The problem with getting the state out of the marriage business is that marriage is, in the end, a contract with implications regarding child support and inheritance to mention only the first two that come to mind.

Imagine that the state suddenly decided that marriage was whatever the individuals involved said it was. A friendly, or calculated, roll in the hay now entitles someone to half or more of the assets of the other?
A rich eccentric marries their pet. The pet inherits upon the demise of the eccentric. Can the pet marry the executor of the estate?

Here's a field day for lawyers, and the issues get settled on a case-by-case basis by judges (the state) and no precedent is set.

Marriage is a sacrament offered by a religion. The state recognizes it as a contract. If the local religion won't recognize your idea of marriage, then start your own religion. The state should lay down ground rules for what it recognizes as the contract underlying a marriage, and insist that everyone abide by them.

Posted by Billll at December 29, 2007 05:39 PM

a contract with implications regarding child support and inheritance to mention only the first two that come to mind

Courts (be they state courts or private arbitrators) are the way contract disputes are settled, not in legislative chambers. Just treat these things as any contract is treated.

The state has no business whatsoever being involved with inheritance, which should just be a matter for wills and custom. Likewise child support is an issue of implied contract with a very long history of custom behind it. The state is a terrible way to deal with that. People have been getting married and having children for a great deal longer than states have been legislating on the subject. We have sophisticated cultures: let them work.

The pet inherits upon the demise of the eccentric.

I have no problem with a pet nominally inheriting something. It is up to the executor to spend the money in the pet's interests. It has been done before.

Can the pet marry the executor of the estate?

No more that a tree or a statue can marry someone. Pets cannot agree to a contract because they are not subject to human rationality (even nominally).

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 29, 2007 05:51 PM

Billll,

You say that as if it was something bad. I think many people around here would go for the idea of marriage contracts defined by the participants rather than the state.

What would be more interesting is to get the state out of the enforcement of contracts.

But parentally selectable education has all sort of possibilities. You can have a range of qualities and prices:- so a high-powered scientific education is provided at a price only for the select, down to a more basic reading-and-writing-only education that can be had for only a few thousand dollars. Education might be sponsored, so you get discounts if you allow your children to be shown infomercials like Al Gore's Oscar-winner, or perhaps first dibs on recruitment of the best and brightest. The Scientologists would obviously be market leaders here, although probably under a different name. And the political parties and campaigns would all get involved, with Communist schools, Neocon schools, Islamist schools, Nazi white supremacist schools, Black Power schools, Environmentalist schools, post-modern Morally Relative schools, and so on. Poorer families would be able to afford great deals for a better education than they would otherwise be able to afford from such philanthropists, as well as assuring future support for their chosen politics.

Parents would be able to select their chosen propaganda from a menu. If daddy is a troofer, he can be assured that history lessons will not miss out the truth about the Illuminati. If mommy is anorexic, biology lessons will be sure to identify the best dieting techniques. Parents may thereafter be assured that their children will never come home contradicting their beliefs. The crazier superstitions will obviously cost more, of course, due to the difficulty of getting teachers with sufficiently flexible morals, but the market will adjust, as the increasingly popular 'flexible morality school' gears up to supply the demand.

There would even be schools for those people who believe their children should be taught what is true, in preference to what their parents choose for them to believe!

I suspect, given how the tax system works to make the rich pay disproportionately more, that even the average education kids get now will be out of many people's reach. Home schooling I think would become the norm, which is no bad thing. Sadly, none of the above is likely to happen. Education is one of those things that the majority are quite happy with the state providing. The majority is a bit stupid that way... I blame their education.

Posted by Pa Annoyed at December 29, 2007 06:31 PM

Agree entirely on the issue of state education, and the need to remove the state's role from other private spheres, such as marriage and inheritance. The argument that certain social activities are so widespread as to necessitate uniformity is clearly contrary to the principle of voluntary contract and introduces, and introduces the third party to all contracts, the state, through which ever-greater intervention is justified. When Bill, above, makes the point that "the state should lay down ground rules for what it recognizes as the contract underlying a marriage," he endorses this and, as elsewhere expounded on samizdata, encourages the growth of totalitarianism.

A question, though, arises concerning children, and the extent of parental sovereignty. When you say, "let the market decide if there is demand for schools that teach creationism," there is an unnamed actor demanding creationist schools. If that is the parents, at what point is their demand for a creationist education overtaken by their child's preference? Suppose they wish to truant - a phenomenon which occurs in both public and privately funded schools; is coercion justified to satiate the demand of the parent that their child undergo certain religious or political indoctrination?

Posted by Andrew Roocroft at December 29, 2007 06:33 PM

Perry,

"Pets cannot agree to a contract because they are not subject to human rationality"

Oh, how anthropocentric! Of course they're not subject to human rationality, but they are subject to animal rationality. Animals do deals all the time, not just the "I do the roll-over trick and you give me a biscuit" sort of contract, but all sorts of examples of symbiosis; reciprocity, dominant/submissive behaviour, gift-giving, mating rituals, grooming, food sharing, territoriality, and so on. Whenever a dog cocks his leg to a lamp post, that's the signature on a land claim. Whenever a young bird presents a beak full of bugs to his lady friend, that's consideration in a marriage contract for the entire breeding season.

Of course animals have contracts. And should the human go through the proper process of bottom sniffing prior to the, er, you know, there's no reason a human could not marry a pet and have it 'legal' according to animal law. If the pet in question consents freely (and it's not unknown*), all the rest is mere stuffy convention and traditional religiously-based prejudice. Don't be so narrow minded. :-)

(PS. *I was of course referring to the common TV sit-com practice of the family dog falling in unrequited love with a visitor's right leg, for humorous purposes. This is a family blog.)

Posted by Pa Annoyed at December 29, 2007 06:51 PM

Pa A's observation recalls a classic quote of Eric Raymond's:

Anybody who has ever owned a dog who barked when strangers came near its owner's property has experienced the essential continuity between animal territoriality and human property. Our domesticated cousins of the wolf are instinctively smarter about this than a good many human political theorists.

Posted by Alan Peakall at December 29, 2007 07:41 PM

Imagine that! People making free choices on how/when/with whom to educate their children,and free choices how/when/whom/what to marry.I like it! How many other things can people decide on without the states blessings?Your point is very valid,thanks for this interesting conceptual insight.

Blessings

Elle

Posted by Elle at December 29, 2007 08:00 PM

Deleted by the management as too off-topic too early on... moved here.

Posted by Ian B at December 29, 2007 08:31 PM

On a more positive note, as a libertarian I'm entirely in favour of parental genetic choice. I believe that as the technology becomes available, parents should be entitled entirely free choice to design their children. I support this because it would mean there would be more hot women, and nobody would ever go bald again.

Posted by Ian B at December 29, 2007 08:40 PM

"does the state have a role in 'edukshun'?" I say no and I suspect Ron Paul agrees.

I think you're safe there. He wants to abolish the federal department of education and remove barriers to homeschooling.

Our compulsory state schooling system was imposed in very different circumstances than today, it has no justification now.

Posted by steve_roberts at December 29, 2007 08:52 PM

Ian, this is a thread about the role of the state and politics rather than the utterly bananas issue of Creationism and Evolution. In fact it is specifically not about that :-)

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 29, 2007 08:52 PM

You can't narrow the argument like that Perry, without understanding the motives of the lobbies fighting for control of the educational system. The evolution vs. creation debate isn't bananas. It cuts to the very core of the statist education programme.

Posted by Ian B at December 29, 2007 09:03 PM

Ian B,

Creationism has little or nothing to do with a reaction against eugenics. It was more a reaction against sex and drugs and rock and roll. It is a reaction against the rebellion of youth against tradition and conventional morality, of sexual freedom and lifestyle freedom, of easy divorce, legally available abortion, encouragement of homosexuality, of pornography and superficial titillation appearing in popular entertainment, of disrespect for authority and one's elders and betters.
Things have changed since, and there are plenty who like religion while being keen on a little rock and roll themselves, but it is still primarily the degradation of the nation's moral fibre that motivates the hardcore fanatics, like those wild-eyed pedants despairing at youth's mangling of English grammar. Totalitarianism is a common human inclination, and while by no means specific to religion, to the extent that religious morality is supposed to regulate every aspect of people's private lives, religion is an essentially totalitarian system.

But you're absolutely correct that evolution is attacked more because it is seen as the weak point in the secular rationalist edifice, not because it is a critical point of Christian doctrine. A more direct challenge to Genesis literalism is posed by astronomy, where it is proposed that daylight comes from the sun, when the Biblical truth is that the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day and this is not a problem even worthy of a comment from whoever wrote the account in Genesis (God, presumably, there being no other witnesses to the event). You don't seem to get the same fuss about the teaching of the theory of daylight in science class, though.

Posted by Pa Annoyed at December 29, 2007 09:06 PM

You can't narrow the argument like that Perry

Indeed I can.

The evolution vs. creation debate isn't bananas. It cuts to the very core of the statist education programme.

No, because any diametrically opposed politically charged theories could be placed in the same role as creationism and evolution. That is specifically why I also mention same sex marriage and how the same logic applies, to make it clear this is in fact a much wider topic being discussed in this article.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 29, 2007 09:15 PM

Okay, let's try this again. The state education system uses a different definition of "education" to us lot out here. Normal people think of education as "learning stuff" or "acquiring a skill", but the people in control of state education don't mean that, they mean, hmm, "ideological imprinting". They see the definition of education as being the creation of "good citizens" and screw whether they can do quadratic equations or not. Most of the people running the thing can't do quadratic equations. But they can tell you about Gramsci.

So talking about whether schooling should be private, fine. Of course it should. But you're being utopian. You won't get that in our statist system because the asshats running things aren't going to let go, since it's a central plank of their ideological programme. Even if you get some kind of voucher system they'll make sure there's a state-decided curriculum and your free choice will go out the window.

So let's all sit here and talk about how things are going to be when we've created our utopia, with its no tax and total freedom and complete freedom of choice and no regulations and every day is the first day of spring, clutching our halves of snakebite and well-thumbed Socialist Workers.

Or, we can at least try to understand what we're up against to try and get there, which means recognising that the establishment are about as libertarian as Mussolini. The state are not going to let go of control of education, nor of marriage come to that. As such, a discussion of a stateless education system is about the same as planning what furniture we'd like in our Mars Colony.

Posted by Ian B at December 29, 2007 09:17 PM

A friend was having dinner with her husband a while ago at a trendy restaurant. The owners had apparently gone out and bought old books by the lineal yard to line the walls and give the place the feel of a gentleman's library. Out of interest, my friend pulled the closest book off the shelves -- a title like "Mathematics for Carpentry Students" -- and found herself looking at a fairly advanced level of co-ordinate geometry & algebra. And this for a 1930s shop class! [For those not used to the US educational system, shop class is for those who find basket-weaving class too challenging].

State education was once quite demanding. Then the baby boomers got control and dumbed it down, made it politically correct. Ever notice that everything left-wingers get hold of turns to dust -- BBC; Church of England; UN; Carnegie Trust; etc?

Maybe the real debate is not about state control, it is about how to stop left-wingers getting control of education. Simply moving education from state-control to private control will not accomplish that -- those left-wingers are just too persistent.

Posted by Alice at December 29, 2007 09:21 PM

Maybe the real debate is not about state control, it is about how to stop left-wingers getting control of education. Simply moving education from state-control to private control will not accomplish that -- those left-wingers are just too persistent.

I disagree. There will indeed be 'left wing' private schools but as long as there is a market, the problem is self correcting... in fact it is not really a problem at all.

State control inevitably and inexorably leads to the place where stupidity becomes a virtue. It is not a left vs. right thing, it is a state vs. society thing.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 29, 2007 09:26 PM

You can't narrow the argument like that

Dude: Root = God

Posted by Aeon Phux at December 29, 2007 09:27 PM

Alice-

Perhaps the significant question is why left wingers have control of all those things.

Posted by Ian B at December 29, 2007 09:34 PM

Perry, perhaps it'd be easier in the long run to just define "left" as statist and "right" as anti-statist.

Posted by Ian B at December 29, 2007 09:37 PM

Or, we can at least try to understand what we're up against to try and get there, which means recognising that the establishment are about as libertarian as Mussolini.

I really don't think anyone who writes for Samizdata doubts that.

The state are not going to let go of control of education, nor of marriage come to that. As such, a discussion of a stateless education system is about the same as planning what furniture we'd like in our Mars Colony.

And that is where you are not quite right. Already there are many people who avail their children of private schooling or home schooling. These things are not theoretical and are the basis upon which really quite effective insurgency are possible.

This is also why I will not allow this particular thread to be diverted into the utterly arid debate on creationism. People will support the roll back of the state if they can be made to see that would serve their interests. I am not talking about libertarians or Goldwater Republicans, but people who disdain/demand religious elements to their children's education... or anything else that is always going to be controversial.

The homosexual 'political establishment' is, bizarrely, dominated by the radical left and so a great way of separating a great many homosexuals from their self-appointed spokesmen would be to convince them they have a personal stake in ending the 'nationalisation' of marriage.

The same logic applies to the often resoundingly illiberal 'religious right'.

These are the practical underpinnings that I would like to see implemented in some fashion as applied politics. Compared to many anti-statist ideas, this is both a pragmatic and immediately usable approach to getting political enemies to agree on rolling back the state on grounds of self-interest.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 29, 2007 09:44 PM

just define "left" as statist and "right" as anti-statist.

Except that just ain't so.

Are the Republicans in the USA or the Tories in the UK or the UMP in France or the CDU in Germany, all generally described as 'right wing', in any way non-statist?

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 29, 2007 09:49 PM

There will indeed be 'left wing' private schools but as long as there is a market, the problem is self correcting... in fact it is not really a problem at all.

Perry, the question is -- What is the market? We can (& do) have state schools, religious schools, private schools, home schooling. But if there is a mandatory state-prescribed curriculum, the market in education will not be what you hope.

A friend successfully home-schooled her three sons, all of whom went on to good colleges. The creativity she had to use to get round state control was worthy of an award. But once the statists realize the gaps they have left in their curriculum control system, they will eventually plug them.

As an aside, I like to use the term "left wing" to tweak the usual suspects, who have entirely discarded the term while using "right wing" as a term merely to distinguish anyone of whom they disapprove. Realistically, we are talking about Neo-Stalinists, who seek power & control for themselves under the guise of promoting the common good. That kind of person is naturally attracted to government, where they can impose their views on others, either by law or by regulation. To quote one of their own, all power proceeds out the barrel of a gun -- and that, unfortunately, is the only way that left-wingers will ever be persuaded to back off.

Posted by Alice at December 29, 2007 10:12 PM

Are the Tories actually "right wing"?

Posted by Ian B at December 29, 2007 10:18 PM

They are usually described as such which is why the term 'right wing' is not very useful anymore. Left and right are often just tribal markers these days.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 29, 2007 10:23 PM

They all claim to be less statist than their foes Perry - to be less likely to put up taxes and so on.

Even ardent Republican statists were denounced, in their time, as not statist enough by the Democrats and the media.

Even Richard Nixon was denounced for not imposing price controls before he did, and for not increasing taxes, Welfare State spending and regulations even more than he did.

It is much the same in Britain, France and Germany.

Of course, that does not mean that one should demand a real choice - and this is possible.

One does not have to have the situation of, for example, Arkansas where the two main Republican Governors since World War II (Rockefeller and Huckabee) were just as eager to increase taxes and governmen spending as all the Democrat Governors elected since World War II.

However, my "favourate" Arkansas Governor would have to be Faubus - who distracted attention away from attacks on his tax increases for teachers pay (as well as about his lying about his going to a Communist controlled college and his father's Socialist Party activities) by whipping up racial hatred.

Even Clinton and Huckabee never went that low (indeed Huckabee was fanatical about handing out every form of taxpaying funded help to illegal immigrants, as part of his dream to create a time when "people who look like me are a minority" - from one extreme to the other ).

Still I am going off at a tangent - I will do a comment on education after this.

I prefer a situation like South Dakota where the Republicans always win and they keep the taxes down.

People working in the government school system (and other such) are never going to vote Republican anyway - so why steal lots of taxpayers money and give it them?

Posted by Paul Marks at December 29, 2007 10:37 PM

They've virtually swapped definitions- the old Right were the statists and the old Left were the libertarians. Now the left are the statists and the right are associated with mild libertarianism. May as well just go the whole hog. Do what the left do. Steal a term and make it our own.

Posted by Ian B at December 29, 2007 10:40 PM

"Already there are many people who avail their children of private schooling or home schooling. These things are not theoretical and are the basis upon which really quite effective insurgency are possible."

Same goes for education by internet. You can get any schooling you want, and reject any bits of it you want. We are all agreed that the state's interference by politicians in education is bad; what I don't think we're so clear on is whether the educational establishment, the market, or parents would be any better. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the school boards causing this particular controversy were elected by parents, not appointed by politicians, and therefore all the controversy is a question of wielding parent-power, not statism. (I had heard the Dover school board got kicked out by such elections, so it would seem a non-statist mechanism already exists for resolving this sort of issue.) Whether the President believes in 9-11 trutherism, primal light emitted from God's firmament, or pixies living under the carpets in the oval office has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the role of politics in education, only on their individual rationality and education as an indication of their fitness for office.

The political correctness that infects our education system is not driven by the likes of the president of the USA, but by teachers and universities and curriculum boards and by textbook authors and by the media-masquerading-as-the-public debate. It's mostly defined by what teachers were themselves taught. The state takes part, but on such topics it takes its lead from society.

We have no idea, even now, whether this particular politician is really a Creationist, or merely trying to get some of the Creationist vote. He has simply researched his market and tried to figure out what will sell. All politicians do. In this case, it's not the state interfering in education, it's society - if you make the distinction. There's a bigger problem in the UK, with the state mandating an official line on environmentalism for example, but that's a different topic entirely.

Posted by Pa Annoyed at December 29, 2007 10:44 PM

People will support the roll back of the state if they can be made to see that would serve their interests...

The homosexual 'political establishment' is, bizarrely, dominated by the radical left and so a great way of separating a great many homosexuals from their self-appointed spokesmen would be to convince them they have a personal stake in ending the 'nationalisation' of marriage.

The same logic applies to the often resoundingly illiberal 'religious right'.

I can find little evidence that ordinary constituent members of minority groups are satiated by the denationalisation of an issue when they can gain extra advantage by controlling the state's apparatus for their own benefit. As a typical example, the Civil Rights Movement, far from ensuring equality under the law (as the denationalisation of marriage would achieve for homosexuals), sought to acquire political privilege by outlawing segregation in private hotels and private businesses, coupled with anti-discrimination laws which enforced the state's recognition of racial equality onto the private individuals. In the same manner, the religious right is unsatisfied with being permitted to teach their children of creationism or perform certain religious rituals; their end is the compulsory introduction of such measures for all, with central curricula, prayer in school and the Ten Commandments in court rooms. The end, in both instances, is not achieving equality under the law, but in enforcing a moral outlook through political force.

I very much doubt that, were you to survey homosexuals, a majority would endorse the rights of (private) Catholic adoption agencies to discriminate, or those of hotel owners to refuse entry based on their sexuality. Freedom is often diametrically opposed to self-interest; the coincidence of the two in the short term is no sign of long term compatibility, especially for minority groups.

Posted by Andrew Roocroft at December 29, 2007 10:48 PM

As E.G. West pointed out as long ago as 1965 ("Education and the State") even the low wages of the 19th century England and Wales did not prevent most people getting their children educated (at least as well as the state later educated children).

Literacy rates were on the rise and the new government schools, if anything, slowed down the rise. Government control also meant that education became more standardized (especially after the destruction of the local school boards in 1902) with less teaching of the natural sciences and less local knowledge.

With modern wage levels there is no excuse for mass government education.

There is also no excuse for the central direction of schools. For example, in my home town of Kettering I was taught nothing of the history of the town at school, I was taught nothing about men like John Alfred Gotch or Thomas Cooper Gotch. And it was and is not considered odd that children go through all the years of education without knowing anything about their local area.

But then the government school did not teach me to read or write either.

Posted by Paul Marks at December 29, 2007 10:48 PM

I suspect Ron Paul agrees

You suspect wrong.

Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He is an anti-federalist (some use the term "neo-confederalist"). He believes is broad, almost unlimited, states powers, including over education, and is on record as saying that states or school districts could, e.g., mandate prayer in schools or teach creationism in science classes.

In short, Paul does not love liberty. He merely hates Congress.

Posted by KipEsquire at December 30, 2007 03:42 AM

"Courts (be they state courts or private arbitrators) are the way contract disputes are settled, not in legislative chambers. Just treat these things as any contract is treated."

The legislature defines the basic form which contracts take, but yes, contract disputes are settled in court or by arbitration.

"The state has no business whatsoever being involved with inheritance, which should just be a matter for wills and custom."

Apparently the death tax has not yet reached England.

I don't actually mind being taxed to educate other peoples children. In the long run, it's beneficial to me. What I object to is being taxed to mis-educate, or poorly educate children. Under an all-private, all voucher system, parents could pick any school they wished, and have some minimum amount of money follow the child into the school. Most parents want their children to be more successful than they are, so the market would quickly select out the lower performing schools. If a parent has a problem with evolution or capitalism, then fine, send your kid to the Tale-Baptist madrassa or the local Marxist middle school, but don't expect junior to become a cellular biologist from the former or a filthy rich investment banker from the latter.

Will there be better schools available at a cost premium? Certainly. Will the children of the poor be able to go there? Probably not, but I'm sure some scholarships will be available. My parents couldn't send me to Harvard Law, but I did all right with the degree I got.

To paraphrase, you don't go out in the world with the education you'd like to have, you go out there with the education you've got.

Posted by Billll at December 30, 2007 04:33 AM

A rich eccentric marries their pet. The pet inherits upon the demise of the eccentric. Can the pet marry the executor of the estate?

I'm going to pretend that this is a real question.

Pets, not being humans of legal age, cannot contract. At least not in the US.

I'm just tired of hearing about how, if Adam and Steve both want to wear white dresses and assless leather chaps down the aisle to the strains of Handel backed by a techno beat, it'll destroy the institution of marriage (which, to hear them tell it, has ALWAYS been heterosexual and ALWAYS been monogamous and God said so!).

Nope. The former Mrs. Sunfish and I destroyed the institution of marriage without any homosexuals being involved at all. Two women wanting to file a joint tax return didn't do it and if they think they can make a go of it then more power to them.

Also, I note that you mention the existence of the death tax as a reason for government to screw with inheritance. I don't think so. The mere fact that government thinks it can interfere, does not mean that it has any right or business to do so. And the existence of previous interference doesn't all by its lonesome justify continuing the same.

Andrew Roocroft:

is coercion justified to satiate the demand of the parent that their child undergo certain religious or political indoctrination?

If the kids are not yet adults, then yes.

I mean, my folks tried to turn me into a good little guilty white suburban liberal Democrat. They're the parents. That's their business and not the state's.

They ended up with a libertarian-sympathizing gun nut cop for a son. Worked out REAL well, huh, Mom?

Posted by Sunfish at December 30, 2007 06:05 AM

I can find little evidence that ordinary constituent members of minority groups are satiated by the denationalisation of an issue when they can gain extra advantage by controlling the state's apparatus for their own benefit.

No shit. But then you completely miss my point. Control over the legislature is transitory. Sooner or later your political enemies get their payback time. Getting that notion into people's heads as to why so many issues need to be removed from the political arena is why their own self-interests are served by getting the state out of the way.

Freedom is often diametrically opposed to self-interest;

Which is why at no point would I suggest appealing to homosexuals, creationists or militant atheists on the basis of liberty but rather on the basis that it is actually ih their self-interest. I am calling for nothing less that the re-rehabilitation of the twentieth centuries pet boogie man word (no, not 'Nazi)..."discrimination'. I am arguing that people actually need to be able to discriminate against whoever they don;t like in order to serve their self-interests. And just incidentally to be free. It is all about shifting the meta-context. Until you do that nothing significant changes.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 30, 2007 10:09 AM

Apparently the death tax has not yet reached England.

Huh? Are you under the impression any of the things I am arguing against are not currently in existence?

I don't actually mind being taxed to educate other peoples children. In the long run, it's beneficial to me.

How about in a madrasa then? Cool, they feel free to contribute. I would rather not.

What I object to is being taxed to mis-educate, or poorly educate children. Under an all-private, all voucher system, parents could pick any school they wished, and have some minimum amount of money follow the child into the school.

Great, and I guess you like the idea of funding other people's choices in housing, clothing, medical care, transport and food too? No doubt the answer is yes as you seem like a logical fellow.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 30, 2007 10:17 AM

Control over the legislature is transitory. Sooner or later your political enemies get their payback time.

Is it? Looking at history since, say 1900, we see a consistent rise of statism with a couple of weak downward blips. The "political enemies" here in UK for instance are broadly just two factional cartels of the ruling class.

People may point to Thatcherism, but Thatcher was a statist. As Sean Gabb of the LA has pointed out, Blair was the inheritor of Major, who was the inheritor of Thatcher, who put in place the state apparatus New Labour are now using against us. Under "right" and "left" the state has continued to grow and a consistent policy of consolidation of power within the ruling class has been effected.

Further back, Churchill made the state bigger, Attlee made it bigger still. There was a little rollback in the 50s, then it grew explosively in the 60s and 70s, with a very minor rollback under Thatcher. That's a consistent trend.

We've waited over a century now for some "payback". How are we doing?

Posted by Ian B at December 30, 2007 01:48 PM

Under an all-private, all voucher system, parents could pick any school they wished, and have some minimum amount of money follow the child into the school.

Great, and I guess you like the idea of funding other people's choices in housing, clothing, medical care, transport and food too? No doubt the answer is yes as you seem like a logical fellow.

Indeed. A voucher system wouldn't be "all private" or private at all. It would make every school a government contractor. Effectively it's a power grab by rent seekers (both schools and parents) and as such I would personally strongly oppose it.

You'll only get genuine private schooling and choice if you disconnect it entirely from government. I think there's a pretty strong case that vouchers would be worse than what we have now, not better, since they'd entirely end any independence of school from government.

And personally, I really don't want my tax money being used to fund other peoples' choices, especially if I find those choices personally offensive.

Posted by Ian B at December 30, 2007 01:54 PM

We are doing very well. I know Sean and he is a great guy but he is also is wrong on this and so are you. In some ways we have lost ground, no doubt about it, and in many other ways we have gained huge amounts of ground, truly stupendous amounts in fact. The notion of the 'minor roll back under Thatcher' is actually preposterous.

Under previous Labour and Conservative governments, marginal rates of taxation were (in effect) in excess or 100% for some people. Vast swathes of the economy were nationalised. The productive simply became tax exiles. The movement of capital was tightly controlled. We had ID cards (on-ongoing struggle). The UK was a quasi-national socialist nation under fucktards like Wilson and Heath [spits on ground] and it was not that different in a great many western countries.

Changing all of that was not a 'minor roll back'. A little perspective please, Gentlemen. We have many serious fights ahead of us but we are by no means at the Last Ditch.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 30, 2007 02:04 PM

Before ignoring Creationism, or dismissing it out of hand, consider the view point put forth on catholicfundamentalism.com
God, as Programmer, has the ability to program in three dimensions. With subprogrammers (angels), He programmed particles, compiled them into structures and beings, and put them in operation. In a week.
Fossils, carbon 14, etc. were all provided in order to give us free will, which we use to approach or avoid The Programmer.
The poor, lost souls of the tax-addicted avoid both God and loving their neighbors.

Posted by billadams at December 30, 2007 03:05 PM

As a person who believes in God, I 100 percent agree with Perry's argument that the state should have no role in education. People who know little about either theological or scientific world-views turn into demagogues, motivated by a desire to get the state to endorse a 'correct' view, which is indeed a crucial consideration if and only if we are all paying for a viewpoint. Let's not, and see what happens.

Posted by Tony at December 30, 2007 03:44 PM

My opinion is that providing a free, baseline education for children falls under the basic federal responsibility of "keeping the peace," much like providing food and water services. People who don't get any kind of basic education will grow up treating the most bizarre beliefs as facts, with creationism being one of the least harmful to civilized society. Think the sort of things suicide bombers and FARC guerillas believe. No matter how we choose to educate our children, we need to at least provide our fellow citizens with an option to get their children a solid grounding in the scientific, social, and economic facts of life. Most parents will gladly let their children receive education for free, regardless of what beliefs they or the teachers hold. As for those that are so fearful of "indoctrination" that they won't let their children learn basic arithmatic, they're still free to do so, but their numbers are kept low enough that the police can deal with their eventual turn to crime.

Posted by Tatterdemalian at December 30, 2007 04:16 PM

Jews have been doing marriage contracts for at least 500 years. Perhaps a look at Jewish marriage laws might be of some value.

A body of common law has been built up.

Posted by M. Simon at December 30, 2007 04:29 PM

Think the sort of things suicide bombers and FARC guerillas believe. No matter how we choose to educate our children, we need to at least provide our fellow citizens with an option to get their children a solid grounding in the scientific, social, and economic facts of life. Most parents will gladly let their children receive education for free, regardless of what beliefs they or the teachers hold.

What about parents? I think their influence is large because it starts sooner.

a solid grounding in the scientific, social, and economic facts

From State Schools?

Har.

Are you kidding me? Pulling my leg? Having me on?

Current fads:

1. Global warming is unnatural and caused by man
2. White men are no good
3. Scientific Socialism works

Posted by M. Simon at December 30, 2007 04:36 PM

I don't know whether there's any proof that education (defined as "schooling" here) reduces crime as you seem to imply in your last sentence. Crime is far higher now (compulsory free education for all) than it was in say Victorian times (some sort of education for most) or earlier than that (no education for most, private education for an elite minority). It's not clear to me which bit of education is the crime-stopper. Arithmetic? Most people would learn that anyway, just in their daily lives (can't shop or trade without it). The level of speling and granma today is appalling anyway- I've had to fill in forms for work colleagues because they could barely do more than sign it with a cross and a thumbprint. Science? Little use to most people, and most of the population are fundamentally ignorant anyway. I remember a TV show where they interviewed a bunch of primary school teachers on their graduation day with basic science questions like "what are trees made of?". Most thought they're made from soil, which they suck up through the roots. One, when asked by the interviewer, "what would you think if I said they're made of carbon?" and the reply was "I'd think you were mad". As to economics, most of the population believe some degraded toytown Keynesian mish-mash.

It's difficult to know what use most education is. For fun, ask anyone who did O-Level (or GCSE I guess, I'm too old to know anything about that) to tell you the quadratic equation formula. You'll find hardly anyone can, and most can't even remember what a quadratic equation is. What was the point of all those maths teachers wasting time on it?

OTOH I'd suggest there may be a strong link between teenage dropoutism and schooling. One can argue that "feral teenagers" everyone wrings their hands about are young people who are ready to leave the dreary prison camp of school and start on the first rungs of an adult life. More education is no use to them. They're not interested in quadratic equations, they want to start growing up. Instead we trap them in the school system and they react by emulating what they can of adult masculinity in negative ways- violence, drugs, drink, undiscipined sex and so on. And the idiots in government think the solution is to keep them in school for two more years. Madness. It's a reaction IMV against retarding their development as citizens. As such, they're the victims of too much schooling and a one-size-fits-all dogma that it is inherently good and more of it is better.

That doesn't apply to all students, needless to say. All human beings are unique. Some are academic and thrive on learning in a school environment. Some need a less formal environment. And some just need to go out and get a job as a plasterer's apprentice.

One of my first acts as fantasy prime minister would be to take the "compulsory" out of schooling.

Posted by Ian B at December 30, 2007 04:37 PM

Re: Education. Is a large part of the problem the whole issue of credentialism?

If there is to be a "market" for education, then one has to look at what is being sold by the educators. In essense, it is credentials that are accepted by the general marketplace for the purposes of obtaining employment.

So while an autodidact might cobble together a wonderful education via the internet, it would be worthless to him for the purposes of getting a job from Company Y, which demands a Masters degree from a government accredited university as a primary qualification for the job it is offering.

As long as that is the case, I don't see much of a marketplace opening up for various sorts of educational models. If you want a good job, you have to go to a good, state-controlled school with a good, state-recommended curriculum. (Yes, I'm aware that companies complain all the time about the quality of the grads they hire, but I don't see that has changed their demands for degrees in the slightest).

A step further: vis Dewey, it may well be that the job market is in some part exactly seeking certain "non-educational" attributes imbued by state edu systems: Attendance, time clock punching, deadline meeting, socialization skills, etc., that they believe are only provided by the formalized system as it exists today.

Posted by Bill Quick at December 30, 2007 04:39 PM

Before ignoring Creationism, or dismissing it out of hand, consider the view point put forth on catholicfundamentalism.com
God, as Programmer, has the ability to program in three dimensions. With subprogrammers (angels), He programmed particles, compiled them into structures and beings, and put them in operation. In a week.
Fossils, carbon 14, etc. were all provided in order to give us free will, which we use to approach or avoid The Programmer.

I have a plan for loading a virus into the boot sector.

Posted by M. Simon at December 30, 2007 04:39 PM

Bill Quick,

I am an aerospace engineer. Without benefit of degree.

So I have just falsified your premise.

BTW I started out as a bench technician.

Posted by M. Simon at December 30, 2007 04:42 PM

Let me add that I was never qualified for any of the jobs I held.

Har.

Posted by M. Simon at December 30, 2007 04:44 PM

So I have just falsified your premise.

No, I don't believe you have.

You were hired for a job that the company did not demand a college degree for. I presume, however, that they did demand a high school degree? Or are you a high school dropout as well?

However, at the time you were hired as a technician (by the way, is your company still hiring non-college-degreed applicants for that job these days?) you would not have been hired as an aerospace engineer without a degree in the field.

One outlier, by the way, does not falsify a general premise.

Posted by Bill Quick at December 30, 2007 04:54 PM

I think the thing here is that increasingly a degree is changing from what it once was (a diploma which says you have knowledge and skills in a specific field) into a kind of Willy Wonka Golden Ticket to the ruling class :)

We see this in that increasingly people will only hire people who have a degree, largely regardless of what it is- whether it be in science, sociology or spoon bending and in the increasing expansion of higher education into irrelevant fields, trying to churn as many students as they can through the sausage factory. We often see statements that a degree proves various things about a person e.g. that they can commit to a project or that they have a wide experience of life (why dressing up as a nun for rag week or getting kidnapped in Palestine counts as more use than work experience and fending for yourself isn't clear) but I think what the "degree, any degree" crowd are really after is tribally shared values. The general assumption that somebody with a degree is "one of us"; thus leading to farcical situations like the new gubmint regulation of nurseries will mean anyone hoping to run one will need a degree (be it in astrophysics or political science and mountaineering, doesn't matter).

It's basically a way to sharpen a class divide by imposing an entry barrier. "Once you've been to Uni like all us nobs, we think you might be trustworthy, but there's no way we're allowing any snotty chavs in".

As an aside, I've generally found this contention to meet with much more approval among those with real degrees (e.g. math, real sciences, engineering) than those with ruling class degrees (english**, sociology, film studies, environmental studies).

Note for instance that most of the government have ruling class degrees; especially law, though most of those only have a passing acquaintance with actual law practise.

**What exactly does this degree prove? That you've read more books than the average dustman?

Posted by Ian B at December 30, 2007 05:13 PM

My opinion is that providing a free, baseline education for children falls under the basic federal responsibility of "keeping the peace," much like providing food and water services.

'Free' eh? So I guess there is no need for the content of this 'baseline' of education to be a political football. Why? Because as it is 'free', you say, I obviously do not have to pay taxes to fund it as the government just pays for the 'baseline education programme' with money picked from the state owned orchard of money trees. I doesn't cost me a bean, so why should I get to demand my views get taught? Cool, that's education sorted then.

As for the state providing our food for us, I take it you are leaving this comment here from North Korea? I never knew you guys even had the Internet! I hear obesity is not a big problem in your part of the world, which must be nice.

For the rest of us, we are generally pretty happy that the state does not 'provide' our food supply system.

People who don't get any kind of basic education will grow up treating the most bizarre beliefs as facts, with creationism being one of the least harmful to civilized society

So then you think the large chunk of the US population who do indeed believe in creationism did not get a 'baseline' state 'education'? Ditto for those who believe in the fixed quality of wealth fallacy and Keynesian economics (both vastly more damaging than creationism)?

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 30, 2007 05:14 PM

Perry, if you read a 100 academic political books on how social policy works, about 99% of them will say that libertarianism-minarchism- anarchism is a tarbaby and will never work in real life and will result in the tyranny of the rich. It's a established fact among ivory-tower academic set.

If you read a 100 science books on the origins of humanity, 99% of them will state evolution from a lower species of animal as the cause and vehemently dismiss anyone who says otherwise as a crank.

In the former view, the dynamics at work are groupthink, ossified conclusions from over a hundreds of years, institutional bias to keep the government scholarships coming in, innate psychological bias of professors who want structure and equality, and a (political) philosopher's will to power--if you have an anarcho-capitalist political system, what kind of politics is left to study or admire?

Some of us are just as skeptical of the later view for the same reasons: a biological elite insisting that their view--a biological view--explains life, the universe and everything. Their premises were settled long ago and dare not be questioned.

Whenever someone raises questions the premises of evolution--lack of transition species in the present or fossil record, mind-bending complexity of even the simpliest life, how most human "vestigal organs" have been shown now to have some use, why human-DNA now structures its enviroment in a way completely different from the environment that supposedly structured human-DNA--we're a bunch of mystics and religious nuts. And by the same type people who, in the academic building across campus, call republicans, libertarians and capitalists a bane to civilization.

Dont' get me wrong. I'm a Messianic Jew who believes that a interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is true, but have no concern for how exactly things played out eons ago. There's enough empirical confirmation of the Judeo-Christian scriptures that my faith won't be shaken over how God chose to explained the origins of life and the universe to pre-industrial peoples.

One the other hand, when modern sciences can't even agree on whether the climate is getting warmer or colder, or whether red meat and eggs are good or bad for you, I'm not going to carte blanche to them on where humanity came from.

Posted by Protagonist at December 30, 2007 05:17 PM

Protagonist, my problem is not that someone might have some scientific disagreement with the theory of evolution, it is that someone who I want to take seriously has a religious problem with a scientific theory.

However...

I am perfectly willing to vote for religious people, even if their religion is the main driver of their politics, provided I agree with their politics. I do not really care why they think what they think, just what do they intend to do as a practical matter. If Ron Paul wants to shrink the state because he thinks it will bring The Rapture one day closer, I am still willing to cheer him on (despite the waves of existential angst that I may feel).

The fact I regard all religion as gibberish nonsense does not really matter when it comes to the pragmatic decision of which lever to pull. But it does not make me think more of a person when they evaluate a theory on the basis of the existence of an entity that I regard as being on a par with The Tooth Fairy or Harvey the invisible rabbit. But as I am supremely tolerant of the weird things other people believe, just so long as they return the favour (which is NOT a minor qualification), then I am still willing (if not happy) to support the likes of Ron Paul.

And that is because his religious views are really not all that important in the overall scheme of things. The role and size of the state. THAT is important.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 30, 2007 05:33 PM

"Are you kidding me? Pulling my leg? Having me on?

Current fads:

1. Global warming is unnatural and caused by man
2. White men are no good
3. Scientific Socialism works"

Consider those some examples of the social facts of life, which can be summed up as, "Popularity is where the real power is, not truth or morality." A harsh lesson, and one that very few people on the internet can accept, mostly because the internet tends to attract people who can't deal with others except from behind an LCD display. But whether we believe or disbelieve it, it remains quite true, and the politicians and lawyers will always have the upper hand over us until we learn it, accept it, and find ways to harness it.

"'Free' eh? So I guess there is no need for the content of this 'baseline' of education to be a political football. Why? Because as it is 'free', you say, I obviously do not have to pay taxes to fund it as the government just pays for the 'baseline education programme' with money picked from the state owned orchard of money trees."

And here we see what happens when deeply held beliefs are being challenged: rants, obfuscation, and ad hominem. This is why lawyers exist, folks: because some people will try to read hidden meanings into anything that isn't written in explicit leagalese, to serve their own petty ends.

By 'free' I do not mean 'nobody has to pay for it,' only that the recipients do not have to pay additional money for it. That's right, you there pay out your taxes so some stranger you have never met gets an education for his children without having to pay a goddamn penny. No doubt this will be met with even more bawling, but it's really quite a lot cheaper than letting those same strangers' children grow up knowing only how to survive by forming into a guerilla army and carrying out raids on random neighborhoods, stretching the police so thin that they can't even rescue a kidnapped former mayor of your town by themselves, as is the case in lovely libertarian utopias like Columbia.

If you want to get your children an education that hasn't been kicked around the political football field, you know what you can do? PAY EXTRA FOR IT. 'Free' education, like free food and water, should be restricted to a 'you get what you pay for' level that government, by its nature, will only barely meet.

Posted by Tatterdemalian at December 30, 2007 07:01 PM

as is the case in lovely libertarian utopias like Columbia.

You might start by learning the difference between "libertarian utopia" and "anarchy."

Perhaps you could go to a free government school somewhere....

Posted by Bill Quick at December 30, 2007 07:10 PM

Tatterdemalian: yet strangely literacy was pretty much as high as it is today before 'free' education and western civilisation did not turn into Somalia.

Just because the tax man does not pay for 'something', it does not mean that 'something' (such as education) will not get done if people want it enough.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 30, 2007 07:16 PM

but it's really quite a lot cheaper than letting those same strangers' children grow up knowing only how to survive by forming into a guerilla army and carrying out raids on random neighborhoods, stretching the police so thin that they can't even rescue a kidnapped former mayor of your town by themselves, as is the case in lovely libertarian utopias like Columbia.

Isn't it a bit of a leap to make the assumption that that is due to taxpayer funded schooling? Would it not be better to consider that there many be many possible explanations?

Isn't Colombia rather linked with the drugs trade (entirely caused by statist intervention, by the way), and doesn't that tend to create organised crime gangs and so on? Just as an example, there.

Posted by Ian B at December 30, 2007 07:19 PM

Interesting premise, but there are many practical problems. Full disclosure: I am a high school teacher.

I agree fully that minimal government intrusion in education is ideal. The politicization of education in any direction is harmful and subverts what is a very good, and very necessary ideal: free public education for every American child. One thing is certain: the federal government has no business whatever being involved in education policy or practice. The further removed any governmental entity is from the local classroom, the more likely is their "help" to be harm.

The problem is that, with the notable exception of some few private schools on the coasts with enormous endowments, and/or tuition of tens of thousands per semester, k-12 education is not, and cannot be, a for-profit enterprise. If it was, would we not expect thousands of thriving private schools across America, instead of relatively few private schools barely kept afloat through their affiliation with various churches and religions? Do we really want the length and quality of education for a given child to be dependent upon what their parents can afford? There are broader consequences for society here.

The construction and maintenance of facilities alone makes it impossible for private education to exist as a for-profit endeavor, thus do many private schools meet in church basements. Tax support is very much necessary. Fortunately, local citizens can hold their elected school boards and state and local politicians accountable when they indulge in political whims instead of working to see that the lowliest teacher in the smallest classroom has what they need to teach as well as possible. It is when we forget that this must be the primary goal of a school district--hiring the best teachers and fully supporting their efforts in teaching the best, most competent information in their individual disciplines--that we run into trouble. Rigorously following this guiding pricipal would immediately eliminate much political mischief. Creationism would not be taught in science classes because it is not science. Political correctness would not be enforced, because it destroys individual accomplishment and responsibility.

The means for local citizens to see that everyone in a school district is "accountable" exist, and always have. Citizens merely need to be involved and use the power that democracy grants.

Posted by Mike McDaniel at December 30, 2007 07:24 PM

The problem is that, with the notable exception of some few private schools on the coasts with enormous endowments, and/or tuition of tens of thousands per semester, k-12 education is not, and cannot be, a for-profit enterprise. If it was, would we not expect thousands of thriving private schools across America, instead of relatively few private schools barely kept afloat through their affiliation with various churches and religions

The problem is, whenever government provides a free service, the rest of the market has a big problem, and the result is only the "luxury" end survives. We can see this also with government free housing, or rent control, which result in a reduced private market which is more expensive than in cities without government intervention.

One way to look at it is; if you can send your kids to a bearable quality free school, you're not going to pay anything out of your pocket to send them to a fee-paying school of comparable quality. Firstly because you gain nothing, secondly because you feel you're paying already through taxes. So the private sector can only survive, in a much reduced form, by offering a premium service which is so demonstrably better than the free one that it's worth buying; which means it's going to be much more expensive (or needs itself to be subsidised e.g. by church organisations).

If the government gave you free bread, I can only sell you a loaf if it's super high quality much better bread.

So if you have free education, it's hard to say that the small, expensive private sector is all that there would be without it.

Posted by Ian B at December 30, 2007 07:36 PM

I agree fully that minimal government intrusion in education is ideal. The politicization of education in any direction is harmful and subverts what is a very good, and very necessary ideal: free public education for every American child.

But I think you fall at the first fence, Mike. 'Free' public education means tax funded education and ANYTHING that involves money taken from people via the political process (i.e. tax money) is necessarily a political matter. If you are going to spend my money, you CANNOT deny me political input in the process of how that money gets spent. No taxation without representation, remember?

The only way to have education without political interference is to not spend money acquired at gunpoint via politics... and that perforce means no tax money.

The problem is that, with the notable exception of some few private schools on the coasts with enormous endowments, and/or tuition of tens of thousands per semester, k-12 education is not, and cannot be, a for-profit enterprise.

But that is in an environment in which the market is wildly distorted by tax funded (please stop calling it 'free') education. If people with less money want education are you seriously saying the market will not be willing to offer a product to fit their budget if not crowded out by the state? The historical evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. The state is not the only way for less affluent people to get an education and in this era of cheap internet access, the notion people even need to physically go to school at all in order to become educated is very much open to question.

Citizens merely need to be involved and use the power that democracy grants.

Democracy only 'grants' one power and that is who the means of collective coercion get used on. It is primarily the means by which a plurality of voters, under the leadership of the best organised activists, use force to allocate people's resources in ways they would not choose to if given the choice (which is why they are not given a choice if they disagree with political outcome). If you are less well organised or have unpopular views or are a member of a fashionably despised minority, there is nothing empowering about 'citizenship' and the politics you are subject to, democratic or otherwise.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 30, 2007 08:10 PM

In reading the post and comments, the obvious would seem to me to be the following:

First, Education:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Regardless of one's views it is for the most part currently provided by the state--if they provide funding, they may dictate content. If they don't provide any funding, they should not be afforded any say in the content. Percentage of funding should dictate the percentage of control.

Ultimately, those hiring the graduates should be most concerned with the level of competence of the finished product. If accreditation is to be required, it should be done by private entities, and those should be clearly separated from both government and schools. Any accreditation awarded should be based solely on results, not on the funding agency (public, private, or personal).

Second, Marriage:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
There are several vital reasons for having "marriage."

First, the (simplistic) groundwork:

Nations are conglomerations of individuals ruled by a hypothetical entity (government). Most governments can point to clear geographic boundaries, a majority ideology, and some history. Governments are (of necessity) parasitic: each must be funded to operate -- if citizens don't fund their government, it will fall, dragging the citizenry inside the geographic area into chaos. Therefore, the government gives incentives (in the form of institutions) to individuals to produce taxable revenue.

Second, the (simplistic) explanation:

Incentive "A" is the institution recognized as "a business" (whether a normal corporation, an S-Corp, partnership, LLC, etc is immaterial); businesses are taxed at different rates as individuals, hold different privileges, and offer rights and protection to the individual citizen(s) that created the entity. With some exceptions, all of these entities are expected to generate revenue for the state (exemptions are non-profits -- whether secular or religious in nature -- in return for recognition, they receive no monetary loss/gain to/from the state and assist in promoting domestic tranquility -- basically, an uncontrollable, unfunded asset of government).

In contrast, any entities that attempt to overthrow the government or foment any type of activity affecting the domestic tranquility of the government are not assets, and do not receive any type of recognition from the government.

Incentive "B" (marriage) is another institution vital to government. By it, 2 separate citizens agree to become 1 (in the eyes of the state) for tax purposes; this 1 entity becomes a family. The state offers special rights to families just as they do to businesses. In return, the family provides the primary ingredient vital to the survival of all governments: more citizens (children) to pay taxes and support a future generation of the government. To minimize government interference, exceptions are expected. Not every family can (or will) produce citizens, but the possibility is there, so the recognition is awarded -- to promote domestic tranquility.

Therein lies the problem for individuals in same-sex relationships. Legitimizing their union by receiving state recognition is of great benefit to them: the 2 receive the same rights, protection, and privileges accorded a family. However, there is no benefit to the government to recognize same-sex relationships because there is no possibility of producing citizens.

Thus, same sex relationships fall into a similar category as entities that attempt to overthrow the government: they promote a lifestyle that denies assets (citizens) to the government. While not an overt threat, the long term result is the same.

Conclusion:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinion of what constitutes right or wrong is just that -- opinion. However, from a purely logical standpoint, there aren't any "good" reasons for any government to offer this recognition.

If those in same-sex relationships receive any benefits from their union the government becomes the biggest loser in terms of quantifiable assets. However, those in traditional families will have lost the benefits they presently derive from their union as well -- lost to dilution.

The only reason to offer this recognition is to ensure political correctness. Political correctness dilutes the benefits afforded to the majority to appease a minority.

Any way you slice it, it still sounds like stealing to me.

Posted by m@t at December 30, 2007 08:44 PM

Creationism has little or nothing to do with a reaction against eugenics. It was more a reaction against sex and drugs and rock and roll. It is a reaction against the rebellion of youth against tradition and conventional morality, of sexual freedom and lifestyle freedom, of easy divorce, legally available abortion, encouragement of homosexuality, of pornography and superficial titillation appearing in popular entertainment, of disrespect for authority and one's elders and betters.

I don't think that history supports that assertion, largely because the Creationist movement took off long before sex drugs and rock'n'roll (look at the date of the Scopes Monkey Trial). It was a reaction against social darwinism, not social liberalism.

I'll agree though that much of the christian right are reaction against social liberalism (libertinism) but they started doing that in the 60s, well after the Darwin vs. Creation argument was well underway. Most of your list are behaviours are best described as libertine and some are opposed stridently by voices in the secular left too; e.g. pornography and sexual freedom (the strong left wing feminist strand seem to be increasingly arguing themselves into the same position as the average ranting mullah, see Naomi Wolf here for instance) and I think it's unwise to associate libertine social values with the left or assume all conservatives, even christian ones, are Moral Majoritists.

At best we can perhaps see the "liberal" left and the christian right as too opposing statist philosophies, which is one reason libertarian ideas get crowded out. Even so, with the exception of sexual stuff, even "conservatives" tend to be far less statist than leftists, who want to control everything rather than just what we do with our naughty bits.

(I'm sorry Perry if this is off-topic but since the post I'm replying to was apparently allowed I've felt okayed to answer it).

Posted by Ian B at December 30, 2007 08:47 PM

"Isn't it a bit of a leap to make the assumption that that is due to taxpayer funded schooling? Would it not be better to consider that there many be many possible explanations?"

I included at least two other factors in each post I made (free food and water). No, free education isn't the only factor. It is, however, a factor, one of the additional ones (beyond the simpler needs for survival) that has developed as technological change resulted in changes to societies' expectations.

"Tatterdemalian: yet strangely literacy was pretty much as high as it is today before 'free' education and western civilisation did not turn into Somalia."

'Free' education in the US actually predates the signing of the Declaration of Independence; it was provided throughout New England, funded by county and later state taxes. Literacy in those areas, by some strange happenstance, was much higher than it was in states without similar systems, such as in the Carolinas and Georgia. Within five years of the end of the Civil War (which Somalia is currently being torn up by), all states provided free elementary education.

Coincidence? Perhaps.

"You might start by learning the difference between "libertarian utopia" and "anarchy."
Perhaps you could go to a free government school somewhere...."

Anarchies don't build skyscrapers. Labeling Columbia an "anarchy" is like labeling Chairman Mao a "conservative." People do it because they can't stand to look at the dark side of their own beliefs.

Posted by Tatterdemalian at December 30, 2007 09:14 PM

(Apologize if its already been said) The way to deal with the "government and marriage" issue is to create contractual relationships and let EVERYONE have them. I can think of plenty of situations where straight, non-romantic, same-sex couples will want a contractual relationship (for example, long term roomates who are close friends, and would take care of each others kids or visit the other in a hospital). Whether or not that contractual relationship is a "marraige, sanctified by god, till death do you part," is up to the Chuch, not the state. As it should be.

As for education, I'm not quite ready to get behind the abolition of public education. We already HAVE private education, and not everyone can afford it. What do you do for those poor, inner city kids who can't afford private schooling? I think public education will be around for a while.

Posted by Vadept at December 30, 2007 09:51 PM

Our host wrote:

Democracy only 'grants' one power and that is who the means of collective coercion get used on.

To extend that thought -- democracy (as practised) is a pretty weak construct. All those Brits who thought that Brown would allow them to vote on the Euro Constitution might tend to agree. All those Brits who don't remember voting for Brown as their Supreme Leader might tend to agree.

There are not many recent examples of successful democracy. The rejection by English citizens of the Poll Tax, maybe -- although that relied on ordinary citizens being prepared to stand up and defy a "democratically approved" law. Or perhaps the failure of the illegal alien amnesty program agreed by the US political class -- although the politicians lost interest only when they realized that their bill might provoke out & out rebellion from mere citizens.

Seems that actual democracy in practice means direct action, or the credible threat thereof. Which is getting rather close of Mao's power comes out the barrel of a gun.

Maybe we should be rethinking democracy.

Posted by Alice at December 30, 2007 09:52 PM

Perry, you wrote: "Whenever someone raises questions [about] the premises of evolution ... we're a bunch of mystics and religious nuts."

That's right. You are. Either that, or simply uninformed. Because evolutionary theory is science, based on the observed facts and reasonable deductions from them. I have several hundred books full of data that supports evolution -- and zero books that contain any data which contradicts it. Questioning evolution is closer to questioning that the Sun rises in the East than it is to questioning the veracity of the latest political fad.

Regarding the state's role in education: I agree with the general consensus that involving a government agency in education is a generally bad idea. My question to you all, however, is this: do you have a better one? Not just a different one, but a demonstrably better one?

For example, schools are expensive. If you have a town with five or six or ten different factions, none of which can afford its own school but none of which wants to cooperate with any of the others to jointly fund a school, what do they do?

Next, having established funding for a school, what do you teach? Who establishes the curriculum? buys the textbooks? writes the tests? defines the grading scale? assigns grades? Note that if you answer any of these questions with any variant of "a council of parents and/or teachers," then you defeat your own principle because you are handing control of the school over to what is, in effect, a government agency. There is little real difference between a twenty-member School Board and a four-hundred-member Legislature. Madison knew it and warned of it in the Federalist Papers two hundred twenty years ago: any group that is granted decision-making powers for the community will experience the problems of factionalism, regardless of its size. If you accept any form or level of government you must accept all the problems it brings with it. You can try to minimize those problems, and more power to you in the endeavor, but you can't eliminate them. They're inherent in the system.

Posted by wolfwalker at December 30, 2007 10:02 PM

There are not many recent examples of successful democracy. The rejection by English citizens of the Poll Tax, maybe

I'd argue that that was a well orchestrated campaign by pressure groups in which the general public had a useful role. Had there not been a strong faction within the ruling class eager for an excuse to ditch Thatcher, and the usual well organised mob of media and pressure groups, "Teh People" could have done nothing except grumble and put up with it, much like e.g. Council Tax, the smoking ban, the rubbish collection farce, myriad other impositions.

It was a surgical strike by the insider left and (Gabb term again here) the quisling right, against a leader who had outlived her usefulness to them (having been so kind as to quash their main opponent, the trade unions, introduce some desired economic reforms, and so on). The ordinary folks were marshalled to provide the necessary figleaf of "popular support".

Posted by Ian B at December 30, 2007 10:09 PM

Perry, you wrote: "Whenever someone raises questions [about] the premises of evolution ... we're a bunch of mystics and religious nuts."

Really? I don't recall writing that and it sure doesn't sound like me. Unless I was drunk (by no means impossible at this time of year), I think you are quoting someone else!

Posted by Perry de Havilland at December 30, 2007 11:11 PM

Regarding the state's role in education: I agree with the general consensus that involving a government agency in education is a generally bad idea. My question to you all, however, is this: do you have a better one? Not just a different one, but a demonstrably better one?

One way of looking at things is to start going back to one's implicit assumptions and addressing them. It can be useful, or a waste of time, but it's worth a try. So, musing here-

We make an automatic assumption that "education" means "schooling" and when we think "school", we think a very specific thing- a single building which children attend approximately the same as standard work hours, which utilises a batch education system with schooldays, divided into periods assigned to specific subjects. We tend to presume it has some considerable function of "citizenship construction". It awards some kind of diplomas for knowledge earned. It's a coherent encapsulated social system, like a company, to which children "belong".

Is that the only practical means of educating children? It's only recently in human history that such schools have existed, or at least have been something most or all children attend.

It's suspicious for instance that apparently we believe that the quantity of education a child requires, which seem to measure in time units, is an exact match for (a) the amount of hours children need minding while their parents work and (b) the number of years between toddler stage and the age their allowed to get a job. What a coincidence! What would we do if children had had sufficient education by the age of 12, for instance? Who would mind them during the day? Not the parents, they're busty working.

Is batch schooling the best form of education? What of the child who is just getting to grips with long division, then the bell rings and they have to go learn about history, then they're just getting to understand the Corn Laws and RING, off to play some sports which they may or may not like, do nothing for their health, and so on.

Many children hate school. It's at once rigid and formal, but also a bear pit. They're locked in with any tormentors who may arise, driving some kids to suicide or shooting sprees. For an adult, a lousy job is something they can walk away from. Not a kid in school. I think sometimes we adults forget what school was like; it's all-encompassing, moreso than a job, a strange microcosmic society in which you're forced to participate and which is a benign police state, and which isolates the child from their protectors; their family (particularly the parents). Children in the past never had to cope with this (in the tribal societies that most humans have lived in, learning was something informal done mostly from the parents, or with their supervision anyway). Is this artificial factory society good for children? Does it teach them self-reliance, or does it teach them how to function in a violent communist dystopia?

For instance, can we challenge the assumption that a child must attend a (particular) school? Beyond perhaps a first stage gaining basic numeracy and language skills, could not parents and offspring choose courses from a range of private sector providers? As a kid, I was fascinated by astronomy. Sadly, there was no time in my school's curriculum, nor facilities, for astronomy study. Perhaps in a private sector non-school based system, I could have selected to study astronomy as a specific course. Of course I'd have needed to study physics and math, probably chemistry as well, and so on.

Maybe there's no astronomy course in my little town. Well, boarding school has always seemed a bit grim, but boarding at an educational institution for a limited period, to study among the like minded- I'd have rather fancied that. Child-minding included!

etc

Yes, I know this is all a bit utopian. But I do challenge the school paradigm as it stands. I think we need to, um, think outside the box a bit.

Let's face it, for huge numbers of kids, school as it stands is just a farcical bollocking waste of their time and everybody else's money.

Posted by Ian B at December 30, 2007 11:34 PM

Sorry, my mistake, Perry. It wasn't you who wrote that, it was Protagonist. Keeping track of who wrote what in this non-threaded interface can be curst difficult.

Ian:

Is that the only practical means of educating children? It's only recently in human history that such schools have existed, or at least have been something most or all children attend.

Is it the only practical means? Is it merely the most practical means? Is it neither? I don't know.

I do know that it's only recently that it became necessary for such things as general schooling to exist, because only recently has the scope of human knowledge, even "basic numeracy and language skills" (to borrow your own phrase), become so complex as to require some systemat