OK, I guess I’m getting sucked into writing more on this today. Let me take Roy’s objections in turn:

1. Hayek is somewhat unpredictable, which is why I prefer him to other libertarian thinkers of his tradition — such as Murray Rothbard — who in my opinion needed to get out more and consider the world empirically, as it is, rather than as the fanciful anarcho-capitalist world he speculated about.

(For Locker Room/cage match viewers, this is the traditional taunt before Roy and I pick up our first chairs to swing.)

2. Roy is surprised by my “collectivism” on this. I don’t accept the term necessarily, but certainly I am arguing that the financing of public education is a proper function of state or local government — thus I must believe that coercive means are required. That’s inherent in the definition. It is in the collective taxpayers’ interest to have law enforcement and courts, one must surely believe, even though coercive means are required to finance them (anarchist objections brushed properly aside). I’m sure I don’t need to discuss free riders and the rest. Y’all get my point. What we disagree on is whether public education should ever be the business of government, from which the rest of the divide flows.

(Chair breaks on spine.)

3. I argue that aspects of education constitute a public good that would be underproduced in the absence of some government intervention. It is not required that I know the perfect amount or manner of education, only that a lack of pricing is evident in the civic responsibilities to which I refer (voting, serving on juries, raising responsible children, refraining from picking my pocket, etc.) This argues for some kind of baseline of government support for public education activities. Again, I’m not advancing a new theory here, only the theory adhered to (as far as I know) by most historical figures engaged in the advancement of freedom. I’m not arguing that there is some perfect education state from which a market-driven system deviates. I am arguing, more basically, that there is no price-based market mechanism at all in the areas I am talking about ? no knowledge or income requirements for voting, no market-based means to avoid the generation of voting blocs inclined to endorse big government, no market-based means to avoid the perpetuation of behaviorally induced poverty and corresponding demands for public welfare. These are issues in the political sphere. John Locke recognized this problem centuries ago, which is why he advocated compulsory public schools for lower-income children.

(Roy’s uppercut dazes me for a moment, then I respond with a gut poke.)

Help me understand what I’m missing about your argument, or what you’re missing about mine. This has nothing to do with fallacious externality claims about labor laws or recycling or antitrust or the like.

(I stick out my chin and beg him to take another swing.)

4. I restate my thesis about reform: the goal is to introduce more choices and competition in the system, by assisting lower-income folks in affording education options and by reducing the effective price (the taxing of their tuitions and the foregone “free” education at their assigned public school) charged to other families when they choose private or home schools.

(Got a drink of water, bell rings, back at it.)

5. It is not logical to assert that because the welfare state has grown after the creation of public education, the creation of public education must necessarily have no value in controlling government growth. To establish that, you would have to know how much the welfare state would have grown without the existence of public education during the same period, which is obviously impossible to determine given that no developed country I am aware of failed to create a government-funded system of public schools during the period in question. We are left with evaluating the politics that actually occurred, and the political arguments that are made now. I personally find it valuable, in rebutting demands for government inteventions in the economy, to be able to argue that if better education was afforded, workers could command good wages without minimum-wage regs, or minority groups wouldn’t suffer perpetual harm in the workplace, or that welfare programs to remedy chronic unemployment would be less “needed” (even assuming they were workable or moral). Again, I also defer somewhat to the wisdom of my elders here, free-marketeers who made the same prudential argument for public education long ago. They weren’t fools; like Locke, they were men not only with a philosophical bent but with practical experience in politics.

(That bottle I just broke over the chair arm looks plenty jagged.)

6. I agree that my argument on child neglect does not justify universal, compulsory education. It was not intended to.

(I duck under the baseball bat Roy just threw.)

7. Roy then goes on to point out that in many cases ? free trade, market-driven health care, etc. ? political constituencies for gross government intrusion exist even though we know that the market outcomes are superior. Yes, but the constituencies arise and often prevail. I’m looking for some mechanism or set of mechanisms that will keep them from prevailing. Apparently, pure laissez-faire on education didn’t do it. Let’s figure out some policy that does, that could act as a foothold on an otherwise slippery slope.

(We basically just pounding each other senseless now.)

8. On where the data are concerning literacy rates in the 19th century, I must say that I think the Coulson thesis is flimsy and the burden of proof completely on the other side. It is preposterous to argue that literacy rates in American were higher in 1850 than there are today, particularly if comparing like populations. Preposterous enough, I think, that it serves to weaken our side’s case for reform among today’s policymakers and audience. Evidence that some adult males could sign their names doesn’t suffice. The data on book and newspaper printing is more interesting, but they don’t prove the near-universal literacy asserted and should not be accepted as a one-for-one count of truly literate readers anyway given the nature of the publishing business. Frankly, we don’t have good testing series to know how students today compare in subject-area knowledge with students just a generation ago, so making extravagant claims about the 19th century is a major-league stretch that requires a suspension of common sense.

(We can barely see each other through all the dripping sweat and blood.)

8. On the voucher-slippery slope argument, I have little to add to my previous point. There is risk but I don’t think it rises to the level of a decisive argument against acting. That is, the risk of not acting is greater ? the perpetuation of a system in which something like 80 percent to 90 percent of the K-12 market is controlled by a government monopoly provider.

(A body collapses on the floor of the cage. Who is it?)