Friday
(0)Suppose you met someone who argued that there is a moral right to sex. He said that it is unfair that some people don't have sex at all, particularly those who are less well endowed physically. Thus the government should make sexually successful people have sex with those who are missing out.
You would probably think the argument used is outrageous. It would be an act of violation. It uses compulsion. It treats people as a means to an end, rather than as an end in and of itself.
Now let's look at schooling. Some people argue that there should only be comprehensive schools. Grammar and private schools should be abolished. They point out that if less academically gifted children spend time with people who are high academic achievers, it raises their ambitions and helps them to be successful in life. But this right to have bright people at your school, is just like the right to have sex without the other party's consent. It is violation of the child. It treats the child's life as a means to an end, rather than as an end in and of itself. It is based on the principle of slavery.
Fortunately I think very few people still argue that private schooling should be abolished. That battle seems to have been won.
However, backdoor abolition is still on the cards. There is an increasing regulatory burden on private schools which is sending up costs and making them less and less viable (everything from building regulations to rules for teacher qualifications to staffing ratios to employment legislation, to State inspection and regulation of the curriculum).
As a result, it is very hard to start a new private school.The crowding-out effect from State schools and the regulatory costs are just too high.
Furthermore, I am not even sure that the existing private schools mind. It may well suit them to support these sorts of barriers to entry - a classic case of State-supported oligopoly?
Cydonia
Posted by Cydonia at September 5, 2003 11:48 AM
wo... You been reading Michel Houellebecq, perchance? He played on the parallell between economic liberalisation & sexual liberalisation in much the same way. ("L'extension du Domaine de la Lutte", or "Whatever" in English).
But as a wider thing... if you feel the two are comparable, then why am I certain rape's a far more serious & repulsive crime than theft?
Posted by A_t at September 5, 2003 11:56 AM
Since much of the point of private education seems to me to be the ability to have lots of experiments going on, we should aim to erase the regulation as soon as possible.
Let's start by removing the national curriculum and ruling out any compulsory national curriculum.
-
Posted by mark at September 5, 2003 12:32 PM
Alex seems to have taken a Kantian turn in his thinking, which I'm not sure is necessarily a step in the right direction.
Posted by Paul Coulam at September 5, 2003 12:43 PM
A-T
Let's suppose that Alex's government doesn't actually do anything as crude as that. Rather, it fines people who refuse to fulfill their sex quota and if they refuse to pay the fine, it takes their assets and sells them in lieu (and of course locks them up if they resist).
Now where's the difference?
Paul:
Don't understand the Kant comment. Please explain (I'll add another drink to your already large bar credit .....)
Posted by Cydonia at September 5, 2003 01:12 PM
"Suppose you met someone who argued that there is a moral right to sex. He said that it is unfair that some people don't have sex at all, particularly those who are less well endowed physically. Thus the government should make sexually successful people have sex with those who are missing out."
Maybe i'm alone here, but i fully agree with this :D
Posted by madne0 at September 5, 2003 01:13 PM
Cydonia,
The second formulation of Kant's categorical imperative is:
"Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means."
On this basis Kant thought masturbation terribly immoral. He is not a philosopher who lends himself easily to libertarianism.
Make mine a pint ;-)
Posted by Paul Coulam at September 5, 2003 02:56 PM
also, for all that you may exaggerate socialists' redistributive tendencies, i think you'll find the main reason for welfare etc. is that most pple like the idea of a "safety net" which means that within the confines of the UK, you don't see people starving to death. No-one ever died for lack of sex.
Money, in our current society, is a necessity, not a luxury. Sex is definitely a luxury.
Posted by A_t at September 5, 2003 04:44 PM
Paul/Alex:
If I recall correctly, there is a libertarian (and quite elegant) re-working of the Kantian imperative somewhere in Anarchy, State and Utopia. I need to dig my copy out ...
Also, Alex's argument against compulsory schooling was advanced by Murray Rothbard some time ago (so my father tells me in any case!)
Posted by Matthew O'Keeffe at September 5, 2003 06:10 PM
When my father was starting out as a teacher in the late 70s/early 80s, he had his door knocked on by the local labour candidate. At this time, it was Labour's thing to knock the private school system & advocate that it be banned: pure politics of envy stuff. My father asked him:
"So, 8% of the school population are at private schools - what are you going to do with them? You've already got class sizes of 35. And what about all the teachers who will suddenly be unemployed? And what about the extra money it'll cost to send 8% more people to state school?"
The local hack couldn't reply, unsurprisingly! The politics of envy is not the most logical ever...
As for the theory that bright kids "inspiring" dumb kids to work harder, that's such a complete fallacy - what happens is that the dumb kids bully the bright kids for being bright, and you end up with a system where the teachers are teaching to the middle of the ability bell-curve. So, the dumb kids are completely lost, and the bright kids are wasting their time & not learning enough. Streaming is the only way to get the best out of each child. These social engineers who seem to believe that all kids have the same potential need to get their head out of their Commuist Manifesto and Stalin's "How to deal with Trotskyists and other Diversionists" and actually realise that people are different...
Posted by mike at September 7, 2003 05:41 PM
