Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Sand · 16-05-2010 11:44PM

@taconnol

An OECD report concluded that Finland has the best secondary school system in the world. They charge no tuition for full time students, have compulsory schooling until the age of 16 and the schools are administered by local councils with the National Board of Education setting targets.

The only standout quality of the Finnish education system that I have seen highlighted is that simply put, the Finnish teachers are better teachers, and better motivated. Its probably important to note that they arent better paid.

Whilst Irish teacher trade unions focus on class sizes, international research has not discovered any particular impact of class size on student outcomes. Instead it reinforces that better teachers lead to better outcomes. The point DF is making is that a heavily unionised staff of teachers is not helpful for delivering better teachers and thus better outcomes for students. Private schools can get better results because they can look for better teachers. Unionised schools have to take on and keep the sloggers.

Thats a uncomfortable issue for the teacher trade unions who dont like confronting the reality of bad teachers, but its the root problem we have to sort out.

Macha · 17-05-2010 12:21AM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why do you say they're the exception and not the rule? Have you looked at the other countries in the top 10? There's Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, Lichtenstein, Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada, Australia and Belgium. As far as I can tell, the government is somewhat involved in all of those education systems and heavily involved in most of them.

Sand wrote: »

Thats a uncomfortable issue for the teacher trade unions who dont like confronting the reality of bad teachers, but its the root problem we have to sort out.

OK I agree - sort out the teacher trade unions. That does not equal an argument for making all education private.

Permabear · 17-05-2010 10:15AM

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia · 17-05-2010 10:26AM

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

In fairness though it was both. Poor regulation and low interest rates for too long.

I can understand how government policy could result in an excessively high interest rate, by setting the base rate at a high level, but how can libertarians argue that the state forced private institutions to set their interest rates too low.

It was just another market failure, all these private companies trying to increase market share and entice new customers without any regard for the long term consequences of fueling a credit bubble.

Libertarians blaming the government for the market failure because they didn't force the banks to cut back on lending or increase their interest rates is an impressive feat of mental gymnastics

Akrasia · 17-05-2010 10:37AM

silverharp wrote: »

Clearliy this is the reality but it doesnt make it right. How does one calculate sacrificing for a greater good? there is an assumption here that the cost will be less then the gains, however without stretching the point it is obvious that the cost will be more then the gains for some people (which seems unfair) and even for the rest, how do you prove it? Look at the economy now, a lot of people are suffering more costs then gains because they let the government run the economy and the planning system for them. It takes a lot of almost religious faith that the greater good statement is in fact true.

But there is no way of knowing how a fully privatised planning system would have functioned in the same conditions with the same pressures and potential for a quick buck.

You're pointing at the failures of the weak planning system and implying that no planning system at all would have had a better outcome, but there is no evidence of this. Is it not likely that a fully unregulated construction sector could have resulted in vastly worse ourcomes?

Permabear · 17-05-2010 10:45AM

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia · 17-05-2010 10:57AM

Laminations wrote: »

we need to reaaly nail down what is meant by liberty here because the way I see it, the pursuit of absolute individual liberty is a self defeating concept and therefore it cannot be the best societal order. Does it simply mean that we are aiming to maximise the right to choose?

Just on this issue, there is a guy Barry Schwartz who writes about "the paradox of choice" and he essentially argues that too much choice can make people unhappier than they would be if they had exactly the same outcome but no choice in how it was arrived at.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ElQVdxAipZ0C&dq=paradox+of+choice&source=bl&ots=fV3YDKS0K-&sig=naSKJshOk6Tsoc8iEbueGzD1h4A&hl=en&ei=kBHxS9e0HYenOPDkhLII&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAw

(eg, if you offer someone a choice between 3 different prizes in a competition, they are less happy with the prize than they would have been if they were just given a fixed prize and no choice (because they have the opportunity cost that makes them regret not choosing the other prizes)

If the libertarians are trying to force us to all have dozens of choices to make about every aspect of our lives on the basis that more choice is better, they should at least make some effort to demonstrate that more choice is in fact 'better', and what does 'better' even mean?)

Macha · 17-05-2010 10:59AM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What you're doing is telling me the education system in this country is bad and that we have no alternative due to time constraints, but to dismantle the entire public education system. Two few points:

1) There is no way that dismantling the entire public education system would result in faster results than reforming the existing system.

2) You still haven't explained why, other than time, why a 100% private education system is the only alternative to the Irish education system in its current form.

Permabear · 17-05-2010 11:38AM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 17-05-2010 11:54AM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 17-05-2010 12:04PM

This post has been deleted.

Macha · 17-05-2010 12:17PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well as we live in a democracy, it's also dependent on civic engagement and putting pressure on politicians to improve educational services.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But you're totally ignoring the PISA report that I referred to above, showing that in fact, government involvement in schools gets the best results.

BluePlanet · 17-05-2010 12:28PM

He keeps talking about privatising education but ignores the reality that private schools here receive a State subsidy - primarily that the State is paying the wages of the staff.

Also ignoring the most successful school system in the western world - Finland - which is a public state-run school system where the vast majority of staff are unionized.

Realities that put major holes in freemarketeer land.

Maybe the Private Schools here get better results because they get to operate a highly discrimantory entrance policy - they don't have to take on traveller children nor immigrants that have/are trying to learn english as a 2nd or 3rd language.

So in effect, they take only well behaved kids that they believe will do well in their school setting.

Permabear · 17-05-2010 12:40PM

This post has been deleted.

Macha · 17-05-2010 12:52PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But, for example, private schools in Ireland get government support. The same could very well be the case in other countries. Out of the top 10 countries from the OECD report, which one doesn't have government involvement in private schools?

Permabear · 17-05-2010 01:08PM

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 17-05-2010 02:12PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Lets also not forget that it will require some government interference to break the discriminatory enrollment policy those private schools operate:

More worryingly the admissions policies of these schools are blatantly discriminatory in that when awarding places they give preference to the children of former students, siblings of current students, attendees of their fee-paying junior schools and relatives of the their teaching staff.

Even more intimidating for those outside the existing educational golden circle is the fact that many of these schools insist on interviewing both the applicant child and their parents as part of their admissions process. The result of all of this is that some of the best schools in the country are virtually off limits to the children of immigrants, members of the Travelling community or those requiring special education whose needs are often such that they would benefit most from having access to them

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0427/1224269158554.html

It's the same story with Private Prisons in USA, there they get to cherry-pick what prisoners they'll take which results in the State prisons housing a disproportionate number of seriously violent criminals.

Ironically however, the Private Prisons don't reap the presumed benefits as they have a much higher rate of attacks against wardens.

Also, the presumed savings a private prison system was supposed to provide taxpayers, hasn't born out.

Closer to home, once we get Travellers, Special Needs kids, and mis-behaving miscreants from housing estates into those Private Schools, doubtless those test scores will suffer.

Laminations · 17-05-2010 02:13PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

He keeps talking about privatising education but ignores the reality that private schools here receive a State subsidy - primarily that the State is paying the wages of the staff.

Also ignoring the most successful school system in the western world - Finland - which is a public state-run school system where the vast majority of staff are unionized.

Realities that put major holes in freemarketeer land.

Maybe the Private Schools here get better results because they get to operate a highly discrimantory entrance policy - they don't have to take on traveller children nor immigrants that have/are trying to learn english as a 2nd or 3rd language.

So in effect, they take only well behaved kids that they believe will do well in their school setting.

They often have entrance exams too, so they take well behaved, intelligent kids who probably have parents that highly value education (hence are willing to pay for it) and all these factors influence the childs performance rather than reflect on school performance.

Laminations · 17-05-2010 02:17PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

Lets also not forget that it will require some government interference to break the discriminatory enrollment policy those private schools operate:

Why? under libertarianism, discrimination is your right, it may not be encouraged or condoned but it is accepted. They reckon there will always be someone else to teach the stupid or the poor, sure if there is a demand there will be a supply - who cares if the supply is substandard, sure the layabouts are paying less for it.

BluePlanet · 17-05-2010 02:19PM

Laminations wrote: »

Why? under libertarianism, discrimination is your right, it may not be encouraged or condoned but it is accepted. They reckon there will always be someone else to teach the stupid or the poor, sure if there is a demand there will be a supply - who cares if the supply is substandard, sure the layabouts are paying less for it.

Yes but they live in lala Land where everybody behaves like perfect little gentlemen.
Things are different in the real world.

Laminations · 17-05-2010 02:22PM

Just back to the issue on sexual harrassment from a few pages ago - listening to Pat Kenny this morning I heard about this lecturer in UCC being repremanded for 'sexual harrassment' by the university (without the involvement of the state) after simply offending a colleague. He gave a great explanation on how one distinguishes between sexual harrassment and offense (the latter being something the state should not protect its citizens from). It shows that institutional procedures can be majorly flawed.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/470089-sex-fruit-bats-and-politically-correct-zoology-at-an-irish-college

We find the harsh treatment of Dr Evans to be an explicit threat to intellectual discourse and academic freedom at UCC. Unless Professor Murphy reverses his unwise decision, academic staff at UCC will have to fear that if they show a peer-reviewed, scientific article to a colleague, which that colleague finds even mildly upsetting, then they will be punished, even if it is explicitly established by outside Investigators that there is no intention to cause offence.

Permabear · 17-05-2010 02:39PM

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia · 17-05-2010 02:45PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's not me, it's Barry Schwartz and as a thesis it does stand up to scrutiny.

Excessive choice can lead to psychological harm. There are studies that show that excessive consumer choice can trigger depression and feelings of loneliness as there are fewer shared experiences (back when there were only 2 channels on irish television, people used to discuss what they all saw the night before, now where there are hundreds of channels and the internet, it is unlikely that the people you meet will have seen the same content and so you can not share the experience.

Also when there is a wide choice available and someone chooses something they are not satisfied with, that then becomes their fault for not choosing better, rather than the manufacturers fault for not producing a good enough good/service. People hold themselves responsible for the poor choices they make rather than projecting the blame for any insatisfaction onto the service provider.

The point I am making is that if you are proposing a society where freedom to choose between multiple service providers and commodities is a central part of the ideology, you ought to at least do some study to see if maximum variety and choice is actually better for happiness and outcomes than the system as it stands or used to be

Lockstep · 17-05-2010 03:05PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually FIRE is nonpartisan and defends civil liberties; I wouldn't call the ACLU or the ICCL libertarian either for example.

I came across Lukianoff once before; he's a liberal isn't he? (American style if I remember rightly)

Permabear · 17-05-2010 03:14PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 17-05-2010 03:19PM

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet · 17-05-2010 03:29PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm all for removing "choices" where it's appropriate.
For example how many different types of mobile phone charges do we really need?
If we use government interference and mandate a standard, we can simplify things for consumers and force industry to produce less waste by eliminating the necessity to package a seperate charger with each different model/manufacture of phone.

Lockstep · 17-05-2010 03:37PM

I can count.; Dunn, Innis, Liggio, Sommers out of those.
Few conservatives there too. Unless there's any libertarians I missed out?

Akrasia · 17-05-2010 03:51PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Gold is the new tulip?

Permabear · 17-05-2010 03:57PM

This post has been deleted.

Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Comments