Educação: Livre e Obrigatória

by Murray N. Rothbard

Por qual razão tantas pessoas estão insatisfeitas com o sistema de ensino atual? Por que gerações de reformadores fracassaram em melhorar o sistema educacional, e ainda fizeram com que ele se degenerasse cada vez mais em direção a um nível de mediocridade cada vez pior?

Nesta monografia acadêmica e radical, Rothbard identifica os pontos cruciais do sistema educacional que o condenaram ao fracasso: em cada um de seus níveis, do financiamento ao comparecimento, o sistema se baseia na compulsão e não no consentimento voluntário.

E isso acarreta em algumas consequências. O currículo é politizado para refletir as prioridades ideológicas do regime no poder. Ocorre um contínuo rebaixamento dos padrões para se adaptarem ao menor denominador comum. Não se permite que as crianças mais inteligentes desenvolvam seus potenciais, as necessidades especiais de determinadas crianças são negligenciadas, e os alunos médios são reduzidos a engrenagens anônimas de uma máquina.

Conforme Kevin Ryan, da Universidade de Boston, indica na introdução, se a reforma educacional algum dia conseguir provocar mudanças fundamentais, ela terá que começar com um repensar completo do ensino público como o que Rothbard nos oferece aqui.

Genres: Education, Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Economics, History, American

104 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1979

About the author

Murray Newton Rothbard was an influential American historian, natural law theorist and economist of the Austrian School who helped define modern libertarianism. Rothbard took the Austrian School's emphasis on spontaneous order and condemnation of central planning to an individualist anarchist conclusion, which he termed "anarcho-capitalism".

In the 1970s, he assisted Charles Koch and Ed Crane to found the Cato Institute as libertarian think tank.

Reviews

[Luís · Rating 4 out of 5]

The heaviest restriction imposed by the state is the deprivation of parents from teaching their children (homeschooling), taking the importance of education many times to the state, which has the responsibility of knowing what is best for children and adolescents without the capacity of discernment. In addition to being parents, they are often concerned with the well-being of their children. They know their rhythms and tastes, and in addition, a more didactic way of exposing knowledge (being reading or more practical). Finally, instead of promoting spontaneity, the State represses and imposes the most accessible form of control: alienation and passive people, with no interest in questioning or learning something new, taking what they had taught as truth. The imposition and obligation to go to school is a source of frustration for individual development and the exclusion of learning beyond school, shaping what they will think and do in the future and their social life.

[Patrick Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this in the 1980s and remember it VERY fondly. I have referred to it myself and many others to it since. It is not to be missed by anyone serious about education reform. This history is very little known, but so important and counter to most of the myths about government education or the needs and reality of a free society.

It may well be one of the key books to set Andrew Coulson on to his very productive track on this issue. See his book on this subject too, as well as his wonderful documentary video 3 part series: School Inc. https://www.cato.org/schoolinc

[John G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very short book, only 55 pages but well worth it. I wasn't as interested in the authors political commentary, he's a libertarian, although education policy is indeed quite political. John Taylor Gatto is another and I think more passionate and detailed critic of the educational system and some of what they write overlaps. What I gained most from this book is the idea of the collective/the state against the uniqueness and full development of the individual. That's an important theme, Rothbard kept hammering on the term equality which put me off a bit, but when he talks of uniformity/standardization versus the needs of the individual, he has my attention. I work in higher education, have obtained a teacher's license and so have spent a lot of my life around the educational establishment and have to agree with Rothbard. Most of the phoney debate about education doesn't even acknowledge the glaringly obvious issue that a great majority of students don't want to be there, aren't going to learn the curriculum and basically are imprisoned for well over a decade. The ways schools operate have very little to do with effective teaching or learning, you can't have a one-size-fits all when it comes to education, don't care how economically efficient it is, doesn't work. I'm starting to see how schools, churches and prisons are strikingly similar in trying to instill obedience and submission as primary objectives, learning is secondary. What is scary is that the educational system no longer seems to educate but rather to process students through the pipeline and it's especially evident here in Texas with the surrender of individual thought and expression to the group or to the state, students are simply meat for the grinder. This is no accident folks, the educational establishment is an enemy to the full and free development of the individual and the educational process has become so incredibly politicized, it has almost nothing to do with learning, all those standardized tests are trying to reduce humans to mechanical beings, to units of measurement, widgets if you will. The last thing a school wants, at least public schools, is for folks who can think and express their own thoughts, that's not good for business. Rothbard really hammers Luther and Calvin in this book, he examines the spirit of Germany and how it was militarized and standardized, this is his most interesting point to me. I think too, a lot of this drive towards STEM and away from arts/sciences/humanities is an attack on free thought and expression too. So, check out this book, anything by John Taylor Gatto, a book called "Killing the Spirit" by Page Smith, "Imposter in the Temple" by Martin Anderson and "Class Dismissed" by John Marsh to gain a more comprehensive understanding of both secondary and higher education. It ain't pretty folks.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rothbard at near peak performance. Excellent short history of the roots of compulsory education in Europe and the U.S. Starts with the theocratic roots, and shows how the same ideas were successively adopted by militarist nationalists, state socialists, and eventually "progressive educationists" like Horace Mann. Pretty slimy business all things considered.

Only criticism was that I wish it was longer and extended into the modern period. This is really just an examination of where compulsory education came from. I think I prefer to read historian Rothbard over philosopher or economist Rothbard.

[Zachary Moore · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best, shortest, and most devastating critiques of the modern statist education system. Great outline of the despotic origins and goals of the public school system and the importance of keeping the government away from eduation.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

To get one thing out of the way: While Murray Rothbard is the father of anarchocapitalism, his views barely shine through in this book. You could easily mistake him for a minarchist, if you only had this to go by, and even then, he held back on trying to proselytize. I see that as a good thing. Why bring up more controversies than you have to? The result is a book that's incredibly informative for its length, and if you're just a bit open for freedom and liberty, you could benefit greatly from reading it.

Rothbard both starts and opens his book with his pedagogic views, which really shouldn't be as controversial as they apparently are. He stresses that because of the different strengths, weaknesses and dispositions of students, a one-size-fits-all approach to education is an absurdity. If you can afford a private teacher, or have the time and the ability to educate your child yourself, that's the best thing you can do; if you can't, then you should be able to send them to a private school that best appeals to you, as the parent (and foremost authority on what is good for your child, definitely more so than a random bureaucrat miles away who has never seen it). A system of compulsory schooling disregards not just the individual nature of the children, boring the children that are competent in a subject and frustrating the rest. It also forces them to spend their time with children that, frankly, may not be good contact, which supposedly serves to teach them "life". Rothbard sadly doesn't expand on this point, but then again, it's such an easy target that I don't hold that against him. Putting children in a room with delinquents and other toxic people and forcing them to get along with them, teaching them to compromise, but not to use their right of self-defense... who thought that was a good idea? Who thought that was a valid life lesson? Yes, this short passage of his really appealed to me. Some of the most venomous people I've met, I've met in school, both as students and as teachers. Years later, I either isolate myself from them, or I hold my ground against them. Both tactics were essentially forbidden in school.

Afterwards, Rothbard gives a history of public schools and compulsory schooling. He says nothing against the Jeffersonian view that public schools are necessary so that all children have the chance to go to school, and instead focuses on compulsory education as the true evil. He convincingly shows that the history of compulsory education is one of religious fanatism (as in the case of Calvin and Martin Luther), authoritarianism and state-worship (the napoleonic and prussian model) and, lastly, all-out totalitarianism that would put North Korea to shame. That's not hyperbole. The last tendency was manifested in Frances Wright and Robert Owen, who demanded the state take care of children twenty-four hours a day, for most of their young lifes, with the aim of destroying their individuality. The last part is the only possible interpretation I have for the words of Wright and Owen, quoted by Rothbard:

In these nurseries of a free nation, no inequality must be allowed to enter. Fed at a common board; clothed in a common garb...raised in the exercise of common duties... in the exercise of the same virtues, in the enjoyment of the same pleasures; in the study of the same nature; in pursuit of the same object...say! Would not such a race...work out the reform of society and perfect the free institutions of America?

The only thing that keeps Rothbard's critique from being absolutely devastating is that he does relatively little to establish the superiority of his own (or even Jefferson's) alternative. So while I don't think anyone (save for hardcore totalitarians) will read this book without at least overthinking their views on compulsory education, I can imagine that they will see no alternative to it. This is why I give this book four stars, not five, but it was a close call.

[Gustavo Millen · Rating 4 out of 5]

"É evidente que o comum entusiasmo pela igualdade é, num sentido fundamental, anti-humano. Tende a reprimir o desenvolvimento da personalidade e diversidade individual, e da civilização; é um impulso para a uniformidade selvagem. Visto que habilidades e interesses são naturalmente diversos, um impulso para tornar as pessoas iguais em todos ou quase todos os aspectos é necessariamente um nivelamento por baixo. É um impulso contra o desenvolvimento do talento, gênio, variedade e poder de raciocínio. Visto que nega os princípios fundamentais da vida humana e crescimento humano, o credo da igualdade e uniformidade é um credo de morte e destruição. Há um sentido, entretanto, no qual a igualdade entre os homens é sensata e benéfica. Cada indivíduo deve ter o ambiente mais livre possível para o desenvolvimento de suas faculdades e sua personalidade. Para ter este ambiente, ele precisa estar livre da violência contra sua pessoa. Violência apenas consegue reprimir e destruir o crescimento e o esforço humano, e nem a razão e nem a criatividade podem funcionar numa atmosfera de coerção. Se cada pessoa possuir igual defesa contra a violência, essa “igualdade perante a lei” permitirá a ela maximizar suas potencialidades."

"Toda agressão, lembre-se – toda infração de direitos – é necessariamente ativa; ao passo que toda negligência, imprudência, omissão, é necessariamente passiva. Consequentemente, por mais errado que um não cumprimento de um dever dos pais possa ser... ele não equivale a uma violação da lei de igual liberdade e não pode, portanto, estar sob jurisdição do estado"

"Na verdade, quanto mais igual é a oportunidade aparente mais desigual é a realidade. Quando a mesma instrução, para o mesmo número de horas num dia, pelos mesmos professores, é provida para cinquenta meninos e meninas, a maioria não tem quase nenhuma oportunidade. Os estudantes brilhantes são contidos... os estudantes mais fracos são incapazes de acompanharem... os estudantes médios são desencorajados porque os alunos brilhantes realizam suas tarefas com muita facilidade"

"Uma das melhores maneiras de encarar o problema da educação obrigatória é pensar numa analogia quase exata na área de outro grande meio educacional – os jornais. O que pensaríamos sobre uma proposta do governo, federal ou estadual, de usar o dinheiro dos pagadores de impostos para criar uma rede nacional de jornais públicos e obrigar todo o povo, ou todas as crianças, a lê-los? O que pensaríamos se, além disto, o governo proibisse todos os jornais que não se encaixassem aos “padrões” do que uma comissão do governo acha que as crianças devem ler?"


"'Estando um pouco distante da política', colocando a educação sob o funcionalismo público, certamente “aumenta a moral” da burocracia. Eleva-os a governantes absolutos quase perpétuos em sua esfera de atividade"

[Daniel Moss · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are other works that go in greater depth, like, for example, John Taylor Gatto's. But for a quick read, this one hits the spot.

[Bálint Táborszki · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first read this book a few years ago, then translated it and totally forgot about it. Recently I went through it again to prepare its print publication and I was blown away by how great it is. The fact that it's a really short little book had me thinking that it's not that extensive and elaborate but surprisingly, that is not true at all. The first chapter on the general theory of education deduces perfectly from the characteristics of human nature why any system of uniformized, compulsory education is doomed to be found wanting by just about every student, the other two chapters deal with the history of compulsory education and demonstrate clearly that its root and the philosophy behind it is pure, explicit theocratic and egalitarian totalitarianism. Rothbard says just about everything that needs to be said about the subject.

[Ryan Shaw · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rothbard’s logical arguments against state-run education are pretty solid and thought provoking.

That being said, I showed certain passages concerning Martin Luther and John Calvin’s influence on compulsory education to a Calvinist friend of mine and he found them to be historically inaccurate/out of context, so take for that what you will.

[Juliana Petito · Rating 4 out of 5]

Você já ouviu falar em “homeschooling”, e por quê o Estado é tão resistente em aprovar esse método de ensino? Já se perguntou por que, famílias acabam delegando a formação educacional de seu bem mais precioso, o filho, à tutela do Estado? Qual o interesse do Estado em fazer desse processo de educação, um sistema compulsório? Qual a agenda por trás das políticas de ensino?

Kevin Ryan, Professor Emérito de Educação, Diretor do Centro para o Avanço da Ética e do Caráter na Universidade de Boston, disse:  “O que está em jogo é nada menos do que o próprio conceito do que significa viver e prosperar como um ser humano. As pessoas devem ser controladas e forçadas, desde o berço, por enormes burocracias políticas com agendas predefinidas sobre quem pode ensinar e como, o que temos de aprender e quando? Ou as pessoas podem geralmente concluir sozinhas o que está em seus melhores interesses e procurar maneiras de tornar os interesses consistentes com o (corretamente entendido) “bem comum”?”

Pois bem, ao ler esse pequeno ensaio de Murray Rothbard, conclui que fui enganada em toda minha infância, adolescência e parte de minha vida adulta. Todo meu processo de crescimento, desenvolvimento das faculdades mentais, percepção e razão, foram baseados em métodos que interessavam aos “donos do poder”, nunca foi voltado para que eu pudesse atingir meu melhor potencial. Isso só seria, ou melhor, foi possível, já um pouco tarde, é verdade, através de uma busca própria, meu crescente interesse pela leitura, minha curiosidade e vontade de aprender.

Com essa leitura, finalmente entendi que nunca foi pela capacitação, mas sempre foi pela doutrinação ideológica, seja de qual lado interessasse a formação de cidadãos obedientes. Uma inquietação e até mesmo indignação, tomaram conta de mim a cada página lida.

As primeiras questões que saltaram em minha cabeça foram: se o processo de aprendizagem tem como seus principais pilares, a leitura, a escrita e a aritmética, por que o ensino, seja público ou privado, tem se desviado cada vez mais desses pilares, com currículos demasiadamente extensos? Por que o Estado determina inclusive a grade curricular base de instituições particulares? Ainda sem respostas para essas perguntas, fui instigada com outros questionamentos no próprio livro, que aumentaram ainda mais minha inquietação. 

Por que tratar as crianças como se elas tivessem todas as mesmas capacidades de aprendizado, quando sabemos que diferenças inatas e interesses pessoais são tão diversificados? Por que se fala tanto em diversificação de gêneros, mas nada se fala em diversificação humana? Sobre isso, Ryan afirmou: “essas instituições estão cada vez mais impondo currículos politizados, padronizados, de tamanho único, que nem se adaptam às virtudes individuais, nem corrigem as fraquezas individuais.” - Impossível não pensar no “nivelar para igualar”. Pra mim, ficou evidente que o nivelamento se dá sempre por baixo, sufocando talentos, ao mesmo tempo que impede que as crianças com mais dificuldade, desenvolvam sua maior potencialidade. Percebi que se trata de um sistema prejudicial a todos, menos ao Estado, claro!

Em seu livro, Murray Rothbard argumenta contra a interferência do estado na esfera educacional e demonstra o perigo existente por trás das ideias de que é preciso mais políticas educacionais.

O ponto central é “demonstrar que a instrução pública obrigatória é uma política totalitária, discutindo o desenvolvimento e a diversidade dos seres humanos, os tipos de instrução e a responsabilidade pela educação das crianças.”

O autor defende a não intervenção do estado na educação, apontando a diferença entre uma educação obrigatória e uma educação livre. Analisa ainda a origem e continuidade da obrigatoriedade do ensino público nos Estados Unidos, e finaliza sua obra, apontando cinco considerações sobre o atual cenário do ensino, que, inundado de ideias coletivistas, têm levado a educação à bancarrota.

Um livro curto, de fácil leitura e bastante esclarecedor. Eu diria que trata-se de leitura necessária ou até obrigatória - sem querer ser autoritária - para quebrar paradigmas no que diz respeito ao sistema de ensino, desenvolvimento da capacidade intelectual da criança, e o papel fundamental que o círculo familiar desempenha nesse processo. Aproveite!

[Murilo Silva · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a short book (and for some reason the edition I bought was either sized for children or stupid people. I’m sorry, but the size and shape of the book indeed have me angry) divided in three chapters.

First of all, it is written by one of the most prominent anarchocapitalists authors of the subject. And you must know that I have a very strong bias against extremist people like them (and communists, and fascists...). Anyways, let me start the review:

The first chapter talks about how the standardized education on public and private schools is a violence towards the students and making education compulsory is a method of control by the State. It is true that Rothbard presents interesting arguments such as that every kid is different, and thus have a group of abilities and preferences that differ from all other kids, so, leveling all children and giving them the same education is a violence to their freedom of developing their mental faculties and exploring capabilities. Parents, those perfect and omniscient creatures, are the ones who should teach their kids as all they care about is the child’s wellbeing and preferences (not at all a gross and equivocal generalization...), or pay a tutor to do so that will best fit the kids individual needs, or pay a private school (which is cheaper than a tutor, apparently) but that’s the worst option because of the leveling. Of course there is some truth to this argument, but it is very much flawed because it presumes the parents to be those perfect creatures. And, in case the parents don’t have the money the pay for those option, they should teach the kids themselves (yes, because if they can’t even afford it, it is very likely that they had great education and opportunities and now have infinite knowledge to pass on to that little ignorant kid). But if they teach them wrong, THAT’S OK, because that’s just PASSIVE VIOLENCE. But if public schools teach them correctly, but standardize materials and make it compulsory, then it’s ACTIVE VIOLENCE (BAD!). Anyways, the authors presente some great philosophical arguments in favor of homeschooling and against standardization of schools, but 70% os his arguments are STUPID (he says, for example, that it’s ok some people to be ILLITERATE, because that’s just how things are...).

The second chapter is really interesting because it explains the history of public schools and compulsoriness as well in Europe.

Third chapter explores the Puritans influence in New England and how that started public and compulsory schools across the US. In this chapter, he gives too much detail about some influences which seemed like to specific and a slightly irrelevant (for me, at least).

Anyways, I recommend anyone reading this book as it presents some perspectives I had never thought about before that are worth the debate, but be prepared to get mad at some scattered dumbness!

[E · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNF at 5%, though I did skim the rest. Not at all what I was looking for - you'd think a book that seems to purport the same beliefs I already hold would be an easy win, but I was sadly mistaken. I'm sure this book holds value for the historical information, but the philosophy was entirely specious, arrogant, and distasteful. Looking into it, dude was a famous right-wing libertarian, so... That explains a lot.

[David Peixoto · Rating 5 out of 5]

History of educational system around the world. Remarkable work. Short but very enlightening.

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I struggled with the decision to write down my thoughts about this book or not. The main reason I didn't want to is that I have many friends involved in public education. These are educated, dedicated, honest people doing their best to improve education in their area. I love and respect them and don't want to offend them.

It made me think back to conversations I've had in the past where I took comments personally because I associated myself with an idea or institution being questioned. Specifically, I remember having conversations with libertarian friends who challenged my Republican ideas and traditions. I would get angry and dig in my heels. Later, as I began to read for myself instead of simply watching the news or listening to talk radio, the flaws in my logic became apparent, and I was humbled.

This is my long-winded way of saying I saw this book from the eyes of my friends in education and could understand how they might take offense, even though the criticism isn't leveled at them, but at the system they are trying to improve.

I avoid the temptation to describe public education in the US as broken. I don't think it is broken. I think (and Rothbard convincingly supports) that free, compulsory education in the US is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

I'm not going to expound here. The book is only 50 pages or so and is easily read. Let it suffice to say that every time governments assume control of education and make it compulsory freedom falls. Think of Sparta, Prussia, Russia, Nazi Germany, etc. I know the Nazi connection is overused and often a cover for a lack of evidence, but in this case it is a direct and appropriate correlation supported by the speeches and writings of many of the pioneers of public, compulsory education in our country.

One last point I'd like to share is that Rothbard shows the inevitable results of standardizing education across the board. Even if the intentions are good, the more uniform the approach to education, the less educated we will become. Instruction and class tempo will necessarily drop to lower standards.

Rothbard doesn't pull his punches. This will be a difficult book to digest if you haven't broached this area of history before, but it is worth the struggle, and it is extremely important.

I highly recommend this book.

[Markus · Rating 4 out of 5]

This short pamphlet by Rothbard, which can be downloaded for free on the Mises Institute website, consists of three short essays regarding public education: 1. The Individual’s Education, 2. Compulsory Education in Europe, 3. Compulsory Education in the United States.

The first essay deals with the individual's learning process and how and by whom a child should be educated. Rothbard comes to the conclusion that the perfect education can only be the one which takes the indivduals strengths and weaknesses into account and thereby accommodates the educational process. He also points out that "only necessity and use for systematic formal teaching arises in technical subjects, since knowledge of them must be presented systematically."
The second chapter deals with the history of compulsory state schools in Europe, primarily incented by the endeavour of Martin Luther and the Protestants to impose their believes via state coercion on the children – which in further consequence led to the compulsory and coercive Prussian state school system: a system which became influental as paragon for the Western world.
This is also true for the evolution of the public school system in the USA, whose history, from its small beginnings in the Puritan society of New England up to the accruement of the behemoth it is today, Rothbard portrays in the third chapter.

Although consisting of merely 60 pages, I can recommend this book to everyone who seeks a short but all the more convincing narrative of the totalitarian history, which gave rise to the modern compulsory and coervice school system – a self-induced plague of almost all countries in the world.

[Patrick S. · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good short book by the master on why education should be done with zero state interference and therefore zero violence to children. Rothbard breaks up the book into three main parts of education - the moral, the historical, and the impact of the state during the modern period. The moral portion is great and is the primary location I would focus in. While his historical section offered some good historical narrative I did find myself disagreeing with some of his evaluation of historical events. They are not widely off but there is some more nuance there. I would have also liked to see more description of the, for Rothbard, modern supporters of state forced education. It is there for sure but I would have enjoyed some more of it. Overall, Rothbard solidly shows that we don't need to force children into compulsory, state education for the moral, historical, and results point of view. Final Grade - B+

[T · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a series of essays. You can read the entire book online at mises.org. The first section was mostly stuff I've read before. The most compelling piece was the idea that sameness, or social equality is equivalent to savagery. Civilization means specialization. Specialization is by definition uniqueness. That individual uniqueness and a free market will indiscriminately expose the inequality with which nature has distributed talent.

Schools, historically, have been created by the State to create a uniform society with identical beliefs, ideals, goals, and motives. The State necessarily makes schools (or teacher training) compulsory to enforce this uniformity.

[Erik · Rating 5 out of 5]

This had some really interesting philosophical discussions about state vs. family and implications for education. My favorite argument was the stark contrast between sentiment about government involvement in education vs. media. The idea of legally enforced state-run media horrifies many Americans, yet many are fine with legally enforced state-run schools. Both would disseminate information and influence political views, and be subject to government corruption and be used to support tyranny.

[Shane Hawk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rothbard was an excellent writer. Here he covers topics similar to those explored by John Taylor Gatto but with much better prose. It’s broken down into three sections: what an individualist education looks like, the history of compulsory educational systems in the UK, and the same in the US. Rothbard included a plethora of block quotes from primary sources—all long enough to grasp the full context. Great short book.

[Garrick Andres · Rating 5 out of 5]

Short read but really mind blowing, Rothbard describes how and why compulsory education started, he makes it evident that it was always a political reason and that the state has the incentive to keep pushing for it, either for compliance and indoctrination. The ongoing debates about CRT and book prohibitions could be dismantled with this book. A must for anyone interested in education.

[graceofgod · Rating 1 out of 5]

An OK critique of public education from a classical liberal/faux-individualist perspective. It's a good enough book if you ignore the whole "privatization/the market will fix it" crap.

[Jairo Fraga · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Credo da igualdade é um credo de morte e destruição", exceto se na liberdade. Almejar a igualdade na educação não contempla as diferenças inatas entre as aptidões de cada um.

Violência contra os pais, subordinando os filhos, que também têm seus direitos violados, ao controle do desamor estatal. Fracassos em instruir não são motivo para interferência estatal na autoridade dos pais sobre as crianças.

Pareceria um absurdo que o estado cobrasse impostos e instituísse uma rede de jornais públicos em que todo o povo (no caso as crianças) fossem obrigados a ler, proibindo os jornais que não se encaixassem no que a comissão estatal obriga de circularem. Mas esse é o sistema de educação pública.

Rothbard mostra como foi a educação na antiga Atenas, que foi de obrigatória para voluntária, enquanto Esparta tinha um controle total sobre a criança, de forma que o totalitário Platão usou essa base para seu governo dos filósofos. Interessante que, enquanto na Idade Média a educação era fornecida privadamente, Martinho Lutero forçou a educação estatal na Alemanha, na reforma Protestante, como forma de coerção àqueles que estavam fora da igreja luterana, de forma semelhante Calvino fez em Genebra. O esquema de compulsão prussiano também é refletido em vários países até séculos depois.

Mostra que Spencer refutou a tese de John Stuart Mill que diz que o consumidor não sabe o que é melhor para si, necessitando do estado intervir, prática que promove qualquer tirania estatal. Refuta também a falácia de que "não educação gera crime, é responsabilidade do estado coibir o crime, logo é responsabilidade do estado educar", já errado na primeira premissa.

Mostra o plano de Owen e Right nos EUA para confiscar as crianças dos pais e só devolverem aos 16 anos, de forma a moldar os futuros adultos completamente.

Um bom insight trazido é que, embora os governantes ainda tenham que agradar a maioria para sua reeleição, os funcionários públicos são tiranos permanentes, não sujeitos a esse tipo de exame.

Rothbard ainda mostra a impossibilidade de uma escola pública neutra, vulgo "escola sem partido", quando o assunto é religião ou política.

Finaliza com críticas ao sistema educacional progressista, que dentre outros, abole o sistema de notas, tirando os incentivos para melhoria, acompanhamento do aprendizado e encucando o ideal da mediocridade, nivelando por baixo, e por fim, criando a eterna dependência da tutela estatal.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A LIBERTARIAN LOOKS AT VARIOUS ISSUES IN EDUCATION

Economist Murray Rothbard wrote in this 1961 essay, ‘In spite of the fact that … each child’s life is his true education, the need for formal instruction arises… there is on area of education where direct spontaneity and a few precepts will not suffice. This is the area of intellectual knowledge. Gaining knowledge beyond the experiences of daily life involves a far greater exercise of reasoning powers and demands a formal course of study… There are three fundamental subject-areas on which all future learning is based. The first is READING, giving the child a superb tool for subsequent acquisition of knowledge… WRITING, incorporating the ‘language arts’ of spelling and mar, is the corollary of reading … The third elementary learning tool is ARITHMETIC… incorporating other disciplines such as economics, statistics, chemistry, and physics… Formal teaching is necessary for these specific subjects because knowledge of them must be presented systematically.” (Pg. 4-6)

He asserts, “Civilized human beings … are necessarily unequal as regards their personalities, their abilities, their interests and the goals they pursue. This fact of inequality… is not necessarily an invidious distinction, it simply reflects the scope of human diversity. Enthusiasm for equality should actually be viewed as anti-human. It tends to repress the flowering of individual personality and diversity and, indeed, of civilization itself… Since abilities and interests are naturally diverse, an effort to make people equal in all or most respects a levelling downward. It is an attack on … talent, genius, variety, and reasoning power.” (Pg. 7)

He continues, “There is a sense, however, in which equality among men IS sensible and beneficial. Each individual should have the freest possible scope for the development of his faculties and personality. In order to have this scope, he must have freedom from coercion… An atmosphere of coercion is far from being conducive to reason and creativity. If everyone has equal defense against violence, this ‘equality before law’ will permit him to maximize his potential. Since each person is a unique individual, the best type of formal instruction for him is that which suits his own individuality… The ideal learning situation is individual instruction. A course where one teacher instructs one pupil is the best of all possible educational worlds… Conversely, the formal school, characterized by classes in which one teacher instructs many children, is an immensely inferior system. Since a teacher can teach only one thing at a time, it is evident that a school class must cast all instruction into one uniform mold… the teacher … is doing injury to each and every one of the children.” (Pg.7-8)

He states, “Private schools, unimpeded by state regulation, have an advantage in being able to develop a different type of education for each kind of parent-child demand… The state’s compulsory schooling laws not only repress the growth of specialized private schools designed for the specific needs of certain types of children whose parents cannot afford private tutors, but also prevent the education of the child by the people who … are best qualified---his parents.” (Pg. 10)

He points out, “The key issue is simply this: shall the parent or the state be the overseer of the child? An essential feature of human life is that for many years the child relatively helpless, that his powers of providing for himself mature late. Until these powers are fully developed, he cannot act completely on his own as a responsible individual. From an infancy of complete dependence and subjection to adults, the child must grow up gradually to the status of an independent adult. The question is: under whose guidance, under whose virtual ‘ownership,’ should the child be placed---his parents or the state? There is no middle ground on this issue. The one or the other must exercise ultimate control, and no third party with authority to seize the child and rear it has ever been proposed or found. The natural state of affairs if for the parents to have charge of the child… The alternative to parental ‘ownership’ of the child is for the state to assume responsibility and rear the child itself. To the believer in freedom this must seem a monstrous step indeed. The rights of the parents are violated as he grows up subjected to the unloving hands of the state, which has little regard for his individual personality.” (Pg. 11)

He contends, “One of the most unanswerable indictments of compulsory state-education is the fact that modern totalitarian states have been eager to maintain just such an educational system in their regimes. Indeed, the indoctrination of the nation’s youth in their schools is one of the chief mainstays of the slave-states, as the chief difference between the twentieth century horrors and previous despotisms is that the modern tyrannies have had to rest on mass support more directly; therefore, compulsory state-education systems already developed have ben grist for the totalitarian mill.” (Pg. 33)

He observes, “There seemed to have been very little public debate over the issue of compulsory schooling. We can only guess at the reason for this neglect of a fundamental issue, a neglect that is evidence in every historical account of public education. It may well be that the professional ‘educationists’ knew the issue might be a touchy one if the topic were given great attention and so kept it from public view until the issue was decided.” (Pg. 39)

He says, “The educationists… did not go so far as to advocate compulsory education, but they went UP TO that point by calling on EVERYONE to attend public schools and by disparaging private schools. They were eager for all-inclusive public school attendance, though ‘voluntary,’ to hasten universal equality… The vigorous championing of the levelling role of the public schools appeared again and again in the educationists’ literature.” (Pg. 45)

He concludes, “By the end of the mid-nineteenth century the question of general public schooling was well on its way to being decided. The next question was that of compulsory attendance, which, as pointed earlier, was resolved by the turn of the century. The author considers the topic of compulsory education to be extremely important and is happy to see the question surfacing again after being laid to rest for almost 100 years. It would benefit all to reconsider the issue in light of what has happened and is happening today in the field of education.” (Pg. 48)

This book will be of interest to those studying alternatives in education.

[Felipe Costa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sou conservador, mas é inegável que os livros de Murray Rothbard trazem sempre boas reflexões e críticas.

Rothbard inicia seu livro mostrando que a sociedade, ao progredir, tende a tornar-se mais complexa, mais desigual. O ser humano quando evolui aumenta seu grau de diferenciação.

Claro, há aí uma crítica ao marxismo, uma das poucas teorias sociológicas a admtir que a sociedade humana tenderia inevitavelmente a igualdade.

Desse modo, o autor constata que se o homem é tão desigual, tão diferente, não há como realizar uma educação universal e não incorrer no crime de Procusto.

Além disso, a educação formal é onde se ensina uma forma de conhecimento. Não se pode negar o papel educador da experiência.

Então, sabendo de tudo isso, por que diabos os políticos optaram pela educação obrigatória e universal? A resposta está na Prússia, na Revolução Protestante e na Grécia Antiga.

O estilo militarista de educação nasceu na Prússia, os alunos eram obrigados a participar das aulas. Já o modelo de educação moral e religiosa nasceu com a Revolução Protestante. Por fim, a teoria de que os filhos pertecem ao Estado e cabe a ele decidir como e onde irá doutriná-los nasceu na Grécia Antiga, ou melhor, na cabeça de Platão.

A verdade indiscutível é que a educação obrigatória nasceu para negar um dos maiores direitos civis já adquiridos: a liberdade de consciência. Não pense que eles irão descansar enquanto não tomarem isso de você.

[Jack Carney · Rating 5 out of 5]

My comment will only be on the book's title which I consider contains the essence of Murray's case against government/State compulsory "Education" (accurately termed "Indoctrination"). You only need two words in complete contradiction to each other: FREE and COMPULSORY--to get the gist of Murray's accurate and quick autopsy of the State's coercive school corpse. Define Free as Voluntary, not as costing no money. Something, by definitional word meaning, cannot both be "Free" AND "Compulsory". Murry, mischievous one that he was, I think played upon this when he choose his title, to point out the absurdity of the State “freely” forcing “its” children to be trained to obey.
The bait-and-switch of the State was to flog the "Free" as in no money (and of course, this too was a lie, as the theft, er, cost was targeted to the tax payers anyway) to get the parents interested.
Interestingly, the India government was forthright in its chicanery and named its right to freely imprison its children with:
The Right Of Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_o...
One day parents may wake from the Nightmare of History and become their own Authority and raise their children freely to become responsible for that freedom thus giving the State nothing to do but die their Zombie death.
We are only as free as we take the responsibility to be.
Murray, rest in peace.

[Bernard English · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very short treatment which basically starts with the Reformation where Rothbard believes is the root of the modern Western trend in compulsory education. Rothbard lays much of the blame on Luther, his disciple Melanchthon and Calvin. Such beliefs manifested themselves in New England, especially Massachusetts, for the first time in the Anglo-Saxon world. This approach to education was then spread to the rest of the nation due to large-scale New England emigration. The second and more immediate source of American educational theories promoting compulsory education and "dumbing down" down right along with it was the Prussian system. Our modern American system developed in roughly two stages according to Rothbard. By 1850 most states had public schools, though attendance was not yet generally mandatory. By around 1900 compulsory public education was the rule in the U.S.

However, before getting to the history, Rothbard first makes the case for private schools, and finances permitting, homeschooling, though he doesn't use that term. I'm convinced Rothbard is right, but without providing any data to compare the effectiveness of homeschooling and compulsory education, I'm afraid many readers won't be convinced. However, anyone who follows the news can certainly fill in the missing data and easily see Rothbard was right.

[☆ deanna ☆ · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short little book filled with insight on the corruption of government education. Truly, nothing has changed, and that's something many people don't know about. Everyone should read this.

"The effect of progressive education is to destroy independent thought in the child, indeed to repress any thought whatsoever."

"Individuality is suppressed by teaching all to adjust to the "group" ".

"Unquestionably, the effect of all this is to foster dependence of the individual in the group and on the State."

The entire purpose of compulsory education was not to create independent thinkers with great critical thinking skills. Oh, no, think again. They want the complete opposite. Obedience and reliance in the State are what they want. For us to put our full trust in the government unquestionably. That's incredibly dangerous for society because the government is absolutely corrupt, and you should never trust what they tell you. What better way to do that than to indoctrinate the masses on how government is good and individual thought and expression is bad from a very young age. The government wants us to fit in the perfect little mold that they already set out for us long ago in their evil agenda that will benefit them and only them.

[Jose Alvarez-Perez 🫳 · Rating 5 out of 5]

We can have Holt Handbooks with all the themes of the world, localized and internationalized themes per editions, but racialism shouldn’t be the condition to write university-level papers. University is the place to articulate the repudiation of racialism, with your required background education against it. But in the History classroom, not in every English course...

Nobody is an enemy of Christ, and longer ancestry near the equator line didn't help evolve into more than one subspecies as a species of primates.

If it's compulsory, tenth grade according to ASU's Ask a Biologist will discard racialism and they as university couldn't, and the application will ask for your "race", there's no reason to require a high school degree if the employer will disregard the background education. That's Rothbard's point, not child abuse.

Seems like education, once imperialist/military measure, is always imperialist/military measure, or try to secede from Pan-Arabia or North Korea where will be/is compulsory… and “conservative” compulsory education means to do it without blaming the now-extinct Holy Roman Empire's reach?

[Erica · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una monografía en donde el autor identifica la característica base del sistema educativo y que aboga al fracaso, puesto que, además de que el sistema se basa en la compulsión en lugar del consentimiento voluntario, el currículo escolar está politizado en base a las prioridades ideológicas del gobierno / partido político en el poder.

Critica los estándares de las instituciones escolares en donde se encasillan a todos los niños a un común denominador, sin poder tener en cuenta las capacidades individuales de cada niño, llevando a que los niños no se les permite alcanzar su potencial particular.