In the last sentence of Charles Murray’s article here, he writes: “Our public schools should be places where good teachers want to teach and are permitted to teach.”
Suppose pizza parlors had been nationalized, and there were (no surprise) all sorts of problems with pizza. Would he have written this?: “Our pizza parlors should be places where good chefs want to bake and are permitted to bake.”
Somehow, I doubt it. Knowing his other writings, he might say something to the effect that pizza parlors should be privatized, and analyze the pizza problems as emanating from pizza socialism: poor incentives, no bankruptcy for lousy restaurants, etc. He would give the back of his hand to the objection that if pizza was privatized, the poor wouldn’t be able to get any pizza.
Ditto to Milton Friedman’s external economies argument: that people wouldn’t buy enough pizza, because they are not able to capture all the benefits of pizza; some it spills over to other people since they will be nicer if they have just eaten pizza and are now more content.
What’s the difference between pizza and schooling, such that people like Murray are socialists in the latter case but not the former?
{ 18 comments }
People at pizzerias can do fractions, and people at public schools cannot?
and analyze the pizza problems as emanating from pizza socialism: poor incentives, no bankruptcy for lousy restaurants, etc. …
At the top of the list would be the impossibility of economic calculation as to how to produce the quantity and quality of pizzas actually desired by consumers.
My reading of the article is for more local control of K-12 education which would release the bindings of national and state standardized tests. Standardized tests are the crutch of bad teachers.
If the politically correct state took over pizzas, I don’t think you would be able to buy this!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1815988.ece
My point is that when the state takes over anything, they inject their politically correct mindset.
I think 8 won. I don’t know what he won, but he sure won it.
-Gendou
Suppose the atmosphere were socialized, and there were (no surprise) all sorts of problems with people using it as a dumping ground. Would he have written this?: “Our atmosphere should be a place where people think carefully about what they dump into it.”
Somehow, I doubt it. Knowing his other writings, he might say something to the effect that the atmosphere should be privatized, and analyze the atmosphere problems as emanating from atmosphere socialism: poor incentives, no bankruptcy for overuse, etc. He would give the back of his hand to the objection that if atmosphere was privatized, the poor wouldn’t be able to breathe.
Ditto to Milton Friedman’s external economies argument: that people wouldn’t buy enough dumping rights, because they are not able to capture all the benefits of dumping; some of it spills over to other people since they will be nicer if they enjoy better products.
What’s the difference between pizza and the atmosphere, such that people like pretty much every Austrian are socialists in the latter case but not the former?
Charles Murray has gone soft. His romantic take on public schools is myopic. Has he no understanding of the misallocation of resources, social disconnect and moral hazard that public school systems represent? But I bring a different point:
At least he should know that established families often send their kids to the local public school because they control the school board and can direct the best resources towards their own kids. They also know that their kids can dominate the lessers- often minorities with little education- in the public school which makes them masters of their environment and therefore more attractive to ivy league institutions. All the liberal cries for social justice via more tax money to public schools has to be taken with a grain of salt. For it is these liberal parents who gain their kids an elite education for well under the cost of Groton or Andover. (although this comparison is exaggerated to make the point)
Person, don’t you have anything better to do than troll this blog? Take your boring, unimportant little crusades to your own blog. No one cares.
>What’s the difference between pizza and the atmosphere, such that people like pretty much every Austrian are socialists in the latter case but not the former?
Very easy: scarcity. Pizzas are scarce; air is not. Therefore, there needs to be a market for pizzas, rights to own pizzas, etc. For air, there is no need: it is not scarce, one cannot have a right to it.
I can think of a few ways in which air, or at least the most useful sorts of air, can be scare. Clean air in Chinese cities is very scare at the moment, as it can be used for breathing, or dumping ground for emissions, but not both at the same time and to the full extent that everyone would like.
Agreeing with Gendou57, 8 won.
Quote from Person: “What’s the difference between pizza and the atmosphere, such that people like pretty much every Austrian are socialists in the latter case but not the former?”
Austrians aren’t socialists on the atmosphere. They’re for property rights in the atmosphere (like everything else). If an industry is polluting my air, then I sue them for infringing on my property. If they are polluting a large group of people’s air, then we all sue the industry together. If an industry doesn’t want to be sued, then they won’t pollute.
The reason this doesn’t work now is because the government has socialised the air and made it illegal to sue industries that pollute. They’ve also sanctioned the pollution by setting up political mechanisms for making it legitimate and acceptable.
I too agree, 8 won.
And person should read Heinlein.
Air, when scarce, is not free. (eg: in space, the moon…). Same for water.
Tanstaafl!
I was referring to global warming and CO2 emission rights. Austrians seem to universally (an inconsistently) reject those, even in the hypothetical that the science is correct. Go fig.
Person: I suppose you’d then have to take Keith’s critique of your seeming initial scope as the reason a group of convinced and faithful (in the dogma of climate change science) environmental scientists don’t do a class-action lawsuit to force severe violators out of business. The action would be legally forbidden by U.S. (and probably international) protectionist policy.
In any event you’re flogging your cause in a typically shrill though somewhat humorous manner. Not earning any respect for your cause with me though, I’m afraid. I’m on the fence til I see some evidence (pro or con) that isn’t being pumped like a penny stock by someone with a (statist/corporate *or* corporate/statist) hijacked interest.
Teflon is good for you, teflon is bad for you, blah blah blah.
Michael_Costello:
1) Keith was referring to nearby pollutants, not CO2 which affect everyone in the world, not just those nearby.
2) Austrians ridicule global warming lawsuits too.
3) In what other context do Austrians wait for lawsuits before demanding property rights on which lawsuits can be based?
4) My main objection is to the opposition to property rights, even in the hypothetical that there’s no problem. Your skepticism isn’t responsive to that.
Austrians,
Raise your hand if you believe you don’t have the right to sue a polluter who pollutes the air above your property.
Problem solved.
Austrians,
Raise your hand if you believe you don’t have the right to sue a polluter who pollutes the air above your property.
No hands? Problem solved.
Comments on this entry are closed.