Well, the answer is that everyone has a right for an education and, uh, you know, someone to step in to run the schools.

Well, that's very fine.

Uh, but everyone has a right to a house or at least needs a house.

But the government doesn't build houses.

Everyone has the need for automobiles.

The government doesn't bill automobiles.

Uh, the argument is that you can take the needs which society recognizes as, uh important, like the need for education.

And there are other ways to provide it.

For example, why should the Children of very wealthy people living in very expensive suburbs Why should the Children be entitled goto school, pay absolutely no tuition and have general tax revenues from the state finance it They can afford to pay for their Children's education?

Why shouldn't they?

Now, the argument is that well, there are those people that can't afford to pay for their education.

That's fine.

Help those people.

But just because you have a marginal case of necessity doesn't mean that you somehow have to have a blanket policy for the whole society.

Rich and poor alike the proposal was most frequently discussed in libertarian circles is to have the government give poor people or everybody, if you will, it's politically impossible to avoid subsidizing the rich, uh, give everybody a voucher equal to the per capita expenditure cure on education and let these people take these vouchers to private schools.

Maybe there's not enough schools today, but if you sell the physical plants of the public school system, there will be more schools.

Also, if there's, ah very large demand for private schools, it will spring up from your economic observations.

Whenever this demand, you can't expect to supply so exist.

So there would be businesses grow.

Exactly.

We've found schools found school.

There's an enormous amount of talent, both the United States and Britain.

These are the two countries I've read studies on on enormous amount of talent.

Teaching talent is sort of locked in because Thea women who were teaching the lower grades got married and are now housewives.

Uh, this talent could be released if these people were allowed to set up dame schools like, for example, we saw several years ago, before the model of government operator schools became popular.

It's very interesting.

You know, the, uh, the so called American Neighborhood school system was originally based on the model of Prussia.

Pressure was the first country I understand in the world to have universal state compulsory education that somehow or other the American intellectuals in the 19th century, the 18 forties, 18 fifties, I thought that somehow this would really magnificent and they really want everybody to copy it.

They lobbied in their legislatures and got tuition abolishing all government run schools.

And then they got schooling made compulsory.

And by not charging any tuition and by taxing everybody to pay for them, they finally drove most private schools out of existence in those days.

Uh, and it was mostly because they admired the Prussian way of doing things.

It's very strange is somehow the origins of this have completely passed away.

People don't admire pressure anymore.

People would admire militarism anymore.

Why did they admire state schools?

And the reason is that they grew up with it.

Their father's grew up with their Children are going through.

It's some sort of emotional commitment, but Libertarian would like to look at a new way of doing something some way that doesn't involve course eve government taxation that doesn't involve compulsory assignment of your child to your neighborhood school.

Uh, Negroes in the ghettos, for example, would be much better off.

They wouldn't even have this neighborhood school problem if they were allowed to go to any school.

Uh, in the city, in the school, a private school.