Are Public Schools a Violation of Our Right to Education or a Private Property Rights Violation or Both?

Economics Political Theory
1

I understand that the constitution implies we have the right to education.

I know this because the ninth amendment limits the power of the federal government to what and ONLY WHAT is expressed in the constitution, correct?

In other words, the purpose of the Constitution was not to give people rights but instead to bring a federal government into existence – a government with very limited powers. Therefore, it makes no sense to look for a right in the Constitution. A common misconception among the American people is that their rights come from the Constitution.

So, we have the right to an education. The government, by forcing its citizens to fund a public (government controlled) school, is a violation of our right to use our resources as we see fit for education.

So, would you consider this a violation of “Our Right to An Education”?

Or a “violation of private property”? Government taking resources from its citizens to fund a government controlled school.

Or both?

Part 2

Also, I assume anything the federal government does that is not specifically authorized in the constitution, is a violation of the constitution?

Like provide government schools, medicaid, medicare, social security, etc, etc, etc?

But, can a state’s constitution provide things, not mentioned in the constitution?

Like government controlled schools?

If the state did that (which they do), would that not violate our right to an education?

2

First, in these pages, I doubt you find very many, if any, who believe their rights come from a constitution, US, state, or otherwise. We have three rights: life, liberty, and property. We can exercise these rights in any manner we see fit, provided we do not violate others’ rights to do the same. All ofther “rights” are just a further definition of these basic three rights.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by a right to an education. You have the right to mix your efforts with natural resources or as an employee to acquire property and then use and dispose of this property as you see fit. So, if you work and earn wages, you can purchase books and become self-education, or you can hire someone else to teach you.

A public school system with mandatory attendance policies violates these basic rights. It takes property (taxes) which violates your property rights. It requires children to attend school and associate with people they may or may not want to which violates the right to liberty.

As to part 2, the state constitutions can and do provide for things not found in the US constitution. For example, Arizona’s Constitution specifically requires the legislature to provide a pubic education system both K through 12 and universities. Even though Arizona’s Constitution requires a public education, it does not change the conclusion that this violates our natural rights. There are many provisions in both the US and state constitutions that violate natural rights.

3

Thank you for the fantastic reply.

You’re saying the government is not authorized to collect taxes on property, correct? Are they not allowed to collect taxes on property because nowhere in the constitution are they authorized to collect property taxes?

In other words, are the federal AND STATE AND LOCAL governments only allowed to collect taxes that are specifically authorized in the constitution?

Isn’t there a statement in the constitution that generally says congress having the ability to tax?

Part 2

So, if Arizona requires the legislature to provide a public (government controlled) education, doesn’t that violate the constitution? Like you said, it violates private property rights and right to liberty?

So, technically speaking, shouldn’t a state not be allowed to violate its citizens rights?

4

A state cannot exist without violating its citizens’ rights. Unless you believe that “states” can exist as market entities, funded by voluntary customer payments rather than taxes, and would not initiate violence against other “states” to compete in providing the same services in the same geographic area.

You seem to assume the constitution is a social contract agreed to between the state and the people. Most people here would consider the constitution to be null and void. In any case, it obviously has been broken by the state, without any penalty. It is meaningless, really. It’s basically “how bad do things need to get before you revolt?”. A constitution might seek to specify the state’s actions that would provoke a revolt, but as sentiment changes over time, this becomes quite unclear. Today, the state, with its apologists dominating the media can pretty much get away with anything on a small enough scale. It is only widespread actions that effect most Americans that can possibly face political or revolutionary consequences. The most common one is the tax rate. Since this has become “progressive” or not equal, it is unlikely that even that area can generate popular resistance.

To answer your question about state/local vs. federal taxation, Article I Section X contains all restrictions of power that the constitution imposes upon state governments. Otherwise, they can do whatever their people allow them to do. Most state constitutions are similar to the federal constitution, in that they are an agreement between the state and the people about what powers the state is restricted to or restricted from using.

5

The government is not authorized to collect taxes, period. Did you ever consent to be governed? I have never signed anything saying that I consent to be governed.

The Constitution is an illegitimate document. It was never consented to by the people at the time it was created and has not been consented to by any people since.

Legally, they are not authorized to collect any taxes.

6

limitgov, you seem to be stuck on trying to determine right and wrong, legal and illegal on the basis of what the US and State Constitutions say. That is not the correct starting point from a libertarian perspective. What we are trying to explain is that our rights exist independent of a constitution or other similar such social contract. These rights exist in nature. The basis of law from that point is that no one has the right to use force to impede or deprive you of those rights. Government is not a real entity. It is a fiction created by other people who want to create the illusion of legality in taking or interfering with your property rights. For example, if we all lived in a community of 100 people and a man pointed a gun at you and said I want a $1,000 to implement a school program for the benefit of all, we would all see this as nothing more than robbery. So, the same man now goes out into the commnity and finds fifty other people who want to have a school system. They hold a vote. The results are 51 to 49 in favor of a publicly funded school system. The same man now returns with his same gun and demands a $1,000 from you. You refuse. He says its the law. We had a vote and you lost. Can you see the fiction? As Benjamin Franklin said: Democracy is two wolves and lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.

As a purely constitutional issue: The US Constitution prevails over state constitutions only in those areas where power is specifically granted to the federal government. The US Consitution does not prohibit the collection of property taxes by the states. Some would argue that the Fifth Amendment gives the states the right to take property provided they follow due process. A public vote by a legislature and approval of the excutive generally satisfies due process requirements. So, if you are trying to root an argument against state collection of taxes to support public education, you will not find support in the US constitution, other than the due process requiremnt. (The text says that the taking must be for a public purpose, but the US Supreme Court has effectively eliminated that requirement.)

If you are trying to understand the libertarian position on public education and taxes, you need to set the constitutions aside. They are not valid starting points.