Thank you for your service, Marinejcksn. You sound like a very fine Libertarian to me. We should welcome all aboard who want to maximize individual Liberty and minimize the role of the government.

Mik Robertson

I think you fit just fine in the Libertarian Party.  There are those among us, however, whose purity test is more stringent.  There are many libertarians who have given up on the party for this reason too.

What you have described mostly fit what is called "Minarchism".  Minarchism states that government and taxation are necessary evils, but are evils nonetheless, and should therefore be minimized as much as possible.  What government DOES exist should exist at the smallest, most local level possible, so that those in power are as directly accountable to the people as possible.

So, for example, National Defense is something that either must or probably should be handled at a national level.  Education, on the other hand is not.  So, pass it down to the state.  That state can then decide if education REALLY needs to be handled at a state level.  Well, it doesn't.  So pass it down to the local level.  Now that it's at a local level, there's a good chance that the people making decisions about your schools are people you actually KNOW.  There's a chance you might have direct influence on them.  Also, if one of them is incompetent or whatever, there are fewer people you have to convince of that fact to remove them from power.

What I support is a kind of mixture of Minarchism and Anarchism that I like to call "Voluntaryism."  It basically works like this...  Any government program would have to be directly funded by voluntary donation.  If we truly NEED or want a particular government service, then we would pay for it voluntarily, wouldn't we? 

Do we need a strong national defense?  We sure do.  If you got all your federal taxes back, and you were watching the Norman Swarzkopf support the troops telethon, you would give, wouldn't you?  Of course you would.  And so would large businesses and wealthy people who are interested in keeping that wealth.  We would have NO problem funding our defense.

The other great thing about this, is that those agencies would now have REAL motivation to spend that money wisely.  Since they can no longer get their funds at the point of a gun (coercive taxation) their funding is truly limited, so they must be frugal and efficient.  They must also then be DIRECTLY accountable to the people.  If they buy $600 hammers, the people will withdraw their support.  So that kind of stupidity would go RIGHT out the window.

With other things that should NOT be the realm of government, government agencies would now be in direct competition with private charities and organizations.  People will stop giving money to the Federal Welfare Department and give it to other, local charities because they are less wasteful, and do a better job of caring for the poor.  For education, people who care about the poor getting into decent schools will not give to the Federal Department of Education.  They will either give to the school of their choice so they can lower their tuition accross the board, start or give to a scholarship fund for needy children, or even better yet, they can simply pay the tuition bill of one of their poorer neighbors, and NONE of their dollars will be wasted by bureaucracies etc.

And all of this could be accomplished without the government using coercive force against anyone.

Here's a little observation (borderline off-topic) on schools that may come in handy in an argument.  Many ask how will public schools be funded or how will they provide proper direction or how could they possibly work without government. 

The answer hides in plain sight -- colleges, universities and trade schools. 

These entities are a collection of private and state institutions.  They educate millions daily.  They work from both public, private and alumni money.  They (some anyway) have been here in the US for generations, from long before the feds took over public education. And, for the most part, they employ instructors not part of a massive NEA or teachers union.  They also leverage more advanced students to help with teaching.  (Not perfect, but still OK.)

They champion self-paced learning (without instructors) for the more basic classes and have done so for decades.  My school, CMU in Pittsburgh, had self-paced courses back in the 1970s! I took a self-paced course over the summer no less.  Imagine finishing high school in two years with the selection of self-paced/on-line courses.  Fewer teachers, faster graduation, lower costs, more time to focus on what interests you.

Some college instructors are preoccupied with tenure and funding more than teaching, that's sadly true.  But if you're paying tuition you can try to switch to another instructor, or drop a class and possibly even get a partial refund.  Try that in a public school.

So next time someone questions how education could possibly work without intimate government involvement, just ask them where do lots of kids go after high school. 

The answer, and a compelling argument, hides in plain sight.

Mark

Thank you very much!

Just out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to be a teacher would you? You look very familiar.