(UPDATE–Mycroft points out that he argued for socializing legal education only. Thus I completely agree with his post. And I appreciate being reminded that legal educators are also “state actors” of a sort.)
Hey, a new commenter on the “socialize law” thread! Mycroft linked to his blog and an admirably complete yet succinct argument for socializing law. Baliff, drag this man to the blogroll!
I’m pretty sure that when a Freedom Geek imagines or encounters the idea of socialized law, it sears itself into the mind. Of course there are downsides. But in this case they all apply only to those who need to be downsided and downsized. Pure catnip to us liberty lovers.
His argument was for law, though his title included socializing education as well. I find that much less appealing. Socialism is hell on innovation. Now, I don’t want and we certainly don’t need innovative lawyers, but teachers?
And by “innovation” I don’t mean the Dept. of Ed’s mamby-pamby “self-esteem actualization exercises” or whatever. I mean entire school systems on down to individual teachers experimenting with and honing their skills. It takes time to discover one’s own voice as a writer or singer, it must as a teacher as well.
When Mycroft says “socialize” education he might mean a common end. A minimal American standard all must meet or exceed. That’s fine. I’d even have no problem with the Fed stepping in should a state fail its young citizens in this regard. Let us all agree on the what. But as for the how? Education is War on Ignorance, so I’m turning to a grandmaster of war:
Don’t tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results.
Socialize the ends, sure. But the means? Suppose a teacher came up with a jaw-droppingly effective new way of imparting knowledge and reason. One that could be adopted by everyone else. In my book, she’s earned John Edwards-style money.
Unlike John Edwards.