Public School Socialism

July 30th, 2007 by Edmund Snyder · 15 Comments

One of the initial goals that I had when I started this blog was to spur debate within the notes or the discussion board. Although there hasn’t been much participation in the discussion board, my article 5 Reasons Why You Should Homeschool, has led to considerable discussion and emails. Almost all of these responses have been encouraging with people agreeing with at least some of my points. One notable point of dissent from contributor Obsteve was left on the discussion board and later copied unedited to the blog here. Some of obsteve’s arguments have been answered by other noters, but I still owe him responses as promised. I intend to get to those soon, but this entry is actually about a different reason to homeshool that wasn’t included in my original article.

The forgotten reason is actually the primary reason why I make this choice: as a libertarian individualist, I find socialism in any form to be undesirable and even immoral. Although I’m aware of some of the flaws with pure Objectivism (namely, it is not pragmatic), Ayn Rand nailed that one with her strict anti-socialist views. NRA Soldiers Marching The desert island test of morality comes in handy when considering public schools.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with the desert island test, but in a nutshell it means that when you have to consider whether you have specific rights, you should consider similar circumstances for an individual on an island. Individuals don’t gain additional rights when they join a group other than the ability to form voluntary agreements and associations. But anything that isn’t voluntary would violate the rights of other individuals in the newly formed society, therefore such actions can’t be rights.

But how does this apply to public schools? Let’s consider an island with one family with children and one childless couple. Does the family have a right to force the autonomous couple to contribute to the education of their children? Most rational people will agree that they do not have such a right. Additionally, the childless couple does not have the right to force the other family to let the couple dictate how the family’s children should be educated. Does adding another family with children change the underlying principle of rights? Again, most rational people will agree that it does not.

So the question is: at what number of families does it become moral to force the childless couples to pay for the education of the families’ children? At what number does society gain the right to force families to start allowing the society to educate their children? Is 100 the magic number? 1000? 1,000,000?

Of course it can be argued that without public education, some children will fall by the wayside. Some will not have the opportunity for education at all. It could also be argued that uneducated children may be more likely to grow up to be unproductive or outright criminals, putting strain on society and the individuals that compose it. African school The answer to that is volunteerism. More than a few individuals will voluntarily contribute to the cost of building and maintaining charitable schools. Quite a few schools have been built in countries in Africa, as well as Laos, Cambodia, and other countries–all with voluntary contributions. Interestingly, the contributors don’t even have any fear of the children in those villages growing up to become criminals in their own backyards. One should conclude that they contribute simply because it makes them feel good about themselves. That’s the way that voluntary charity works–unlike the forced charity that we find in all social welfare programs, where the individuals often come to resent the implied violence that would result if were to choose to abstain.

In all fairness, I attended public schools. So should I be grateful for the education they provided? I contend that most of my education didn’t come from the public schools I attended but from parents who educated during the evenings and summers. So, no, I am not grateful because frankly the time I wasted there would have been much better filled with more of the homeschooling that I did receive on weekends and evenings.

Just the same, who should pay for the public education that I received? Well, actually, my father already paid for it in the form of property taxes and other taxes. But who paid for his education? His father. For that matter, if you go back a few more generations you end up finding people who paid taxes for their children’s educations who didn’t receive any public education of their own when they were children. More important than any of that is the fact that the educations (at least since my childhood) aren’t worth the money that is spent on them. If I were to go to a restaurant and receive poor service and rotten food, not only would I not be obligated to pay; but I definitely wouldn’t give them more money so that they could use it to attempt to improve their service and menu.

So socialism is the primary reason I choose to homeschool. If you are like me, then this alone is reason enough to keep your children at home. My other five reasons are simply icing on the cake.

Tags: Ed's Articles · Family/Parenting · Homeschooling / Education · Political

15 responses so far ↓

1 Serena // Jul 30, 2007 at 2:59 pm

I don’t mind paying taxes for children I don’t have to go to school if it keeps them out of the cul-de-sac where they would be annoying me during the day. I am mostly joking, mostly.
2 Ed Snyder // Jul 30, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Serena,

Mostly, I don’t mind paying either. That’s precisely the point–many people don’t mind paying and would pay voluntarily if given a choice. Most of them would prefer to be receiving more for their money, though. Wouldn’t you?
3 Serena // Jul 30, 2007 at 3:53 pm

I guess I just don’t know. I suppose people should have the choice but at the same time as I look around at all the ill behaved children and the horrible parents that I know personally, I doubt that home-schooling would be a better option for most of them. Still I imagine that public schools could be better than they are but since I have absolutely no interest, since I am not a parent, in getting involved in changing them, I really can’t complain. Still I am sure that home-schooling is a great option for some.

I am sure if I had children that my thoughts on this would be different.
4 Amie // Jul 30, 2007 at 7:56 pm

I honestly believe that ‘free’ public education has been detrimental to our society. Throwing a child on a bus each morning and retrieving them from said bus in the afternoon is a very impersonal system. Not to mention that if the parent has nothing at stake (read money), they are less likely to be active in the child’s education. Do you think our children would perform as poorly as they do (talking national averages here) if mom and dad had to pay full price for that education? NO WAY!

Then there are the teachers. I fully acknowledge that there are teachers out there in public schools that truly care about the kids they teach. Others are older, burnt out, or simply lived by the “those who can’t do, teach” mantra. If they knew that mom and dad were writing checks directly to their boss, don’t you think they’d be a little more apt to put their best foot forward each and everyday?

As a homeschooling mom, I can tell you that I value every resource that I purchase and will do everything in my power to make sure that my child uses it to it’s fullest advantage. Even though we use many free resources, I am keenly aware of every dollar spent on his education. Ironically, I still have to pay for the local elementary school, so in essence, I pay for his education twice.

Bah.. I could go on with this rant for pages, but you get the idea.
5 Ed Snyder // Jul 30, 2007 at 9:43 pm

Amie,

Thanks for your comments. You do sound like you have quite a bit more to say on this topic.

I’m glad you put the word free in parentheses (in “free public education) since our education system is anything but free. We spend way more on the system than we get out of it, which was one of the sub-themes of this entry
6 Kit // Jul 31, 2007 at 6:50 am

“Of course it can be argued that without public education, some children will fall by the wayside. Some will not have the opportunity for education at all. It could also be argued that uneducated children may be more likely to grow up to be unproductive or outright criminals, putting strain on society and the individuals that compose it.African school The answer to that is volunteerism.”

Really ?
volunteerism will provide for children who are born to families with no desire whatsoever to educate their children ?
It will motivate parents who would prefer to just let Susie and Joey run the streets , paying as little attention to them as possible , to change and care whether or not the child is signed up for some volunteer program ?

I seriously doubt it.
I homeschool in Oklahoma. I believe that a free public education is the best way to reach those children who without that option would be running the streets, and I’m tired of hearing from people who’ve never spent more than a drive-thru’s errand of mercy in the projects yap about how wonderful everything would be if no one ever had to do anything they didn’t want to do.

I completely agree that any parent anywhere should never be denied the right to keep their children at home for education in the manner that suits that family best.
But claiming that eliminating forced financial support of free public schools would work out fine due to volunteers ignores the sad reality that most parents do NOT care anywhere near as much about their offspring as you do about yours.
They flat don’t. They won’t sacrifice cable tv and lattes to get the child a better education, they don’t spend more than an average of 2 hrs a week of time with the child, and that is the hard working double income ‘good family’ set of statistics. And you think you’ll only have a few unloved rugrats running the streets ?
Wake up and look around you.
Your parenting style is in the *minority*.
7 Edmund Snyder // Jul 31, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Kit,

The projects would have been a huge step up from where I lived. As my sister pointed out to me, at least they have running water, electricity, indoor plumbing, and other conveniences in the projects.

Despite the fact that I grew up dirt poor, living in the woods of Northern Minnesota crowded into a single room with my mother and three siblings to gather around a woodstove that frequently didn’t provide enough heat and other times provided too much, I still received more of an education outside of public school than I did in it.

That aside, perhaps depriving your children of any education could be considered a form of abuse. I don’t really know the answer to that. However, you failed to answer the question about what number is required before it is morally acceptable to force other people to pay for yours (or those poor people’s) children. So what is the magical number?
8 Ute // Aug 3, 2007 at 10:43 am

Well, obviously this can’t be a question of do I WANT to pay for the public schools. Of course I don’t. And that my local school still gets $4000 a year for my home schooled child makes me sick to my stomach. $4000 wasted and they still claim they don’t have enough money. And I am not the only homeschooler in the area. But to get back to “do I mind paying”… the system is not going to work any other way. If we were to change the school system, we would have to change the work system and every other system that works because of the school system. How many people cannot afford to have one parent stay at home to home school. I know quite a few myself. It is the public school system that made it possible for both parents to go to work to make ends meet.

What is the magical number? Well, simply put, in a country like this what is the other option? You cannot compare 300 Million people with 3 families. If there IS another option that you can actually realize now, then let me know. I’d love to hear it.

Home schooling in Oregon,
Ute
9 Edmund Snyder // Aug 4, 2007 at 10:23 am

Ute,

I don’t know that there’s a solution that could be implemented over night that would replace public schools right now. It may be necessary to change things incrementally. A good start would be something like vouchers or tax credits.

If families weren’t paying as much as 50% of their income in income taxes, social security, medicare, employer matching contributions, state income taxes, registration fees, licensing fees, surcharges, property taxes, hidden inflationary taxes, and other fees, taxes, and surcharges; perhaps both parents of so many families wouldn’t need to work to make ends meet. Furthermore, if so many families didn’t need to live so far beyond their means, there would be a lot of cases where both parents don’t have to work to make ends meet.

Of course it is anecdotal, but my wife is an E-3 in the Navy. We’ve managed to live with reasonable comfort since I left my job about 9 months ago (which cut our gross family income by about 70%). E-3’s in the military aren’t exactly raking it in either, I might add. We do have to cut a few corners, but we eat well and are pretty happy. I’m most happy that my kids aren’t being watched by someone I barely know at daycare.
10 Ute // Aug 4, 2007 at 7:02 pm

Oh, I agree with you completely, Ed. I am in the lucky position to have no financial worries, but even if my husband made less we would somehow make it without me having to provide a second income. In the end it’s always a question of whether or not you’re willing to cut those few corners or if you’re simply to comfortable with the system.
11 Bueller? Bueller? : Hear ItFrom.Us // Aug 10, 2007 at 2:10 pm

[…] has an excellent post on public school socialism: Let’s consider an island with one family with children and one childless couple. Does the family […]
12 Michelle // Aug 28, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Well, publically funded schools won’t be going away. I do believe that they will (and are) evolving to providing a basic education (and indoctrination) for families who are unable or unwilling to homeschool or send their kids to a private school.

I’m not much into conspiracy theories, but if I were to buy into one it would be the one that purports that public schools have been “dumbed down” so that they provide just enough education for someone to hold down a job and pay taxes.

P.S. I just recently stumbled upon this blog, so please forgive me if I am late in posting on a topic or if I am repeating myself on multiple topics.
13 Fawn // Aug 29, 2007 at 11:10 am

After reading this I wish I had a blog.

I would enjoy people responding to my war with the school.

it boggles my mind that their “policy” is more important to them than thinking that it would be better to let the parent win.
Could their policy to reprimand the child if the parent refuses to sign be fallible?

If the parent is a very active participant with the school and her kids, should the child be punished when I refuse to sign something I think doesn’t really teach my child crap.

I guess the “committee” meets this afternoon. Will the all these intelligent teachers realize their system is not working. Can one individual who has never gone to college be smarter than a whole school?

I wish I had money to dedicate to a blog so I could publish things of interest to me. Instead, the money goes to raising kids.

good luck

and Just because someone has a degree does not make them wise
14 Edmund Snyder // Aug 29, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Fawn,

You don’t need money to start a blog. I pay for my domain name and a host, but it’s really easy to set up a free blog that doesn’t have a fancy domain name of its own at http://www.wordpress.com. And even if you pay for your domain name and hosting service, you can easily make that money back by putting ads on your pages. I haven’t made my back, but that’s because I screwed up and tried to monetize too soon so Google banned me. But there are other ways to make the money–at least enough to make the blog pay for itself.

I’ll try to direct you to some of the good blogs on starting blogs: Try bloggers like Wendy Piersall, Michelle, and Darren Rowse. You can call me, too, if you’d like.
15 Tom // Sep 24, 2007 at 12:43 pm

I think the point at which it becomes acceptable to force people to pay for public schooling is the point at which a community grows too large for every member to know every other member in it.

Before that most people will contribute voluntarily to pay for schools or parents will organise to set up their own schools, when communities grow larger, and more mobile (i.e. people moving to new areas more as happens today) it becomes more and more difficult for parents to self organise (because a lot of the time now they don’t even know their neighbours, let alone the whole community) Also in deprived areas even if parents want to teach kids themselves they often don’t have the knowledge to or the money to hire tutors.

This is the point at which it becomes acceptable to force EVERYONE in the community 9whether it be town, city or whole country) to pay for schooling because everyone gains from the benefits. If you go back far enough you will find people who paid taxes for education but didn’t receive any, unfortunately a necessary evil I believe, but now every single person has the option of a full time education no matter how poor they are or how ignorant their parents.

Even if you don’t take advantage of this you still benefit from the fact that crime is much reduced due to an increased general education level, increased prosperity for the country as a whole and decreased crime through kids having something constructive to do with their days.

On a side note I am a socialist and I live in England, I’m eternally thankful that we have public education and a public health service as without either of these I wouldn’t be where i am today (not rich enough to afford private education or a lifesaving operation which i benefited from) and today I’ve contributed back to society much more than I took in terms of taxes as I do ok for myself.