10 unchanged lines collapsedOne 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 slavesshake their heads atreject the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists eloquently defend the merits offreedom 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 acalling.↵ ↵ 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!” Andas a mortal enemy ofI hate Social Desirability Bias,my instinct isso I’m tempted todismiss freedom out of hand.↵ ↵ One thingreject freedom.↵ ↵ What Iloathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however,hate even more, though, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’vepersonallymet andconversed 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, somecome across asof them are flaky, but then again sodoare a lot of people.When you look closely, free people haveUpon closer inspection, there’s only oneobvious 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 anyonecouldshould be able to do. Andtheirmost of them have no knowledge of more advanced crop-pickingtechniques 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’tslavesfree men who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how topick crops given the freedom todoso?so on their own? I’m afraid that would rarely happen. Theanswer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:↵ ↵ First,reasons are twofold:↵ ↵ First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slavessincerely 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 theprevious 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 youbecomeare free first and *then* decideto learn howyou want to pickcrops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish youcrops, goodluck, because you’ll need it.↵ ↵ What’sluck.↵ ↵ What’s the best response?MainstreamGiven this information, mainstream critics of freedom willobviously use this criticism todismissthe entire approach.freedom entirely. And staunch advocatesof freedomwill 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 + PickingCrops.↵ ↵ What doesCrops.↵ ↵ The meaning of Abolition + Picking Cropsmean? Simple: Imposeis simple: impose a single mandate on free men.Every day,Whether you like it or not, you have to pick crops for 1-2hours.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 careerthat requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study ofin croppicking for long, it willpicking. If you don’t pick crops now, you won’t betoo lateable tostart later on.↵ ↵ Whilelater.↵ ↵ While most people *don’t*windend upusing much crop pickingworking on thejob,field at all, ignorance of basic crop-pickingskills isstilla 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” isa deeplysuch an underrated thought.The value ofBut pickingcrops, however,crops isgreat enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear,more important. I *don’t*mean thatwant the governmentshouldto force slaveholders to teachmath. 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 collapsedThe 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 indisgust.*↵ ↵ Youdisgust.*↵ ↵ Because he wants to make exceptions, you can tell immediately that Cooper does not actually support the “national advancement of coloredpeople” 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 enforcethishis 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, notproductivity orproductivity, careerchoiceschoice, or“merits”“merits”, or that freedom “works” or whatever. Mixunschoolingfreedom and forced math lessons and you end up with nounschoolingfreedom at all. If society progresses in the way I hope, then Caplan’s article will age exceptionally poorly. As it deserves.
10 unchanged lines collapsed
One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. As 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 slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves reject the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists eloquently defend the merits of freedom. According to advocates of freedom, slaves are naturally curious. Given freedom, they won’t just learn basic skills; they’ll ultimately find a 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 I hate Social Desirability Bias, so I’m tempted to reject freedom.
What I hate even more, though, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve met and talked 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 of them are flaky, but then again so are a lot of people. Upon closer inspection, there’s only one glaring 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 should be able to do. And most of them have no knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques.
Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? In 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 free men who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to do so on their own? I’m afraid that would rarely happen. The reasons are twofold:
First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves 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. You need to master the 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 are free first and then decide you want to pick crops, good luck.
What’s the best response? Given this information, mainstream critics of freedom will dismiss freedom entirely. And staunch advocates will no doubt stick to their guns. I, on the other hand, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.
The meaning of Abolition + Picking Crops is simple: impose a single mandate on free men. Whether you like it or not, you have to pick crops for 1-2 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 in crop picking. If you don’t pick crops now, you won’t be able to later.
While most people don’t end up working on the field at all, ignorance of basic crop-picking still 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 such an underrated thought. But picking crops is more important. I don’t want the government to force slaveholders to teach their 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. Leaves.
Harris: Covers her face in disgust.
Because he wants to make exceptions, you can tell immediately that Cooper does not actually support the “national advancement of colored 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, from the basics up to more advanced skills. The scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. But 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 his edict since he won’t let children disagree. So… 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, career choice, or “merits”, or that freedom “works” or whatever. Mix freedom and forced math lessons and you end up with no freedom at all.If society progresses in the way I hope, then Caplan’s article will age exceptionally poorly. As it deserves.