(Lew Rockwell)—Parents are rightly concerned about what is happening in our “public” schools. Crazed “educators” are encouraging impressionable children to “transition” to another sex, as if such a thing was possible. Students are taught that sexual promiscuity is a good thing. They are brainwashed to accept socialist attacks on our free enterprise system.
What can we do about this disaster? The Trump Administration and anti-woke Governors like Ron deSantis have tried to solve the problem by issuing directives to the schools to eliminate the noxious programs and give parents more say-so about what their children are taught. But teachers who have been indoctrinating our children are well-entrenched, and it will be extremely difficult to curb their baleful influence.
No matter how much good these efforts accomplish, they fail to deal with the real problem, and that is the existence of “public” education itself. Schools run by the state are inherently institutions that propagandize what the state wants schoolchildren to learn.
As the great Murray Rothbard explains: “The key issue in the entire discussion is simply this: shall the parent or the State be the overseer of the child? An essential feature of human life is that, for many years, the child is relatively helpless, that his powers of providing for himself mature late. Until these powers are fully developed he cannot act completely for himself as a responsible individual. He must be under tutelage. This tutelage is a complex and difficult task. From an infancy of complete dependence and subjection to adults, the child must grow up gradually to the status of an independent adult. The question is under whose guidance, and virtual ‘ownership’ the child should be: his parents’ or the State’s? There is no third, or middle, ground in this issue. Some party must control, and no one suggests that some individual third party have authority to seize the child and rear it.”
For Rothbard the choice between these options is a “no-brainer.”
“It is obvious that the natural state of affairs is for the parents to have charge of the child. The parents are the literal producers of the child, and the child is in the most intimate relationship to them that any people can be to one another. The parents have ties of family affection to the child. The parents are interested in the child as an individual and are the most likely to be interested and familiar with his requirements and personality. Finally, if one believes at all in a free society, where each one owns himself and his own products, it is obvious that his own child, one of his most precious products, also comes under his charge.”
Rothbard’s point is a clear application of the basic principles of libertarianism.
If the state takes over schooling, this is a clear violation of the parents’ rights.
“The only logical alternative to parental ‘ownership’ of the child is for the State to seize the infant from the parents and to rear it completely itself. To any believer in freedom this must seem a monstrous step indeed. The rights of the parents are completely violated, their own loving product seized from them to be subjected to the will of strangers.”
But there is, if anything, an even more fundamental issue at stake. Children need freedom in order to develop their powers to live their lives, but the State is inherently a violent institution that suppresses individuality.
“The rights of the child are violated, for he grows up in subjection to the unloving hands of the State, with little regard for his individual personality. For each person to be ‘educated,’ to develop his faculties to the fullest, he needs freedom for this development. But the State! The State’s very being rests on violence, on compulsion. As a matter of fact, the very feature that distinguishes the State from other individuals and groups is that the State has the only (legal) power to use violence. In contrast to all other individuals and organizations, the State issues decrees which must be obeyed at the risk of suffering prison or the electric chair. The child would have to grow up under the wings of an institution resting on violence and restriction. What sort of peaceful development could take place under such auspices?”
What will the State teach? You might think that this would depend on the kind of state it is, and to some extent this is true. Schools under Trump will differ from those under brain-dead Joe Biden. But there is nevertheless an underlying pressure that leads the State to impose uniformity and to teach obedience to the government.
“Furthermore, it is inevitable that the State would impose uniformity on the teaching of charges. Not only is uniformity more congenial to the bureaucratic temper and easier to enforce; this would be almost inevitable where collectivism has supplanted individualism. With collective State ownership of the children replacing individual ownership and rights, it is clear that the collective principle would be enforced in teaching as well. Above all, what would be taught is the doctrine of obedience to the State itself. For tyranny is not really congenial to the spirit of man, who requires freedom for his full development Therefore, techniques of inculcating reverence for despotism and other types of ‘thought control’ are bound to emerge. Instead of spontaneity, diversity, and independent men, there would emerge a race of passive, sheep-like followers of the State. Since they would be only incompletely developed, they would be only half-alive. This is the logical goal of the Statists in education. The issue which has been joined in the past and in the present is: shall there be a free society with parental control, or a despotism with State control? We shall see the logical development of the idea of State encroachment and control.”
You might object that Rothbard is being dogmatic. Is he trying to deduce what must happen, rather than be sensitive to the actual course of events? Of course not! Rothbard was a great historian, and his theoretical account aligns with what actually happened: “America began, for the most part, with a system of either completely private or with philanthropic schools. Then, in the nineteenth century, the concept of public education changed subtly, until everybody was urged to go to the public school, and private schools were accused of being divisive. Finally, the State imposed compulsory education on the people, either forcing children to go to public schools or else setting up arbitrary standards for private schools. Parental instruction was frowned on. Thus, the State has been warring with parents for control over their children.”
Rothbard wrote before the horrors of today’s wokery , but with his unrivalled genius, he anticipated them: “Not only has there been a trend toward increased State control, but the effects of this have been worsened by the very system of equality before the law that applies in political life. There has been the growth of a passion for equality in general. The result has been a tendency to regard every child as equal to every other child, as deserving equal treatment, and to impose complete uniformity in the classroom. Formerly, this had tended to be set at the average level of the class; but this being frustrating to the dullest (who, however, must be kept at the same level as the others, in the name of equality and democracy), the teaching tends more and more to be set at the lowest levels. Since the State began to control education, its evident tendency has been more and more to act in such a manner as to promote repression and hindrance of education, rather than the true development of the individual. Its tendency has been for compulsion, for enforced equality at the lowest level, for the watering down of the subject and even the abandonment of all formal teaching, for the inculcation of obedience to the State and to the group, rather than the development of self-independence, and for the deprecation of intellectual subjects. And finally, it is the drive of the State and its minions for power that explains the ‘modern education’ creed of ‘education of the whole child’ and making the school a ‘slice of life,’ where the individual plays, adjusts to the group, etc. The effect of this, as well as all the other measures, is to repress any tendency for the development of reasoning powers and individual independence; to try to usurp in various ways the ‘educational’ function (apart from formal instruction) of the home and friends, and to try to mold the ‘whole child’ in the desired paths. Thus, ‘modern education’ has abandoned the school functions of formal instruction in favor of molding the total personality both to enforce equality of learning at the level of the least educable, and to usurp the general educational role of home and other influences as much as possible.”
On one point, though, Rothbard underestimated the menace. He said that “since no one will accept outright State ‘communization’ of children, it is obvious that State control has to be achieved more silently and subtly.” State control under the Left has not been silent or subtle, and this has provoked the recent backlash.
We can all enthusiastically agree with Rothbard’s message: “For anyone who is interested in the dignity of human life, in the progress and development of the individual in a free society, the choice between parental and State control over the children is clear.”
Let’s do everything we can to end “public” education!
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Against the State and Against the Left. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
