Tax Credits for Education, 2

Earlier in the week, I wrote out the fundamental reason why tax credits should be advocated.

To repeat that argument, in an even more condensed form, I said that tax credits pay restitution to parents for the infringement on their right to their own earnings--and how they are spent with regards to their child's education. As an advocate of freedom, I consider such restitution a good thing.

I also raised the possibility that non-parents might recognize the inconsistency and assert their right to their earnings--an action that I and probably many others (who just gained freedom in this area) would agree with.

Of course bad possibilities can be imagined as well as the good. For example, it is possible that bureaucrats within the government use tax credits as a way of pushing their own agendas.

"Want your money back?" they might ask, "then you're going to have to send your kids to a school that teaches this" (or passes these standards, and so on).

The ultimate, paralyzing fear is that if parents do get their money back, albeit with strings attached, those strings will grow into ropes--and it's possible that in the end everyone will be worse off than before.

Note that this same thinking can be applied to what one should advocate or do in every area of politics and one's own life.

For example: Should you go talk to that beautiful woman and see if there is something interesting wrapped up in all the pretty? Should you support the abolition of laws prohibiting drug use? Should you try to eat better foods and exercise more?

In each case above, both good and bad results are possible. But the proper action remains the same: it is the action consistent with one's long-term, rationally chosen values.

If you are single and looking, then you should go talk with that person you find attractive. She might be boring or reserved, but she could be brilliant or sensual. In many cases, how you approach her (and the thought you've put into that) will determine the outcome of that encounter. Nobody is as boring as a person answering boring questions.

If you are an advocate for freedom, then you should support abolishing laws that restrict it--even though some people will use their freedom in a way that is harmful to their health (for example, using drugs excessively). Here, as in the case above and the one that follows, the usual responses can be thought of in advance, allowing you (and the political system) to deal with them effectively.

If you want to be healthy and fit, then you should exercise more or eat better. The fact that many people binge after diets or get injured while exercising is no reason to not do those activities. The possibilities are real, but they should lead one (again) to think clearly about one's approach.

Doing nothing, or acquiescing to defeat before one even begins, is a sure way to not reach one's desired destination.

I hold that tax credits for education should be advocated by all. They are not the final destination, where the US has a politically free educational system, but they would be the enactment of an absolutely crucial point along the way towards that goal (and many others besides).

Once a government recognizes a parent's right to their own earnings, the rest of the battle is downhill.

Tax Credits for Education, 1

I ended a previous post on vouchers--based on a letter to the editor by Aquinas Heard--as such:

"If freedom is the standard, and it should be, coercion needs to be removed from education completely. Not just in its funding, but in its enrollment too. The way to get more choice in the meantime is not with vouchers but with tax credits for education."

The fundamental argument for tax credits is simple. Here is the one minute simplified version:

Parents have a right to the money they have earned, which includes of course how it will be spent by them. When it comes to educating their children, the government does not acknowledge this right. Instead, money is taken from parents and used to fund an education for their children that others think those kids should have.

The above constitutes an abrogation of rights. Leaving aside compulsory attendance for the child, the property rights of the parents are violated--because the government has taken away their property (which means here their earnings).

Tax credits would recognize the infringement on rights that occurs above, unfortunately on an ongoing basis given the present system, and--while not changing the system--would compensate parents for the money taken from them in this specific area.

Note that the practicality of having parents search for the best school or textbooks and so on for their child is not mentioned above. Though practical benefits would no doubt be one result, on a fundamental basis, it is really just about rights--and, specifically here, property rights.

In the comments section of the previous post, a knowlegeable reader and fellow blogger pointed out that the system as a whole wouldn't change. The government would only pay restitution to parents; those without kids, who are forced to pay into the current system, would continue to see their right to the disposal of the money they earned infringed upon--with no restitution whatsoever.

This is an inconsistency for sure, and one that was pointed out to me elsewhere. Given the state of the political system, however, inconsistency is hardly a bad thing. I want to support something at odds with the current system, as long as it is aligned with freedom, and the more people that recognize their lack of a right when contrasted with someone who has it, the better.

In other words, I want those people to say that that they earn money too--and then ask why they shouldn't also have a right to spend their money on what they want as they wish. Sometimes getting people to ask the right questions is far better than giving them the right answers.

Here, all an advocate of individual rights has to do is agree. Main premise agreed upon, the conversation can then move to more practical matters of what that person can do to bring about a more just system (in the limited area of education and beyond).

It is of course obligatory to note that the above is one possibility. There is no certainty that this is how people will react, and the reactions of some--including government bureaucrats--may be entirely different. Since this post is long (especially by internet standards), I will discuss the objection arising from this possibility in a coming post. Stay tuned.

Heard on the Web

Aquinas Heard argues in a recently published LTE that whether vouchers are good or bad for public schools is beside the point; the proper question to ask, according to him, is what their exact relationship is to the choice a parent has with regards to their child's education.

The question should be: Will vouchers expand parent’s educational freedom? There can be no expansion of freedom when the funding of vouchers still rest on the forcible appropriation of a citizens’ earnings through taxation.

...

Until vouchers are funded by completely voluntary means, Georgians who are supporters of individual rights must state unequivocally: Vouchers equal wrong choice.

I think the LTE raises a crucial point, that the funding of vouchers via taxation makes them just as opposed to freedom (and property rights) on a fundamental level as the funding of public schools.

However, from the standpoint of a parent, they do provide a choice between one school and another--a choice that can potentially mean a world of difference in the education of their child. This (superficial) meaning of freedom or choice is what most parents refer to and struggle to attain.

It's sad that even this superficial choice is impossible to many, let alone the choice of what to do with their own money (with regards to funding their own child's education or choosing not to fund the education of other's children).

If freedom is the standard, and it should be, coercion needs to be removed from education completely. Not just in its funding, but in its enrollment too. The way to get more choice in the meantime is not with vouchers but with tax credits for education.

(Hat tip: The Sidereal Messenger)

What Are Americans Drinking?

After reading a great letter by Ari Armstrong on controls in the beer market (within Colorado) and then a horrible response from someone who disagreed, I made the following post:

...I think Ari is right. The idea that some Americans claim the "right" to force store owners not to sell beer over a certain alcohol level is ludicrous.

If the government in the US actually has that much power, and people are perfectly complacent about or supportive of it, it is not Ari who needs to wake up, but any citizen who has (or had) even the slightest bit of respect for the country's founding documents.

I honestly don't know what Americans have been drinking that allows them to claim every conceivable "right" in the world--to be paid for by someone else--and in the same breath say that they support freedom, or respect the Founders, or--you get the point.

In any case, it wasn't beer over a certain alcohol level.

The most likely answer is that they were sold a set of ideas completely antithetical to those upon which the country was founded. And you people have swallowed it whole for the past 100 years. Well, welcome to the hangover period brothers. You asked for it!