Abolition + Picking Crops

Well, I’m all for the advancement of colored people, but I do not believe they should advance all the way to the front of this office.

This post is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Read his first, then mine. Imagine that the following was written by someone from the early 1860s who was on the fence about freeing slaves.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. As with all practices, this one varies. But essentially, freedom means the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves reject the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists eloquently defend the merits of freedom. According to advocates of freedom, slaves are naturally curious. Given freedom, they won’t just learn basic skills; they’ll ultimately find a calling.

At first, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And I hate Social Desirability Bias, so I’m tempted to reject freedom.

What I hate even more, though, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve met and talked to dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some of them are flaky, but then again so are a lot of people. Upon closer inspection, there’s only one glaring issue with free people.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone should be able to do. And most of them have no knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? In all honesty: anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t free men who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to do so on their own? I’m afraid that would rarely happen. The reasons are twofold:

First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves really enjoy it. I’m a strong guy, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. You need to master the basics before you move on to more advanced crop-picking techniques. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you are free first and then decide you want to pick crops, good luck.

What’s the best response? Given this information, mainstream critics of freedom will dismiss freedom entirely. And staunch advocates will no doubt stick to their guns. I, on the other hand, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

The meaning of Abolition + Picking Crops is simple: impose a single mandate on free men. Whether you like it or not, you have to pick crops for 1-2 hours every single day. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career in crop picking. If you don’t pick crops now, you won’t be able to later.

While most people don’t end up working on the field at all, ignorance of basic crop-picking still closes too many doors. And when strong free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is such an underrated thought. But picking crops is more important. I don’t want the government to force slaveholders to teach their slaves how to pick crops. Instead, slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to grant freedom on his terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for their guilt (presumably especially his own) rather than children’s freedom betrays him. Whenever someone from the 1860s showed concern for the guilt slaveholders felt for whipping their slaves, one immediately knew whose side that person was on, no matter how much he pretended to care about freedom. Same goes for anyone’s accidental confession in not immediately recognizing the pretense: you could tell they were on the perpetrator’s side.

The opening quote of this article, from Mad Men, illustrates this dynamic. The show is set in the 1960s, in the middle of the civil-rights movement. The partner of an advertising firm, Bertram Cooper, is on his way out of the office when he notices that a black employee now sits at the front desk. So he approaches his office manager, Joan Harris. The full scene goes:

Cooper: I just wanted to say I was on my way to the club and I noticed there’s been a change in reception.
Harris: I had to shuffle the girls.
Cooper: Well, I’m all for the national advancement of colored people, but I do not believe they should advance all the way to the front of this office. People can see her from the elevator.
Harris: I’m sorry. Do you want me to dismiss her based on the color of her skin?
Cooper: I said nothing of the kind. I’m merely suggesting a rearrangement of your rearrangement.
Harris: Suggesting?
Cooper: Requesting. Leaves.
Harris: Covers her face in disgust.

Because he wants to make exceptions, you can tell immediately that Cooper does not actually support the “national advancement of colored people”. He’s lying, whether he realizes it or not. It’s just like Caplan pretending when he says “We should have a strong presumption against paternalism […]. The value of math, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption.” (Link removed.) Caplan might as well be saying: ‘I’m all for the liberation of children, but I do not believe they should be liberated to the point they don’t have to do math!’

In some ways, black people were better off in the 60s than children are today: Harris strongly implies that what Cooper requests is illegal, but there is no law against forced education of children to this day. On the contrary, in many jurisdictions, the law demands such force. Even the UN demands it. And what Cooper does is still better, in way, than what Caplan does: at least Cooper doesn’t pretend that his ‘request’ is for the black employee’s own good.

Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail, then not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, from the basics up to more advanced skills. The scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. But the reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math: a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a teacher leaves children no other way to assert their freedom than to reject math, then that is what they will do, and the teacher has no right to be surprised or complain.

Caplan writes: “Every day, like it or not, you have to do 1-2 hours of math.  No matter how boring you find the subject, you’re too young to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires math.” He implies that some amount of force is warranted to enforce his edict since he won’t let children disagree. So… how much force? Does he advocate yelling at one’s child? Maybe taking away privileges and toys? Or would he go even further? He does not specify: bad ideas hide in the unstated.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity, career choice, or “merits”, or that freedom “works” or whatever. Mix freedom and forced math lessons and you end up with no freedom at all. Note that Caplan derides the principled, uncompromising approach as “staunch”. Those of us who have fully understood and integrated the fact that the universality of freedom applies to children just as much as it does to adults, recognize Caplan’s error with lightning speed – and judge accordingly.

If society progresses in the way I hope, then Caplan’s article will age exceptionally poorly. As it deserves.

Abolition + Picking Crops

Well, I’m all for the advancement of colored people, but I do not believe they should advance all the way to the front of this office.

This post is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Read his first, then mine. Imagine that the following was written by someone from the early 1860s who was on the fence about freeing slaves.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. As with all practices, this one varies. But essentially, freedom means the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves reject the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists eloquently defend the merits of freedom. According to advocates of freedom, slaves are naturally curious. Given freedom, they won’t just learn basic skills; they’ll ultimately find a calling.

At first, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And I hate Social Desirability Bias, so I’m tempted to reject freedom.

What I hate even more, though, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve met and talked to dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some of them are flaky, but then again so are a lot of people. Upon closer inspection, there’s only one glaring issue with free people.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone should be able to do. And most of them have no knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? In all honesty: anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t free men who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to do so on their own? I’m afraid that would rarely happen. The reasons are twofold:

First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves really enjoy it. I’m a strong guy, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. You need to master the basics before you move on to more advanced crop-picking techniques. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you are free first and then decide you want to pick crops, good luck.

What’s the best response? Given this information, mainstream critics of freedom will dismiss freedom entirely. And staunch advocates will no doubt stick to their guns. I, on the other hand, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

The meaning of Abolition + Picking Crops is simple: impose a single mandate on free men. Whether you like it or not, you have to pick crops for 1-2 hours every single day. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career in crop picking. If you don’t pick crops now, you won’t be able to later.

While most people don’t end up working on the field at all, ignorance of basic crop-picking still closes too many doors. And when strong free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is such an underrated thought. But picking crops is more important. I don’t want the government to force slaveholders to teach their slaves how to pick crops. Instead, slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to grant freedom on his terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for their guilt (presumably especially his own) rather than children’s freedom betrays him. Whenever someone from the 1860s showed concern for the guilt slaveholders felt for whipping their slaves, one immediately knew whose side that person was on, no matter how much he pretended to care about freedom. Same goes for anyone’s accidental confession in not immediately recognizing the pretense: you could tell they were on the perpetrator’s side.

The opening quote of this article, from Mad Men, illustrates this dynamic. The show is set in the 1960s, in the middle of the civil-rights movement. The partner of an advertising firm, Bertram Cooper, is on his way out of the office when he notices that a black employee now sits at the front desk. So he approaches his office manager, Joan Harris. The full scene goes:

Cooper: I just wanted to say I was on my way to the club and I noticed there’s been a change in reception.
Harris: I had to shuffle the girls.
Cooper: Well, I’m all for the national advancement of colored people, but I do not believe they should advance all the way to the front of this office. People can see her from the elevator.
Harris: I’m sorry. Do you want me to dismiss her based on the color of her skin?
Cooper: I said nothing of the kind. I’m merely suggesting a rearrangement of your rearrangement.
Harris: Suggesting?
Cooper: Requesting. Leaves.
Harris: Covers her face in disgust.

Because he wants to make exceptions, you can tell immediately that Cooper does not actually support the “national advancement of colored people”. He’s lying, whether he realizes it or not. It’s just like Caplan pretending when he says “We should have a strong presumption against paternalism […]. The value of math, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption.” (Link removed.) Caplan might as well be saying: ‘I’m all for the liberation of children, but I do not believe they should be liberated to the point they don’t have to do math!’

In some ways, black people were better off in the 60s than children are today: Harris strongly implies that what Cooper requests is illegal, but there is no law against forced education of children to this day. On the contrary, in many jurisdictions, the law demands such force. And what Cooper does is still better, in way, than what Caplan does: at least Cooper doesn’t pretend that his ‘request’ is for the black employee’s own good.

Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail, then not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, from the basics up to more advanced skills. The scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. But the reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math: a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a teacher leaves children no other way to assert their freedom than to reject math, then that is what they will do, and the teacher has no right to be surprised or complain.

Caplan writes: “Every day, like it or not, you have to do 1-2 hours of math.  No matter how boring you find the subject, you’re too young to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires math.” He implies that some amount of force is warranted to enforce his edict since he won’t let children disagree. So… how much force? Does he advocate yelling at one’s child? Maybe taking away privileges and toys? Or would he go even further? He does not specify: bad ideas hide in the unstated.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity, career choice, or “merits”, or that freedom “works” or whatever. Mix freedom and forced math lessons and you end up with no freedom at all.

If society progresses in the way I hope, then Caplan’s article will age exceptionally poorly. As it deserves.

Abolition + Picking Crops

Well, I’m all for the advancement of colored people, but I do not believe they should advance all the way to the front of this office.

This post is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Read his first, then mine. Imagine that the following was written by someone from the early 1860s who was on the fence about freeing slaves.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. As with all practices, this one varies. But essentially, freedom means the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves reject the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists eloquently defend the merits of freedom. According to advocates of freedom, slaves are naturally curious. Given freedom, they won’t just learn basic skills; they’ll ultimately find a calling.

At first, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And I hate Social Desirability Bias, so I’m tempted to reject freedom.

What I hate even more, though, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve met and talked to dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some of them are flaky, but then again so are a lot of people. Upon closer inspection, there’s only one glaring issue with free people.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone should be able to do. And most of them have no knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? In all honesty: anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t free men who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to do so on their own? I’m afraid that would rarely happen. The reasons are twofold:

First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves really enjoy it. I’m a strong guy, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. You need to master the basics before you move on to more advanced crop-picking techniques. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you are free first and then decide you want to pick crops, good luck.

What’s the best response? Given this information, mainstream critics of freedom will dismiss freedom entirely. And staunch advocates will no doubt stick to their guns. I, on the other hand, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

The meaning of Abolition + Picking Crops is simple: impose a single mandate on free men. Whether you like it or not, you have to pick crops for 1-2 hours every single day. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career in crop picking. If you don’t pick crops now, you won’t be able to later.

While most people don’t end up working on the field at all, ignorance of basic crop-picking still closes too many doors. And when strong free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is such an underrated thought. But picking crops is more important. I don’t want the government to force slaveholders to teach their slaves how to pick crops. Instead, slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to grant freedom on his terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for their guilt (presumably especially his own) rather than children’s freedom betrays him. Whenever someone from the 1860s showed concern for the guilt slaveholders felt for whipping their slaves, one immediately knew whose side that person was on, no matter how much he pretended to care about freedom. Same goes for anyone’s accidental confession in not immediately recognizing the pretense: you could tell they were on the perpetrator’s side.

The opening quote of this article, from Mad Men, illustrates this dynamic. The show is set in the 1960s, in the middle of the civil-rights movement. The partner of an advertising firm, Bertram Cooper, is on his way out of the office when he notices that a black employee now sits at the front desk. So he approaches his office manager, Joan Harris. The full scene goes:

Cooper: I just wanted to say I was on my way to the club and I noticed there’s been a change in reception.
Harris: I had to shuffle the girls.
Cooper: Well, I’m all for the national advancement of colored people, but I do not believe they should advance all the way to the front of this office. People can see her from the elevator.
Harris: I’m sorry. Do you want me to dismiss her based on the color of her skin?
Cooper: I said nothing of the kind. I’m merely suggesting a rearrangement of your rearrangement.
Harris: Suggesting?
Cooper: Requesting. Leaves.
Harris: Covers her face in disgust.

Because he wants to make exceptions, you can tell immediately that Cooper does not actually support the “national advancement of colored people”. It’s just like Caplan pretending when he says “We should have a strong presumption against paternalism […]” (link removed). Yet, in some ways, black people were better off in the 60s than children are today: Harris strongly implies that what Cooper requests is illegal, but there is no law against forced education of children to this day – on the contrary, in many jurisdictions, the law demands such force. And what Cooper does is still better, in way, than what Caplan does: at least Cooper doesn’t pretend that his ‘request’ is for the black employee’s own good.

Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail, then not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, from the basics up to more advanced skills. The scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. But the reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math: a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a teacher leaves children no other way to assert their freedom than to reject math, then that is what they will do, and the teacher has no right to be surprised or complain.

Caplan writes: “Every day, like it or not, you have to do 1-2 hours of math.  No matter how boring you find the subject, you’re too young to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires math.” He implies that some amount of force is warranted to enforce his edict since he won’t let children disagree. So… how much force? Does he advocate yelling at one’s child? Maybe taking away privileges and toys? Or would he go even further? He does not specify: bad ideas hide in the unstated.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity, career choice, or “merits”, or that freedom “works” or whatever. Mix freedom and forced math lessons and you end up with no freedom at all.

If society progresses in the way I hope, then Caplan’s article will age exceptionally poorly. As it deserves.

Abolition + Picking Crops

Well, I’m all for the advancement of colored people, but I do not believe they should advance all the way to the front of this office.

This post is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Read his first, then mine. Imagine that the following was written by someone from the early 1860s who was on the fence about freeing slaves.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves shake their heads at the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists defend the merits of freedom with great vigor and eloquence. According to advocates of freedom, the human slave is naturally curious. Given freedom, he won’t just learn basic skills; he’ll ultimately find a calling.

On the surface, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And as a mortal enemy of Social Desirability Bias, my instinct is to dismiss freedom out of hand.

One thing I loathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve personally met and conversed with dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some come across as flaky, but then again so do a lot of people. When you look closely, free people have only one obvious problem.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone could do. And their knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques is sparser still.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? The honest answer though, is: Anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t slaves who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to pick crops given the freedom to do so? The answer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:

First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I’m a strong guy, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. Each major stage of picking crops builds on the foundation of the previous stages. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you become free and then decide to learn how to pick crops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish you good luck, because you’ll need it.

What’s the best response? Mainstream critics of freedom will obviously use this criticism to dismiss the entire approach. And staunch advocates of freedom will no doubt stick to their guns. I, however, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

What does Abolition + Picking Crops mean? Simple: Impose a single mandate on free men. Every day, like it or not, you have pick crops for 1-2 hours. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study of crop picking for long, it will be too late to start later on.

While most people don’t wind up using much crop picking on the job, ignorance of basic crop-picking skills is still a severe handicap in life. And when strong free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I don’t mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to grant freedom on his terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for their guilt (presumably especially his own) rather than children’s freedom betrays him. Whenever someone from the 1860s showed concern for the guilt slaveholders felt for whipping their slaves, one immediately knew whose side that person was on, no matter how much he pretended to care about freedom. Same goes for anyone’s accidental confession in not immediately recognizing the pretense: you could tell they were on the perpetrator’s side.

The opening quote of this article, from Mad Men, illustrates this dynamic. The show is set in the 1960s, in the middle of the civil-rights movement. The partner of an advertising firm, Bertram Cooper, is on his way out when he notices that a black employee now sits at the front desk. So he approaches his office manager, Joan Harris. The full scene goes:

Cooper: I just wanted to say I was on my way to the club and I noticed there’s been a change in reception.
Harris: I had to shuffle the girls.
Cooper: Well, I’m all for the national advancement of colored people, but I do not believe they should advance all the way to the front of this office. People can see her from the elevator.
Harris: I’m sorry. Do you want me to dismiss her based on the color of her skin?
Cooper: I said nothing of the kind. I’m merely suggesting a rearrangement of your rearrangement.
Harris: Suggesting?
Cooper: Requesting.
Harris: Covers her face in disgust.

You can tell immediately that Cooper does not actually support the “national advancement of colored people” because he wants to make exceptions. It’s just like Caplan pretending when he says “We should have a strong presumption against paternalism […]” (link removed). Yet, in some ways, black people were better off in the 60s than children are today: Harris strongly implies that what Cooper requests is illegal, but there is no law against forced education of children to this day – on the contrary, in many jurisdictions, the law demands such force. And what Cooper does is still better, in way, than what Caplan does: at least Cooper doesn’t pretend that his ‘request’ is for the black employee’s own good.

Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail, then not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. The reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math: a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a teacher leaves children no other way to assert their freedom than to reject math, then that is what they will do, and the teacher has no right to be surprised or complain.

Caplan writes: “Every day, like it or not, you have to do 1-2 hours of math.  No matter how boring you find the subject, you’re too young to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires math.” He implies that some amount of force is warranted to enforce this edict since he won’t let children disagree. How much force? Does he advocate yelling at one’s child? Maybe taking away privileges and toys? Or would he go even further? He does not specify: bad ideas hide in the unstated.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or that freedom “works” or whatever. Mix unschooling and forced math lessons and you end up with no unschooling at all.

If society progresses in the way I hope, then Caplan’s article will age exceptionally poorly. As it deserves.

Abolition + Picking Crops

Well, I’m all for the advancement of colored people, but I do not believe they should advance all the way to the front of this office.

This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves shake their heads at the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists defend the merits of freedom with great vigor and eloquence. According to advocates of freedom, the human slave is naturally curious. Given freedom, he won’t just learn basic skills; he’ll ultimately find a calling.

On the surface, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And as a mortal enemy of Social Desirability Bias, my instinct is to dismiss freedom out of hand.

One thing I loathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve personally met and conversed with dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some come across as flaky, but then again so do a lot of people. When you look closely, free people have only one obvious problem.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone could do. And their knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques is sparser still.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? The honest answer though, is: Anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t slaves who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to pick crops given the freedom to do so? The answer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:

First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. Each major stage of picking crops builds on the foundation of the previous stages. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you become free and then decide to learn how to pick crops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish you good luck, because you’ll need it.

What’s the best response? Mainstream critics of freedom will obviously use this criticism to dismiss the entire approach. And staunch advocates of freedom will no doubt stick to their guns. I, however, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

What does Abolition + Picking Crops mean? Simple: Impose a single mandate on free men. Every day, like it or not, you have pick crops for 1-2 hours. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study of crop picking for long, it will be too late to start later on.

While most people don’t wind up using much crop picking on the job, ignorance of basic crop-picking skills is still a severe handicap in life. And when smart free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I don’t mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to grant freedom on his terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for parents’ guilt rather than children’s freedom betrays him. Whenever someone from the 1860s showed concern for the guilt slaveholders felt for whipping their slaves, one immediately knew whose side that person was on, no matter how much he pretended to care about freedom.

Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail, then not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Or learn math later in life. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. The reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math basically forever: a self-fulfilling prophecy. And their only way to assert their freedom is to reject math.

Caplan writes: “Every day, like it or not, you have to do 1-2 hours of math.  No matter how boring you find the subject, you’re too young to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires math.” He implies that some amount of force is warranted to enforce this edict since he won’t let children disagree. How much force? Does he advocate yelling at one’s child? Maybe taking away privileges and toys? Or would he go even further? He does not specify: bad ideas hide in the unstated.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever. Mix unschooling and forced math lessons and you end up with no unschooling at all.

Abolition + Picking Crops

Well, I’m all for the advancement of colored people, but I do not believe they should advance all the way to the front of this office.

This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves shake their heads at the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists defend the merits of freedom with great vigor and eloquence. According to advocates of freedom, the human slave is naturally curious. Given freedom, he won’t just learn basic skills; he’ll ultimately find a calling.

On the surface, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And as a mortal enemy of Social Desirability Bias, my instinct is to dismiss freedom out of hand.

One thing I loathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve personally met and conversed with dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some come across as flaky, but then again so do a lot of people. When you look closely, free people have only one obvious problem.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone could do. And their knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques is sparser still.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? The honest answer though, is: Anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t slaves who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to pick crops given the freedom to do so? The answer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:

First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. Each major stage of picking crops builds on the foundation of the previous stages. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you become free and then decide to learn how to pick crops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish you good luck, because you’ll need it.

What’s the best response? Mainstream critics of freedom will obviously use this criticism to dismiss the entire approach. And staunch advocates of freedom will no doubt stick to their guns. I, however, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

What does Abolition + Picking Crops mean? Simple: Impose a single mandate on free men. Every day, like it or not, you have pick crops for 1-2 hours. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study of crop picking for long, it will be too late to start later on.

While most people don’t wind up using much crop picking on the job, ignorance of basic crop-picking skills is still a severe handicap in life. And when smart free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I don’t mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to grant freedom on his terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for parents’ guilt rather than children’s freedom betrays him. Whenever someone from the 1860s showed concern for the guilt slaveholders felt for whipping their slaves, one immediately knew whose side that person was on, no matter how much he pretended to care about freedom.

Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail, then not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Or learn math later in life. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. The reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math basically forever: a self-fulfilling prophecy. And their only way to assert their freedom is to reject math.

Caplan writes: “Every day, like it or not, you have to do 1-2 hours of math.  No matter how boring you find the subject, you’re too young to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires math.” He implies that some amount of force is warranted to enforce this edict. How much? Does he advocate yelling at one’s child? Maybe taking away privileges and toys? Or would he go even further? He does not specify. I guess he’s too young to let people be.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever. Mix unschooling and forced math lessons and you end up with no unschooling at all.

Abolition + Picking Crops

Well, I’m all for the advancement of colored people, but I do not believe they should advance all the way to the front of this office.

This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves shake their heads at the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists defend the merits of freedom with great vigor and eloquence. According to advocates of freedom, the human slave is naturally curious. Given freedom, he won’t just learn basic skills; he’ll ultimately find a calling.

On the surface, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And as a mortal enemy of Social Desirability Bias, my instinct is to dismiss freedom out of hand.

One thing I loathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve personally met and conversed with dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some come across as flaky, but then again so do a lot of people. When you look closely, free people have only one obvious problem.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone could do. And their knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques is sparser still.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? The honest answer though, is: Anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t slaves who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to pick crops given the freedom to do so? The answer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:

First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. Each major stage of picking crops builds on the foundation of the previous stages. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you become free and then decide to learn how to pick crops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish you good luck, because you’ll need it.

What’s the best response? Mainstream critics of freedom will obviously use this criticism to dismiss the entire approach. And staunch advocates of freedom will no doubt stick to their guns. I, however, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

What does Abolition + Picking Crops mean? Simple: Impose a single mandate on free men. Every day, like it or not, you have pick crops for 1-2 hours. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study of crop picking for long, it will be too late to start later on.

While most people don’t wind up using much crop picking on the job, ignorance of basic crop-picking skills is still a severe handicap in life. And when smart free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I don’t mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to grant freedom on his terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for parents’ guilt rather than children’s freedom betrays him. Whenever someone from the 1860s showed concern for the guilt slaveholders felt for whipping their slaves, one immediately knew whose side that person was on, no matter how much he pretended to care about freedom.

Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail, then not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Or learn math later in life. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. The reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math basically forever: a self-fulfilling prophecy. And their only way to assert their freedom is to reject math.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever. Mix unschooling and forced math lessons and you end up with no unschooling at all.

Abolition + Picking Crops

Well, I’m all for the advancement of colored people, but I do not believe they should advance all the way to the front of this office.

This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves shake their heads at the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists defend the merits of freedom with great vigor and eloquence. According to advocates of freedom, the human slave is naturally curious. Given freedom, he won’t just learn basic skills; he’ll ultimately find a calling.

On the surface, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And as a mortal enemy of Social Desirability Bias, my instinct is to dismiss freedom out of hand.

One thing I loathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve personally met and conversed with dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some come across as flaky, but then again so do a lot of people. When you look closely, free people have only one obvious problem.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone could do. And their knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques is sparser still.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? The honest answer though, is: Anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t slaves who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to pick crops given the freedom to do so? The answer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:

First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. Each major stage of picking crops builds on the foundation of the previous stages. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you become free and then decide to learn how to pick crops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish you good luck, because you’ll need it.

What’s the best response? Mainstream critics of freedom will obviously use this criticism to dismiss the entire approach. And staunch advocates of freedom will no doubt stick to their guns. I, however, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

What does Abolition + Picking Crops mean? Simple: Impose a single mandate on free men. Every day, like it or not, you have pick crops for 1-2 hours. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study of crop picking for long, it will be too late to start later on.

While most people don’t wind up using much crop picking on the job, ignorance of basic crop-picking skills is still a severe handicap in life. And when smart free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I don’t mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to grant freedom on his terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for parents’ guilt rather than children’s freedom betrays him. If someone from the 1860s had concern for the guilt slaveholders felt for whipping their slaves, you’d immediately know whose side they were on, no matter how much they pretended to care about freedom.

Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail, then not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Or learn math later in life. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. The reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math basically forever: a self-fulfilling prophecy. And their only way to assert their freedom is to reject math.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever. Mix unschooling and forced math lessons and you end up with no unschooling at all.

Abolition + Picking Crops

This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves shake their heads at the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists defend the merits of freedom with great vigor and eloquence. According to advocates of freedom, the human slave is naturally curious. Given freedom, he won’t just learn basic skills; he’ll ultimately find a calling.

On the surface, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And as a mortal enemy of Social Desirability Bias, my instinct is to dismiss freedom out of hand.

One thing I loathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve personally met and conversed with dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some come across as flaky, but then again so do a lot of people. When you look closely, free people have only one obvious problem.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone could do. And their knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques is sparser still.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? The honest answer though, is: Anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t slaves who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to pick crops given the freedom to do so? The answer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:

First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. Each major stage of picking crops builds on the foundation of the previous stages. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you become free and then decide to learn how to pick crops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish you good luck, because you’ll need it.

What’s the best response? Mainstream critics of freedom will obviously use this criticism to dismiss the entire approach. And staunch advocates of freedom will no doubt stick to their guns. I, however, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

What does Abolition + Picking Crops mean? Simple: Impose a single mandate on free men. Every day, like it or not, you have pick crops for 1-2 hours. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study of crop picking for long, it will be too late to start later on.

While most people don’t wind up using much crop picking on the job, ignorance of basic crop-picking skills is still a severe handicap in life. And when smart free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I don’t mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to grant freedom on his terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for parents’ guilt rather than children’s freedom betrays him.

Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail, then not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Or learn math later in life. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. The reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math basically forever: a self-fulfilling prophecy. And their only way to assert their freedom is to reject math.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever. Mix unschooling and forced math lessons and you end up with no unschooling at all.

Abolition + Picking Crops

This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves shake their heads at the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists defend the merits of freedom with great vigor and eloquence. According to advocates of freedom, the human slave is naturally curious. Given freedom, he won’t just learn basic skills; he’ll ultimately find a calling.

On the surface, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And as a mortal enemy of Social Desirability Bias, my instinct is to dismiss freedom out of hand.

One thing I loathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve personally met and conversed with dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some come across as flaky, but then again so do a lot of people. When you look closely, free people have only one obvious problem.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone could do. And their knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques is sparser still.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? The honest answer though, is: Anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t slaves who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to pick crops given the freedom to do so? The answer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:

First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. Each major stage of picking crops builds on the foundation of the previous stages. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you become free and then decide to learn how to pick crops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish you good luck, because you’ll need it.

What’s the best response? Mainstream critics of freedom will obviously use this criticism to dismiss the entire approach. And staunch advocates of freedom will no doubt stick to their guns. I, however, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

What does Abolition + Picking Crops mean? Simple: Impose a single mandate on free men. Every day, like it or not, you have pick crops for 1-2 hours. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study of crop picking for long, it will be too late to start later on.

While most people don’t wind up using much crop picking on the job, ignorance of basic crop-picking skills is still a severe handicap in life. And when smart free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I don’t mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to grant freedom on his terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for parents’ guilt rather than children’s freedom betrays him.

Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail, then not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Or learn math later in life. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. The reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math basically forever: a self-fulfilling prophecy. And their only way to assert their freedom is to reject math.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom: it’s all or nothing. There are better and worse forms of slavery, but only one type of freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever.

Abolition + Picking Crops

This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves shake their heads at the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists defend the merits of freedom with great vigor and eloquence. According to advocates of freedom, the human slave is naturally curious. Given freedom, he won’t just learn basic skills; he’ll ultimately find a calling.

On the surface, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And as a mortal enemy of Social Desirability Bias, my instinct is to dismiss freedom out of hand.

One thing I loathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve personally met and conversed with dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some come across as flaky, but then again so do a lot of people. When you look closely, free people have only one obvious problem.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone could do. And their knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques is sparser still.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? The honest answer though, is: Anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t slaves who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to pick crops given the freedom to do so? The answer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:

First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. Each major stage of picking crops builds on the foundation of the previous stages. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you become free and then decide to learn how to pick crops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish you good luck, because you’ll need it.

What’s the best response? Mainstream critics of freedom will obviously use this criticism to dismiss the entire approach. And staunch advocates of freedom will no doubt stick to their guns. I, however, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

What does Abolition + Picking Crops mean? Simple: Impose a single mandate on free men. Every day, like it or not, you have pick crops for 1-2 hours. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study of crop picking for long, it will be too late to start later on.

While most people don’t wind up using much crop picking on the job, ignorance of basic crop-picking skills is still a severe handicap in life. And when smart free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I don’t mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to grant freedom on his terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for parents’ guilt rather than children’s freedom betrays him.

Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail, then not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Or learn math later in life. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is going to be different for everyone. The reason most people don’t do that today is that teachers ruin their relationship with math basically forever: a self-fulfilling prophecy. And their only way to assert their freedom is to reject math.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever.

Abolition + Picking Crops

This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves shake their heads at the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists defend the merits of freedom with great vigor and eloquence. According to advocates of freedom, the human slave is naturally curious. Given freedom, he won’t just learn basic skills; he’ll ultimately find a calling.

On the surface, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And as a mortal enemy of Social Desirability Bias, my instinct is to dismiss freedom out of hand.

One thing I loathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve personally met and conversed with dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some come across as flaky, but then again so do a lot of people. When you look closely, free people have only one obvious problem.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone could do. And their knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques is sparser still.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? The honest answer though, is: Anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t slaves who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to pick crops given the freedom to do so? The answer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:

First, picking crops is extremely unfun for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. Each major stage of picking crops builds on the foundation of the previous stages. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you become free and then decide to learn how to pick crops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish you good luck, because you’ll need it.

What’s the best response? Mainstream critics of freedom will obviously use this criticism to dismiss the entire approach. And staunch advocates of freedom will no doubt stick to their guns. I, however, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

What does Abolition + Picking Crops mean? Simple: Impose a single mandate on free men. Every day, like it or not, you have pick crops for 1-2 hours. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study of crop picking for long, it will be too late to start later on.

While most people don’t wind up using much crop picking on the job, ignorance of basic crop-picking skills is still a severe handicap in life. And when smart free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I don’t mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to grant freedom on his terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for parents’ guilt rather than children’s freedom betrays him.

Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail, then not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Or learn math later in life. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is different for everyone.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever.

Abolition + Picking Crops

This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves shake their heads at the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists defend the merits of freedom with great vigor and eloquence. According to advocates of freedom, the human slave is naturally curious. Given freedom, he won’t just learn basic skills; he’ll ultimately find a calling.

On the surface, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And as a mortal enemy of Social Desirability Bias, my instinct is to dismiss freedom out of hand.

One thing I loathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve personally met and conversed with dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some come across as flaky, but then again so do a lot of people. When you look closely, free people have only one obvious problem.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone could do. And their knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques is sparser still.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? The honest answer though, is: Anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t slaves who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to pick crops given the freedom to do so? The answer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:

First, picking crops is extremely unfunny for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. Each major stage of picking crops builds on the foundation of the previous stages. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you become free and then decide to learn how to pick crops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish you good luck, because you’ll need it.

What’s the best response? Mainstream critics of freedom will obviously use this criticism to dismiss the entire approach. And staunch advocates of freedom will no doubt stick to their guns. I, however, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

What does Abolition + Picking Crops mean? Simple: Impose a single mandate on free men. Every day, like it or not, you have pick crops for 1-2 hours. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study of crop picking for long, it will be too late to start later on.

While most people don’t wind up using much crop picking on the job, ignorance of basic crop-picking skills is still a severe handicap in life. And when smart free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I don’t mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to grant freedom on his terms: do math for 2 hours and he will grant you freedom for the rest of the day. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern for parents’ guilt rather than children’s freedom betrays him.

Overriding a child’s preferences for his benefit is a contradiction in terms. If learning math is such a good idea, persuade your child. If you fail, then not learning math is his prerogative, just like it is yours not to pick crops, even though people in the 1860s considered it an extremely useful skill. Or learn math later in life. Free people will naturally learn whatever math their own unique problem situation requires, when it requires it, and the scope and timing is different for everyone.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever.

Abolition + Picking Crops

This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves shake their heads at the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists defend the merits of freedom with great vigor and eloquence. According to advocates of freedom, the human slave is naturally curious. Given freedom, he won’t just learn basic skills; he’ll ultimately find a calling.

On the surface, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And as a mortal enemy of Social Desirability Bias, my instinct is to dismiss freedom out of hand.

One thing I loathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve personally met and conversed with dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some come across as flaky, but then again so do a lot of people. When you look closely, free people have only one obvious problem.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone could do. And their knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques is sparser still.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? The honest answer though, is: Anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t slaves who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to pick crops given the freedom to do so? The answer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:

First, picking crops is extremely unfunny for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. Each major stage of picking crops builds on the foundation of the previous stages. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you become free and then decide to learn how to pick crops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish you good luck, because you’ll need it.

What’s the best response? Mainstream critics of freedom will obviously use this criticism to dismiss the entire approach. And staunch advocates of freedom will no doubt stick to their guns. I, however, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

What does Abolition + Picking Crops mean? Simple: Impose a single mandate on free men. Every day, like it or not, you have pick crops for 1-2 hours. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study of crop picking for long, it will be too late to start later on.

While most people don’t wind up using much crop picking on the job, ignorance of basic crop-picking skills is still a severe handicap in life. And when smart free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I don’t mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to grant freedom on his terms. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion. His concern betrays him.

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise on basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender.. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or “merits” or whatever.

Abolition + Picking Crops

This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves shake their heads at the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists defend the merits of freedom with great vigor and eloquence. According to advocates of freedom, the human slave is naturally curious. Given freedom, he won’t just learn basic skills; he’ll ultimately find a calling.

On the surface, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And as a mortal enemy of Social Desirability Bias, my instinct is to dismiss freedom out of hand.

One thing I loathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve personally met and conversed with dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some come across as flaky, but then again so do a lot of people. When you look closely, free people have only one obvious problem.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone could do. And their knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques is sparser still.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? The honest answer though, is: Anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t slaves who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to pick crops given the freedom to do so? The answer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:

First, picking crops is extremely unfunny for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. Each major stage of picking crops builds on the foundation of the previous stages. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you become free and then decide to learn how to pick crops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish you good luck, because you’ll need it.

What’s the best response? Mainstream critics of freedom will obviously use this criticism to dismiss the entire approach. And staunch advocates of freedom will no doubt stick to their guns. I, however, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

What does Abolition + Picking Crops mean? Simple: Impose a single mandate on free men. Every day, like it or not, you have pick crops for 1-2 hours. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study of crop picking for long, it will be too late to start later on.

While most people don’t wind up using much crop picking on the job, ignorance of basic crop-picking skills is still a severe handicap in life. And when smart free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I don’t mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, as this reasonable guy who wants a balanced approach, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to *grant freedom on his terms. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion.*

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. You cannot balance freedom. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise in basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender.. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. A free child who has to learn math 1-2 hours a day is not a free child. The whole point of unschooling is (or should be!) freedom, not productivity or career choices or whatever.

Abolition + Picking Crops

This is a satirical rebuttal of Bryan Caplan’s article ‘Unschooling + Math’. I want to showcase how his article reads to me. Imagine that a slaveholder from the early 1860s wrote the following.

One popular alternative to slavery is called ‘freedom’. The practice varies, as practices always do. The essence, however, is that the slave does what he wants. He works on whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. If he asks you to teach him something, you teach him. Yet if he decides to go on long walks all day, the principled response based on freedom is: “Let him.”

Almost every slaveholder is horrified by the idea of freedom. Dr Samuel A. Cartwright says slaves only flee captivity because they are mentally ill. Even most slaves shake their heads at the idea of freedom. Advocates insist, however, that freedom works. Psychologists defend the merits of freedom with great vigor and eloquence. According to advocates of freedom, the human slave is naturally curious. Given freedom, he won’t just learn basic skills; he’ll ultimately find a calling.

On the surface, freedom sounds like Social Desirability Bias run amok: “Oh yes, every slave loves to learn, it’s just society that fails them!” And as a mortal enemy of Social Desirability Bias, my instinct is to dismiss freedom out of hand.

One thing I loathe more than Social Desirability Bias, however, is refusing to calm down and look at the facts. Fact: I’ve personally met and conversed with dozens of adults who were born not as slaves but as free men. Overall, they appear at least as productive as typical slaves. Indeed, as psychologists predict, free men are especially likely to turn their passions into useful work. Admittedly, some come across as flaky, but then again so do a lot of people. When you look closely, free people have only one obvious problem.

They suck at picking crops! In my experience, even free men with strong bodies tend to be weak on the field. On the field, I say! Work anyone could do. And their knowledge of more advanced crop-picking techniques is sparser still.

Staunch advocates of freedom will reply: So what? Who needs crop-picking skills? The honest answer though, is: Anyone who wants to pursue a vast range of occupations. Owning a plantation requires knowledge of how to pick crops. Overseeing crop pickers requires that knowledge. So does being a crop-harvesting engineer or a field inspector.

Won’t slaves who would greatly benefit from picking crops choose to learn how to pick crops given the freedom to do so? The answer, I fear, is: Rarely. For two reasons:

First, picking crops is extremely unfunny for almost everyone. Only a handful of slaves sincerely finds the subject engaging. I love manual labor, and I’ve picked acres of crops, yet I’ve never really liked it.

Second, picking crops is highly cumulative. Each major stage of picking crops builds on the foundation of the previous stages. You need to choose the right crop, prepare the soil for it, plant the seeds, monitor the growth, use proper irrigation and fertilizer, and so on. If you become free and then decide to learn how to pick crops to pursue a newly-discovered ambition, I wish you good luck, because you’ll need it.

What’s the best response? Mainstream critics of freedom will obviously use this criticism to dismiss the entire approach. And staunch advocates of freedom will no doubt stick to their guns. I, however, propose a keyhole solution. I call it: Abolition + Picking Crops.

What does Abolition + Picking Crops mean? Simple: Impose a single mandate on free men. Every day, like it or not, you have pick crops for 1-2 hours. No matter boring you find it, you’re too bad at picking crops to decide that you don’t want to pursue a career that requires picking crops. And if you postpone the study of crop picking for long, it will be too late to start later on.

While most people don’t wind up using much crop picking on the job, ignorance of basic crop-picking skills is still a severe handicap in life. And when smart free men don’t know advanced crop-picking skills, they forfeit about half of all career opportunities.

We should have a strong presumption against slavery – even the literal slavery between a slaveholder and his slave. “Maybe the slave is right and the slaveholder is wrong” is a deeply underrated thought. The value of picking crops, however, is great enough to overcome this presumption. To be clear, I don’t mean that the government should force slaveholders to teach math. What I mean, rather, is that slaveholders should require their slaves to learn how to pick crops. Guilt-free.

I hope my article shows that Caplan is a tyrant who has no idea what freedom means. He presents himself as someone who cares about freedom, but his primary concern isn’t freedom at all. Instead, he wants to *grant freedom on his terms. He wants to prescribe predefined goals and assuage parents’ guilt for using coercion.*

Freedom is indivisible and allows absolutely no compromises. Caplan is a good example of the Randian insight that even the smallest compromise in basic principles or moral matters is a complete surrender.. A free man who has to pick crops 1-2 hours a day is not a free man. An honest man who steals once in a while is not an honest man, as Ayn Rand implied. And so on.

This video says 30 seconds in that babies cry inside the womb at 15 weeks. Crying seems to be a uniquely human activity. Maybe this is evidence that babies are already people and sentient in the womb.

Superseded by #926. This comment was generated automatically.

The anarchists do not object to retaliatory force, only to it being wielded by a government. Why? Because, they say, it excludes "competitors." It sure does: it excludes vigilantes, lynch mobs, terrorists, and anyone else wanting to use force subjectively.

Competing arbitration agencies would develop objective (ie, non-arbitrary) laws and rules for coordination. And, just like governments (should), they would defend their customers against anyone who wants to use force subjectively. That’s their value proposition; their income relies on it.

See #3.

Rand herself proposes a yardstick by which to determine whether one country has a right to invade another:

Since there is no fully free country today, since the so-called “Free World” consists of various “mixed economies,” it might be asked whether every country on earth is morally open to invasion by every other. The answer is: No. There is a difference between a country that recognizes the principle of individual rights, but does not implement it fully in practice, and a country that denies and flouts it explicitly. All “mixed economies” are in a precarious state of transition which, ultimately, has to turn to freedom or collapse into dictatorship. There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw.

In other words, Rand recognizes that across nations – ie having no shared jurisdiction or government – there are still objective standards to determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. If Rand can identify such standards without sharing a government with those countries, why could not others do this, too?

The working principle here is supremacy of reason, not the supremacy of government. See also #920, where I explain that certain rules of engagement exist a priori and need not be devised by humans before engaging.

Superseded by #924. This comment was generated automatically.

The anarchists do not object to retaliatory force, only to it being wielded by a government. Why? Because, they say, it excludes "competitors." It sure does: it excludes vigilantes, lynch mobs, terrorists, and anyone else wanting to use force subjectively.

Competing arbitration agencies would develop objective (ie, non-arbitrary) laws and rules for coordination. And, just like governments (should), they would defend their customers against anyone who wants to use force subjectively. That’s their value proposition; their income relies on it.

See #3.

Rand herself proposes a yardstick by which to determine whether one country has a right to invade another:

Since there is no fully free country today, since the so-called “Free World” consists of various “mixed economies,” it might be asked whether every country on earth is morally open to invasion by every other. The answer is: No. There is a difference between a country that recognizes the principle of individual rights, but does not implement it fully in practice, and a country that denies and flouts it explicitly. All “mixed economies” are in a precarious state of transition which, ultimately, has to turn to freedom or collapse into dictatorship. There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw.

In other words, Rand recognizes that across nations – meaning across jurisdictions, ie having no shared jurisdiction or government – there are objective standards to determine who is in the right and who is in the wrong. If Rand can do identify such standards without a shared government, why could not others do this, too?

Superseded by #922. This comment was generated automatically.

Force properly employed is used only in retaliation, but even when retaliatory, force merely eliminates a negative, it cannot create value.

That isn’t true.

People want protection and justice. Retaliatory force does not merely eliminate a negative. Restoring and producing justice is a value, as is the peace of mind from knowing you have working defenses and someone who will seek justice on your behalf.

Retaliating against one burglar can scare off ten others. The value that’s created here far exceeds the negative which the burglar (might have) created.

Superseded by #920. This comment was generated automatically.

Economic competition presupposes a free market. A free market cannot exist until after force has been barred. That means objective law, backed up by a government. To say it can be backed up by "competing" force-wielders is circular. There is no competition until there is a free market, and some agency has to protect its condition as a free market by the use of retaliatory force.

The anarchist idea of putting law on "the market" cannot be applied even to a baseball game. It would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it.

Once again, supranational treaties refute this point. Germany and the US have no shared government or jurisdiction. (They each have separate governments, but together they have no common government above them.) Yet they have come up with rules of trade and justice and extradition and so on. Those are objective and evidently work really well since war between these two nations is unthinkable.

I think Binswanger is invoking the fallacy of the stolen concept here: he claims libertarians logically rely on a concept they reject. Clearly, as international relations have shown time and again, that is not the case. There are certain mechanisms such as, again, the discipline of constant dealings, which exist independently of any particular association between people. When someone reneges on his word, he diminishes his ability to do business in the future. That’s inherent in the logic of the situation, without any definition or creation by people. It is not necessary for people to create rules of engagement before engaging. It’s helpful, sure, but certain rules of engagement exist a priori.

See also #16 and my application of Karl Popper’s myth of the framework to this issue: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/objectivism-vs-the-myth-of-the-framework