The Alternative

It's rightly called stealing  
    In an unsigned editorial I read these words: “Public education is a guaranteed right to any child in the U.S., paid for by the American taxpayer.”
    I could go on about adhering to the Constitution or the evils of socialism, but then readers would cease thinking. My opposition to a right to an education is based on what is best for the children and the common good of the country. A right to an education must take away the rights of others unless that right to an education falls from above, like Mr. Bean.
    A right that depends on removing another right can hardly be called a right. It is more rightly called stealing. But the precedent has been set. The collective is now on the hook for any so-called right that can be dreamed up. Politics is easier money than productive work. The fact that the cost of this loot is nearly invisible does not make it go away.
    Every activity we engage in has a point where we must decide whether it is worth it or not. As the collective is tapped to fund the growing number of rights, our pool of wealth is depleted and what was once affordable, becomes out of reach. It is easy to see this in our daily lives.
    In addition to the shrinking pool of wealth available for education, there is the lack of a vetting process involving the direct interests of parents and children. In a system that supplies a right enforced by the state, the needs of the kids are mostly guessed at and generalized.
    An education system that requires willing buyers and sellers requires a product worth buying. That would be the basis of a good education as opposed to a system where retaining jobs in the education establishment is the goal. I don't doubt that teachers in public education have the best interest of the kids at heart, but the market is the best tool for determining where the teacher resource is delegated.
    Life is full of compromises. In a small community like ours it would be ridiculous to have a school for each family's needs. But who cares most for the children? If the school isn't fulfilling the needs of a student but needed the tuition to make a profit, there would be incentive for the school and parents to make adjustments for those special needs or wants.
    With the technology we have today, teachers would more easily make those adjustments without one-size-fits-all standards and funding.
    Statistics do show that many countries with a declared right to an education are outperforming the United States. What is not seen is how this country would perform with an education system based totally on free choice of funding and attendance. The indoctrination process called education has made us complacent in the face of corporate control and endless war.
    If enforcement of rights that also remove rights worked so well, why not simply enforce a right to an intact and loving family? That would do more good than a right to indoctrination, er, education.