What Libertarians Do

[amused]

A public school system is the best investment with the highest ROI that a society can make. There's a direct correlation between low literacy and human misery/low productivity.

[laklak]

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.

I see it as exactly the reverse. The ultimate responsibility for children lie with their parents. In extreme circumstances it is delegated to the state.

[MiM]

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.

So the people have authority to exclude the state from dictating..., but then again, if I read correctly, the people does not have the right to require that the state dictates curricula...

As you say, the state has to do what the people tells it to, that is what democracy is all about.But this goes both ways, doesn't it? If the people tells the state to go hiding, so be it, but if the people tells the state to keep strong, and build a just society where freewheeling libertarianism is strongly hampered, then that is what the state must do, isn't it?

[Seth]

A public school system is the best investment with the highest ROI that a society can make. There's a direct correlation between low literacy and human misery/low productivity.

No, an EDUCATION SYSTEM is the best investment society can make for its economic future. It does NOT have to be a "public" education system financed through taxes and controlled by the state.

Even if one accepts the idea (and it's not a bad idea) that it is compulsory that children be educated in the interests of a better, more economically and socially robust society, there is no reason why the state must be responsible for providing that education, and many reasons why it should not be allowed to do so, the most important of which is that state-directed education is far too often used as a tool of political (particularly Marxist) indoctrination.

If we assume, arguendo, that taxing everyone to pay for education of children is a good idea, it's far better to simply allocate those tax monies to the students (through their parents) by giving them vouchers that may be used for tuition at ANY school of the parents choice. The vast majority of parents are going to choose a school that is academically superior for their children (in any advanced culture) in order to give their children the best education and chance for prosperity in the future, as adults. The numbers of people who will choose to give their children inferior educations are quite small in civilized countries (by which I mean countries not like Afghanistan, Iran, or other countries that make a deliberate choice to deny education to girls, or boys for religious reasons), and most parents want the best for their kids.

Using private school free-market principles combined with taxation for education and vouchers that allow the money to follow the student to any educational institution, competition and free-market forces quickly weed-out inferior schools and teachers, and the overall quality of education improves as schools and teachers compete for student's money.

Not only does this provide a better, higher-quality education for the children, it ensures that the government cannot use "public" schools as tools of political indoctrination, which is absolutely necessary for the prosperity and liberty of a free people.

Political ideological-driven education never provides a good education because the focus is always on the political indoctrination and conformity, not on the individual success of the student.

This is why "public" schools should be outlawed entirely and education should be left up to the parents, who will most often do right by their children because they, of anyone, are most likely to have their best interests at heart.

[laklak]

Vouchers are certainly the way to go. Charter schools are another option, at least there is a bit more parental control over curriculum. If public schools (in the traditional U.S. sense) are such a good idea, then why are parochial schools, charter schools and private schools better by almost all measurements?

[Seth]

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.

So the people have authority to exclude the state from dictating..., but then again, if I read correctly, the people does not have the right to require that the state dictates curricula...

As you say, the state has to do what the people tells it to, that is what democracy is all about.But this goes both ways, doesn't it? If the people tells the state to go hiding, so be it, but if the people tells the state to keep strong, and build a just society where freewheeling libertarianism is strongly hampered, then that is what the state must do, isn't it?

Where the authority of the state conflicts with individual liberty, absence the initiation of force or fraud by the individual, state authority must yield to the right of the individual to make choices for himself...and his children.

Therefore, the state may recommend educational standards (in a Libertarian society) but may not enforce them over the will of the parents of the child. Libertarianism holds that it is the parents who will, of anyone, have the best interests of the child at heart, and must therefore be permitted to exercise authority over the child unless and until the parents violate the rights of the child to be free of the initiation of force or fraud.

One could make a plausible argument that refusing to provide an adequate, non-political education in the fundamentals amounts to fraud perpetrated on the child, since the child has an innate right to be well-educated enough to participate in civil society as an adult. Therefore, a parent refusing a basic education in things like reading, writing, math, and other non-political subjects would be perpetrating a fraud.

The rub comes when the state, or others (like the Frankfurt School Marxists) attempt to use the requirement for a basic education as justification for foisting their own fraud off on the child in the form of subtle but very real political indoctrination. In such cases, the parents must have ultimate control over any controversial subject matter, including political education, religious education, and sexual education, among others.

The problem is, of course, when it comes to grey areas like "global warming" or evolution and how they are taught.

In my view, if there is a conflict between what science claims as truth (take evolution as an example) and what the parents believe to be true (such as creationism as an example), then the power of the state to dictate which of the two shall be taught to a particular child vanishes, and the supreme authority of the parent must rule. This places the burden on educators to teach in a neutral and equal manner if parents are not to exercise veto authority over controversial parts of the curriculum.

One cannot dispute that 2+2=4, or that learning to read and write one's native language is non-controversial, but when it comes to a conflict between science and religion, or between conflicting political beliefs, the right of the parent to raise their child in their chosen faith or belief must prevail for liberty to mean anything.

[MiM]

One cannot dispute that 2+2=4, or that learning to read and write one's native language is non-controversial, but when it comes to a conflict between science and religion, or between conflicting political beliefs, the right of the parent to raise their child in their chosen faith or belief must prevail for liberty to mean anything.

That completely depends on whose liberty you put the first. The liberty of the parent to oppress a child at will or the liberty of the child to be free from parental oppression. I believe there are enough stories already here on Razz about parents who have lacked the ability to put the interest of the children first, to show that this point is far from moot.

[Svartalf]

A public school system is the best investment with the highest ROI that a society can make. There's a direct correlation between low literacy and human misery/low productivity.

Mongolia and kazakhstan are first world countries? The Sudan is wealthier than Egypts?

[Svartalf]

Vouchers are certainly the way to go. Charter schools are another option, at least there is a bit more parental control over curriculum. If public schools (in the traditional U.S. sense) are such a good idea, then why are parochial schools, charter schools and private schools better by almost all measurements?

You know that vouchers are basically a way to subsidize private education at the expense of the public system, right?

[Warren Dew]

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.

Well said, thank you.

[Coito ergo sum]

A public school system is the best investment with the highest ROI that a society can make. There's a direct correlation between low literacy and human misery/low productivity.

Very true, which is why a public school system is essential. However, it is not necessary to make it unlawful for an individual to choose to go a different direction.

[Warren Dew]

You know that vouchers are basically a way to subsidize private education at the expense of the public system, right?

Ultimately, they are a way of replacing public schools with private schools, giving all children the higher quality education that private schools provide in the U.S.

[laklak]

What Warren said - I'd like to see ALL schools private. I got a damn good education at a private school, but not many families could afford the $20,000+ annual tuition (and that back in the early 70s). Vouchers would allow parents without the financial means to send their kids to better schools.

Not that the Florida public school system is that bad, actually there are some pretty decent public schools. However, I think that privatizing the educational system would benefit all parties, except perhaps the officials at the teacher's union.

[MrJonno]

What Warren said - I'd like to see ALL schools private. I got a damn good education at a private school, but not many families could afford the $20,000+ annual tuition (and that back in the early 70s). Vouchers would allow parents without the financial means to send their kids to better schools.

Not that the Florida public school system is that bad, actually there are some pretty decent public schools. However, I think that privatizing the educational system would benefit all parties, except perhaps the officials at the teacher's union.

It would benefit the middle classes/rich who care about their kids education at a cost of some of the poor who don't. As the rich get a decent education there isnt really much of a justification for that

[Warren Dew]

It would benefit the middle classes/rich who care about their kids education at a cost of some of the poor who don't.

The parents I know who are poor care about their kids just as much as rich parents do. Just because they don't have as much money to spend on their kids doesn't mean they don't care about their kids.