Ontario Libertarian Party
BULLETIN

"The only people who seem to have nothing to do with the education of children are the parents." - G.K. Chesterton

Well, not any longer. A small but determined group of parents are exercising their historic right to educate their children at home. Politicized by government harassment and empowered by the Internet, these individuals have joined together in associations and alliances to defend their families and promote their cause.

Make a date to attend the upcoming Ontario Libertarian Party dinner on April 2 and hear two home education pioneers: Albert Lubberts, president of the Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents (OFTP), and Gayle Remisch, coordinator of the Canadian Alliance for the Separation of School and State.

Thursday night, April 2, 1998
The China Buffet King, Rockwood Mall
Burnhamthorpe & Dixie, Mississauga
Buffet: 6:30 - to 8:00
Speakers: 8:00 to 9:00
Q & A: 9:00 to 9:45
$30 per person, $50 per couple.

H.L. Mencken understood the authoritarianism of schools: "School days, I believe, are the unhappiest in the whole span of human existence. They are full of dull, unintelligible tasks, new and unpleasant ordinances, brutal violations of common sense and common decency." "Show me a man who has enjoyed his school days and I'll show you a bully and a bore," wrote Robert Morley in Responsible Gentleman (1966).

Of course, the defenders of "public education" claim that we must all sacrifice choice for the greater good of equality. All they lack is sincerity. In a recent paper, Cato Institute senior fellow Doug Bandow writes: "Almost everyone who resists educational choice for the poor exercises it for themselves. The president and nearly half the members of Congress send their children to private schools.... Teachers are four times as likely as other parents with comparable incomes to send their children to private schools." Bandow concludes with a generalization that may apply to many Americans and Canadians, but certainly not to Lubberts and Remisch: "Public education survives only because parents have acquiesced to mediocrity."

Gayle Remisch is the coordinator of the Canadian Alliance for the Separation of School and State. The Alliance is a grassroots, non-profit organization dedicated to restoring parental responsibility in education, promoting choice and schools which are privately operated, privately financed and open to the public. She says: "Our mission is to inform the public how education can be improved - especially for the poor - by the full separation of school and state."

If you haven't heard of Remisch, perhaps you have heard of her U.S. counterpart, Marshall Fritz. Fritz was president of the Advocates for Self-Government, and is the founder and director of the Fresno, California-based Separation of School & State Alliance. Be sure to check out the Alliance web site at: http://www.SepSchool.org/news.html.

Home learners have been politicized by the obstructionism of education bureaucrats and harassment from the schools. Now parents are organizing through the 'Net and fighting back.

On February 6, 1998, the OFTP - a provincial advocacy group for families practising home-based education - filed a 17-page report with the provincial Ombudsman's office against the Ministry of Education and local school boards. Lubberts accused the Ministry of harassing teaching parents, forcing them to appear in court on trumped-up charges of "truancy" or "causing their children not to attend school" without due process of law. In his report, Lubberts told the Ombudsman: "The time has come to stop this abuse of power." For a copy of the report, visit: http://www.flora.org/oftp/Ombrpt2001983.html.

Food For Thought: Here is an extract from a letter to the OFTP newsletter, Home Rules, concerning the now-fashionable notions of education vouchers and tax credits for homeschoolers: "I used to support these ideas, but have come to change my mind. If homeschoolers were to take tax credits, that would open the door to our being subject to the standards and curricula set by the Ministry of Education, and the intrusive monitoring that that entails. The same for the charter schools and tax voucher systems. People are not going to accept tax-funded programmes without some form of accountability to the taxpayers, and that will involve some form of government intervention.... Where does that leave us? I think that the less government has to do with education, the better."

Plan to attend this dinner meeting. The Q&A promises to be as stimulating as our line-up of speakers. Call Maureen Dance (416-285-9056) for tickets.

P.S.: Isn't Thursday a School Night? See ya there.

Recently the death of a family member has put me in a gloomy mood. Over Christmas I was in Mexico and visited Teotihuacan, near Mexico City. an ancient Indian site dating from 700 B.C. which was abandoned about 100 A.D. Centuries later it was discovered by the Aztecs; the story goes that they were so impressed with the pyramids and other structures they found that they believed these could only have been built by gods and named the site Teotihuacan, the place of the gods.

The excavations today cover a vast area which is only part of the original site. This was occupied by a priestly ruler class and attendants. The priests were learned in various areas of knowledge such as building, astronomy, and music. Infants bearing certain physical characteristics considered propitious for the gods were selected to join the priestly class whose knowledge was passed on to them.

By keeping the sacred knowledge to themselves, the priests were able to exercise power over the surrounding population which was required to support the theocratic infrastructure. A great deal of resources was required. In return for this support the priestly rulers delivered to the population power from the gods with whom they were believed to commune.

Compare this society with modern democratic societies in which clearly less than god-like rulers are selected by vote. The Indians at least believed the priests were giving them the power of the gods which they would not otherwise have possessed. Our rulers extract from us vast resources; in return we get nothing from the gods. Our only potential bounty is to receive, through supplication to our very ordinary rulers and their bureaucratic attendants, more of the wealth of our fellow citizens than was taken from us.

Teotihuacan is representative of most human societies through history. The historical record suggests that the subjugation of man by man is the model that has always been and always will be. Liberty has prevailed for brief interludes, but almost invariably there has been a ruling class, and life for most people on this planet has been at best semi-free.

In darker moments it seems to me that libertarian ideology is mistaken, and that any society which accepts libertarian principles will soon prove to be a historical aberration. It is tempting to give in to that thought; to conclude that men will always be ruled by the whim of men and not by objective law, and to make the best of it. Why bother making any effort to change anything? Why not even do what is necessary to become part of the ruling class, or at least recognize that it exists and take steps to profit from that knowledge? Since it is quite possible that none of us will experience a libertarian world with our lifetime, why not surrender and make the most of the power game? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

The above describes the weary cynicism that pervades conventional political parties, and which is ultimately responsible for the lack of respect for politicians. Each of us has one life to live. The things which are truly important to each of us and which we strive for within our lifetimes, are what we leave behind for others even after we have disappeared from their thoughts and memories. If we as libertarians allow dark and hopeless thoughts to prevail, we will have given up on our vision of a better world; and this surrender will be the legacy we leave.

Bringing light to the world while we are alive, and to those who follow us, is worthy of our continuing struggle in spite of all obstacles. Although our individual efforts seem small compared to the magnitude of our task, working together in our own party and with other libertarian organizations, we can achieve a great deal to spread enlightenment and to create a great legacy for the future.

Liberty is about more than just politics. There is no disputing the importance of its political aspect. Aggression by present governments is omnipresent, and our task of ending it so enormous as to dwarf most other considerations.

But aggression is not limited to governments. Anyone can be an aggressor; neither you nor I are immune. Our commitment to libertarian principles commits us not just to a political viewpoint, but also to a strict moral code; to a standard of absolute non-aggression in pursuit of our own goals.

Recently I was confronted with two hard choices that forced me to think deeply about what that standard implies.

This January, I was fired from a job I had held for 10 years: without notice, without severance, and, in my view, with-out cause. In such a case, the law allows me to sue for wrongful dismissal; and I was approached by a lawyer offering to launch a suit on my behalf. Could I do that as a libertarian?

One line of argument would answer an emphatic "No!" In this view, the terms of an employer-employee relationship are part of the property of a company, and belong to its owner. Employers are bound by the contracts they make with their employees; but where such contracts are silent, they have an absolute right to decide what rules apply. Using the law to interfere with an employers' rules means using the power of the state to interfere with legitimate property rights.

A second line of thought sees the relationship differently. In this view, both parties have agreed to undertake obligations; the rights of each come from the obligations the other agrees to. Those rights are determined, first, by explicit contracts; second, where contracts are silent, by what the parties agree to without dispute; third, where disputes arise, by the law discovering what normally and reasonably applies.

I found this second line of reasoning persuasive, and instructed my lawyer to sue.

In the meantime, though, I was left without income; my expenses though, and my savings were quickly used up. I found myself having to seriously think about applying for welfare. Could I do that as a libertarian?

Welfare is funded by stealing: by taking money from taxpayers without their consent, by force if necessary. Stealing is aggression, and therefore immoral. Applying for welfare, though, is not stealing; it is begging. Begging is not, by itself, aggressive. It is true that I am begging money from known thieves. But would my staying off welfare stop, or even limit, their theft in any way? Would it return any stolen money to its owners? No; the aggression will continue, and not be affected one iota if I chose to starve myself and my family to death.

I made similar choices when I enrolled my daughter in a tax-funded school; when, one of my family being ill, we visit a tax-funded doctor; when I use a tax-funded road or sidewalk. In all those cases, the aggression would have occurred with or without me; my action does not affect it in any way.

One could argue that my participation sanctions these aggressions, and therefore helps them continue. I find that unpersuasive. One could just as easily argue that refraining from using tax-funded services makes aggression it more acceptable; libertarians should not be making aggression acceptable by limiting its harm, but rather should increase the harm to make it as unacceptable as possible.

So I have applied for welfare. Bureaucracy moves slowly, so nothing has resulted as yet; it could prove unnecessary, or even counterproductive. But at least the decision has been made, and made with a clear conscience.

Got to | Index of Bulletins | Next issue Fall 1998, (Vol. 19 #1) |