Birth control, communism & vegetarianism (52)

Though I'm not writing on Friedman's chapter, "The Control of Money," I thought it was interesting that he brought up vegetarianism as one of the 3 things that a man may want to defend on a street corner in his argument for free speech [translation: 3 things Friedman doesn't agree with]. I suppose he was a meatarian...

Similar to Sarah's experience, I found myself not necessarily agreeing with, but rather understanding and perhaps even sympathizing with Friedman's way of thinking on many occasions. I remember having a similar reaction when we read Friedman's + his wife's book in Hurley's class two semesters ago. However, one chapter that I particularly did not relate to was Chapter VI: The Role of Government in Education. Friedman gives way to a certain level of public education, stating that "the separation of a child from a parent who cannot pay for the minimum required schooling is clearl inconsistent with our reliance on the family as the basic social unit and our belief in the freedom of the individial" (87). However, he suggests implementing subsidies for those who cannot afford private education, in order for the invisible hand to work its magic and achieve reform in the (private) educational system. He even throws in the fact that allowing education to be costly would provide a disincentive for high fecundity (Elliott's kind of man). However, Friedman's policy suggestions essentially encourages members of different socio-economic classes to live in different areas, so that the costs of subsidizing education would be a regional policy as opposed to a federal policy in order to "eliminate the governmental machinery now required to collect tax funds from all residents during the whole of their lives" (87). Furthermore, the funding for subsidies would presumably come from public funding as well, thus not completely eliminating the need to spend tax-payer dollars on education.

Friedman makes it clear that the positive externality rationale behind public school is valid only for the "kind" of schooling that provides for "better social and political leadership" (88). Once again, way to embrace all that is CMC, Friedman. Nevertheless, it is unclear to me why externalities justify leadership training but not vocational training. Wouldn't having more efficient and specialized workers be good for any liberal economy?

He makes the point that denationalizing education would "widen the range of choice available to parents" (91), but only the parents of those who can afford to make choices without subsidy considerations would be allowed this luxury. On the other hand, I agree with the fact that more competition in the educational institutions would allow for better teachers because if wages better reflected teacher effort and outcomes (I am not endorsing No Child Left Behind here...), teachers' incentives would shift in a manner that encourages better education. However, teachers would also require incentives to choose an inner-city school on the South Side of Chicago as opposed to Lake Forest High (no offense Hillary), incentives that would most likely not be created by the free market. Thank goodness for Teach for America.