I know, I'm flogging a dead horse. Fly, Flicka! Fly, damn you!
It boils down the fact that I think either exit is the proper moral response to a failing system, or it isn't. It can't be good for some people, but not for others.
Many people trying to convince me that suburban liberal parents against vouchers are not gigantic, honking hypocrites, are groping towards an economic concept. Conceding that they think the school environment does make a difference (otherwise they wouldn't have moved to a good district), they say that it's okay to pull your kid out of a system that's failing, because unless other parents stay, yours won't do any good. But its still okay to bar those who cannot afford to escape on their own means from using government means to do so, because the system will collapse.
Let me give you a word for the concept you're expressing: economists (and other sorts of social scientists) call it a collective action problem. It's a problem that arises when we can all be made better off by doing something, but only if we all do it at once. If only some people participate, the system breaks down.
One classic example is casual Fridays. Say you work at a competitive workplace where everyone tries to dress up as much as possible in order to impress their superiors. Everyone would be better off if the uniform were converted downwards into something cheaper and more comfortable. But without some means of enforcement, some brown-noser will show up in a suit to get an edge, and pretty soon we'll all be back in suits and ties. (Or in my case--eek!--panty hose).
There are a variety of ways that have been explored to overcome these problems; the general solution is management fiat, combined with shunning those who violate the code. Fiat is generally the easiest (which is not to say the best) solution to the problem.
Voucher opponents are essentially saying, "It's a collective action problem. I bow to the inevitable, even though I don't like it."
And actually, I agree: it is a collective action problem, and moreover, one that is not reasonably amenable to fiat. I see no way, unless education radically changes, to keep schools from being fairly geographically concentrated. Nor any way to force yuppies to stay put when they spawn. After the other parents have left, you are entitled to leave to.
Here's the thing, though: collective action problems rarely have partial solutions. If exit is the correct solution for players 1-55, it is also the correct solution for players 56-200. Once you have committed to exit, you are committing to the fact that other players will either follow, or suffer terribly. Having conceded that exit is the best thing for your child, you imply that it is also the best action for every other player. Moreover, as the person near the head of the queue, your exit is much more damaging to the system than the exit of the 100th player. You exited because you could, not because you had a moral right to; the 100th player has a much greater moral right to exit than you do.
Saying that it is moral for you to exit the system, while denying exit to the 100th player, is the economic equivalent of "might makes right". You have no greater moral right to exit than that 100th player; in fact, considerably less of one. You merely have the economic means.
And that's something that liberals are supposed to fight.
| 
Megan,
I don't believe I said that the problem wasn't unfixable, I think I said I don't like your fix and that, if it fails, we'll be in lots worse shape than before.
I have constantly talked about school choice. I've talked about financial aid for students wanting to go to private schools. I've talked about a merit based system.
And you keep making the same arguments which boil down to, "this is the way I want to fix the problem and all y'all who disagree with me hate children and are hypocrites."
Well Meg, I'm insulted, and making the same argument 7 different ways and calling me names 7 different ways isn't really changing my opinions of that argument.
What limits do we place? How do we prevent abuses? What if all the schools suck? How do we make sure that more expensive to educate children get more funds? How do we prevent middle class and wealthy abuses of the system? What if the whole thing turns into some privatized abused nightmare? How do you get yourself out of the mess you've made? (look, an exit strategy!)
Maybe if you answered some of these questions and put together a cohesive, comprehensive plan I'd be more in favor of vouchers (which, again, I'm not against per se). But right at the moment it looks like it's a way for libertarians to union bust and for conservatives to be able to point to successful public education, which could easily be destroyed and say, "hey look public education doesn't work." I mostly hear "Vouchers are good because the current system SUCKS and anything would be better" and I say no to that. The current system is deeply flawed and it could be so much worse.
You impugned my morals and values and call me a hypocrite but you don't seem to see that what you’re really doing is putting out a straw man argument which lays to question your values. Just stop it already. If you're not willing to have an intelligent, thoughtful, debate than just don't keep posting. Repeating what you've been saying a lot does not make it true.
Posted by Kate | October 30, 2007 5:36 PM