Re: The "Market" and schools

[Dan and Martha Schmidt <schmidt6@turbonet.com>]

I was struck by the Rev. Wilson's implied desire that market forces can
be a solution to the educational system. Does this mean the market, as a
system of function in social affairs, is acceptable? Does this mean he is
agreeing that we can put our trust in market forces to direct our
society? I can see this as a reflection of conservative beliefs, and I
agree that the market as an economic system has a wisdom(success?) no
controlled economy has ever matched. I suspect the liberals distrust of
the market as a system for social function is a reflection of the lack of
a sense of "fairness". And the conservatives (although George
W. promises us there is a compassionate vein) are more comfortable with
this "unfairness". Kind of back to Gingerich's personal
responsibility and consequences for actions. But I don't want to wander
into the question of what system will solve all our problems...I still
have to get to church this morning.
Instead, I want to ask the Rev. D. Wilson, about his apparent trust in
the market as a system for human social function, and my assumed
understanding that he distrusts the system of natural selection to
reflect the existence of species.
That's the nut. How can one put a trust in the greater wisdom of market
forces to come up with "answers" to our human condition and not
put a trust in natural selection to direct the flow of energy through
life forms.
It seems logically inconsistent.
Thank you.
Dan Schmidt


At 09:02 5/30/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> Dear visionaries,
>
> I hope that for me to post to this list is not a faux pas akin to
> throwing a trout in the punch bowl. But I thought a couple comments might
> be worth the time.
>
> In response to Bill London: I agree with his point that "government
> schools" has a negative connotative value beyond simple denotative
> precision. But the denotative precision is still the central reality. If
> we called a "government newspaper" a "public
> newspaper" that would be an editorial statement in the other
> direction, as is the case with public schools.
>
> But one place where he misunderstood my position is where he says that I
> want "a privately-funded school system that is very exclusive,
> educating only those who share his specific views . . ." No,
> actually I want my children and grandchildren to attend Christian
> schools, but would also expect that those with differing worldviews to
> establish their own schools as well. We already have a Catholic school,
> an evangelical Protestant school, an Adventist school. I have no
> objection to secularist parents establishing a secular school.
>
> In response to John Davis: the "fundamental mandate" for any
> form of education is to educate. By every indicator we have, the
> government schools (there I go again) are failing to fulfill this basic
> mandate. And because they are not a market driven operation, they do not
> process criticism well at all. I do cheerfully pay for services I do not
> use, which is what a society is all about. But what about substandard
> services? Why should anyone pay for those? So I am not ignoring
> "the mandate" of the governments schools -- but they are.
>
> In response to John Danahy: I believe he is quite correct in pointing out
> that we who have left the system are not the destroyers of it. Those who
> care most deeply about the education of their own kids are always the
> prime candidates for leaving first. They do so because they have
> concluded something along the lines of "not with my kid, you
> don't." They do not build alternative schools because they are
> trying figure out a way to spend all that extra money from their
> "lucrative ministries" that Vera White found out
> about.
>
> Thanks for hearing me out. Have to get back to my lucrative ministry
> now.
>