are you left,right or centre?

[Tiberius]

Homeschooling would be a private option but there would have to be standardized tests to prove that the parents were not just trying to save a buck.

I never argued against standardised tests, although I would still privatise that system, much like the UK has different exam boards (OCR being the most respected, EdExcel and AQA being others).

I see where you are coming from Adrian, I just know far too many people who would allow their children to fail through their own inaction. So, you can have YOUR country allow people to completely fail at life and my country will be stronger for having protected the interests of children and the health of the nation through mandated education.

The government doesn't have a say in what children have to learn. Doing so would mean a government that had an effective hold on business, which I am very much against given free market capitalism ideals. If a family have a business, why can't they teach their child the business rather than waste their money on an education that for the most part (a) the child won't ever need, and (b) the child can get the basics of at home.

Same with apprenticeships, which have died out over the years, but should be an option, especially for working class families. Apprenticeships have turned some of the poorest classes into entrepreneurs.

Back when I was in school I thought I was too smart for it and would have opted out if I could have so the fact that school was mandatory saved me from myself.

Attending school was mandatory; doing well in the tests and actually learning stuff wasn't. You *chose* to do that, and however much you think it helps your argument, I put to you that your adolescent self knew how important a good education was despite your claim. I don't know what you were like back then, but I thought similar. However despite me hating school, I knew that an education was important, so I stuck with it.

Should we allow people to avoid school altogether? I don't think so, because I think everyone should have at least a baseline education. What do you think?

As I've argued, it depends on the person. For me, I would have preferred to attend a school that focussed on my strengths. This is the problem with a mandatory education; the only plausible way of doing it is with public school, and public school is useless for a few reasons:

1) The intelligent children are held back as the rest of the class "catches up".
2) The less intelligent children find themselves less interested in various parts of their education, and this lack of interest leads to more of (1).
3) Every child is taught the same stuff, regardless of their abilities. You learn math, english, french, history, geography and aren't able to do anything about it till much later.

Watch this very interesting TED talk on how school kills creativity if you want to know more: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_ro...ivity.html

A private system would see the smarter kids in a classroom with other smarter kids (or indeed, in 1 on 1 tuition), the less intelligent kids being taught basics and finding out where their true skills lie. Finally, all students are treated as individuals rather than a pack, and they are taught according to their abilities, rather than some government doctrine.

So a parent has the right to brainwash their children, or condition them however they please, so long as it doesn't interfere with 'human rights'? Do parents have the right to not educate their children at all as well then? Or are we holding a double standard in this case, where the best is allowed, and a little is allowed, but nothing is not allowed?

I think you'd be hard pushed to find some form of "brainwashing" that didn't interfere with human rights. Parents shouldn't have to educate their children, no. In the case of the family business, I doubt a family would want to fork out money when they could teach the child how to run the family business. In other cases, it might very well be the case that a child is left without a proper education, but the same thing happens now with public school systems.

I put to you though, (and this comes from talks with a geneticist friend I have) that if a child has a high IQ, they will succeed in life, educating themselves. The information is out there, uncensored (well...it would be in Libertarianism), and nobody is stopping a child from spending a few hours in a local library.

If a family is too poor to afford education but wants their child to learn, there is no reason why private charity could not provide the funds, or the classes for the less fortunate. As I have argued before, with less taxes and a free market, people have more money to spend on charitable organisations (and more incentive to do so). Libertarianism shouldn't be seen as a complete scrapping of government programs, but a relocation of them from the public to the private sector.

What are 'human rights' in this case? Parents do not own a child... they are the assigned guardians for the child until the child no longer needs such a guardian, or the guardians have failed in their duty. To suggest that a child is legal property of another (and is forced to obey that other as a result of this ownership) is literally slavery, unless a child is not a person? A guardian's purpose is to keep those they are assigned to safe whilst they do what they do, and to provide counsel to the assigned individual so that unnecessary danger can be avoided (assignee willing).

Parents have some ownership over a child; to argue otherwise is ridiculous, and a denial of nature itself. Not all human ownership is slavery. Parents own their children in as much as they pay for them, care for them, keep them out of danger. However, at the same time, having a child is a privilege, not to be taken lightly. If a parent puts a child in danger, their parenting needs to be called into question. Discipline is an important lesson to learn in life, and children have to accept that there are people to be obeyed in this society, and that starts with your parents when you are young (less so when you reach maturity).

I do not see why a person should be the property of anything or anyone. Can you explain to me why slavery should be supported in any case at all?

Scenario for you. Parents A & B have a child C. Child C doesn't like his parents that much, as they don't give him sweets that often. Man across the street D promises child C lots of sweets, and child C decides to move in with man D because of this.

In your society, what would you do? Parents A & B have no legal claim over child C, since you don't believe in any form of human "ownership". Child C has a "right" to do what he likes, you argue, and if that means moving in with another person, so be it? What is man D proved to be legit, or if man D was actually woman E, and simply wanted a child to care for? Would you really want to live in a society where children can be "stolen" from their parents?

I put to you that children are not rational, nor are they mature enough to make tough decisions. They may not like their parents all the time, they may hate them at some points, but they cannot be expected to make rational decisions such as who to live with at such a young age. This is why courts make decisions for children in cases of abusive relationships and divorces.