Monday, July 29, 2013

DISGUSTING: Rand Paul Co-Writes "School Choice" Op-Ed with Mitch McConnell and Lamar Alexander

I suspected something like this might be the outcome of a  forum on "School Choice," co-sponsored by Rand Paul

Rand, Mitch McConnell,  Mike Lee, Tim Scott and Lamar Alexander are out with a jointly written op-ed in HuffPo, as a follow-up to the forum.

The op-ed contains the following:
In a growing number of school systems throughout the country, voucher and charter school programs that allow public education dollars to follow the student to the school of their parents' choosing are greatly improving student performance and giving children an opportunity for a better life. Voucher programs provide scholarships that let students enroll in private schools, while charter school programs allow educators to create public schools of choice free from the constraints of school district bureaucracies.

There is no mention in the op-ed about homeschooling as an alternative to government run  education, despite Rand's farther running one of the best homeschooling programs in the country.

There is no mention of cutting taxes and allowing parents to choose on their own where or how their children should be educated.

The op-ed is all about the voucher system and charter schools, which is all about government running a sieve to determine what can and can't be part of a child's education.

I print again what Murray Rothbard said about the voucher system, in his book,  For A New Liberty: :
Professor Milton Friedman, an economist at the University of Chicago, has performed an important service in separating out money sums from various aspects of government subsidy, in education as well as in other areas. While Friedman unfortunately accepts the view that every child should have his schooling provided by the taxpayers, he points out the non sequitur in using this as an argument for public schools: It is quite feasible for the taxpayer to subsidize every child's education without having any public schools whatsoever! In Friedman's now famous "voucher plan," the government would give to every parent a voucher entitling him to pay a certain amount of tuition for each child, in any school of the parent's choice. The voucher plan would continue the tax-financed provision of education for every child, yet enable the abolition of the vast monopolistic, inefficient, dictatorial public school bureaucracy. The parent could then send his child to any sort of private school that he wished, and the range of choice for every parent and child would then be maximized. The child could then go to any type of school — progressive or traditional, religious or secular, free enterprise or socialistic — the parent desired. The monetary subsidy would then be totally separated from the government's actual provision of schooling through a public school system.
While the Friedman plan would be a great improvement over the present system in permitting a wider range of parental choice and enabling the abolition of the public school system, the libertarian finds many grave problems yet remaining. In the first place, the immorality of coerced subsidy for schooling would still continue in force. Secondly, it is inevitable that the power to subsidize brings with it the power to regulate and control: The government is not about to hand out vouchers for any kind of schooling whatever. Clearly, then, the government would only pay vouchers for private schools certified as fitting and proper by the State, which means detailed control of the private schools by the government — control over their curriculum, methods, form of financing, etc. The power of the State over private schools, through its power to certify or not to certify for vouchers, will be even greater than it is now.

As I said before, this is just another step taken by Rand to dilute the libertarian message and tie it in with government operations that has nothing to do with true liberty.


  1. Bob, please get a grip! Rand is not diluting any "libertarian message" since he is not sending any libertarian message in the first place! Rand is running for President. Given the expected field of candidates, almost every "libertarian" will end up voting for him...assuming that they vote at all. The messages that he send, therefore, are designed to appeal NOT to libertarians but to independents and conservatives (and even a few liberals) whose votes he MUST get to be elected. If you choose to play politics at all, this all seems fairly logical to me.

    1. Hopefully this will be his inaugural speech

    2. Will be mildly interesting. Chrisite seems to be the neo cons first choice. But he is less conservative, less charming, and not as good looking as Mitt.Giuliani light. Don't think he will do any better than Rudy in the primaries

  2. Every "libertarian" may end up voting for him, but I doubt many libertarians will.

  3. This is the complete opposite of what Ron Paul did - whereas Rand muddies the message to "appeal" to Indys and conservatives, Ron tried to *influence* people into seeing things through the lens of liberty.

    While they both may be successful at their task, only one of these paths advance the ideas of liberty, and ill let you guess which one.

    1. Ron Paul was running to raise his public profile so he can make money off the liberty movement. He was merely peddling the John Birch platform with a heavy emphasis on positions that appeal to teenagers (legalize drugs and passive military).

  4. Ron Paul does not run "one of the best homeschooling programs in the country." The for profit program just started and it is run by Gary North. It would be quite foolish for Rand to promote his father's NEW business in an editorial.