53 unchanged lines collapsed
Because he wants to make exceptions, you can tell immediately that Cooper does not actually support the “national advancement of colored people”. He’s lying, whether he realizes it or not. It’s just like Caplan pretending when he says “We should have a strong presumption against paternalism […]” (link removed). Yet, in[…]. The value of math, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption.” (Link removed.) Caplan might as well be saying: ‘I’m all for the liberation of children, but I do not believe they should be liberated to the point they don’t have to do math!’↵
↵
In some ways, black people were better off in the 60s than children are today: Harris strongly implies that what Cooper requests is illegal, but there is no law against forced education of children to this day – onday. On the contrary, in many jurisdictions, the law *demands* such force. And what Cooper does is still better, in way, than what Caplan does: at least Cooper doesn’t pretend that his ‘request’ is for the black employee’s own good.
 8 unchanged lines collapsed

 10 unchanged lines collapsed
One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is thatAs with all practices, this one varies. But essentially, freedom means the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr  Samuel A. Cartwright [says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania) slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves shake their heads atreject the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists eloquently defend the merits of freedom with great vigor and eloquence.freedom. According to advocates of freedom, the human slave isslaves are naturally curious. Given freedom, hethey won’t just learn basic skills; he’llthey’ll ultimately find a calling.↵
↵
On the surface,calling.↵
↵
At first, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave *loves* to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And as a mortal enemy ofI hate Social Desirability Bias, my instinct isso I’m tempted to dismiss freedom out of hand.↵
↵
One thingreject freedom.↵
↵
What I loathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however,hate even more, though, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’vepersonally met and conversed withtalked to dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some come across asof them are flaky, but then again so doare a lot of people. When you look closely, free people haveUpon closer inspection, there’s only one obvious problem.↵
↵
*Theyglaring issue with free people.↵
↵
*They suck at picking crops!* In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone couldshould be able to do. And theirmost of them have no knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques is sparser still.↵
↵
Staunchtechniques.↵
↵
Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? The honest answer though, is: AnyoneIn all honesty: anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t slavesfree men who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how topick crops given the freedom to do so?so on their own? I’m afraid that would rarely happen. The answer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:↵
↵
First,reasons are twofold:↵
↵
First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging.really enjoy it. I’m a strong guy, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. Each major stage of picking crops builds on the foundation ofYou need to master the previous stages.basics before you move on to more advanced crop-picking techniques. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you becomeare free first and *then* decide to learn howyou want to pick crops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish youcrops, good luck, because you’ll need it.↵
↵
What’sluck.↵
↵
What’s the best response? MainstreamGiven this information, mainstream critics of freedom willobviously use this criticism to dismiss the entire approach.freedom entirely. And staunch advocatesof freedom will no doubt stick to their guns. I, however,on the other hand, propose a [keyhole solution](https://www.econlib.org/archives/2005/11/keyhole_surgery.html). I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.↵
↵
What doesCrops.↵
↵
The meaning of Abolition + Picking Crops mean? Simple: Imposeis simple: impose a single mandate on free men. Every day,Whether you like it or not, you have to pick crops for 1-2 hours.hours every single day. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study ofin crop picking for long, it willpicking. If you don’t pick crops now, you won’t be too lateable to start later on.↵
↵
Whilelater.↵
↵
While most people *don’t* windend up using much crop pickingworking on the job,field at all, ignorance of basic crop-pickingskills is still a severe handicap in life.closes too many doors. And when strong free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeplysuch an underrated thought. The value ofBut picking crops, however,crops is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear,more important. I *don’t* mean thatwant the government shouldto force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is thattheir slaves how to pick crops. Instead, slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.
 5 unchanged lines collapsed
The opening quote of this article, from *Mad Men*, illustrates this dynamic. The show is set in the 1960s, in the middle of the civil-rights movement. The partner of an advertising firm, Bertram Cooper, is on his way out of the office when he notices that a black employee now sits at the front desk. So he approaches his office manager, Joan Harris. The full scene goes:
 9 unchanged lines collapsed
> Cooper: Requesting.↵
>Requesting. *Leaves.*↵
> Harris: *Covers her face in disgust.*↵
↵
Youdisgust.*↵
↵
Because he wants to make exceptions, you can tell immediately that Cooper does not actually support the “national advancement of colored people” because he wants to make exceptions.people”. It’s just like Caplan pretending when he says “We should have a strong presumption against paternalism […]” (link removed). Yet, in some ways, black people were better off in the 60s than children are today: Harris strongly implies that what Cooper requests is illegal, but there is no law against forced education of children to this day – on the contrary, in many jurisdictions, the law *demands* such force. And what Cooper does is still better, in way, than what Caplan does: at least Cooper doesn’t pretend that his ‘request’ is for the black employee’s own good.

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, then 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, andfrom the basics up to more advanced skills. The scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. TheBut the reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math: 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 complain.

Caplan writes: “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.” He implies that some amount of force is warranted to enforce thishis edict since he won’t let children disagree. HowSo… how much force? Does he advocate yelling at one’s child? Maybe taking away privileges and toys? Or would he go even further? He does not specify: bad ideas hide in the unstated.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that [even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html).  An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. 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. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity orproductivity, career choiceschoice, or “merits”“merits”, or that freedom “works” or whatever. Mix unschoolingfreedom and forced math lessons and you end up with no unschoolingfreedom at all.

If society progresses in the way I hope, then Caplan’s article will age exceptionally poorly. As it deserves.

 6 unchanged lines collapsed
This post is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article [‘Unschooling + Math’](https://www.econlib.org/unschooling-math/). I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Read his first, then mine. Imagine that a slaveholderthe following was written by someone from the early 1860s wrotewho was on the following.↵
↵
---↵
↵
Onefence about freeing slaves.↵
↵
---↵
↵
One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”
 13 unchanged lines collapsed
First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor,I’m a strong guy, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.
 7 unchanged lines collapsed
While most people *don’t* wind up using much crop picking on the job, ignorance of basic crop-picking skills is still a severe handicap in life. And when smartstrong free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.
 5 unchanged lines collapsed
I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to *grant* freedom on *his* terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt*parents’ guilt* for using coercion. His concern for *parents’ guilt*their guilt (presumably especially his own) rather than *children’s freedom* betrays him. Whenever someone from the 1860s showed concern for the guilt slaveholders felt for whipping their slaves, one immediately knew whose side that person was on, no matter how much he pretended to care about freedom.↵
↵
Overridingfreedom. Same goes for anyone’s accidental confession in not immediately recognizing the pretense: you could tell they were on the perpetrator’s side.↵
↵
The opening quote of this article, from *Mad Men*, illustrates this dynamic. The show is set in the 1960s, in the middle of the civil-rights movement. The partner of an advertising firm, Bertram Cooper, is on his way out when he notices that a black employee now sits at the front desk. So he approaches his office manager, Joan Harris. The full scene goes:↵
↵
> % source: *Mad Men* season 7, episode 2: ‘A Day’s Work’ (2014)↵
> % link: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3wM71VDhLkw↵
> Cooper: I just wanted to say I was on my way to the club and I noticed there’s been a change in reception.↵
> Harris: I had to shuffle the girls.↵
> Cooper: Well, I’m all for the national advancement of colored people, but I do not believe they should advance all the way to the front of this office. People can see her from the elevator.↵
> Harris: I’m sorry. Do you want me to dismiss her based on the color of her skin?↵
> Cooper: I said nothing of the kind. I’m merely suggesting a rearrangement of your rearrangement.↵
> Harris: Suggesting?↵
> Cooper: Requesting.↵
> Harris: *Covers her face in disgust.*↵
↵
You can tell immediately that Cooper does not actually support the “national advancement of colored people” because he wants to make exceptions. It’s just like Caplan pretending when he says “We should have a strong presumption against paternalism […]” (link removed). Yet, in some ways, black people were better off in the 60s than children are today: Harris strongly implies that what Cooper requests is illegal, but there is no law against forced education of children to this day – on the contrary, in many jurisdictions, the law *demands* such force. And what Cooper does is still better, in way, than what Caplan does: at least Cooper doesn’t pretend that his ‘request’ is for the black employee’s own good.↵
↵
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, then 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.Or learn math later in life. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. The reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math basically forever:math: a self-fulfilling prophecy. And their onlyIf a teacher leaves children no other way to assert their freedom isthan to reject math.↵
↵
Caplanmath, then that is what they will do, and the teacher has no right to be surprised or complain.↵
↵
Caplan writes: “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.” He implies that some amount of force is warranted to enforce this edict since he won’t let children disagree. How much force? Does he advocate yelling at one’s child? Maybe taking away privileges and toys? Or would he go even further? He does not specify: bad ideas hide in the unstated.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that [even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html).  An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. 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. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or that freedom “works” or whatever. Mix unschooling and forced math lessons and you end up with no unschooling at all.all.↵
↵
If society progresses in the way I hope, then Caplan’s article will age exceptionally poorly. As it deserves.

 42 unchanged lines collapsed
Caplan writes: “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.” He implies that some amount of force is warranted to enforce this edict.edict since he won’t let children disagree. How much?much force? Does he advocate yelling at one’s child? Maybe taking away privileges and toys? Or would he go even further? He does not specify. I guess he’s too young to let people be.↵
↵
Freedomspecify: bad ideas hide in the unstated.↵
↵
Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that [even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html).  An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. 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. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever. Mix unschooling and forced math lessons and you end up with no unschooling at all.

 40 unchanged lines collapsed
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, then 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. Or learn math later in life. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. The reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math basically forever: a self-fulfilling prophecy. And their only way to assert their freedom is to reject math.↵
↵
Freedommath.↵
↵
Caplan writes: “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.” He implies that some amount of force is warranted to enforce this edict. How much? Does he advocate yelling at one’s child? Maybe taking away privileges and toys? Or would he go even further? He does not specify. I guess he’s too young to let people be.↵
↵
Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that [even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html).  An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. 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. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever. Mix unschooling and forced math lessons and you end up with no unschooling at all.

 38 unchanged lines collapsed
I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to *grant* freedom on *his* terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for *parents’ guilt* rather than *children’s freedom* betrays him. IfWhenever someone from the 1860s hadshowed concern for the guilt slaveholders felt for whipping their slaves, you’done immediately knowknew whose side they werethat person was on, no matter how much theyhe pretended to care about freedom.
 4 unchanged lines collapsed

# Abolition + Picking Crops↵
↵
ThisCrops↵
↵
> % source: Bertram Cooper, *Mad Men* season 7, episode 2: ‘A Day’s Work’ (2014)↵
> % link: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3wM71VDhLkw↵
> Well, I’m all for the advancement of colored people, but I do not believe they should advance all the way to the front of this office.↵
↵
This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article [‘Unschooling + Math’](https://www.econlib.org/unschooling-math/). I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.
 31 unchanged lines collapsed
I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to *grant* freedom on *his* terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for *parents’ guilt* rather than *children’s freedom* betrays him.↵
↵
Overridinghim. If someone from the 1860s had concern for the guilt slaveholders felt for whipping their slaves, you’d immediately know whose side they were on, no matter how much they pretended to care about freedom.↵
↵
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, then 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. Or learn math later in life. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. The reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math basically forever: a self-fulfilling prophecy. And their only way to assert their freedom is to reject math.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that [even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html).  An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. 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. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever. Mix unschooling and forced math lessons and you end up with no unschooling at all.

 38 unchanged lines collapsed
Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that [even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html).  An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. 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. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever. Mix unschooling and forced math lessons and you end up with no unschooling at all.

 38 unchanged lines collapsed
Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that [even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html).  An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. 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. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever.

 36 unchanged lines collapsed
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, then 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. Or learn math later in life. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is going to be different for everyone.↵
↵
Freedomeveryone. The reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math basically forever: a self-fulfilling prophecy. And their only way to assert their freedom is to reject math.↵
↵
Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that [even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html).  An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. 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. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever.

 20 unchanged lines collapsed
First, picking crops is extremely unfunnyunfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.
 18 unchanged lines collapsed

# Abolition + Picking Crops↵
↵
*ThisCrops↵
↵
This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article [‘Unschooling + Math’](https://www.econlib.org/unschooling-math/). I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.*↵
↵
Onefollowing.↵
↵
---↵
↵
One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”
 23 unchanged lines collapsed
We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I *don’t* mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.↵
↵
*IGuilt-free.↵
↵
---↵
↵
I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to __grant__*grant* freedom on __his__ terms.*his* terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for *parents’ guilt* rather than *children’s freedom* betrays him.*↵
↵
*Freedomhim.↵
↵
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, then 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. Or learn math later in life. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is different for everyone.↵
↵
Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that [even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender.](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html).surrender](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html).  An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. 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. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever.*whatever.

 30 unchanged lines collapsed
*I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to *grant*__grant__ freedom on *his*__his__ terms. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion.*↵
↵
*Freedomcoercion. His concern betrays him.*↵
↵
*Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that [even the smallest compromise inon basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender.](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html).  An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. 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. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever.*

 30 unchanged lines collapsed
*I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to *grant* freedom on *his* terms. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion.*

*Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that [even the smallest compromise in basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender.](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html).  An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. An honest manA free child who steals once inhas to learn math 1-2 hours a whileday is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. And so on.*a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or whatever.*

 11 unchanged lines collapsed
In other words, Rand recognizes that across nations –meaning *across* jurisdictions, ie having no shared jurisdiction or government – there are still objective standards to determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. If Rand cando identify such standards without sharing a shared government,government with those countries, why could not others do this, too?too?↵
↵
The working principle here is *supremacy of reason*, not the supremacy of government. See also #920, where I explain that certain rules of engagement exist *a priori* and need not be devised by humans before engaging.

> The anarchists do not object to retaliatory force, only to it being wielded by a government. Why? Because, they say, it excludes "competitors." It sure does: it excludes vigilantes, lynch mobs, terrorists, and anyone else wanting to use force *subjectively*.

Competing arbitration agencies would develop *objective* (ie, non-arbitrary) laws and rules for coordination. And, just like governments,governments (should), they would defend their customers against anyone who wants to use force subjectively. That’s their value proposition; their income relies on it.

See #3.#3.↵
↵
Rand *herself* proposes a yardstick by which to determine whether one country has a right to invade another:↵
↵
> % source: Ayn Rand. *The Virtue of Selfishness.* ‘Collectivized Rights.’↵
> Since there is no fully free country today, since the so-called “Free World” consists of various “mixed economies,” it might be asked whether every country on earth is morally open to invasion by every other. The answer is: No. There is a difference between a country that recognizes the principle of individual rights, but does not implement it fully in practice, and a country that denies and flouts it explicitly. All “mixed economies” are in a precarious state of transition which, ultimately, has to turn to freedom or collapse into dictatorship. There are four characteristics which brand  a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw.↵
↵
In other words, Rand recognizes that across nations – meaning *across* jurisdictions, ie having no shared jurisdiction or government – there are objective standards to determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. If Rand can do identify such standards without a shared government, why could not others do this, too?

 4 unchanged lines collapsed
People want protection and justice. Retaliatory force does not merely eliminate a negative. Restoring and producing justice is a value.↵
↵
Retaliatingvalue, as is the peace of mind from knowing you have working defenses and someone who will seek justice on your behalf.↵
↵
Retaliating against one burglar can scare off ten others. The value that’s created here far exceeds the negative which the burglar (might have) created.

 6 unchanged lines collapsed
I think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians logically rely on a concept they reject. Clearly, as international relations have shown time and again, that is not the case. There are certain mechanisms such as, again, the discipline of constant dealings, which exist independently of any particular association between people. When someone reneges on his word, he diminishes his ability to do business in the future. That’s inherent in the logic of the situation, without any definition or creation by people. *It is not necessary for people to create rules of engagement before engaging.* It’s helpful, sure, but certain rules of engagement exist *a priori*.priori*.↵
↵
See also #16 and my application of Karl Popper’s *myth of the framework* to this issue: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/objectivism-vs-the-myth-of-the-framework

 4 unchanged lines collapsed
The police force, prosecutors, judges, etc need resources and payment. Those resources don’t grow in nature. Scarcity and the economic calculationeconomic-calculation problem apply.
 4 unchanged lines collapsed

 6 unchanged lines collapsed
Retaliating against one burglar can scare off ten others. The value that’s created here far exceeds the negative which the burglar (might have) created.

 6 unchanged lines collapsed
I think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians logically rely on a concepton which they reject. Clearly, as international relations have shown time and again, that is not the case. There are certain mechanisms such as, again, the discipline of constant dealings, which exist independently of any particular association between people. When someone reneges on his word, he diminishes his ability to do business in the future. That’s inherent in the logic of the situation, without any definition or creation by people. *It is not necessary for people to create rules of engagement before engaging.* It’s helpful, sure, but certain rules of engagement exist *a priori*.

 6 unchanged lines collapsed
I think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians logically rely on a concept on which they logically depend.reject. Clearly, as international relations showhave shown time and again, that is not the case. There are certain mechanisms such as, again, the discipline of constant dealings, which exist independently of any particular association between people. When someone reneges on his word, he diminishes his ability to do business in the future. That’s inherent in the logic of the situation, without any definition or creation by people. *It is not necessary for people to create rules of engagement before engaging.* It’s helpful, sure, but certain rules of engagement exist *a priori*.