Working at public universities

Michael,

Your implication that "socialism" is somehow the fault of those who currently work in public institutions (regardless of all other factors) is the same as saying that the social security system is the fault of all those who receive social security checks, or that the Post Office is the fault of all those who send first-class mail. (Do you send any? Sanction of the victim! You could, after all, take a principled stand and deliver all your mail by yourself.)

Due to the coercive tilt in competition caused by federal interference in education, private schools are at a major competitive disadvantage and choice is severely hindered. That's why private secondary schools tend to pay teachers significantly less than public schools. In the current system, a large number of kids would simply be unable to attend private school, which means that somebody has to teach them in the public system -- a fact that ain't the fault of those who do end up teaching them in that system.

As for universities, I believe there is only one "private" university in America that in fact receives no federal funds. So I guess if that one university is no longer hiring, the only moral thing to do, by your logic, would be to wait for the laissez-faire revolution before one thinks of becoming a professor.

Alec

Post 41

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 5:59am

Alec Mouhibian wrote: "Due to the coercive tilt in competition caused by federal interference in education, private schools are at a major competitive disadvantage and choice is severely hindered."

We all make our choices based on our values. There is hardly an area of human action that does not have a "coercive tilt in competition" from government intervention, even in the freest of societies. On the one hand, one person builds an enterprise without government subsidy while another person goes to work for a regulatory agency. Are both people equally moral?

"... a large number of kids would simply be unable to attend private school..."
That is simply not true. Well-known historical evidence speaks against that. Catholics have sent their children to Catholic schools. Catholics tend to have less money and larger families, even today. Still, they follow their consciences.

The lack of non-parochial private schools is a reflection of the acceptance of socialism among the (so-called) middle class. People prefer to send their children to "free" schools, rather than to put up the money for a private school -- and that includes starting such a school.

It may be rational to write off a sector like television broadcast or corporate equities as hopeless. In that case, the moral alternative is to find another market for one's skills, say in communication technology, or public speaking, or marketing, etc. That would hold true for public education as well.

Alex Mouhibian wrote: " ... a fact that ain't the fault of those who do end up teaching them in that system."

Let us ignore for the moment the fact that people "end up" where the consequences of their decisions take them. Still, people do not "end up" teaching in public schools. It is a goal you have to pursue to attain.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/25, 6:06am)

Post 42

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 6:04am

Alex Mouhibian wrote: "As for universities, I believe there is only one "private" university in America that in fact receives no federal funds. So I guess if that one university is no longer hiring, the only moral thing to do, by your logic, would be to wait for the laissez-faire revolution before one thinks of becoming a professor."

First of all, that is a misstatement. If you are refering to Hillsdale College, you need to get your facts straight.

Many private schools exist and yes most of them take in huge volumes of federal money -- via their students, first and foremost. Also, of course, there is federal and other government funding of research and that kind of money also pays for school operations.

Even so, there is a difference between teaching at a private school and at a public school. There is a difference between working your way through college and getting government money to go. It is the difference between being an accountant for a stock broker and being an accountant for the Securites Exchange Commission.

Post 43

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 7:10am

Alec,

Were you talking about "Liberty" University or Bob Jones University?

Post 44

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 9:07am

Mr. Marotta,

I'd just like to say that I agree with what you're saying. I think it's one thing when someone takes a grant that doesn't have any knowledge of libertarian or objectivist principles, but it is funny when one does and they rationalize how they didn't have a choice, that it is the only way for them to "get by", that there is a gun to their head, or that we don't live in a totally free economy so they just can't properly practice morality.

Can we honestly say that the individual who excepts a government grant, and the one who turns it down and makes his/her way in the world without it are equal in strength and nobility? One is completely choosing to be independant and to make it on his/her own, while the other is just joining the crowd and reinforcing the very behavior that they denounce.

Post 45

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 9:24am

I would like to follow up my point. As for becoming a professor, I don't see this the same way. I certainly can understand that in our world, there isn't much of a choice here. For instance... what if Richard Feynman had not become a physicist because he didn't believe in teaching or doing research at government institutions?

But, I think it's important how one gets the money to get there.

Post 46

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 12:49pm

If you pay taxes - and you do - you can look at taking grant money or whatever as getting some of your money back. If you get grant money to make a film about how there shouldn't be grant money, and that's your belief - you aren't a hypocrite. Now, if you VOTE for more grant money while arguing against it, then yes - you're a hypocrite.

The issue with taking the money in the first place really is more one of temptation. And it sounds weird. But easy enough to explain it's 'your money'.

Of course, some of this begs the question of whether the sort of 'extremely limited goverment' that Objectivism advocates is practical, and I'm no longer convinced that it is. But that's another post. Meantime, let's all go apply for grants!

Post 47

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 2:00pm

Michael,

You didn't answer my question: do you use the Post Office? Let me presume a "yes" to that, and ask you why you aren't delivering all your first-class mail by yourself, when that option is perfectly open to you? Nobody is preventing you from hopping in a car or a jet and delivering your own mail.

The reason you aren't is because it would be preposterous to maximize the inconvenience imposed on you by government intervention (in the form of a postal monopoly, as it happens). Yet you are moralizing about individuals in other fields who are merely trying to minimize that inconvenience, as you are, by reaping some retribution. Once again, by your logic, the fault of social security lies on those who cash their social security checks!!!

There are major variations of coercive tilt in competition. Aside from the outright government monopolies, in no area is that tilt greater than education. It is ridiculuous of you to equate that tilt (and its effects) with the comparatively non-existent tilt in your profession. What percentage of accounting jobs are in the government? An infinitisemal number. For teaching, on the other hand, public education controls the vast majority of the job-market. That's because hundreds of billions are taxed and spent on public education each year, which are that many hundreds of billions that cannot be invested in private education.

Your other suggestion is even more absurd. Teaching is a unique vocation. Suggesting that teachers forgo their profession to apply their skills in a similar area is like suggesting that, in a society where all art is subsidized, a painter forgoes his profession to become a writer. It is not something you can demand of a person -- if you consider self-interest a virtue.

Now, I do agree that in professions such as yours, where there is no practical coercive tilt, one may be subject to contempt for working for the government.

Alec

Post 48

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 5:14pm

I am accepting government loans and grants to go to a state university. My parents are not able to make much of a contribution to my education I also hold a minimum wage job at Krogers to work my way through college, in addition to having taught piano lessons, and playing gigs etc. Without the grants and loans from the government, it would take me four years to save up enough to attend college for one semester. Given that I would like to earn a Bachelor of Music degree in four years or eight semesters, that will cost me thirty-two years of my life (longer after adjusting for rising basic standard of living costs, inflation, and the slower pace of wage increases) If I decide to go for my Doctorate of Musical Arts, then I'm looking at a total of about 18 semesters worth of study. Assuming that grad school is the same cost as my undergrad tuition, I will have to work a total of seventy-two years. However, I will have to pay for room and board, that doubles the cost of attendance. So adjusting for that, I will have to work one hundred twenty-one years to pay for four years of schooling!!

Do I like the fact that I am dependent on the government? HELL NO! Do I actually need a college education? I do if I want to pursue a career as a classically trained composer and performer. All the talent in the world won't amount to much unless you learn how to use it. Couldn't I find a job that pays better? Not for someone who only has a high-school diploma and little job experience. Am I a hypocrite? No. Why? Because, when I have graduated, I will be either teaching at the university level or I will be writing film scores. Figuring a low income of about $100,000, it will take me about 61 of paying income tax to equal what was paid to me. However, I will be paying taxes for a few years after that. Most successful film composers in Hollywood, usually earn between 250,000 to about 1million. If you're Howard Shore, you earn about 3.6 million. I figure I will earn 250,000 thus taking me 40, years of taxes to payback what I earned. Wait! I forgot, student loans must be repaid in addition to paying taxes. That must mean that after college, I will pay far more into the corrupt system than what I take out of it. Don't you see, government monopoly on education inflates prices far above market levels, and taxes, regulations, welfare programs (and yes I include financial aid in this as well)and bureaucracy, put enough restriction on me and my parents as well as the places we work, that we simply cannot afford it without Financial aid. If you think that it is in my selfish interest to work at a dead-end job without better alternatives (the government at all levels has basically crippled the Southern Illinois economy) for at least thirty-two years (by which time, I'll will be 53, most likely with a wife and kids to support) you are mistaken, sir. You are right about one thing though. The government gun isn't pointed at my head right now. However, in my pursuit of excellence, wealth, and happiness; you and I both know that it will be.

Adam

Post 49

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 8:41pm

Well said, Adam.

I subsidized part of my $80K tuition bill with student loans, supplemented with private scholarship money and entrepreneurial endeavors. The government will make so much goddamned interest on the money I borrowed that I feel not a shred of guilt.

In addition, I have been raped financially in so many ways by the US government because I am a single, childless, successful person, that I will take advantage of every blasted penny I can -- throughout my lifetime, and in as many forms as I can. If there is a Social Security by the time I retire, I don't care if I am a billionaire -- I'm taking that paltry check, because it's mine.

The government has gotten far more from me than I will ever get from it. Those of you who squawk about nobility can keep pouring your funds into the bottomless pit. I'm getting some of mine back.

Post 50

Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 12:11am

All I can say is this, when I was in this same position in my life, I turned it down, and said "fuck school." Why should I go learn from a bunch of people in business who can't do it themselves, that's why they teach. Eveyone thought I was nuts,
" why would you not just get a student loan?" "Why wouldn't you just get a government grant and start a business?". I told people why, and they all said the same thing " It's your money too, you're just taking it back..." Well, maybe, but, I don't see it that way. I looked at it as lying down and becoming slavish, I'd rather rise with my own two feet than standing on the backs of others, and when people laughed and say it was stupid, I'd smile, because I realized that what I would gain on the inside is far from what I was giving up... and what I ended up gaining on the outside. Money comes and goes, it's what's inside that creates it. I look at tuff situations as spiritual situations, and I don't need to do it like the rest of the people who all hold out their hand for the government paw that steals not only our money but our souls.

Sorry to be offensive, but that's how I feel. But, everyone has their own opinion.

Post 51

Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 7:52am

"The growth of government institutions has destroyed an incalculable
   number of private jobs and opportunities for private employment. This is
   more apparent in some professions (as, for instance, teaching) than in
   others, but the octopus of the "public sector" is choking and draining
   the "private sector" in virtually every line of work. Since men have to
   work for a living, the opponents of the welfare state do not have to
   condemn themselves to the self-martyrdom of a self-restricted labor
   market - particularly when so many private employers are in the vanguard
   of the advocates and profiteers of welfare statism.
     There is, of course, a limitation on the moral right to take a
   government job: one must not accept any job that demands *ideological*
   services, ie any job that requires the use of one's mind to compose
   propaganda material in support of welfare statism - or any job in a
   regulatory adminstrative agency enforcing improper, non-objective laws.
   The principle here is as follows: it is proper to take the kind of work
   which is not wrong per se, except that the government should not be doing
   it, such as medical services; it is improper to take the kind of work
   that *nobody* should be doing, such as is done by the F.T.C., the F.C.C.,
   etc."   --Ayn Rand, "The Question of Scholarships"

You may disagree with her, but I thought it was a good quote for this thread.

Post 52

Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 9:33am

Alec Mouhibian wrote: " You didn't answer my question: do you use the Post Office?"

I use the post office. The government has a monopoly on first class mail.

Alec Mouhibian wrote: The reason you aren't [hopping in your car and delivering your own mail] is because it would be preposterous to maximize the inconvenience imposed on you by government intervention (in the form of a postal monopoly, as it happens)."

That is true. I judge my context to be constrained beyond reasonable solution. However, it is also true that if I earned just a little more money, I could afford private carriers, despite the cost.

Alec Mouhibian wrote: Yet you are moralizing about individuals in other fields who are merely trying to minimize that inconvenience ...

No, I am moralizing about people who become looters. I confess to being a patron of the post office. I am not an employee of the post office. Dagny Taggart chose (at first) to stay and fight the looters. John Galt led a passive resistence. Ragnar took a more active path. The point of Atlas Shrugged (if it has a single point) is that we all have to choose.

AM: "Once again, by your logic, the fault of social security lies on those who cash their social security checks!!!"

A business associate of ours lost all of her 401(k) when her former employer went under. I do not know the ins and outs of the legalisms there, but the money is gone. As far as I am concerned, my social security money is just as gone. I never intended to see a cent of it. As I pointed out -- and as others in other discussions, such as Congress itself have pointed out -- the accounting for social security, the strict bookkeeping of it, does, indeed, make it "your" money. Stolen from you though it may be, the gang says that they are going to give some of it back. And, again, if you make more than $90,000 a year, you do not have to participate at all. Money buys freedom.

However, all of that to one side of the ledger, the other side of the ledger is that, yes, indeed, the moral failing of millions of people to resist social security makes that system the fault of those who figured that they could benefit from it. The government did not need to resort to McCarthy Hearings to quash opponents on this. Whom would you blame? Space aliens?

AM: "... no area is that tilt greater than education."
Except, perhaps, property protection and interpersonal arbitration and adjudication. Banking also comes to mind. I have a real estate license and I assure you that even calling the market for land "real estate" demonstrates that that market was thoroughly governmentalized back in the Middle Ages. However, I will agree that the tilt in education is arbitrarily "great."

AM: "It is ridiculuous of you to equate that tilt (and its effects) with the comparatively non-existent tilt in your profession."

1. What profession would that be?
2. I have worked in transportation management, which was then greatly regulated. I chose that on the theory that regulations were not going to go away and that by knowing them, I could help businesses survive them -- that's what Dagny Taggart did, I thought. Well, it did not work out that way.
3. I have worked as a teacher, both in a public college and in a public middle school system.
4. I chose technical writing, and before that computer programming, specifically because they are not governmentalized professions: no licenses required; when I started, there were few college curricula in them. I went with freedom and I am glad that I did.

AM: "Teaching is a unique vocation. Suggesting that teachers forgo their profession to apply their skills in a similar area is like suggesting that, in a society where all art is subsidized, a painter forgoes his profession to become a writer."

(... or a street sweeper? ...)
Your argument sounds to me as if one's career were determined by something like genetics. We all choose. We all have free will. We all face moral alternatives. Even in the old USSR, a talented artist could work in many areas -- and, again, if such were really the choice that either you work for the state or you do not work as an artist, what would you choose? What was the lesson of Atlas Shrugged? Am I missing something here?

1. No one has to be a teacher or a painter or an astronaut or a Clerk-Typist Level III.
2. I have taught in industry. I taught robot operations and programming for two years and then I taught industrial metrology for a year. I have also worked as a math and science tutor from my home. I have conducted seminars at conventions for consumer computers and for numismatics. In fact, I am again organizing the Educational Forums (Spring and Fall) for the Michigan State Numismatic Society this year. If you are "called" to teaching, you do not have to teach in a public school. Alternatives exist.
3. If more people who thought they have the skills for teaching sought other alternatives, the public schools would face the consequences all the sooner.

AM: " I do agree that in professions such as yours, where there is no practical coercive tilt, one may be subject to contempt for working for the government."

I work in the most commerical, agoric and privatized sides of technical writing that I can. When we lived in New Mexico, there were few such alternatives. "Q" Clearances were the norm for technical writers. I chose to work as a security guard instead. I also wrote feature articles for local magazines.

In short, I got off that tilted playing field and did something else. By your analogy, I have some genetically or divinely granted calling to be a writer and by walking patrols and standing posts, I was denied some naturally endowed expectation. I do not see it that way. As for writing, in addition to those magazine articles, I revised sections of my company's procedures for guards. Oh, yes, I also helped with training. It's the teacher in me. So, I work as a trainer in private security for $7.50 per hour while someone else is "forced by an uneven playing field" to earn five times more and have a fat retirement account and full health insurance? I do not see it that way.

In point of fact, I have worked for the government, more than a couple of times. I worked as a contractor on several projects for the Defense Accounting Service. I thought that helping the DoD keep track of its money and pursue fraud was pretty much an Objectivist kind of job. What is there about that that you find contemptuous?

I also worked on a couple of projects for NASA. If you find NASA contemptuous, you are not alone, but you had better take up those issues with one of our Three Atlas pals here. In addition to technical writing, what I actually did best at for NASA was selling things. NASA Exchange loads vans up with consumer goods and posts them around launch viewing areas. I had a great time and I got to see John Glenn go up and then the first parts of the ISS. Make of all that what you want, as far as I can tell, being a retail clerk was the highest use NASA had for me.

Before all of that, I worked as a contractor at White Sands Missile Range. We made bombs and rockets for the military, again, a pretty mainstream government effort for an Objectivist.

So, the bottom line is: Do you put your mouth where your money is? Do you earn a living by being a looter? Do you work for a Constitutionally required function of government -- the kind of Constitution that Judge Narragansett would write -- or do you work at something the goverment has no business doing, like awarding agricultural subsidies... or regulating the stock market ... or teaching in a public school...

Post 53

Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 12:23pm

The government has gotten far more from me than I will ever get from it. Those of you who squawk about nobility can keep pouring your funds into the bottomless pit. I'm getting some of mine back.

Gotta handbag?

Move over Michael Howard.... Here comes Maggie Iannolo to shout some life back into the Tories!

Post 54

Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 2:02pm

Michael,

You're a little too hyper, and it's causing you to go off on all kinds of zany tangents -- to the point where you're accusing ME of being contemptuous of anybody who works for the government! What is this, a freakin' elementary playground fight? I was obviously referring to those who can easily work in the private sector, but instead choose to work for an illegitimate function of the government.

Anyway, I've made my points clear enough for anyone to see, and you haven't addressed them. You're continuing to make silly comparisons, such as the very final one in your last post. You've even managed to accuse me of advocating genetic determinism. There's clearly nowhere for this discussion to go.

And if you can show me where NASA is permitted in either the U.S. Constitution or Judge Narragansett's, I'll let you pet my unicorn.

Alec

Post 55

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 1:40pm

I said, that I wanted to leave this discussion, but it may be useful to clarify my last post.

When I said "disconnected from reality", I did not intended to say, that all the people in the science departments are morons or that teaching and doing research at a public university cannot be a honest job. Teaching engineers is a honest activity and many useful products were not possible without the use of results found by scientists at public universities. The problem is, that there is no way to find out, if there is a real demand for our job, as long as your work is paid by tax money. Therefore you are economically disconnected from reality.

You are still economically disconnected from reality, if you work in the private sector. The reason for this is, that many private jobs would not be there in a free economy. Think of engineers, who develop solar cells. If the environmental movement had no political power, oil would be much cheaper. Therefore the above mentioned engineer is using a privilege, which he gets from the state. Therefore in a mixed economy you are always disconnected from reality in an economical sense.

One way to escape this dilemma is doing the best you can to be productive and to ask yourself, if there is a real demand for your work. This does not rule out to work at a public university, since you can try to do good teaching and try to do research, which could easily be used in the industry.

Post 56

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 5:57pm

Alex Mouhibian wrote: "What is this, a freakin' elementary playground fight?"

Well, there might be a good reason that you feel as if you are being slapped around the schoolyard. I am very right on this issue.

A;ex: "You're a little too hyper, and it's causing you to go off on all kinds of zany tangents -- to the point where you're accusing ME of being contemptuous of anybody who works for the government!"

Friday, February 25 2:00 pm, Alex wrote: "Now, I do agree that in professions such as yours, where there is no practical coercive tilt, one may be subject to contempt for working for the government."

I asked you to be specific about the people for whom you feel contempt.

AM: "I was obviously referring to those who can easily work in the private sector, but instead choose to work for an illegitimate function of the government."

That confutes two different circumstances. (1) Working in the government in a legitimate function and (2) Working for the government in an illegitimate function.

AM: Anyway, I've made my points clear enough for anyone to see, and you haven't addressed them.

You asked if I use the post office. I said yes. Not that I live under a mandate to accept your challenges, but just what have I not addressed?

AM: You've even managed to accuse me of advocating genetic determinism.
Yes, I did. You said: "Teaching is a unique vocation. Suggesting that teachers forgo their profession to apply their skills in a similar area is like suggesting that, in a society where all art is subsidized, a painter forgoes his profession to become a writer. It is not something you can demand of a person -- if you consider self-interest a virtue."

There is nothing about teaching that makes it so special that it is unique. It is a mix of skills that different people apply differently to different but similar tasks. The same is true of painting or music. No one has to be a teacher or a painter or a writer. At least, not by my understanding of reality. Do you have a different understanding?

AM: And if you can show me where NASA is permitted in either the U.S. Constitution or Judge Narragansett's, I'll let you pet my unicorn.

That is why I suggested that you take that up with "one of our Three Atlas colleagues." Luke Setzer works for NASA. It might be said that he is a looter from the State Science Institute. Perhaps another interpretation of the facts puts them in the correct context.

Post 57

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 8:19pm

Nobody HAS to be anything, but as a persons grows older they learn what they like and are good at, and what aren't as good at. Sometimes, those things aren't what we would hope them to be - you can want to be a great painter or businessman or musician...but there is such a thing as talent.

Teaching is unique. I say this because one of my main gigs the past few years has been teaching. I love teaching, and based on comments from my students I'm one of the best teachers they have ever had. (As a side note - studying under people like Herb Grossman and Andy Bernstein and Freddy Schorr taught me a lot about what makes a good teacher.)

And if someone is good at something and loves it, it's a huge sacrifice to give it up because someone else - in this case you - thinks that it's immoral. If the worst thing I do this year is teach computer animation at UCLA, then it's a good year. (Ummm - I have no plans to, however...full time job and 3 kids, ya know. But if I did, it'd be great.)

I honestly don't even understand the benevolent motivation behind your quest to make people give up something, especially since you know it will have no practical effect on our society. It's Tooheyesque. Do we get in Objectivist heaven, then? Do we get 16 skinny blond virgins, fresh from their father's granite quarry? A ribbon, maybe?

(Edited by Lee Stranahan on 3/02, 8:20pm)

Post 58

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 8:57pm

Frank,
I think it is very important that scientists should follow the logic of science, not the demand of society. I know many scientists working in the pharmaceutical companies who's work is solely directed by their company's goals. That's fine. But there should also be scientists who are free to follow where ever science takes them and not to be biased by the market.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/02, 9:00pm)

Post 59

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 9:03pm