What Libertarians Do

[Warren Dew]

Without public schools everyone can turn out to be a clone of their parents because that works well.

Far better than everyone being a clone of some ideal made up by people who have never had kids.

Indeed. The only difference being that parents are required to educate their children to a state standard somehow.

Wait ... why does the state get to dictate the standard, if the state isn't paying? It strikes me that your plan has all the disadvantages of political indoctrination that public schools have.

[Seth]

Seth: "systems which bill the parents of children who use public schools for the services rendered."

Isn't that a private school, then? (in the US sense, not the UK sense.)

Indeed. The only difference being that parents are required to educate their children to a state standard somehow. They can homeschool them, send them to private school, or send them to a fee-based public school operated by the state. In no case is anyone required to pay for their children to be schooled against their will, and in every case those who favor education are free to donate to their heart's content to any of the three schooling methods.

Who pays for the development of the state standard? Would there be testing to make sure standards are met? who pays for that?

The taxpayers of the state, if they choose to do so. And if the state mandates standards, it's the state's burden to pay for the testing. Therefore, the Legislature would have to go to the taxpayers and get them to approve a tax to pay for such standards-making and testing. Otherwise, standards would be set by the local school boards or the schools themselves, with the approval of the parents.

[Seth]

Without public schools everyone can turn out to be a clone of their parents because that works well.

Far better than everyone being a clone of some ideal made up by people who have never had kids.

Indeed. The only difference being that parents are required to educate their children to a state standard somehow.

Wait ... why does the state get to dictate the standard, if the state isn't paying? It strikes me that your plan has all the disadvantages of political indoctrination that public schools have.

That's a good point. Pure Libertarianism would keep the state entirely out of the schools and would allow each school, or local school district, to set the educational criteria and curriculum. Since the parents are paying for it, they should get to approve what is being taught to their children. The state could recommend, rather than mandated educational standards, which could be adopted by schools if it suits them to do so.

This was in fact the task of the Department of Education when it was created back in the 1800s. It was ONLY supposed to do research into teaching methods and provide information to states and local schools on its recommendations. It was never empowered to create mandates, and such mandates are in fact beyond the authority of even Congress. The DOE manages it using the carrot-and-stick method whereby the federal government collects taxes from the states, then offers to give them back a pittance of those taxes for education if the state will agree as a condition of the "grant" to do things the way the feds want them done. Obama is trying it again with a five BILLION dollar "race to the trough" that will dangle federal money in front of state legislatures that pass Obama-mandated rules and regulations for education. Don't change your laws, you don't get any of the money your own taxpayers paid to the federal government back. It's extortion plain and simple, and states should ALL refuse to participate, and refuse to send money to the federal government.

Libertarianism would have no problem with recommendations from the state, but mandates are another thing entirely.

[Coito ergo sum]

Without public schools everyone can turn out to be a clone of their parents because that works well.

School exists to produce good citizens who will take part and improve society ie its social engineering a very good thing

Not in my view, and I hope not in most people's views.

In my view, schools exist to educate children on things like: reading, writing, arithmetic/mathematics, literature, the arts, sciences, history, geography, civics and other topics.

What is an improvement to society and beneficial social engineering to Mr. Jonno is, I'm sure, quite different from that "societal improvement" and social engineering envisioned by, say Rick Santorum or Seth. To me, it's wrong-headed to make schools a battleground over different concepts of the public good, improvement of society and social engineering. That results in politicization of the schools, and makes it a race to indoctrinate, rather than educate.

[MrJonno]

In my view, schools exist to educate children on things like: reading, writing, arithmetic/mathematics, literature, the arts, sciences, history, geography, civics and other topics.

True but its the bits of what you listed that society considers to be important that they learn, if you have parents that don't believe in large parts of science, think geography is for poofs , history is just communist propaganda and literature is the devils work you are going to have a lot of issues with those people's children fitting into anything other than a very closed community which is not good for any country

[Coito ergo sum]

In my view, schools exist to educate children on things like: reading, writing, arithmetic/mathematics, literature, the arts, sciences, history, geography, civics and other topics.

True but its the bits of what you listed that society considers to be important that they learn, if you have parents that don't believe in large parts of science, think geography is for poofs , history is just communist propaganda and literature is the devils work you are going to have a lot of issues with those people's children fitting into anything other than a very closed community which is not good for any country

How many parents do you think that the basic subjects traditionally taught in schools ought not be taught? My view of it is that localities can run schools, and people will generally want their children educated in the basics K-12. After that, people can go to college where they please.

If there are a few crackpots, well, there's always a few of everything.

I think people ought to be able to live as they like, and that may mean in a different way than you and I feel is normal. That's why there is room in the world for Amish people, and people who want to live in 1960's style hippie communes, and the like. This idea that the State has some overarching knowledge or expertise on what is best, or that everyone ought to conform to some uniform concept of how to live, well, it's not something I agree with.

[MrJonno]

The ultimate responsibilty for children lies with the state however in anything other than extreme circumstances its delegated to the parent but no parent ever has any rights whatsoever over children they merely responsibities. Parents do not own children so cannot have any rights over them. Children have some rights and gain more (and lose a few) as they get older.

Adults should be free to live in an Amish way as long they don't expect any different rules, the idea that children should be denied an education at the same length as anyone else is child abuse

[Coito ergo sum]

The ultimate responsibilty for children lies with the state however in anything other than extreme circumstances its delegated to the parent but no parent ever has any rights whatsoever over children they merely responsibities. Parents do not own children so cannot have any rights over them. Children have some rights and gain more (and lose a few) as they get older.

Parents do not own children, but they are the parents. The State does not own children, and they aren't even the parents.

Adults should be free to live in an Amish way as long they don't expect any different rules, the idea that children should be denied an education at the same length as anyone else is child abuse

They have different rules, and it's not child abuse to not go to school.

[MrJonno]

They have different rules, and it's not child abuse to not go to school.

So you have kids who grow up whose only real future is being Amish, limting anyone in that sort of way is child abuse

[Seth]

In my view, schools exist to educate children on things like: reading, writing, arithmetic/mathematics, literature, the arts, sciences, history, geography, civics and other topics.

True but its the bits of what you listed that society considers to be important that they learn, if you have parents that don't believe in large parts of science, think geography is for poofs , history is just communist propaganda and literature is the devils work you are going to have a lot of issues with those people's children fitting into anything other than a very closed community which is not good for any country

Liberty is more important than your notions of collective good, and people have a right to live in a closed community if that's what they believe will best serve their needs and desires. So long as they do not initiate force or fraud upon others, it's not up to "the country" to tell them how they must live or what they must teach their children, who can make the decision for themselves when they reach their majority in which community they wish to live and what they wish to learn.

[Seth]

The ultimate responsibilty for children lies with the state

This is the mantra of the collectivist and the enslaver. This is what caused the parents of children in Cambodia to be murdered and thrown in pits while their children were collectively "educated" in Marxist/Maoist communist propaganda to denounce their own parents. This is what caused Chinese children to denounce their parents, to their parent's deaths, and the children then became obedient proletarian slaves of Mao. This is the mindset of the kind of people who reject individual liberty in favor of enslaving others to their own needs.

[Coito ergo sum]

They have different rules, and it's not child abuse to not go to school.

So you have kids who grow up whose only real future is being Amish, limting anyone in that sort of way is child abuse

But, it's o.k. to limit them to living in the manner you approve of, of course.

Think about it. Aren't you dictating to people how they ought to live? They have to be educated the way you approve of, or it's child abuse. They have to be indoctrinated to be the kind of citizens you approve of, or it's child abuse.

All parents have the obligation and the right to raise their children, you, your parents, and the Amish.

[eXcommunicate]

In my view, schools exist to educate children on things like: reading, writing, arithmetic/mathematics, literature, the arts, sciences, history, geography, civics and other topics.

True but its the bits of what you listed that society considers to be important that they learn, if you have parents that don't believe in large parts of science, think geography is for poofs , history is just communist propaganda and literature is the devils work you are going to have a lot of issues with those people's children fitting into anything other than a very closed community which is not good for any country

Liberty is more important than your notions of collective good, and people have a right to live in a closed community if that's what they believe will best serve their needs and desires. So long as they do not initiate force or fraud upon others, it's not up to "the country" to tell them how they must live or what they must teach their children, who can make the decision for themselves when they reach their majority in which community they wish to live and what they wish to learn.

"The country" is ensuring the rights of children by mandating basic parenting requirements.Those requirements include ensuring a child's education and health. A child's right to those two very basic things trumps a parent's right to deny them to them.

[Seth]

In my view, schools exist to educate children on things like: reading, writing, arithmetic/mathematics, literature, the arts, sciences, history, geography, civics and other topics.

True but its the bits of what you listed that society considers to be important that they learn, if you have parents that don't believe in large parts of science, think geography is for poofs , history is just communist propaganda and literature is the devils work you are going to have a lot of issues with those people's children fitting into anything other than a very closed community which is not good for any country

Liberty is more important than your notions of collective good, and people have a right to live in a closed community if that's what they believe will best serve their needs and desires. So long as they do not initiate force or fraud upon others, it's not up to "the country" to tell them how they must live or what they must teach their children, who can make the decision for themselves when they reach their majority in which community they wish to live and what they wish to learn.

"The country" is ensuring the rights of children by mandating basic parenting requirements.Those requirements include ensuring a child's education and health. A child's right to those two very basic things trumps a parent's right to deny them to them.

And that is why the state has authority to require that children be given a basic education. But the state does not have authority to turn schools into political indoctrination centers or education into political propaganda. Then again, the state derives its authority from the people, so the people may, if they choose, exclude the state from dictating educational curricula at all, leaving it up to the parents to decide what is best for their children.

"The country" (or the State) has no authority not expressly granted to it by the people, you see. It is not an entity with independent existence and authority, it is by, of and for the people and is at their command, they are not at its.

[hadespussercats]

My dad went to school with Amish kids.