Freedom and Education

Am I from Mars or is it too much to ask that schools become far more Libertarian? Meaning why can't schools be internally shaped to the pupils within them so they can participate within the decisions that directly affect them and have the lessons tailor made to fit the specific needs and desires of the children themselves?

The most famous example in the world of a school which is run like this is probably Summerhill in Suffolk in England. It has now existed since 1921 and despite the British Governments attempt to close it down in March 1999 it is still going. There are roughly speaking several hundred schools run along democratic and libertarian lines in the world today. I have as yet to find any genuine evidence there is anything substantially wrong with them. Most of these schools are possibly the most organised schools you could want with them having rule of law and forms of conflict resolution. The key difference between a school like this and a conventional one is all rules and decisions are made democratically and there is little or no coercion or compulsion placed upon children. One myth that I have heard time and time again wqhich is almost always completely unsubstantiated is that children leave places like this without the capacity to read properly or get a job. Again to just use the example of Summerhill many of the people who have left Summerhill have gone on to a do a variety of jobs. Also if this was genuinely correct OFSTED would have used this as a tool to shut down Summerhill long before March 1999. The only thing they could use against Summerhill was the fact that the lessons were not compulsory.

To my knowledge there are not many schools like this that have failed because of how they are organised. They have usually been shut down by local authorities under very flimsy pretexts. There was a famous case in 1965 when a comprehensive school called Risinghill In Islington in London was closed down because the headmaster Michael Duane ‘esteems cordiality among the major virtues,' and ‘Sometimes in avoiding terror the school has abandoned awe.' as the school inspectors of the time reported. This as well as the fact that Michael Duane rather contentiously at the time prohibited the use of corporal punishment led to the Inner London Education Authority. None of the above proves that there is anything intrinsically weak about Libertarian education but rather the lengths to which people with power whether high or low will go to defend it. If schools can very easily run their own affairs without coercion and compulsion this sets a major precedent for the rest of society; a precedent which is dangerous to every authoritarian everywhere. If children can learn and develop and act responsibly without force then surely adults can to. People might start getting strange ideas if they see their children learning without compulsion and having more rights and freedoms than they currently. It will also put the good people of OFSTED out of a job.

But fortunately for OFSTED and the naysayers these schools are limited and a lot of people have formed views on them based on little or no experience or evidence on how they are run at all. People have formed opinions on these places based almost entirely on thin air. The other major obstacle to the development of Libertarian forms of education in society is the fallacy that children learn and develop through being programmed by adults. Most of the evidence shows that even in their most rudimentary knowledge whether it is in language or learning generally children are not programmed with knowledge but instead acquire it through their own capacities. This is not to say environment is not important. But there has been little evidence provided that proves that whether it is learning information or skills or developing a sense of morality or social responsibility children need discipline or coercion to acquire these things at all. In fact the continued and successful existence of Summerhill and the many schools around the world that are organised on similar lines disproves it is a necessity at all.

http://www.davidgribble.co.uk/

http://www.libed.org.uk/

http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/

PROSTITUTION AND PORNOGRAPHY the shared sin of the Right and Left?

Pornography has been a contentious issue for many people right the way across the political spectrum and indeed throughout society. There are some who aberrantly whether Fascist, Marxist or of the Mary Whitehouse Conservative School see it as aberrantly disgusting. Others on both the Right and Left see it as an issue of a freedom of expression. I think in both camps there has been a massive lack of analysis as to why it is either wrong or why it is worth defending. In the case of the naysayers it is something cruel, exploitative and overly harmful to human beings. On the other side it is often portrayed as not only a Liberty worth fighting for but actually a good or great thing in itself. It often seems with for Libertarian Right that 'sex for sale' is not only something that shouldn't be punished but is something worth promoting.

So what are my views? 'Sex for Sale' has never been a particularly appealing thing whether I was going to be the buyer or the seller. But on the other hand isn’t it really just a more consistent form of the free market which our society espouses? If you can rent every other kind of labour that you have why not rent the potential labour of your body? Also to my mind it seems deeply despicable and futile to punish either the buyer or the seller. This has been the predominant tactic in supposedly curving prostitution for decades and it has not been utterly futile. Similar things have happened with Pornography, the most famous being that of Larry Flint. So my basic stance is that it isn’t something that is worth punishing for and more specifically it has of late had no effect in limiting prostitution or pornography, prostitution especially as it is is predominantly more illicit.

With the specific issue of Pornography how can it in any extreme way be limited except with enormous amounts of violence and coercion? With the availability of YouTube many couples quite voluntarily and for no wages have sex and then upload it for view on the internet. (Interestingly enough this violates the taboo of puritans who despise exhibitionist sex and those on the right who believe it should become a business). Hardly the outright exploitative stereotype that many people associate with pornography is it? It could be argued and it is perhaps is true that these people are both exploiting each other for the sake of entertaining unseen strangers through the internet. But how can you prevent this and what is the purpose of even trying?

People’s attitudes whether they like it or not are still heavily coloured by a religious attitude that still believes sex is a sin that has to be staunchly prohibited. This being almost comic as at its most basic level sex it is what is necessary for us to be here at all. But I’m guessing that’s obvious. This attitude is often espoused by the most diehard of the secular left who see Pornography and Prostitution as forms of capitalist exploitation which come the revolution will miraculously disappear. On the other hand Sex itself has almost in and of itself become a new religion and for far too many people is an all too easy substitute for any more meaningful relationship; and ironically is escape from the realities of other people. That isn’t inherently wrong and should not be a crime but it isn’t something I want to applaud either. For that reason I am rushing to start a movement to get Prostitution legalised despite thinking it as a crime is a gross stupidity. Prostitution if legalised like most things will probably degenerate into vast industrialised system where people rent their bodies for someone else’s profits. Imagine Tesco’s providing Brothels basically. That is not in my view an advance in creating either a more free society nor obviously a more just one. This is all quite voluntary no doubt but wouldn’t the men and women who either rent their bodies for money in a system which is a crime or in one where it is not be better off just not renting their bodies for sex at all? I am hardly the Ayatollah Khomeini for suggesting it; this either case this is not freedom but voluntary servitude. All of this ignores the economic system we live in where money is king and you must get it from somewhere whether it is working in a supermarket, signing on at the dole or street walking or else you will starve. So in that climate why not sell your body, whether it is with Pornography or Prostitution? This question though ignores another more fundamental question. Why is an economy where one person has to rent themselves in any capacity to another acceptable at all? Hardly one of the most philistine of questions but one that should be asked.