74 replies to this topic

[victorian fan]

What about all the people that don't have kids? Why should they have to pay to educate everyone else's kids?

A lot of childless people probably paid school taxes for you and your friends when you were attending school. Did you go to private school?

[Caramia]

Also, what's so scary about the Fraser Institute championing the free market? The vast majority of people work in the private sector but they shouldn't have a voice?

Championing the private market is a far cry from being the voice of the working stiff. Being the voice of the employers, maybe.

Regarding public schools - it is to the benefit of all of society that the children get an education. You reap the benefits of that education every time you visit a doctor, get the correct change at the till, or watch a movie. In a private school only system, the entire responsibility of educating the child falls to the family... and that means that the government loses its right to determine curriculum, or even to require that kids attend school. When the kids grow up uneducated, and more to the point, untrained in being citizens, all of society feels the impact.

[Ms. B. Havin]

(...) That's the main reason I favour private schools.

In the US it is indeed that case that private schools have to raise all their own money, typically from tuition, donations, and fundraising.

But in BC, each pupil at private school -- including St.Michael's, Glenlyon Norfolk, etc., as well as the denominational ones (St.Andrews, etc.) -- is supported by a per head subsidy from the government (i.e., your tax money) that is paid direct to the school and is on the order of around $3,000.

I find that really astonishing, but it's true. I might not have the figure right, but I'm not off by more than $500, of that I'm sure.

In spite of this government subsidy (that comes attached to the pupil but goes directly to the school, not the pupil -- i.e., it's not a voucher), places like SMUS and GNS still charge around $10K per pupil in tuition alone. This means they have way more to spend on each pupil than the public schools do.

I know Americans would scream if their taxes went to support private schools or religious schools. Most BCers don't even know that private schools are subsidized by our taxes.

Not having any subsidies from the government, US private schools really are more independent as a result. They aren't obliged to hire union teachers -- in fact, they can hire anyone they want, and I have known people who got PhDs in some humanities field, decided they didn't like university teaching and took themselves off to teach at some bucolic private school setting -- where they made less money, but had lots of freedom to create a curriculum that really works.

Private schools in BC have to hire BCTF people -- they can't hire a creative genius from university, or an entrepreneur, or an artist, or a scientist, or even a university professor -- unless that person is in the BCTF and has gone through all the brainwashing, er, I mean education, of becoming certified as a BC teacher.

That said, I need to add that I had hoped to stay out of this discussion because I really disagree with davek's position, and I'm of two minds about hitting the "submit" button since I certainly don't want to get into the weird abstract discussions around "privatization" that have gone on here. That topic (because it's so abstract) bores me to tears.

Honestly, privatized neighbourhoods, privatized streets, privatized infrastructure -- geez, what for?

[davek]

Championing the private market is a far cry from being the voice of the working stiff. Being the voice of the employers, maybe.

This is entirely incorrect. Where ever and how ever workers suffer, you will find government doing what it shouldn't, and not doing what it should. Private markets are the workers' best friend.

Regarding public schools - it is to the benefit of all of society that the children get an education. You reap the benefits of that education every time you visit a doctor, get the correct change at the till, or watch a movie.

Private schooling provides all these benefits without the addition of ever increasing costs and ever declining productivity, with the additional benefits of reintroducing competition to education provision.

In a private school only system, the entire responsibility of educating the child falls to the family... and that means that the government loses its right to determine curriculum, or even to require that kids attend school.

This is entirely as it should be. Parents are the best judge of what is best for their children. Some parents will do better by their children than others, but this is no justification for forcing everyone to turn control over their child's education to a voting majority.

When the kids grow up uneducated, and more to the point, untrained in being citizens, all of society feels the impact.

As always, my opponents make my arguments for me. Are you worried that children will grow up uneducated? Will they be untrained in being citizens? Do you fear that wealthy children will be better schooled than the poor? Will children graduate illiterate or innumerate? Will children be stuck in environments where they are exposed to drugs and violence? Will they be taught values their parents don't espouse at the expense of those they do? There is no problem cited by opponents of privatization that isn't rampant in the very system they defend.

The good news is that private education options are increasingly available, increasingly affordable, and parents are taking increasing advantage of them. So long as government schools are shielded from competition, they will continue their decline, and their days are numbered.

[Ms. B. Havin]

^ What you write about public education I actually agree with, davek. But I don't see how the "tool" of privatization should fit every problem (the old "if all you have is a hammer, pretty soon every problem starts to look like a nail" rut).

Privatization as a hammer that can nail down every social ill is far too clumsy a tool.

Parse it out a bit. Sometimes you're talking about a lack of innovation. Sometimes a lack of competitiveness. Sometimes a lack of freedom (of choice, options, etc.).

Privatization isn't necessarily the answer to all of those problems.

[Caramia]

This is entirely incorrect. Where ever and how ever workers suffer, you will find government doing what it shouldn't, and not doing what it should. Private markets are the workers' best friend.

Ah yes, one only has to look back to the unregulated markets of the industrial revolution to see how the workers rights were protected by the invisible hand of benevolent capital.

Unmitigated privatization is as evil in theory and practice as unmitigated socialism. The hybrid system is what works, because it has the flexibility to strengthen the weakest link while allowing for the strongest to lead.

[UrbanRail]

UrbanRail, the private sector has proven ad infinitum through competition that it can provide goods and services cheaper and more efficiently than government can, so why would libraries (or schools) be any different? Unions are the thing that costs taxpayers a fortune and everyone that works in the government (as far as I know), in any capacity is a member of one. I've spoken to so many people that shake their heads at the wages many people get in entry-level union jobs that require little training or education, all because they're in a union and that money comes right out of the taxpayer's pocket.

Also, what's so scary about the Fraser Institute championing the free market? The vast majority of people work in the private sector but they shouldn't have a voice?

One of the things I don't like about public schools are that everyone has to pay for them vis-a-vis taxes. What about all the people that don't have kids? Why should they have to pay to educate everyone else's kids? The only response I've ever had from people on this is that society is better served by having a public school system where every parent can send their kid. While that's true, it doesn't address the issue of fairness, nor does it encourage people to take responsibility for their choices. That's the main reason I favour private schools.

Holden, how do you think people managed in the 1940's and 1950's when people paid way less taxes? The reason is because people didn't turn to the government for everything the way they do today. Back then, people turned to their friends, family, spouse, spouse's family or church for help. Nowadays the government is often option number one. I blame Trudeau for this. Not only that, but I believe that society functioned better back then than it does today. There was much less divisiveness-people were more willing to help their neighbours back then.

Back in the 40s and 50s,there was major discrimination against non-whites (especially towards natives, chinese and blacks), women, children, the environment, etc. So society didnt actually function better.

I agree that people were more self sufficient back then, but unfortunately that isnt the case any more. The high prices of gas, food, transport, materials, etc. will I hope force us to re think how we live our lives. Total privitization isnt the answer and neither is total government control. Our days of unlimited consumption is coming to an end, something that the proponents of the free market will have to come to terms with.

But there is a positive note to the market (a slight one), local food producers on the island may be able to take advantage of the rising transport costs of shipping food from the mainland making them more competitive, thus allowing our island agricultural lands to be more financially viable.

[Ms. B. Havin]

The hybrid system is what works, because it has the flexibility to strengthen the weakest link while allowing for the strongest to lead.

Caramia nails it.

Let me try to define my problem with the broad argument that privatization is the only preferred way from another angle. What's the biggest thing in the room here? Hint: you're using it right now if you're reading this. Yes! Bingo! The answer is: The internet.

Now, how would you like a fully privatized internet service, with "tollbooths" set up at intervals, to appease the various owners? "This is my privatized patch of optical fibre, if you want to route your bits along here, you'll pay me."

Do you think that would work?

Not very likely, and it would certainly be the end of a "free" (as in uncontrolled, unbiased flow of information) internet.

Take a look at Robert Cringely's If we build it they will come: It's time to own our own last mile, published almost 2 years ago. You'll find some things to support privatization (but note that the article attacks corporate telcos as well as Microsoft, both private), but you'll also see that his argument is more nuanced, complex. Flat-out privatization for all things isn't the answer, least of all when it comes to things like infrastructure.

It's a longish article; following are some key excerpts. First, the bad news: they stole our money:

...we build and finance public infrastructure in a public way using public funds with the goal of benefiting economic, social, and cultural development in our communities. [edit: note that he doesn't disparage that at all; he just goes on to ask some questions how this relates to the internet...] So why not do the same with the Internet, which is an information infrastructure? Well we did that, didn't we, with the National Information Infrastructure program of the 1990s, which was intended to bring fiber straight to most American homes? About $200 billion in tax credits and incentives went primarily to telephone companies participating in the NII program. What happened with that? They took the money, that's what, and gave us little or nothing in return.

But just because the highway contractor ran off with the money without finishing the road doesn't mean we can go without roads. It DOES mean, however, that we ought not to buy another road from that particular contractor.

The obvious answer is for regular folks like you and me to own our own last mile Internet connection.

Note that the guys who stole our money (well, ok, American taxpayers' money) are private companies. They left behind what some would call a third world set up, not some friendly or efficient system:

Today's system is a fake because it depends on capturing the value of the application -- communications -- in the transport and that would no longer be possible because with the Internet the value is created OUTSIDE the network.

"One example of the collateral damage caused by today's approach is the utter lack of simple wireless connectivity. Another is that we have redundant capital-intensive bit paths whose only purpose is to contain bits within billing paths," Frankston explains. "In practice, the telcos are about nothing at all other than creating billable events. Isn't it strange that as the costs of connectivity were going down your phone bill was increasing -- at least until VoIP forced the issue."

"We have an alternative model in the road system: The roads themselves are funded as infrastructure because the value is from having the road system as a whole, not the roads in isolation. You don't put a meter on each driveway. Tolls, fuel taxes, fees on trucks, etc. are ways of generating money but they are indirect. Local builders add capacity; communities add capacity and large entities create interstate roads. They don't create artificial scarcity just to increase toll revenues -- at least not so blatantly."

"I refer to today's carrier networks as trollways because the model is inverted -- the purpose of the road is to pass as many trollbooths as possible. We keep the backbone unlit to assure artificial scarcity. Worse, by trying to force us within their service model we lose the opportunity to create new value and can only choose among the services that fill their coffers -- it's hard to come up with a more effective way to minimize the value of the networks."

A model in which the infrastructure is paid for as infrastructure -- privately, locally, nationally, and internationally can create a true marketplace in which the incentives are aligned. [edit: note that he's arguing the case that internet service should be considered like infrastructure, and it has to be funded from all angles ("locally, nationally" = taxes, tax incentives)...] Instead of having the strange phenomenon of carriers spending billions and then arguing that they deserve to be paid, we'd have them bidding on contracts to install and/or maintain connectivity to a marketplace that is buying capacity and making it available so value can be created without having to be captured within the network and thus taken out of the economy.

The whole point of economic life -- as with any aspect of human life, really -- is to create value. In the case of the economy, value is something that people are willing to pay for. The infrastructure we need to keep doing that can't be totally privatized.

Why? Because that would impede the flow of exchange. That's contrary to what markets need. As Cringely writes (see above), "with the Internet the value is created OUTSIDE the network." Privatize the network and you start locking down value creation.

Recognizing the internet as part of our vitally necessary infrastructure shows you just what's at stake. The telcos are only too eager to box the internet in, privatize it, and erect barriers. They've got lobbyists in Congress hallways, trying to convince US lawmakers of just that. As advocates of internet neutrality would say, "no thanks and no way."

To repeat from that extract, above: "The roads themselves are funded as infrastructure because the value is from having the road system as a whole, not the roads in isolation. You don't put a meter on each driveway." They "are funded as infrastructure," meaning they are a collaborative project that cannot be left only to private interests.

Infrastructure has to be resilient, and you don't get resilience if you insist on ideological purity. That way be dragons.

[davek]

^ What you write about public education I actually agree with, davek. But I don't see how the "tool" of privatization should fit every problem (the old "if all you have is a hammer, pretty soon every problem starts to look like a nail" rut).

Privatization as a hammer that can nail down every social ill is far too clumsy a tool.

I haven't advocated privatization as a solution to every problem. Government has a legitimate role in the exercise of the police power, and should provide a police force, judiciary, and military in defense of the peoples’ rights.

Parse it out a bit. Sometimes you're talking about a lack of innovation. Sometimes a lack of competitiveness. Sometimes a lack of freedom (of choice, options, etc.).

Privatization isn't necessarily the answer to all of those problems.

The lack of innovation and freedom are direct results of the lack of competition. Although there are sometimes ways of introducing competition short of privatizing (such as education tax credits), when government provides services other than those listed above, privatization is almost always the ONLY answer.
If you are interested in learning about the benefits of privatization and it’s current status, here is a good place to start.

[LJ]

In the US it is indeed that case that private schools have to raise all their own money, typically from tuition, donations, and fundraising.

I don't think you are correct in that assumption.

But in BC, each pupil at private school -- including St.Michael's, Glenlyon Norfolk, etc., as well as the denominational ones (St.Andrews, etc.) -- is supported by a per head subsidy from the government (i.e., your tax money) that is paid direct to the school and is on the order of around $3,000.

It is not a subsidy - it is partial funding, the parents make up the difference and then some. Each child in a public school gets a "subsidy", to use your words of about $8000, which the parents of the kids in private school contribute to.

I find that really astonishing, but it's true. I might not have the figure right, but I'm not off by more than $500, of that I'm sure.

In spite of this government subsidy (that comes attached to the pupil but goes directly to the school, not the pupil -- i.e., it's not a voucher), places like SMUS and GNS still charge around $10K per pupil in tuition alone. This means they have way more to spend on each pupil than the public schools do.

If the parents in a particular public school wanted to spend more money per pupil they could raise the money as well. But most people are content to suck the government teat.

I know Americans would scream if their taxes went to support private schools or religious schools. Most BCers don't even know that private schools are subsidized by our taxes.

Again I think you are incorrect, and most people in Canada are aware of the partial funding of private schools, and are quite happy to provide partial funding rather than have all those kids in private schools enroll in the public system and have to provide full funding for them.

Not having any subsidies from the government, US private schools really are more independent as a result. They aren't obliged to hire union teachers -- in fact, they can hire anyone they want, and I have known people who got PhDs in some humanities field, decided they didn't like university teaching and took themselves off to teach at some bucolic private school setting -- where they made less money, but had lots of freedom to create a curriculum that really works.

Private schools in BC have to hire BCTF people -- they can't hire a creative genius from university, or an entrepreneur, or an artist, or a scientist, or even a university professor -- unless that person is in the BCTF and has gone through all the brainwashing, er, I mean education, of becoming certified as a BC teacher.

The teachers at most private schools are not BCTF members, this is one big draw to private schools. You know that when BCTF goes on one of their regular strikes, walk outs, study sessions the kids in the private schools will still be getting their education. An education not sanitized by the BCTF.

That said, I need to add that I had hoped to stay out of this discussion because I really disagree with davek's position, and I'm of two minds about hitting the "submit" button since I certainly don't want to get into the weird abstract discussions around "privatization" that have gone on here. That topic (because it's so abstract) bores me to tears.

Honestly, privatized neighbourhoods, privatized streets, privatized infrastructure -- geez, what for?

aa

[davek]

Ah yes, one only has to look back to the unregulated markets of the industrial revolution to see how the workers rights were protected by the invisible hand of benevolent capital.

The protection of rights is a function of government. When they are violated currently, during the Industrial Revolution, or any other time, government has either neglected to defend the victims, or colluded with business to violate those rights.

Unmitigated privatization is as evil in theory and practice as unmitigated socialism.

Neither I nor anyone else has proposed unmitigated privatization. Most people find my positions radical enough with out others exaggerating them.

The hybrid system is what works, because it has the flexibility to strengthen the weakest link while allowing for the strongest to lead.

The degree to which hybrids succeed is directly related to the degree to which they respect the rights of the individual. It is no accident that Canada is one of the most successful countries ever and that it is one of the most libertarian. Unfortunately for supporters of hybrid systems, they cannot last.

[Phil McAvity]

Regarding public schools - it is to the benefit of all of society that the children get an education. You reap the benefits of that education every time you visit a doctor, get the correct change at the till, or watch a movie. In a private school only system, the entire responsibility of educating the child falls to the family... and that means that the government loses its right to determine curriculum, or even to require that kids attend school. When the kids grow up uneducated, and more to the point, untrained in being citizens, all of society feels the impact.

Caramia, you missed what I said so I'll paste and copy it. Please pay attention this time. Here's what I wrote;"One of the things I don't like about public schools are that everyone has to pay for them vis-a-vis taxes. What about all the people that don't have kids? Why should they have to pay to educate everyone else's kids? The only response I've ever had from people on this is that society is better served by having a public school system where every parent can send their kid. While that's true, it doesn't address the issue of fairness, nor does it encourage people to take responsibility for their choices." Your argument is a red herring that doesn't address the fairness issue at all. The public school system is blatantly unfair for people without kids for they are forced to pay for other people's kids.

VictorianFan, good guess, I did in fact go to private school, hence my overwhelming erudition. You know what that means? That means that my father not only paid for me directly but he also paid indirectly for every other kid out there.

Ms. B Haven, the numbers you provided showing the subsidization that private schools get doesn't surprise me at all. I would have been surprised if they didn't get any subsidy. Regardless, public school kids cost the taxpayer a lot more than private school kids do.

Davek, I agree that sadly, we are moving towards socialism (the current federal government notwithstanding) vis-a-vis the nanny state. Just look at how much bigger government (and taxes of course) has gotten in the past 40 years. God I wish people would see how odious Trudeau's legacy has been.

[UrbanRail]

So my understanding of your position is a user fee system.

[UrbanRail]

So using the argument about those who dont have kids shouldnt have to pay for those that do. If my neighbour's kid is in the hospital with a disease or injured, i shouldnt have to pay taxes to help them out, because I dont have kids.

[davek]

So using the argument about those who dont have kids shouldnt have to pay for those that do. If my neighbour's kid is in the hospital with a disease or injured, i shouldnt have to pay taxes to help them out, because I dont have kids.

That's correct. The world is full of parents with children who are injured or diseased, and you are not morally bound to help all of them. The resources you have available to use for charity are limited, and only you are the rightful judge of who should receive them. If you feel you have good reason not to help your neighbours when their child is sick or injured, I should honour your choice, rather than using majority rule to threaten you with government force.

[Caramia]

Phil, I paid plenty of attention to what you said. Your argument was not compelling. Repeating it with an insult attached failed to make it more compelling.

In today's education system there is plenty of choice - the choice to home school, the choice to private school, to public school, to french immersion, and the choice to dislike the way that a teacher teaches a certain subject and to instead take that subject from another school. You clearly don't find that choice relevant to your argument - I get that. However since the argument for greater competition WAS made, I respond to it. Maybe if you paid better attention... Your complaint was that you don't think it is fair that you should have to pay for other people's children. Underlying that is an assumption of a parent's ownership of the child, and an assumption that there is no benefit for you to live in a city where children are educated to a certain standard. I find both of those assumptions problematic.

You would like a situation where parents are solely responsible for raising their children, tending to their education, to their healthcare, and I suppose to every other aspect of bringing them to adulthood. You imagine that this is morally righteous because the parents made the choice to have the child. In your philosophy, that child belongs to the parents and to the parents only. To extend that logically, should any other person then benefit from that child's successes as an adult, the parent should then be compensated. After all, the parents were the sole financial investors. Why should anyone else reap the reward without paying for it?

My philosophy is different. To me, a generation of children is a benefit or detriment to everyone in the social network. The child is belongs to his or her self, and to the future. The parents are serving all of us well when they bring up a child to be respectful, hardworking, and literate. As a childless adult, I am more than happy to contribute to that - financially through taxes, and personally through fostering children whose parents are failing at their duties. I see that as MY duty, as a citizen, and as someone with an investment in seeing our culture passed on, and our species thrive.

In your ideal world the nuclear family reigns supreme, and the children are the responsibility of the parents alone. I look at the nuclear family as a weak unit, and one that is capable of a type of tyranny over the rights of the child, a tyranny that can be balanced if the responsibility for that child's welfare is backed up by the safety net of a larger group that has acknowledged that in the long run it will benefit from the production of a socially responsible adult.

[davek]

In today's education system there is plenty of choice - the choice to home school, the choice to private school, to public school, to french immersion, and the choice to dislike the way that a teacher teaches a certain subject and to instead take that subject from another school.

Tax credits and full privatization provide all these choices without forcing citizens to support a state mandated system that is increasingly feckless, increasingly expensive, and constantly imposes values on children that their parents do not support at the expense of those they do.

Your complaint was that you don't think it is fair that you should have to pay for other people's children.

And that it is not fair that anyone should be forced to pay for his.

Underlying that is an assumption of a parent's ownership of the child...

That is not correct. Children own themselves, and that ownership is held in trust for them by their parents until the children become adults.

...and an assumption that there is no benefit for you to live in a city where children are educated to a certain standard.

He did not suggest that, and it is wrong for you to imply he did, no matter how convenient it may be for your argument.

You would like a situation where parents are solely responsible for raising their children, tending to their education, to their healthcare, and I suppose to every other aspect of bringing them to adulthood.

As would I.

You imagine that this is morally righteous because the parents made the choice to have the child. In your philosophy, that child belongs to the parents and to the parents only.

If that is his position, it is correct, and a logical conclusion based on the recognition that no one has a higher claim on the life of an individual than the individual them self. Any other argument is an endorsement of greater or lesser degrees of slavery.

To extend that logically, should any other person then benefit from that child's successes as an adult, the parent should then be compensated. After all, the parents were the sole financial investors. Why should anyone else reap the reward without paying for it?

Your logic fails you. Having a child obligates the parents to minimal provisions of care for the child. Any further investments they make are gifted consensually, and create no obligation of debt on the part of the child. If, as an adult, the child has successes or freely takes actions that benefits others, non-excludable positive externalities are de facto gifts, and therefore create no burden of obligation.

My philosophy is different... I am more than happy to contribute to that... I see that as MY duty... I look at the nuclear family as a weak unit, and one that is capable of a type of tyranny over the rights of the child...

Your philosophy is your business. As a parent AND foster parent, I reject any argument that there is a more suitable judge of what is best for the child than their own parents. I further reject any argument that contends that anyone has rights over a child other than their parents, and that a child is the legal responsibility of anyone other than their parents. The state has no rightful place to interfere except when the child's human rights (defined in the strictest terms) have been violated.

[Caramia]

And that is your philosophy. Luckily we live in a world where all of us can have our philosophies. And ours are very different. Mine happens to be shared by most people in most societies around the world. You saying that yours is correct and mine is not does not make it so.

[davek]

... Mine happens to be shared by most people in most societies around the world...

Most people in most societies around the world can only dream of the personal and economic freedoms we enjoy. They would know from experience that arguments made in favor of government control are ridiculous, and would view anyone making them as ignorant or naive. You are citing support from a majority that you cannot show to exist.

You saying that yours is correct and mine is not does not make it so.

Agreed. Your philosophy is incorrect for reasons other than my say so.

Anyone interested in knowing more about the benefits of personal liberty and free markets, and why others should not be allowed to dictate what you can eat, drink, smoke, buy, sell, how you live your life, or how you educate your children will find lots of great information here at the Foundation for Economic Education.

[Holden West]

And who would pay for these schools and hospitals in this libertarian free market utopia? Whoever felt like donating, I guess. And if Allan Vanderkerkove and Alex Campbell or whoever was doing the fundraising had a bad year, I guess tough luck for junior's education or grandma's surgery. Hey, survival of the fittest, right?

Well, there's always the church to support charity, right? Except church enrolment is plummeting to historic lows. How is this sustainable? Although the fundamentalist sects are growing. At this rate, they'll be the only powerful religious movement left. But do you really think the foundations of a civil society--education and health care--are best left in the hands of an unaccountable organization that thinks The Flintstones was a documentary?