I've seen state "control" (funding) of education termed socialism, on this board.
You have?
I haven't. I have seen (and argued) that the state owning the means of production of goods and services, including the public school system in America or similar government run schools elsewhere, is socialism (or you could call it one socialist part of an overall "mixed economy" system). But I haven't seen anyone arguing that state funding of education was socialism. The state can fund something without owning the means of the production of it. If you have a privately owned schools accepting government scholarships or vouchers I don't think I would call it socialism.
So why is not the state control, of police, or the military, viewed as an overt and aggressive form of socialism
In a certain sense it is socialism. It technically is the government owning the means of production of services (law enforcement, protection from foreign enemies, and other services). But you can't really have a durable state without some level of resources put in to such functions. I wouldn't call a government socialist because it provides such services, or even because it provides health care. But technically the military does fit the definition of a socialist institution.
If the majority of the economy is made up of goods or services provided by government owned organizations than I would say the economy is socialist. Defense and police functions probably don't constitute the majority of the economy even in North Korea and certainly don't in places like the US and the UK.
Or is there a tacit admission that actually some things ARE better run by the state?
I would agree that it is probably better that some things get provided by/ run by the state. I just don't think that makes such provision something other than socialist. I'm not arguing for "pure capitalism" where all goods and services are provided by the market, I'm not sure such a thing is possible for a country of 300 million people. I support the idea of a mixed system. The question than being what is the proper mix. I think that for the most part defense and law enforcement should be provided by the state, there should be a system of courts, not just private arbitrators, it probably is more efficient to have a large part of the road network at least funded by the state (even if it is built by and/or maintained by contractors), ect.
I think that education would benefit by being less of a near monopoly of the state. You could still have the government fund it, but that doesn't mean the government has to own and run the schools.
In general I would like to see the government shrink, but even though I am libertarian I probably couldn't be classified as a strict hard-core minarchist (I might support such extreme minarchism as an abstract ideal but I'm not so sure it would work well in reality), I certainly am not an anarchist. I'd like to see less government, and esp. a smaller federal government, but I agree that government (including government at the national level) has its role.
Note: The boundaries of what would be call minarchist are not very well defined, that's why I used the term "strict hard-core minarchist". Some who call themselves minarchist see the only government role as to "suppress crime (defined as force and fraud) and foreign invasion"
jargondatabase.com
While some support a slightly larger government than that.
reference.com |
