If you want to bring the birth rate down to Taiwan levels, abolish compulsory primary education. I tend to agree that schools are piss-poor places to learn anything, but they are excellent in terms of getting kids away from parents so that they can work and have some type of break (especially for those who don't have family close by). It's already a big ask for parents to sacrifice 5 years of their careers for a child; they're not gonna do 18.
I don't disagree with that, but let me rephrase: most people would not have kids if it meant they'd have to be around them 150+ hours per week for even 2-3 years more than the age of compulsory education. Even if having kids is your priority, uninterrupted childrearing is exhausting physically and mentally; most people simply aren't cut out for it nonstop. I love my kids dearly, but at their ages, work is way easier to be at than home.
School functions as a fix for that, and also increased my own family size--the sheer number of kids isn't so daunting because I know X number will be somewhere else for 35 hours per week.
I was using Taiwan because it's racing toward the lowest TFR of any country in the world, not because it doesn't have public education. Your statement "people had more kids prior to the advent of public ed" is true but immaterial. My point--perhaps poorly stated--is that parents can't and don't want to be around their kids 24/7 until they reach the age of majority. And sure, 16-year olds could go work, but not 7- or 8-year olds. If schools aren't operating as childcares, a lot of couples will simply contraceive or use mifepristone to either avoid children or stop at 1. Hence, the quip about Taiwan's TFR (currently sitting at about 0.67).
" . . . but ignoring the standard economic arguments for subsidies is a major sin of omission."
Rothbard did address such economic arguments elsewhere, so not discussing them in this context is more of a minor sin.
Moreover, standard economic arguments are largely irrelevant in the present political context; what matters is the actual function that public education serves. Both red and blue hyperpartisans view the public education system as a critical front in their culture war, not as a means for aiding the widespread dissemination of knowledge and uplifting the intellectual skills of ordinary people. Rothbard's focus on public schools functioning as government-run indoctrination centers is entirely appropriate given their _de facto_ role in the present system.
I was using Taiwan because it's racing toward the lowest TFR of any country in the world, not because it doesn't have public education. Your statement "people had more kids prior to the advent of public ed" is true but immaterial. My point--perhaps poorly stated--is that parents can't and don't want to be around their kids 24/7 until they reach the age of majority. And sure, 16-year olds could go work, but not 7- or 8-year olds. If schools aren't operating as childcares, a lot of couples will simply contraceive or use mifepristone to either avoid children or stop at 1. Hence, the quip about Taiwan's TFR (currently sitting at about 0.67).
It's a perfectly fine argument, you just misstate it. The argument is not that the State has no control absent subsidies; the argument is that subsidizing inevitably increases control and makes it easier to justify.
And what it takes to control arbitrarily restrictively in the sovereign opinion of the legislature will vary from state to state; in my state, California, it is hardly a threshold at all.
There is still a difference; therefore your statement "that particular argument against subsidy fails" fails. The argument is valid, contrary to your statement, and you have changed your argument to how much it fails, not whether it fails.
The link to West's findings is broken.
Fixed!
If you want to bring the birth rate down to Taiwan levels, abolish compulsory primary education. I tend to agree that schools are piss-poor places to learn anything, but they are excellent in terms of getting kids away from parents so that they can work and have some type of break (especially for those who don't have family close by). It's already a big ask for parents to sacrifice 5 years of their careers for a child; they're not gonna do 18.
It's more complicated than you think! https://www.betonit.ai/p/the-obvious-once-you-think-about
I don't disagree with that, but let me rephrase: most people would not have kids if it meant they'd have to be around them 150+ hours per week for even 2-3 years more than the age of compulsory education. Even if having kids is your priority, uninterrupted childrearing is exhausting physically and mentally; most people simply aren't cut out for it nonstop. I love my kids dearly, but at their ages, work is way easier to be at than home.
School functions as a fix for that, and also increased my own family size--the sheer number of kids isn't so daunting because I know X number will be somewhere else for 35 hours per week.
Time and time again I hear parents make comments on how they look forward to their children going back to school.
As kid, I remember the Staples commercial with parents going to Staples to buy school supplies and celebrating in the process. “They're going back!”
They played "Most Wonderful Time of the Year"
Taiwan has public education. People had more kids prior to the advent of public ed.
I was using Taiwan because it's racing toward the lowest TFR of any country in the world, not because it doesn't have public education. Your statement "people had more kids prior to the advent of public ed" is true but immaterial. My point--perhaps poorly stated--is that parents can't and don't want to be around their kids 24/7 until they reach the age of majority. And sure, 16-year olds could go work, but not 7- or 8-year olds. If schools aren't operating as childcares, a lot of couples will simply contraceive or use mifepristone to either avoid children or stop at 1. Hence, the quip about Taiwan's TFR (currently sitting at about 0.67).
" . . . but ignoring the standard economic arguments for subsidies is a major sin of omission."
Rothbard did address such economic arguments elsewhere, so not discussing them in this context is more of a minor sin.
Moreover, standard economic arguments are largely irrelevant in the present political context; what matters is the actual function that public education serves. Both red and blue hyperpartisans view the public education system as a critical front in their culture war, not as a means for aiding the widespread dissemination of knowledge and uplifting the intellectual skills of ordinary people. Rothbard's focus on public schools functioning as government-run indoctrination centers is entirely appropriate given their _de facto_ role in the present system.
I was using Taiwan because it's racing toward the lowest TFR of any country in the world, not because it doesn't have public education. Your statement "people had more kids prior to the advent of public ed" is true but immaterial. My point--perhaps poorly stated--is that parents can't and don't want to be around their kids 24/7 until they reach the age of majority. And sure, 16-year olds could go work, but not 7- or 8-year olds. If schools aren't operating as childcares, a lot of couples will simply contraceive or use mifepristone to either avoid children or stop at 1. Hence, the quip about Taiwan's TFR (currently sitting at about 0.67).
> P.S. Check out this impressive intellectual shrine to E.G. West.
That URL has succumbed to linkrot.
E.G. West links broken.
"Secondly, it is inevitable that the power to subsidize brings with it the power to regulate and control."
Alas, the state already has the power to regulate and control even without subsidizing. So that particular argument against subsidy fails.
(I find the others pretty convincing; but then, I have taught.)
It's a perfectly fine argument, you just misstate it. The argument is not that the State has no control absent subsidies; the argument is that subsidizing inevitably increases control and makes it easier to justify.
“Inevitably” is a mighty strong word.
And what it takes to control arbitrarily restrictively in the sovereign opinion of the legislature will vary from state to state; in my state, California, it is hardly a threshold at all.
There is still a difference; therefore your statement "that particular argument against subsidy fails" fails. The argument is valid, contrary to your statement, and you have changed your argument to how much it fails, not whether it fails.
I concede. Congratulations.