The challenges we face...

[doodle]

Deleted

[moda0306]

Depressing.

Makes me appreciate the PP when I see this kind of stuff.

[Tortoise]

[...] the challenges we face as a nation [...]
[...] let the American public decide which they prefer [...]
[...] we find ourselves in a difficult situation as a country [...]
[...] an issue that could bring this country to its knees [...]

Nations don't face challenges; individuals do.  The public doesn't decide what they prefer; individuals do.  Countries don't find themselves in difficult situations; individuals do.  Countries don't fall to their knees; individuals do.

Harry Browne's philosophy of life and investing, as explained in his writings, recognizes the logical fallacy of discussing "collective" thoughts and actions.  Real change is always made individually person by person, not collectively by groups.

I completely agree that the leaders of our government have put those of us living within "their" borders into a nasty predicament through their ignoring of reality and lack of long-term planning.  But I think Harry Browne had the right idea in books like How I Found Freedom In an Unfree World when he said the greatest impact he can have on his own life is to focus on his own thoughts, his own decisions, his own relationships and dealings, and his own investments.

Yes, our government's leaders may try to screw us over by forcing us to use their collapsing fiat currency and pay higher and higher taxes to clean up the mess they made, but there are at least some concrete things each of us can do to minimize the effects of their coercion on our day-to-day lives.  Investing in the PP is one such strategy, because it minimizes taxes and protects against monetary shenanigans that result in inflation and deflation.  It doesn't completely avoid taxes and monetary chaos, but it certainly reduces their effects and is simple for virtually anyone to implement.

And as far as the "country" falling to its knees... it won't do so until I fall to my knees.  And that's not going to happen unless someone chops off my legs or breaks my kneecaps.

[moda0306]

I'm really intrigued by such "Ayn Randian" visions of individualism, but I find that often the implications of taking these things to their logical conclusion probably doesn't result in the picture painted by the libertarian extreme.

For instance, I don't believe we'd reach an equilibrium of competition.  I believe that without antitrust laws capitalism will "destroy itself" in that free parties, looking to increase efficiency, and eventually bargaining power, will continue to merge and collude if left unchecked.  I don't buy the arguments that say that "collusion and monopolies are too diffucult to maintain."  I see a lot of these macro-paradox's, where something that may work on an individual level, when universalized, leads to undesirable results.

Further, the first dollar a government collects to do even the most legitimate functions (in the eyes of a libertarian, military and court system to defend private property and protect against coercion) is still done at gunpoint, effectively.  If I am able to defend my own property, why should I have to pay the government to do it?  Yes, it may be significantly less in taxes, but the point that's often made isn't the amount, it's the philisophical debate over the government's right to take from us at the point of a gun.

The idea of each man as an island, as well, seems somewhat flawed.  Though we may be individuals, our limited land capacity and interdependence tends to have us interacting day-to-day.  That daily interaction tends to create frictions that can be avoided through an organized society.... even if it's just roads and sidewallks.  I also think ideas of equality of opportunity are at play here.  When so much of the initial wealth in this country was obtained through less-than-altruistic means (slave labor farming Native American land... simplification, I know, but we can't deny the implications of the massive amount of labor and natural resources that were simply pointed at by the already wealthy and claimed as their own).  Should we really say that the ONLY function of government is to defend private property after such an admittedly "unfair start" to the game and how the vast majority of property was obtained to begin with?  This is an especially pertinent question when the implications of bargaining power (market influence) come into play... where the people that own the means of production, even as individuals, can actually manipulate the market through non-coercive means.

Just some thoughts

[MediumTex]

Moda,

One of Harry Browne's points that he came back to often was that it is only through a deep and subtle understanding of our own self interest that we can engage in mutually profitable exchanges with others.

It's not that each person is an island--rather, each person is a distinct consciousness and by embracing our own fundamentally unique tastes and desires it sets the stage for mutually profitable exchanges.  If we all had the same tastes and desires it would be impossible to have profitable exchanges because everyone would value everything in the same way.

Ironically, then, in order to have truly efficient societies, the individuals that make up those societies should be provided with as much freedom as possible to pursue their own self-interest, not in the spirit of a libertarian utopia, but more in the spirit of each individual seeking the fullest representation of his own individuality in the belief that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" will lead humanity collectively on to better things.

[Tortoise]

Not all libertarians are anarchists.  Within libertarianism, no universal agreement exists regarding the minimum or maximum role of government.  For example, Ludwig von Mises was a "minarchist," meaning he advocated a certain minimum level of government for things like national defense, police, and courts.  By contrast, Murray Rothbard--one of Mises's most well-known students--was a full anarchist (anarcho-capitalist, more specifically).  And on the other end of the spectrum, there are even some people who call themselves libertarians but advocate just as much government as, say, Republicans.

I do not think focusing one's time and energy on one's individual thoughts and actions rather than on collective action (political activism, protests, rallies, etc.) implies a belief in the philosophy that every man is an island.  As MT pointed out, Harry Browne's individualism is entirely compatible with social cooperation within an organized society.  The issue is this:  When people interact with each other, to what extent are their interactions going to be dominated by collective notions like obligations, groupthink, peer pressure, sacrifice of the self to the arbitrarily defined "greatest good for the greatest number", etc.?

Freedom to pursue one's self-interests and self-expression is not incompatible with peaceful interactions in a society.  When one person's "self-expression" begins to encroach on other people's freedom to avoid that person, then we're exiting the realm of self-expression and entering the realm of coercion and crime.

[Pkg Man]

Not all libertarians are anarchists.  Within libertarianism, no universal agreement exists regarding the minimum or maximum role of government.  For example, Ludwig von Mises was a "minarchist," meaning he advocated a certain minimum level of government for things like national defense, police, and courts.  By contrast, Murray Rothbard--one of Mises's most well-known students--was a full anarchist (anarcho-capitalist, more specifically). 

Some Libertarians have apparently not read Hobbes...

[doodle]

Deleted

[moda0306]

doodle,

Pretty well put and represents how I tend to think.  I tend to think that in a perfect world we could have solid government infrastructure, decent (but why so god-awful expensive??) safety net, good public or subsidized private education.(I don't care how, but I think every kid deserves a good education), limited but extremely effective military, but still be able to be a society that values entrepreneurialism, individuality and individual achievement, creativity and private property.  I know this is about as pie-in-the-sky as it gets, but I have to think it's possible.

I tend to think individualism is best realized when the majority of the population is NOT in a form of desperation.  Some people find themselves and really make the best out of desperate times, but I don't think most do.  I would find it difficult to think that most people would be able to realize their full potential as an individuals if they're left to have their immediate environment and own personal wealth (or what would be neccessary accumulation of debt) to get themselves an education, while working a part time job, taking care of sick parents or siblings, etc.

I was lucky enough to have parents who gave me a pretty rich (though hardly wealthy) upbringing, so I got to learn guitar at a young age and play sports, study interesting subjects like history and economics... that probably didn't necessarily help me make more money.  I am much more complete of an individual from having been exposed to so much artistic and intellectual experiences.  I wouldn't be the person I am if I'd been in a factory working since the age of 16 to pay for school (or to just get by), but that's what it would have taken without a "society" around me that value giving everyone the opportunity to be exposed to these things.  This basically implies the same redistribution of wealth that Ayn Rand despised and thought destroyed creativity, intellectual thought, and human potential.

I'm hardly insisting our current system of priorities and bureaucracy are appropriate, but simply outlining where at least some of the very government activities that some libertarians vehimently oppose has provided me with what I believe is at least some of the individuality and rational and creative thought that they talk about.

[doodle]

Deleted

[MediumTex]

When it comes to libertarian ideas in general, I think they work much better when mated to a kind and compassionate personality.  In other words, the thought of someone who is a jerk becoming a libertarian does not give me a warm feeling.  OTOH, when you find someone like Harry Browne who seems to have been a very warm and kind person, even when he was doing things strictly for his own benefit, the benefit to those around him was obvious (with his books being an obvious example).

To the notion of what we "owe" society, I don't like the connotations of "owe".  As someone above said, successful people are virtually always the product of lots of help from others along the way.  Perhaps this is where I get too idealistic, but I think my parents enjoyed giving me a good start in life, and I, in turn, very much enjoy helping to equip my own kids for the challenges they will face, but I do what I do because it makes me feel good.  I don't "owe" this to them; rather, I am happy to do it, and appreciate the opportunity to help mold another person's personality.  It's a great challenge.

The question that my comments above point to is how does basic animalistic self interest become enlightened?  I don't know the answer to that one.

[TBV]

One could argue that in order to achieve gross disparities in wealth, the necessary ingredient is not free markets, but the state.  After all, it was absolutist monarchies who bestowed both wealth and serfdom by charter, just as latter-day governments created railroad monopolies through land grants and cheap loans. Stringent government regulations raise the price of admission for would-be competitors and dampen wage competition, which is a primary means for have-nots to gain access to wealth.  Without a market-intervening state apparatus, unearned financial advantages would be less common not more, because those who offer shoddy goods or overpriced services would not be sustained by political subsidies.  By raising the social cost of things and thereby reducing the range of stuff that our unfettered capital could otherwise produce, the state can also destroy wealth.

Ever wonder how a voluntary aid society can feed hungry children the world over for pennies a day, but a city like San Francisco requires half a million dollars and years of planning to install a single wheelchair ramp, one that will probably never be used?  In the face of widespread unemployment and economic need, it's not hard to see which of these endeavors displays the greater social consciousness.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/02 ... es-forward

[Tortoise]

As much as we would like to believe that we are self made individuals, we are really the product of the societies / circumstances/ times that we live in. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are very successful in the society that they live based on their innate talents, hard work, and privileged upbringing, but my guess is that if either of them had been born to a crack addict mom with an abusive father they wouldn't be where they are today.

There was actually an interesting EconTalk podcast a couple of weeks ago that approached this Nature vs. Nurture debate from a very controversial direction.  The guest, an economics professor, presented research (using twins and adopted children) whose results imply parents have much less of an effect on how their children turn out as adults than we previously thought.  I'm not making any claims regarding the validity of those results, but the research has the potential at least to spark some lively discussions.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/0 ... paren.html

When I asked my brother how tribal societies would deal with the issue of a person in the tribe who was much wealthier than all of the other members, he said that such people would be obligated to pull more weight than the rest and sacrifice their fortune for the benefit of the tribe. Because there isn't a government to force them relinquish a portion of their wealth, the villagers would have to resort to other methods of social pressure to get these people to conform to the greater good through tactics like shunning, family pressure, insults etc. So even in the absence of government, people still find a way to exert influence over those around them.

In all seriousness, I would argue that that is why the tribe remains a tribe rather than an advanced civilization.  In that kind of an atmosphere where social pressures stifle any aspirations to be radically different or to accumulate unusually large amounts of savings, the capital reserves necessary for undertaking long-term development projects are not allowed to form.  The people in the tribe must therefore continue to live hand-to-mouth, hunting and gathering, day after day, in perpetuity.  Advanced civilization with financial markets has a critical prerequisite:  individual freedom.

Even though free market capitalism has created a great deal of wealth, we cannot deny our evolutionary human history. We are social creatures [...]

According to the mainstream theory of evolution, humans evolved from apes.  Assuming that is true, there are a number of ape-like behaviors in my evolutionary history that I choose not to adopt.  For example, scratching my armpits in public or hurling feces at people I don't like.  I think of many human social pressures, governments, and institutions in much the same way.  The whole point of evolution is that organisms change over time, discarding some old traits and behaviors and replacing them with completely new ones.  One does not need to "deny our evolutionary history" to acknowledge this fact of evolutionary change.

I fully agree that we are social creatures, and I think our social nature is largely what provided us with the stability and interpersonal trust required for civilization to advance to its current level.  But I also see us evolving slowly... ever so slowly... away from our ingrained social pressures, our governments, and our institutions as we gradually learn to turn inward and understand ourselves better as individual human beings.  As we come to understand ourselves and our individual natures better, we increase our control over the older mammalian and reptilian portions of our brain that continually attempt to usurp our reasoning centers and make external social constraints necessary in the first place.

Maybe that view makes me a bit of a utopian, but that's just the direction in which I see human evolution moving (albeit fitfully and with plenty of resistance).

[moda0306]

TBV,

Obviously monarchies, and probably a lot of what the federal reserve does, as well as some government programs, have a tendency to make distribution problems worse, not better.

In whole, though, I can't imagine that the proposed dismantling of a social safety net, weakening unions, and lowering taxes on the wealthy significantly could in any odd mathmatical/economic equation actually result in a more even distribution of wealth. 

That should hardly be our only concern, but I do believe it should be a concern, nonetheless.

[Lone Wolf]

I can't say it any better than MT, TBV, and Tortoise already have, but I do have a couple of things I wanted to add.

I was lucky enough to have parents who gave me a pretty rich (though hardly wealthy) upbringing, so I got to learn guitar at a young age and play sports, study interesting subjects like history and economics... that probably didn't necessarily help me make more money.  I am much more complete of an individual from having been exposed to so much artistic and intellectual experiences.  I wouldn't be the person I am if I'd been in a factory working since the age of 16 to pay for school (or to just get by), but that's what it would have taken without a "society" around me that value giving everyone the opportunity to be exposed to these things.  This basically implies the same redistribution of wealth that Ayn Rand despised and thought destroyed creativity, intellectual thought, and human potential.

Any human being, especially any human being in the developed world in the 21st century, is the galactic equivalent of a mega-billions lottery winner.

Whether you think it's down to the work of God or the currents of chance, we are all blessed beyond any reasonable measure.  Set aside the extreme good fortune of even existing as a conscious organism, much less one with the superior mental hardware that humans enjoy.  We live in a place and time of incredible wealth that would leave someone from just 200 years ago awestruck by how well even the poorest among us live.

Few people 200 years ago had the time or ability to study the subjects that you mention.  Today all of it is available and easily affordable to virtually every person in America.  Someone with nothing more than an internet connection can take MIT science and engineering courses.  You can download full digital copies of either Adam Smith or David Ricardo for free.  Someone might even read them to you on your incredibly inexpensive portable digital music player.  You can even learn how to invest your money.

A very poor person growing up in the United States today has opportunities that you or I didn't have just a few short years ago.  Why must they fail where you succeeded and why are politicians (of all people) and coercion the answer to the problems today's poor face?

It's not that each person is an island--rather, each person is a distinct consciousness and by embracing our own fundamentally unique tastes and desires it sets the stage for mutually profitable exchanges.  If we all had the same tastes and desires it would be impossible to have profitable exchanges because everyone would value everything in the same way.

Exactly.  The libertarian understands that not only is "no man an island" but that our connections to one another are crucial to our survival.  The peaceful, voluntary exchanges that we undertake every day tether us together like a lifeline.  Without them, we would all quickly be gone.  We stay healthy, wealthy, and alive because we work to address one another's needs and desires in the pursuit of mutually profitable exchange.  What kind of existence could I and my family scratch out by ourselves without trading profitably with our neighbors?

This very interdependence is why we as a species need to move away from the tendency to so casually use force on one another, whether in excessive taxation, wealth redistribution, censorship, or outright war.  I'm hopeful that our future will be to recognize that every use of force is a tragedy and that life is not some dog-eat-dog zero-sum game.

I suspect (or rather, hope) that humanity is undergoing a glacial, multi-millennial shift from an order of tribalism, violence, and plunder to one of individualism, mutual profit, and peace.  I think that this shift will take an extremely long time but I do believe that one day (post?-)humans will look back on confiscation and violence as quaint, tragic, and primitive.  Until then, I'll just ride this bumpy road, lucky as hell to be alive.

[moda0306]

LW,

I agree that the world we live in now, as compared to a hundred or two hundred years ago, is unimaginably wealthy in many ways.

I do wonder, though, whether we could have gotten to this point without the overt "coercion" of the government in supplying the middle class with an education and a safety net.

I'm hardly saying that the government engineered the prosperity we have today... I don't necessarily know how to say this, but maybe that by generally supporting the middle class through a safety net and a guaranteed education, the government has allowed the private sector to realize much more potential than it otherwise would have.  Much like a basic but stable foundation to a home is necessary for a mansion to be built.  The foundation doesn't necessarily get the credit for the home being beautiful, but it couldn't be nearly the home it would have been without it.

I could be wrong... I'm just saying these are unanswered questions of mine.

[moda0306]

I am really more playing devil's advocate to the ideas of libertarians by expressing my concerns.  I neither think our current government size and scope is appropriate nor do I necessarily disagree with the philosophical ideas HB lays out.

Don't mistake my points as anything other than "random ponderings of a politically/philisophically curious guy."

[TBV]

LW,

I agree that the world we live in now, as compared to a hundred or two hundred years ago, is unimaginably wealthy in many ways.

I do wonder, though, whether we could have gotten to this point without the overt "coercion" of the government in supplying the middle class with an education and a safety net.

I'm hardly saying that the government engineered the prosperity we have today... I don't necessarily know how to say this, but maybe that by generally supporting the middle class through a safety net and a guaranteed education, the government has allowed the private sector to realize much more potential than it otherwise would have.  Much like a basic but stable foundation to a home is necessary for a mansion to be built.  The foundation doesn't necessarily get the credit for the home being beautiful, but it couldn't be nearly the home it would have been without it.

I could be wrong... I'm just saying these are unanswered questions of mine.

The middle and upper classes in America were the first to create schools for their kids, and they did so before the Revolution.  However, mass public education of the sort we recognize today is really a product of the mid-19th century.  Its primary beneficiaries were the children of farmers and factory workers, whose upward mobility was no doubt directly traceable to their access to education.  However, such schools often reflected the anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant sentiments of the mid-19th century Know Nothing movement.  To escape this hostile environment, newly arrived Catholics established their own parochial school and university system, starting in the 1860's.  The system was organized, funded and staffed with zero government support by people who had few resources.  The resulting system was, and is, arguably the finest in the country, especially in the inner cities where 90-95% of the graduates go on to college.  So, in answer to the hypothetical question as to whether we would be able to succeed without the "benevolent" hand of government, the non-hypothetical answer is a resounding yes.

...And by the way, the average cost (actual cost, not tuition) per student is over 40% less than government-run schools.  So, the next time the question of educational funding comes up, we shouldn't act like there is only one right answer.

[moda0306]

I don't think one can take the example of catholic schools doing a good job of educating their students as somehow indicating that on a macroeconomic scale a fully private system (not even government vouchers provided to student since that's redistribution) would result in a prosperous middle class and wide-spread opportunity for youngsters.

I have no doubt that many private or religious schools provide extremely good educations to their often obedient, well-raised students.

When talking about public or widespread education, I think people are more interested in most effectively getting as many kids as possible to be somewhere between productive to successful, despite many of their parents maybe being less-than-such.  I think that's a bit of a different game than getting a handful of well-raised kids to succeed.

Obviously this implies that not only are we trying to provide an environment to learn, but often make up for bad parenting.  I can understand if someone is agianst the government taking from good parents to make up for bad parents, but I really don't think we can use Catholic schools as evidence that completely private schools (aka, not even vouchers) will result in wide-spread education improvements.

PS, I could point to many of the government run schools around the world that are extremely proficient at educating students at are what I believe to be relatively low cost (I have no actual evidence of this).

There's a documentary called "Waiting for Superman" that I saw recently that was pretty interesting, basically stating what a failure our education system is right now.  Probably left of center, politically, but it really rags on unions as well.  

And TBV, I agree there shouldn't be one answer.  I hope my posts don't imply that I think our comrades at the Department of Education have the right idea.

[TBV]

I don't think one can take the example of catholic schools doing a good job of educating their students as somehow indicating that on a macroeconomic scale a fully private system (not even government vouchers provided to student since that's redistribution) would result in a prosperous middle class and wide-spread opportunity for youngsters.

I have no doubt that many private or religious schools provide extremely good educations to their often obedient, well-raised students.

When talking about public or widespread education, I think people are more interested in most effectively getting as many kids as possible to be somewhere between productive to successful, despite many of their parents maybe being less-than-such.  I think that's a bit of a different game than getting a handful of well-raised kids to succeed.

Obviously this implies that not only are we trying to provide an environment to learn, but often make up for bad parenting.  I can understand if someone is agianst the government taking from good parents to make up for bad parents, but I really don't think we can use Catholic schools as evidence that completely private schools (aka, not even vouchers) will result in wide-spread education improvements.

PS, I could point to many of the government run schools around the world that are extremely proficient at educating students at are what I believe to be relatively low cost (I have no actual evidence of this).

There's a documentary called "Waiting for Superman" that I saw recently that was pretty interesting, basically stating what a failure our education system is right now.  Probably left of center, politically, but it really rags on unions as well. 

I can't help but think that terms like "obedient" or "well-raised" are code words.  The fact is that the performance of Catholic schools varies hardly at all from locality to locality.  What you may not know is that lay teachers are 96% of the teaching staff, 38% of the tuition is subsidized via donations, 31% of the enrollment is urban, and 15% of the students aren't even Catholic.  Overall, the demographic corresponds almost exactly to that of the United States as a whole. 

Let's face it, they've built a better mousetrap.

http://www.ncea.org/news/annualdatareport.asp

[moda0306]

If only 15% aren't catholic, then I'd say that alone shows the demographics are quite a bit  different than the overall population, but I commend their schools for being successful either way.

Can that be universalized?  What would it take?  Full privatization, just copy what they're doing, get rid of unions?  What are the catholic schools doing better... simply hiring better teachers?

I bet if you showed me the parents of 100 random catholic school kids, and the parents of another 100 random kids that go to public schools, you'd see much more dedication and good parenting (sans excessive religious doctrination, but that's a whole other discussion) in the catholic school parents than public school parents.

This is actually something the parents of catholic school students should be very proud of, but it will still skew your results from what you'll get if you universalized the catholic school strategy.

You also pointed out that 38% of the tuition is by donation.  I'd therefore ask you this... If the catholic church can now only afford 38% of the tuition of their students, how much in donations could we rely on within a fully private system to help run it?  Can we assume that would most likely have to be quite a bit less than 38%?  Do we really think as a society we can hope that charitable contributions would fund almost 40% of our public education needs?

If we assume 30% is covered by donations, that leaves 70% of tuition to be covered by students/parents.  How is this realistic without lower class families having to go into significant debt to educate their children?  

No matter how you shake it, I don't think lower taxes on the rich and the poor going into debt to educate their kids is going to result in anything but a substantion increase in the distribution of wealth.

[TBV]

If only 15% aren't catholic, then I'd say that alone shows the demographics are quite a bit  different than the overall population, but I commend their schools for being successful either way.

Can that be universalized?  What would it take?  Full privatization, just copy what they're doing, get rid of unions?  What are the catholic schools doing better... simply hiring better teachers?

I bet if you showed me the parents of 100 random catholic school kids, and the parents of another 100 random kids that go to public schools, you'd see much more dedication and good parenting (sans excessive religious doctrination, but that's a whole other discussion) in the catholic school parents than public school parents.

This is actually something the parents of catholic school students should be very proud of, but it will still skew your results from what you'll get if you universalized the catholic school strategy.

You also pointed out that 38% of the tuition is by donation.  I'd therefore ask you this... If the catholic church can now only afford 38% of the tuition of their students, how much in donations could we rely on within a fully private system to help run it?  Can we assume that would most likely have to be quite a bit less than 38%?  Do we really think as a society we can hope that charitable contributions would fund almost 40% of our public education needs?

If we assume 30% is covered by donations, that leaves 70% of tuition to be covered by students/parents.  How is this realistic without lower class families having to go into significant debt to educate their children?  

No matter how you shake it, I don't think lower taxes on the rich and the poor going into debt to educate their kids is going to result in anything but a substantion increase in the distribution of wealth.

I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.

• I believe that Lutheran parochial schools and Jewish yeshivas have a similar record of success.  Thus, the model is expandable.
• Many teachers at Catholic schools are represented by labor unions.  However, I don't know what the percentage is.
• Privatization may be a good idea, but I wasn't advocating that. Parochial schools usually have more modest infrastructure than government schools, but also lack their top-heavy bureaucracy.  Teachers (many of whom are refugees from the government school system) accept lower pay because the educational atmosphere is more professional.  Standards are high, which costs nothing but sets them apart from schools which excuse poor performance and suffer from the subtle racism of lowered expectations.  Back in the day when most teachers were members of religious communities, one might have concluded that classroom decorum was a function of religion and respect.  However, that is not the current model.  So what's the secret sauce?  It's hard to say with certainty, but I think it has a lot to do with fostering an atmosphere where social and moral imperatives are given prominence.  American public schools used to operate in a similar fashion.  Canadian public schools still do.  In fact, members of religious communities can teach in Canadian public schools.
• I can assure you that parents of Catholic school kids value education (as with all things that are not free), but they don't necessarily have any more of it themselves than the next guy.  By not tolerating the failed government school system, they probably qualify as good parents.  But any suggestion that they or their kids are exceptional is a cop-out used to excuse the failure of government schools to match the success of a system which does better with less.  The same sort of line is used to dismiss the success of minorities who have achieved more than others of a similar humble background.  Your typical Catholic school kid is working class or lower-to-middle-middle class.  Notable examples: Jennifer Lopez, Sonia Sotomayor, Rudi Giuliani, Bill Clinton, Aaron Neville and Clarence Thomas.
• The American people can afford this type of non-government public education because it's a lot cheaper than what they're already paying for with their tax dollars.  As with all effective institutions that do what they're supposed to, people also voluntarily come forward to help offer support.  That works to the benefit of poor families and large families on tight budgets.
• Why does it seem that you see non-government schools as incompatible with public funding? We entrust tax dollars and tax credits to parents to spend on whatever college they want to send their kids to, whether public or private, secular or religious.  K-12 is no different.  In fact, the Supreme Court this year upheld an Arizona education tax credit law that did just that.
• Strange as it may seem to us now, this country was built by people who formed their own communities, built their own homes, funded their own hospitals, formed their own insurance pools, etc., etc. all without government money.  That we should doubt the ability of free citizens to voluntarily do the same in the 21st century is testament to how far we've fallen from the ideals of a free society.

[moda0306]

Most of your points are well taken.. thanks for answering.  Try to understand, though, I'm not "making excuses" for our public schools... or at least not trying to.  It's simply easier to teach well-raised children, even if they are of very modest means.  This may sound like making excuses, but it's at least relevant in deciding to what degree catholic schools are actually better than public schools, which I'm sure they often probably are.

Also, public funding to non-government schools, or even tax-credits for education, still qualify as "redistributive coercion" in my opinion, so it doesn't meet the Ayn Rand sniff test.  It may play more to market forces, but it still falls under the idea of taking from Peter to pay Paul.

So if, as you're saying, we can make an exception to the libertarian "no redistribution rule" when it comes to education, it comes down to whether a voucher system vs government-run schools are more appropriate.... or more quaintly, "once we decide redistribution is ok, then it's a matter of administration."  I'd say that your catholic school example is relevant, if a bit flawed in comparing apples to apples due to the quality of the parenting behind the system.  Equally as relevant is the tremendous school quality of government schools around the world.  Japan, China, India, South Korea... often have extremely good public education.  They're administered probably much more by the national governments in monopolistic and maybe even bureaucratic form than ours are, if I'm not too mistaken.

So I'm stuck seeing two very opposite philosophies on education both result in a better education than our public schools.  Why should the catholic school example be of any more help to us than the Indian school churning out engineers?

[l82start]

i have seen a documentary that claimed south Koreans spend a lot of money on private tutors and extra classes for there children, there is an extreme cultural pressure placed on their scholastic successes that may be bending the results in that country. i don't know if it is true for your other examples..

[TBV]

Most of your points are well taken.. thanks for answering.  Try to understand, though, I'm not "making excuses" for our public schools... or at least not trying to.  It's simply easier to teach well-raised children, even if they are of very modest means.  This may sound like making excuses, but it's at least relevant in deciding to what degree catholic schools are actually better than public schools, which I'm sure they often probably are.

Also, public funding to non-government schools, or even tax-credits for education, still qualify as "redistributive coercion" in my opinion, so it doesn't meet the Ayn Rand sniff test.  It may play more to market forces, but it still falls under the idea of taking from Peter to pay Paul.

So if, as you're saying, we can make an exception to the libertarian "no redistribution rule" when it comes to education, it comes down to whether a voucher system vs government-run schools are more appropriate.... or more quaintly, "once we decide redistribution is ok, then it's a matter of administration."  I'd say that your catholic school example is relevant, if a bit flawed in comparing apples to apples due to the quality of the parenting behind the system.  Equally as relevant is the tremendous school quality of government schools around the world.  Japan, China, India, South Korea... often have extremely good public education.  They're administered probably much more by the national governments in monopolistic and maybe even bureaucratic form than ours are, if I'm not too mistaken.

So I'm stuck seeing two very opposite philosophies on education both result in a better education than our public schools.  Why should the catholic school example be of any more help to us than the Indian school churning out engineers?

OK.  I didn't realize you were seeking a full-blown libertarian solution.  With that in mind, since we're stuck with schools funded in large measure by real estate/renters' taxes, a voucher/credit/rebate system that returns much of what was originally aggregated would offer a revenue stream based less on re-distribution than on refund of citizen's money.  Not pure, but close.

Back before the migration to the suburbs, the concentration of Catholics in urban locales provided a stream of charitable contributions that was often great enough to provide free or nearly-free parochial elementary school tuition.  Many high schools were also tuition-free.  This was possible in part due to the sacrifice of religious community members who worked for purely nominal salaries.  Times have changed, but America has an entire generation of boomers who are educated professionals and could offer low-cost or volunteer services in support of community schools.  In fact, some already do.  The willingness of others to voluntarily pay for scholarships, building repairs, etc. would increase wherever local schools represent a gateway to excellence and opportunity, rather than a norm-less holding area for sullen teens.

It's interesting that you mention Asian education.  I've taught Asian students both here and in Korea, and have observed public school behavior in many parts of China.  Though there was no religious content to the instruction, there was a culture of learning which involved the recognition of superior/subordinate relationships between students and staff (even if observed as a mere formality at times.) This helps to socialize young people into accepting the fact that society can and will make legitimate demands on their time, energy and attention.  Such expectations are buttressed by core values centered on the role of students in society and the primacy of transmitting both knowledge and cultural values from one generation to the next.  Compare that to what goes on in our public schools.

Rebelliousness and inquisitiveness are not the sole province of Westerners.  However, societies that nurture certain conventional norms of behavior seem better prepared to handle those tendencies when they arise.  Not by suppressing them, but by setting limits on how much they can disrupt necessary social functions like education.  While we postpone the advent of civic responsibility, Chinese grade schoolers serve as crossing guards. Teens are entrusted with classroom cleanup.  Everyone assembles for morning calisthenics and a salute to the flag before marching in formation to class. The underlying message is: your turn to take over is fast approaching.  Be ready.  Somehow, I don't think that's the message being sent here at home.

@l82start: Korean kids are under LOTS of pressure in high school to get into a good college.  Due to the oversupply of higher educational institutions, not getting into the best choice school is not fatal, but the loss of prestige and elite life-long relationships can be considerable.  Once in, the pressure for the first year is off and kids tend to blow off steam.  Male students then must finish their military obligation, so it can be an extra few years before the whole degree is earned.