[general_re]

...Payment for these school systems is enforced by compulsory taxes on everyone , even those who do not use the public school system (Both those without children, and those who send their children to private schools/homeschool).

* Government will always fund programs by taking money from everyone. There are groups within the Government who will always seek to advance their personal agenda, at the cost of people who disagree with them (both Christians and secular humanists are guilty of doing this). This practice is morally reprehensible, and can ONLY be stopped by NOT TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM GROUP A TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO GROUP B.

While I am not unsympathetic to the case you want to make, I must point out that, unless you plan to take this to its full-blown libertarian conclusion, this is a very weak argument. Virtually everything government does is funded in such a fashion. Public roads are paid for by people who don't drive, nuclear weapons are paid for by people who despise them, and so forth.

The rationale is simple - public roads benefit society-at-large (even those who don't drive) by facilitating commerce. Similarly, public education (ostensibly) benefits society-at-large (even those with no children) by providing for an educated, civilized population. We may certainly question whether it actually achieves those goals, but simply implying that it's bad for people to fund things they don't tangibly and immediately benefit from is not really a full picture.

If, on the other hand, you do wish to make that case - that people shouldn't pay for things from which they do not tangibly and immediately benefit - you certainly can, so long as you realize that the practical effect is that virtually nothing will be publicly funded.

[detsaoT]

While I am not unsympathetic to the case you want to make, I must point out that, unless you plan to take this to its full-blown libertarian conclusion, this is a very weak argument. Virtually everything government does is funded in such a fashion. Public roads are paid for by people who don't drive, nuclear weapons are paid for by people who despise them, and so forth.

Except in cases of National Defense, National Security, Inter-state Relations, and International Relations, I am adamantly against ANY Federal funding of ANYTHING. I will not take the traditional Libertarian approach of banning all STATE funding of EVERYTHING, but I do prefer to see the State try to make compulsory payments, as the citizens of that State have greater control over their Legislature than they have over the District.

And, like I said, schools are created and funded per-state. It really would take a concerted, intra-State effort to abolish the compulsory Public-education system... not that any such proposition has much of a chance of succeeding, thanks to a century of LIBERAL indoctrination of our good citizens.

The rationale is simple - public roads benefit society-at-large (even those who don't drive) by facilitating commerce. Similarly, public education (ostensibly) benefits society-at-large (even those with no children) by providing for an educated, civilized population. We may certainly question whether it actually achieves those goals, but simply implying that it's bad for people to fund things they don't tangibly and immediately benefit from is not really a full picture. If, on the other hand, you do wish to make that case - that people shouldn't pay for things from which they do not tangibly and immediately benefit - you certainly can, so long as you realize that the practical effect is that virtually nothing will be publicly funded.

Like I said, I am generally Libertarian (not "civil-libertarian," just "libertarian") on the Federal level. State expenditures don't bug me to the extent that Federal expenditures and MANDATES do.

:) ttt