[smashthestate]

[Todd: Many apologies, I am new to this Mod thing, and I accidentally hit edit instead of quote. I've kept the part that I quoted, but I am afraid that the rest might be gone. Again, very sorry. I have hit myself on the head with a whiffle ball bat as pennance.]
Get used to it...I do it all the time (or at least used to).

[Garibaldi]

I think the problem about having some state schooling for the poor but with the majority having private education is that teachers will want to work in the private schools were they will be better payed so there will be low quality teachers for the poor.

That happens already. In the words of one of my social studies teachers: "Do you think I'd be here right now if they paid us too much? You'd have someone better than me." The funny thing is, he was the best teacher in the school.

If you got rid of the public education system, every teacher would have to compete. While the poor would initially have to settle for worse schools, with hard work and dedication they could transfer to better schools through scholarships or student loans. Since the profit would come from the prestige of the school, even the low income schools would worry about how much their students are learning.

[Noumenon]

So when peolple do not elect the libertarian party or any other party that would do away
with tax-funded state education, will you accept that people are voluntarily funding state
education via taxes?

Doesn't work that way. The people, as a collective, may be "voluntarily" funding state education. But for the individual, it is not voluntary. He forced to go along with whatever the collective says. In order for a public school system to be moral, it would have to be funded entirely by donations, rather than taxes. That is the only voluntary way. And if the majority of people gladly pays their taxes to support education, they would donate in in the absence of a tax, correct?

If the entire reason for the public school system is to provide equal opportunity for the poor, why not just make it specifically for the poor? Let the middle and upper class pay to send their kids to private schools (trust me, they would be able to aford it. They would keep more money without taxes, and competition would ensure low cost private schools). The public schools would be a kind of charity to educate the poor. There wouldn't need to be nearly as many of them, so they could afford to pay teachers more (ensuring that they wouldn't all go to the private schools).

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I disagree with the notion that the state may conduct public schooling if funding is voluntary. This turns the state into a glorified charity. The only function of the state, in a libertarian society, is maintaining the rule of law. For all intents and purposes, this means the existing coercive apparatus of the police, the courts, and the military. Furthermore, libertarianism demands that these be voluntarily funded. Education is outside the scope of preventing force initiation, nor is it part of the coercive apparatus. As such, public education and libertarianism are irreconcilable.

[Noumenon]

Dao: I agree that the function of the state should only be protection of rights and defense. I think that educating the poor should be something left to private charities. But if for whatever reason that fails (I don't think it would), I would consider using the government as a sort of charity. Maybe they wouldn't have to build public schools, just provide money for the poor to go to private schools (would probably be cheaper).

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Why would people unwilling to give to charity suddenly be willing to give to government? That notion is self-evidently absurd.