Dear Jason:
>
> Congratulations on a splendid presentation. In my view, you are one of the
> most articulate, charming, knowledgeable, charismatic speakers we have ever
> had at Loyola. Your talk, further, was chock full of great information. I
> learned a lot from it. However, I greatly regret you've fallen in with the
> wrong crowd. I urge you, I beseech you, to read some if not all of the
> literature criticizing vouchers below. I find your view appalling that this
> is a step in the right direction.
>
> Also, you have fallen into the trap along with your mentor, Milton, of
> thinking that there is such a thing as a market failure (the supposed
> positive externalities of education you mentioned). You really should read
> some of the Austrian literature debunking that fallacy too. I wish we had
> had more time to talk during your visit. I look forward to when our paths
> next cross.
>
>
> http://www.google.com/search?
>
> North, 1976, 2011; North and Friedman, 1993; Rockwell, 1998, 2000, 2002;
> Reel and Block, 2013; Rome and Block. 2006; Rothbard, 1971, 1973, 1994,
> 1995; Salisbury, 2003; Vance, 1996; Yates, 2002a, 2002b; Young and Block.
> 1999.
>
> North, Gary. 1976. "Educational Vouchers: The Double Tax," The Freeman,
> Vol. 26, No. 5;
> http://www.thefreemanonline.
> http://www.thefreemanonline.
>
> North, Gary. 2011. "Just Say No to School Vouchers . . . Again." June 30;
> http://lewrockwell.com/north/
>
> North, Gary and Milton Friedman. 1993. "Friedman and North on Vouchers."
> July 1;
>
> http://www.fee.org/the_
>
> Reel, Jordan and Walter E. Block. 2013. "Educational Vouchers: Freedom to
> Choose?" Contemporary Economics. pp. 111-122, December,
> DOI:10.5709/ce.1897-9254.126 http://we.vizja.pl/en/home;
> http://ce.vizja.pl/en/issues/
>
> Rockwell, Jr., Llewellyn H. 1998. "Vouchers: Enemy of Religion," [webpage]
> 1 September. [cited 12 May 2005]. <
> http://www.mises.org/
>
> Rockwell Jr. Llewellyn H. 2000. "Education and the Election."
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/
>
> Rockwell Jr. Llewellyn H. 2002. "Vouchers: Another Name for Welfare. July
> 2. http://www.lewrockwell.com/
>
> Rome, Gregory and Walter E. Block. 2006. "Schoolhouse Socialism." Journal
> of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 83-88;
> http://findarticles.com/p/
>
> Rothbard, Murray N. 1971. "Milton Friedman Unraveled." Individualist,
> February, pp. 3 7; http://www.lewrockwell.com/
>
> Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. For a New Liberty, Macmillan, New York;
> http://www.mises.org/rothbard/
>
> Rothbard, Murray N. 1994. "Vouchers: What Went Wrong?" The Free Market.
> Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, January, pp. 1, 8;
> http://mises.org/econsense/
>
> Rothbard, Murray N. 1995. Making Economic Sense. Auburn, AL: Mises
> Institute;
> http://mises.org/econsense/
>
> Salisbury, David F. 2003. "What Does a Voucher Buy? A Closer Look at the
> Cost of Private Schools." Cato Institute Policy Analysis, No. 486, August
> 28.
>
> Vance, Laurence M. 1996. "Friedman's Mistake." The Free Market. Vol. 14,
> No. 11. November;
> http://mises.org/freemarket_
>
> Yates, Steven. 2002a. "Vouchers and Government Control." July 6;
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/
>
> Yates, Steven. 2002b. "Refuting the voucherites." July 13;
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/
>
> Young, Andrew and Walter E. Block. 1999. "Enterprising Education: Doing
> Away with the Public School System," International Journal of Value Based
> Management, Vol.12, No. 3, pp. 195-207;
> http://www.mises.org/etexts/
> http://www.mises.org/story/
> http://www.walterblock.com/
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Walter
>
> Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
> Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
> Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
> Loyola University New Orleans
----
A response from Bedrick with return comments (in green) from Block.
Dear Jason:
Please call me Walter. My responses are below, interspersed with yours.
Best regards,
Walter
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
Professor Block,
It was a pleasure meeting you, and thank you for your kind words -- it made
the medicine go down easy. I haven't yet had a chance to read all of the
items that you sent me, but several I'd already read and I intend to look
through the rest.
First, I should note that I never used the term "market failure." While I
am certain that externalities exist, they aren't necessarily a failure of
the market. For example, the aroma of my neighbor's BBQ is a positive
externality from which I benefit, but that doesn't mean that the government
should subsidize it. And, as Coase might observe, I could certainly pay my
neighbor to BBQ more often if I enjoyed it that much.
<< I didn't say you used the "term 'market failure." What I said was this: "Also, you have fallen into the trap along with your mentor, Milton, of thinking that there is such a thing as a market failure (the supposed positive externalities of education you mentioned)." In your talk, although you didn't use that phrase, you did say something along the lines of Friedman supported subsidies to education on the basis of external economies. So far, so good. He did indeed say this, often. My problem with this is that Friedman, and others who use this fallacious terminology, and idea, do indeed think that govt should subsidize it. If Milton were logically consistent, he would indeed think that govt should subsidize your neighbor's BBQ. After all, your neighbor takes into account only the private benefits to him of the BBQ; he ignores those to you. There is an under allocation of BBQs in society. The only time Milton would demur from this (as he would do for anti trust which he also favors) is if the costs of intervention were greater than the benefits. I find all this appalling, since neither of these, particularly the latter, can be measured. Calling upon Coase in this context is also problematic, since this author said that such a payment could only work in the made up world of zero transactions costs; in the real world, they would be far too high for anything like that to occur.
On that note, Friedman argues that the positive externality in this case is
so great (and the negative externality of not educating children so
terrible), that there is a role for government subsidization.
<< yes, he does, the pinko. He thinks we can measure the unmeasurable. He doesn't realize that interpersonal comparisons of utility are illicit. He thinks in terms of (invalid) cardinal utility, no (valid) ordinal utility. He's no Austrian economist.
I stated this, as I stated the reasons for the "Old Deluder Satan" Act of 1647,
simply to provide historical context, without endorsing this argument.
<< It seemed to me that you endorsed it. Certainly, you didn't criticize this grave fallacy.
Moreover, on this matter, I think Friedman is empirically incorrect.
<< You are falling into the trap of thinking that these things can be measured. All this sort of thinking is good for is creating jobs, lots of them, for economists.
As (I think) I noted during my presentation, there was a high rate of literacy in
the U.S. before the advent of universal public schooling, and as James
Tooley describes in *The Beautiful Tree* (which I regret I did *not*
mention during my presentation), even the poorest of the world's poor are
paying private school tuition where the government schools are terrible
(which is most places, especially those that serve the poor).
<< those were great points of yours.
On your main point, that vouchers are not a step in the right direction, I
have two comments. First, I am not a voucher proponent.
<< could have fooled me. I'm glad to learn you're not.
While I do believe vouchers are better than the status quo (more on that in a moment), I
recognize that they are also dangerous and entail coercion.
<< yes, yes
As you note in
one of the articles you sent me, a voucher system "denies the freedom to
choose to people who do not wish to subsidize the education of other
people's children." That's why I prefer scholarship tax credits, which
don't entail coercion (as Andrew Coulson has explained
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-coulson/a-winn-for-education-and-_b_848035.html>)
and don't pose the same dangers are vouchers (more on that in a moment as
well).
<< Wikipedia says of these: "Scholarship tax credit programs, also called tax credit scholarship, education tax credit or tuition tax credit programs, are a form of school choice that allows individuals or corporations to receive a tax credit from state taxes against donations made to non-profit organizations that grant private school scholarships."
<< Do you favor bubble gum tax credits? How about tax credits for pizza, for cars, for vacations, for rubber bands, for shoe laces? I presume you do not. In my (libertarian) view there just as there should be a separation of govt and religion, this should hold, also, and equally, for education, for pizza, for cars, for vacations, for rubber bands, for shoe laces. Why is education different from any of these other things, such that govt should put its big fat thumb on the balance, and subsidize this, and tax that. But, I imagine, this libertarian view would not find much favor in a quasi libertarian organization such as Cato.
Second, when considering proposed education policies, we must consider
where we are on the scale of liberty, and where the proposed policy is
taking us. Here's a very abbreviated list of the types of education systems
that exist, from least free to most free:
A: Complete government control of education. Private schools and
homeschooling are illegal.
B: Widespread government schooling with government control over what's
taught in private schools.
C: Subsidized "free" government schools that crowds out private schooling,
but otherwise private schools are free to teach what they want.
D: Subsidized "free" government schools that compete with a sizable number
of subsidized private schools.
E: Subsidized "free" government schools that compete with a sizable number
of private schools because students receive tax-credit scholarships.
F: A system of private schooling supported by tax-credit scholarships.
G: A completely private market in education.
<< yes, yes, great organized table. I vote for G, of course.
For brevity's sake, I've excluded a number of possibilities (e.g. - charter
schools). Right now, we're essentially at C with a small dash of D and E in
some states. C is a terrible place to be, because about 90% of kids are in
government schools. We need to get more kids out of the government schools,
but since so many people are used to sending their kids there (and since
they themselves attended government schools), they are attached to and
protective of them. They view them as "public" schools and "community"
schools. Going from C straight to G is, I believe, impossible. We first
need to get a significant number of kids out of the government system. But
since the government is crowding out the private sector, we have to find a
way to offset the crowd out effect.
<< you state: "Going from C straight to G is, I believe, impossible." I don't give a rat's behind about these sort of issues. Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, the abolitionists, never did either. For us libertarians, the issue, the ONLY issue, is "What's right."
Here are some quotes for you to chew on:
In the view of Rothbard (in For a New Liberty, p. 49): "if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place."
Ghandi: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
“Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.” - William Lloyd Garrison
What I said after your lecture was that IF Milton Friedman followed the perspective he laid out regarding school choice, he would not have been an abolitionist in the 1850s. You interpreted me, falsely, as saying "Milton Friedman would not have been an abolitionist in the 1850s." I have no idea about the truth of the latter, although I have my suspicions. The former, I think, is undeniable.
You want to be effective. You want to promote liberty. Who were the two people who were by far the most effective in turning masses of people toward libertarianism, and converting millions to the free enterprise philosophy (without which we're not moving at all toward liberty). I'll tell you who: Ayn Rand and Ron Paul. You won't find any of these people worrying about, being concerned about, how do we move one tiny step toward liberty. No, for them, they lay out their uncompromising vision, and pound away at it. Their's is a better method. But, in saying this I'm conceding too much. I'm conceding that the Freidmanesque policies actually move us in the direction of freedom in education. I'm not going to say why not; please read that literature I sent you on this.
One way is vouchers (D). Vouchers would increase the number of students in
private schools, reducing the ill effects of crowd out. And while vouchers
entail coercive taxation, they are no more coercive than the system of
government schooling.
<< read that literature, please. Hey, even if you don't become a libertarian (on this issue) it still behooves you to at least know what your intellectual enemies are saying. Read Mill's On Liberty for that.
What could make D dangerous is if the government funds come with government
rules, turning D into B. That would certainly be a cause for opposing
vouchers, because it would represent a setback on the scale of liberty. As
it happens, research
<http://www.edchoice.org/Research/Reports/Public-Rules-on-Private-Schools--Measuring-the-Regulatory-Impact-of-State-Statutes-on-School-Choice-Programs.aspx>
shows that most of the rules on private schools predate the introduction of
school choice programs, though vouchers often do come with a significant
amount of additional regulations. I haven't seen any program that regulates
private schools to the extent that they move from D to B, but I fear it
could happen, *especially* with a federal voucher law. Moreover, the
additional regulations that vouchers regularly impose (particularly the
state tests, which *de facto* impose the state curriculum) are worrisome
indeed.
<<yes, I agree. vouchers are "worrisome."
Scholarship tax credits (E and, hopefully, eventually F) are superior to
vouchers both because they don't entail coercion and because, as Andrew
Coulson found in a rigorous study
<http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/do-vouchers-tax-credits-increase-private-school-regulation>,
they don't impose a significant additional regulatory burden. I discuss
this in greater detail at Cato's new Educational Freedom Wiki
<http://www.cato.org/education-wiki/scholarship-tax-credits-vouchers>,
which also includes a list of relevant studies and commentary at the bottom.
<< tax credits "don't entail coercion"? C'mon, get real. The entire system is coercive. First, govt taxes us. Then, it tells us if you do X, we'll lower your taxes. This is freedom? This is non coercion? Well, maybe inside the beltway. You don't live there, geographically, but that's where your head is at.
In my view, libertarians should abandon the promotion of vouchers because
there is a politically viable alternative that is superior: scholarship tax
credits. However, to oppose E because it isn't the perfect G is to make the
perfect the enemy of the good, thereby sacrificing another generation of
children to government schooling in the vain hope that Libertopia will
emerge from its inevitable failure. Sadly, government schooling has proven
quite resilient in its failure over the last few hundred years, and I don't
expect it to go away anytime soon without some sort of check on the crowd
out effect.
<< You make a very good point. We should not oppose the good because it is not perfect. But this assumes that tax credits are good. I argue above they are part and parcel of a govt system of oppression. I find it dismaying that you support this evil system. Until and unless we create lots of libertarians, none of this will do much good. You are so intent on promoting private schools. But, don't you realize that govt can control private schools too, under vouchers or tax credits?
Anyway, it was a pleasure meeting you and your colleagues. I also wish we
had had more time to talk, and likewise look forward to when our paths
cross again.
<< I agree. Jason, I'd like to blog all this. Is that ok with you? I'll certainly make you anonymous, unless you don't mind me using your name and affiliation.
Cheers,
Jason
A Further Response from Bedrick with Return Comments from Block (in green)
Walter,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I'll address your main arguments in turn with my response in blue.
<< Wikipedia says of these: "Scholarship tax credit programs, also called tax credit scholarship, education tax credit or tuition tax credit programs, are a form of school choice that allows individuals or corporations to receive a tax credit from state taxes against donations made to non-profit organizations that grant private school scholarships."
<< Do you favor bubble gum tax credits? How about tax credits for pizza, for cars, for vacations, for rubber bands, for shoe laces? I presume you do not. In my (libertarian) view there just as there should be a separation of govt and religion, this should hold, also, and equally, for education, for pizza, for cars, for vacations, for rubber bands, for shoe laces. Why is education different from any of these other things, such that govt should put its big fat thumb on the balance, and subsidize this, and tax that. But, I imagine, this libertarian view would not find much favor in a quasi libertarian organization such as Cato.
<< Wikipedia says of these: "Scholarship tax credit programs, also called tax credit scholarship, education tax credit or tuition tax credit programs, are a form of school choice that allows individuals or corporations to receive a tax credit from state taxes against donations made to non-profit organizations that grant private school scholarships."
<< Do you favor bubble gum tax credits? How about tax credits for pizza, for cars, for vacations, for rubber bands, for shoe laces? I presume you do not. In my (libertarian) view there just as there should be a separation of govt and religion, this should hold, also, and equally, for education, for pizza, for cars, for vacations, for rubber bands, for shoe laces. Why is education different from any of these other things, such that govt should put its big fat thumb on the balance, and subsidize this, and tax that. But, I imagine, this libertarian view would not find much favor in a quasi libertarian organization such as Cato.
I already addressed this argument: we have to consider the state of policy at present. First, there's no government bubble gum monopoly crowding out the private bubble gum market. Second, even if there were, it would be an affront to liberty but not nearly so bad as the government having control over 90% of the nation's kids' minds.
<< I don’t see the relevance of “monopoly” to the discussion. The libertarian case for lower taxes transcends those areas where government plays a large role. It does not, relatively speaking in bubble gum, but so what; surely, you don’t oppose bubble gum tax credits? In any case, yes, government is heavily involved in education, but so is it in other fields: housing, health, land (government owns vast tracts of land west of the Mississippi), transportation, museums, parks, orchestras. Why single out education for tax credits? I don’t buy the external economies argument of Milton Friedman in this field; and, if I did, I’d see positive externalities everywhere, certainly including bubble gum (a chewer of this substance is likely to be happier, less feisty, friendlier, etc. )
<< you state: "Going from C straight to G is, I believe, impossible." I don't give a rat's behind about these sort of issues. Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, the abolitionists, never did either. For us libertarians, the issue, the ONLY issue, is "What's right."
Here are some quotes for you to chew on:
Here are some quotes for you to chew on:
Your opposition to moving the ball down the field toward liberty is de facto supporting the sacrifice of an entire generation of children to government schooling. What's right here is moving as far in the direction of liberty as possible, starting with getting kids out of the government schools. Perhaps that's why even the sainted Ron Paul supported education tax credits -- he even sponsored the Family Education Freedom Act, which was a federal, personal-use education tax credit that he argued was based on the views of Ludwig von Mises (for the record, I oppose federal vouchers and federal education tax credits, unlike Dr. Paul). If you follow that link, you'll see that the "quasi-libertarian" Dr. Paul even cites the "quasi-libertarian" Cato Institute.
<< You keep assuming that school vouchers and/or educational tax credits is a move toward liberty. I offer you a large literature attesting to the very opposite (see below). Do you cite any of it and demonstrate its fallacies? You do not. Instead, you ignore it. Some friendly advice: your side of this debate would be more powerful if you did just that (See Mill’s On Liberty for the case in favor of following this pattern). I agree that Ron Paul is a saint, but I don’t have to agree with him on all issues. Nor is the argument from authority a very powerful one.
In the view of Rothbard (in For a New Liberty, p. 49): "if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place."
Ghandi: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Ghandi: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Sure, sure. He also said that the Jews should have commit mass suicide instead of fighting back against the Nazis at Warsaw.
<< Hey, I don’t agree with Ghandi on everything. Need I do so, just because I cite one thing he said?
“Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.” - William Lloyd Garrison
Oh really? School choice laws have helped tens of thousands of children escape government schools, and is on track to help tens of millions in the not-so-distant future. How many children have been rescued from government schools by the absolutists?
<< Again with the circular argument. You assume as true the very thing we are debating about: that (on net balance) school choice laws help thousands of children get a better education. Please read what the critics say (see below) about this plan ruining the education of kids in private schools. The power of the purse indicates, sorry for mixing metaphors, that he who pays the piper calls the tune. You don’t think that government controls private education to a greater degree than before these schemes were implemented?
What I said after your lecture was that IF Milton Friedman followed the perspective he laid out regarding school choice, he would not have been an abolitionist in the 1850s. You interpreted me, falsely, as saying "Milton Friedman would not have been an abolitionist in the 1850s." I have no idea about the truth of the latter, although I have my suspicions. The former, I think, is undeniable.
I'm sorry I misinterpreted you.
<< No problem. Get on line. Behind me. I’m forever misinterpreting things.
You want to be effective. You want to promote liberty. Who were the two people who were by far the most effective in turning masses of people toward libertarianism, and converting millions to the free enterprise philosophy (without which we're not moving at all toward liberty). I'll tell you who: Ayn Rand and Ron Paul. You won't find any of these people worrying about, being concerned about, how do we move one tiny step toward liberty. No, for them, they lay out their uncompromising vision, and pound away at it. Their's is a better method. But, in saying this I'm conceding too much. I'm conceding that the Freidmanesque policies actually move us in the direction of freedom in education. I'm not going to say why not; please read that literature I sent you on this.
I'll accept for the moment your Friedmaesque premise that we can measure who has been most effective in that regard. And I'll reiterate that Dr. Paul supported education tax credits, so clearly he was concerned about moving toward liberty (I would argue that getting kids out of government schools is a huge leap, not merely a tiny step). In fact, here's Dr. Paul again:
The key to restoring parental control is to give parents back control over the education dollar. This means shutting down the Department of Education and returning the money currently spent promoting schemes like “common core”. Ideally, this would be accomplished by eliminating all federal taxes on American families. However, if the political support for outright abolition of federal taxes is not available, education tax credits can also serve as an effective way of getting control over education back into the hands of the people. Unlike taxpayer-funded vouchers, private tax credits do not open the door to government control of education. This is because tax credits allow parents to use their own money on their children’s education, rather than relying on funds provided by the federal government. Since “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” federal funding of education—whether in the form of federal grants or taxpayer-funded vouchers—inevitably means schools will spend more time trying to please federal bureaucrats than parents.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
And, wouldn't you know, the sainted Ayn Rand also supported education tax credits.
Also, I see that a prominent Objectivist supports them, writing:
"A tax-credit program such as this would not only give parents control over their children’s education and increase education options for all American children—it would put America on a road toward a fully free market in education."
"Tax credits, properly implemented, provide parents with a means of escaping the government’s clutches by removing the state as a monetary intermediary, thereby establishing a wall that unites private funding and private schools on one side, and keeps the state at bay on the other. This separation of school and state should be the goal of the parental school choice movement."
"Tax credits, properly implemented, provide parents with a means of escaping the government’s clutches by removing the state as a monetary intermediary, thereby establishing a wall that unites private funding and private schools on one side, and keeps the state at bay on the other. This separation of school and state should be the goal of the parental school choice movement."
Again, I could've have said it better myself!
<< context is important here. I’m taking a more macro point of view, Ron Paul a micro one. If the only thing on the table is education, then, of course, I favor reducing taxes on this one thing. But, I’m looking over the entire economy. I am opposing government “picking winners,” education in this case.
One way is vouchers (D). Vouchers would increase the number of students in
private schools, reducing the ill effects of crowd out. And while vouchers
entail coercive taxation, they are no more coercive than the system of
government schooling.
<< read that literature, please. Hey, even if you don't become a libertarian (on this issue) it still behooves you to at least know what your intellectual enemies are saying. Read Mill's On Liberty for that.
Again, here I am not endorsing vouchers, but merely pointing out that, for all their flaws, they are better than the status quo.
Certainly you are aware that Mill argued in favor of school vouchers, right? In On Liberty, he wrote:
Certainly you are aware that Mill argued in favor of school vouchers, right? In On Liberty, he wrote:
Were the duty of enforcing universal education once admitted…. If the government would make up its mind to require for every child a good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing one. It might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school fees of the poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school expenses of those who have no one else to pay for them.
<< Oy, oy, oy. Just because I favor Mill (or Ghandi, see above) on one thing (the importance of knowing what your intellectual opponents believe), does not logically imply I endorse everything they say (school vouchers in this case). Nice try. I appreciate a reductio ad absurdum. But I don’t think this attempt cuts it.
<< tax credits "don't entail coercion"? C'mon, get real. The entire system is coercive. First, govt taxes us. Then, it tells us if you do X, we'll lower your taxes. This is freedom? This is non coercion? Well, maybe inside the beltway. You don't live there, geographically, but that's where your head is at.
<< tax credits "don't entail coercion"? C'mon, get real. The entire system is coercive. First, govt taxes us. Then, it tells us if you do X, we'll lower your taxes. This is freedom? This is non coercion? Well, maybe inside the beltway. You don't live there, geographically, but that's where your head is at.
Of course taxes are coercion. No on denies that. That wasn't the point I was making. I linked to a piece where Andrew Coulson explains in greater detail, but in short I was saying that no one is coerced to pay, through their taxes, for ideas that they dislike. The donations to scholarship organizations are entirely voluntary. And they have the added benefit of letting people keep more of their own money and reducing government revenue.
To cite Dr. Paul again: " Ideally, this would be accomplished by eliminating all federal taxes on American families. However, if the political support for outright abolition of federal taxes is not available, education tax credits can also serve as an effective way of getting control over education back into the hands of the people."
But I guess Dr. Paul just spent too much time in the Beltway. I don't know what Ayn Rand's excuse was...
To cite Dr. Paul again: " Ideally, this would be accomplished by eliminating all federal taxes on American families. However, if the political support for outright abolition of federal taxes is not available, education tax credits can also serve as an effective way of getting control over education back into the hands of the people."
But I guess Dr. Paul just spent too much time in the Beltway. I don't know what Ayn Rand's excuse was...
<< I repeat, Ron was taking a micro point of view, I’m taking a macro one. I revere both Ron and Ayn. They were the two most successful in converting people to libertarianism on a mass scale. But, I disagree with the former on abortion and immigration, and with the latter on foreign policy. I don’t see why I’m logically obligated to agree with them on this.
<< You make a very good point. We should not oppose the good because it is not perfect. But this assumes that tax credits are good. I argue above they are part and parcel of a govt system of oppression. I find it dismaying that you support this evil system. Until and unless we create lots of libertarians, none of this will do much good. You are so intent on promoting private schools. But, don't you realize that govt can control private schools too, under vouchers or tax credits?
Of course! And it can also control private schools without vouchers or tax credits. As I noted, the study I cited found that most regulations on private schools existed before school choice policies were adopted. Moreover, whereas vouchers do tend to come with some regulations, tax credit laws tend to have very few if any additional regulations on private schools.
<< I agree. Jason, I'd like to blog all this. Is that ok with you? I'll certainly make you anonymous, unless you don't mind me using your name and affiliation.
I'm fine with that, and you're welcome to use my name and affiliation.
Best,
Jason
<< Jason, I greatly enjoyed your lecture at Loyola, and, this interaction. I wish you had an office 30 feet down the hall from mine so that we could discuss this (and other) issues more intensively
--
Jason Bedrick
Policy Analyst
Policy Analyst
Center for Educational Freedomm
Dear Jason:
P.S. -- The link to the original Ayn Rand Institute post appears to be broken, but here's Rand explaining her views:
The essentials of the idea (in my version) are as follows: an individual citizen would be given tax credits for the money he spends on education, whether his own education, his children's, or any person's he wants to put through a bona fide school of his own choice (including primary, secondary, and higher education).
The upper limits of what he may spend on any one person would be equal to what it costs the government to provide a student with a comparable education (if there is a computer big enough to calculate it, including all the costs involved, local, state, and federal, the government loans, scholarships, subsidies, etc.).
If a young person's parents are too poor to pay for his education or to pay income taxes, and if he cannot find a private sponsor to finance him, the public schools would still be available to him, as they are at present--with the likelihood that these schools would be greatly improved by the relief of the pressure of overcrowding, and by the influence of a broad variety of private schools.
I want to stress that I am not an advocate of public (i.e., government-operated) schools, that I am not an advocate of the income tax, and that I am not an advocate of the government's "right" to expropriate a citizen's money or to control his spending through tax incentives. None of these phenomena would exist in a free economy. But we are living in a disastrously mixed economy, which cannot be freed overnight. And in today's context, the above proposal would be a step in the right direction.
Egads! She mentioned that her proposal would actually positively impact the government schools, which would perpetuate them! Not to mention her incrementalism...
For the record, I don't like her scheme of pegging scholarships to what government spends on schools. Since I also oppose Dr. Paul's federal education tax credits, I guess I'm more libertarian than both of those inside-the-Beltway pinkos.
Shabbat Shalom!
<< Jason, I greatly enjoyed your lecture at Loyola, and, this interaction. I wish you had an office 30 feet down the hall from mine so that we could discuss this (and other) issues more intensively
Best regards,
Walter
I really enjoyed this exchange. I wonder how Dr. Block would feel about the following –
ReplyDeleteTax Credits, as described in this exchange, where one can only qualify for the tax credit if he/she made a donation to an organization offering a private school scholarship is obviously a less than ideal system – even measured by tax credit standards. Why make it so limited? Anyway, we both agree that vouchers and this system of tax credits subtract from, rather than add to the net benefit of education.
But how about taking the amount of money spent per student by public education, dividing it by the number of tax payers and subtracting that number from a person’s tax bill regardless if this person has children? This could be an optional program, so someone can continue to send their children to a public school if they’d like and not receive the credit. This achieves a few things: A.) Because those without children will also receive the credit the school will have less money than before this imaginary system. B.) Makes it more clear how much more efficient the private school alternatives are. C.) Everyone will essentially be responsibility for their own education bill, should they have one.
I understand that by stating this I’m still consenting to a coercive system of Govt taxation but is it a step in the right direction if we can’t achieve a 100% private education society? Let’s also assume this is all politically feasible.