Head Start Headlines

Interesting to see the different spins on a new report gauging the effectiveness of Head Start:

Washington Post: "Head Start Children Show Some Gains"

Washington Times: "Head Start fails nearly half of study's 30 measurements"

NPR: "Head Start Study Suggests Minimal Benefits"

Head Start press release: "New Head Start Impact Study Shows 'Very Promising' Early Results, Points to Success of Program Boosting School Readiness of America's Most At-Risk Children. NHSA Warns of 'Politically Motivated Distortions' From Head Start Critics With Track Record of Negativity Toward the Program"

That last one's particularly telling—a kind of scrambling preemptive strike that reeks of desperation—but it's probably necessary to read the full report before jumping to conclusions. I do wonder, though, whether if the negative assessment is borne out, Head Start will stop being this sort of exemplar of what's wrong with libertarians and small-government conservatives (i.e. "These people even would repeal Head Start! It's puppies in blenders next!").

Comments

phocion | June 10, 2005, 1:13pm | #

I do wonder, though, whether if the negative assessment is borne out, Head Start will stop being this sort of exemplar of what's wrong with libertarians and small-government conservatives

Yeah right. Just because a program's failing doesn't mean it's cool to be against it. See also: War on Drugs

joe | June 10, 2005, 1:14pm | #

That's a really stupid press release.

"Congressman Biff Chiperson is proud to announce that he has submitted a bill in the House of Representatives to help reduce domestic violence. Also, the people who say he's just covering up because he slaps his wife in public are totally lying."

phocion | June 10, 2005, 1:25pm | #

Yeah joe, that's pretty weird. Definitely a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" moment. Also, if you read the actual press release, they follow that up by saying they can give you the names of the right independent experts to contact about it. Any unlisted expert might be giving out "politically motivated spin".

Neil Paul | June 10, 2005, 1:33pm | #

NO matter how sucky Head Start may be, its proponents will always be able to say that their heart is in the right place.


After all, who amongst even hardcore libertarians wants to see a three-year old left to its own devices, regardless of what a couple of shit-bags their own parents might be?

Lets hear all the libertarian bright ideas about how to mitigate the blighted early childhoods of some of these kids.

Adam | June 10, 2005, 1:43pm | #

Neil, I'd tend to think that decisions about which parents are shit-bags and which children need help would best be made at the local level rather than in D.C. Call me crazy.

Eric the .5b | June 10, 2005, 1:44pm | #

NO matter how sucky Head Start may be, its proponents will always be able to say that their heart is in the right place.

Good for them! They may not actually help those those children, but at least they've used our money to demonstrate their moral virtue.

Eric the .5b | June 10, 2005, 1:49pm | #

Lets hear all the libertarian bright ideas about how to mitigate the blighted early childhoods of some of these kids.

Well, for one, there are numerous charities that exist to help young children. Is "give these groups money and/or get involved with them" especially libertarian? Not especially, but it compatible, it works, it puts responsibility on people to try to find out whether the programs they support actually do any good, and it gives them an option to redirect their funds and efforts if necessary without an act of Congress.

David Woycechowsky | June 10, 2005, 1:51pm | #

They should pair up missile defense and Head Start as a budget line item and then cancel that line. A failure is a failure.

I wonder which program costs more money?

metalgrid | June 10, 2005, 1:52pm | #

Lets hear all the libertarian bright ideas about how to mitigate the blighted early childhoods of some of these kids.


Libertarians will give you tax breaks for 'mitigating the blighted early childhoods'. That's one of the most basic premises of libertarianism. You know what to do with your money better than politicians. Do you think you can do better for these kids than the failed methods? It challenges all those critics to put their money where their mouth is. That's why libertarianism is so unappealing to people who just like to criticize without taking any responsibility. Conversely, that's why big government is so popular - people throw away their money and let someone else take care of the problem and absolve themselves of any responsibility - also know as the 'someone should so something about that' crowd.

Lisa Snell | June 10, 2005, 2:09pm | #

Next on the docket is universal preschool. In California the Reiner initiative, which will most likely be on the ballot in June 2006, will call for state-funded preschool for all four year olds. There will be no income requirement so even high-income four year olds will be offered free preschool. Each County Superintendent for schools will decide who gets to provide preschool and distribute the state funding. The providers who can meet the teacher certification requirement that every preschool teacher has a bachelors degree and can meet state curriculum standards (read the public schools) will get approval. The unions will have hundreds of new members and preschool education will become subject to collective bargaining. Reiner's initiative would coalesce Head Start and other subsidized funding streams and drive that money toward a state system. While Reiner's initiative may fail, state legislatures across the country are moving toward Universal preschool being financed and regulated a la' head start.

So it looks like we will be in the puppies in blender camp for the foreseeable future.

thoreau | June 10, 2005, 2:16pm | #

Puppies in blenders? No thanks. I prefer mine char-broiled, not pureed.

Adam makes a good point: I am more sympathetic than most libertarians to the notion that maybe government should do something to help out kids with shit-bag parents. However, saying "government should do something" doesn't mean every experiment will succeed. A plethora of modest local experiments seems better than a massive nation-wide program that clearly isn't producing results. Even if you don't subscribe to the notion of enumerated powers (see: Supreme Court Justices), there's still a powerful pragmatic argument for handling these matters locally.

Sadly, phocion is right: Failure just means we need to spend more money. Just as success is proof that the program is working and needs more money. What's the lesson here? As the Wayans brothers would say, mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!

Happy Jack | June 10, 2005, 2:55pm | #

Failure just means we need to spend more money.

"What were once vices, are now habits."

I don't know why this report was done now. Head Start is only 40 years old. The success of a government program can't be measured until the golden anniversary. Then you can decide its under-funded.

Sandy | June 10, 2005, 2:56pm | #

I thought Glen Reynolds already had the puppy-blender thing patented.

joe | June 10, 2005, 3:19pm | #

metalgrid,

The people whose kids qualify for Head Start are "lucky duckies," with incomes too low to pay much, if anything, in the way of taxes. Giving them a tax break won't even come close to providing them with the funds necessary to replicated the services provided at Head Start.

This problem also dooms Medical Savings Accounts as a way of addressing the lack of health insurance among poor and lower middle class people.

Now, if you want to talk vouchers...

joe | June 10, 2005, 3:22pm | #

"...a massive nation-wide program that clearly isn't producing results"

Uh, excuse me, but the links refute this reading. Kids in Head Start show improved academic performance across a range of measures, compared to a normalized group of kids who don't go to Head Start. They just don't show as much improvement across all measures as the government would like.

UncleKenny | June 10, 2005, 3:24pm | #

The amusing thing, of course, is that anyone would actually expect a government education program to be the least bit effective in achieving any demonstrable results. Head Start, like DARE, is a mechanism for institutionalizing good intentions ... the Liberal stock in trade as Sowell, among others, has taught us.

As my old management professor used to say, non-profit organizations (including government) are compensated for what they promise to do, not what they actually do. The argument from efficacy is is very powerful. Look how well it has worked in reforming public education. ;-)

metalgrid | June 10, 2005, 3:53pm | #

The people whose kids qualify for Head Start are "lucky duckies," with incomes too low to pay much, if anything, in the way of taxes. Giving them a tax break won't even come close to providing them with the funds necessary to replicated the services provided at Head Start.


I didn't mean it that way. I meant, give the people who are sooooo concerned about other people's children's well being tax breaks for helping those children out. I didn't think I was being so ambiguous about it. Instead of hijacking people's money for it, start a private welfare center and get oodles of tax breaks for nosing into other people's families. Or would that be too much trouble to take the risk and initiative to do it yourself instead of asking 'big benevolent government' to divert funds into it?


This problem also dooms Medical Savings Accounts as a way of addressing the lack of health insurance among poor and lower middle class people.

'Medicine' is a scam. I should know, I've wasted too many years of my life in med school and medical research. There's no reason why healthcare shouldn't get cheaper and cheaper - instead it seems to be going in the other direction. It's another thing I can directly attribute to government involvement. Medical knowledge and treatment would in a non-governmentally regulated situation, diffuse among the populace. Nurses, midwives and intermediate caregivers should be able to address over 90% of cases. Instead we've arrived at a situation where despite the diffusion of medical knowledge, 100% of the decisions have to be made by a limited quantity of physicians. No wonder the price keeps going up.

So yeah, you won't be convincing me that taking more of my money to pay for affordable healthcare is a great idea when everything government has done has been to drive those prices up.


Now, if you want to talk vouchers...

Great, more power to hand over to the price gougers.

Eric the .5b | June 10, 2005, 3:57pm | #

Now, if you want to talk vouchers...

I'm somewhat leery of a voucher program (if only because it will put the federal government in private schools, and it will be carried out badly, to some degree). However, I just can't see how it'd be worse than the current system.

joe | June 10, 2005, 4:31pm | #

'Medicine' is a scam.

Sort of like 'gravity,' and 'engineering,' I imagine.

You should talk to Ruthless about stop lights.

metalgrid | June 10, 2005, 4:36pm | #

'Medicine' is a scam.
Sort of like 'gravity,' and 'engineering,' I imagine.


Wow, way to twist words. Bill Frist would be so proud of you.

PintofStout | June 10, 2005, 4:41pm | #

I like traffic lights
I like traffic lights
I like traffic lights
But only when they're green.

I like traffic lights
I like traffic lights
I like traffic lights
But not when they are red.

I like traffic lights
I like traffic lights
..........

Tin Headed Fool | June 10, 2005, 4:52pm | #

Medicine works, but the medical profession is a scam.

You had a lot of young doctors going into pulmonology in the 70s and 80s because everyone knew ALL the cigarette smokers would be getting cancer. Well, as per Mr, Bailey's link the other day, it appears that only 10% develope that disease. What are all these pulmonologists to do? Hey, let's change the diagnosis of asthma and "cause" an epidemic among the children!

Same thing with Cardiology. The latest issue of Discover magazine has an interview with a doctor who talks about double blind studies of bypass surgery. The placebo people (who only got an incision, not the actual bypass) have the same rates of improvent as the people who actually had the surgery. He insists that angina is a recurrent acute disorder and not a chronic one, and that any benefits are due to the plcebo effect. However, bypass surguries cost make hospitals and doctors hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

Since the late 80s and early 90s there have been a lot of docs going into immunology. Interesting how there are all these new viral diseases popping up like SARs and asian bird flu in the news, huh?

Doctors are very helpful in some cases, but in most they can only prescribe pills. How can they justify their large salaries without epidemics that just happen to be the concern of their specialites?

Don't even get me started on psychiatrists!

Happy Jack | June 10, 2005, 5:18pm | #

Don't even get me started on psychiatrists!

Don't you have a date with Katie tonight Tom?

mediageek | June 10, 2005, 5:26pm | #

THF-
*giggle snort*

Yogi | June 10, 2005, 6:45pm | #

Since the late 80s and early 90s there have been a lot of docs going into immunology. Interesting how there are all these new viral diseases popping up like SARs and asian bird flu in the news, huh?

I think the tinfoil hat's on too tight today my friend. No matter how many movies you've seen to the contrary, all scientists are not out there trying to take over the world one new disease at a time.

My question for you then, who created AIDS? Was it the US government trying to get rid of as many gays as possible, or did the scientists get bored again?

Russ R | June 10, 2005, 6:48pm | #

"Lets hear all the libertarian bright ideas about how to mitigate the blighted early childhoods of some of these kids."

For much less than the $6.7 billion spent annually on this program, we could scrap the whole mess and send $5000 in daycare vouchers to each of these 900,000 children of shit-bag parents.

Or we could save all of that money and say "Tough shit, kid. Just because your parents happen to be Grade A shit-bags doesn't give you some sort of entitlement. Adversity builds character." We could then take the opportunity to inform them that there's no Santa Claus. The sooner kids learn to accept disappointment the better.

Jadagul | June 10, 2005, 7:07pm | #

Looking over this study, what I found interesting was the duration. The current results are from the first year; the study plans to terminate when the subjects are in the first grade. However, I don't think it's been disputed that Head Start has some temporary effects. However, as far as I know, no one has shown that Head Start has long-term effects (scroll down to "Indirect Program Outcomes"), or much effect at all after the third grade (scroll to paragraph beginning "And what about Head Start..."). Though the first source, the futureofchildren.org site, says that these studies weren't rigorous enough to demonstrate Head Start's long-term effectiveness conclusively, they're certainly suggestive, and I don't know of any studies that say the opposite. So a study like this one that only follows subjects up through first grade is loaded for success--it's not asking the important, tough questions (If Head Start has no effect after third grade, do we care?) that we actually don't have good answers for yet. Instead it's asking the easy questions that we already know the rough answer to, so it'll get the answer it wants.

A quick note--the evidence seems to suggest that really well-run preschool programs can help poor children a great deal. It just also seesm to suggest that Head Start is not one of those programs.

js | June 10, 2005, 8:43pm | #

Why not be against head start?

You would think that a parent who had been through 11 to 12 years of (compulsory) education themselves (a little less if they dropped out) would be able to impart basic skills to prepare their kids for school already. Afterall, a lot can be learned in that many years. That this seems not to be the case implies a disasterous failure of the education system already. Is the solution really more of the same?

Of course, in some cases the parents may have other problems beyond thier own ignorance, in which case head start might do a minor amount of good. It is only minor as ultimately there is no bureaucratic substitute for growing up in a sane environment (of which parents are clearly a very large part).

And in addition to whatever good head start may do I have to wonder if it also does some damage. It may or may not be representative of Head Start, but The Washington Times article seems more obsessed with getting kids to "behave" than with anything else, as if the ultimate goal was to produce the next generation of drones. I sometimes wonder about the negative effects of pushing more and more schooling on kids at earlier at earlier ages. It's quite unnatural.

Also whatever did they do before head start? They had public education (1st through 12th) long before they ever had head start and most of the kids seemed to go to school and do ok (and even the kids from the worst of the slums). In fact there is some indication that they learned far more than most kids do today. The schools taught them from where they started and seemed to do a fairly decent job (which is not something they do now). That this is no longer the case may be some kind of indictment of today's schools or even of today's society, but headstart seems a pretty poor band-aid.

thoreau | June 11, 2005, 12:16am | #

joe-

Fair enough, Head Start does provide some benefits in early grades. But my understanding was that the long-term studies have shown no long-term benefits. Which is sort of the point: Head Start's justification is that a head start would enable kids to rise above their environment and succeed in life. Less poverty, less crime, and other good things in the long run.

If kids in head start turn out no better in the long run than those who enter the system in kindergarten, what is the point?

Jimmy Havok | June 11, 2005, 6:06am | #

"The glass is only half full! Empty it out!"

I got a big laugh out of this comment:That's why libertarianism is so unappealing to people who just like to criticize without taking any responsibility.

And what are all these responsible libertarians on this thread advocating?

there are numerous charities

save all of that money and say "Tough shit, kid.

You would think that a parent...would be able to impart basic skills to prepare their kids for school already

Lots of criticism, and not an ounce of responsibility in the whole thread! Or rather, it's typical right-wing responsibility: always someone else's.

David Woycechowsky | June 11, 2005, 6:48am | #

Further thought:
I think the true puppies-in-a-blender position would be elimination of public education. Is this the libertarian position? If not why not?

Roger Shrubber | June 11, 2005, 2:38pm | #

>>And what are all these responsible libertarians on this thread advocating?

Jimmy Havok | June 12, 2005, 5:53am | #

Why is it that Joe and Jimmy Havok call upon libertarians to answer this problem in the first place?

Well, somebody was implying that libertarians don't just complain, that they take responsibility.

why aren't they in the faces of the dirtbag "parents"?

Hmmm..."dirtbags," eh? Parents of children in Head Start are dirtbags? Sounds like you ascribe to the money = virtue formula.

It also sounds like you don't really care about results, you just want the emotional satisfaction of feeling like there's some "dirtbags" lower on the totem pole than you are.

I wonder how you feel about Child Protective Services taking kids away from actual dirtbag parents?

They begin with a flawed assumption -- government nannyism works

Since what you libertarians call "government nannyism" has made the US the powerhouse economy of the world, and the erosion of "nannyism" has been matched by a parallel erosion of our leadership, it does seem like the burden of proof is on you.

Ira Weatheral | June 12, 2005, 8:03pm | #

So although many private organizations have not found an effect of head start, we should continue to fund it because that way we can feel proud enough to abuse dirtbag libertarians?

In that case I think my program, jump start, needs government funding. two seconds touching both anodes of a car battery will put a twinkle in every child's eye!

joe | June 12, 2005, 8:20pm | #

Julian, you must have the worst closet ever constructed. Who is this idiot?

6Gun and Ira can't be bothered to rtfa, and discover that the study found significant results from Head Start.

Gee, I wonder why the press release from the Head Start people was so defensive.

6Gun | June 12, 2005, 9:07pm | #

Jimmy trips the light fantastic:

I wonder how you feel about Child Protective Services taking kids away from actual dirtbag parents?

I feel that enough of a statistical error exists whereby CPS takes kids from whoever the hell they please scares me. That's what I feel.

By logical extension, the (radical feminist lobby-influenced) State, for another tertiary example, takes kids from fathers all day long, 24/7.

Again, the shoe simply isn't on that foot, James. Get your facts straight and your prejudices (and presumptions) shuffled and your causes and effects sorted and then you tell me what you think about Orwellian Statism and its role in this constitutional republic.

Since what you libertarians call "government nannyism" has made the US the powerhouse economy of the world, and the erosion of "nannyism" has been matched by a parallel erosion of our leadership, it does seem like the burden of proof is on you.

That's rich. That's obscenely, unconstitutionally, revisionally rich. To not really paraphrase Gloria Steinam, fish made bicycles...and so it's up to men to show how. Or why.

Tell me, James, when did government become your personal lord and savior?

Eric the .5b | June 12, 2005, 10:07pm | #

Lots of criticism, and not an ounce of responsibility in the whole thread! Or rather, it's typical right-wing responsibility: always someone else's.

So, if you suggest that it would be better for people to take responsibility for their own children, and to help the children who have lousy parents through voluntary work, as opposed to throwing everyone's tax money at a program that seemingly only exists to let its supporters be sanctimonious, and that no one can choose not to support in favor of something else... You're trying to evade responsibility.

Oof. This is like trying to grok Mr. "go suck the corn out of your whore mother's shit" Joe's idea of "decency".

6Gun | June 13, 2005, 12:28am | #

6Gun and Ira can't be bothered to rtfa, and discover that the study found significant results from Head Start.

Uncle Joe's little quasi ad hominem tu quoque paints the issue closed. Well damn. I was just gonna say that Uncle Joe couldn't be bothered to ctfC, but what's the point.

Goodwin must be just around the corner.

thoreau | June 13, 2005, 1:45am | #

joe-

The study in question covered children over a period of 3 years. What about studies that follow children to adulthood? The rationale of Head Start is that if you give disadvantaged kids a head start they'll hopefully do better for the long haul than kids who don't have a head start.

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that no study looking at adult alumni of Head Start has found a statistically significant improvement in outcomes.

If bringing kids into the system a few years early produces the same long-term results as bringing kids into the system in kindergarten, why spend the extra money to bring them into the system early?

Now, if you can show a long-term result from Head Start then I'll reconsider my stance. My libertarian views are mostly rooted in pragmatism rather than deep principle. If Head Start reduced crime rates, well, an ounce of effective prevention really is worth a pound of cure. But thus far I am not aware of any data showing that Head Start is effective prevention.

Ayn_Randian | June 13, 2005, 1:49am | #

Jeezum, thoreau, thanks for completely contradicting this "deep principles" poster here!

thoreau | June 13, 2005, 2:32am | #

Ayn Randian-

I'm usually not comfortable defending a point that I'm pretty sure will be contradicted by data. However, since it relates to the terms of debate and my preferred tactics, I'll go ahead and explain why I'd have no problem spending money on social programs if they prevented crime in a cost-effective manner. (Assuming that there aren't other negative consequences that outweight the crime preventing, yadda yadda yadda.)

If a dollar spent on a social program did more to reduce crime than a dollar spent on police then that's a dollar spent achieving a core function of government: Protecting people from crime. There's nothing immoral about it, even on a principled level. If the government's job is to fight crime, then the government should use whatever tools are effective yet don't violate anybody else's rights.

Now, you can say "Taking my money violates my rights". Fair enough. The proper way to fund police services is a matter for another day. Let's just assume that the police are funded by some appropriate mechanism (insert whatever mechanism you favor) and consider what they should do with that money. I really see nothing wrong with an ounce of effective prevention if the prevention doesn't violate anybody else's rights in the process.

Besides, in practice prevention will always be a part of law enforcement. I doubt that most libertarians would mind if cops roam around in patrol cars while waiting for a report of a crime. If the presence of squad cars prevents crime, well, great. (If it makes you feel better, assume that they're driving on privately-owned roads, have the permission of the owners, and have paid whatever user fees the owners request.)

Finally, prevention means that fewer people will have their rights violated by criminals. If a social program were more effective, on a per-dollar basis, at preventing people from being robbed, raped, beaten, and murdered, well, how can a libertarian object to saving money and protecting human rights?

Anyway, I don't think the data supports that stance. Why do I nonetheless argue this hypothetical point? Mostly to point out that there's nothing inherently immoral about consequentialist arguments.

Ayn_Randian | June 13, 2005, 3:50am | #

Although you posit your argument as a consequentialist argument, it's really a moral one, because you start with the moral base that it's the State's legitimate function to control and prevent crime. You see, you accept as true the premise that the State has a legitimate function to control crime (as do I)and then postulate that the State could use preventative measures as a logical extension of that moral stance. OTOH, joe and others accept as a naturalistic part of government that it should do perform pseudo-goals like "help people", "level the playing field", "enforce social norms" ad nauseam. Not to stray too far, but you do attempt to justify Head Start (not specifically, just programs like it that should work the way they should) morally, with consequentialist arguments to justify that moral base.

joe | June 13, 2005, 10:02am | #

"Uncle Joe's little quasi ad hominem tu quoque paints the issue closed."

Um, no. Other posters were painting the issue closed, stating that studies demonstrate that Head Start shows no results. I was pointing out that the studies say no such thing, and the issue was still open.

So, except for your logic being completely backwards, and the misspelling of Godwin's name, your post was really great.

joe | June 13, 2005, 10:05am | #

"Improve academic performace among poor children" is not a pseudo-goal. It is a very concrete one.

Of course, I belong to that tine fringe that believes education is a core function of government. We're tiny band, who often suffer severe beatings from overwhelming numbers of anarcho-syndicalists.

Ira Weatheral | June 13, 2005, 10:08am | #

joe,

Is one study sufficient for you to prove a program works? There have been many analyses of Head Start, including one I was part of at Teacher's College, which did not find any difference in outcome between matched sets of children, half in the program and half out.

Need I remind you that a governmental analysis also said that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US? Sometimes it's best to look at a number of studies, not just the one the government puts out.

joe | June 13, 2005, 11:17am | #

Ira,

"Is one study sufficient for you to prove a program works?" No. Well, not unless it's one particularly badass study, and the results are dramatic and inarguable.

"Sometimes it's best to look at a number of studies, not just the one the government puts out." Of course.

Roger Shrubber | June 13, 2005, 11:18am | #

>>Hmmm..."dirtbags," eh? Parents of children in Head Start are dirtbags? Sounds like you ascribe to the money = virtue formula.

thoreau | June 13, 2005, 12:51pm | #

joe-

Care to comment on studies that examine the long-term effectiveness of Head Start?

joe | June 13, 2005, 1:01pm | #

thoreau,

I got nothing. Not really one of my pet issues.

Jimmy Havok | June 13, 2005, 2:16pm | #

Careful, thoreau, you're on the slippery slope to liberalism there when you start worrying about results. Just remember, it's principles that count, no matter how horrible their results may be, and you'll be safe.

As for the rest of you, it's amusing to see you demonstrate my points while you think you're debunking them. Yes, you are trying to dodge responsibility, yes, you are more interested in feeling like there's someone in the world who is worse that you (and that's a hell of a lot of work!) than in results.

You're all a bunch of wanna-be free riders, and it's a damned good thing you're such a tiny minority, or this country would be a pestilent little sinkhole like Colombia.

6Gun | June 13, 2005, 2:24pm | #

Joe parses the issue:

Um, no. Other posters were painting the issue closed, stating that studies demonstrate that Head Start shows no results. I was pointing out that the studies say no such thing, and the issue was still open.

Okay, but kindly get back to me when the principles of nanny statism, such as they are, are back on the table.

So, except for your logic being completely backwards, and the misspelling of Godwin's name, your post was really great.

Anytime. But wrong guy, joe.

joe | June 13, 2005, 2:33pm | #

It's "Godwin," he was an occasional Reason contributor, and the "Goodwin" misspelling is remarkably common.

thoreau | June 13, 2005, 3:52pm | #

Jimmy-

You do raise a good point. I can't stand when libertarians argue that results don't matter, just principles.

Usually, it amounts to somebody arguing that, even if the lefties are right and the free market leads to massive poverty and puppies in blenders and whatnot, well, at least it's moral, dammit!

Which pisses me off to no end. First of all, that's almost always factually wrong. Even in eras when rampant capitalism allegedly caused much suffering, you usually find out that some rich elites were manipulating the law to protect themselves from market forces, and it only looked like a free market on the surface because no laws were standing in the way of big business. (Of course, plenty of laws were standing in the way of small businesses, employees, and other elements of the economy.) Meanwhile, one only need look at North Korea or Zimbabwe to see an example where the masses are impoverished and the lucky few feast. On a smaller and more domestic scale, one only need look at agricultural policy to see a situation where the well-connected feed at the trough (subsidies) while working families pay more for food (protectionism to keep out cheap food).

Second, I find it repugnant to base morality solely on process and not at all on results. What is so immoral about basing my judgements on the existence of happiness and prosperity and innovation and lots of other cool things?

What is so immoral about condemning a system for producing misery? I look at the starvation created by regulations around the world and I figure that body count is more than sufficient indictment of statist economic interventions. Libertarian purists, however, seem to be arguing that starvation, while tragic, is not really the biggest sin of statist economics. Instead it's the existence of coercion. I'm not trying to defend coercion, but wake up and smell the rotting corpses!

If massive misery isn't a sufficient indictment of statist economic policy, well, what is?

Eric the .5b | June 13, 2005, 4:26pm | #

Well, I'd venture that the very reason coercion is bad (and at best, a necessary evil) and something to be leery of using under any circumstances is that it's often not just putting a "Do not litter - $50 fine" sign out, but is forcing people to starve, or shooting them in the head, or whatnot.

But then, I don't think I quite fall into the camp you describe, thoreau.

thoreau | June 13, 2005, 4:43pm | #

Eric-

I don't know if anybody exactly falls into the camp that I describe. But sometimes people will argue as though they fall into that camp.

I do see why it's tempting to put principle ahead of consequences. Aside from the sense of security that it provides, it's also easier to argue. Nobody has enough data to refute every single argument for regulation right on the spot.

For instance, let's say somebody proposes a law to ban a certain asshole practice that some employers have engaged in. I certainly don't have the data necessary to show that the law in question will destroy X number of jobs. What I do know is that countries with less regulated labor markets tend to have lower unemployment rates. One minor regulation certainly won't bankrupt America. But the issue isn't simply one regulation. It's the cumulative effect of regulations.

So if you're arguing against a regulation that seems pretty benign when taken in isolation, there's probably no data to attack it with. A very modest regulation won't produce an easily measurable effect on unemployment rates, but the total volume of regulations will. So it's tempting to compensate for the lack of data by blindly invoking principle. "Dammit, the boss has a right to be a total asshole!"

And so the free market position is defended by somebody who comes across as defending "might makes right".

Eric the .5b | June 13, 2005, 4:47pm | #

Eh, it doesn't matter if they give a ream of detailed, consequentialist answers, Thoreau. They just get dismissed with whatever synonym for "right wing shill" is popular that week.

Eric the .5b | June 13, 2005, 4:49pm | #

Of course, I don't know, despite the big libertarian recurring controversy of consequences vs. principles, that the two can be sensibly separated. You have to have some way of judging the consequences, after all...

thoreau | June 13, 2005, 4:53pm | #

Eric-

As for how to judge consequences, I don't think you need any detailed philosophy to work from. You can use common sense notions like "Less crime is good." "More jobs are good." "Lower prices for consumers are good."

Those rationales might not be as inspiring to libertarians as lofty philosophical grounds, but those rationales are more appealing to the electorate. And you can't implement a policy if you don't win.

Eric the .5b | June 13, 2005, 4:58pm | #

Well Thoreau, you still have to have principles that say "not putting gazillions of victimless criminals in jail is good" as opposed to "every drug user must be PUNISHED".

And like I said, they never believe it, anyway.

thoreau | June 13, 2005, 5:07pm | #

Eric-

I agree, they don't believe that there's anything wrong with punishing victimless crime as a matter of principle.

But I wasn't sold on legalization by arguments of personal autonomy. (I'm still slightly skeptical of those arguments, FWIW.) I was sold by arguments like "Enriching mafia bosses and terrorists is a bad idea. Creating fertile conditions for violent street gangs is a bad idea. Desperate people buying over-priced and contaminated products from amateur chemists and injecting these drugs is a bad idea."

Eric the .5b | June 13, 2005, 5:13pm | #

But, Thoreau, you're not one of the people who think any cost is worth bearing to punish/save by punishing those evil drug users. You're "soft" on those darn drug users. The arguments that swayed you won't sway them.

Nor will moral, legal, or ethical arguments have any better chance, of course.

thoreau | June 13, 2005, 5:31pm | #

Well, Eric, maybe some people are lost causes. But those on the fence are more likely to be swayed by practical arguments than by philosophy. I usually tell people that I support drug legalization because I want to see the gangsters and terrorists and warlords go bankrupt. It doesn't always get a positive response, but it gets more respect than "I should have the right to get high."

Eric the .5b | June 13, 2005, 5:40pm | #

Well, if you have luck with it, I'm glad to hear it. Outside of libertarian forums, I've only ever seen drug legalization supported for consequentialist reasons, and I've seen a bewildering variety of people just refuse to even entertain the idea.

It's the sort of thing that makes me think that in the marketplace of ideas, the "libertarian policies" niche is about full of customers and really doesn't have much room to expand, whether the marketing relies on principle or consequences. I may be - and I hope I am - wrong, but there has to be a reason big government, the war on drugs, etc. are all so terribly popular beyond "we're just not explaining it quite right".

Jimmy Havok | June 13, 2005, 7:31pm | #

Thoreau:

Even in eras when rampant capitalism allegedly caused much suffering, you usually find out that some rich elites were manipulating the law to protect themselves from market forces, and it only looked like a free market on the surface because no laws were standing in the way of big business.

In other words, no matter what the situation looks like on the surface, it's really regulation that is the problem.

Hobbes explained why we put up with bad governments long ago. The solution to bad government isn't no government, it's better government. As you may have heard, nothing is perfect, so there will always be problems and abuse, but there's a baby in the bathwater there.

I'm sure your disdain for regulation doesn't extend to laws against murder, does it? How about laws against poisoning, or ones against poisoning the air that we all breathe?

6Gun | June 13, 2005, 7:57pm | #

Alexander Tyler explained how bad governments take us down. In 'Cycle of Democracy' (1770) he said:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a lousy fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."

Is principle an abstract or is it tied to observation? Has history given us examples from which we should and have derived reliable legal structure? If not, all debate need only concern itself with variable means and perceived ends, which is where this discussion could be headed.

I'd like to think that this is still a republic based on checks and balances, not a amphitheatre where pure subjectivity on any given Wednesday afternoon constitutes logical policy. Concerning statist education, not only is there little or no precedent to justify such as either successful or therefore rational, but to debate it on it's various points of principle is the only to discuss it.

If Head Start records a success at any place at any given time, it is certainly a fluke that doesn't speak to where statism always ends up. If it records a net failure, nobody's suprised -- check the No Child Left behind cesspool. All statist education is a bad idea.

If the US, being a constitutional republic, is in the complacency/apathy/dependence stages, which seems clear, how could we possibly justify statism from a position that won't allow either an original historical perspective or anything but speculative subjective relativity?

thoreau | June 13, 2005, 11:07pm | #

In other words, no matter what the situation looks like on the surface, it's really regulation that is the problem.

I'm not convinced that that's always the case, but it's the case more often than it looks like at first glance.

For instance, what if some libertarians went around insisting that agribusiness got where it is by providing a better product, and then I pointed out the way that subsidies and tariffs have contributed to their rise? Would you think I'm just blindly adhering to orthodoxy?

How about laws against poisoning, or ones against poisoning the air that we all breathe?

I actually think that environmental regulations are a valid function of government. I might not always be a big fan of the way that it's implemented (any more than I'm a fan of the way that cops and courts have rendered the Bill of Rights almost meaningless) but I have no objections in principle.

Ira Weatheral | June 14, 2005, 10:50am | #

Here are some sites with analyses of head start. Everyone seems to agree that there is an immediate improvement for most children, but there is some doubt whether the effects are lasting. Of course more studies are called for.

I'd say based on these and other studies that there is a lot of good that can come from head start, but the lasting effect is due to parental involvement and education. Is it worth the money being thrown at the problem? If it was all private money I'd say it was certainly worth it.

I'd say I'd be happier with the tax money spent on head start being spent on educational classes for welfare recipients, and not on teaching someone to use excel, but teaching people to talk to their young children and be involved with their kid's education.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/bg1755.cfm

http://www.headstartinfo.org/publications/hsbulletin74/hsb74_10.htm

http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=72185

http://nieer.org/resources/research/BattleHeadStart.pdf

Jimmy Havok | June 17, 2005, 4:42am | #

[Democracy] can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

Witness: the Red States.

6gun, if you don't like statism, stop using money.