![](https://www.econlib.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/61GbNVvpLRL._SY466_-194x300.jpg)
Jonathan Haidt argued that: heart of justice, that the way we think about problems is biased by subconscious tendencies. Very simply, he argues that when we hear a proposal, we respond instinctively and subconsciously to either support it or dislike it. The reasoning process takes place after this instinctive reaction has already occurred and works to find arguments that justify the initial reaction. Just as defense attorneys start from the position that the defendant is innocent and construct arguments to support that initial position, our own reasoning processes are lawyer-like and in a similar manner.
So how do we deal with this problem when, as Richard Feynman said, the person you're most easily fooled by is yourself?
One possibility I talked about earlier is that ideological certainty. But you can also take more actionable steps. When you make an argument about a position or view, you need to extend that reasoning to other situations to see if it still holds. If an argument starts to look like it doesn't hold up when applied to other situations, that's a good sign that you may have been attracted to that argument because it justifies a particular conclusion you want to defend in a particular situation. and not for the following reasons: The strength of the argument itself.
There are many arguments for and against private schools and school vouchers. One quarrel The movement against private schools was proposed by socialist writer Nathaniel Robinson. privatization The education system is doomed to failure.
However, introducing profits into the school system is extremely dangerous. The reason is simple. Because that creates a scary set of incentives. When we give vouchers to private for-profit schools or give large subsidies to for-profit charter schools, there is a strong incentive for schools to get as little in return as possible. After all, for-profit companies exist to maximize value for their shareholders (rather than value for students), so for-profit schools spend as much as possible educating their students for maximum financial return. We should try not to. If you don't have to go out of your way to buy new lab equipment or new textbooks, there is no incentive to do so just because it will benefit your students.
He also claims that competition There is no power to improve the situation.
In the public school system, all the money goes to schools. In a for-profit school system, at least some of that money is instead directed into the pockets of shareholders (otherwise, for-profit schools would not have survived). And if you have a school district with a total of three for-profit elementary schools, all of which neglect to educate their children while simply pocketing most of the voucher money, how do parents choose between schools? Even if they make such a “choice”, they will still win. The quality of schools cannot be improved. One might expect new operators to enter the market, but if the only way to actually make money from kids is to ignore them, then new operators will be better than old ones. It doesn't mean that it is.
But what Robinson offers here is not simply an argument against school privatization, but an argument against the idea of economic competition. Typically. If the school system makes a profit, Robinson says, „schools have a strong incentive to give as little as possible in return.“ He warns that profits “create a terrifying set of incentives.”But there is no non-arbitrary reason to consider profit only It creates these terrible incentives in education. Perhaps private companies that want to make a profit should try to do as little as possible to their customers. And if competition in schooling prevents schools from providing better services, then „the only way to actually make money'' is by „ignoring'' customers, and „the new operators are better than the old ones.'' Because there is no one there. Again, why doesn't this apply to competition everywhere? Apple is motivated by profit and always strives to offer devices with minimal features that benefit consumers. Does Mr. Robinson believe, for example, that police departments provide a quality service to the community because they don't need to make a profit to operate?
Lina Khan of the FTC said: Worried Amazon still faces some form of competition from Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and Google, in addition to all the brick-and-mortar competition. not enough competition. But Robinson abandons her concerns, perhaps not because she thinks Amazon faces intense competitive pressures, but because it makes no sense to increase competition anyway. I should give her some advice. It's all just a race to the bottom, with consumers receiving worse service than ever due to horrible profit incentives. Even if the company were really a pure monopoly, why should we worry about it?
Robinson's argument fails to generalize spectacularly. Is his argument an after-the-fact rationalization based on underlying subconscious tendencies? I can't read minds, so I can only speculate. But he hints that it might be good fuel for motivated reasoning. he writes:
I fear privatization not because of some mystical devotion to government inefficiency, but because it is a win-win, education, and not because of the benefits that children receive. Because we fear eroding the idea that we give to our children because they deserve it. after that. I worry that people who run things „like a business“ don't actually care much about children and are motivated by the wrong motives… No matter how bad public schools are, I will always trust people who care about their children. Achieving ends beyond those who see ends as means.
Here, Robinson says that the idea of someone providing education as a service in exchange for payment, rather than just an education being provided because there is a right to it, is something that strikes fear in him. I am. He is concerned about the motives of those who „don't think much of children“ and assures readers that he will „always trust those who see children as an end more than those who see them as a means.“ He also reminds readers early in the article that, unlike him, „'profits' is not a dirty word on the right.“
Imagine if food production became a hot topic instead of education. Proponents of public farming declared that they considered “profit” to be a “dirty word,” then said:
I fear the privatization of food production not because of some mystical dedication to government inefficiency, but because feeding the population is not a win-win situation. We feed people because we fear we are losing the idea that we feed them not because they deserve it, but because they deserve it. Because we can profit from it. I worry that those who run their farms „like a business“ aren't really interested in feeding people and are motivated by the wrong motives. No matter how bad our collectivized farms are, I will always trust those who see feeding people as an end more than those who see it as a means.
Stories like this about the shoddy motives of farmers in pursuit of profit compared to the supposedly pure motives of public farms are in contrast to the actual famines that occurred in the era when food was produced publicly, as opposed to institutionally. Seems like a pretty trivial thing to focus on when you look at the level of . There, farming is run like a business. Spending time dwelling on the motivations of those involved while ignoring the actual results distracts from what really matters.