Undoctrination.org

Earlier today, I was thinking of an argument that Hilary Clinton made some years back against school vouchers and school choice. A paraphrase of her argument is “So, lets say the first parent claims a voucher to send their kid to a Catholic school, then a parent comes and claims a voucher to send their kid to a Jewish school, but then a parent comes along to (brace yourself for this) send their kid to ‘the Church of the White Supremacist’.” The basis of her argument was that nobody should be allowed to reallocate the tax money that is currently destined for a single appointed public school towards a schooling option of their choice.

As it stands, the taxation channels that pay for public schooling can not be opted out of. Childless adults and parents who refrain from the public education system must still pay taxes to pay for the education of other children. The argument that is cited to rationalize this practice is that since any individual’s education benefits the whole of society, such costs should be borne by the whole of society to avoid the supposed “free rider problem” and provide for those of limited means. Of course, this neglects the value that innovators bring the entire human race by pursuing their own self-serving ends. I go to work for a paycheck, but I must ultimately generate value for others to earn that paycheck. Far from being free riders, their desire for value provide me with a means to sustain my own living.

What is neglected in this analysis is that many of the Eastern European Jews who came to this country in the late 19th century and early 20th century with very scant resources opted out of non-compulsory public/community oriented education and handled these things via commerce and volunteering towards the mutual end of schooling their respective children. No taxation channels were utilized and the entire network was based in mutual voluntary consent. Subsequent generations went on to become doctors, lawyers, entrepeneurs, investors, scientists and pursue other esteemed, respected and lucrative endeavors. Compared to other demographics who opted into the public education system, they achieved great prosperity and notoriety within a couple of generations. Conversely, other demographics got caught in a poverty system and a victim mentality which consumes entire segments of the population to this very day.

Getting back to Hilary’s original quote, it rests in the premise that some bad decisions made by some people invariably justifies compulsory participation in a system that fails so many of our promising youth. While some districts are better or worse than others, it remains a fair statement that public schools are generally more concerned with teaching children what to think and what to believe rather than developing a framework from which to think. Inquisitiveness and critical thinking, far from being encouraged, are actively discouraged by an educational model rooted in the concept of social planning.

One might take the argument a step further and say that voucher systems are too much of a compromise, but the case can still be made that they allow MORE choice than is currently available under the virtual public education monopoly. The idea that some might fail in a state of freedom, therefore compulsion is justified is faulty on many different levels. Such practices quell competition and stifle the marketplace of ideas, as well as the ability to monitor outcomes to find which approaches truly work better when weighed against the nature of reality. Hilary adamantly resisted even the notion of competition on the premise that some parents might make choices that are worse than the one that is standardized for all.

This notion is not contained to education. We see the same ugly phenomenon rear its ugly head in retirement saving, medical care, insurance, personal lifestyle choices, housing and so forth. The rationalization that its acceptable to deny choice to everyone based in the idea that some will fail poses the risk of ultimately killing the robust exchange of ideas, perspectives and approaches which illuminate the best way to deal with life’s various challenges. It is my sincere contention that we, as individuals, must reject this notion on the strongest of terms and allow people the freedom to fail.

Matthew Funk, Staff Writer