Friday, November 23, 2012

Krugman: The Case Against Government Involvement in Education

In his attack on Marco Rubio, Paul Krugman doesn't realize it, but he makes a very strong case for keeping government out of the education business. When education is politicized, it may lead to some terrible consequences.

Writes Krugman:

Coming back to the age of the earth: Does it matter? No, says Mr. Rubio, pronouncing it “a dispute amongst theologians” — what about the geologists? — that has “has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.” But he couldn’t be more wrong. 
We are, after all, living in an era when science plays a crucial economic role. How are we going to search effectively for natural resources if schools trying to teach modern geology must give equal time to claims that the world is only 6.000 years old? How are we going to stay competitive in biotechnology if biology classes avoid any material that might offend creationists?
The only solution is to keep education out of the political arena. If we keep government out of the education system and allow freedom, parents can send their children to whatever school they want. If some students are sent to schools that teach that the world is only 6,000 years old, then those students, perhaps, may not become the best geologists. On the other hand, parents who send their children to schools that teach a more scientific view of  the age of the planet, may very well include students that will become the next finders of the next great pools of oil.

The point is that freedom allows for many views to be explored and taught, where as government education is about political limitations to thought. No master politically driven decider, such as Rubio, is needed when freedom is the rule.

In a politically driven education system, it will be majority rule and thus limiting of those who hold minority views. Or, it may be court intellectuals chosen by the political elite, who decide, which, of course, will result in a education that is bias toward views favoring the expansion of government. (See the court economists and their apologies for Keynesian economics, for example).

Only education, cut from government influence, will provide exploration of many views. And, it is always debate and the freedom to explore any views that ultimately advances society, rather than views limited by the dictates of the state.


6 comments:

  1. The point is that freedom allows for many views to be explored and taught

    This is a pipe dream. Does anyone really think the state is going to let kids get away without being indoctrinated with (say) global warming propaganda?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course not, especially when the few people who do believe in liberty don't even vote.

      Delete
  2. Good point Robert, but I doubt Krugman has any clue that he is effectively making an argument against government's involvement in education. Krugman has a long established history of only seeing what is right in front of his face and nothing beyond that. Krugman's only insight is that the "other guys" are dangerous to education and his thought process ends there. He can't go any further since it would force him to question his core beliefs and being the one dimensional political hack he is, that isn't going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "In his attack on Marco Rubio, Paul Krugman doesn't realize it, but he makes a very strong case for keeping government out of the education business. When education is politicized, it may lead to some terrible consequences."

    I dislike Krugman and think he's wrong about virtually everything. However, I will say that this statement you made is just wrong. Krugman isn't necessarily giving a strong argument against government involvement in education. At best, it only shows he's against ONE FORM of government involvement, namely, the kind that contains creationism. He's not against HIS PREFERRED form of government involvement in education. He is definitely against getting government out of education altogether.

    Switching gears, in a socialist society, socialist citizens are typically very vocal about how bad the leaders are doing. This isn't because they want to abolish socialism, it's because they want THEIR PREFERRED socialism to be implemented.

    You have to look at Krugman as a socialist who is unhappy with the current socialist education system. Socialists complaining about official socialist laws can tell us that socialism can't make everyone happy, but not so much that the complainers want to allow free markets to resume.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course Krugman isn't arguing against government education. What Bob pointed out was that Krugman can't see that his argument could be used against those like him that support the government's involvement in education. My guess would be that Krugman does not put a lot of intellectual effort into the stuff he puts in his blog. He has a long track record of muddled essays which make him appear as a very sloppy thinker.

      Delete
  4. How are we going to stay competitive if we avoid any material that might offend the Keynesians?

    ReplyDelete