Kitabının 114. sayfasındakı alıntıya dönelim:

Profesör Lawrence Cremin erkeklerde okur yazarlık oranının 70 ila 100 arasında değişmekte olduğunu tahmin etti. Diğer araştırmalar gösteriyor ki 1650’den 1795’e kadar, erkek okur yazarlığı yüzde 60’tan yüzde 90’a yükseldi ve kadın okur yazarlığı yüzde 30’tan yüzde 45’e yükseldi. 1800’den 1840’a kadar, Kuzeyde okuma yazma % 75’ten % 91-97 arasında yükseliş yaptı. Aynı zaman diliminde, Güney’de % 50-60’dan % 81’e çıktı. Yazar ve eğitimci, John Taylor Gatto, Amerika’da okur yazarlığa önem verilen yerlerde oranın % 93 ve % 100 arasında olduğunu belirtti. 1850’de, Massachusetts zorunlu eğitimi kurmadan önce, eyalette okur yazarlık oranı % 98 idi.

Yüksek okur yazar nufus, devletin eğitimde müdahalesi olmadan açıkca mümkün. Bu görüş radikal eğitimci John Holt’a ait olup özgür düşüncenin ahlâki ilkesine kanıttır. Bu görüş, genç insanların kendi eğitimlerini kontrolde ozgür olmalarını talep eder. İzin verilince, bir çocuk okuma öğrenmeye kendi alanlarında uyum sağlayabilir. Kendine yönelik buluş işlemi çocuğun öğrenim isteğini güçlendirir.

Okumanın sevinci agresif baskı olmazsa daha iyidir. Biz özgürlükçüler baskısız eğitimi teşvik eden nadir bir pozisyondayız. Devletin zorlayıcı eğitimine karşi yenilikci alternatifler var. Bunlar Sudbury okul sistemi, Montessori okul sistemi, ve okulsuzluk sistemi. Bunların arasında en sevdiğim okul olmadan yapılan eğitim. Bu, devletin eğitim modellerine en radikal alternatif sağlar. Kendine özgülüğe, seçime ve özgürlüğe saygı verdiğinden, özgürlük prensiplerine en uygunudur.

Kültürel değişim eğitimde paralel değişiklik gerektirir. Eğer daha özgür topluma erişmek istiyorsak, çocuklarımızı farklı yetiştirmeliyiz. Kendi ilgi ve hayallerini takip etmeleri için daha çok özgürlük vermeliyiz. Yukarıda bahsedilen eğitim alternatifleri bunun gerçek olmasına yardım eder. Başlayalım!

Batu Caliskan Bu çeviri sorumludur.

$1.00 for the first copy. $0.60 for every additional copy.

“SCHOOL SUCKS” was originally published as “Education,” Ch. 7 of Murray Rothbard’s For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (1973), first published by Collier Macmillan, and later reprinted by Fox & Wilkes and the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

“Until the last few years there were few institutions in America that were held more sacred than the public school. The entire mass of the population has thus been coerced by the government into spending the most im­press­ion­able years of their lives in public institutions. What inst­i­tu­t­ion is more evidently a vast system of incarceration? The nation’s public schools are a vast prison system for the nation’s youth, dra­gooning countless millions of unwilling and unadaptable child­ren into the schooling structure. Why should we not expect vast unhappiness, discontent, alien­ation, and rebellion on the part of the nation’s youth?

“Acrucial fallacy of middle-class school wor­ship­pers is confusion between formal schooling and edu­cation in general. Education is a lifelong process of learn­ing, and learning takes place not only in school, but in all areas of life. Formal schooling is only a small part of the edu­cational process. . . .

“The libertarian prescription for our educational mess can be summed up simply: Get the government out of the educational process. The government has attempted to indoctrinate and mould the nation’s youth through the school system, and to mould the future leaders through operation and control of higher education. Abolition of compulsory attendance laws would end the schools’ role as prison cust­o­d­ians of the na­tion’s youth, and would free all those better off outside the schools for inde­pendence. The miasma of government, of moulding the youth of Amer­ica in the direction desired by the State, would be replaced by freely chosen and voluntary actions — by a genuine and truly free education, both in and out of formal schools. . . .”

Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) was an incredibly influential economist who helped to revitalize the tradition of Individualist Anarchism and is today commonly held as the founding father of Anarcho-“Capitalism.”

C’è una marcata somiglianza tra l’istruzione online e la controversia che ha contrapposto Uber e Lyft ai taxi tradizionali. Il controverso servizio di condivisione delle corse offre qualche vantaggio competitivo rispetto ai vecchi taxi. Ma è solo un passettino, anche se nella direzione giusta; possiede ancora le stesse caratteristiche del sistema proprietario e monopolistico a cui cerca di fare concorrenza. Il controllo è ancora nelle mani di grosse aziende con sede fuori dalle città servite, aziende che, grazie ad applicazioni brevettate, fanno la cresta agli autisti e ai clienti che operano nel loro precinto. Il prossimo passo consiste nel liberare Uber e Lyft da questa prigione con sistemi cooperativi e di condivisione delle corse open-source.

L’istruzione online, con o senza profitto, rappresenta un miglioramento marginale rispetto alle tradizionali università. Ma come Uber e Lyft è bloccato tra due mondi, modellato sul sistema scolastico superiore tradizionale piuttosto che su un vero sistema di rete, open-source, ancora tutto da edificare.

Coursera coordina l’uso del materiale dei corsi con “istituzioni associate” (le università tradizionali) per offrire un curriculum più o meno tradizionale. Udacity adatta la sua offerta alle richieste, in termini di specializzazione, della “industria tecnologica” (ovvero, dei dipartimenti aziendali risorse umane). I principali corsi online non si spostano dal modello postbellico basato su una collaborazione tra grandi aziende, il mondo dell’istruzione tradizionale e lo stato. L’obiettivo centrale è la formazione delle risorse umane così da adattarle ai bisogni delle grandi aziende in termini di capacità tecniche e predisposizione al lavoro. Milioni di persone vengono così dirette a soddisfare le richieste delle aziende di Fortune 500 (le 500 più grosse aziende d’America, es), inflazionando il mercato delle credenziali (e il debito dei laureati) necessarie ad ottenere un lavoro. Questo produce una sovrabbondanza di offerta di lavoro vocazionale-tecnico in quei settori in cui c’è più richiesta, producendo così un calo dei salari. Il risultato è che chi ha studiato per acquisire quelle capacità lavorative si ritrova ad avere poco potere contrattuale davanti alle grandi aziende.

Una libera istruzione, se vuole essere genuina, deve smettere di versare il vino nuovo nelle botti vecchie, che si tratti di preparare materiale corsistico che si adatti al modello universitario convenzionale, o di preparare curriculum che rispecchiano le richieste delle grandi aziende. Queste ultime, assieme ai loro dipartimenti per la gestione delle risorse umane, fanno parte di un mondo economico morente. Alcune potrebbero sopravvivere per qualche decennio ancora, sfruttando aiuti e normative protezionistiche fornite da uno stato sempre più fallimentare e vuoto. Ma sono obsolete, in attesa del decesso, e col passare degli anni avranno sempre meno importanza nel mondo economico.

Il futuro dell’impiego passa dal lavoro autonomo, dalle piccole imprese cooperative (microimprese da garage, hackerspace e permacultura), dall’informazione p2p e dal lavoro a progetto. In quest’ultimo caso, dove le capacità personali e il capitale umano rappresentano la fonte principale di valore aggiunto, e dove gli strumenti fisici, un settore economico in crescita, sono alla portata di tutti, i lavoratori precari potrebbero unirsi e formare una versione cooperativa delle attuali agenzie capitaliste di lavoro interinale; o unioni di professionisti; o gilde in grado di offrire protezione, certificare la professionalità dei lavoratori e negoziare le condizioni con i datori di lavoro.

Serve un nuovo modello di istruzione basato su un sistema volontario, ad hoc, di credenziali cumulabili, un sistema slegato dallo stato, guidato dai bisogni delle piccole cooperative e dei lavoratori associati destinati a dominare la nuova economia.

Ovviamente, laddove il materiale dei corsi è protetto gli operatori dell’istruzione open-source dovranno rimuovere le protezioni Drm che bloccano l’accesso ai video e ai libri di testo.

Quello che abbiamo oggi è un sistema universitario morente, creato da uno stato morente per servire gli interessi di un’economia corporativa morente. Lasciate che i morti seppelliscano i loro morti.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

There’s a strong parallel between online education and the controversy over Uber and Lyft versus medallion cabs. The controversial ride-sharing services offer some cost competition to the old licensed taxi services. But they’re only a modest step in the right direction; they still embody the same proprietary, monopolistic characteristics as the old model they’re competing against. They’re still controlled by corporate headquarters outside the cities they serve and, thanks to patented apps, skim tribute off the drivers and customer who operate within their walled gardens. The next step is to jailbreak Uber and Lyft themselves with cooperative and open-source ride-sharing services.

Online learning, whether for profit or not, is a marginal improvement over traditional universities. But like Uber and Lyft, it’s still stuck between two worlds, modeled on the legacy higher education system rather than emerging as the real networked, open-source thing we need to build.

Coursera coordinates its course materials with “partner institutions” (brick and mortar universities) as part of a more-or-less traditional curriculum. Udacity tailors its offerings to skills demanded by the “tech industry” (that is, corporate HR departments). The big online course providers are firmly rooted in the post-WWII corporatist partnership between big business employers, the higher education establishment and the state, with the central goal of processing human resources to fit the needs of corporate employers in terms of both work skills and work attitudes. By processing millions of people to supply the labor demands of Fortune 500 companies, the higher education system simultaneously inflates the credentialing levels (and debt peonage) required to get work, overproduces the forms of vocational-technical labor most in need and thereby drives down the price, leaving those who learn such skills with minimal bargaining power versus large corporate employers.

Genuine free education needs to stop pouring new wine into old bottles, whether it be designing free course materials to fit the conventional university degree model, or designing curricula to fit the needs of corporate employers. Corporate employers with Human Resources departments are part of a dying economy. Some of them may struggle on for decades, as an increasingly bankrupt and hollowed out state still manages to provide them with sufficient subsidies and regulatory protection to survive. But they are obsolete and waiting to die, and will encompass less and less of the total economy as time goes on.

The future of labor is self-employment, cooperative work arrangements in small shops (e.g., garage micro-factories, hackerspaces and makerspaces and Permaculture operations), peer-production of information, and project-based work. And in the kinds of project-based work where skills and other human capital are the main source of value addition and physical tools are affordable — a growing part of the economy — existing precarious workers are likely to create new cooperative versions of existing capitalist temp agencies, or freelance unions and guilds that provide insurance, certify skills and negotiate with employers.

We need a new model of education based on voluntary, ad hoc, stackable credentialing outside the state accreditation system, driven by the needs of the small cooperative shops and networked workers who will dominate the new economy.

And of course where  online course materials are proprietary, the open-source education folks need to start hacking the Digital Rights Management on their videos and textbooks.

What we have now is a dying university system, created by a dying state to serve the labor needs of a dying corporate economy. Let the dead bury their dead.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, È Ora di Liberare l’Istruzione Online.

More than three decades after its original publication, The Modern School Movement: Anarchism and Education in the United States is perhaps even more relevant today. Its lessons in youth liberation are much needed in a society with such a widespread fear of unsupervised youth. Its lessons in education reform – from both good and bad experiences – can only help when kids are hammered with more standardized tests and policy debates rarely have the children’s experiences as their central focus. Its lessons in anarchist history will help readers with various levels of knowledge in the subject to better understand a philosophy and movement that is too rarely understood.

Paul Avrich (1931-2006) was a professor of history at Queens College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. His early work focused on labor movements in the Russian Revolution, and from there he began to focus more on the anarchist movements of Russia and the United States. He published numerous books on various topics in anarchist history and typically approaches his subjects with the attitude of an admiring outsider, an academic inspired by the anarchists yet not fully convinced by their philosophy.

In The Modern School Movement, Avrich draws from an impressive array of sources, including archival documents and numerous interviews with aging participants in the movement. As Avrich notes in the introduction, the book employs a biographical approach to the subject. This approach succeeds brilliantly at shedding light on the creators and drivers of the Modern School Movement, some of whom are famous for other exploits and some of whom are relatively obscure. By understanding the people involved, the reader gains a thorough understanding of what the movement was about, and gets the idea that its successes and shortcomings depended greatly on the personalities involved.

The biographical approach in the book does have a drawback in that certain important characters become the focus of the narrative, sometimes at the expense of understanding the day-to-day operation of the schools. In addition, not much is revealed about what the school’s opponents or the police are up to while all the experiments in education are going on. Yet the biographical approach makes the book extremely valuable for what it is: a fascinating study of a real, constructive thing that anarchists did, a libertarian project that other rebels and reformers supported, a movement that was deeply connected with and thus offers an informative perspective on political and social currents of its time, and an illuminating view of a history with interesting characters and lasting effects that is too often overlooked.

The text begins by introducing the life of Francisco Ferrer and his ideas of libertarian education. Francisco Ferrer was a Spanish radical who is sometimes thought of as a liberal revolutionary or reformer, though Avrich establishes his ties to the anarchist movement. On September 8, 1901, Ferrer opened the Modern School in Barcelona with 18 boys and 12 girls in attendance.

Believing that “rulers have always taken care to control the education of the people,” Ferrer opposed education controlled by the church, a powerful institution in Spain, as well as government-run education. In his school, the rights and dignity of the child were essential. There was no rigid curriculum but instead a give-and-take between children and instructors. Children and parents participated in the administration of the school. No exams or grades were given. Manual and intellectual learning went together, and the school emphasized learning through action in a hands-on environment. Parents were encouraged to attend evening and weekend classes taught by scholars. Education was intended to lead to personal improvement, which would bring about improvement in society. While no specific doctrine was taught to the children, Ferrer’s school intended to impart the values of anti-capitalism and anti-militarism, ideals of cooperation and liberation, and sympathy for oppressed people.

Avrich establishes Ferrer’s place in a broader history of anarchist education, and discusses thinkers and experiments that Ferrer was drawn to. Mikhail Bakunin summed up the views of many libertarian educators when he said that “Children belong neither to their parents nor to society. They belong to themselves and their future liberty.” Anyone looking for educational experiments to study will find plenty of ideas in the introduction, from Tolstoy’s home to the Paris Commune.

Ferrer, an energetic and efficient organizer, implanted libertarian education in Barcelona, “the main stronghold of Spanish anarchism.” The authorities of the Spanish church and state were alarmed and offended by his efforts. The school was closed in 1906, and in 1909, Ferrer was executed after a show trial for supposedly starting a brief insurrection that had begun as a strike against conscription for a colonial war.

Ferrer’s political trial and execution sparked outrage internationally and also brought great attention to his educational methods. Schools based on Ferrer’s model were founded in multiple countries in Europe, the Americas, and Asia. The United States became home to the most extensive Ferrer movement, which is where Avrich’s detailed account begins.

Avrich traces the rise and fall of the American movement beginning with the Francisco Ferrer Association in New York City. He describes the founding of the New York school in 1911, the school’s difficulties and achievements, and its important secondary purpose as an adult education center and cultural center. Throughout the book important personalities are profiled. While reformers of various political affiliations were involved, anarchists took the lead in organizing and operating the schools. Avrich briefly catalogs the numerous short-lived Ferrer schools established throughout the country, then traces the center of Modern School activity from New York to the Ferrer colony at Stelton, New Jersey, where a Ferrer school operated from 1915 to 1953. Then the narrative goes to the Mohegan colony in New York (school operational 1924-1941), and back to Stelton and also Lakewood, New Jersey (school operational 1933-1958). The narrative tends to follow the travels of important school organizers, especially Harry Kelly, Elizabeth and Alexis Ferm, and Nellie and Jim Dick.

Avrich ends the book with a brief conclusion about what the Modern School Movement meant and what its impact was. Unfortunately, this section is too brief for a thorough evaluation of the schools, probably the book’s main shortcoming.

Avrich notes that the Modern School Association disbanded just as radicalism in the United States was making a comeback in the early 1960s. By the mid 1960s, many alternative schools were being founded. Avrich states that “In the majority of cases, these ventures were undertaken with little or no consciousness of the libertarian tradition that preceded them. Yet a few direct links can be established with the Modern Schools.” He then takes one paragraph to list different people who were involved in both movements. The short space given to this part of the story is disappointing, especially when recalling the numerous pages the book spends on the lives of several artists long after they taught at the New York City Ferrer Center. The book contains excerpts of letters that Jim Dick wrote to A.S. Neill of Summerhill fame, and Avrich notes that the two educators had regular correspondence. Yet the effects of Dick’s letters on Neill is not explored. On page 343, Avrich notes that among the many notable visitors to Stelton was John Louis Horn, professor of education at Mills College in Oakland, California, “who was greatly impressed with what he saw.” Yet Avrich doesn’t go further in saying how Horn’s work was impacted or whether he discussed his findings among his colleagues. Fortunately, Avrich has done excellent groundbreaking work that later historians can build upon.

Toward the end of the book Avrich describes the old guard of anarchists dying out in the late 1930s to the early 1950s, without effective successors among the new generation. So does this mean that the anarchist school was a failure?

Avrich interviewed many Modern School graduates in the course of his research. While he does give voice to the students of the Modern School, he offers less discussion of their lives than the topic deserves. Quotes from them appear frequently in the book to comment on particular topics, they generally recall their school days fondly, and some of their successes after Modern School life are mentioned (for example, Emma Cohen was valedictorian of her high school class and later became a child psychologist; Edgar Tafel became an architect who worked with Frank Lloyd Wright). Avrich spends about a page in the book’s conclusion discussing his impressions of the students in general. However there are no in-depth life stories as there are for some of the principals and teachers. This is unfortunate, not only because it makes the students’ experiences less clear, but also because Modern School graduates have lived some interesting lives.

Avrich agrees with a Stelton school staffer who noted that Modern School alumni tended to be “more interesting” than average people, and versatile and fresh in thought and outlook. By material standards, students “were not much more successful than society as a whole,” but material wealth was not especially valued in the Modern School Movement.

Avrich writes that the great majority of the graduates “appear to have carried away a strong cooperative and libertarian ethic, a spirit of mutual aid and individual sovereignty, which has remained with them throughout their adult years, regardless of their politics or occupation.” So in a way, the schools were successful in their mission: non-doctrinaire education that would bring out libertarian tendencies and personal talents of the students. It was not as revolutionary as perhaps the militant Modern School organizers like Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, and Hippolyte Havel would have hoped, yet it brought out the small but significant changes that less revolutionary personalities – the Ferms, Joseph Cohen and Harry Kelly in their older years, early supporters like Will Durant and Alden Freeman – were looking for. More Modern School graduates in the world would most like likely lead to a world they were happier with.

Ultimately, Avrich’s Modern School Movement is a story of the founders of the Modern School, and the narrative ends with their deaths. Avrich conveys the sense that the Modern School belonged to an earlier era, that it was a product of the Emma Goldman generation, an inspiration, if not a direct predecessor, to rebels and reformers of later generations. The book provides a thorough understanding of what the American Modern School Movement was and did.

Avrich’s knowledge of early twentieth century politics, culture, and radicalism shine through in the book, and the context he provides in the narrative make it more accessible as well as informative. It is true that a reader might feel overwhelmed at times by the number of names and references to political movements, but Avrich is generally good at providing introductory information. For readers willing to dive in, The Modern School Movement opens a fascinating window on the reform and revolutionary movements of the early twentieth century, the ideas, the personalities, the connections, the internationalism. Avrich shows how various movements interacted. Events that united them – Ferrer’s martyrdom, strikes – events that split them – explosions, war, revolution – all take their places in the rise and fall of the Modern School Movement. Apart from the particulars of the Modern School Movement, the book provides excellent insights into early to mid American political and cultural history, much of which will probably be new to the casual reader or provide helpful context or refreshers for those with a serious interest in the field.

Today’s readers may be struck by some of the features of the Modern Schools that were considered radical: teaching boys and girls together, working-class children conducting scientific observations and experiments, lectures on evolution and geologic principles, free scholarly lectures where working-class people were welcome. For every feature that appears almost fantastical to someone who has only known mainstream education – the lack of curriculum or grades, the free interplay between teacher and student, the emphasis on hands-on experience over early reading, there is a seemingly mundane innovation. Yet the seemingly mundane is actually amazing when one considers the real improvement in peoples’ lives that was revolutionary for the time.

In Avrich’s account the pushing of particular values at Ferrer schools generally appears to be of a lighter character than such familiar rituals as the Pledge of Allegiance and Founding Father commemoration. No particular doctrine was taught, despite the best efforts of communists to convince school administrators (mostly fellow parents) to do otherwise.

The Modern School Movement is a pioneering work of great value to students of anarchism, historical American radicalism, and alternative education. It is also quite relevant to those with a general interest in twentieth century American political history. The 400 page text is filled with memorable personalities, and the anarchists and their allies are shown in their full humanity, with their triumphs, failings, excitement, doubts, and disagreements. The book is highly recommended both as a foundation for further research and as a fascinating read in a little known topic.

Avrich, Paul. The Modern School Movement: Anarchism and Education in the United States. AK Press, 2006. Originally published by Princeton University Press, 1980.

Let us turn to a select quotation from the book on page 114:

Professor Lawrence Cremin has estimated that male literacy ranged from 70 to 100 percent. Other research shows that from 1650 to 1795, male literacy rose from 60 percent to 90 percent, and female literacy rose from 30 percent to 45 percent. From 1800 to 1840, literacy in the North rose from 75 percent to somewhere between 91 and 97 percent. In the South during that same time period, it went from 50 to 60 percent to 81 percent. Writer and educator, John Taylor Gatto notes that “by 1840 the incidence of complex literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent wherever such a thing mattered.” In 1850, just before Massachusetts imposed compulsory schooling, literacy in that state was at 98 percent.

A highly literate population is clearly possible without state intervention in education. This goes along well with the moral principle of freedom of thought for children idenitfied by the late radical educator, John Holt. This principle demands that young people be free to control their own learning. When allowed to do so, a child is able to fit learning how to read into his or her own desires/interests. A self-directed process of discovery that can strengthen a child’s drive to learn more.

The joy of reading is preferable when not tainted by the evil of aggressive coercion. We left-libertarians are uniquely positioned to encourage literacy without coercion. There are revolutionary alternatives to an statist regime of compelled learning. They include unschooling, Sudbury schools, and Montessori schools. Among these choices, unschooling is my favorite. It provides the most radical alternative to statist models of education. In its respect for individuality, choice, and freedom, it’s the most compatible with libertarian principle.

Cultural change requires a corresponding educational transformation. If we wish to move society towards greater freedom, we will have to raise our children differently. They are to be allowed a great deal of freedom to pursue their own dreams and interests. The educational alternatives mentioned above can help make this a reality. Let’s get started on it!

Translations for this article:

• Turkish, Zorunlu Öğretim, Okuryazarlık, Ve Eğitim Alternatifleri.

In response, Professor Uwe Reinhardt of Princeton added that a single-payer system wouldn’t work in the U.S. because it would be controlled by the corrupt culture of the service deliverers (“Is the U.S. too corrupt for single-payer healthcare?” Washington Post, January 16). “Medicare is a large insurance company whose board of directors (Ways and Means and Senate Finance) accept payments from vendors to the company. In the private market, that would get you into trouble.” Basically, the prices Medicare-for-all paid for healthcare services would be set by the healthcare providers and reflect their institutionalized monopoly culture.

All too often, when well-meaning people say a particular need should be a “basic human right,” what that means is that the average person gets that need for “free” — but they get it as defined by the authoritarian institutions and professional priesthoods that deliver that service. The nationalization and public financing serve mainly to lock in that institutional culture permanently, and make it difficult at best for the individual to escape that institutional model of service whether they actually want it or not.

A common theme in the work of Ivan Illich was the provision of services in all aspects of life by bureaucratic, hierarchical institutions with high overhead business models and the delivery of actual services by authoritarian professional priesthoods.

“Many students … intuitively know what the schools do for them. They school them to confuse process and substance ….  [T]he more treatment there is, the better are the results …. The student is thereby ‘schooled’ to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say something new …. Health, learning, dignity, independence, and creative endeavor are defined as little more than the performance of the institutions which claim to serve these ends, and their improvement is made to depend on allocating more resources to the management of hospitals, schools, and other agencies in question.”

If you want an illustration of the total gestalt of the kinds of services delivered by such institutions, with their mission statements, Weberian work rules and accounting systems which define the consumption of resources as “value,” just compare the proprietary, institutionally designed “office productivity software” the IT department makes you use at work with platforms and utilities like Open Office that people willingly choose for themselves at home.

I once saw an activist critic of agribusiness on C-SPAN describing the process by which the USDA created the “Food Pyramid”; it was basically negotiated by a committee made up of representatives of Big Cereal Grains, Big Meat, Big Dairy, ad nauseam.

We have “free” education through grade 12 as a basic human right in the U.S. And what is it? A system set up for processing, grading and sorting human raw material into an input for corporate HR departments. The first statewide public school systems were set up in New England because  mill owners needed hands who’d been taught to be punctual, line up on command, eat and pee at the sound of a bell, and cheerfully obey instructions from an authority figure behind a desk. As a majority of people moved into white collar jobs, this basic function persisted — with the additional task of schooling students to prioritize tasks set for them by an authority figure over their own self-directed interests, and to regard as a trivial “hobby” anything not assigned by a boss.

The proper solution to the crisis resulting from enormously expensive healthcare is not to leave the expensive business model in place and then finance it with tax money, but to cause its price to implode to affordable levels by removing all the state-enforced monopolies and institutional frameworks that make it so expensive. Imagine a society where one of Pfizer’s $10 pills cost fifty cents, an MRI was $250, outpatient treatments and tests were covered by $70/month dues at a cooperative clinic, and catastrophic insurance was $50/month. That’s what we’d have if corporate-state collusion and monopoly were replaced by competitive markets and horizontal cooperation.

Before you make something “free,” think long and hard; you may also be making it compulsory.

A nonprofit group called the Center for Copyright Information, supported by the MPAA and other groups, is in the early drafting phases of a school curriculum to teach children the supposed value of copyright. Of course, this whole plan is not without critics. Some argue that Hollywood studios and music labels are simply trying to promote their own biased agendas, while others say that such a curriculum would use up valuable classroom time needed to simply cover the basics.

There are two fundamental things for us to look at here, and they are both highly problematic. These are public education and intellectual property.

Public education is an environment wherein children are taught that there is such a thing as objective authority figures. This may not be overt, especially given how many well meaning and sincere public educators are out there, but the fact remains that public schools are among the first places where children start to be molded into compliant, servile people. There is not a whole lot of room for individuality, and even less room for questioning the teacher’s lesson plans. It is the perfect place to instill far-reaching values, such as statism, when children are at their most intellectually vulnerable.

Intellectual property is a ruse the political class uses to control free market — a clever tool to inhibit competition. There is no logical way to own something like an idea, and there is no logical argument against people sharing information, including media of all kinds. By enforcing claims on “intellectual property,” the political class inhibits competition, innovation and creativity.

But they would have us believe otherwise. They argue that IP protects creativity, that it protects competition, and that it protects the market. But if this is truly the case, then why would so many be fighting to undermine it? They also argue that sharing their supposed intellectual property is hurting the industry and costing people jobs. This of course flies in the face of the billions of dollars the movie industry, the music industry, and the game industry rake in every year. But they would still seek to get these regressive values into the minds of schoolchildren.

The fact of the matter is that sharing information, including media, is a massive check against the mandated market control of these big media groups. In many ways it has actually served to help them due to more people having access. It has also pushed them to innovate and make their products worth more to the general consumer. In other words, real market forces have created arguably better products. For years IP has stifled innovation, and it has been through revolutionary market forces that we have seen some exciting changes in the media industry. One such example is the Steam video game client that, while still a player in IP, has been making more and more quality games available for dirt cheap. In many cases, some will stop pirating because the games they might be interested in are available for so little money.

In short, not only is IP a regressive, anti-freedom framework, but the notion that they are so desperate that they would seek to get into the minds of children means that they are scared. Not to mention that their efforts will most likely meet with derision from the older siblings of these kids and create even more media sharing than before, thereby furthering their own demise.

Simply put: They are losing. Let’s keep it that way.