No Coercion
6Jan/116

Creationism in Kentucky government schools

It seems there's a goober in Kentucky sponsoring a bill to sneak Creationism into government school science classes.

This is just another example of how government schools (besides being based on theft and violence) are really terrible. The problem on display here is that they can't please everyone who 'helps' pay for them. Some tax payers are morons who want their taxes to pay for Creationism to be taught in science classes, and other tax payers (the rest of us) want Creationism left in comparative religion classes or other classes based on the study of fantasy.

Of course, both groups, as tax payers, have a legitimate beef (particularly since the tax payers pay under threat of violence rather than as the result of a voluntary contract). The problem is fundamentally insoluble in the context of government schools (though the constitutional separation of church and state does provide a sometimes useful tool). The only solution is the abolition of government schools (and the taxes associated with them), thus allowing individuals to choose educational options for their children that they deem appropriate and that they are paying for themselves (or through whatever voluntary assistance may emerge). In other words, the solution is to implement the libertarian (a.k.a. voluntaryist, a.k.a. market anarchist) ethic: do not aggress against others or their justly-acquired property.

And just to head off that tired refrain about how such a peaceful, free-market system would inevitably result in some kids (those who end up with an anti-evolution curriculum) being massively deficient in science education, I'll just say, yep, that's life. Other people make lots of choices for their kids that you probably don't agree with--it doesn't make theft and violence okay.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Comments (6) Trackbacks (1)
  1. While a free market education system would almost inevitably lead to there being a small fraction of children who receive a substandard education, I would argue that there are two very good reasons to use the free market anyway:
    1) A significantly large number of children are currently in danger of receiving a substandard education. The prevalence of Creationism in the parents of the current generation shows that the education system has been failing students for at least a full generation.
    2) While some children may receive a sub-standard education as a result, the vast majority will be able to fine tune their education to suit their interests, abilities, skills, and the environment in which they find themselves. The free market in education provides the same type of benefit as the free market in shoes – as soon as people have a choice in what they get and what they pay for, they will find the option which is the best fit for them, rather than being forced to fit the mould.

  2. Damn right, Colin. I would have made those exact points if I had delved into a consequentialist argument for abolition of government schools.

  3. Eliminating public schooling would lead to a less indoctrinated, more educated society, and that would probably speed up the process of removing the state in the first place. Therefore it should be the most important issue to attack.

    If you sent the majority of the population to religous schools, you would expect them to come out religous. If you send the majority of the population to statist schools, you shouldn’t be suprised at all when they come out being statist. It would be the priority to stop forced religous schooling before you even worry about abolishing religion. And the same should go for statism.

  4. A “free market educational system” would lead to where such things always lead, huge portions of the population getting no education at all. Before public education in the US, the majority of folks got little more than a few years of schooling. Libertarianism, in practice is lunacy. You folks got your kits to test for water in the gasoline you put in your car? Or, to check for ecoli, or arsenic in the meat you eat? Or, to be sure the medicines you take are safe and effective? Or, any of a thousand other things things that government regulations take care of for you and your family? I didn’t think so.

    Want to go back to small government? Last time we tried that nonsense, there was sewage in the streets, smog in the air, and the average life expectancy in the United States was 47 years old.

  5. LOL, obviously you weren’t educated even under the statist system, I don’t see how it could be worse. At least read about what you are arguing against before you go trolling on random libertarian blogs. I don’t know anyone that is for testing every product they use in place of government regulations. Nor do I know any anarchists for a “small government”.

  6. “A “free market educational system” would lead to where such things always lead, huge portions of the population getting no education at all.”

    Ah, just as the free market in hammers, cell phones, and clothes has led to “huge portions of the population” getting no hammers, cell phones, or clothes.

    “Before public education in the US, the majority of folks got little more than a few years of schooling.”

    And yet the literacy rate of the white population in America was over 90% prior to the widespread implementation of public education (it was much higher for blacks, of course, due to slavery and the anti-literacy laws).

    “Libertarianism, in practice is lunacy. You folks got your kits to test for water in the gasoline you put in your car? Or, to check for ecoli, or arsenic in the meat you eat? Or, to be sure the medicines you take are safe and effective? Or, any of a thousand other things things that government regulations take care of for you and your family?”

    Of course not. Unless I was desperate, why would I do business with individuals and firms that hadn’t proven themselves to be reputable? And if I was desperate, I would certainly rather have the option to try out a new, untested provider. Government regulation doesn’t “take care” of anything for me; it inhibits competition and innovation, thus illegitimately transferring wealth from everyone else to the select few established players in an industry and making society worse off.

    “Want to go back to small government?”

    No, I want the state abolished altogether. It’s an aggressor and makes society worse overall for the benefit of a few.

    “Last time we tried that nonsense, there was sewage in the streets, smog in the air, and the average life expectancy in the United States was 47 years old.”

    That’s absurd. If these things are so important, why would people not choose to accomplish them voluntarily through profit-seeking business activity or cooperative associations?


Leave a comment

(required)