My School Voucher Program

Dr. Milton Friedman had his ideas on school vouchers, which I have finally "warmed up to," in the sense that I have given up on the dream that the USA will cease government schooling any time soon.

One libertarian victory that has occurred in my lifetime is the revolution in home schooling.  Just the number of States that 'allow' parents to school their own children in the manner that they decide on their own, generally.

My plan?  Parents should get a "voucher" for the full amount that the government would be spending on their children if they were actually in school, based on a simple formula.  The amount of all school funding (in their locality) divided by all of the children eligible for school.  Home schoolers get the same amount as any other schooler.

Of course, this is not going to reduce the size of school budgets any time soon, but this is not an overnight solution.  I can envision a future where not a single student attends government school in county after county in the USA, while local school boards, States, and the feds continue to fund idle staff to babysit the empty buildings.  At that point, it might be obvious to the overtaxed masses that this is an expense they can do without.

An earlier thought was dividing the school budget by the average number of students in attendance in government schools.  And I still like that one.

Here is another Milton Friedman video from his PBS special Free to Choose:

A short one from Reason.TV with Sheldon Richman:

A longer one by Sheldon Richman on Libertarianism.Org:

And, of course, more Sheldon Richman:

But wait, there's more!

Free to Choose

Milton Friedman would have been 100 years old yesterday and his death in 2006 marked the loss of an international treasure.  No surprise that Google did not offer a tribute and stuck with the Olympics theme.

Just the day before I was watching his schooling of Phil Donahue on "greed" during a 1979 book promotion appearance.  I also watched an episode of Free to Choose part five, with a young Dr. Thomas Sowell getting quite annoyed, loud at times, with rich, White, a Leftist woman who liked putting words in the mouths of Black people.  That episode was not much to my liking, as the editing let the Left get away with too many shenanigans.  However, I did not give up on the series.

While watching Episode One, I realized that I must have seen it when it was new and completely forgot, since many of the words, entire sentences, of Milton Friedman are things I say today when explaining "Chicago School" Free-Market Economics to people today.  Episode One is quite good, even when the Marxists and Social Democrats (dubbed "social fascists" by Stalin) join into the conversation.

The comparison between 1970s Hong Kong and Red China are going into the new book, right beside comparisons between Taiwan and Red China since 1949, as well as North and South Korea.

Part two is great also, it includes on the panel: Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Deason, Helen Hughes, Jagdish Bhagwati.

Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative

It is not every day that a news item comes up that illustrates how one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time.  At least, not so many stories that lend to a narrative that even a Leftist can understand.  The Sandra Fluke story is just such a story.

The story I have heard from my Leftist friends over the years is that it is impossible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  Mind you, this impossibility comes mostly from those who disdain absolutes.  So it goes: "You cannot be socially liberal and fiscally conservative because paying for the social programs is a fiscal duty of government." I never heard a QED at the end of one of these mini-seminars, so apparently it is even more 'settled science' than 'Climate Change.'

Somewhere in the last few decades this perception that to be socially liberal means to be the happy giver of the wealth of others has grown to the point that today a law school student, attending a prestigious private Catholic school, can go before Congress and demand legislation for her choice in birth control to be included in her student healthcare plan.

This nonsense is on the order of me going to the legislature during my college days and demanding a daily supply of condoms, just in case I got lucky.  No, that is too mild.  It is more like a demand for lobster and caviar on the meal plan.

Mind you, nobody is trying to prevent Sandra Fluke from obtaining the birth control of her choice.  She is in Washington, DC with all of the resources of Planned Parenthood and similar organizations at her disposal.  No, she wants to fulfill her fetish of having the government to force an organization to do something that they don't want to do.  It is the perfect story to illustrate the tenant of libertarianism, that you should be free to do with your body what you will and the rest of us are free to abstain from participation.

As you may know, there is no end to this. If this demand is met, a new list of demands will be presented, and on and on.  If I take my Leftie friends at their word, a dicey proposition at best, then literally any proclivity, fetish, want or desire should be lumped into "social good."  Of course, under Communism this works out just fine, right?  Well, unless you are a homosexual in China who ends up in electroshock "therapy" or a woman who wants more than one baby.

Courtesy of Nancy Pelosi and the US Congress

The fact is, one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  Milton Friedman advocated the legalization of heroine (as do I) but he never advocated it be dispensed from a free clinic.  Folks, socially liberal means we don't care and are not going to stop you from doing whatever you want to yourself, and/or consenting participants.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO PAY FOR YOUR PARTY!