Posted on

School Choice

I was surprised at the response when I expressed my interest in introducing school choice to the public school system. It was suggested to me that people may have thought I was recommending some sort of voucher system, so let me dispel that idea and clarify the policy I advocate. Then, I’ll address some of the arguments.
The public schools here are divided by districts, and students must attend the school at the appropriate level within their district. In fact, they are looking to strengthen the restrictions to prevent parents from using relatives’ addresses to qualify their child to attend a school in another district. What I suggest is that, if you have a student enrolled in the public school in your district, and you want them to attend another public school in the county, you can send them to the other school, as long as you can provide transportation to the school outside of your district. Students who are attending the prescribed school in their district would still be able to take advantage of busing. Now, to some of the arguments:

  • What about the students whose families cannot afford to transport them to a better school outside of their district?
    First, this argument seems to assume that families would have to pay some third-party service for transportation, like getting their kid an Uber every day. It costs nothing but time and gas for the parents to drive their children to another school themselves. Alternatively, a grandparent, uncle, cousin or even a friend of the family could provide that transportation, free of charge. If you’re worried about a two-tier system of education, where the wealthy families get a better education than poorer families, that system already exists, since wealthy families can afford to send their children to private schools. There are many more families, however, that cannot afford to send their children to private school but can afford to spend an extra 30 – 45 minutes every morning and/or afternoon to take their kids to a neighboring district for a better education. Though, the simplest response to this argument is:  For the families who cannot afford to transport their children to a better school outside their assigned district, their situation has not changed. They are attending the same school that they attended before the option was given. To oppose is to believe that it is worse for all people to be given an option that some cannot exercise than for none to have the option.
  • Won’t the worst schools end up with fewer students?
    Hopefully. I fail to understand why this is a problem. In fact, if the worst schools ended up with no students, I calculate that is an improvement. However, some kind of equilibrium would eventually be reached. All else being equal, personal attention has a positive impact on the education of a student, and as students filter out of the worst schools, class sizes would reach a level where there was some advantage to attending those schools. Additionally, if schools are funded based on enrollment, positive pressure would be placed on the schools to compete with each other to provide a better education to draw more students… and that leads to the next contention.
  • Shouldn’t the schools that are performing the worst get more/the most funding?
    While I understand the logic of this assertion, it creates perverse incentives to provide more funding for failure. Like many government programs, you have incentivized the status quo by making it more beneficial to continue to fail, rather than to improve the outcomes. The incentives in any system should be given for providing higher quality services. If a school performs poorly, replace staff until it succeeds. If there is no improvement over time and the school fails, so be it.
  • What if the best football/basketball/baseball players all go to the same school?
    This is a possibility, but unlikely. There is some advantage for an athlete to be a big fish in a small pond. The two best quarterbacks in the county are not going to attend the same school, because they both want to play all of the snaps. I think school choice is more likely to create greater parity between the schools. Regardless, I don’t think it’s relevant. The issue only concerns high school students, and I’d be surprised if varsity athletes represent 10% of students.
  • We should be able to make all the schools equal.
    Define equal. How would this be evaluated, since equality can only be assessed through things which can be objectively measured? Total enrollment? Student to teacher ratios? Total spending? Spending per student? Graduation rates? Failure rates? Even if you were somehow able to make all of these data the same across all schools in the county, the human factor leaves them inherently unequal. If you provide the same curriculum to two schools with identical objective measurements, there will still be inequality, since students and teachers are individuals. Some students respond better to some teachers’ styles than other students, who will respond better to other teachers. When applied to social institutions, equality is simply a buzzword which can be neither defined nor implemented. “And the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw.”

My argument is simple:  Do you believe that people should be permitted to make their own choices about their lives? Do people have the right to choose for themselves how they will raise their families? If so, does that apply to what school those people attend or send their children? There is only one moral answer to those questions.

Posted on

What about This Social Contract?

Recently, an acquaintance made the case to me that we are responsible for paying taxes and any other requirements that government places upon us because of the social contract, regardless of our opinions of their actions.  If we disagree with paying taxes, as an example, we can simply move; and as long as we choose to stay, we have consented to the social contract.  Now, this is not intended to be an exposition, more an interrogation; I merely want to put forward some questions related to social contract theory, which I feel must be resolved.

To make my position clear from the outset, I think social contract theory is merely a justification for government oppression.  With a government limited to the protection of life, liberty and property, would such justification be necessary?  Aren’t you then just submitting to the rule of law?  A theory suggesting tacit or implied consent to an obligatory set of rules reliant on an accident of birth is… problematic, particularly when one side both creates and enforces the rules.

At what point has an individual given consent to the social contract?  Conception?  Birth?  Somewhere in between?  If, as was suggested, I can leave if I disagree or do not wish to engage in the social contract, have I any obligation to the social contract before I am able to leave?  If an individual would like to escape the social contract but cannot because they are too young or old, too poor, physically incapable or whatever the case may be, is that individual still obligated to the social contract?  I see a problem with a contract – like online subscriptions – that can be engaged without active consent and cannot be ended without active dissent.

Is there some kind of universal social contract, or is the nature of the social contract dependent on location?  Is there a different social contract for a person born in the US compared with a person born in Saudi Arabia?  Does the social contract obligate an individual to cultural mores or the rule of the state or both?  Take the case of a woman born in Saudi Arabia.  She chose neither her sex nor her place of birth.  She is unlikely to be able to leave on her own.  Is she obligated to submit to the traditional and state-sanctioned treatment of women because of the social contract?

Hobbes saw government as a necessity because he believed people without government would exist in a constant state of warfare (all against all, I believe he said), and government would prevent that.  (Clearly, he did not envision a world of fiat currency, evidenced by 17 years and more than $6 trillion wasted.)  In his view the social contract was part and parcel to the exchange of liberty for security.  Locke and Rousseau argued that people have the right to withdraw from the social contract if their government is not acting in their best interests, and Locke (whose social contract probably had the greatest influence on the formation of the United States) believed the role of government was to secure the natural rights of its citizens.

With this in mind, let’s use taxation to test some limits.  I believe that taxation is theft by definition – the taking of a person’s property without their consent.  If the purpose of government is to protect my natural rights, of which an aspect is my property, may I stop paying taxes with the justification that my government has breached the social contract by not protecting my property?  I certainly cannot do that legally; my property will be stolen, and I may be thrown in a cage (another breach of my natural rights, by the way, as I lose my liberty in addition to my property).

What if I believe that my government is not using my taxes in my best interests?  I believe that using my taxes to fund war in the Middle East does not make me safer and, in fact, creates a greater danger to my life, liberty and property.  Is that enough of a reason to not pay taxes or to make a claim that the state has breached the social contract?  What if I choose to just not pay the 20% of my taxes that fund the departments that conduct those wars?

If I refuse the benefits, can I refuse the costs?  Can I even refuse the benefits, or am I contractually obligated to accept them?  Again, have I given my tacit consent by accepting benefits of the social contract while I’m too young to refuse or to understand the obligation I’m creating for myself?  Is it too late to change, if I realize my error?  If my consent to the contract is implied by my acceptance of benefits, and I’m obligated to accept the benefits, does that not create a strange loop that obligates me to obligate myself?

It has been a long time since I read the relevant writings of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau; so I’m relying mostly on my memory of their work and its entanglement with topics with which I’ve engaged more recently.  Perhaps my questions have already been answered, and I welcome any commentary on or criticism of the issues I’ve raised here.  However, I don’t see a way around the view of the social contract as dependent on tacit consent before consent can be obtained, based on location or non-negotiable benefits.  Additionally, it leaves the individual beholden to governmental systems or cultural practices at the threat of force – a questionably voluntary loss of liberty.

-M

Posted on

Congress Shirks Responsibility, Refuses to Stand in the Way of War

While the UK Parliament argued PM Theresa May should not be able to enter war without their approval, the US Congress argued why President Trump should be allowed to enter war in Syria without awaiting the Congress’ constitutional responsibility to declare war (or at least approve the action).  The US Constitution places sole authority to declare war on Congress (US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8).  The President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces only when they have been called to service by the Legislature (US Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 2).

Our Founders were concerned with the power of the Executive and took measures to prevent PotUS from becoming a de facto king.  The separation of war powers with the President waging war but the Congress declaring war is an important distinction.  A king, of course, has the power to both undertake and execute war, while the President has only the power to execute war.  James Madison wrote, “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts. demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it.”

I read, yesterday, about the US’ “retaliatory” strike on Syria after the alleged chemical weapons attack.  I wonder if this would have happened if we enforced The Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution.  I suspect not.  At least the last three Presidents have been elected on anti-war platforms.  G.W. Bush said he would not use the military for nation building.  Obama promised to end the wars. Trump also promised to only wage war when “absolutely necessary.”  While this is clearly ample evidence of Tom Woods’ Law (‘No matter who you vote for, you always wind up with John McCain’), I believe it is also ample evidence that the American people are not interested in expanding military action.

Herein lies the reason our Representatives and Senators are seeking to abdicate responsibility.  All of the Representatives and one-third of the Senators have elections looming.  They want your vote and the best way to get it is to not be on record with any opinion, whatsoever.  Without a vote providing unequivocal proof of their position on the conflict, they are shielded from culpability.  They can tell you whatever they think you want to hear.  Then, they have at least two more years of ignoring you.

What’s more, they can continue to collect contributions from the big defense contractors.  The defense industries spend less on both lobbying and political contributions than several other industries, such as health, education, oil, gas and utilities; but if you think that the lobbying expenditures of $16.7 million for Boeing, $14.5 million for Lockheed Martin, $12 million for Northrop Grumman and $11.5 million for General Dynamics don’t yield a return, then you just don’t understand economics.  A lot of people would like to blame these ‘evil companies,’ but they are not to blame.  They are only doing what they can to generate advantage for themselves in the market.  The Congress is to blame.

My opinion: Fire them all.  Do not vote for an incumbent.  Polls show most people approve of the job their Representatives and Senators are doing.  However, the public approval rating for Congress, as a whole, hovers around 15%.  If it seems a mathematical impossibility that so many should be satisfied with the jobs their officials are doing, it’s because it is.  The problem is that your elected federal officials are not doing as good a job as you think.  War is not the only responsibility that Congress has abdicated to the Executive.  Last year, I attended a town hall held by my current Representative, Bradley Byrne.  A question arose concerning the budget, and he responded by saying that President Trump had not delivered the budget to Congress.  That’s not PotUS’ job!  All budget bills are supposed to originate in the House of Representatives(US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 7).  Did you know the Senate is supposed to vote on treaties negotiated by The President, before the compact is in force (US Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 2)?  Monetary policy is the purview of Congress, but they have abdicated that responsibility to the Federal Reserve, which is technically a private entity.

Leaving aside the legal issue of whether any branch of the federal government has the authority to transfer its responsibilities to another branch (they don’t), what is Congress doing?  Well, they spend half their time fundraising.  While they aren’t doing their constitutionally-prescribed duties, they do spend a lot of time on pointless legislation. Search congress.gov for the word ‘condemn.’ Here’s an example of what you’ll find.  Their salaries are taxpayer funded; they say they work for us.  If I spent half my work day squandering my boss’ money and performing unproductive busywork and the other half of my day asking for more money, I’m pretty sure I would not keep my job very long.  Let’s hold Congress to at least that standard.

We have elections in a few months.  It is time to make a change, as Congress seeks excuses to evade their duties.  Our Representatives have, once again, sidestepped the responsibility to represent the people and protect our investment.  The current Congress has demonstrated at best incompetence and at worst embezzlement.  Fire them all!  Personally, I don’t think the situation will improve as long as Republicans and Democrats still control our federal government; but make your own choices.  I know if we elect the same people, we’ll get the same result.

-M