Amanda Weeden Yes, complete separation of school and state would be...
· Comment — Archer T. Ships replied to Amanda Weeden's comment. · View on Facebook · Markdown source
Amanda Weeden Yes, complete separation of school and state would be ideal. As I see it, EFA's are an imperfect first step towards that ideal. With EFA's, parents have more freedom to decide where they send their children to school, instead of being forced to send their kids to schools in the district where they live. However, taxpayers should also be free to fund the schools of their choice, instead of being forced to subsidize state-run school monopolies or EFA's via corporate taxes and property taxes. When school and state are fully separated: 1. No one would be forced to subsidize the indocrination of their children with ideologies they hate, by people who are their political opponents. 2. Property taxes in a typical town would drop by 50-60% 3. Corporate taxes would decline, thus reducing the prices they must charge to stay in business. However, how do we get the numbers to completely divest schools from state? Right now, state-run schools are almost wholly dominated by the Democratic party. The teacher's unions are the backbone of Democratic party power. And Democrats are the staunchest opponents to separation of school and state. The more that families exit the state-run school monopolies, the less money will be funneled to the teacher's unions. The fewer government teachers, the less voting power they have. The fewer children in state-run schools, the less indoctrination Democrats will be able to impose. This should all make it easier to pass laws enforcing separation of school and state. Of course, the danger with EFA's is that private schools will become dependent on government money and become just as staunchly opposed to ending coercively funded schools as the state-run schools are now. Therefore, we need more libertarians to move to the state to carry the ball forward toward complete divestiture of government schools.