Letter to Dr. Michael Geist
Professor Michael A. Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He is also host of the LAW BYTES podcast, one of my favourites.
EDUCATION MONOPOLY Restricts Public Choice
Hello Michael.
I listen to your LAW BYTES podcasts often and find them informative but sometimes limited in creativity.
Most of your guests are academics or government staffers who see the world through the lens of a “public servant.” They inevitably express the “need” of a dominant role for government institutions to play in the economy and polity. Consequently, they are less apt to consider many non-government options like those I suggest below.
The show notes for Episode 201 read:
Concerns about the impact of social media on youth have been brewing for a long time, but in recent months a new battleground has emerged: the courts, who are home to lawsuits launched by school boards seeking billions in compensation and demands that the social media giants change their products to better protect kids. Those lawsuits have now come to Canada with four Ontario school boards recently filing claims. Robert Diab is a professor of law at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, British Columbia. He writes about constitutional and human rights, as well as topics in law and technology. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to provide a comparison between the Canadian and US developments, a deep dive into alleged harms and legal arguments behind the claims, and an assessment of the likelihood of success.
A Myopic Discussion.
There are obvious solutions to protect children from the potential harms of social media that were not considered in Episode 201. The only ideas discussed involved the use of public policy and ignored approaches that do not require a “government fix”.
Below are 3 alternative non-government approaches to address the issue. (There may be more).
1. A school resides on public property and operates as a public institution. If property rights exist, then the administration leaders of any school should be able to dictate what can and cannot be brought to school by a student. Guns and knives are forbidden, for example, to provide a safe environment for students. If smart phones and their apps are causing interruptions and subsequent harm during school hours, can’t they be restricted too?
2. Social media apps are the alleged problem. If tech can provide them, then tech can restrict them too in many possible ways. For example, why can’t the Ministry of Education invest in a ‘social media blocker’ technology to eliminate all social media access while students are within school boundaries? We have brilliant technology professionals in Canada ( I was an IT Recruiter for 36 years and interviewed over 10,000 IT professionals). If given the chance, the most creative and talented of these people will surely be able to devise an effective way to accomplish this. I know with certainty that this is possible, but a lack of creative thinking by ill-informed or unmotivated bureaucrats seems to be the reason that this option to not currently in public discussion.
3. A more sweeping and democratic option (my preference) is to eliminate the Public Education monopoly altogether and replace it with a Free Market Education sector. This, of course, will emerge only after voters en masse demand the repeal of all legislation and regulations which enable the monopolies to exist.
A Free and Competitive Education Market is best.
Learning is a lifelong endeavour in the Information Age for everyone who hopes to thrive in a constantly changing society. Churning out primary and secondary school students according to a handful of cookie-cutter molds seems archaic and ripe for a complete overhaul. We trust the private sector for providing a wide range of shopping options, but still restrict the choices of students and parents for their education services.
Like all competitive markets, non-government entrepreneurs will innovate ways to serve market niches which align with the needs, values and policy priorities of paying customers. Government service providers and non-government service providers should compete for students on a level playing field.
An open Education market will certainly serve the unique needs of citizens in a more flexible and cost-effective manner than today’s system. Today’s government monopolies all prioritize the needs and interests of their top heavy and cumbersome organizations, their employees and their unions.
My Life Lens on this topic.
As a long time Libertarian who has a keen interest in technology, particularly the emerging digital technologies, I believe we live in a golden age for achieving a truly civil society based on the ideas of increased individual freedom and the empowerment of personal responsibility enabled in a fair and respectful manner.
The possibilities for every responsible citizen to democratically exercise their “freedom of informed choice” has never been greater.
This is especially true for citizens who are “tech competent” (virtually everyone under age 60). The central planning and white-knuckle controls imposed by Public Education elites are no longer needed. A robust market for education services should begin as soon as possible to reflect this reality.
A Request to Michael.
I like your show because it reveals the minds of men and women who reside in the ivory towers of Big Government and who manifest the myopic vision which tends to come with a lifetime of swimming in those bureaucratic waters. It provides me a peek into “the bureaucratic mind” hoping to gain some insight into why public employees feel it necessary to expand their powers over every facet of modern life.
Michael. I hope you will begin to sample guests with a greater range of viewpoints than the preference you have shown for public sector employees.
Regards
Gene Balfour
Substack writer under MY LIFE LENS