59 unchanged lines collapsedCaplan 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.” This isn’t just offensive to children, but even to *mathematicians*: to Caplan, math is not a wondrous area of exploration and creativity, but necessary toil – just like picking crops back in the 19th century. Far worse, 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, as Ayn Randexplains.↵ ↵ Freedomexplains.[^1]↵ ↵ Freedom is indivisible and absolute. It allows no compromises whatsoever. 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 completesurrender](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html). Ansurrender](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html):↵ ↵ > % source: Ayn Rand. *Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal* (p. 161). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.”↵ > If an individual holds mixed premises, his vices undercut, hamper, defeat, and ultimately destroy his virtues. What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while?↵ ↵ An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honestman, as Ayn Rand implied.man. 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.Note thatCaplan holds mixed premises, and so his vices destroy his virtues. He derides the principled, uncompromising approach as “staunch”. What is a “staunch” opponent of slavery but *right?* In moral matters, one has to aim for nothing less but absolute purity. Those of us who have fully understood and integrated the fact that the universality of freedom applies to children just as much as it does to adults, recognize Caplan’s error with lightning speed – and judge accordingly. If society progresses in the way I hope, then Caplan’s article will age exceptionally poorly. As itdeserves.deserves.↵ ↵ [^1]: Rand writes: “When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are *not* clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.” In: *Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal* (p. 159). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
59 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.” This isn’t just offensive to children, but even to mathematicians: to Caplan, math is not a wondrous area of exploration and creativity, but necessary toil – just like picking crops back in the 19th century. Far worse, 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, as Ayn Rand explains.1
Freedom is indivisible and absolute. It allows no compromises whatsoever. 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:
If an individual holds mixed premises, his vices undercut, hamper, defeat, and ultimately destroy his virtues. What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while?
An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man. 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. Caplan holds mixed premises, and so his vices destroy his virtues. He derides the principled, uncompromising approach as “staunch”. What is a “staunch” opponent of slavery but right? In moral matters, one has to aim for nothing less but absolute purity. Those of us who have fully understood and integrated the fact that the universality of freedom applies to children just as much as it does to adults, recognize Caplan’s error with lightning speed – and judge accordingly.If society progresses in the way I hope, then Caplan’s article will age exceptionally poorly. As it deserves.
-
Rand writes: “When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.” In: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (p. 159). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. ↩