Educating The Children

[Thesemindz]

Originally posted at www.ownyourfreedom.blogspot.com on November 11, 2008. Written by Rob Sandwell.


Educating the Children part I


Many consider the education of the future generations to be one of the most important responsibilities of any society. I have already shown you that education leads to less crime and less poverty. It can also lead to less sickness, less depression, healthier marriages, and longer lives. Even pre-school education has a proven positive net effect both on the individual and on society as a whole. It would seem irrefutable that education is the foundation on which any successful thriving society must be built.

Perhaps that is why so many, when confronted with the idea of a stateless society ask, but what of the children? How would they be educated? Who would fund their education? Without compulsory education, how could we be sure they would receive any at all?

It is the fundamental duty of society, in the eyes of many, to provide for the education of the young, and without the constant threat of state violence, how could we possibly fulfill that duty? That is what I hope to answer. I will provide you with some evidence of how education was provided before compulsory government education, and show you how it is provided now. I will offer some ideas of how it could be provided in the absence of the state, and some on how it would be funded. It is my hope that even if you fail to fully accept the ideas I will present, you will at least be opened to the idea that the government is not the only answer to the question of how education can be provided, and that in fact, it is a poor provider which has failed our children in every way.

I have already conceded the need for a good education. Even the very poor education which our children receive under the compulsory government school system can be shown to increase longevity, wages, and mental health, and decrease poverty and incidences of destructive behavior. I will not argue against the positive role education plays in the lives of everyone who is blessed with it, nor will I effort to convince you that anyone would be better off without it. Some would argue that education isn't for everyone, I strongly disagree. Regardless of the career path a person chooses, be they inventor, author, or garbage collector, an education can only serve to improve their quality of life. Certainly, the world needs garbage collectors, but I would rather live in a world where they are well read men of reason. No one's quality of life is diminished by expanding their mind and increasing their potential.

The fear that without the state many would go uneducated is based in large part on faulty reasoning and fear mongering, both of which I argue are encouraged and propagated by the state. It is based in the misconception that prior to compulsory government education, only those privileged and wealthy few had access to education, and that the vast majority of boys and girls were unlettered and ignorant. This is simply untrue.

In prehistoric man education was generally passed through oral tradition. Men and women were generally grouped in small, nomadic communities, and information was transmitted from generation to generation through poetry, dance, song, and practice. Children were taught all the skills they needed by example. It was a system which relied heavily on apprenticeship and immersion.

With the advent of animal husbandry and crop domestication communities began to move away from hunting and gathering and towards settled communities based around an agricultural economy. While this resulted in more stable social and technological advances, it also resulted in a move away from a system of economic egalitarianism, where each member of a society was required to know all the basic skills to survive and had equal access to resources, to one of specialization and division of labors, where different members of the society developed a range of unique skill sets specific to their role in the community. This also made it more difficult for the full range of necessary skills to be translated to the next generation through oral tradition, and so with the advent of written languages in roughly 3500 BCE, information could now be transmitted through the written word and specific knowledge could be taught individually to those members of the community who required it. Over time this would lead to knowledge being concentrated in libraries and institutions of learning, where interested students could have access to an ever growing collection of knowledge.

In some parts of the ancient world education was reserved for those in service to the state, or the very wealthy, while in other countries some degree of basic education became generally widespread. As time would go on, vocational education and basic knowledge would become more and more the responsibility of the family and the employer, while higher education was available to those who could afford it.

During the middle ages education was closely related to the activities of the local religious organizations. Whether in Asia, Europe, or the Middle East, it was primarily those religious leaders who were charged with the education of the young. Much education took place in Buddhist temples, or Mosques, or Churches, and was heavily influenced by the local religious traditions of the teachers. Much of what we think of today with regards to institutions of higher learning comes from this period in history. During this time, education became available to more and more people, both as a consequence of its growing importance in society, and due to the increasing economic power of the people brought on by advances in technology and trade.

Around the 16th century, countries throughout Europe and Asia began to institute laws regarding compulsory education. While many of these laws called for the universal education of children, they did not initially require that the educational institutions to be provided by the state. In fact, many of these laws required that communities establish private schools which were to be funded by tuition funds.

Even after the general institution of compulsory education, most education remained private. In America, it wasn't until the mid to late 19th century that universal government schooling became the law throughout the country. Today, while the majority of the education in America is provided by the state, a growing percentage of students are being educated in alternative school settings, including private schools, charter schools, and home schooling.

I offer you this brief history of education so that you can see that it has not traditionally been the state which educated children. Traditionally it has been provided, either for profit or charity, by communities, religious institutions, families, and employers. It is only in the last few hundred years that it has even been mandated by the state, and only for slightly more than a hundred that it has been provided by the state, and even then only in the first world.

But what was the quality of schooling before compulsory education? What opportunities were available to parents who wished to educate their children? What was the literacy rate and education level of the population at large? What did society look like before the state took over the education of the youth?

And what has society looked like since?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

 

[Thesemindz]

Originally posted on November 12, 2008. Written by Rob Sandwell.


Educating the Children part II


Prior to the institution of government schooling in America, there was near universal literacy. In 1840, nearly 97% of the free adult population could read and write. Additionally, between 55 and 70 % of free school aged children were attending private academies. Another 20 to 30 percent were still being educated at home at that time. The overall rate of education for free people in America was roughly 75 to 99% by region. This was prior to government schooling.

It was around this time that the States began to separately legislate compulsory schooling. At first, the laws only required that students attend what we would today consider “elementary” school, and allowed for private schools. Over time, and under the banner of “common education for all,” states attempted to outlaw private schools all together, allowing for a government created monopoly on schooling, but in Peirce v. Society of Sisters, the Supreme Court ruled that free citizens had the right to determine the course of their children's education, although the more basic question of whether or not the state had any right to compel education was not addressed by the Justices. In fact, the appellants argued that,

No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.​

But perhaps we should raise that question. With the advent of compulsory education, the government was now able to use their monopoly on education as a tool with which people could be trained, coerced, and punished. White legislators denied funding for black schools, and even poor white schools in the south. In the north, where the local governments saw fit to educate their black citizens, literacy amongst black people was significantly higher.

Further, while they claimed that their interest was in promoting literacy to boost the economy, we have already seen that literacy was near universal prior to compulsory education. In fact, from the inception of compulsory education to 1993, functional literacy had fallen by between 30 to 50%. Roughly half of adults surveyed were barely able to fill out basic information about themselves on a form, find and interpret simple phrases from short passages, or do basic single digit mathematics, “using numbers that can be easily located in printed material.”

So if in fact, the stated goal of government provided compulsory education is literacy, they have failed miserably. Worse, public schools have become a breeding ground for juvenile crime and violence. In 1999-2000, 71% of schools reported some incidences of violent crime, with 20% of public schools reporting a serious violent crime such as rape, assault, or murder. The frequency with which students at public schools reporting being the victim of violent crime is nearly 50% higher than that of their private school classmates.

Government schooling, which was pitched as an effort to increase the educational level of the people, has clearly had the opposite result. Rates of functional literacy have lowered, basic knowledge and skills has decreased, and scores on standardized testing have actually fallen, as reported by the government itself. Either we are to believe that the state truly has our best interests in mind, and they are completely incompetent and so we must seek alternatives, or we are to believe that this is a systematic attempt to dumb down the education level of the proletariat, making them more dependent on the state and less likely to seek their own freedom. Either way, the results are clear, and so too must be our actions.

Poor education leads to poverty, crime, sickness, depression, and death. A good education is no promise of freedom from these things, but it gives a person a better chance going forward. So how can we get a good education, and how much would it cost?

How much is government education costing us now?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

 

[Thesemindz]

Originally posted on November 13, 2008. Written by Rob Sandwell.


Educating the Children part III


The average cost per student to the government schools is often quoted as being somewhere in the range of $8,000 dollars per year. However, this figure only considers direct spending on student instruction, and fails to account for the associated costs of infrastructure, including future pension obligations and administrative costs. In some districts, once adjusted for these considerations, the cost per student is tripled. In D.C., the average cost per student is nearly $25,000.

By comparison, the average tuition cost of private schools is less than $5,000 per student. And already 11% of America's children are being educated in private institutions, even though their parents are already paying for them to get a “free” education from the government.

In fact, while the government schools are failing our children, private schools are succeeding. But that isn't the concern raised by most people. The concern you hear most often is that private schools are only for rich people. This however, is also patently false.

If you research the government school system in America, you will find reference after reference touting the benefits of universal “free” education. Think back to our discussion about the roads. The schools are not “free.” We can easily see that it costs as much as $25,000 dollars to educate a student in some government schools, where do you think that money's coming from? It's coming from the taxpayers. It is privately held asset, seized through force, and directed towards a service many people will never use.

I've already pointed out the cost difference in educating children in government versus private schools. The reality is that private schools spend far less to educate students than do government schools. Part of the reason people are afraid they can't afford to privately educate their children is because of the burden put on them by government.

In order to afford the ridiculously inflated cost per student in the government school system, the government must spread that cost across the entire taxpaying base, not just those who have children currently attending the schools. That means that many people who don't use the schools are paying for them anyway, and in order to educate your children privately, you must in effect pay twice for their schooling, once to the government, and once to the private school.

Often people argue in favor of taxation by pointing out that you get something in return. But my parents pay taxes to fund the government school system and their children are not in it. I pay taxes to fund the government school system and I have no children. You may argue that we all benefit from a well educated youth, and I would agree, but we've already seen that the product of the government school system could hardly be considered well educated.

Think of it this way. If I mug you on the street, but in return I give you a poorly crafted hammer, does that justify my crime? Is it ok to steal as long as you give something in return, even if that item is of poor quality, was never asked for, and may never be used? The answer has to be no. Yet that kind of logic is used to support taxation to pay for government schooling.

In reality, if you eliminated taxation and the government school system, there would still be a need for education. There always has been, and as you have seen, that need has historically been fulfilled in the absence of government intervention. The concern about cost exists in part because families are having to pay twice for private education, and in part because there is no perceived need for low cost private schooling for low income families. After all, they can attend the “free” government schools.

But where there is a need for low cost private schools it is being filled. In economically depressed parts of the country, there are still private schools, and they charge some of the lowest tuition rates in the country as a reflection of the local economy. If the government school system was abolished, there would be an immediate rush to fill that void with a wide range of schools offering different services at different prices.

Look at it this way, not everyone eats at Red Lobster. Not everyone eats at The Four Seasons. Not everyone eats at McDonald's. But everyone eats. Entrepreneurs have filled every market niche in food service, because there is a need. And they have established a menu of prices and services to fit every economic level.

It would be the same in education. Private schools cost less than you think. There wouldn't only be schools for the rich, because the poor have money to spend as well, and someone would find a way to offer a service to them, at a lower cost, and yes, possibly a lower level of service, which they could afford.

Before you argue that that means only the rich would get the good education, I must remind you of a few things. Right now, the government school systems use force to fund a poorly performing system which graduates one in five functionally illiterate pupils. In the absence of government, there would be far less poverty than there is now, resulting in far more people being able to attend more expensive private schools. The cost to the average consumer, to attend a good private school now, is less than $5000 per year. In the absence of the state, with valuable currency and no taxation, in a system where schools truly had to compete and parents weren't paying twice for their children's education, $5000 would be easily affordable.

And there would be schools which charged far less than that. All those students who are currently attending the “free” public school system would still need an education. Schools would rise up overnight rushing to fill the need of the consumers. This always happens. Remember when everyone got excited about low carb diets, and suddenly every restaurant was offering burgers wrapped in lettuce and every grocery store had lean chicken and low carb frozen entrees? When the market perceives a need, it fills it. In a variety of ways, at a variety of costs, it finds a way to get every consumer it can to buy every product they can. That's how the market works. It works in food service. It works in transportation. It works in communication. It works in education.

If we're smart enough to let it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

 

[Makalakumu]

Interesting thoughts. I have a compromise between strict free marketeering and a more socialistic approach. I do not think that a strict approach will provide the most benefit for a society, however, I do think that choice is an integral part of the equation.

 

[Thesemindz]

I'm all for voluntary communalism. But I can never support mandatory participation in any system enforced through violence. If people want to pool their resources for a supposed "common good," fine. Just don't obligate me to do so through violence.


-Rob

 

[Sukerkin]

Thanks for those, TMZ. I'll read them in more detail tomorrow as sleep beckons me now :tup:.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm all for voluntary communalism. But I can never support mandatory participation in any system enforced through violence. If people want to pool their resources for a supposed "common good," fine. Just don't obligate me to do so through violence.


-Rob

In a nutshell, if we had a system that used tax dollars or some other method of payment to send students to schools that best fit their needs, we would be doing what is best for children as a society. When you consider that the accident of birth occludes our best minds from receiving an education that allows them to shape their destiny, it only makes sense that some form of shared sacrifice is appropriate. There are some things in education that simply cost a lot of money. Good science education is among them. My views is that if a student wants to have best science education they can get and they are willing to work for it, then they should get it.

There's more too it, I'll type up more later.

 

[Thesemindz]

In a nutshell, if we had a system that used tax dollars or some other method of payment to send students to schools that best fit their needs, we would be doing what is best for children as a society. When you consider that the accident of birth occludes our best minds from receiving an education that allows them to shape their destiny, it only makes sense that some form of shared sacrifice is appropriate. There are some things in education that simply cost a lot of money. Good science education is among them. My views is that if a student wants to have best science education they can get and they are willing to work for it, then they should get it.

There's more too it, I'll type up more later.

This is where you and I part ways.

I'm all for voluntary sacrifice, but stealing money from free people at gunpoint is immoral. Figure out another way to fund it, that doesn't include violently seizing people's property, and I'm all for it.

The ends don't matter here. They don't make the means ethical.


-Rob

 

[Makalakumu]

This is where you and I part ways.

I'm all for voluntary sacrifice, but stealing money from free people at gunpoint is immoral. Figure out another way to fund it, that doesn't include violently seizing people's property, and I'm all for it.

The ends don't matter here. They don't make the means ethical.


-Rob

LOL, if that's all that separates our positions, that's an easy enough matter to solve. If only politics could be that easy...

 

[Thesemindz]

LOL, if that's all that separates our positions, that's an easy enough matter to solve. If only politics could be that easy...

If only more people saw it your way.


-Rob

 

[Makalakumu]

Well, if what we are agreeing on is choice and the inclusion of a free market to diversify options for education, then all we have to do is come up with a way to pay for it.

What are some good non-coercive methods for social programs?

 

[Thesemindz]

The best way.

Voluntary payment for services rendered. If people want it, they will provide for it. We have cable tv, and cell phones, and lots of other services, and people pay for them all the time without needing to be coerced.

If people perceive a value in the service, and it is priced competitively, they will pay for it. If they don't then they will pay for a different service they do want. And those who truly can not afford to pay will be the recipients of voluntary charity.

There is no need for coercive force. People purchase the services they want all the time. Education can work the same way.


-Rob

 

[Cryozombie]

Well, if what we are agreeing on is choice and the inclusion of a free market to diversify options for education, then all we have to do is come up with a way to pay for it.

What are some good non-coercive methods for social programs?

My thought? Families that wish to pool resources to ensure all of the needs of their children are being met as a whole can come together and donate their "tax dollars" (which wouldnt be a tax really, it would be a group donation) and could work as a team to do fundraising thru craft fairs and bake sales and car washes and all the other student based funraisers that already take place to bring income in from people outside the "School Community" who might have need or desire of these things without having direct need to give thier money to the school directly as our current system does. Additional Dontations could also be solicited by appealing to the public good and informing the community about programs being taught to further things like science education to create future reaserchers and technicians and doctors and the like...

The way I see it, if ONE GUY can earn a million dollars selling ads at 1USD per Pixel on a 1million Pixel page on the web... or another can come up with the means to trade a Paperclip for a House, surely people involved in the education of our future should be able to think of a way to fund the education of that future that does not rely on taking what we earn under threat of force...

 

[Thesemindz]

Well, you have to remember, those things were accomplished by private individuals, who in general will be infinitely more adapatable and creative than a government bureaucracy.


-Rob

 

[Makalakumu]

You guys have a lot of faith. One thing that Jonathan Kozol points out is that all neighborhoods are not created equal and that local funding of schools produces savage inequalities when it comes to education. If access to good education is limited to the few that can afford it, it would waste the full potential of humanity.

 

[Thesemindz]

You guys have a lot of faith. One thing that Jonathan Kozol points out is that all neighborhoods are not created equal and that local funding of schools produces savage inequalities when it comes to education. If access to good education is limited to the few that can afford it, it would waste the full potential of humanity.

Which may very well be true, but fails to take into account several things.

1. There is already a disparity between the quality of education received by the children of the rich and the poor. You can't invalidate a stateless society by using examples of problems that are occuring in the presence of the state. Those problems may still exist without it, but it is clear that they exist with it.

2. That doesn't justify violent coercion to fund schools. It may be true that schools would suffer if they were only publicly funded, but that doesn't justify putting a gun to anyone's head and taking their money in order to have better schools in someone else's community, or even in their own. Again, you have to find a non violent voluntary way to fund it, or it's inherently immoral.

3. Every major city in the country has private schools already. Most have a number of private schools. I live in a small town in the midwest of about 150,000 people. Metro 420,000. We have over a dozen private schools for school age children. And that's in a system that already provides "free" education to anyone who wants it, and already charges everyone in order to fund that "free" service.

4. All over the world people are voluntarily paying for a variety of services, including education. If the consumer perceives value in the product or service, and its price is both commensurate and competitive, they will gladly pay that price. Do local economies effect overall product quality? Sure. I have no doubt that the rich can afford better cell phone service, and better cable television service, but I still have cell phone and cable service, and I'm happy to pay for those services.

Ultimately, arguing that people just wouldn't pay for education, which we all agree is vitally important both to ourselves and our society, is simply unsupported by reality. As I showed in the posts which began this thread, the service clearly has value and it can be funded voluntarily with a business model that is both affordable and offers a quality product to the consumer. Will rich kids get better education than poor kids? Probably. They can now. But that doesn't justify a coercive system that is clearly failing anyway.


-Rob

 

[Makalakumu]

Well, you'll have to read Kozol's book in order to get a better picture of the point I made. Here's a thumbnail sketch. Basically, what Kozol shows is that in school systems where funding is primarily from local sources, massive inequalities develop. These inequalities can be so huge that schools as close as ten miles away can literally be top of the line and broken down and non-function. It's not that they people don't want to pay for education or a better school, they simply can't.

If we are to understand what a "stateless" society would look like, we don't have any real examples. Therefore, we are forced to look at case studies that may recreate aspects of what might happen. I realize that this wouldn't be a perfect examples because in a free market society certain things may be less expensive which would hopefully allow some better conditions to grow. Still, if you read Kozol's book and you recognize the desperate poverty that can grow in certain areas, its hard to imagine the situation correcting much.

So now, we'll take this example and apply it to me. My parents were college educated, but when I was 12 years old my dad got sick, couldn't work and we lost everything. My family (five boys and my mom) was homeless for a while and we were finally able to pull things together so that we had a stable place to live. Through medication, my dad was able to work on a limited basis, but the only place that would hire him was the school district in Martin, South Dakota, right smack dab in the middle of Pine Ridge Reservation. At times in my young life, I got to live on the Res (which was made easier because we are part native).

The entire time, we were desperately poor, one moments notice away from an eviction notice. It was also during this time that my mom worked three jobs in order to improve our situation, I worked while going to school, took care of my four brothers, and busted my butt to get the best grades I could in a darn good public school. The end result is that I've got advanced degrees in science and education, I make a good living, and am able to secure a job even in the midsts of one of the deepest rescessions since the Great Depression. Now, I'm possibly looking at opening up a private school that could revolutionize the way kids are taught (as well as writing a few books on Karate).

I am a smart (read Mensa) and motivated guy and society benefited greatly in providing me (and others) with the opportunity to climb out of the gutter and make something of my life. There is no guarentee that a stateless society would produce this kind of opportunity. There is no guarentee that extremely gifted, but unfortunate, portion of our society would be able to grasp one of the single biggest tools to get a hand up in our society.

If you want to advocate a stateless society and claim that it can take care of everyone's education, you've got to weigh the cost of people like me falling through the cracks. Maybe the guy just like me makes the vaccine that saves your *** from swine flu! :lfao: That puts an odd twist on the phrase, "they died for our freedom," now doesn't it! :lfao:

So, here's what I'm interested in learning about. Among those who advocate for a stateless society and claim that education would be just as good or better then it is now, I'd like to read about a plan for a voluntary local funding scheme that could be enacted enmasse in order to meet that claim. I don't think it can be done and I think its a perfect example of why a stateless society simply could never function without vastly reducing everyone's standard of living.

 

[Thesemindz]

I will address your position in two ways.

First. We do not have now, nor have we ever had, a truly free market economy. We have a combination of state sponsored monopolies and crony coporatism. No examples provided from our current system can be extrapolated from adequately to determine how a truly free market would work. But we can imagine how it might.

You have to take into consideration that all of the studies you are referring to were done in the presence of the state which was already seizing taxation to fund an educational system which students were required by law to participate in to some degree, either directly or with a state approved alternative. The fact that poor people in those studies couldn't afford good schools ignores the fact that they already had schools provided by the state. In the absence of those schools being provided, I believe entrepreneurs would step in and attempt to fill the market demand.

You must also remember that a stateless society does not necessarily exclude voluntary charity. For instance, Oprah Winfrey has recently opened up a school in Africa for young girls, because she can and she percieves a need and chooses to fill it. No one put a gun to her head and insisted she do so. She chose to spend her own money, free from coercion, to help improve the lives of young people on the other side of the world.

You also have to understand the effect that fiat currency and central authority and keynesian economics have on the occurence of poverty within a society. Since the inception of the federal reserve our currency has lost nearly all of its value. Of the remaining value, more than 70% is lost to taxes and the cost of regulatory compliance. Throughout history, without fail, fiat currencies have led to hyperinflation, currency devaluation, debt, and economic depression. I believe, as do many others, that in the absence of the state instances of poverty would be substantially reduced.

You also have to look at the state of education prior to the inception of compulsory public education. Almost all education was funded and organized on a local level, and there was near universal literacy. Now, certainly things have changed in many ways since then, including the inclusion of advanced technologies in the classroom, and those factors have to be considered, but local funding of education was a viable system, in many places it is currently a viable system, and in the absence of the state it would continue to be a viable system.

You also have to take into account that in those poor areas where people supposedly can not afford their education, they are already paying for education through taxation. Even in poor communities, taxes are collected and used to fund educational facilities. In the absence of a state, those taxes would not be collected and apportioned, which would leave that money in the hands of the poor to then spend as they saw fit, which may include spending it on education.

I have shown in other articles that studies show that self reliant people are more likely to give to charity, and that charitable giving is adversely affected by taxation and government spending. This would at least seem to imply that in the absence of a state, charitable giving would increase. Especially when you consider the increase in the value of the currency, and the decrease in the cost of living which would occur in the absence of taxation and unnecessary regulation.

I believe that there is ample evidence that a stateless society could, and would, supply a much greater quality of education, as well as greater access to education. Like I said, rich people would still have more opportunities, that's kind of the lure of being rich, but that is an existing situation, so it is moot. Even now in many poor neighborhoods, such as parts of Baltimore, the schools which are funded through taxation are still failing miserably. In fact, many of our schools are failing miserably. So you can't really say that the problem of unequal access to education has been addressed in the presence of a state either.

But more important than all of these points is the one I keep going back to, the inherent immorality of violent theft. For any reason. For every reason.

If I am mugged by a violent criminal on the street, I don't care how he plans to spend the money. Whether he will be buying cocaine or baby formula, the outcome is the same for the victim. I have been violated. I have been wronged. And the motivation of the mugger, while it may be considered a mitigating factor in court, has no bearing on my suffering.

I'm open to any non violent voluntary system of funding you care to present. I want this to work. I want a way to fund schools that is moral and just. So far, I've only seen violent coercive theft being presented as the "preferred" alternative to voluntary funding. That is inherently immoral, regardless of the ends.


-Rob

 

[Makalakumu]

You make some interesting points, but one thing that I'd like to clarify, one thing that I'm reading in your words, is that basically you are willing to deconstruct nearly every social institution we currently have in place in order to bring about a stateless society. I think there is an element of throwing the "baby out with the bathwater" when it comes to education, however.

You'll get no argument from me in regards to the effects of fiat currency on our society. I don't think that very many people understand just how devastating that has been upon our collective standard of living. Therefore, you are correct to point out that any modern analogue really won't be perfectly predictive of what could happen in a stateless society. Even the examples that you provided, such as reading rates, which occurred in the presence of a state.

For me, this debate, is really about reforming the monetary system. We are simply unable to get anywhere positive under the current conditions and that needs to change before any other plan can be conceived. Once there, I think we can start see where a collective voluntary system may actually support education on a mass scale.

For example, if our society does away with taxes and spends money into existence with government expenditures, education could rightly be considered a worthy expense that people could democratically agree upon. In this case, schools would become the recipients of state funding which would filter down into society as a whole AND give everyone an opportunity for a hand up.

Of course, the argument could be made that this is another form of taking, but at least it's not being done under the threat of force. It's more like coercive-lite.

Compromise?

 

[Errant108]

I believe that there is ample evidence that a stateless society could, and would, supply a much greater quality of education, as well as greater access to education. Like I said, rich people would still have more opportunities, that's kind of the lure of being rich, but that is an existing situation, so it is moot. Even now in many poor neighborhoods, such as parts of Baltimore, the schools which are funded through taxation are still failing miserably. In fact, many of our schools are failing miserably. So you can't really say that the problem of unequal access to education has been addressed in the presence of a state either.

That's because Baltimore is run by corrupt Democrats.