Activity

 57 unchanged lines collapsed
*Mad Men* highlights even more than that. While virtually all of the show’s viewers recognize the horror in how black people were treated back then, most viewers fail to see that same horror in how our treatment of children has *not* meaningfully changedimproved since. I suspect it’s not something the creators of the show intended to convey – but they did convey it, to a small minority. In certain ways, black people were better off even in the 1960s than children are today: Harris strongly implies that what Cooper requests is illegal – title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination based on race at the workplace – but there is no law against forced education of children to this day. On the contrary, in many jurisdictions, the law *demands* such force. [Even the UN demands it.](/posts/the-right-to-education-is-bad) In addition, I understand that psychological and scientific ‘findings’ justifying segregation were receding by the 1960s, yet Caplan references both psychology and medical science to justify – and pawn off responsibility for – his desire to deny children freedom. Also, Cooper doesn’t pretend that his ‘request’ is for the black employee’s own good, whereas Caplan does just that when it comes to children.

Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail – even if you succeed – not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, from the basics up to more advanced skills. The scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. But the reason mostmany people don’tcurrently avoid math, or consider it a chore when they have to do that todaymath, is that teachers ruinruined their relationship with math:it: a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a teacher leaves children no other way to assert their freedom than to reject math, then that is what they will do, and the teacher has no right to be surprised or to complain.

Caplan writes about children:children, almost like he is addressing them directly: “Every day, like it or not, you have to do 1-2 hours of math. No matter how boring you find the subject, you’re too young to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires math.” This isn’t just offensive to children, but to *mathematicians* as well: to Caplan, math is not a wondrous area of exploration and creativity, but necessary toil – just like picking crops back in the 19th century. He says himself that he has “never really liked” the “piles” – piles! – of math he has done. Clearly, this has been a torturous experience for him, so why should the next generation be spared this coercion? Worse, he implies that some amount of force is warranted to impose his edict on children since he won’t let them disagree. So… how much force? Does he advocate yelling at one’s child? Maybe taking away privileges and toys? Withholding love and affection? Or would he go even further? He does not specify: bad ideas hide in the unstated, as philosopher Ayn Rand explains:
 11 unchanged lines collapsed
In Rand’s example, the basic principle at work is honesty: an honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man. ‘Balance’ honesty with theft and no honesty remains. The basic principle for our purposes, the one Caplan wishes to ‘balance’ against serfdom to utility, productivity, and career options, is freedom: a free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. Such are the ‘compromising’ effects of mixed premises and ‘balanced’ contradictory principles. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom – not productivity, career choice, or “merits”, or that freedom “works” or whatever. After all, the reasoning behind abolition was *not* that free men are more productive than slaves (although usually they are). Mix freedom and forced math lessons and you end up with no freedom at all. Like abolition + picking crops, Caplan’s rotten concept “Unschooling + Math” is a textbook example of mixed premises, and so his vices destroy his virtues. Caplan makes the same old mistake of striking a ‘balance’ between good and evil and making himself look reasonable in the process. He dresses up this alleged balance using, again, the term “keyhole solution” and derides the principled, uncompromising stance toward freedom as “staunch”. What is a “staunch” opponent of slavery but *right?*
 4 unchanged lines collapsed