# Abolition + PickingCrops↵ ↵ *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 thefollowing.*↵ ↵ 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 collapsedWe 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* betrayshim.*↵ ↵ *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 completesurrender.](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” orwhatever.*whatever.
Abolition + Picking Crops
This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.
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.
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.
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. 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.