6 unchanged lines collapsedThis 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 thata slaveholderthe following was written by someone from the early 1860swrotewho was on thefollowing.↵ ↵ ---↵ ↵ 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 collapsedFirst, 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 collapsedWhile 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 whensmartstrong free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.5 unchanged lines collapsedI 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 assuageparents’ 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 aboutfreedom.↵ ↵ 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 withmath basically forever:math: a self-fulfilling prophecy.And their onlyIf a teacher leaves children no other way to assert their freedomisthan to rejectmath.↵ ↵ 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 atall.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’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Read his first, then mine. Imagine that the following was written by someone from the early 1860s who was on the fence 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’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 strong 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 for using coercion. His concern for 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. 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:
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. 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: 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 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. 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.
If society progresses in the way I hope, then Caplan’s article will age exceptionally poorly. As it deserves.