On the Principle of the Non-Initiation of Physical Force

I’ve left some comments on an article at First Things by David Bentley Hart entitled “The Trouble with Ayn Rand”. (The article is still available, but the comments section is apparently closed, at least to non-subscribers.)

The article itself is not worth commenting on, not because it is a critique of Objectivism, but because it isn’t. When the author begins his attack by referring to the cultural blossoming of her ideas as “the fashion of the moment” and refers to “Ayn Rand and her idiotic ‘Objectivism’ [as not] so much a philosophy as what someone who has never actually encountered philosophy imagines a philosophy might look like”, you know you’ve encountered a person intent on discrediting ideas by evading them. This piece is more accurately characterized as a rant or a hissy fit or a childish temper tantrum.

It’s a shame, though, that the comments section is no longer – or at least not so easily - available as it originally was. It is much more interesting than the article, because it featured a dialogue about Rand’s actual ideas. It is a lively, informative back-and-forth featuring 168 comments. Many correspondents simply echoed the author’s anti-intellectuality. But other Rand critics at least attempted some measure of objectivity concerning her ideas. There was also a healthy dose of Objectivist commentary worth reading. Here was my contribution in response to a Rand critic’s question to those who adhere to at least parts of her philosophy.

“So I'm interested to hear from those people who _do_ find something in Ayn Rand to like. What is it? You don't have to defend her whole body of work or philosophy, just offer one or two things that you think she really does get right.”

Thanks to Josh W. for posing that question.

Since Objectivism is a comprehensive, integrated philosophic guide to living, it is hard to know where to begin to defend it in this forum. Since the question asked for one thing that Rand got right, I’ve chosen to offer a universal political truth she posited. Keep in mind that this statement is presented out of the context of her deeper metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical foundations. Politics rests upon those.

Rand identified the initiation of physical force by one human being against another as the fundamental political (i.e., social) evil that must be expunged from human relationships if a truly benevolent, live-and-let-live society is ever to be established. Once force is eliminated from human relationships, by design and by law, the only means of human association left is rational persuasion, and voluntary association and trade – i.e., reason.

Everyone agrees that the private initiation of force – armed robbery, fraud, murder, breaking and entering, etc. - is wrong, whatever the reason, and should be punishable by law. Force, Rand held, is essentially the only way to violate the rights of another to think and act upon his own judgement. (Force initiation includes indirect coercion, such as fraud and breech of contract, whereby the victim is separated physically from his property under false pretenses – which is basically no different from armed robbery.) But Rand saw a way for men to make an end run around the moral law that private citizens must abide – employ the mechanism of government’s legal monopoly on physical force in order to act as criminal, and get away with it – i.e., through legislative law-making powers, under the guises of “democracy”, the “public good”, and so on.

How to bring people in their capacity as government officials under moral law? The principle of individual rights. Individual rights, properly understood, is the principle that sanctions a man’s rights to freedom of action. Since rights are unalienable and held equally and at all times by all people, the exercise of one’s rights is conditional upon refraining from violating the same rights of others. In other words, the principle that guarantees your right to act also limits your freedom of action to renouncing the use of force to achieve your goals. Applied to law, it is the means of subordinating society and government to moral law. (ex. - no law may initiate force against private citizens, say by forcing you into government-run social programs, or by taxing you to support corporate subsidies.) Simply put, force is banished from all realms of human association. The end result is a laissez-faire capitalist society, where everyone’s rights are upheld and no one’s violated, and government performs its vital function of protecting those rights.

In practice, this principle is more complex than my brief commentary may make it seem at a glance. It’s easy to understand the arrest and incarceration of a street thug. The thug robbed someone at gunpoint, marking the initiation of physical force. The apprehension by law enforcement thus represents the retaliatory use of force. How the principle of the non-initiation of physical force applies to a nation’s laws is not always readily apparent. Let’s briefly examine one such case.

What of forcing a man (or woman) to pay child support to a former spouse who has custody of the couple’s children, especially in light of the passage in Rand’s novel “The Fountainhead” (quoted in the article) in which Roark declares “I came here to say I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life, nor to any part of my energy, nor to any achievement of mine.” After all, isn’t state-imposed child support forcible redistribution of a person’s wealth – the initiation of force against a man whose life, energy, and achievement is unalienably his? Why should a man be forced to support children if he no longer wants to?

The answer lies in the nature of individual rights. Rights, properly understood, are inalienable possessions of each individual human being, by virtue of the natural fact of his being born. But those rights – unique, properly understood, to human beings – are of no direct relevance to an infant. Like all of the higher animals, man’s young must be reared into adulthood over a period of time, before they are capable of fending for themselves and fully employing their particular means of survival. Since rights are an attribute of man by virtue of his rational, conceptual mind as his main means of survival, the minor child is rightfully entitled to be supported until he is fully capable of exercising his rights, on his own, in service to his own life: i.e., until he has acquired the necessary mind training, knowledge, and physical capacity, which means the age of majority as objectively codified into law. If he is entitled to this support, who holds the obligation to issue that support? It is the parents who brought him into the world.

By the nature of things, the minor child’s rights are thus vested in the parents. There is no conflict of rights here. The state, in its proper role as protector and enforcer of individual rights may step in on behalf of the child in cases of physical abuse and neglect, when the child is as yet incapable of fully exercising his rights. In other words, by neglecting his own child - thus violating that child’s rights – the parent may be compelled to fulfil the responsibility imposed upon him by nature. The state’s compulsory child support actions are retaliatory, not initiative. The above-cited quote from The Fountainhead, as well as others cited in the article, must be taken in full context. (Context-dropping is rampant among Objectivism’s antagonists.) It is a claim relevant to adults, first of all. And second Roark refers to unchosen obligations – obligations not related to one’s own actions and choices - which others may seek to impose on him. A man may stand on Roark’s principles in regards to welfare state programs that force him to support other people’s children, but not his own. In a very valid sense, there is an implied contract between a parent and a child, which neglectful parents may be considered to have broken, inviting intervention by legal authorities. Objectivism is not a license to shirk one’s personal responsibilities; i.e., to have it both ways.

There are obviously complexities to this specific issue that I have not dealt with, and the application of the principle of the non-initiation of physical force to the broad field of law is obviously very complex. But this principle, which as can be seen is rooted in deeper Objectivist principles, is a necessary building block of a free society.

New Jersey's Constitutional Roadblock to Reform

NJ Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine has a good piece entitled “Can Christie erase the Hughes legacy? He’d better hope so
”. What is the “Hughes legacy”? Mulshine explains:

In his book, "The Life and Times of Richard J. Hughes," Seton Hall law professor John Wefing describes how Hughes tried and failed to get the Legislature to adopt an income tax during his two terms as governor in the 1960s. When he was appointed chief justice in the 1970s, however, Hughes got his wish. Wefing quotes an interview of Hughes by fellow Star-Ledger columnist Bob Braun back then. "He wanted to talk about how the Legislature had refused to give him the state income tax back in the 1960s. ‘They didn’t want the income tax then? Well, they’ll want one now,’" Braun wrote, quoting Hughes.

In 1976, Hughes [as State Supreme Court Chief Justice) ordered the schools shut in a good guy/bad guy routine that helped his fellow Democrat, Gov. Brendan Byrne, push an income tax through the Legislature. The court’s been playing politics ever since.

The Hughes & Byrne show led to a flow of state funds first to “poor” districts and then to all districts. And the income tax-funded state municipal aid scheme has grown like a cancer ever since. Municipal aid now consumes more than half
of a state budget that is $billions in the red, even as state income and sales and local property taxes have ballooned, consuming “more as a percentage of income than any other state in America”, according to Christie.

Mulshine’s reference to the court’s “playing politics” refers to the court “sticking their noses into tax policy”. Mulshine points to the latest court battle over state funding for so-called “special needs” school districts – districts that allegedly can’t generate enough property tax revenue to support their local public schools, thus short-changing poor children. These are called “Abbott” districts, and the latest case is called “Abbott XXI”. Yes, 21 state Supreme Court rulings since the original case brought in 1981. In this case, the court has been asked to restore state school aid cuts instituted by Governor Chris Christie. Mulshine asks:

But why is that any of [the court’s] business? The judges are not supposed to be sticking their noses into tax policy. That’s the proper purview of the Legislature. Or at least it was until the man whose name is on the Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex came along.

Mulshine’s right, of course. So, how did it become the court’s business? He points the finger at Hughes, calling it the “Hughes Legacy”. It was primarily Hughes who brought us the state school aid monster, which is a welfare scheme in which “wealthy” communities are drained, via the state income tax, to support “poor” communities’ public schools.

But is Mulshine drilling deep enough to find the ultimate cause. I’ve left the following comments:

I agree with thebullhorn that “the answer lies in getting rid of state-sponsored and state funded schools by constitutional amendment”.

The “Hughes legacy” traces back much further than Richard J. Hughes. The unholy Hughes Court-Byrne alliance that brought us the state income tax is rooted in the “thorough and efficient” clause of the state constitution, which reads:

“The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years.”

That clause dates back to 1873. The real Hughes legacy is that he understood its meaning and discovered how to use it. It empowers the courts, which must uphold the constitution. It’s true that tax policy is properly the job of the elected legislature. But as I see it, that clause gives the court the reigns over the legislature in one way or another (say, by shutting down the public schools again?).

“The legislature shall provide…” What if it doesn’t, according to seven justices? It is then in violation of constitutional law. The court is now faced with an impossible dilemma. It must either neglect its duty to uphold the constitution, or usurp the proper function of another branch of government.

But it gets worse. On what basis does the court decide how much funding is necessary, or how those funds should be spent … i.e., whether “a school district [should] fire some teachers while keeping 40 sports programs”? On the basis of competing special interest pressure groups, that’s how. It can be no other way. That’s because there is no way to objectively define “thorough and efficient” when applied to “all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years”, each and every one of whom are unique individuals with his/her own needs, cognitive strengths and weaknesses, interests, pace of educational development, and so on.

The elephant in the room that few seem to want to confront is that the only solution is to get rid of the constitutional mandate for state provision of the schools. It’s a daunting task, to be sure. But to find the philosophical unpinning for repeal, look no further than America’s Founding principles. The proper purpose of government is not to provide an education (or any material product or service). It is to protect individual rights, which includes the rights of parents to educate their children as they see fit. Government-run schools violate those rights in two ways: They force people to pay for the education of other people’s children, and they put government in charge of what is taught, how it is taught, and who should pay for it.

I’m only a layman. But it seems obvious to me that the only way to get the court’s nose out of the legislature’s tax business - and, ultimately, the state out of the education business - is to repeal the thorough and efficient clause. There is no other way, as there is no way the court will relinquish its power to “have their hands in your pockets, trying to take your money” as long as the state constitution mandates it.

When you step back and look at the History of Abbott via the actual time line, it becomes obvious when and how it all began. NJ’s “thorough and efficient” clause is, of course, a complete inversion of American Founding principles. Any attempt by government to guarantee material benefits must necessarily violate individual rights, especially property rights. If education is a “right”, as the NJ constitution asserts, then someone must be forced to provide it and/or pay for it. (A good clarification of the issue is posted by The Lucidicus Project’s
’s Jared Rhoads, via FIRM
. The subject is a right to healthcare, but the same arguments apply to education, housing, jobs, etc.)

While Governor Christie battles the court, he and other advocates of free market education reforms must recognize that a much broader and deeper approach is ultimately required. The battle must be taken right up to the constitutional level. As another Star-Ledger columnist correctly states
, the proper way to fight this issue is to “press for a constitutional amendment”. It was the legislature and the voters that gave the court the power, and only they can take it away – or possibly have that state “constitutional right” clause overturned in Federal Courts.

Movies: Atlas Shrugged, Part I

Talk of an Atlas Shrugged movie has gone on for decades. I had always hoped that it wouldn’t get made because, for one thing, I didn’t think any movie could do this particular book – which I first read in 1968 - justice. It is at once an action novel and a philosophic treatise; not just any treatise, but one that challenges convention at the deepest and at multiple levels, from ethics to love to psychology to economics to politics and more. It is literally a book that requires extensive study.

On another level, I had always feared that Atlas Shrugged in the wrong Hollywood hands would distort and undermine the important things Ayn Rand had to say. Agree or not, Rand desperately needs to be honestly and objectively understood and debated. What she had to say is, in my mind, of great importance both historically and for the future of mankind.

To be sure, a bad movie could never derail ideas, even if it sets them back for a while. In their more than half a century long effort to defeat her, Ayn Rand’s critics of Left and Right have given us almost exclusively a steady barrage of lies and distortions, continuing at an accelerating pace to this day. Yet, they could not stop the expanding (though still limited) penetration of Objectivist ideas into the culture. A distortive movie would be no more successful. Ideas cannot be defeated except by confronting them openly and by means of better ideas. Nonetheless, a bad portrayal of Atlas would make the job of we Objectivist activists a lot harder.

Well, I’ve just seen the movie Atlas Shrugged – part I. Someone said that the movie and the novel each stand on their own, because the movie version of the story is, as the screen says at the end, "based on the novel by Ayn Rand". Considering that the movie was rushed into production, on a low budget, just before the movie rights lapsed, it wasn’t bad. But the fact is the movie is only very shallowly based on the novel. It deals with the political aspect of government controls vs. free markets, which is not the main theme of the novel.

So, the movie does not do justice to the book. On the other hand, it does not damage Rand’s message such as it deals with.

Having gotten my worst fears out of the way early on, I am pleased to say that I enjoyed the movie. It was a pleasant surprise not so much because it was as good depiction of the book – it is not – but because what it does tackle is depicted correctly. Aside from the many omissions – understandable maybe, given the novel’s length, but still a disappointment – the movie remained essentially true to the novel’s political message. Of course the political message – that economic freedom rather than central government planning is the path to prosperity – is the most superficial of Rand’s messages. The case for economic freedom has been thoroughly demonstrated in practice and in theory. On a practical level, that debate is over. One of the deeper themes in the novel is to answer the question, “If capitalism is so successful, why does statism keep winning, even in America?” The deeper answers are only vaguely hinted at in the movie, at least in this first part of the trilogy.

The movie did not drill down into the wide philosophical depth of the book. Not even close. Nor did it even begin to capture the depth of the characters, their conflicts, motivations, or passions. In these respects, it was very shallow. But the movie was engaging from start to finish, and I couldn’t believe how fast the hour and forty-two minutes went.

It’s questionable whether even the political message really got through to those unfamiliar with the novel or Rand’s ideas. For example, the connection between the actions of the political class and the disappearance of one after another prominent figures seemed blurry to me, at best. As an Objectivist and three-time reader of Atlas Shrugged, I of course “got it”. But I’m not sure the casual viewer does. Of course, this is part one of a trilogy. Perhaps the producers will do a better job of bringing it all together in Parts II and III.

No one is going to walk out of the theater with the sense that age-old ideas, especially moral ideas, have been challenged to the core. No one is going to exit the theater thinking about the role of human intelligence in human affairs, which was Rand’s main theme. The movie is simply way too incoherent for that. The best that can be said is that Rand’s revolutionary ideas sustained no harm, and that sales of Atlas Shrugged and her other works could well be stimulated. On its own, the movie will do nothing to change the debate. Not directly. Indirectly, quite possibly. To the extent that the movie inspires people unfamiliar with Ayn Rand to investigate and debate her ideas, the movie will have been influential.

In short, to me as an Objectivist, the movie is both a relief and a disappointment, even though as a “stand alone” production I enjoyed it. (I know, I sound contradictory here. Perhaps that’s a reflection of my very mixed feelings about the movie.) Perhaps parts II and III will offer partial redemption. Then again, this first big screen Atlas may not be the last. A much more serious attempt may eventually surface. “Al Ruddy, the charismatic producer of The Godfather (and a Democrat)”, writes the NY Times Leftist Maureen Dowd, “thinks the story will have a second life with stars. 'Atlas Shrugged is the most important novel of the 20th century,’ Ruddy says, ‘It will rise again.’ ”.

Which means, maybe my relief is premature. But for now, I’ll leave my worrying about a Democrat-produced Atlas for some future time, and simply recommend that people see the movie … and then read the novel and learn about the Objectivist philosophy that grew out of it.

What is the Moral Purpose of America's Military?

In a recent Forbes column, historian Paul Johnson argues for “The Moral Logic of Interventionism”. He writes:

But if a great nation such as the U.S. believes in freedom, practices democracy, accepts a Judeo-Christian sense of morality as an ideal, honors human rights, and deplores and denounces all the evils of the totalitarian state--imprisonment without trial, torture, suppression of all freedoms and the slaughter of opponents, their womenfolk and children with artillery, tanks and bombers--then that nation cannot allow a dictator, before the eyes of the world, to violate all the principles of justice and humanity if said nation has the means to prevent it.

Which brings us to the second point. President Obama, in the recesses of his curious worldview, may not like the fact, but America is a great power and is likely to remain the only superpower for some time. It has the aircraft and troops, positioned in bases throughout the world, as well as the immensely powerful fleets of aircraft carriers and landing craft, whose operational reach covers thousands of miles, to undertake almost any kind of mission. These forces are provided at huge expense by the American taxpayer and are staffed by thousands of dedicated young American men and women whose express purpose is to protect civilization from barbarism. That, as they see it and have been taught to see it, is precisely what America stands for; it is the principal moral justification for their nation's immense power and riches.

With due respect to Mr. Johnson, I can not imagine a more destructive foreign policy than one based upon the premise that the “express purpose” of America’s military forces “is to protect civilization from barbarism” because “That … is precisely what America stands for; it is the principal moral justification for their nation's immense power and riches.”

As the Founders understood, the purpose of government is to protect its own citizen’s individual rights. By logical extension, the only moral purpose of a nation’s military is to protect those citizens and their property from foreign military threats. Mr. Johnson’s view, however, is a prescription for a continuation of the endless series of no-win welfare wars such as those that this country has become mired in since Korea. It is welfare statism extended globally.

The moral principle underpinning the “America as world policeman” doctrine, as Mr. Johnson correctly states, is Judeo-Christian ethics, which is rooted in altruism. This ethic must be challenged, because it politically translates into rights-violating governmental impositions of unchosen duty on private citizens. The moral justification for America’s riches, including the military power those riches pay for, is that Americans – each to the extent of his individual productive efforts – earned it. Just as no government should ever be empowered to force any American to pay for the satisfaction of his neighbor’s needs, so no government should send its soldiers into sacrificial humanitarian excursions – or force its citizens to pay for it through taxes. America need not justify its achievements through sacrificial service to the world.

The moral principle that should guide America’s foreign policy is rational national self-interest – which is derived from American citizens’ right to live free and in accordance with their own individual rational self-interest (properly understood: see philosopher Ayn Rand’s ethical teachings). America’s military should be confined to cleanly neutralizing and/or destroying objectively demonstrable physical threats to American lives and property wherever they arise, and leave humanitarian efforts such as Libya to those who would voluntarily pay for and/or voluntarily serve in international military or civilian operations.

Finally, one must ask, what are the “human rights” that Mr. Johnson speaks of? Mr. Johnson calls upon the American government to force its citizens who fund and man its military for the purpose of bringing freedom and “democracy” the world over. In other words, morality dictates that we must bring rights to people the world over at the price of the violation of the rights of Americans. What can justify such a contradiction?

There is a concrete lesson here that serves as further proof of an incontrovertible truth: Altruism, Judeo-Christian or otherwise, is incompatible with ”human” – i.e., individual – rights.

"Supreme" support for Education Tax Credits

The Supreme Court recently issued a ruling upholding education tax credits. In an April 4, 2011, decision on Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, the court rejected a challenge to an Arizona school choice program.

The Objective Standard blog had this to say on the matter:

Observe that the Court’s ruling in this case “declared that the plaintiffs in the case lack standing to bring the challenge in the first instance because the program is funded by private contributions, not government funds.” As Justice Kennedy put it: “Contributions result from the decisions of private taxpayers regarding their own funds,” thus “Objecting taxpayers know that their fellow citizens, not the state, decide to contribute and in fact make the contribution.” A tax credit, Kennedy elaborated, “is not tantamount to a religious tax or tithe.” To say otherwise “assumes that income should be treated as if it were government property even if it has not come into the tax collector’s hands.” This is a feature of tax credit programs—not of school voucher programs—a distinction that all advocates of school choice would do well to recognize and respect.

This is the core issue that I wrote about in my TOS piece, Toward a Free Market in Education:
School Vouchers or Tax Credits?:

Whereas under a voucher program, tuition money goes from taxpayers to the government for disbursal to government-approved schools, under a properly structured tax credit program, the tuition money never goes to the government. Rather, that money is retained by taxpayers who opt into the program for use on education in the private market.

Though the narrowness of the ruling (5-4) is a little disconcerting, Kennedy's point is crystal clear and very powerful. The distinction between government and private ownership is a crucial one, because if the state has an automatic first claim on the peoples' earnings, then every choice we make on how to spend our money is by permission of the government rather than by right.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal had this to say about the court minority's position:

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent, accusing the majority of creating a "novel distinction" between a tax credit and a government appropriation. "Either way, the government has financed the religious activity," she wrote. "And so either way, taxpayers should be able to challenge the subsidy."

But it's Justice Kagan and the statist minority who offer the novel -- and dangerous -- approach.

Tax write-offs are very different than subsidies. If a tax deduction were a "subsidy," then virtually every government entity in America already stands in violation of any ban on "subsidizing" churches and other charities by the simple fact that most such enterprises are in many ways "tax free."

Many Americans write off their home mortgage interest. Is this a "direct subsidy" to those homeowners, meaning the government has a financial interest in their house and therefore has a right to inspect the premises without a warrant?

As the Wall Street Journal put it, "no fewer than four Justices seem to believe that all wealth belongs to the government, and then government allows citizens to keep some of it by declining to tax it".

But ownership and the associated rights to use and disposal is not transferred from private individual to government by the simple enactment of a tax. This is true both factually and logically, as the majority opinion attests. The money must actually change hands. Owing a tax and paying a tax are not the same thing, and if legislators establish a tax credit and you take advantage of the opportunity, you are spending your own, not the government's, money. (Of course, the government has no right or legitimate authority to levy education taxes to begin with, according to our American concept of individual rights. And this case highlights the overarching danger of government financing of activities other than that related to its proper function of protecting individual rights. Direct government financing essentially means using private money as a means of control over those who earned it.)

The narrow split among the High Court's justices demonstrates how close we are to another major expansion of government power. But for now, the road is cleared, at least legally, for the enactment of more education tax credits.

Q & A on Free Market Education - 1

In my article, Toward a Free Market in Education: School Vouchers or Tax Credits, I put forth a parental school choice plan that would initiate a transition from our predominantly government-run school system to a free market. Inevitably, questions would arise. For example, a correspondent on my blog submitted the following (attached to an unrelated post):

“I understand that you are a supporter of free market education, so if you don't mind I would like to ask you several questions with regards to your perspective”.

I’m not sure whether “Michael” is referring to a fully free market or my tax credit program fully implemented. Actually, it’s not entirely clear whether this correspondent is responding to my article at all, but I will assume that Michael has read it and is familiar with my plan. For an in depth look at a fully free market, see Andrew Bernstein, The Educational Bonanza in Privatizing Government Schools (Objective Standard, Winter 2010-11, subscription required).

Under your system, who decides what is taught?
Who decides curriculum across the country?

These two questions are related. We’ll start with an examination of who decides these questions under the status quo. Under our collectivized public school system, central planning government officials decide, such as local school boards or State and Federal Departments of Education. However, their decisions are not made in a vacuum. Andrew Bernstein describes the nature of the process:

[G]overnment schools create irresolvable conflicts regarding curricula, textbooks, and teacher training.

In a mixed economy [a mixture of freedom and government controls], such as America’s, competing interest groups vie to gain control of the [political apparatus], seeking to impose their preferred educational standards on the nation’s youth.

Consider just a few of the conflicts arising from the current American system. Some groups want schools to teach creationism; others want them to teach evolution. Some want schools to teach the “virtues” of socialism and the “crimes” of America; others want them to teach the virtues of freedom and the unprecedented accomplishments of America. Some want schools to teach that America is a Christian country; others want them to teach that America is a secular republic. Some want schools to teach the “look-say” or “whole language” method of reading; others want schools to employ phonics.

Such conflicts follow logically from the coercive methods by which government schools are funded, populated, and operated.

By contrast, private schools entail none of these problems.

Under my transitional plan, those hideous conflicts will continue, but only as it relates to the government-run schools. Any parent employing tax credits under my plan would in effect be opting out, and taking responsibility for what and how his child is taught. Likewise, any educator offering private educational services is left free to decide on textbooks, educational philosophy, hours of operation, teacher credentialling, and tenure policies – any matter relating to his chosen educational mission. In similar fashion to the freer sectors of the economy such as automobiles, food, or computers, the customer – in this case the parent – is free to choose from the variety of educational choices offered by educators competing for his business. Both educators and parents are acting freely and non-coercively. Neither can force their ideas on the other, nor can government bureaucrats or any other third party impose theirs on either. Children receive schooling when parents and educators agree on the terms of a voluntarily contract. Educators will thrive or fail based upon their ability to attract enough parents acting upon their own judgement. Any parent who fails to find a school they deem acceptable is free to use his tax credits to homeschool or hire private tutors.

Who decides curriculum? Someone must, and the choice is clear: either a handful of politically pressured government officials with the power to force their ideas on everyone, or millions of individual parents and educators associating voluntarily and acting on their own judgements in a legally protected atmosphere of contractual freedom. Only the second – the free market – is moral, because force is removed from the educational equation.

How do people of one state, or tax bracket even, ensure their kids get the same quality education as the next state?
It costs more to run some states, and some states have more people and expenditures. Who decides?

These two questions are also related, and really deal with multiple aspects. I’ll break it down.

Who is concerned about getting the “same quality…as the next state” in any product or service they purchase with their money? People typically seek out the best product at the best price they can find that fits their budget. In freer markets, the spread of the best quality products are not – or at least are much less -hindered by artificial state barriers. Products that successfully attract consumers in one state can quickly be offered in others as producers seek to expand sales. Likewise, in a free education market, there are no barriers to interstate education commerce, which means that the best educational institutions can offer their services anywhere. Besides, what if the next state’s schools are inferior? In a fully free national education market, those inferior schools would quickly be replaced with better ones, bringing educational standards up to the best levels available elsewhere. Under my plan, better quality private schools would flourish, and the inferior government schools would shrink as they lose students and funding to the voluntary decisions of more and more parents.

My tax credit plan is most practical at the state level, at least in the short term. Multiple states that adopt tax credits modeled after my plan can form reciprocal agreements so a taxpayer in one state can fund the education of a child of another participating state, if they like. The fact that differing levels of funding or population exist is irrelevant, because under my plan the ETL (Education Tax Liability) and AAC (Average Attendance Cost) governs. For a detailed explanation of how these limits apply, see my article.

As to the issue of different tax brackets, under my plan, there is no tax-subsidized private education. A taxpayer can claim tax credits only up to the limit of his education tax liability. They can only control the money they would otherwise have sent to the government as K-12 taxes – i.e., their own money. Beyond that, they must rely on other income or private philanthropic education scholarships or grants.

Who decides? Ultimately, whether under my plan or a fully free market, those who earned the money in the first place do.

Where does the money come from to start these schools?

Where does the money come from to start any private business? It comes from private investment capital; i.e., savings. Investment capital is not the problem in education. What’s missing is a viable market for private schools. My plan will begin to restore that market, which is currently suppressed by force of the compulsory public school establishment. Empowering taxpayers to take control of their education dollars would unleash an explosion of demand for private educational services and act as a magnet for profit-motivated investors and philanthropists alike.

Understanding Education Tax Credits

Following my comments posted to Bob Braun's NJ Star-Ledger article and published here on 3/26/11, N.J. vouchers would wrongly use taxes for schools with religious affiliations, two correspondents posted rebuttals to my comments. Here are their rebuttals and my posted responses:

Really? February 12, 2011 at 1:17AM
Follow

Maybe I am completely mistaken - but the corporations get to "donate" the scholarship funds and then get a complete tax write off on those funds. If I donate $100 to something and there is a tax law that says I can completely get my money back when I do my taxes....am I really donating $100? No, I am simply playing some crappy political game.

If I donate that $100, and my money goes to some kid for a scholarship to a private school, my private money went to that private school...ok fine. But when I do my taxes, and get to claim that I donated that money...to the private (possibly religious) school, and get all of my $100 back...who just gave me my money back? Oh yeah - the State of NJ. And by the state of NJ, I mean the tax payer of NJ. I'm sorry - it really isn't too hard to put 2 and 2 together here. Just because my money went in one end (to the private school) and came out the other (in the form of a tax refund) , doesn't mean I can't figure out where the money actually came from...the tax payer. What do I care? I just got my $100 back and I get to feel good about myself!

Really? You are falling for this crap?

zemack February 12, 2011 at 3:58PM
Follow

Really?:

Facts aren't "crap". Who is "the tax payer"? It's you. You earned the $100. You spent it. At tax time, you're not getting it "back". You're simply not sending it to the government. No other taxpayer is involved. In the case of education tax credits, money spent on education doesn't change. What changes is who decides how it is spent. In you're example, you - the one who earned the hundred bucks to begin with - decides, rather than some government bureaucrat.

What complicates the issue is that, even with tax credits, compulsory taxation still underpins the system. This creates the illusion that the state owns your money, and that any reduction in your tax burden is a gift from the state, paid for out of other people's taxes. But, as long as your money goes toward the intended purpose - in this case education - you are not getting anything from the state or other taxpayers. You are simply gaining greater freedom to act upon your own judgement, with your own money - an unalienable individual right that has too long been neglected.

seestraight February 11, 2011 at 8:09PM
Follow

Without public education the country becomes like some third world country. Most people go through public education. Better to have millions ignorant than half-decently educated? I think not.--Not for us allYou want to eliminate it? or only pay for it if they teach what you personally think they should? What should we do poll every taxpayer and if they dont like this or that, they dont have to pay? Do that every year? Every course? Every semester? Every teacher? Get real. We need public education to compete with the world and to have our country-- the whole country do well. 25 educated kids and 100,000 ignorant? No skills? Yea-- that house will stand, but not for long.

zemack February 12, 2011 at 4:02PM
Follow

Seestraight:

"What should we do poll every taxpayer and if they dont like this or that, they dont have to pay? Do that every year? Every course? Every semester? Every teacher?"

Yes, except that there would be no need for a poll. In a free market, everyone would be free to act upon their own individual judgement in regard to education. Parents and educators would be free to contract voluntarily with each other - the parents in pursuit of the best education that meets the needs of their own children and their own wallets, and educators competing for their business based upon educational philosophy, price, and overall quality.

I agree, without education "the country becomes like some third world country". What we shouldn't have is government-run schools. But your basic premise that without compulsory "public education" only 25 out of every 100,000 kids would be educated implies that almost no parent values education. But, if so few in the country valued education, then no school system would work, whether government-run or private. Your argument is self-refuting and absurd on its face.

Education is a supreme value. Almost everyone agrees. That's why we need to get government out of the business of financing and running the schools.