R.C. on schools

Here's the one that brings in the mail! What does this fellow have to say about schools? Is he really against them? I don't believe he really said that, Dorothy. Why, do you know what

somebody at the P-TA meeting said she saw in the paper yesterday? Well, you wouldn't believe it but... (D. R. Segal)

● Now, what are the things that government schools dare not teach?

They dare not teach the spirit of the Constitution as set forth in the first official document of

the United States, the Declaration of Independence? They dare not teach it because it says that all men, not just the majority, are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A man isn't free to pursue happiness when the majority in any school district, any state or any nation can coerce him to pay for a school that he believes violates the principles upon which this government was formed.

The school teachers dare not emphasize this part of the Declaration of Independence. They

dare not explain the true meaning of this statement. If they were successful in explaining and teaching the true meaning of these ideologies, there would be no gun-run schools.

Again, they dare not teach that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed, They have to skip this statement. They dare not explain it. They have to completely repudiate the whole ideologies of the American way of life They have to teach the old-world philosophy of the divine right of

governments. Now they call it the divine right of the majority rather than the divine right of

kings.

They dare not teach in government schools the meaning of liberty. It is doubtful whether any

teacher in government schools dares define the kind of liberty the Founding Fathers mutually pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to support. If the gun-run schools successfully taught the true meaning of the liberty our Founding Fathers had in mind, there would be no government schools that starve the intellects of our children.

Government schools cannot teach successfully the will to learn. The best way to teach

anything is by example. But the superintendent and managers of the schools themselves are not enough interested in the will to learn to be willing to answer questions as they would before a court to determine whether what they are doing is in harmony with what they profess to believe. If there is anything a man of integrity should want to learn it is whether what he is doing is in

harmony and consistent with what he says he believes.

●About all an educator can do for a pupil is to stimulate in that individual a will to learn. And

when the pupils know that those responsible for hiring their teachers and selecting their books, themselves do not have enough will to learn, it is very difficult to stimulate the youth to want to learn, whether this course of action or that course is in harmony with such great moral laws as the Declaration of Independence and the Commandments and the Golden Rule. If their superintendents and their assistants have no desire to learn all these important subjects, it is difficult to perceive how such actions can be a good example that will encourage in those they come in contact with the will to learn.

The government schools dare not teach the meaning of the Golden Rule. If they were

successful in getting their pupils to understand that they should not force other people to pay for something they did not want, then they could see that it was a violation of the Golden Rule to force others to pay for their schooling.

They, of course, dare not teach their pupils to believe in a definite limited government.

They dare not teach their pupils to believe that if it is wicked and a violation of the Golden Rule for one man to do a thing, it is still wicked and a violation of the Golden Rule if 49 per cent or 99 per cent of the people do the same thing. They, thus, dare not teach the youth that the ideal government, the only kind of a government that can be of value to mankind, is one that is limited to the use of defensive force and never has a right, under any circumstances, to initiate force.

● Now I want to continue suggesting things that tax run schools dare not teach.

They, of course, dare not teach the First and Second Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” “Thou shalt not worship them nor serve them,” (Other Gods). They dare not teach these first two commandments, as numbered by the Jews and Protestants, because they are bowing down and worshiping the will of the majority rather than eternal laws of God that no man made and no man can unmake.

They dare not teach the Coveting Commandment because they are violating the Coveting

Commandment.

They believe they do not need to teach well enough that people will voluntarily pay their

salaries. So they use a tax pistol to make those people pay who believe they can best serve God by using their energies in a different way. In short, they are getting their pay by violence rather than by rendering service well enough so that those who pay them believe they are benefited by their employment.

They dare not teach discipline and self-reliance because the teachers are not disciplining

themselves enough to render such service that they can be paid voluntarily. The teachers take the shortcut and use a police club to get their money. That certainly is not discipline, nor is it self-reliance.

They dare not teach the responsibility of the individual or the family because they are

denying that the family is responsible for the sustenance and education of their children.

They dare not teach thrift and the harm that comes from getting in debt. They dare not do this because the government is encumbering the children and every person in the United States with a debt of $2,000 to $6,000 per person. depending on whether government guarantees are included in our obligations. It is absurd to believe that we're wise enough to use compulsory education when we're not wise enough and honest enough and forthright enough to train our children without passing on the debt to them for their education.

● They dare not teach respect for human initiative because government schools are based on lack of respect for other people's initiative. They are based on the theory that “we've got the power and the individual is helpless and we're going to make him pay for anything our agents think is education.”

They dare not teach humility and meekness because the means used by government schools are the exact opposite of humility and meekness. Believers in tax-run schools are so sure they are right that they are willing to initiate force to make people support their ideas of education. And they are so exalted that they have lost all humility and meekness. And remember, “He who exalts himself shall become abased.”

● They dare not teach children to reason. They have to teach them so they are not able to

recognize a contradiction or a dilemma. If the pupils were taught to reason, they would recognize the tyranny that is bound to follow making people pay for things and ideas they abhor.

They dare not teach the harm that follows socialism, communism, collectivism and fascism.

If they were successful in teaching pupils to realize that aggressive force was a part of socialism, communism, collectivism and fascism, they would realize that government schools are essential to promote state socialism, communism, collectivism and fascism.

They dare not teach that there are certain acts that are eternally right, that right is not

determined by counting noses, as is the way government schools are proved to be right.

They dare not teach, of course, that everything man wants must be obtained on a voluntary

basis. They dare not teach this because they are practicing getting what they want on involuntary basis.

They dare not teach the difference between socialism and private ownership of property.

They dare not explain that under socialism the only way a man can be benefited is by injuring another, as is the case in compelling people to pay for schools they think will destroy the country.

They dare not explain that in free enterprise, including free enterprise in education, the gain

of one is the gain of all.

They dare not teach that no one should do anything that injures another person.

● It is a crime of crimes to compel pupils to attend schools where the teachers dare not teach moral laws. It is hard to conceive how anything can do more harm than the kind of

“education” we are getting in tax-run schools.

● Tax-run schools dare not teach love and charity because they are using aggressive force.

They seem to think that aggressive force is better than persuasion by love and charity.

They cannot teach patience because they are so impatient about getting what they seem to

believe is an education that they dare not wait to persuade those who should employ them to pay their salaries.

They cannot teach peace and goodwill because they are an example of the opposite of peace and goodwill. They are an example of initiating force, of threatening to get from others by aggressive force what they think they should get.

They cannot teach how government should be supported because they believe it should be

supported by giving it a monopoly to use aggressive force to make people pay, not in proportion to income or property, but in an arbitrary manner determined by counting noses. Thus, they cannot teach that the government is a servant of individuals. They can only teach that it is a master of the individual. They cannot thus teach that no man can serve two masters because they will not deny that God is master over our lives but at the same time they are contending that the majority is master over man's energy.

They cannot teach justice because their method of supporting the schools is based on

injustice—arbitrary, initiated force.

They cannot teach that each man is a steward of his own life because they are denying that by using aggressive force to take part of man's energy against his will, and man cannot be steward of his life unless he has the right to choose.

● I am inclined to think the grade schools would be more likely to teach moral law in schools that are not supported by taxation than higher independent colleges.

Colleges are interested in getting pupils from tax-run schools so they are afraid to discuss tax-run schools from the standpoint of ethics and morals and justice.

Tax-less schools, of course, can teach the spirit of the Constitution as set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

They can teach successfully that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed because they are not using aggressive force to get their support.

They can teach that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,

among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because they are so endowed by their Creator and not by the state or the agents of the state.

They, of course, can teach the belief in liberty because they are practicing liberty. They are

not using aggressive force.

They can teach, of course, the Golden Rule because they are operated in harmony with the

Golden Rule.

● They can teach a single standard of rightness because they are in harmony with liberty and justice and goodwill and the Golden Rule.

They, of course, can teach successfully the First and Second Commandments because they're not subservient to the state. They are not bowing down to the state.

They can teach discipline because they, themselves, are practicing discipline.

They can teach self-reliance because the teachers are relying on their own ability to render

service so that parents will voluntarily pay their salaries.

They can teach independence because they are operated independently from the state.

They can teach respect for human initiative because they are respecting human initiative.

They can teach humility and meekness because they are humble enough and meek enough that they do not believe they have a right to force people to pay for their services.

They can teach the difference between right and wrong because they are consistently obeying the great eternal moral laws of the ages.

They can teach that love and charity and persuasion are better than the use of aggressive

force because they are practicing love and charity and not using aggressive force.

They can teach the belief in peace because they are operated on a peaceful method without initiating force.

They can teach how the government should be supported because they are being supported on rendering service well enough that their patrons want to pay for it.

They can teach that God's will should prevail in preference to arbitrary will of man.

They can teach honesty and justice because they are operated on the principle of -honesty

and justice.

● They can teach intellectual courage because they are rendering service so valuable that

people want to support them voluntarily.

They can teach patience because they are not in such a hurry to get to the people's money that they are willing to use a policeman's club to get it. They can see that in the long run patience and persuasion and the pen are more powerful than the sword.

There is nothing more important for parents than their duty to see that their children are

trained fairly and have an opportunity to learn from schools that can teach these great moral

principles and axioms.

It is not the money we're wasting in our tax-run schools that is so important, but it is the fact

that our children are not being taught the moral laws that tax-less schools can teach.

It is because children can be taught what is right in tax-less schools and they cannot be so

taught in tax-run schools that I am obliged to do what little I can to get parents to see that they are not doing their duty to their children by sending them to tax-run schools.

What we need above everything else, if we would change the course of socialism and

collectivism, is more people devoting more time to seeing that the youth of the land is instilled with belief in the great moral laws and the Commandments and the Golden Rule and the Declaration of Independence.

● Rather a strange line of reasoning contending that the federal government is going to

support education and have nothing to say about how the money is spent. It is hard to see how rational people can believe the federal government will turn over unlimited money to any group of local people and not have anything to say as to how it is used. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that when the government finances a project it must have something to say as to how it is operated, just as the stockholders who put up the money for an enterprise must have the final say as to how the business is run. Ownership or financing an enterprise means control.