When rights are ascribed to groups, conflicts necessarily result when non-members of the favored group become victims of the alleged rights. This is true no matter which group is favored, including parents. An illuminating example comes from Florida, where advocates of “parents’ rights” have achieved many legislative victories, including an expanded school choice program.
Instead of advocating for “parents’ rights,” individuals should be advocating for individual rights. The idea of “parents’ rights” implies that parents have rights that are separate and distinct from non-parents. The same is true any time rights are ascribed to a group—the members of the favored group have rights that are separate and distinct from non-members. In truth, there are only individual rights, and they apply to all individuals, parents and non-parents, males and females, gays and heterosexuals, blacks and whites, renters and landlords.
To be clear, I support school choice. However, school choice is not the same as education freedom. School choice is a small step towards education freedom, but what is needed is a giant leap. And that requires advocating for individual rights. Having said that, let’s get back to the issue at hand.
Florida’s Personalized Education Program (PEP) provides $8,000 for children who are being homeschooled. The article linked to above notes that some parents are using the money for trips to Disney World, foosball tables, kayaks, and more. While all oWhile all can ostensibly have educational purposes, critics are saying that parents are treating the PEP like a “private candy jar.” And the critics have a valid point, even if they aren’t focusing on the fundamental issue.
PEP uses money taken from taxpayers. Tax-paying individuals, which includes non-parents, may not agree that trips to Disney World, foosball tables, and kayaks are valid educational expenses. Yet, they are forced to finance these expenditures. The result is a conflict between taxpayers and parents using PEP. This is what happens when rights are ascribed to a group. This is true of any group, including parents.
If the financing of education were approached from the perspective of individual rights, this would not be an issue. Taxpayers wouldn’t be forced to pay for the education of others’ children. And parents would have more money to spend as they choose on their child’s education. Eliminating the coercive financing of government schools would be a giant leap towards education freedom.
Many will claim that the poor, and particular “children of color,” will suffer if we eliminate coercive measures to fund government schools. This argument may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant. We do not have a moral duty to sacrificially serve others (which is the anti-morality of altruism). We do not have a moral duty to finance the education of children who are not our own.
Those who are concerned about the education of children who are not their own are free to provide money through scholarships, donations, and other voluntary means. They can, and should, put their money where their mouth is instead of forcing others to finance their idea of what is right. Doing so would allow them to spend their money are they choose. They should recognize the freedom of others to do the same.
The advocates of “parents’ rights” are not advocates for freedom. They embrace the collectivist premise that groups have rights, but individuals do not.