Tuesday, September 14, 2021

Memo to Micah Herskind: ‘True Democracy’ is a Repudiation of Americanism

Micah Herskind, then a Princeton student, contributed a guest column to the 12/3/18 New Jersey Star-Ledger. His goal is to argue for restoring voting rights for individuals incarcerated in our prisons. Until then, he argues, America will never be a “formal democracy.” 


Of course, America was never intended to be a formal democracy. It was intended to be a constitutional republic based on individual rights, into which a democratic process is incorporated. Some call this liberal democracy, implying that liberty comes before the democratic process. In Until everyone can vote, we’re still not a democracy,

Herskind concludes:


Regardless of your politics, we must recognize that we will only live in a true democracy once everyone has the right to vote.


The Founding Fathers understood more than two centuries ago that an elected legislature can trample a person’s rights as readily as can a king, an aristocracy, or theocrat. So they bequeathed to posterity a constitutional republic based on enumerated limited governmental powers to protect individual rights from aspiring tyrants, including elected legislatures.


Yet here we are today with a Princeton student who should know better speaking of “true democracy,” as if the only “right” that matters is the power to run everyone else's lives via a vote. 


It is not. Democracy is not fundamental to America. In fact, it is the repudiation of America. The right to vote is not a fundamental right. A fundamental right is a right that precedes government, and the most fundamental right is the right to life; which means the right of each individual to chart the course of his own life in pursuit of his own goals, values, and happiness, including the right to whatever property he earns. The rights to life, liberty, and property are fundamental rights. The right to vote is a derivative of the fundamental rights. No one’s fundamental rights should ever be at the mercy of elections. 


Am I being too hard on Herskind? After all, his primary focus is on getting imprisoned individuals the vote. I think not. An indication that Herskind does not understand America as a rights-protecting nation first is in this statement:


But even voting rights legislation is an incomplete, if important, step toward democracy. Along with the right to vote must come a massive organizing initiative to register newly-eligible voters — or better, to automatically register all voters — and to get out the vote. Such an effort will be integral to democracy.


Emphasis added. As I argued in QUORA: ‘What's wrong with automatic voter registration?’

automatically registering eligible voters is a violation of individual rights.


Automatic voter registration violates the rights of individuals to decide for themselves if they want to register and vote. It is a personal decision that the state has no business deciding for anyone. Rationalizations about the “civic duty” or “politicization” of voting to the contrary notwithstanding, the state has no more business registering you to vote than it does registering you into a bowling league or as an Amazon Prime customer. The only role of the state is to make it as uncomplicated as it can to register to vote, consistent with running fair and trustworthy elections. The choice is up to the individual citizen, each according to his own values, conscience, and interests—period.


What's wrong with automatic voter registration? The very fact that it’s automatic, rather than voluntary.


True democracy repudiates these and other protections of individual rights. If Herskind understood America, he wouldn't advocate for automatic voter registration. What's next -- a fine for not voting? Don't laugh. If Democracy is primary, that's the logical next step. Principles and precedents have consequences.


Democracy is a manifestation of totalitarianism, in that every aspect of life and property are subject to political control/expropriation. I have no opinion regarding voting rights for ex-cons. Frankly, I wouldn’t care who voted if my rights were protected. But those protections are eroding under the increasing democratization of America. The alienation from our fundamental rights is a much more important issue than any voter’s disenfranchisement. Freedom is not the right to vote. Freedom is the right to live one’s life regardless of anyone else’s vote. 


Related Reading:


Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right


Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People—Randy E. Barnett 


On This Constitution Day, Remember the Declaration of Independence


America the Undemocratic


Friday, September 10, 2021

The Dem's Jim Crow 2.0

The Biden Administration’s Covid Relief bill contained racially discriminatory programs, including a five $billion program brazenly titled the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act. In Black US farmers awaiting billions in promised debt relief By ROXANA HEGEMAN and ALLEN G. BREED reports:


BOYDTON, Va. (AP) — There was a time when Black farms prospered.


Just two generations out of slavery, by 1910 Black farmers had amassed more than 16 million acres of land and made up about 14 percent of farmers. The fruit of their labors fed much of America.


Now, they have fewer than 4.7 million acres. Black farms in the U.S. plummeted from 925,000 to fewer than 36,000, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s latest farm census. And only about one in 100 farmers is Black.


What happened?


They were able to overcome the broken promise of “40 acres and a mule” to the newly freed slaves — a military order, later rescinded. But over the last century, they faced one obstacle after another because of their race.


Farmers needed loans to expand, to buy seed, to bridge the time between harvests. But lenders — chief among them, the USDA — often refused to give them money, and often rushed to foreclose. Suppliers and customers undercut them. Laws of inheritance led to the breakup of homesteads.


And so the Jim Crow era went, led by “liberal” Progressive Democrat Party policies. All of the hideous details are documented by Richard Rothstein in his book, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America.


So there is no doubt that black farmers (and black Americans generally) were victims of a horrendous injustice perpetrated by their own government, retarding and/or halting the progress blacks were making after slavery was abolished and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendements were passed theoretically guaranteeing all Americans equality before the law. 


Reparations are a valid and just way to compensate victims -- actual victims. Black farmers were victims of their own government’s racist laws. Having been screwed out of just reparations right after the Civil War, blacks got screwed again by the same faction that, before the Civil War,  wanted to keep them enslaved. 


Yes. Show me an actual victim of government’s discrimination, and I'll show you someone who deserves government compensation. But this program promising $billions of handouts to black farmers is not about reparations. It makes no evidence-based distinction or judgement about who deserves these payments, or who is responsible. It makes no distinction between victims and non-victims. It simply assumes that if a farmer’s skin color is “of color”, that farmer is ipso facto a victim. It reaches back many decades, and more than a century, to justify this new racist program even though many, if not all, of the victims are long dead. All you need is black skin, and you are assumed to be a victim, with or without evidence. If you are white skinned, you are unfairly and arbitrarily excluded in direct violation of the 14th Amendment. The program is broadly group, not individual, oriented. It paints with a broad collectivist brush. It is collectivist, not individualist. It is identity, not equity, politics. It is not justice. It is injustice -- the one of the worst forms of injustice. It is racist. 


Having first championed slavery and then compounding their evil with a new evil, the Jim Crow era, the Democrats are now posing as the champions of their own victims by bringing back Jim Crow under the guise of reparations. Jim Crow laws are defined as any state or local laws that enforce racial segregation and discrimination. This farm program certainly fits that definition. Strictly speaking, the program is not segregation. It most certainly and explicitly is legalized racial discrimination. There is no way to sugar-coat this abomination. No "cause", no matter how "good", can justify racist government policies. The Democratic Party -- the party of slavery, segregation, eugenics, lynching, and racial identity politics, is acting true to its form and history. It is engaged in neo-Jim Crow, or, in their own terminology, Jim Crow 2.0.


So how should reparations work? It should be decided through the courts, the last bastion of evidence-based, objective decision-making and judgement -- the Pigford cases is a good model of how discrimination damages should be pursued. The last place for reparations to be decided is through the legislature. Keep politics out of it, as much as is humanly possible.


The COVID black farm provision, which was sponsored by Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, violates basic principles of justice and equity. A person’s moral standing is determined by his own actions and choices. No one is born with pre-packaged grievance, victimhood, guilt, sin, or responsibility for past events. And that goes for farmers black, white, or other. An individual’s moral and legal standing is not determined by that person’s body chemistry, be it blood, genes, or skin pigment, or by the actions taken historically by people deemed to be of the same group identity. That would be racist and bigoted, and anyone who believes in such identity-based judgement is thinking like a savage, not an Enlightened, civilized human being. But that is the implicit assumption embodied in the Democrats’ farm bill, which was snuck in without debate or transparency as part of their massive COVID relief bill. It assumes farmers with white skin are guilty, or less “deserving,” without evidence, by virtue of being born with “white” skin, and assumes black farmers are victims, and thus “deserving,” by virtue of being born with black/dark skin. That is the very definition of legalized racial discrimination -- that is, Jim Crow.


The farm bill, currently halted by a federal court, is one of several unconstitutional discriminatory programs embedded in the Biden Democrats’ $1.9 trillion “Covid Relief” package. If it looks like Jim Crow, and walks like Jim Crow, and talks like Jim Crow, and sounds like Jim Crow, you’ve got yourself Jim Crow 2.0.


Related:


The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein 


There is No Parallel Between the Private Right to Discriminate Against Gays and Jim Crow Laws


Racism— by Ayn Rand


The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’


The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’: Oakland Reprises the Confederacy.


Related Viewing:


Why Leftists Still Get Away w/ Racism & Socialism... -- by Yaron Brook

Tuesday, September 7, 2021

Ida, the Catastrophist’s Latest Stopped-Clock ‘Prediction’

We asked climate and weather experts what the hell is happening in N.J. Here’s what they said.

This was the headline of a New Jersey Star-Ledger article following the walloping of NJ (and other Northeastern states) delivered by a tropical rainstorm formed of the remnants of Hurricane Ida.


But if your looking for an actual explanation for Ida’s extreme severity in the Northeast, you won't get it in this article by NJ.com’s Payton Guion. Payton delivers just more climate change (i.e., political) propaganda, catastrophe predictions, and references to falsehoods like “We have a society we’ve built around a really stable climate, and we’re entering a period where the climate is changing really rapidly.” But no real explanation.


When has the climate ever been "stable?" When has it ever been unchanging, or not full of danger for man? 


Never.


When, in response to a mayor's assertion that “No one could predict" this storm, Guion noted, "In fact, it was predicted," I got ready for some interesting reading. But, no. All we got was a rehash of catastrophe predictions. 


Short-term forecasts this week called for several inches of rain from Ida and heavy flooding in the Passaic and Raritan river basins. And scientists have been warning for years that a warming planet will produce more devastating storms.


Well, climate catastrophe has been predicted for decades. So, the catastrophists have set themselves up a nice little rationalization game: Predict “more devastating storms.” Then, when the inevitable next devastating storm hits, trot out your global warming (or climate change) prediction as proof that you predicted it. Well, I can predict that a stopped clock will be right twice a day. Every storm becomes proof of the rightness of their predictions. But weather extremes have always happened and always will. The "In fact, it was predicted" strikes me more like a stopped-clock prediction -- just another in a long line of them. 


In fact, the article provides no meteorological explanation for IDA's unusual intensity. But others did. While Ida was still in Mississippi, Accuweather’s Bernie Rayno warned of a secondary storm or “piece of energy” that would drop down from the North and merge with Ida’s remnants, strengthening it. And a Weather Channel reporter noted the non-tropical storm front that settled across the area just as Ida was approaching, contributing to the storm’s strength. Both spoke of a third factor—the U-shaped jet stream dip that established itself. All of these factors combined to strengthen the storm further, enhancing and concentrating much more energy over the area, causing more intense rainfall than otherwise would have been the case. Said Accuweather three days before Ida really ramped up:


"There is going to be some interaction with Ida and an approaching dip in the jet stream in the northeastern United States," AccuWeather Chief On-Air Meteorologist Bernie Rayno said, adding that this could cause the air pressure at the center of Ida to drop. The intensification could lead to even heavier rainfall across parts of the area.


Yes,  "In fact, it was predicted" -- really predicted. And for reasons that are not just the stale old stopped-clock climate change mantras.


To make matters worse, the jet stream set-up created the atmospheric conditions that greatly enhanced the odds for the formation of tornadoes, which became reality. All of these factors—a secondary storm, a stationary storm front, a dip (or trough) in the jet stream, are not uncommon events in the Northeast. All went into predicting and explaining -- genuinely predicting and explaining -- Ida’s Northeast rampage. None of this was mentioned in Guion’s article. 


Could human-caused climate warming have contributed to the intensity? Of course. As Guion reported:


“Basic physics says that when air warms up, it can hold more water,” Marvel said. “The Earth right now is about 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than before the Industrial Revolution. As a result, we’ve seen an increase in very heavy rainfalls, especially in the Midwest and on the East Coast.


“Rising temperatures means air holds more water, so more gets dumped on us.” 


Maybe a bit less rain would have fallen. But would a quarter or half inch lower totals have mattered that much? Extreme weather is extreme weather, climate change or not. But the fact is, the confluence of atmospheric phenomena that caused Ida’s exceptional strength has nothing to do with climate. It has everything to do with weather.


“Human-caused global warming from burning of fossil fuels also likely made Ida's far-reaching impacts a bit worse, experts said,” according to News 4 NY’s much more accurately reported. Yes, a bit worse -- maybe. But bad luck also played a part, as 4 reported:


“Some of this is just bad luck too. If Ida had tracked just 100 miles farther east, that heaviest swath of rainfall would have been over the ocean and no one would care,” said University of Miami hurricane researcher Brian McNoldy.


News 4 NY also observed:


“This [atmospheric setup] is not rare," Emanuel added. “For example, it happened with Hurricane Camille of 1969, which took a similar path.” Camille killed more than 100 people in Virginia from flooding after making landfall as a Category 5 hurricane in Mississippi.


“Not rare.” Are you listening, Payton Guion of NJ Advance Media for NJ.com? When you say you’re going to explain a weather event, explain it. Your article is very misleading. It’s no help to people seeking useful explanations to trot out vague generalized predictions as to the why or how. Next time, maybe you can actually report something useful and interesting, rather than the same old climate mantras of the politically motivated.


There is no way to connect this weather event to climate. Climate is not weather. Nor does climate cause weather, any more than my bowling average causes my game score. Yet NJ Governor Phil Murphy wasted no time in coldly and brazenly exploiting this tragedy for his political agenda. As NJ Spotlight News reported by e-mail newsletter on 9/2/21:


Murphy and other officials tied the storm and its severity to climate change, saying it presented definitive proof that more must be done to wean the nation from carbon-based fuels.


Shame on Murphy. What storms like Ida tell us is that they will happen, and that the best way to react is to build protection, not strip us of the reliable energy we’ll need to build that protection and live our lives. Simply weaning the nation from carbon-based fuels won’t cut it.


Murphy failed to call a State of Emergency until the storm was well under way and people were already drowning in their cars. Disingenuous voices from Murphy on down are shamefully politicizing, blaming man-made climate change. Don't believe the bullshit. According to Seth Borenstein of AP, How Ida Can Be So Deadly 1000 Miles From Landfall, Global warming may have made it "a bit worse." But the atmospheric conditions that caused Ida's intensity over NJ "is not rare," has happened before, and was well predicted by meteorologists days in advance.


Related Reading:


EXPLAINER: How Ida Can Be So Deadly 1000 Miles From Landfall by Seth Borenstein for AP


A Humanist Approach To Environmental Issues—Alex Epstein @ Forbes


Fossil Fuels and Climate Change: Remember Life Before Them


The Suicidal Demonization of Fossil Fuels


The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century—Ronald Bailey


QUORA: ‘What is, in your opinion, the best solution to climate change without destroying the economy?’


Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All by Michael Shellenberger  


Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven E. Koonin 


Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom by Patrick Moore

Saturday, September 4, 2021

This Labor Day, Celebrate Intellectual Labor

The United States Department of Labor, speaking on The History of Labor Day, had this to say on its website:



Some records show that Peter J. McGuire, general secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and a cofounder of the American Federation of Labor, was first in suggesting a day to honor those “who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we behold.”


Really? There is no doubt about what is meant here. McGuire was referring to people who “work with their hands”. Is that what built America? Physical labor has existed since time immemorial. What changed in the last two hundred + years that suddenly endowed the American worker with the means to produce “all the grandeur we behold” out of raw, “rude” nature? (Note the word “all”).

The American worker has, indeed, contributed significantly to the American Economic juggernaut. But, it was not because of his labor, as such. It was because of his intellectual mastery of the theoretical and material tools of production provided to him, that vastly increased the value of his labor.

Physical labor, as such, has very little value. Slaves can perform it. So can mules pulling hand plows.

Consider my trade, plumbing. If my job is fundamentally physical labor, then any able-bodied person off of the street can wander onto any construction job site and robotically perform the task of installing plumbing systems. He can simply be told: “Run this pipe from here to there”, and it will get done. He has the same muscles and bones, nerves and guts that I have, after all.

That, of course, could never be the case. Performing my task (or any construction trade) requires reliance on previously acquired theoretical knowledge, on-the-job apprenticeship training, the mastery of the tools, materials, and procedures of the trade, and years of learning experience. This is to say nothing of the continuing education that new materials and technologies require of me.

My job is knowledge-based. All modern jobs are, to varying extent. How did that knowledge become imbued in my brain? - by my choice to expend the intellectual effort to acquire it. Even the muscular physical motions my job requires had to be learned by a conscious mental effort that led to the appropriate neurological connections.

Do you still think mere labor built this country?

The idea that a laborer “works with his hands” is only superficially true. What directs the motions of his hands? It is his focussed, reasoning mind – if he is a motivated worker who strives to be the best that he can be at his chosen occupation. If not, then that worker is a mere drone.

And that gets directly to the point. The celebration of “labor” as a holiday implies that mindless worker. Labor Day ignores the intellectual root of modern, productive labor. It ignores the intellectual labor of the inventor and entrepreneur that created the worker’s job to begin with, and the intellectual labor that the competent worker must expend to learn to perform his job.

Human knowledge is fleeting, but for the grace of those who came before us and chose to acquire it and pass it on. Knowledge can not be passed on from person to person or generation to generation innately. No one is born with previously discovered knowledge, but rather with a mind that is tabula rasa – a blank slate. To celebrate “all the grandeur we behold”, it is to the discoverer and the acquirers of knowledge that we must pay initial gratitude to. The worker, by learning the skills he needs to perform his job, plays his role in keeping that knowledge train going.

This does not, however, mean that labor is inconsequential. Theoretical knowledge in and of itself has little value, unless and until it is placed into the service of man’s living requirements. The process of turning knowledge into the material values humans need to live and to flourish is dependent upon the contributions of many economic players. The value of each player’s contribution to this productive process varies and is dependent upon many factors. But all through that process – from the discoverer of new knowledge to the final material product put together by the worker – the value added represents, at root, the application of the mind.


“[W]hen you live in a rational society, where men are free to trade, you receive an incalculable bonus: the material value of your work is determined not only by your effort, but by the effort of the best productive minds who exist in the world around you.


“When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making, for the work of the scientist who discovered the laws that went into the making of that product, for the work of the philosopher who taught men how to think…” (Page 1064)


Labor Day, according to the DOL, was created in 1882. That was the heyday of Karl Marx’s rise to prominence among the American intellectual elite. Marx was the theoretician of “Dialectical Materialism”, the idea that man’s consciousness – his spirit, his intellect, ability, and logic – plays at best a minimal role in the production process. Human beings, according to Marx, are conditioned by the physical world around them, including the means of production like tools and factories, which just happened into existence. Our modern, complex, and advanced industrial society is the product of mindless, conditioned muscular movements, according to Marx (and others). It is owing to the Marxist theory of the mind – i.e., spiritual values - as of little consequence that gave rise to the myth that labor and those that perform it are the primary engines of economic progress.

Labor Day, whether one knows or wants to admit it or not, is an outgrowth of Marxism and the “labor theory of economic value” that so enamored late 19th century American intellectuals.

The DOL concludes its Labor Day salute as follows:

"It is appropriate … that the nation pay tribute on Labor Day to the creator of so much of the nation's strength, freedom, and leadership — the American worker."

Not quite. Instead, we should pay tribute to the creator of the American worker.

This Labor Day, we should celebrate not workers, but those who made our jobs and prosperity possible. This country was not built by physical labor. It was built by intellectual labor applied to physical labor under a system of individual rights that allowed everyone the freedom to think and, above all, to act on his thinking. Instead of patting ourselves on the back for our labor, we “workers” should reflect on the mental efforts that we had to expend in order to acquire the previously discovered knowledge that makes it possible to perform our jobs. We should stop selling ourselves short. Labor Day is an insult to the American Worker.

More importantly, we should give silent thanks to all of those intellectual “laborers” who came before us – the discoverers, the inventors, the investors, the businessmen - who made our well-paying jobs possible.

Instead of Labor Day, we should celebrate Intellectual Labor Day.

Or, better yet, we should celebrate political and economic freedom—i.e., Capitalism – the social system of the United States of America. Capitalism unleashed the individual human mind. It is Capitalism that liberated the inventor, entrepreneur, businessman, and industrialist, who in turn made it possible for the American worker to have acquired the means to rise to middle class status and prosper. The labor movement fought for better working condiditions, shorter work weeks, and the like. But those victories couldn't have been possible without the tools of increased worker productivity and consumer products created by the inventor/entrepreneur/businessman/industrialist, who wouldn't have been possible without capitalism. The labor movement could not have been possible in any other era in human history. Capitalism made the labor movement possible.

It is Capitalism’s liberated human mind that from rude nature has delved and carved all the grandeur we behold.

Capitalism is what I will be quietly rejoicing as I enjoy my long weekend.

Happy Labor Day!!

Related Reading:

Atlas Shrugged—Ayn Rand


Did Unions Create the Middle Class?

QUORA: 'How is becoming a billionaire even possible, chronologically?'

Don’t Forget to Celebrate Capital on Labor Day, Too

"Labor is ennobling because it’s an important source of such values as self-esteem, personal fulfillment, responsibility, accomplishment, and voluntary cooperation. It’s both a vehicle and an outlet for our talents and ambitions. Good parents instinctively teach their children that work is a virtue and a benefit, while idleness and laziness are to be avoided.

"But all of that could also be said of another vital ingredient in our standard of living—capital. Most of us would starve without it. Creating it and then deploying it to increase material wealth is ennobling just as much as labor is, and for the same reasons. The creator and user of capital is furthering his talents and ambitions in the process. And every parent who tells his child to mow the lawn hopes he’ll do it with a piece of capital equipment like a lawn mower instead of his teeth."

True. But never reverse cause and effect. Without labor -- especially the labor of the mind -- capital is useless. In fact, it doesn't exist.

Tuesday, August 31, 2021

Mandatory Schooling, Remote Learning, and Government Schools

From the New York Times: When school is voluntary by David Leonhardt:


More than a century ago, U.S. states put in place laws requiring that children attend school. The guiding principle was that school mattered too much to children’s lives to be a matter of individual choice.


My emphasis. This is an interesting comment. It begs the question, “What is the primary purpose of education?” I say it’s to teach the child to think critically and independently so as to prepare the child to make her own individual choices throughout their adult lives. Apparently, that is not the goal of the advocates of compulsory school laws.]


Helping on the family farm or getting a paid job was not a good enough excuse to drop out. Nor was parental convenience or preference. And students could not leave school simply because they wanted to.


Mandatory schooling laws did an enormous amount of good. They increased high school graduation rates and the share of students who attended college, as research by the economists Derek Messacar and Philip Oreopoulos has found. The extra schooling, in turn, lifted future earnings and reduced future unemployment.


Note that government schools are not mentioned. Also, mandatory schooling is a vague term. Parents do have a moral obligation to educate. If they don’t -- e.g., if a child can’t read at age 10 -- child neglect laws have a valid place. So it’s how you define mandatory schooling that is the crux of the matter. Mandatory schooling doesn’t have to involve government schools. Nor should it be legally mandated.


But the idea that mandatory schooling laws did an enormous amount of good is a vast overstatement, especially when coupled with government schooling. It can be argued that it has done more harm than good, given that most kids are funnelled into Progressive government schools. 


The problem with remote school is that children learn vastly less than they do in person, according to a wide range of data about the past year and a half.


Remote schooling, a la COVID measures, is not the same as homeschooling. Homeschooling is widely recognized as a superior education. Of course, most parents don’t have the wherewithal or motivation to homeschool, which for serious parents is a career in and of itself. Remote schooling is a watered down version of in-school education. But it is important at this point to stress that homeschooling is also in-person, and it is not remote learning. 


So, if we’re talking about remote—that is, on-line—learning, the article may have a point. On-line courses have their place, I’m sure. But on-line probably shouldn’t be the core of education.


But I think the implication expected to be drawn from this article is that mandatory in-person government schooling is the only avenue to an educated population. Well, we’ve had that for a century, and the results can only be considered mixed at best and a failure at worst. Literacy is still not universal. Math proficiency is poor. And battles over curriculum and/or education philosophy are routine because of dictatorial school boards and the monopolistic power of the teachers union. Socialist central planning that empowers governments, local, state, or federal, to impose one-size-fits-all policies on everyone leads to constant battles, such as the current civil war over the teaching of Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project, as well as the ever-present friction over religion, like “intelligent design” vs. evolution, in the government schools. 


The problem is, we all don’t agree on what education means. To Progressives, it means training children to prioritize group authority and emotions over objective thinking. To others it means independent, reality-oriented thinking over conformity to the group. 


Of course, how we define “individual choice” also matters. If we’re talking about children’s choice, of course they shouldn’t be allowed to just drop out. But individual parental choice is another matter entirely. Parental school choice is exactly what we need, on a universal scale. The quality and diversity of education options would abound, as educators would have to compete to persuade parents to voluntarily pay for their service and voluntarily send their children to their schools and accept their methods and curriculums. Ideally, a complete separation of education and state, where the state neither pays for, administers, or regulates education,is what a fully free society should have. But, politically, it’s too soon to advocate for an end to “free”—tax-funded—education in the short to intermediate term. But it’s not too soon to transition to a system in which education tax dollars follow the student, whether through properly structured tax credits or by having the per-pupil cost of public schooling follow the student (Education Savings Accounts), and to fight for full privatization of school administration, whether charter schools, homeschooling, and secular or religiously run schools. 


Yes, children should attend school. But individual choice—parental choice—not mandatory submission to top-down dictated bureaucratic choice, should be the means. After all, as Milton Friiedman correctly observed, “Not all 'schooling' is 'education,' and not all 'education' is 'schooling'.” Only a free market can sort that out, and is the only chance to arrive at the best results.


Related Reading:


The Educational Bonanza in Privatizing Government Schools by Andrew Bernstein for The Objective Standard


Compulsory Schooling Laws: What if We Didn't Have Them?


Eliminating compulsory schooling laws would break the century-and-a-half stranglehold of schooling on education.


The Myth that Americans Were Poorly Educated before Mass Government Schooling 


Early America had widespread literacy and a vibrant culture of learning.


93 Vermont Towns Have No Public Schools, But Great Education. How Do They Do It?


Chris Christie’s School Choice Achievement.

A Newark, NJ Mother Demonstrates the Educational Power of Parental School Choice


Related Viewing:


The Assault on Homeschooling and Freedom in Education by ARI