Libertarian Viewpoint on the Department of Education
When Libertarians are asked to count off the few responsibilities of the federal government, we arrive at a surprisingly short list:
1. Protect our freedoms.
2. Have a strong national defense.
3. Look and take care of our borders.
4. Have a sound currency.
5. Protect our environment through private property rights.
When our country was founded, the role of the government was to protect the general welfare, enforce the rule of law in court, maintain property rights and allow for free markets and free trade — not to run our lives, and run everything in the economy. It’s a habit of politicians to identify problems and try to “fix” them with new laws and bureaucracies. We all know how I feel about using laws to solve social problems. While some of these reforms may be well-intended, good intentions won’t solve our problems, and more often government will naturally encroach on the personal liberties that have made our country great. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. As far as the Department of Education goes, it is a political consensus that the federal government should be involved in K-12 education and guarantee that no child is left behind (mot recently), I don’t believe that government should be in control of your kids’ education. Abolish the federal Department of Education.
The United States Department of Education was created by the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88), it was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 17, 1979 and began operating on May 16, 1980. The Department of Education Organization Act divided the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department of Education is administered by the United States Secretary of Education.
It is by far the smallest Cabinet-level department, with about 5,000 employees. So kudos to that. FUN FACT: The agency’s official acronym is ED (and not DOE, which refers to the United States Department of Energy.)
ANOTHER addition fact: Since the federal government’s gotten involved in public schooling, the quality of education has gone down, the cost has gone up. Also, If we introduce market forces into education, competition will create innovative schools that offer our kids a better education for less money. We might get better education if we shut ED down. There’s no authority for it, and the government has proved themselves inefficient. For example, the one city they’re totally in charge of is Washington, D.C. Thirteen thousand dollars a year per student. They have more guns, more drugs, more violence. So there’s no evidence that the government can do a very good job.
Ron Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement for abolishing the Department of Education:
“As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
The US Department of Education should be abolished, leaving education decision making at the state, local or personal level.
Parents have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.”
Sounds good, doesn’t it?
Basically, libertarians work towards the elimination of the inefficient Department of Education, leaving education decisions to be made at the state, local or personal level. Parents should have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.
On November 14, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times interview:
“First, the Constitution does not authorize the Department of Education, and the founders never envisioned the federal government dictating those education policies. Second, it is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington. Finally, I think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught, not Washington bureaucrats. The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that and get those choices back in the hands of the people.”
So tell me forum, to legislate, or educate?
In Liberty,
Jonathan Raof
Jonathan,
To legislate or educate, that is the question. Whether t’is nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of government bureaucracy or be free to teach what you want.
Legislation, by design, is force. Anything the government does via legislation is force applied upon the citizenry in one fashion or the other.
No one will say that education itself is bad. If they did, they are obviously not educated. So the issue is not education.
The real issue is whether or not the government should use force to get its citizens educated. When designed, the thought process was to educate those who could not afford to go to private schools. This is like your argument in the earlier post about what people can do on their private property.
In that post, your ending argument was that people should follow government because it was the right thing to do. The same holds true here, people should follow what government wants and educate their children.
Like the other post, when people didn’t do it government created legislation to enforce their mandate, likewise, they do it here as well.
I am surprised that you don’t see the parallels between the two instances.
Demonsthenes,
I do see the parallels, government uses laws to solve social problems all the time. I see these efforts negatively. Check out the article I wrote here: http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/?p=1107
I do not agree with you that legislation is entirely forceful. If the constitution and check/balances passes the legislation, we the people are consenting – if you want to get into this argument, we can, JimK and I have spent much time dedicated to debating the issue of consent, jurisdiction, etc.
Jonathan,
The article you pointed to was about a technocracy replacing government. It didn’t seem to have anything to do with whether legislation is the use of governmental force or not.
Nah, debating jurisdiction etc is useless. We already know there is a difference between public government jurisdiction and private property jurisdiction stuff. No need to go over that.
You disagree that legislation is entirely forceful. OK, pray tell, well if you will. I mean, even if the Constitution says it can be done and you don’t comply will the government not enforce it? If they do enforce it, is that not forceful? How is it anything other then forceful?
Please site a single piece of legislation that, if enforced, is not forceful.
Hell, even something so simple as declaring a holiday is forceful. I am forced to wait and cannot do my banking on holidays, some stores are closed and I cannot do my shopping on some holidays etc. Is that not something being forced upon me, even if it was within the context of the constitution?
Note, most stuff like holidays etc really aren’t all that big of a deal. They are not what we are actually discussing here. What IS in question, is whether or not it is forceful. Please show how it is not.
Jonathan,
You say you see the parallels.
So why is it that in one you appear to be pro-government and in the other you appear to be anti-government?
Shouldn’t your stance be the same if you see the parallels?
Demonsthenes,
You say:
“You disagree that legislation is entirely forceful. OK, pray tell, well if you will. I mean, even if the Constitution says it can be done and you don’t comply will the government not enforce it? If they do enforce it, is that not forceful? How is it anything other then forceful?”
To answer this, I would have to cross over to the discussion (that has been exhausted) about government morality vs. civilian morality, the philosophy of Machiavelli.
The technocracy article spoke about how laws are inadequate in solving social problems, and how technology could replace laws, so yah…
When **citing** a single piece of legislation that, if enforced, is not forceful, would be, H.R. 1304 — Free Speech Protection Act of 2009.
Title: “To create a Federal cause of action to determine whether defamation exists under United States law in cases in which defamation actions have been brought in foreign courts against United States persons on the basis of publications or speech in the United States.”
This is an enforced law that does not meant the threshold of “force” we as libertarians maintain as a standard of oversight posed to government. This is because free speech is an inalienable right, that is secured and protected, through legislation, from government encroachment or civilian crimes.
JimK,
I can acknowledge parallels exist, but I can also acknowledge parallels don’t exist, which I guess also shows the fun in being the DA.
Jonathan,
That was a dumb response, you did not answer the question on your stance.
If you see the parallels shouldn’t your stance be the same and parallel each other in both arguements?
Jonathan,
I am not asking anything about morality so we don’t have to go into that. BTW, it is UNalienable not INalienable rights, just in case you are wondering.
How is this legislation not force? The Constitution recognizes the unalienable right to free speech and specifically says that congress will make no law that encourages upon that right. Yet here is legislation that delineates what is considered free and what is not. How is saying that something is not free speech, not force against free speech?
If it is determined that talk against the government is not free speech, and you engage in such talk, then you are breaking the law. If the government puts you in jail for such are they not using force?
Demosthenes,
Each case has to be examined individually, for each have it’s own unique set of circumstances. As far as sedition, http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/?p=1058
There is no legislation declaring one is “not free” to do x,y,z, as far as sedition. Sedition standards were ruled on and approved by the Supreme Court, for there are certain sedition crimes, like say, talking about overthrowing government. For example, the Supreme Court changed its interpretation of the Smith Act in deciding Yates v. United States (1957). The Supreme Court ruled the Act was aimed at “the advocacy of action, not ideas”. Thus, the advocacy of abstract doctrine remains protected under the First Amendment. Only speech explicitly inciting the forcible overthrow of the government remains punishable under the Smith Act. This is the precedent standing today.
Jonathan,
You prove his point. So now there is legislation that is against free speech. So there is force used and it is backed by the courts as you point out. Sounds like force to me. Guess he was right after all.
Got a different example where legislation is not force since this one is proven wrong?
Jonathan,
You still didn’t answer the parallels questions? Are you going to or will you continue to ignore the question?
JimK,
Government laws hedging against force or fraud are obviously not forceful so stop being redundant. The parallels question, huh? Well, the answer is: It was not a dumb response, it was a smart response. You say:
“..your stance be the same and parallel each other in both arguments?”
Well, same and parallel don’t mean the same thing.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define:+same&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=define:+parallel&btnG=Search
See. Further, every resolution (debate topic) has an affirmation and a negation. My stances on each will be different, obviously. So, why would my “…stance be the same and parallel each other in both arguments?”
Silly rabbit, tricks are for magicians,
JFR
Jonathan,
So, what you are saying is that instead of being consistent, you will arbitrarily change your mind when you think it benefits your argument.
Ok, typical response from people like democrats. At least now we know how you will play the game. LOL – no wonder you claim the “win” all the time. No matter what anyone says you will just flip flop between your arguments instead of being consistent. That’s very easy to do when things are being manipulated instead of reasoned out, isn’t it.
Jonathan,
Did you misunderstand what Jim was saying or are you just being argumentative here?
Jim did not say they were the same, although he could probably have gotten away with it if he wanted to. He was saying that both arguments were using the same patterns and therefore you should be following the same pattern for your points as well.
For instance, we all know buying a car is not the same thing as buying a pack of gum. They are parallel to each though. In both, you go to the place that has the product of choice, you have an agreed upon price, you exchange the money for the product and you take delivery of the product.
In this particular instance, you argue for the government in favor of educating the citizens through legislation and forcing them to comply. In the other you argue for the government in favor of eliminating racism through legislation and forcing them to comply. If you want to go so far as saying the jurisdictional arguments etc, they will be the same arguments in both cases.
So, if everything is working with the same pattern, just like the gum and car, then your response, justifications etc should follow each other as well. Yet, you take opposite points of views in your arguments. You are not being consistent.
There is no way for anyone to bring things to a conclusion if you are not being consistent. This is the reason I think arguing for the sake of arguing is not a valid role for devils advocate. You seem to think otherwise.
Anyone trying to get to the truth of the matter will never do so with you if you keep doing the flip flop whenever you argue your points.
JimK, and Demosthenes,
I do not have to be consistently affirming every topic posed on this site to bring things to a conclusion. Like I said, every topic has an affirmation and a negation. Obviously, affirming every issue and NOT looking at the reciprocal side of the argument, undermines the credibility of one’s original, consistent affirmation, so I don’t do that (which is why people seem I am not consistent, libertarian, and logical).
Your senario: So, if I affirm government in favor of educating the citizens through legislation and forcing them to comply (which I really don’t in the article, but for the sake of discussion…), and I negate government in favor of eliminating racism through legislation and forcing them to comply.
Now, both are “parallel” in that both involve legislative consideration by congress, the president’s approval, simply put, a process (similar to that of purchasing something as you say). So how am I not being parallel in my engagements when the topics I present all involve government procedure? This is your standard for being parallel, is it not?
Even it is not, your interpretation of parallel is weird for the sake of your argument towards me. Being the DA begins and ends on a per topic basis. In some articles, I can negate the philosophy I use in others, as well as endorse philosophies I’ve negated in others. Such behavior is a tenet of being the DA.
Bottom line: You are guys are looking into me way to much lol. I am not using this website as some means of presenting a consistent political platform to run for office. I am however doing everything I can to make sure Libertarianism is understood and expanded upon as much as possible. In doing so, I make critical arguements where I feel will serve this goal at its best. What’s wrong with that?
Jonathan,
There is nothing wrong with trying “make critical arguments where I feel will serve this goal at its best.” This is an admirable goal.
The point being made is if we are taking the libertarian stance and you are playing devils advocate. Then while we are consistent, you should be in your stance as well. OR, are you saying we should be like you and flip flop at will whenever we feel like also? LOL – now that might be interesting, playing devils advocate on your Libertarian stance – LOL
In any case, it really does not matter. You have your heart set on arguing for arguing sake, I tried to show you the folly of doing that but you desire not to see it or maybe a better way of saying it is that you prefer to stay the way you are. So be it. I have already conceded that you can do so and it is not worth arguing over any more.
Demosthenes,
No my friend, you have it wrong when you say:
“In any case, it really does not matter. You have your heart set on arguing for arguing sake, I tried to show you the folly of doing that but you desire not to see it or maybe a better way of saying it is that you prefer to stay the way you are. So be it. I have already conceded that you can do so and it is not worth arguing over any more.”
Perhaps review my other comments again to see where I argue against this many times with no direct responses from you.
LOL
I rest my case
LOL