice" by studying newborns or fetuses. Relying on "earn" (which depends on the idea of choice and free will, as I've indicated above) in a statement intended to undermine the idea of choice and free will is bogus. EDIT: I am making some serious points here. Disagree all you want in comments, but downvoting me reflexively does not refute my argument.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  >>Where you start in life doesn't matter, but how big a jump you make in improving your lot does, and that's something that's entirely up to you. How big a jump you can make in improving your lot is a function of where you start in life. It is significantly more difficult for someone born into a poor, single-parent household to bootstrap and "choose to make something of themselves" compared to someone who is born into a white middle-class family.
  - maxharris 13y ago
    "How big a jump you can make in improving your lot is a function of where you start in life." Says you, but my experience contradicts it. You have not convinced me. "It is significantly more difficult" So? Why does that matter? None of us are equal in any way, and none of us ever will be. You might as well decry the fact that some people are taller, or have an eye color that you prefer, or keep a head full of hair into old age. In a just (my definition of that word, not necessarily yours) society, we are equal in one respect alone: equal before the law. Before you rattle off a point about "justice," see my amended comments in the post above. The concept of justice pertains to choice, and applying it to situations where there is no choice involved (e.g., who your parents are, how much money they have) is not a valid use of the concept.
    - gems 13y ago
      "Says you, but my experience contradicts it. You have not convinced me." Your experience is dependent on several factors including how willing you are to listen to and engage people with different lives than your own. I can close my eyes and shout that there are no colors, but that doesn't invalidate everyone else's experience. Don't pretend like you have an authoritative background to make general conclusions.
      - maxharris 13y ago
        I'm not invalidating anything you've observed - I'm just challenging your conclusions. One of my friends left home (when he was ~19) with little more than the shirt on his back, a pickup truck, and ruined credit. He managed to rebuild his life, and he did it all on his own. This was ~15 years ago. Great guy! I don't want to get too autobiographical on you, but I didn't have the smoothest time myself: I bombed out of college before my first semester was up. I spent years working (and not on anything that you could call high-paying). I went back to school as an adult, graduated with distinction, and got a better job. I'm 32 now, and I've met enough people to know what I'm talking about.
javert 13y ago
I'm calling you out. Attacking the arguer instead of the argument is a logical fallacy. What you're actually implying, which wouldn't be a logical fallacy, is that my view is subjective, because of the circumstances of my (middle class) upbringing. I don't think that argument holds water. The subjectivity or not of things is probably too big of a discussion to really tackle on hacker news, though.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- chrisrhoden 13y ago
  a) I wasn't attacking you. An ad-hominem attack in this case would be, "Javert is an idiot, therefore this viewpoint is wrong." I don't believe that you're an idiot. On the contrary, I believe that you are probably a smart person who has had a particular set of experiences. b) The statement was made to draw attention to what I perceive as weakness in your argument. c) Notwithstanding the points made by others in the comments below, it should be said that I completely understand how and why people are objectivists. If, as I proposed, all (or even most (or even a significant number of)) objectivists had been born underprivileged, I think that I might be more inclined to agree with it. d) > If you want to see what happens to an economic sector as the government becomes more invasive, look at the finance sector, which is the most controlled sector in the US, or look at the "federal telecom bureaus" (AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon). In the finance sector, people broke the rules or rushed to fill in spaces where the rules were rolled back. Then things went really bad. In the telecoms, they are breaking the rules but not being held accountable by the government. In both cases, the fact that they are not following the rules is the actual problem. I'm not sure how this supports your claim.

krichman 13y ago

Having education available to everyone is a net gain for society, like having public roads. Also, the "lazy poors" "stealing" your money to educate their children have snatched up the slightest fraction of what the wealthy extract from the economy, so I don't see why that's the problem to focus on if your concern is "entitlements". > Were it not for government control of education, education would have already undergone the same kind of massive transition that has happened to every free-market industry: much better, much cheaper, much more widely available. Yes, like the for-profit prisons.

javert 13y ago
> Having education available to everyone is a net gain for society, like having public roads. I completely agree. A better example is food, clothing and shelter. Those are available to most people without government coercion. We could easily handle the remainder with charity, if it weren't for government programs that breed endemic poverty. > Also, the "lazy poors" "stealing" your money I did not say any of that, and I definitely don't think about it that way. I don't think poverty is a problem of laziness, but of ignorance. And I don't think the poor are stealing from me. If anyone is, it's Republicans and Democrats, with broad support from the middle and upper "classes." But I don't even think of it that way.. it's more of a societal decision. And we have a much better society, in many ways, than most of those in the past, so overall, I'm pretty thankful. > Yes, like the for-profit prisons. That's a highly government-regulated industry, so it's not a valid counter-example. The prison system is corrupt for the same reasons the finance system is. (I wouldn't have any problem with prisons being completely government run, since prisons are a function of law enforcement, which is a necessary and proper function of government.)
- krichman 13y ago
  I misunderstood you, sorry. I disagree that the problem is the government exactly. The problem tends to be administration is allowed to capture a great deal of government spending. That's the reason the free market does better in certain cases, it doesn't tolerate middlemen with no significant function (or overpriced function). I'd like to have education be free for anyone that wants it well into the university level, but it's probably correct that having the government pass out checks isn't the right way to do it. But allowing it to be free market seems like it would exclude poor people from good opportunities, sacrificing them to improve it for the middle class.

sliverstorm 13y ago

The universe doesn't owe you K-12 education, and neither does society, but society has decided it is worth the expense to have a populace that knows how to read, write, and do arithmetic- skills that most people simply did not have two hundred years ago.

ahomescu1 13y ago
You don't need 12 years of education to learn reading, writing and arithmetic. K-12 does teach a lot more, but most students seem unwilling/unable/disinterested in more than the basic stuff (in my experience). Do we really want to throw money at educating people who aren't interested?
javert 13y ago
It's wrong to think that without publicly-subsidized education, most people would not get any education.
- saraid216 13y ago
  But will all people who can be educated get education?
  - maxharris 13y ago
    Will all people who can benefit from a romantic relationship find their ideal mate? Will everyone (regardless of who they are, where they are, and what else they're doing) that wants an ice cream sandwich have one? This is boil-the-ocean, god's-eye-view thinking. Moral ideals cooked up in this style are unreal and utterly unachievable as practical goals.