Give Me Liberty

Dennis Byrne had a column in the Chicago Tribune this morning entitled “Keep Kids in School”. (Read it here) He was challenging the protest being waged by Rev. James Meeks against supposed disparities in the funding between Chicago Public Schools and suburban school districts. While I agree with Mr. Byrne that the protest is ill conceived, I don’t even come close to agreeing with his proposed solution, that “truant officers ought to round them up and take them back to school where they belong”. Since when did the government become the owner of our children? Unfortunately Mr. Byrne appears to be just another compliant, brain-washed product of our socialist “public” school system. He automatically accepts that our children “belong” in public schools, no matter how dysfunctional, ineffective and crime-ridden those schools might be.

If polled, I think that the vast majority of Americans would say that socialism is a failed economic system, with no hope of ever succeeding. Yet asked if children should be sent to “public” schools, a similar majority would probably say “yes”. Why the disconnect? Our public school system is completely socialist, pure and simple. As such, it cannot possibly succeed in providing a quality education to our children. Yet like Mr. Byrne, we are almost all products of that system, which has been with us so long that we no longer question it.

The answer is not protesting the higher amounts spent on students in suburban schools. Quite frankly, the lower amount spent in the city schools is still substantially higher than the cost at which private schools could provide a much higher quality of education. I don’t claim to know how to run a school, but then I’m not a central planner, so I don’t need to. Like Mr. Byrne, I am a firm believer in the value of education. But I have complete confidence that private schools, competing for our tuition dollars in a free market, could quickly replace our current socialist system with far better schooling at much lower cost.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
-1st line of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

“Religious beliefs and practices must be respected, but only so far as they abide by state and federal laws.”
-The Washington Post, June 6, 2008

If you can reconcile these two statements, you’re cleverer than I. The Washington Post made this statement at the end of an editorial (here) defending the seizure of 468 children by Texas law enforcement officials in April. The state purportedly acted on a single tip from a 16 year old girl, a tip that ultimately proved to be bogus. Thankfully, it didn’t turn out like Waco this time, but 468 children? The Post is certainly correct in stating that had they not acted, the officials would have faced harsh criticism. But overreaction also deserves harsh criticism.

Only in a fascist state could mass kidnapping be equated with “protecting the children”. I am no fan of religious cults, but judging from the muted response by the main stream media, including editorials like this one, who are we? When I went to law school, the Constitution trumped state and federal laws. According to The Washington Post, that is no longer the case.

How much does it bother you that some State Department contract employees went snooping through Barack Obama’s passport file (and apparently Hillary Clinton’s and John McCain’s as well)? The news media are making a big deal about the potential for political “dirty tricks”. But it doesn’t seem to bother anybody that the State Department keeps such files on every private citizen with a passport! In the ’60’s, my generation took to the streets to protest FBI files kept on private citizens. Where is that indignation now? Why is Big Brother tracking our every move? Granted, they might need to keep a list of the passports they’ve issued, but every time you cross a border?! All they need is the civilian equivalent of “name, rank and serial number”, not a detailed history of our travels. My own file must be enormous, as I’ve filled over 200 passport pages with business travel. I wouldn’t care if it were published in the New York Times, but that’s not the point. The issue is not why somebody went snooping in Obama’s passport file; it’s why that file contained information making it interesting to do so.

Generally I am encouraged by our younger generation, especially when I see some of them distributing Ron Paul brochures outside Union Station. But when an outrage like the State Department keeping files on private citizens passes without comment, I am most disappointed.