Question to Libertarians Re: Schooling

[DarrylParsons]

Libertarian philosophy says that taxation is wrong, so it stands to reason that taxpayer-funded public schooling wouldn't exist in a libertarian society.

First of all, do you agree with the above statement?

If not, why not? If so, please read on...

Let's take a typical American city as an example. Any medium to large city will do. Without the option of "free" schooling, it stands to reason that a significant number of parents would simply opt out of education altogether for their kids simply on the basis that it isn't worth the cost.

Same questions here. Do you agree? If not, why not? If so, please read on...

So given that more kids would be unschooled, and given that many of these have parents who are not terribly skilled at educating children, some of whom are downright neglectful in this area, you would expect a good number of these unschooled kids to get into mischief, with some of the older ones committing outright crimes. In other words, the crime rate would go up.

Again, true or false? If false, why? If so, please read on...

How do you feel about this increased crime rate, particularly ...

Is it something that can simply be dealt with on a crime by crime basis, with no particular concern for the general phenomenon?

Is it something of concern that requires an answer, possibly involving some pre-emptive coercion (like taxation) administered at the local level?

What is the right way to handle it on a local level?

 

[DarrylParsons]

By the way, any non-libertarians who would like to put on the libertarian hat for sake of argument, feel free to chime in.

 

[nimue77]

I am quite libertarian, but not strictly so. First and formost I want the federal government out of most of the shit its into...and yes that includes the department of education. The more local something gets, the less beef I have with taxation since the people have more of a say and can move out of that governments control easier.

 

[tiznow]

i'm libertarian when it come to the federal government

let the states keep more money and handle schools and all the other shit....

i have no problems with some socialism at the state level

that's how our system was set up to keep the socialism local....federal government wasn't intended to be doing 95% of the shit they do today

money better/more efficiently spent locally

 

[Romanowski]

^ that is your interpretation of the federalist papers. There are other viewpoints. If your argument is about what our forefathers intended keep in mind not every forefather was in agreement, ...I wouldn't go down that road.

Those who have spent time on this board know im a conservative on many issues. however I dont have beef with public education persay. And I don't have any issue with even federal control (in a perfect world). State should have more say imo however.

As for a completely private school system, totally against it

 

[Romanowski]

ill add there is ZERO reason why a family shouldn't be able to decide for themselves,

use their own money taxed money and get vouchers to put their kids into private schools

 

[tiznow]

not about what somebody wrote or what was intended although i did protray that

just my opinion of how things should run

currently we have 2 levels of socialism and are taxed to the gills

well under a "conservative" rule we get an 8 year party like recent times i suppose with a reduction in federal taxes while they continue to expand on the spending front and the rest of the world funds our debt through their own savings.....and you wonder why budweiser and many other american companies will be no longer american owned in the near future....anyway i'm going off on tangents.....LOL

federal spending has proven to be wasteful over and over and over again in no matter what area you are talking about....

eventually the taxman will come knocking

 

[DarrylParsons]

Thanks guys for the responses so far. I should've figured you guys weren't libertarian extremists. Getting rid of federal involvement makes too much sense to dispute. I was hoping someone had gripes with taxation on a local level too. Maybe there's hope yet for a Phaedrus sighting or someone similar ...

 

[tiznow]

well i do to some extent although not altogether

but the fact is i can go to my local elected official and bitch if i please to bitch about spending on such and such

or some commie can go and bitch about funding this or that

when you hand washington a blank check (they can spend more than they take in via taxes assuming the rest of the world is willing to fund the debt near term) and they career politicians in the pocket of vested corporate interests obviously they not gonna spend your money inefficiently and wastefully and not looking out for the interests of the normal joe.... like you say makes too much sense

 

[mamatried]

ill add there is ZERO reason why a family shouldn't be able to decide for themselves,

use their own money taxed money and get vouchers to put their kids into private schools

The problem with vouchers is that if they were available enough people would use them so that public schools or some other local programs would be seriously underfunded. Since it's doubtful that local governments would let their school systems go completely to hell or stop supporting other necessities like police, fire depts, etc., etc., everyone's taxes would have to go up so that folks could send their kids to private schools. Before I had a kid I thought it was bad enough that I had to support a public school system from which I wasn't getting any direct benefit. (Yea, I know, an educated population benefits everyone blah blah blah.) But I'd have been damned if I wanted to support kids going to both public AND private schools.

 

[xpanda]

Libertarian philosophy says that taxation is wrong, so it stands to reason that taxpayer-funded public schooling wouldn't exist in a libertarian society.

First of all, do you agree with the above statement?

Yes. Parents can homeschool their kids if they can't afford formal education.

Let's take a typical American city as an example. Any medium to large city will do. Without the option of "free" schooling, it stands to reason that a significant number of parents would simply opt out of education altogether for their kids simply on the basis that it isn't worth the cost.

Same questions here. Do you agree? If not, why not? If so, please read on...

Disagree. Without 'free' education, more parents would educate their kids themselves.

So given that more kids would be unschooled, and given that many of these have parents who are not terribly skilled at educating children, some of whom are downright neglectful in this area, you would expect a good number of these unschooled kids to get into mischief, with some of the older ones committing outright crimes. In other words, the crime rate would go up.

Again, true or false? If false, why? If so, please read on...

Prove it.

(Have crime rates reduced since the introduction of public education? Are poorer/public-educationless societies more crime-ridden than we?)

 

[tiznow]

in the ideal world you are right X

problem is society in america at least(and i believe the world at large although i have no first hand experience) has become such nanny staters now depending on government programs

that you're gonna have to take small steps backwards in order for it to work

if you just shut down everything overnight u throw the country into chaos

the first step in the process will be slowly giving power back to the states....

well this is assuming we even try in america and don't continue on the fascist/commie path we are taking.....

 

[eek.]

From what I've seen school is just a sneaky way to get kids out of bed in the morning and then keep them off the streets during the day while ma and pa work.

It also develops their working life routine from an early age.(9-5)

If they can learn stuff too, then that's a nice bonus.

 

[mamatried]

From what I've seen school is just a sneaky way to get kids out of bed in the morning and then keep them off the streets during the day while ma and pa work.

It also develops their working life routine from an early age.(9-5)

If they can learn stuff too, then that's a nice bonus.

It's also where I learned how to roll a joint.

 

[gtc08]

how the heck can i educate my kids if i have to work 8 hrs a day to support my family.

 

[tiznow]

how the heck can i educate my kids if i have to work 8 hrs a day to support my family.

one parent in many cases could support a family if they changed their priorities from need lotsa nice shit i see on TV to keep up with the neighbors to investing in your child's education/development and long term family stability

i know today its getting harder and harder with overtaxation and inflation due to fiat but that's a different story

 

[eek.]

Libertarians kinda ignore that bit...actually they ignore a lot of bits like that.

If you have to ask stuff like that, then you're not a real Libertarian.

Usually a libertarian will homeschool their child while the servants do the housework and shopping and walking the dog, and the employees run the business.

 

[tiznow]

nah alot of the libertarians their kids are the employees eventually and no they don't hire help for the other stuff they own the business and take care of that other stuff on their own using the family......they are self sufficient

like an iowa farmers life is very libertarian in nature where the kids take a part in the family business and it gets handed down generation to generation

your nanny staters are the ones that hire help for the chores while both parents work to have nice shit and spoil their kid with goodies rather than investing in their education and making the kids work and being a contributor to the family

 

[DarrylParsons]

Prove it.

(Have crime rates reduced since the introduction of public education? Are poorer/public-educationless societies more crime-ridden than we?)

Hey, hold on a minute! No need to get all thorny and testy. I said "If so, please read on" meaning that if you disagree with the last part you will surely disagree with this part.

If you noticed I asked for opinions with explanations and didn't say, "anyone who disagrees with me is a dumbass." Your style of response would be more appropriate if I had said that.

But to answer your first question, so much has changed since the introduction of public education that simply comparing crime levels before and after would hardly be instructive. You would need to isolate that one variable from the host of others such as increase in population density, increase in wealth disparity, changes in overall culture and that sort of thing.

As for the poorer societies, it's hard to get an official guage because such a small percentage of crimes get reported. And there is still the factor of wealth disparity that needs to be removed from the equation somehow. If everyone is equally poor, then there is a lot less reason to steal than if rich people and poor people are living side by side. We'd need to look at a country with high wealth disparity that goes beyond the top officials living in a walled off district of their own.

Disagree. Without 'free' education, more parents would educate their kids themselves.

Okay. But this doesn't contradict what I have said. You can have more homeschooling and more crime at the same time, simply under the reasonable assumption that parents would span the spectrum as to how they'd react to an elimination of public schooling.

 

[xpanda]

Just cause I'm brief, doesn't mean I'm being snotty.

I know where you stand on public education, Darryl. No worries there. The 'prove it' comment was more rhetorical than anything, and not directed at you, any more than comments like 'crime would go up' are really your thoughts.

Sorry to give the wrong impression.