Comments on: Paternalism: You Know, For Kids!

By: Dr. Zeuss

Dr. Zeuss — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:08:36 +0000

“If you think it’s obvious that there’s an Objectively Correct Answer to any question, and that we know it…”

I mean, there clearly is. Either it’s better that the law be passed, or it isn’t. (Unless you think Montana kids can handle junk food but Nevada kids can’t.) I’m not at all sure I know the correct answer, and I don’t think Matt and Ezra are either, but I’m pretty confident, and you have to legislate for expected value.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:51:01 +0000

Other Julian:
Not really, but America has not yet seen fit to let me redesign its education system, so I’m working with what we’ve got.

By: Consumatopia

Consumatopia — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:44:18 +0000

You can say that school lunches aren’t important enough for a federal mandate, but I would say they aren’t important enough for pluralism. My take on school lunches is not about how much I value pluralism, but how much I value pluralism in school lunches specifically. Which isn’t very much at all. The lessons of past experience are sufficiently clear that whatever we have to learn from encouraging kids to consume more glucose is not at all worth the cost.

By: Julian Elson

Julian Elson — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:02:59 +0000

I’m surprised by your update. Do you really believe that the government — at the state or local level or not — should directly administer schools at all?

By: Greg N.

Greg N. — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:21:28 +0000

Sorry, that “anonymous” comment was mine. Don’t know what happened there. I didn’t mean to pull a John Lott.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:15:31 +0000

Jadagul,

This is actually one place where I see the argument for school choice break down. We now know that more Americans believe in the devil than recognize the truth of Darwinian evolution. As such, we can be sure that some significant subset of the population would prefer to send their kids to a school where Darwin is ignored (presumably along with the rest of biology), but where discussions of how best to avoid Satan’s tricks would be part of the curriculum.

That, whatever else you think of it, would be “fucking it up.” One of the reasons to support school choice is because there is value in decentralization and experimentation, and because values aren’t universally shared. But some things are true, and some are false, and if we know that lots of states and lots of parents would make objectively stupid decisions about their kids’ educations, then that seems like a weakness in the school choice argument.

By: Jadagul

Jadagul — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:56:26 +0000

Greg N: Well, I think that’s one of the best arguments for school choice: let parents send their kids to schools teaching whatever damn fool thing they want. Or, at least, whatever I-think-it’s-damn-fool thing; I don’t claim omniscience or infallibility. In the current system…well, this is what makes me a principled libertarian and federalist. Having the government involved in this specific case, making this specific intervention, might lead to a situation I prefer. But I understand that the cost of keeping the government out of places I don’t want it, and of keeping it from enforcing bad decisions, is that sometimes people will do things I don’t like.

Or, in other words, I’m willing to accept the lack of mandate that evolution be taught in exchange for the knowledge that no one will ever mandate it not be taught. I’d rather have a world where some places screw up than a world where there’s a decent chance of everyone being screwed at once.

By: Greg N.

Greg N. — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:48:26 +0000

Julian (and others),

I’m interested to see whether you think Darwinism falls under the ‘fuck it up’ category, or ‘variety and experimentation’ category. Framed as “education,” it might be better suited for the latter. But framed as “science,” it’s clearly the former.

Thoughts?

By: Larry M

Larry M — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:29:59 +0000

In fairness, the Federalism point isn’t made THAT clearly in the text either. I mean, it is at one level, in the sense that his point is a constitutional one, specifically regarding the powers granted to the U.S. congress. But, to the extent that there is any clue as to why he disagrees with the policy as a matter of substance, it’s the headline. There just isn’t any discussion, even in a cursory manner, of the federalism issue AS POLICY.

Which isn’t to say that you are wrong, but merely that you can’t blame Mathew and Ezra for missing an argument that Mitchell didn’t make. They are not misunderstanding Mitchell’s objection, or, if they are, the fault is Mitchell’s, who didn’t make it clearly at all.

By: Grant Gould

Grant Gould — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:27:52 +0000

If you think it’s obvious that there’s an Objectively Correct Answer to any question, and that we know it [...] then allowing local variation just means giving the rubes a chance to fuck it up.

So basically we’re dealing with left-wing Randroids here?