I understand from earlier discussions that a public education system is immoral because ultimately no one has a right to be educated at the expense of another. In a private education system under LFC:
1) who decides what is taught?
2) Who decides the curriculum across the country?
3) How do people of one state, or tax bracket even, ensure their kids get the same quality education as the next state?
The structure would be whatever people decide to create, by mutual consent. It most likely would have several "structures." There is no one single answer or structure, and I submit it's a false premise to assume one. If there would be "one" of anything, it would be (and should be) a free society where people can pursue whatever educational paths they wish, whether for themselves or as a larger organization to include others. Whether or not they want to earn a living from it determines if & how it needs to be economically self-sustaining and profitable. I think all of your questions have a false premise behind them. The brief answers to (1) and (2) is "Everyone, who cares to."
answered Apr 02 '11 at 09:11
How does Q2 differ from Q1? The essential difference appears to be the suggestion that there would be (or needs to be) a single common curriculum across the country. But capitalism is a system of choices, variety, and above all, freedom of action in a social context. Capitalism is the system of individual rights, which includes property rights -- and of individual liberty in the pursuit of one's own happiness. If any prospective student or parent doesn't like the curriculum of a particlar school or school system, he would be free under capitalism to go elsewhere (within his financial means), or start a new school, or engage in home-schooling.
Q3 implies that there would be a uniform quality of education in each state, with some states offering a higher quality than others. It implies that there is egalitarianism within each state, which ought to be propagated to the whole country. These premises are wrong on two counts. Within each state, there is no reason to have a uniform quality of education, as already noted above. Secondly, there is no value (quite the opposite, in fact) in trying to achieve a uniform quality level across the whole country.
Q2 and Q3 seem to express collectivist and/or egalitarian premises. Refer to the topics of "Collectivism" and especially "Egalitarianism" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon for an introduction to the Objectivist perspective on those premises.
There is a great deal more that can be said about inequality under capitalism. If that is what the question is really trying to ask, it should be asked more directly in a separate thread. The essence is that inequality under capitalism arises as a natural result of differences in productive ability and initiative, while everyone is free under capitalism to be as productive as he is able to be, and to demonstrate as much initiative as he is capable of. This differs radically from inequality as a result of physical force, as in other, non-capitalist, non-free social-political systems. It is easy to decry the inequities of such systems, but it is a serious error (miscomprehension of reality) to attribute that kind of inequity to capitalism and the vast breadth of individual liberty that capitalism upholds and rewards.
answered Apr 03 '11 at 01:06
Ideas for Life ♦
In a free economy, education would likely be provided in a similar fashion to how many other goods are services are today. For example, consider how the dental industry works today. There are private schools where aspiring dentists can enroll, they are free to set up private practice or join a firm, they can decide how to provide which treatments and in what manner, the best dentists can (and do) charge a bit more than others, inefficient or unskilled dentists go bankrupt, and patients choose which dentist they use based upon what's important to them (e.g., cost, skill, convenience, least discomfort, etc).
In a free economy, all of the same principles would apply. Aspiring teachers would attend private schools to learn the necessary skills, open schools or seek employment in existing schools, decide what to teach and how best to do so, set their tuition based upon market conditions, go bankrupt if they fail to attract or retain students, and parents would choose schools based upon what's important to them (e.g., cost, history of successful students, specific educational methodology, agreement with core values, etc).
Judging from the various private standards bodies which exist today (e.g., Underwriters Laboratories (UL)), there would probably be private bodies which offer certification to teachers and schools who find that receiving such a certification makes it easier to attract potential students (just as electronics manufacturers seek the UL seal today). However, such a standards body would be completely voluntary; schools who don't wish to seek the approval of the standards body would have to use some other means to assure skeptical parents that their school is worth the money.
answered Apr 11 '11 at 02:49
Andrew Miner ♦