Gary North On Why Libertarians Shouldn't Support School Vouchers

[Sola_Fide]

http://lewrockwell.com/north/north999.html

[sailingaway]

I just love people telling me what I support, all the while calling themselves libertarian.

I'll read his views, but next to what we have now....

--
pish. First I don't agree with vouchers only for the poorest, they either are for all or none, since education is supposed to be free for all, and funded by all, middle class should not be the only ones not able to go to private school. Second, he is saying there really should be no public education, which is nice but is never going to happen and falls under the heading of Rons' "No one wants a R3VOLution to get rid of the federal highway system" argument. That would have to unwind so much change so much and develop a new system to handle the kids at a time when government intervention has made education artificially expensive.... it isn't going to happen. I say we should refrain from marginalizing ourselves, although he is certainly free to make his arguments. And since his argument is based on that, I think it fails.

Now, I do agree the entire federal department of education should be abolished and all this stuff should be left to the states.

[angelatc]

I didn't read the article, because I'm not a Rockwell fan. But I agree with SailingAway. You can philosophize all day about abolishing public education, but the stone cold truth is that most people want a public education system. A candidate who ran on a platform of abolishing the local school system wouldn't stand a chance.

Vouchers only for the poor is a horrible plan. It jams the middle class into paying the bills with none of the benefits.

The federal government has no legitimate business in education, but the states and localities do have the constitutional right to set up and fund such systems.

[matt0611]

I just love people telling me what I support, all the while calling themselves libertarian.

I'll read his views, but next to what we have now....

--
pish. First I don't agree with vouchers only for the poorest, they either are for all or none, since education is supposed to be free for all, and funded by all, middle class should not be the only ones not able to go to private school. Second, he is saying there really should be no public education, which is nice but is never going to happen and falls under the heading of Rons' "No one wants a R3VOLution to get rid of the federal highway system" argument. That would have to unwind so much change so much and develop a new system to handle the kids at a time when government intervention has made education artificially expensive.... it isn't going to happen. I say we should refrain from marginalizing ourselves, although he is certainly free to make his arguments. And since his argument is based on that, I think it fails.

Now, I do agree the entire federal department of education should be abolished and all this stuff should be left to the states.

I agree with this 100%. I support getting rid of the Federal DOE but I think vouchers for everyone would be a great step in the right direction for the states.

[angelatc]

I agree with this 100%. I support getting rid of the Federal DOE but I think vouchers for everyone would be a great step in the right direction for the states.

Especially with the advances in computer education. I'd love to have my older son take some classes online so I could help him through the material, but it costs $300 a piece to take them now.

[Travlyr]

I didn't read the article, because I'm not a Rockwell fan. But I agree with SailingAway. You can philosophize all day about abolishing public education, but the stone cold truth is that most people want a public education system. A candidate who ran on a platform of abolishing the local school system wouldn't stand a chance.

Vouchers only for the poor is a horrible plan. It jams the middle class into paying the bills with none of the benefits.

The federal government has no legitimate business in education, but the states and localities do have the constitutional right to set up and fund such systems.

True enough, but it does not change the fact that government schooling is a Marxist doctrine designed to control people through indoctrination.

[Sola_Fide]

There are taxpayers who have reverse views of what constitutes truth and falsehood. Inevitably, tax money is extracted from one group of voters to promote the causes and beliefs of another group. The big winners are the educational bureaucrats, who promote their views at taxpayer expense.

So, education cannot be free under tax funding. There are no free lunches. There is also no free inquiry inside government schools. There are always badges and guns in tax-funded, government-licensed education. There are also wallets – less full after the local school tax assessment has been paid.


His arguments are entirely reasonable to me....

[steph3n]

voucher systems are backdoor control into private institutions in a huge way, I will never support them.

[matt0611]

voucher systems are backdoor control into private institutions in a huge way, I will never support them.

Its a valid criticism no doubt.
It would be nice if they just gave vouchers out no questions asked to go to any school, but we know that won't happen.
Still at least we would have a lot more choice than we do now.

[steph3n]

Its a valid criticism no doubt.
It would be nice if they just gave vouchers out no questions asked to go to any school, but we know that won't happen.
Still at least we would have a lot more choice than we do now.

Then in 3-4 years you have no choice because everything is the same, exactly what they want. NO THANKS!

[Xenophage]

Then in 3-4 years you have no choice because everything is the same, exactly what they want. NO THANKS!

Yeah! The last thing we want is a government monopoly on education! Oh wait...

[Humanae Libertas]

I don't support vouchers because,

A. Greedy selfish parents would gladly take advantage of such a system, and put their kids into the most expensive private school at mine and others expense, while my children will be stuck in crappy schools.

B. It won't change anything, just distribute wealth to others & schools, which would drive the price of private schools even higher.

[cindy25]

vouchers will do to private elem and HS education that student loans did to private college education

make it unaffordable for the middle class. and result in high pay for the teachers.

[heavenlyboy34]

His arguments are entirely reasonable to me....
+a bunch

[eworthington]

I'm not sure if vouchers would really reduce state influence on education anyway. I would think that encouraging homeschooling would be a better way to limit the state's role in education.

Vouchers can be implemented in a way that would actually increase state power -- removing selection requirements from school, mandating affirmative action, mandatory testing; after all, vouchers would essentially create an education exchange which would operate similarly to Romney's and Obama's insurance exchanges.

[Johncjackson]

Why doesn't Gary North support vouchers? Does accepting vouchers require that the parents are not permitted to stone their children for talking back to them?

[nocompromises]

The government needs to get out of education. The government causes problems in everything it touches. I don't really care about the government paying for roads, but letting the government get involved in education is a disaster.

[HigherVision]

The government needs to get out of education. The government causes problems in everything it touches. I don't really care about the government paying for roads, but letting the government get involved in education is a disaster.

Other than withering away their control gradually through transitional programs like vouchers, how do you plan on getting the government out of education? I want to get the government completely out of education too. I also want a mansion. But none of the people I live by agree with me on getting government all the way out of education, and I don't have millions of dollars, so it doesn't seem like I can get rid of the government or buy my mansion any time soon.

[JCDenton0451]

Thanks for resurrecting this thread! Here are some facts about Gary North from Wikipedia:


North favors stoning to death women who lie about their virginity, blasphemers, nonbelievers, children who curse their parents, male homosexuals, and other people who commit acts deemed capital offenses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capital_crimes_in_the_Torah) in the Old Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament).[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_North_%28economist%29#cite_note-16)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_North_%28economist%29#cite_note-17) He opposes freedom of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion), arguing for "a Bible-based social, political and religious order which ... denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_North_%28economist%29#cite_note-18) On the subject of children's rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_rights), North argues that "[the] son or daughter is under the jurisdiction of the family," which "must be maintained by the threat of death."[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_North_%28economist%29#cite_note-19)

Hmmm. Is this accurate? If it is accurate, why is this guy writing Ron Paul's curriculum?

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks for resurrecting this thread! Here are some facts about Gary North from Wikipedia:



Hmmm. Is this accurate? If it is accurate, why is this guy writing Ron Paul's curriculum?
He has said such stuff in the past, but I don't know if he still takes such radical positions. As far as why Gary is being allowed to write RP's curriculum, I don't know all the details, but from what I know about Gary he is competent to put together a basic liberal arts program for young people. I hope RP addresses this stuff ASAP.

[HigherVision]

Thanks for resurrecting this thread! Here are some facts about Gary North from Wikipedia:



Hmmm. Is this accurate? If it is accurate, why is this guy writing Ron Paul's curriculum?

I was googling the subject and landed here and I figure why start new threads about the same old topics. Better to just continue where the old threads about them left off. But I don't really want to discuss Gary North as a person as much as the voucher topic itself. It irks me when libertarians say that they don't support vouchers because they want the gov't out of education completely when there's no actual way to get the gov't out of education at this point! How can you get the gov't out of education completely when hardly anyone agrees with you about it?? The only feasible way I see to reduce government control over education is this voucher system. This brings us closer to the goal of one day eliminating gov't control over education completely. Whereas keeping the status quo, which is what anti-voucher libertarians are supporting by default, doesn't bring us any closer to that goal!

[sailingaway]

LOL! I saw my post from 1911 and it was like reading something from someone else.

I still think there should be vouchers for all as long as there is mandated tax for all for education, my idea is it creates a sort of way to get it back and more liberty in how to use it, so I still disagree, but the flavor is a little different from my prior reasoning.

[Peace&Freedom]

Supporting vouchers IS the status quo method proposed by conservatives and libertarians. That's why nothing has changed. Fighting "liberal" government programs with "conservative" government programs is a loser from the start.

[sailingaway]

Supporting vouchers IS the status quo method proposed by conservatives and libertarians. That's why nothing has changed. Fighting "liberal" government programs with "conservative" government programs is a loser from the start.

I think it is an interim position, you state the other clearly but this is more liberty and tying up both the education of the nation's youth AND their parent's money to government control is two wrongs. Righting one would be a step in the right direction, and could potentially change the direction of this country as parents have more say into the education of their children.

[HigherVision]

Supporting vouchers IS the status quo method proposed by conservatives and libertarians. That's why nothing has changed. Fighting "liberal" government programs with "conservative" government programs is a loser from the start.

Something has changed. The places that have adopted the voucher programs have had better average student performance at lower costs: http://www.cato.org/blog/dc-vouchers-better-results-quarter-cost

'Conservative' government programs are preferable to 'liberal' ones when they reduce government involvement in something.

[sailingaway]

Something has changed. The places that have adopted the voucher programs have had better average student performance at lower costs: http://www.cato.org/blog/dc-vouchers-better-results-quarter-cost

'Conservative' government programs are preferable to 'liberal' ones when they reduce government involvement in something.

It is so much more than that. This isn't JUST about 'another government program' this is about parents choosing their children's education over the state indoctrinating big government collectivism from a young age. Take a look at Ron's straight talk this week on common core. Most parents can't afford to both pay tax equaling tuition for school and pay for private school. The lack of vouchers perpetuates government planning of the education of the nation's children. We should be instinctively against that the same way progressives are adamantly FOR it, imho.

[Peace&Freedom]

I think it is an interim position, you state the other clearly but this is more liberty and tying up both the education of the nation's youth AND their parent's money to government control is two wrongs. Righting one would be a step in the right direction, and could potentially change the direction of this country as parents have more say into the education of their children.

I'm not against interim steps, but let's do it the right way. Education tax credits would accomplish the same thing proported to occur with vouchers, but with pre-tax dollars that thus have not become 'government' dollars, thus could not be used to make private schools hostage to government mandates. The credits would also more cleanly alleviate the double cash burden being borne by families (paying both for the compulsory government school system, and for private school tuition).

[sailingaway]

I'm not against interim steps, but let's do it the right way. Education tax credits would accomplish the same thing proported to occur with vouchers, but with pre-tax dollars that thus have not become 'government' dollars, thus could not be used to make private schools hostage to government mandates. The credits would also more cleanly alleviate the double cash burden being borne by families (paying both for the compulsory government school system, and for private school tuition).


Credits only work for those with income in that year enough to cover it. If a person pays tax for five years before they have kids and will pay for thirty or forty more years after they have kids, the 'tuition' payment is incremental over a lifetime for some, but the education need is critical when the child is young. In those specific years they might not have the income to cover the tuition as a credit, all at once.

I don't know the answer perfectly, but I don't see a perfect answer as long as we have public schools and I think the separate issue of government programing our kids to vote against liberty is a separate evil we are all well served to abolish.

I don't know that the voucher system will ever come up for a vote that would be designed so I would vote for it, but in principle I am open to it.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not against interim steps, but let's do it the right way. Education tax credits would accomplish the same thing proported to occur with vouchers, but with pre-tax dollars that thus have not become 'government' dollars, thus could not be used to make private schools hostage to government mandates. The credits would also more cleanly alleviate the double cash burden being borne by families (paying both for the compulsory government school system, and for private school tuition).
I agree with this. If government money is used by parents to pay private school tuition, this will be an excuse for the fedthugs to crash the party and at least quasi-nationalize said private schools.

[jtstellar]

I just love people telling me what I support, all the while calling themselves libertarian.

I'll read his views, but next to what we have now....

--
pish. First I don't agree with vouchers only for the poorest, they either are for all or none, since education is supposed to be free for all, and funded by all, middle class should not be the only ones not able to go to private school. Second, he is saying there really should be no public education, which is nice but is never going to happen and falls under the heading of Rons' "No one wants a R3VOLution to get rid of the federal highway system" argument. That would have to unwind so much change so much and develop a new system to handle the kids at a time when government intervention has made education artificially expensive.... it isn't going to happen. I say we should refrain from marginalizing ourselves, although he is certainly free to make his arguments. And since his argument is based on that, I think it fails.

Now, I do agree the entire federal department of education should be abolished and all this stuff should be left to the states.

this


I didn't read the article, because I'm not a Rockwell fan. But I agree with SailingAway. You can philosophize all day about abolishing public education, but the stone cold truth is that most people want a public education system. A candidate who ran on a platform of abolishing the local school system wouldn't stand a chance.

Vouchers only for the poor is a horrible plan. It jams the middle class into paying the bills with none of the benefits.

The federal government has no legitimate business in education, but the states and localities do have the constitutional right to set up and fund such systems.

and this

now for a slightly politically incorrect rule of thumb--if it's been this long since libertarians hustled onto the scene of internet attention but someone's name hasn't gained traction after all this time, it's usually for a reason, and it's generally safe to ignore him if you are short on time. it's spontaneous order and market decision bestowed upon them in the reputation market. yes, i do hear gary north's name once every 3~4 months but i don't call that 'traction'


His arguments are entirely reasonable to me....

don't you find your 'arguments' surprisingly lacking in content compared to your opposing opinions? like.. always?

you need to be able to make long and good arguments once in a while, not just drop an article say you agree with it and run, or come back with a one-liner and call it a day. there is a reason why public issues are worth debating because they are complicated, and there's a reason why i have said i hate one-liners.. this is the same shit i see you do in rand-hate threads